The show focuses on unsolved murders that have been loosely connected to the Family by Bugliosi, other authors and Manson pundits. The main unsolved murder discussed is that of Reet Jurvetson who was known as Jane Doe 59 for over 45 years until a DNA match finally identified her.
The suicide of John Haught is also discussed. The surprise to this discussion is that Mark Ross was located and interviewed. I found his participation in the project the most interesting, particularly because he was so evasive. The show speculated that the reason Mark Ross changed his name to Aesop Aquarian was that he was hiding from the Family because he feared them.
I think there was another reason. In the early 70s a new commune sprouted up in Los Angeles headed by Father Yod and went by the name The Source Family . Since many of the members changed their names to things like Electric Aquarian and Isis Aquarian, it's far more likely that Mark Ross changed his name to Aesop Aquarian because he joined this commune. Which left me wondering if Mark isn't somewhat like Brooks Poston who needed a blueprint of someone else's making to conduct their life.
My sincerest condolences to Simon Wells whose excellent investigation into the death of Joel Pugh was taken completely out of context by the show. They couldn't have placed Simon's work in a worse light.
Joan Huntington, Laurence Merrick's wife, was interviewed. It looked like she had a great album full of pictures of the Family.
The show shanghaied Clem and got him to speak. There is no video, only audio of this encounter but we here at the blog can confirm the encounter took place outside of the restaurant where we saw him on our last tour.
I was in the program for what can only be described as a cameo appearance. The lighting on me was terrible and I don't want to talk about it!
All in all the show departed from the same old, same old of previous productions but fell short of believability regarding the unsolved murders. The masses who are not into the details of the case like we are will probably find it to be a great show.
Simon Wells’ segment was interesting. He completely debunked the notion that Joel Pugh was offed by Bruce Davis yet they (seemingly) edited his interview to support their contention that he may have.
ReplyDeleteWinded Bucklee as a key eyewitness? Too funny...
ReplyDeleteThey kept trying to fit Charlie into a little box...like your classic serial killer. Patty thought this was kinda dumb and simplistic.
ReplyDeleteBig problem. That dancing scene with Grogan and the girl was filmed in 1970. Reed was already dead. Yawn...
ReplyDeleteClem said tight away when shown picture that's Gilles
DeleteReet
ReplyDeleteSo this is the kind of crap they put on History Channel these days.
ReplyDeletePatty remembers Mr.H saying that Mark Ross "disappeared." Now she wonders if Mr. H knew "Aesop" or not...
ReplyDeleteMark showed up to the screening at the Silent Theatre when we were there. They talked for the first time in all those years.
ReplyDeleteThe Mark Ross stuff was interesting. I looked up his new name and one the posts I found was from this blog a few years ago and Robert Hendrickson was in the comments section and didn’t even realize, or maybe didn’t let on that that someone had mentioned the new name of his old friend as an actor in a show with Mansony subject material. Despite all the flaws in the show it was fascinating. I watched it twice. The only show in a long time to have anything new. I wish Robert was still around to comment on this show. The tape of Manson saying he left some dead bodies on the beach that no one knows about was interesting. Cool to hear from Clem too.
ReplyDeleteI'm just glad Charlie didn't have to live to see this.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that was interesting is that Mark Ross said a Bill was staying at his place. The interviewer said “Bill Vance” and he agreed. But the interviewer screwed up all kinds of things, like assuming Patty was Patricia Krenwinkel and not Madaline Cottage (Little Patty) and Sue (Sue Bartell) was Susan Atkins which is impossible because Atkins and Krenwinkel were in jail in November. I learned that it is possible that Bill Vance was staying at Mark Ross’s house.
ReplyDeleteHi Matt,I have just watched the segment of myself in the film. Sadly, (and somewhat predictably) they have cherry picked the material that fits the M.O of the documentary of the long arm of Manson’s reach. Of course it does not present the argument in any balanced way. In the long interview that I did, I had to present both sides of the argument to reveal the link between Pugh and Manson (as tenuous as it was). What no one saw (or will see) was me presenting – as ascertained by the facts – that it was most likely that Joel killed himself. A belief I still stand by.
ReplyDeleteHo hum.
OMG sooooo corny....of course the retired police detective listens to Manson's ominous soundbites in a vacant storage locker a la "true detective"....i guess that's all part & parcel of the History Channel schtick...it always cracks me up how DRAMATIC they make everything...
ReplyDelete& of course they cue the stock groovy rock music when they start talking about San Francisco in '67...and of course they cue Jeff Guinn's "lost kids looking for someone to save them" spiel immediately following that! Eh, what did I expect, though?
There were interesting parts.
RH's work is prominently featured. Really wish the old boy was around to see his stuff presented like this.
ReplyDeleteAlso Marlin Marynick's audio with Manson is featured throughout the Doc. Marlin's book didn't amount to much, but the tapes are very interesting. Marlin didn't make a thin Canadian dime from his book, hope he got some bread for the History Channel Doc.
Windy Bucklee?? C'mon people, there goes a lot of credibility right there.
Mark Ross comes to the surface. This pair of segments was strange. Ross refused to confirm the "investigators" allegations. So they did an ambush interview on the beach with Ross. Mark was jammed hard by the interviewer, eventually the producer of the segment stopped the questioning. I wondered if this little scene was totally contrived for dramatic effect.
Si was also sandbagged, his assertions in his book were totally misrepresented by some tricky edits.
They did have some great photos. There were a couple of Shorty that were really cool. He was younger and you could see why he might have dreamed of getting work in film.
Good work on the timeline, Matt. I wondered about this, too. But I am too lazy to look this all up.
Matt, so Mark Ross knew the movie Inside The Manson Gang existed? Did the History Channel set that whole thing up to make it look like Mark didn’t know about it?
ReplyDeleteNonymous, Robert told us later, days after we went to the Silent Theater to see his movie Manson, that Mark Ross came up to him and re-introduced himself at the showing. The later movie, Inside The Manson Gang, was mentioned in the Q and A after the film, so Mark had to know of it's existence but whether or not he watched it is unknown.
ReplyDeleteI found Ross to be evasive and less than honest in the History Channel show and I don't think it had anything to do with the way the TV show was edited.
The guy that re-enacted the Reet stabbing was kinda scary...
ReplyDeleteThe program reinforced how ridiculous it is calling Haught's death a suicide. I'm glad Shepard is still on that case.
ReplyDeleteBoth Ross and Grogan continue to refuse throwing out bigger bones to all researchers and also make themselves look culpable. I can understand their desire to avoid with great care self-incrimination but was disappointed they couldn't provide more such as confirming Reet was at Venice & Spahn.
Last, I enjoyed Bucklee's interview and thought they should have spent more time/questions with her.
Good to have a movie star (DebS) in the group :-)
Nonymous said...
ReplyDeleteMatt, so Mark Ross knew the movie Inside The Manson Gang existed? Did the History Channel set that whole thing up to make it look like Mark didn’t know about it?
Nonymous, Mark was PRESENT while RH shot the footage. He helped him load up the cameras and canisters each day and drove him out to Spahn. I groaned aloud during much of the program. It was all cherry picked and completely misleading. I’ll even go so far as to say complete fabrication.
Imagine the mind of Bruce Davis as he watched this..
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link.....26 hrs of unheard Chuck recordings...eh..2mins used...of ugh! revelations from The MASTER MANIPULATOR....Yawnnnn.
ReplyDeleteGood catch Matt about the Clem n mystery gal at Spahn.
Oh and Greer shot JFK too if you get my drift.
Terrapin said...
ReplyDeleteImagine the mind of Bruce Davis as he watched this..
Yeah, no kidding. He gets parole again only for this garbage to air. No doubt a certain somebody will be showing this to Gov.
Moonbeam.
Definitely put the bullseye on the back of Brutus D.
ReplyDelete"Et tu Brute ? .... Then fall Caesar ..."
Don't think Reverend Davis will be getting out for yet a while yonder.
It is very cool they found Ross. I had to chuckle that he acted as if he didn't know Bruce was in prison. It is a jaw dropper that they threw pics of Atkins and Krenwinkle up there for the girls in the Venice after they had already read the police record naming Sue Bartell and Madeline Cottage although I guess they didn't know she was known as Little Patty.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteA couple of real revelations from the Assistant Prosecutor Steven Kay:
Part II 1:00:20
Steven Kay: "(Manson) threatened Ronald Hughes, who knew Manson and the Family before the murders. He was a UCLA law student and he would go out to Spahn Ranch and do drugs with the Family."
Narrator: "Despite having spent time with the Family recreationally, Hughes was never indoctrinated into the fold. There's no evidence he bought into Charlie's world view, but he was close enough to get wrapped up into the drama of a murder trial."
Steven Kay: "He(Hughes) was last seen in Sespe Hot Springs, swimming in a natural pool after having taken LSD."
Kay also seemed to give the Bug a few shots. He said that Curt Gentry's presence in the court room wasn't made known by Vince B. He also seemed to given make a smirk when asked if Helter Skelter was the true motive.
ReplyDelete"Steven Kay: "He(Hughes) was last seen in Sespe Hot Springs, swimming in a natural pool after having taken LSD." "
ReplyDeleteHow would Kay know this? Was there an eyewitness to Hughes' last hours/days that we don't know about?
Those tidbits on Hughs were interesting. I hadn't heard that he had been to Spahn pre-murders. How do you verify THAT?!?
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Hughes was introduced to the Family by Harold True who was also a UCLA student. I thought Hughes met Manson because he was working in the Public Defenders office. Maybe Kay is conflating Hughes and True.
ReplyDeletegrimtraveller,
ReplyDeleteYou directed this comment to me on another thread from this blog:
"Sometimes Mario, one can be too cryptic for one's own good. "The Group" sounds like a Canadian version of The Band {most of whom were Canadian anyway}.
Spit it out clearly, man"
OK, grimtraveller, "Things" are Happening:
The Satan Slaves
Mario George Nitrini 111
------
The OJ Simpson Case
Peter said...
ReplyDelete"...Harold True who was also a UCLA student."
So was Gary Hinman! OO-ee-OO!
---------------
Matt said...
"I hadn't heard that he had been to Spahn pre-murders. How do you verify THAT?!?"
The choice of Hughes as a defense lawyer was always a mystery. In murder cases, I've always thought the Public Defender's Office only used their most experienced attorneys. Yet Hughes didn't have any experience as a trial lawyer whatsoever. You'd think the judge would have disallowed Hughes as a defense lawyer in this case as possible grounds for a future overturning of the verdict due to incompetent counsel.
You figure it out.
Having a quick look through Theo Wilson Headline Justice (she covered the trisl) she mentions that the prosecution rumour that missing Hughes had been murdered by the family was 'nonsense, because Ron was closer to the family than any of the other lawyers and there was no reason to harm him'.
ReplyDeleteOriginally, Manson tried to have the court appoint Hughes as an investigator in his (Manson's) attempt get a tape recorder into the prison, but this was denied.
ReplyDeleteFeb. 3, 1970 (Judge Keene)
ATKINS: RICHARD CABALLERO
CABALLERO no longer appointed, retained directly by ATKINS. Keene order permitting CABALLERO to record conversations with ATKINS entered. Judge Dell issues order denying MANSON’S request to appoint RONALD HUGHES as investigator and to allow HUGHES to bring a tape recorder into jail.
Later on, Manson appointed Hughes at the time he was trying to regain his pro per status. He did this over and over again running through a number of attorneys.
March 19, 1970 (Judge Keene)
ATKINS: SHINN (REINER substituting for this hearing)
KRENWINKEL: PAUL FITZGERALD
MANSON: CHARLES HOLLOPETER, RONALD HUGHES
VAN HOUTEN: IRA REINER
HOLLOPETER’S motion for psychiatric examination of MANSON is granted, DR. ABE appointed. MANSON motion for severance. MANSON motion to substitute IRA REINER to assist in re-obtaining his pro per status is denied. Motion to substitute RONALD HUGHES granted. HUGHES withdraws motions for psychiatric evaluation and for severance except as to ATKINS. Indicates that he will seek to have MANSON’S pro per status reinstated. Judge tells MANSON’S he’ “going to be disappointed.” MANSON throws the constitution into the garbage “I was going to throw it at you but I thought I might hit you. I didn’t want to his you.” April 20th set as trial date.
April 17, 1970 (Judge Dell)
ATKINS: DAYE SHINN
KRENWINKEL: PAUL FITZGERALD
MANSON: RONALD HUGHES
VAN HOUTEN: IRA REINER
MANSON renewed motion to proceed pro per denied. Court refers to previous motions prepared by the “SOCIETY OF INFINITE SOUL.” “[W]ithout disrespect to MR. HUGHES because none is intended, I think MR. MANSON must have deliberately picked the attorney with the least experience he could find in the entire Los Angeles area.” Joint motion for continuance granted to June 15. Case reassigned to Judge Adolf Alexander, however ATKINS files motion of prejudice and case reassigned to Judge Older.
May 27, 1970 (Judge Older)
ATKINS: DAYE SHINN
KRENWINKEL: PAUL FITZGERALD
MANSON: RONALD HUGHES, IRVING KANAREK
VAN HOUTEN: IRA REINER
MANSON writ for habeas corpus denied for being submitted pro per when represented by counsel. Motion to substitute KANAREK for HUGHES. KANAREK moves to associate in MR. MANSON as co-counsel or to reinstate pro per status citing BALL’S previous determination that he was capable. Judge refuses to hear from KANAREK and denies the motion. “I find that you are incompetent to knowingly and intelligently waive your constitutional right to counsel …” On motion for substitution, judge wants KANAREK sworn in to answer questions. “It has come to my attention that there may be very will one or more conflicts of interest between the defendants and one or more counsel. … I believe, you and MR. SHINN made a motion in another case to be substituted as attorneys of records for MISS ATKINS who is a defendant in this case, and now you are seeking to become attorney of record for MR. MANSON in this case.” ATKINS motion, joined by KRENWINKEL, to suppress her admissions and confessions court orders motion off calendar as premature. VAN HOUTEN withdraws oral motion to dismiss and for change of venue. Prosecution states that it will not be using ATKINS Grand Jury testimony at trial.
Another journalist book from someone else who covered the trial mentions Helopeter was appointed then fired by Manson who then hired Hughes. Sheen turns the garage he lived in with no kitchen or separate toilet with holes in the roof and his law degree pinned up complete with psychedelic colouring in and his love of smoking pot.
ReplyDeleteMay I throw this out for a definitive as possible answer please? The Hendrickson footage was shot at Spahn's from early 1971 onwards? Right? From what I know, no Manson Family related footage was shot at the ranch prior to December 1969?
ReplyDeleteIf this is the case, the theory behind the footage/stills of Jane Doe/Reet Jurvetson (died November 1969) that forms a large part of episode 2 of the "Final Words" programme is entirely spurious. Surely?
Don't call me Shirley.
ReplyDeleteSime, the footage Inc Paul Watkins, Juan with the gang, so 1970 rather than 1971? Hughes went missing for the Nov 1970 recess and was planning his summing up. Plus Spahn burnt down Sep 1970.
ReplyDeleteInside the Manson Gang has Hendrickson filming the Chicano demo that ended with the death of Ruben Salazar (Aug 29 1970). This is as part of his movie starring Mark Ross. The narrative if memory serves is before going to Spahn. Was Hendrickson only filming for one month then as the Ranch was destroyed a few weeks later?
ReplyDeleteNo Spahn Ranch had burned down by 1971. I don’t have Hendrickson’s book here with me now, but he lays out the dates in Death To Pigs.
ReplyDeleteIt is an absolute certainty that none of the footage included in the Merrick/Hendrickson movies was shot before Reet Jurvitson met her fate. No chance.
ReplyDeleteFor Simon Wells, who worked so hard to clarify the Joel Pugh angle, and who was so misrepresented in the recent History Channel broadcast.
ReplyDeleteThis is not about Reet Jurvetson or Final Words, but Simon asks about movies before December 1969. I have nothing clear about dates, but there may well have been earlier movies. A couple of uncorroborated stories about cameras may be relevant here.
Firstly, it has been claimed that in summer 1969 some "family members" stole an NBC-TV truck loaded with film equipment. Forget where I read this, probably Col’s blog.
I also remember reading somewhere that the Family owned ‘three Super-8 cameras’ which they used to produce porn films. Again, no dates available, but Sanders refers to this, and even suggests that they might have made snuff movies. Again, it might be on Col's blog (or Cats', sadly not currently consultable - hint, hint).
Finally, and on more secure ground, RH writes in Death to Pigs that he himself saw Nancy Pitman's mother at Spahn Ranch, shouting at Nancy because she had borrowed a 35mm Camera and not returned it. Of course we don’t know how much earlier.
Sorry to be so vague – maybe some more studious person here can flesh some of this out? The way my mind works these days is not so great.
Matt said: "It is an absolute certainty that none of the footage included in the Merrick/Hendrickson movies was shot before Reet Jurvitson met her fate. No chance."
ReplyDeleteIt confirms to me that even a novice researcher would have highlighted the anomaly and suggested that it was inappropriate to pursue an argument/theory with any credibility.
Just checked that the fire at Spahn's was on September 26, 1970
ReplyDeleteDefinitely, I don’t have the book here because I’m not at home, but Robert hadn’t done any filming at Spahn in November 1969. He was just finding out about Mark’s new friends in November 1969 and had no idea who they were. He didn’t do any filming at Spahn until after he had found out what they had done which would have been late December at the earliest, but I think filming there started in January or February? That girl in the movie was not Reet. Robert was definitely doing some filming there some time in between January and March of 1970 because Paul Watkins had returned there. Then Paul left in March, never to return. after his friends found out what he’d been up to.
ReplyDeleteI haven't watched this crap (based on your comments) yet but was curious if they mentioned the one strange similarity between the Cielo Drive crime scene and Reet's final resting place.
ReplyDeleteAbout thirty feet from her body, there on the ground in plain sight the police found......
A pair of black, Liberty frame (very similar to Manhattan frame, only black not amber), eyeglasses with a prescription for someone who was 'severely nearsighted (myopic)'.
It appeared the glasses had only recently been discarded. Detective Dewayne Wolfer was given the task of tracking down the glasses. Unfortunately, the trail ends there except for a brief follow up by a detective in 1972 who consulted with several optometrists.
ReplyDeleteApparently some filming by Merrick and crew was done even before TLB, though I don't know if any of that footage made it into Hendrickson's documentaries.
www.mansonblog.com/2017/05/black-and-white-biker-gangs-battle-for.html
Speaking of Manson and his family, again, it was during the film's production(his biker flick called "Black Angels," filmed in the first week of Aug '69) that Merrick was invited to head over to Spahn Ranch, with a 16mm camera, in order to film the Manson family on their own turf.
www.imdb.com/title/tt0065474/reviews?ref_=tt_urv
Channon Scot during our "Sasqua" interview told me about "The Black Angels":
"'The Black Angels' was the 1st feature film, I, Big Jim Whitworth and others that were in "Sasqua" did in, I believe, 1969, if that's when they landed on the moon I got the year right. We shot that in 14 days at Paramount Ranch ... That's when we met the Manson family and that's when one of our buddies took a 16mm cam and filmed them on the Spahn Ranch. Afterwards is when they committed all those crimes."
Starviego, if any of that footage was shot before Zero’s death, I’m interested in hearing the proof.
ReplyDeleteHelopeter was appointed I believe after the judge revoked Manson's pro per status. I believe Holpeter is the one that original moved for the psychiatric examination and the severence, which is probably one of the reasons Manson wanted him out. Notice that the first thing Hughes does is withdraw those motions. I have the whole pretrial motion and hearings timeline worked out from the first appearance in December or January to the end of jury selection in I think July if anyone wants it. It's way to long to post here but it's interesting.
ReplyDeleteIf they were making porn or snuff films it would require processing the film themselves. Its not like yiu could drop off your snuff films at photomat. Even processing black and white reversal film is hard and takes practice.
ReplyDeleteHmm. That footage from Inside The Manson Gang was shot by Robert, not Lawrence. Robert didn’t know about Charlie or any friends of Charlie until November 1969. Robert mentioned going to Spahn Ranch once before that. He didn’t mention it in his book though, he mentioned it on this blog. He stopped off at Spahn and got a Coca Cola and got really creeped out by the place and left quickly. That was a pretty interesting post. I’d like to find that. If any of the footage from Inside The Manson Gang was shot in August 1969 or earlier we might have seen Charlie or Susan Atkins, you know those two would probably be showing off if they saw movie cameras. We never see Charles, Susan, Pat K, Leslie, Tex, Barbara Hoyt, or any of the people who were in jail in 1970 or the people who had left never to return. The only people we see at the ranch are the hard core people who never left, or the people who would leave and then come back, like Juan Flynn, or the weirdos who joined after they found out that murders were committed, like Jenny or Ginny as she’s sometimes labeled.
ReplyDeleteMatt said...
ReplyDeleteBig problem. That dancing scene with Grogan and the girl was filmed in 1970. Reet was already dead
Whenever it was filmed, it couldn't have been filmed before November 16th.
Charlie was brought to LA from Independence on the 9th, 10th or 11th December '69. He made an appearance before Judge Keene on the 11th for arraignment; this is the day Bugliosi's watch stopped. Reason it's significant regarding the "Inside the mind of a madman" documentary is that Robert says he had to get permission from Charlie to begin filming the Family at Spahn but he was in LA County jail at the time. Even if he came back to LA on the 9th to be in the jail, the day he was actually charged with the murders, Reet would still have been dead for 23 days. I must admit, the woman with Clem in the film did bear a resemblance to Reet, but there was a certain commonality of look among young women in and around that scene then, rather like how the bearded, long haired guy that Hatami saw could have been so many different people.
It was actually Ruby Pearl that said she remembered seeing Reet around Spahn Ranch with the Family. She had thought her name was Sherry. She's the only person I've heard positively make a connection and this was closer to the time.
Nonymous said...
ReplyDeleteRobert mentioned going to Spahn Ranch once before that. He didn’t mention it in his book though, he mentioned it on this blog. He stopped off at Spahn and got a Coca Cola and got really creeped out by the place and left quickly
Actually, he does mention it in "Death to pigs" on page 10.
That was a pretty interesting post. I’d like to find that
There's an interesting discussion of it here. I think that guy Channon Scott that Starviego quotes is flying kites into the sun and expecting beautiful sunset patterns....
Why not show the video of Reet dancing to people who knew Reet? they didnt really do that did they? I dont want to watch it again but seems to me if you have someone who actually knew her why not show her that video, and find even more people that knew her and show them?
ReplyDeleteSeemed more like they wanted to show it to people who never knew her rather than those who did.
And they seemed to massage the people to the conclusion they wanted. I really like how they shoehorned that in. It sorta went from.."dont recognize her" to "they all looked alike" to "she could have been there" to "I think I might recognize her" to "she really does seem familiar" to the film maker eventually talking about it as if it was proven.
They couldnt find several people who actually knew her at the time to really give an opinion on it? How many young girls hitch hiked and came in and out of that ranch? did they look all that different or just one of a million doing the same thing in that time in that space?
crash said...
ReplyDeleteWhy not show the video of Reet dancing to people who knew Reet? t
I'm sure they did and the results weren't what they wanted :)
Hello ... McFLy ....
ReplyDelete(A) Reet was stabbed multiple times.
(B) The TLB victims were also stabbed multiple times.
(C)These crimes were obviously committed by the same person or persons.
I watched part 2 and missed part 1 but missed nothing....
ReplyDeleteThe girl is so obviously Cathy Gilles
Reet was murdered before Hendrickson shot a frame
Mark Ross didn't kill anybody
It was crap of the highest order
If you read articles online the whole Reet story is crazy- her family never even wondered what happened to her?
ReplyDeletehttp://people.com/crime/lapd-seeks-to-identify-two-men-in-connection-with-murder-of-reet-jurvetson/
ReplyDeleteI am surprised about the focus that's on Reet in this film (as tragic as it is). I did mention to the team about the so-called "Scientology" killings (esp. Doreen Gaul) which (to me) had far more compelling indications that *could* link a *possible* association with Bruce Davis. However, they were firmly focused on Reet - and yet - as has been evidenced - there's not a hint or shred of evidence (other than speculation) that she was allied in any way to M's group. To me, it points to an obsession on behalf of the detective too intimately involved to be objective.
ReplyDeleteCan you imagine putting together a four hour doc and then being asked- what did you solve? FUCK ALL.
ReplyDeleteDeb S said...
ReplyDeleteFather Yod
About 10~11 years ago, I used to regularly read the record reviews on a site, now defunct, called the Acid Archives. They basically used to review psychedelic albums, most of which were private or 'vanity' pressings, long out of print and collectors items for the most part and there were loads of albums by Father Yod's lot there. They kind of reminded me of a cross between the Family and the Branch Davidians/Children of God. The name always made me laugh, for obvious reasons.
My sincerest condolences to Simon Wells whose excellent investigation into the death of Joel Pugh was taken completely out of context by the show. They couldn't have placed Simon's work in a worse light
In a sense....but...I was partly led to read Simon's book because of his website feature on Joel's death and I was very conscious when I eventually read the book that it didn't reflect the way he'd written it up on the site. There, it's never really argued that it is anything other than a suicide although one guy in the comments section seems to think it's pushing the "Manson murders comes to London" theme and one other commentator asks if Simon believes Joel was murdered because he's not clear from what is said.
But in the book, it isn't clear because it seems that a lot of effort is made to show Bruce was in England a second time in '69 even though there's no record of him leaving America, entering and leaving the UK and re~entering America. 4 opportunities to be recorded and not one record tells me he never left the States after he'd come back in April. If one is going to argue he left on a false passport, then one should do it and substantiate it. But no one I've heard has ever intimated such a thing. The programme makers seemed determined to show Charlie's wide reach so in a sense, I'm not surprised the edited Simon the way they did. In that sense his book didn't help, whereas his website entry, which is more or less what is in the book but tighter and more definite, does.
The show shanghaied Clem and got him to speak
I was surprised that he did speak. I was also intrigued by his response to the photo of him 'dancing' with the girl when he said that was all in the past and that the guy in the picture was dead. I thought he handled it pretty well. I wonder if he's become used to people confronting him about that period. I know that at some point after Pat's last parole hearing was put on hold, he was contacted to speak about Charlie's abuse.
I was in the program for what can only be described as a cameo appearance
Well, I have to say, you spoke with more purpose and assurance than Jeff Guinn. I liked his book but he had this way of saying things that, if you have looked into the case, are true, but came across in this grating way that made it seem like a predictable hack job.
The newspaper page that you spoke about made me think of David !
Sime's World said...
ReplyDeleteHowever, they were firmly focused on Reet - and yet - as has been evidenced - there's not a hint or shred of evidence (other than speculation) that she was allied in any way to M's group
Well, there was from Ruby Pearl. She said she'd seen her at Spahn with the Family. I'm surprised neither of the investigators mentioned or picked up on that.
Deb S said...
All in all the show departed from the same old, same old of previous productions but fell short of believability regarding the unsolved murders
I thought the show would have departed from the same old same old if they hadn't punctuated it with Charlie speaking on tape.
There was one bit when they spoke to Harold True's cousin Carol and I had to laugh at 'Harold and Carol' until I remembered someone I recently met whose brother and sister were called Harold and Carol.
I did find it intriguing that Carol thought that Charlie had been pissed with Harold and was after him the night of the LaBianca killing. Not because I give it any credence though. True had told Aaron Stovitz in January 1970 that Charlie knew he'd left that house about 10 months prior to the murder and that Charlie had asked him if he could move in in his place when he knew he was going. It's actually one of those places where Charlie was clearly lying, when he says that on the night the LaBiancas were killed, he was on his way to see Harold.
Panamint Patty said...
They kept trying to fit Charlie into a little box...like your classic serial killer. Patty thought this was kinda dumb and simplistic
Totally agree. That was rather irritating. It also moves away from the complexity of Charles Manson and tries to show what a masterful Pandora's box of evil he was when actually, he was a guy that often got nabbed. He spent the majority of his adult life inside and much of his time inside in the SHU and so it was hard to take much of those taped excerpts seriously.
Nonymous said...
Despite all the flaws in the show it was fascinating
I have to say, I'm glad I watched it but I don't think I'd've been missing out if I hadn't.
Shorty's pistols said...
They did have some great photos. There were a couple of Shorty that were really cool
Some of the photos were excellent, especially the ones I'd not seen before. There were a few snippets of film footage that were also really neat, like the one of some of the women crawling on the pavement. It's sometimes fascinating when you've heard about an event to years later see a bit of film or a photo of it.
I also thought Shorty looked pretty cool in his younger days. Some of the shots of Clem actually made him look like a regular hippy and there were some striking ones of Sandy. I'd never really seen much of Ronald Hughes so it was a bonus to see actual film footage of him talking.
Terrapin said...
ReplyDeleteThe guy that re-enacted the Reet stabbing was kinda scary...
It certainly made one think in ways that one might not just reading or hearing about it.
I can't help thinking though, some killers might not have gone at it like that. They might have been sadistic enough to go at it slowly and savour the kill.
Imagine the mind of Bruce Davis as he watched this..
Well, the show could have been subtitled "Getting Bruce by the back door" !!
On a serious note though, I wouldn't be surprised if the Guv'nor has his squad dissecting the show as we speak. There was lots in there regarding Bruce that couldn't be substantiated or verified....but that hasn't stopped the Guv so far !
I wonder if Bruce's ex~wife or daughter were watching and if so, what they made of it.
Mr. Humphrat said...
It is a jaw dropper that they threw pics of Atkins and Krenwinkle up there for the girls in the Venice
Sadly, it is almost to be expected. I can't say I was shocked at all.
starviego said...
Apparently some filming by Merrick and crew was done even before TLB, though I don't know if any of that footage made it into Hendrickson's documentaries
Not so. Both Robert & Merrick refute that. Merrick says he did look around at Spahn as a possibility and even saw some of the Family {he thought Gypsy but wasn't certain}. He filmed in the week of the murders and moved out of the ranch his crew had filmed at on Aug 9th.
Robert's refutation is even more clear. He never filmed a bean until Charlie was in the LA county jail. Channon Scott strikes me as yet another Polish countess. Except instead of "was going to Cielo that night" comes from the Spahn end of things.
A couple of real revelations from the Assistant Prosecutor Steven Kay:
"Ronald Hughes, who knew Manson and the Family before the murders. He was a UCLA law student and he would go out to Spahn Ranch and do drugs with the Family."
"He(Hughes) was last seen in Sespe Hot Springs, swimming in a natural pool after having taken LSD."
I've long wondered about Stephen Kay and I've never been impressed by him. The way he answered the question about HS was actually funny considering the stuff he armed himself with and trundled out at numerous parole hearings over a lengthy period. In interviews when asked questions like how many murders did he think the Manson troupe committed or which specific ones, he'd sometimes say things like "well, I don't have any evidence of that but anything's possible." But his stuff about Ronald Hughes was off the scale. Has anyone else ever heard that he knew the Family pre TLB and had been to Spahn ? I'd read that somewhere recently but it wasn't substantiated. As for him last being seen swimming on acid, well, you never know, but that would seem to contradict James Forsher and Lauren Elder. The kind of conditions that forced them to leave where they {and their VW} were don't strike me as compatible for swimming and Hughes seemed a seasoned tripper.
Peter said...
Maybe Kay is conflating Hughes and True
Bearded, big bellied and balding ? Could be.
FrankM said...
(or Cats', sadly not currently consultable - hint, hint)
Hear hear !
Logan said...
ReplyDeleteThere were interesting parts
Not least that "Reet Petite" was supposedly into methadone.
Sime's World said...
the theory behind the footage/stills of Jane Doe/Reet Jurvetson (died November 1969) that forms a large part of episode 2 of the "Final Words" programme is entirely spurious. Surely?
Yeah. One thing that was pretty inventive was the way HS was sideswiped with so much emphasis on Reet and revenge. The investigators were of the opinion that the LaBianca killing was the one that really showed what a load of balls HS is.
I actually think it's the LaBianca killing that puts the seal on Charlie regarding HS.
ColScott said...
Can you imagine putting together a four hour doc and then being asked- what did you solve? FUCK ALL
They could have at least saved some face by saying something like "watch this space !" 😉
I wonder what the story is behind the bones that Michael Channels found that were determined to be human. Is there a plausible explanation, given that they were found in the Spahn area as opposed to Barker ?
ReplyDeleteColScott said...
ReplyDeleteThe girl is so obviously Cathy Gilles
I think you'll find that it is not. Go from about 44.30~58 of "Inside the Manson Gang." The shot of Clem and the mystery woman cuts to "Kevin" then to Cappy. Even if the two shots were done on different days or at different times then cut together to make a continuous shot, one can see that they are two completely different people.
Has anyone seen the disgraceful pic online taken of Manson minutes before he died with the breathing tubes shoved down his throat ? Maybe all of you who viewed the man as the devil incarnate might get a kick out of it Regardless of the evil he was capable of or responsible for he was an 83 year old man 64 of his 83 year's incarcerated in one form or another I believe he paid his dues & deserved to die with more dignity then being chained to a hospital bed and also have to wonder how much effort was made to help save his life
ReplyDeleteIn today's world, you do more time for peddling dope than killing your wife and especially telling someone to kill your wife.
DeleteDuring Mansons jail time before TLB, dianetics & scientology was being taught in California Prison Systems. Ive gone through much of his testimony of the TLB trials and he falls back on so much of his prison education and added a little couch jumping on Oprah hisself....people were terrified of him. Hhhmmm. And I use to like Tom Cruise.
The media and Bug made Manson an attraction, unfortunately.
William that picture was published by the Mirror. They have taken down the picture and retracted their original story on the pic. It was not Manson, it was photo shopped. Here's the Mirror's apology.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/picture-purportedly-charles-manson-deathbed-11651784
grimtraveller said...
ReplyDeleteI wonder what the story is behind the bones that Michael Channels found that were determined to be human. Is there a plausible explanation, given that they were found in the Spahn area as opposed to Barker ?
Michael Channel's said that he found the bone in the area where Shorty's remains were found. Shorty's left hand was missing, thought to have been taken by animals. I suppose it's possible that the bone is from Shorty's missing hand.
Sime's World said...
ReplyDeleteTo me, it points to an obsession on behalf of the detective too intimately involved to be objective.
I think the detective was duped as well. Used as a prop. I'm sure he was presented with one-side of the story only.
I found the program to be entertaining and interesting from the standpoint of it being about the family and the crimes versus being factually 100% accurate. Similarly, the detective is not approaching the case from the standpoint of being an expert on the case and all things Manson. And as a reminder, it’s a TV show so there needs to be some drama introduced or it wouldn’t be entertaining at all and people would tune out.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Manson and his photoshopped deathbed picture- I don’t understand people who feel sorry for him because he’s old and spent so much time incarcerated. Truth be told, they should have all been put to death LONG ago so many of those years incarcerated are a result of California’s leaniency towards savage murderers. I hope he was chained to the bed as a reminder of what hell he put all of the victims and victims families thru. I hope he gasped, struggled, and suffocated on his own body fluids like Sharon did.
ReplyDeleteColScott said...
If you read articles online the whole Reet story is crazy- her family never even wondered what happened to her?
http://reetjurvetson.com/efforts-made-find-reet-jurvetson/
The Reet Jurvitson website has viruses/trojans. Visit at your own peril.
ReplyDeleteI haven't finished watching the shows. There is a lot of misleading and ignorant stuff, but I think it's worth the watch to see the interviews with Mark Ross, to see it's effect on him, the reluctance to speak, also Grogan's reluctance to speak at all. It is instructive to anyone who wonders what these people have to give and how resistant they are after all this time, whether out of fear of prosecution or reprisals on them.
ReplyDeleteAnd even though the timeline makes it very unlikely I think the girl with Clem at the ranch does look very much like Reet. The only scenario I can see is Mark Ross contacts Robert right after the Zero death and they are filming at the ranch within the next week or so.
Matt,
ReplyDeleteSorry for posting a site with viruses/Trojans. I didn't know. Just wanted to share that her family just didn't give it a thought. Bob.
Mr. Humphrat said...
ReplyDelete"The only scenario I can see is Mark Ross contacts Robert right after the Zero death and they are filming at the ranch within the next week or so."
Heya Humph.
Only problem with that scenario is that Clem was in jail in Independence from October 10, 1969 until after Reets death.
The problem with any scenario before that is that Sandra Good's baby "Elf" (born Sept 16, 1969) is also in that sequence where Clem dances with the girl. And (correct me if I'm wrong) Clem was in Death Valley from mid-September (helped to burn up the Michigan Loader) until he was arrested in the first Barker Raid (Oct 10, 1969).
< Just wanted to share that her family just didn't give it a thought. Bob. >
ReplyDeleteWell in Wiki is says they did going as far as hiring a private investigator but they had limited resources and according to the article always felt Reet would eventually contact them.
No worries, Bobby. Wordpress should be banned. I can hack it with my eyes closed.
ReplyDeleteThanks Matt.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone have links to the Reelz Documentary, Final Words? It seems like of the two that aired on Sunday that it was more worthwhile. I cannot find it online, legally or illegally, if anyone has a source for it I would really appreciate it as I have no means of accessing it here in Australia.
ReplyDeletewilliam marshall said...
ReplyDeleteI believe he paid his dues & deserved to die with more dignity then being chained to a hospital bed
But isn't that just the protocol of many American prisons ? They don't take chances. Was it a certainty that he was going to die ? While I can see your point, being chained to the bed is no less dignifying than being chained anywhere else and that is the MO of some prisons.
have to wonder how much effort was made to help save his life
It's not only Charles Manson or prisoners. For many years I've wondered how much effort is put into saving the lives of people once they get to a certain old age. It seems to vary from place to place with great care in some places, not so great in others, depending of course on the ailment.
DebS said...
it's possible that the bone is from Shorty's missing hand
I kind of wondered about that as soon as the scientist confirmed it was human.
AstroCreep said...
the detective is not approaching the case from the standpoint of being an expert on the case and all things Manson
That's not really the point though. If you are going to make a programme on something, you should vigorously research your stuff. Work on the basis that some of your audience are going to be knowledgeable. There were some clangers that the makers dropped that could easily have been avoided. Simply finding out when Robert filmed the Family is one. It's not hidden information. 4 comments in and Matt already took the foundation out the programme's main contention/question.
it’s a TV show so there needs to be some drama introduced or it wouldn’t be entertaining at all and people would tune out
I struggle with this because on one hand, I agree with you. But on the other, in this day and age of so many channels, there are so many different programme niches that pretty much everyone can actually be catered for instead of the old sausage factory processing for everything.
I don’t understand people who feel sorry for him because he’s old and spent so much time incarcerated
It's not hard to fathom. Because someone deserves some of what befalls them is no reason to suspend any kind of sympathy. A driver that gets sloshed regularly and ends up driving on the wrong side of the road one night gets hit by multiple vehicles and ends up paralyzed and in pain for the rest of their life can't complain about their fate ~ it was their own fault. But as they writhe occasionally in agony, could you not find it within you to feel sorry for them even though their disregard was entirely selfish ?
Manson was old. We all know what that can mean.
I hope he gasped, struggled, and suffocated on his own body fluids like Sharon did
That's kind of harsh but in saying that, there's a possibility we'll all face this one day so I'd be kind of mindful of what I wish on others. Point being that if Charlie did "gasp, struggle and suffocate on his own body fluids like Sharon" it wasn't because he's Charles Manson in jail and it's a fate that could await even the kindest of us.
Thanks for the info Debs I'd also like to publicly thank you for your help scoring The Manson file off of EBay I'd been trying for two + year's to find a copy
ReplyDeleteHappy Holidays to all
I did a little search on Cliff Shepard, the retired detective that was on the show, because I believed that he was on the Reet Jurvetson case from the beginning due to what was written in a CBC article about the Jurvetson case.
ReplyDelete"Retired lead detective Cliff Shepard told the fifth estate that he thinks it's "very probable" that the glasses are connected with Jurvetson's death."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/reet-jurvetson-investigation-glasses-1.3850542
The CBC article made it sound like Shepard was on the case from the beginning when in fact he did not get the case until LAPD formed a Cold Case unit in 2001. An article written in 2012 upon Shepard's retirement says that he was with LAPD for 37 years. Doing the math, he joined the department in 1975. This same article tells about the forming of the Cold Case unit.
http://www.laweekly.com/news/cliff-shepard-lapd-detective-who-helped-nab-the-grim-sleeper-on-the-cases-he-cracked-and-the-ones-that-got-away-2398169
Then I found an article about Shepard being sued by an analyst with LAPD's DNA Lab because he ignored DNA evidence that pointed to an LAPD officer as being involved in a 1986 murder. That police officer was ultimately convicted of the murder when the case was given to another detective.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/30/local/la-me-lazarus-lawsuit-20131030
I really dislike reading stuff like this, when those sworn to serve and protect engage in a blue code of silence preventing justice from being served.
The Sherri Rasmussen case was a fairly high profile case too - especially upon it being reopened as a Cold Case. Mainstream media (48 Hrs perhaps?) Even profiled it.
DeleteI feel Word Press to be secure. They insist on you getting a text from your phone when you log in. That would seem to be hack proof unless someone also steals my phone.
ReplyDeleteMacy, that makes it difficult to enter through the login window. There are better ways in. :)
ReplyDeleteI'm watching the REELZ special right now and they have Bobby and Cappy talking via phone (not sure if those calls are recent and they agreed to this doc?). Anyway, they're portraying a mixture of a copycat/TeX/revenge motive. Bobby says they picked the LaBianca house because the LaBianca's called the cops on them when they were staying at Harold's and got them kicked out. And Cappy says she tried to get in the car that night but Leslie and Pat wouldn't let her. I've never heard either of these things. Has anyone heard that Charlie had a grudge against the LaBianca's? They also say after Charlie left TeX and the girls at the LaBianca's he took what he stole from them and went to Venice to pay Bobby's SS debt and that's why he wanted Linda to go see Bobby and tell him everything was cool and to not say anything.
ReplyDeleteDani,
ReplyDeleteIf you listen to the Reelz show carefully (I mean absolutely no offense by that) on the Venice trip they simply state what Kasabian testified to as an allegation and cut to the pay off bit but don't support that with anything but a video= used strategically throughout when their evidence 'fails' as if the video is proof. Maybe there is something in his book more than 'ah-ha- Venice! Biker gang!
The LaBiancas didn't live at Waverly when the Family was at True's. Leno's mother owned the home and I believe it was empty. Someone correct me.
I thought I had read that the LaBianca's didn't live there when they were at Harold's. It just caught me off guard to hear Bobby say that because I hadn't read or heard about him saying it before. Thanks for the clarification!
DeleteIf you start a documentary with an agenda, be it the National Enquirer (History Channel) or 'Making a Murder' you leave out things that don't support your theory.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the Col. can explain but frankly to me, IMO, that is not a 'documentary' it is a piece in favor of a position. While I will watch the HC thing it will be to see the interviews not to draw any 'proof' from the crap. Same with the Reelz show.
Someone should make a true documentary and frankly if it could be organized I would participate- as in $- Col?
Kinda off the board..."Creepy Killers for $100, Jack" here...but...
ReplyDeleteCould Rodney Alcala have killed Reet?
We know he was in SoCal before fleeing out East to NY/New Hampshire.
He kinda matches the long haired person of interest in the police
sketch below (is the middle photo of Alcala from that time period?)
https://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/mm/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpeopledotcom.files.wordpress.com%2F2016%2F09%2Fjane-doe-59-1024.jpg%3Fw%3D1024&w=700&q=85
http://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/alcala1.jpg?w=620
We know he liked the beach, lived in Hollyweird and, attacked a young girl in 1968.
When did he flee to NY?
ANNNNND, wasn't the SAME Cold Case Detective on Alcala's case that appears in this documentary AND has been working Reet's Cold Case?
Oooo-eeeee-ooooh?
It's as flawed a theory as any of these but, with a little bit of butter...anything'll fit!
Just sayin...
Cheers
"MANSON" the hit Broadway musical.
ReplyDeleteThink about it.
Thanks David! I didn't think much of it was anything that could actually be corroborated with real evidence but it struck me that Bobby was pushing that because I hadn't heard him say it before. This blog has taught me not to take anything I see on those shows too seriously and that's why I was curious to see if anyone here had heard that and/or what they thought. I feel like even in the posts I've read regarding the copycat theory I had never heard that Charlie had a 'grudge' against the LaBianca's and I'm no expert but I didn't think that was even possible with the timeline.
ReplyDeleteDani_P said...
ReplyDeleteBobby says they picked the LaBianca house because the LaBianca's called the cops on them when they were staying at Harold's and got them kicked out
Sounds like an interesting documentary; I'd like to see it. That statement alone has so many holes in it, you couldn't just drive a bus through it, an entire fleet of buses could be driven through it. So which is it when it comes to the LaBiancas, that Rosemary was the acid queen of Los Feliz and Tex went wild, that Charlie went to collect a Mafia black book and was contracted to carry out a hit or that Tex knew Rosemary's daughter and they planned a kill together or that the LaBiancas had called the cops on them ?
Simple logistics dictate the pungent whiff of fecal matter here. The LaBiancas moved in after True had left next door. Both True and Charlie always knew the house as an empty one as both have stated more than once, Charlie to Vanity fair, Rolling Stone & George Stimson. Not only that, they'd been in it while it was empty. That's why Charlie made his way over there on the night of the murder when he saw a dog and a light on.
Has anyone heard that Charlie had a grudge against the LaBianca's?
I suspect he had a grudge against three of the guys that lived next door.
They also say after Charlie left TeX and the girls at the LaBianca's he took what he stole from them and went to Venice to pay Bobby's SS debt and that's why he wanted Linda to go see Bobby and tell him everything was cool and to not say anything
That's funky. Bobby told Michael Moynihan that "Eventually I picked up one of the cars we'd taken from Gary's, the Fiat with the Toyota engine. The bike club hadn't wanted that one, they took the VW bus," which, incidentally isn't true either. He also said, in relation to Cielo, "There was the house, which at one point belonged to Terry Melcher, who owed Manson about $5,000 ~ at least that's the figure I've heard ~ for a song that the Beach Boys had recorded and he didn't get paid for. There were reasons why the people in that house were picked, and I think it was believed that Terry Melcher still lived there. But this is territory that I really have no business getting into, because I have no idea what really happened. It's second hand, third hand, fourth hand information really." He also said that "The best one, so I've been told (I have not read it), is 'My Life With Charlie' by Paul Watkins" and speaking of Leslie, "What I know about her crime isn't much, just what I've heard or read, but it is my understanding that she did not actually kill anyone. If what we have been told is true, she was pressured into stabbing one of the victims ~ a person who was already dead ~ to make her complicit in the murder as a form of insurance, to prevent her from spilling what she knew to the authorities."
My point ? Bobby doesn't tend to speak from direct knowledge. He "hears" this or that, the same rumours and half truths and fabrications that we all hear. I'd be wary of trusting anything that comes from him about Family activity that falls after he left Spahn.
It was a mix of theories, from copycat to drug burn to revenge to Charlie just wanting them 'complicit' in crimes after the Crowe incident so they wouldn't rat on him. They even had Linda's lawyer on there basically saying that Linda's immunity deal came with the terms that she would testify to helter skelter because that's what they wanted her to say but hinting that none of it was true and that it was a total Bug fabrication that they just agreed to go along with. The lawyer also insinuated that she had told him of "scary stuff" happening prior to TLB but he couldn't get into it. Oh. And that he had Linda sending Sadie crazy notes in jail because she was 'crazy' and that was how they got her to back out of her deal so Linda could swoop in and grab one. I thought they kept Linda separated from the other girls from the start?
DeleteSorry, for the bombardment of questions I just found it all intriguing but lacking evidence and proof.
Thanks for setting me straight Ziggy on when Clem was not at Spahn.
ReplyDeleteToo bad they didn't look into the Karl Stubbs murder, I'm guessing they didn't I haven't finished watching it.
Dani,
ReplyDelete'No' Kasabian was not separated from the start. In fact she proclaimed she would never talk when she arrived in LA from New Hampshire- I think that show said New Mexico. The question unanswered: why did Atkins recant, although she clearly was jealous of Kasabian in her second book. Who knows. When she did Kasabian certainly swooped in and got a far better deal. Some (Grim) doubt Fleischman's story about knocking Atkins out of the box with the kites. I don't. I understand that they did 'bring Kasabian to now' by telling her how people die in the gas chamber. Charlie went bye bye pretty quickly after that.
The immunity agreement says she has to testify to HS......
Just sit a moment and think about that. Ok, the defense counsel were incompetent- even if Sanders liked Fitzgerald- but would VB hand them the basis for an acquittal by giving them a document that says 'if my star witness says this she will be free and if not she gets what they get'? And that deal goes to the defense....and they never mention it at trial.
I'm not sure where that comes from but until you show me that document saying exactly that I say BS.
New revelations for me (via Schreck) include that the SS were extorting Manson as he used their weapon on Hinman and after dropping the gang off at LaBianca when at Venice Manson went to the SS clubhouse.
ReplyDeleteIn some respects this adds heat to the SS and takes it off HS, but that night Manson was with Kasabian, Atkins and Clem so surely the story of visiting the SS clubhouse would have got out to the defence attorneys? SS operation snitch pretty much destroyed the club anyway, but kept them out of jail.
Plus I can't see nearly 50 years of a code of silence to protect a disbanded motorcycle club.
Also, if Cielo Drive was a scene of destruction and the killers needed a wash how come no one used the pool? So is there traction in the hose of the Weber house being close to Sebring's house? And if multiple visits and body moving is going on throughout the night at Cielo what is with the lack of curiosity regarding the guesthouse?
ReplyDeleteJust finished, Clem seemed really annoyed by the time he finished talking to them, and frankly I don't blame him. It's so weird hearing his voice because he vaguely sounds like John C Reilly and he seems like a genuinely nice guy. also, these guys are amateurs. there was barely anything I didn't already know and I do my research from an EFFING SMARTPHONE. I stopped taking it seriously when they got all shocked about John Haught.
ReplyDeleteAlso Matt or somebody, if you see this: could you point me in the right direction to find the Hendrickson book "death to pigs"?
Even if it's just an online copy I just want to learn I'm sure that book is more than fascinating.
DebS said: < Then I found an article about Shepard being sued by an analyst with LAPD's DNA Lab because he ignored DNA evidence that pointed to an LAPD officer as being involved in a 1986 murder .... I really dislike reading stuff like this, when those sworn to serve and protect engage in a blue code of silence preventing justice from being served. >
ReplyDeleteFrom what I could tell from the article he denied the allegations and the matter was inconclusive. Much like the current female feeding frenzy over male harassment, I'll believe when I see proof positive.
Toby King said...
ReplyDeleteAlso Matt or somebody, if you see this: could you point me in the right direction to find the Hendrickson book "death to pigs"?
Toby, ever since Robert passed it has only been available used. Have you tried Amazon or Ebay?
We may have to wait until someone (who purchased the rights) offers it again.
Yeah I've looked, Its actually harder to find than "manson" on vhs believe it or not. But I'll just try to keep patient, maybe someday it'll come along. Thanks buddy
DeleteThanks David and Grim! I'm not well versed enough to be able to sift through all these claims credibly which is why I figured I'd bring them here and get insight from those of you who know more than me! I was itching to present the theories I had never heard before in that show here to get educated feedback - especially because I've tried to read just about every post on this blog and had never heard some of them. Thanks again!
ReplyDeleteRobert C said...
ReplyDelete< Just wanted to share that her family just didn't give it a thought. Bob. >
Robert, Sorry. I did not word that correctly. I was countering Col's statement that no one cared. They did.
David, the immunity agreement is on page 47
ReplyDeleteNo worries, I back up all my blog posts. This is the one thing most people don't do. If the blog gets deleted, it's no big deal or changed in someway. The websites want you to not back up, so they can hold your work hostage if you fail to pay them, although word press has a good free option also. I have a blog I made about the 70s on the free option.
ReplyDeleteThanks Bo but technically that’s the petition they filed to dismiss charges after she testified. If that is supposed to be the smoking gun that they told her what to say I go back to my comment: BS
ReplyDeleteToby King search Esty.com from time to time for a copy of Death to pigs I've seen copies occasionally
ReplyDeleteMr. Humphrat said...
ReplyDeleteToo bad they didn't look into the Karl Stubbs murder
Don't give him ideas !
Maybe he'll try to show that Bruce was one of the females, dressed in disguise !
Dani_P said...
It was a mix of theories, from copycat to drug burn to revenge to Charlie just wanting them 'complicit' in crimes after the Crowe incident so they wouldn't rat on him
I've never been beyond seeing that Charlie had a mix of reasons; I think he did and as has to be pointed out from time to time, that was the prosecution case. In the opening statement, HS is actually the third of the motives mentioned.
They even had Linda's lawyer on there basically saying that Linda's immunity deal came with the terms that she would testify to helter skelter because that's what they wanted her to say but hinting that none of it was true and that it was a total Bug fabrication that they just agreed to go along with
When Gary Fleischmann says part of the terms of Linda's immunity was that she had to testify to HS, what does that even mean ? Charles Manson at his own trial testified to HS. As did a number of other witnesses. Furthermore, Linda did not say "the reason these murders were done was to start off HS" or anything akin to it although strangely, she answered about their part in it during the Watson trial. But it was to the effect that she didn't realize the Family would play a violent part in it or kick it off.
The difficulty the "HS was a Bug fabrication" party will always have is that he offered it as circumstantial evidence that could be well and truly backed up and only one of three motives and each of the motives applied to Charles Manson. Bugliosi in his closing argument actually said that HS was not the motive for the three women.
Sorry, for the bombardment of questions
Don't be. They often stimulate good discussion.
I was itching to present the theories I had never heard before in that show here to get educated feedback
I'd not heard the one about the payoff to the Straight Satans in Venice with stuff stolen from the LaBiancas. Now, if this came from Cappy and/or Bobby, do they not realize that they are in effect stating openly that Charlie was guilty and therefore correctly judged ?
David said...
ReplyDeleteThe question unanswered: why did Atkins recant, although she clearly was jealous of Kasabian in her second book. Who knows
In her first book she noted "Meanwhile, I began to receive messages from Charlie through my visitors, the members of our group who were not in jail. He was working on me subtly, trying to bring me back under his domination, trying to get me to deny everything I had said. I eventually refused to testify at the trial, although I did go before the grand jury and tell
everything as accurately as I could remember it at that time.
Finally, I was so strung out that I asked to see Charlie.
Caballero did everything he could to talk me out of it, but failed. And on March 5, nearly five months after entering Sybil Brand, I was taken to the Los Angeles County Jail to see him.
Sitting opposite me at a table in the big visiting room, with a large divider between us, Charlie looked pretty much as he had. He had a beard and shoulder length hair and was dressed in jailhouse blues. He was friendly but hard as steel just beneath the surface. I was frightened.
With Caballero sitting to my right and a deputy sheriff
with him, Charlie looked at me with his piercing eyes early in the conversation and spoke to my insides. “Sadie, are you afraid of the gas chamber?”
I knew he was pressing me as to why I had talked. “No, I’m not afraid of it now,” I said, smiling. In that instant I was back under his control. I knew it, and he knew it. But I was still afraid.
He then launched into a sort of doubletalk, with real words dropped in every now and then. The others had practically no idea what he was talking about, but I grasped most of his meaning, I believe. The essence of his remarks, which were tantamount to directives, was that I should fire Caballero, drop any moves toward an insanity plea, and refuse further discussion With Bugliosi.
As his eyes burned into my face, I was overwhelmed with
yearning for his acceptance, his forgiveness. At the end of our fifteen minute meeting, I was not fully certain that I had received either.
But the next day I sent word to the judge that I wanted a
new lawyer. I was firing Richard Caballero and hiring a
Korean born lawyer, Daye Shinn. Then I proceeded to deny
everything that I had told the grand jury. My deal with the DA was blown sky high."
We know that Susan used to change stories like a good musician changed notes so take that with a pinch of salt. Thirty years or so later, she was to expand on this explanation.
2/2
ReplyDelete"His first defense was, of course, to deny any knowledge of the crimes. When I went to the Grand Jury and implicated him, his response was fast and brutal. My attorney, Richard Caballero received death threats. I received visits from 'friends' who suggested it might be in my own best interest for me to recant my testimony. I received endless harassing letters. Threats to my life were posted around the jail. And, though I was supposed to be held incommunicado, Catherine Share got herself arrested and put on my floor of the jail to scream and yell at me for a day and a half ~ I was a snitch, I was dead, Charlie wanted to see me, if I came back everything would be forgiven.
And finally, I was reminded they could still find my son...years later I’m still taunted by District Attorneys and Parole Board Commissioners who imply I’m lying when I say I was threatened with the life of my son while I was in Jail.
In the end, Manson’s insistence that I recant my Grand Jury testimony shows a very naive understanding of the legal system. He believed that since my Grand Jury testimony was the only real evidence against him, if I recanted my testimony the charges would have to be dropped and he would have to be released. I put up with this pressure for months. Through his minions, and then later in person, Charles Manson told me it would be 'better for everyone' including myself and my son if I recanted my Grand Jury testimony. He said the DA had no real evidence against any of us and once I recanted my testimony we’d all be set free.
Charles Manson’s reasoning was clear ~ the only implication the DA had on him was me. As for the claim that 'we would all be set free,' in truth, the only one who had any real evidence against them was me. Due to my talking to Virginia Graham and Ronnie Howard, if I recanted my testimony and lost my immunity I would become the focal point of the DA’s whole case...In the end I succumbed. But I have to point out the position I was in was not a very nice one. I was being promised by Manson that if I didn’t do what he told me to I wouldn’t live a year in prison and possibly my son would be harmed as well. On the other side I was being promised by the Prosecutor that if I didn’t do what he told me to I would be executed. The District Attorney knew I was receiving visits from known Family members while supposedly being held incommunicado..."
There's more that she says and the interesting thing about this stuff from her 2nd book is that she footnotes tons of corroborating evidence from a variety of sources like HS, Catherine Share interviews, Emmons' book and her 1st book and it's really worth looking at how she backs each statement up from someone else's evidence {around 30 items} which is partly why I think Linda's lawyer is playing the cool star with the kite stories.
Toby King said...
ReplyDeletesomebody, if you see this: could you point me in the right direction to find the Hendrickson book "death to pigs"?
Even if it's just an online copy I just want to learn I'm sure that book is more than fascinating
I hope it's not being naughty but the book is out of print so that kind of takes away any notion of infringement or trying to cheat the author's state out of any monies. You might be able to find an online copy here.
I hope it works. It's a damn good book.
Grim: I sent you a PM
DeleteCheers
After that "A descendant of H H Holmes searches for his secret boneyard" farce they aired, nothing is past those shitmeisters at the History Channel.
ReplyDeleteDoug Smith said...
ReplyDeleteGrim: I sent you a PM
Cheers
Received and replied to !
Nick said...
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone have links to the Reelz Documentary, Final Words? It seems like of the two that aired on Sunday that it was more worthwhile. I cannot find it online, legally or illegally, if anyone has a source for it I would really appreciate it
I too would be most grateful. I might even contemplate a little bowing, scraping and doffing of the hat !
Robert C said...
The program reinforced how ridiculous it is calling Haught's death a suicide
I think it was a highly suspicious death but on the other hand, what else could they call it ? He put a loaded gun against his head and pulled the trigger. The woman that was with him didn't have prints on the gun. There were no kind of mitigating circumstances that suggested murder and when someone did, they weren't prepared to stick around to substantiate what they were saying. The guy that told Jerry Cohen that "one of the chicks murdered Zero" and that she had spent a meeting they were at looking at him and fingering her knife, he never said he was there and that he saw it happen. He didn't even say he was in the house or that one of the people in the house told him it was "one of the chicks." Criticize them for ever but at least Barbara Hoyt, Linda Kasabian and Dianne Lake were prepared to face the music and tell of what they knew.
Both Ross and Grogan continue to refuse throwing out bigger bones to all researchers and also make themselves look culpable
One has to ask the question, why should they ? They're not under any obligation to 'researchers'. They're not under suspicion for any deaths. I'm not sure what they would be culpable for.
Matt said...
Mark was PRESENT while RH shot the footage. He helped him load up the cameras and canisters each day and drove him out to Spahn
Even if Mark had never seen the film, he'd know that he was in quite a bit of it unless he'd forgotten how much a camera was pointed in his direction nearly 50 years ago. Easy to do I guess but he seemed unnecessarily evasive about how deep he was in with the Family given the amount of footage existing that showed that his relationship with them went beyond the couple of weeks that they stayed in his flat.
David said...
ReplyDeleteSome (Grim) doubt Fleischman's story about knocking Atkins out of the box with the kites. I don't
Linda may well have sent Charliespeak kites to Susan. I just can't see that they would have done anything to get her to recant. Susan in her Caballero interview made the point that Linda was not prominent in her mind as she hadn't been with the Family for long. What kind of hold could Linda possibly have had on Susan that would persuade her to move from a position where she was assured of no death penalty to one where she'd be happy to recant and risk the death penalty ? It makes even less sense than no sense making sense.
But there is ample evidence {even if you totally ignore anything Susan ever said} from Bugliosi, Richard Caballero and Mike McGann that Susan was gotten to by others, including Charlie. He even suggested in his March Rolling Stone interview {though it came out in June} that Susan would recant.
"But do you know who is going to be sacrificed? It's her. She is going to change her testimony. She's going to say that she was there, but that I didn't know anything about it. Even if she wasn't there, she is going to say it."
Q Do you think she was?
"No, I don't think she was even there. But she is going to condemn herself out of guilt for what she's done. What she doesn't realize is she couldn't hurt me anyway."
Ivor Davis and Jerry LeBlanc, even before the trial began, in their book "Five to die" had noted that "even though he was forced to finally to take an attorney, Manson had seen immediately that Susan Atkins was key to the case." The significance of this being that 5 days after Manson was relieved of 'pro per' and given a court appointed lawyer, Daye Shinn became Atkins' lawyer and announced to the press that Susan had recanted.
In "The Garbage People" John Gilmour writes that even when Judge Dell was on the scene {the time when Charlie was granted a 2 week continuance on entering his plea in late January '70}, Charlie told a lawyer called Brian Reese {this may be a pseudonym ~ the book is full of them, eg Mary Brunner is Marie O'Brien} "Suzy Atkins sent me a message. When the time comes she is going to change her story. I'll be getting out of here a lot sooner than most people think." Charlie also stated that "I got a message from Sadie saying that the DA made her say what she said" and wanted to question her. Judge Dell said it was OK if she and Caballero agreed, the latter doing so because he wanted to see how Atkins would stand up to being cross examined by Manson.
I get the vibes from Gary Fleischmann that he liked to play "big man, walking in the park" with his tales of smoking dope with Robert Kasabian and Charles Melton and suggestions of kites to Atkins to throw her, almost as though he wasn't satisfied with the major role he actually did play. Not glam enough.
The immunity deal wasn't formally entered until the trial was well under way and long after Kasabian testified. I believe that the agreement is read into the record during one of the morning sessions or during in chambers during a break. It should be easy to find because around thensame time Kasabian retakes the stand.
ReplyDeleteTHE deal was that she "tell the truth" but as Kanarek pointed out, it was the prosecution who would determine what the truth was. Even after she was granted immunity, Kanarak was right that she was unlikely to change her story just based on human nature having just spent three weeks testifyin to one version.
I think the prosecution was really hesitant to use Atkins because she was (1) bat shut crazy and (2) guilty as he'll.
Kasabian was an opportunist if she was anything. I still think we saw a lot less than what she testifies to, but understood what she needed to give the prosecution in order to save her own skin.
Nope. My mistake here. I could have sworn that was how I read it, but it must have been something else.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Bugliosi in Helter Skelter, the agreement was reached as far back as February 26, 1970. "The DA would petition the court for complete immunity after: (1) that Linda Kasabian would give us a full and complete statement of her involvement in the Tate-La Bianca murders, (2) that Linda Kasabian would testify truthfully at all trial proceedings against all defendants; and (3) that in the even that Linda Kasabian did not testify truthfully, or that she refused to testify, for whatever reason, she would be prosecuted fully, but that any statement that she gave the prosecution would not be used against her."
On August 11, the NYT reported that she had been granted immunity and the transcripts are in agreement.
Beginning Friday August 7 (Vol. 46), and then the motion argued on Monday August 10 (Vol 47) and then noting immunity had been granted August 11, (Vol. 48).
Unfortunately, I can't locate the actual text of the order. The clerks' transcripts end with the completion of jury selection in mid-July and although I could have sworn I remember seeing somewhere them reading the entire text of the order into the record. If it ever happened, it didn't happen in the above transcripts. Maybe it happened later on when the charged were formally dropped? If I find it, I will post.
Thanks to Cielodrive for locating the immunity agreement.
ReplyDeletePetition and Request for an Order Granting A Witness Immunity Pursuant to Sections 1324 and 1099 Penal Code of California, And the accompanying Order Requiring Witness to Answer Questions Pursuant to Sections 1324 and 1099 of the Penal Code of California. Both dated August 10, 1970
The only thing it says she will testify to is the events of August 8th and 9th.
The charges were dropped on August 13.
Peter said...
ReplyDeleteI think the prosecution was really hesitant to use Atkins because she was (1) bat shit crazy and (2) guilty as hell
I think only Bugliosi was reluctant to use her.
Although her grand jury testimony couldn't be used against her or her co~defendants, that didn't mean that she couldn't be questioned at trial about what she saw or was instructed if there was independent corroboration. So she still could have been a very important witness and Charlie knew that.
Kasabian...understood what she needed to give the prosecution in order to save her own skin
Although I understand this view, I don't agree with it. Other than Juan Flynn seeing her in a car with the other murderers on the night of August 9th, what else could have corroborated anything Susan Atkins would have been able to say ? She was already saying that Linda hadn't killed anyone, Juan Flynn couldn't pin the date he saw them all in the car, none of her prints were found anywhere...even Bugliosi recognized that Linda would have been better off not going up against the Family and taking her chances. A good lawyer like Gary Fleischmann, if he was able to get her daughter back to her after she'd fled Spahn without her {and, significantly, without revealing the real reason why} could have got her off.
What would be interesting would be for those with any legal skills or thoughts to outline how they would have gone at Linda. Bugliosi couldn't go any better than 2nd degree murder but different people would have different thoughts and ways. I don't pose that to be difficult, I'm genuinely interested because, admittedly with the benefit of much hindsight, I can't see how she could have been nabbed if she just denied everything. People say Charlie tried to avoid culpability by not getting his actual hands dirty but it strikes me that Linda got free by admitting what she actually did ~ when she didn't have to.
David said...
Kasabian..proclaimed she would never talk when she arrived in LA from New Hampshire
She was hardly going to tell the press "I'll tell all." I still think her statement to the press as she landed in LA has to be put into context.
I understand that they did 'bring Kasabian to now' by telling her how people die in the gas chamber. Charlie went bye bye pretty quickly after that
I find it interesting that Bugliosi lauded Gary Fleischmann to the heavens as a lawyer dedicated to the welfare of his client. He advised her to fight extradition. She came back to LA against his advice.
According to Bugliosi in HS, the agreement was reached as far back as February 26, 1970
It's also worth noting that it was Fleischmann that pushed for immunity and that it was the prosecution that came looking for them {and it was Aaron Stovitz who fleshed out the deal details} when Atkins told Richard Caballero that she was not going to testify.
Linda was by no means dumb but I don't see her as the kind of cool customer that took on and fooled the cops, the DA's office, the Family, Charlie, Gary Fleischmann, all the defence lawyers, Tex, the press etc. Her own Dad at the time thought she was pretty much a drug sodden thief. The Family veer between 2 stalls with her ¬> on the one hand you have Charlie saying he barely spoke to her and Susan saying she was barely in her thoughts and on the other you have Brenda, Squeaky and Sandy trying to pin the tail on her as the mastermind behind the murders, drug deals that she was burned on {after being at Spahn a month !} and the one suggesting they hit Cielo with Sandy later describing her as "experienced."
Peter said...
ReplyDeleteI'm just glad Charlie didn't have to live to see this
If he had been someone that gave a damn about his son, I'd have said the same thing about his Dad.
Kasabian was the getaway driver and was on the scene both nights. She would be charged with the same crimes as the others.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's that they could not use Atkins' GJ testimony against her it's that the prosecution would have to parse all the statements as they applied to some of the defendants but not others and the prosecution just stipulated that they would not use it because they didn't need to.
What I mean by knowing what it took to save her own skin, is that Linda needed to corroborate the story that the physical evidence told and implicate each of the defendants whether she actually saw it or not. In Charlie's case, she needed to show his role in the conspiracy. I think she mostly saw the floor of the back of the car where she was hiding that night.
Linda was an opportunist. Under the circumstances do you really put a lot of faith in her father's knowledge of Her?
Peter said...
ReplyDeleteKasabian was the getaway driver and was on the scene both nights. She would be charged with the same crimes as the others
Well, that's not what the prosecutor said. He said she would have been charged with 2nd degree murder and he would not have sought the death penalty. And a couple of years later he said she would have been better off being tried and acquitted than risk going up against the Family.
Secondly, what proof was there that she was the driver on the nights of the crimes outside of Atkins' say so ? None. It's funny that you call her the getaway driver. Which murder scene did she actually do any getaway driving from ?
I don't think it's that they could not use Atkins' GJ testimony against her
Well, that's the deal that was made with Atkins. Bugliosi was pretty pissed with it because he thought she was on a win~win. Nothing Atkins said to the GJ could be used against any of her co~defendants which was why they needed her {before Kasabian appeared} to testify at trial. Nothing she said at the GJ could be used against her either, if she truthfully testified.
What I mean by knowing what it took to save her own skin, is that Linda needed to corroborate the story that the physical evidence told and implicate each of the defendants whether she actually saw it or not
You seem to be implying that she made aspects of it up. There were also quite a few important parts that she couldn't corroborate, especially on the second night.
In Charlie's case, she needed to show his role in the conspiracy
There's a certain irony to you saying that because one of her statements of corroboration about calling the car back and Charlie saying "leave a sign ~ you girls know what to write. Something witchy" is a statement that he himself has admitted to. He admitted it to Diane Sawyer, he admitted it George Stimson {about leaving a sign ~ in this case, the glasses}.
I think she mostly saw the floor of the back of the car where she was hiding that night
Does that really matter if she saw Tex shoot Steve Parent, Pat chasing Abigail with a knife and Tex stab Wojciech ? You seem to be implying that she did not see the things that she claims she saw.
Linda was an opportunist
Some opportunists know their worth. I bet Susan wished she'd been an opportunist when she was alive and I bet Leslie wishes she'd been one too when she was offered immunity and turned it down.
Under the circumstances do you really put a lot of faith in her father's knowledge of Her?
None whatsoever.
I wonder why the DA would say that he would have only charged his star witness with a lesser crime?
ReplyDeleteI think you are incorrect about the GJ testimony. At the very least it could come in to impeach Atkins when she took the stand during the penalty phase if she contradicted herself. I will find the day that they argue over the content of the GJ testimony during pre trial motion practice. The DA unilateterally stipulated that it would not seek to use it.
Connecting Manson to the conspiracy was more than just his words or actions those two nights. (That was the defense position rejected by the court) we had a whole discussion on that point a few months ago that evidence could be offered reaching back before the actual conspiracy to show the relationship of the parties.
Yes, I am implying that Linda made some stuff up about what she actually witnessed that night.
Peter said: "Yes, I am implying that Linda made some stuff up about what she actually witnessed that night."
ReplyDeleteGrim, while I am not sure I agree with how Peter makes this statement I too believe her testimony on several things she saw is suspect and her lack of testimony- or the absence of testimony on some matters is at least interesting (ie: how many times was she in the house or was she, how did she see the pool, why didn't she remember the Frykowski incident until after her interview with VB, how exactly did she 'see' Steven Parent being shot, how did Frykowski cross the sidewalk basically at her feet unnoticed, "oops I forgot my knife" and, of course the physical evidence that remains unexplained but contradicts all of them, including her.). Some of this can, IMO, as I have said before, be written off to classic memory issues of eyewitnesses: she knew Watson shot Parent, heard it and saw his lifeless body- not a stretch for her to 'remember' seeing the actual deed without telling a lie. But I've said all this before.
Grim said: "What would be interesting would be for those with any legal skills or thoughts to outline how they would have gone at Linda."
As the DA, right, not on cross? How many witnesses are you going to give me or take away? I don't get Atkins, right?
Also, please remember, Grim, since she wasn’t tried we likely don’t have every piece of evidence or testimony that might have been used against her. VB had absolutely no reason to offer any of that.
ReplyDeleteThe use of Susan Atkins Grand Jury testimony at trial is a Sixth Amendment Confrontation issue. Under the Bruton-Aranda line of cases (Bruton v. U.S., 391 U.S. 123 (1968); People v. Aranda 63 Cal. 2d 518 (1965)), in a joint trial of two or more defendants, the out-of-court statement of a non-testifying defendant is inadmissible against the other defendants. The reason is that the other defendants do not have an opportunity to confront (cross examine) Atkins. However, the rule provides further that the Sixth Amendment is not applicable in such a situation if the co-defendant who made the confession testifies and is subject to cross-examination. This is true whether the co-defendant admits or denies the confession.
ReplyDeleteThe solution to the problem is to either: (a) not use the statement, (b) edit the statement so as not to prejudice the other defendants, or (c) to sever the trial.
On May 27, 1970, this issue came up before Judge Older. The Prosecution, who did not want separate trials or an adverse decision on the issue after jeopardy had attached (i.e., once the trial starts with jury selection), decided that they would not be able to parse the Grand Jury statement to remove all prejudice (both stated or implied) and agreed that it would not be using the testimony at trial. Moreover, they now had the testimony of Linda Kasabian that had none of these problems.
Mr. STOVITZ: “…[T]Court in the sound exercise of its discretion should know that in the event we do go to trial in this matter, the cases of People vs. Aranda and People vs. Bruton would bar the People from using Susan Atkins’ testimony before the Grand Jury in the People’s case, either in chief of by way of cross-examination or by way of impeachment, or in rebuttal, and I can make the representation to the Court that at this time that because of the cases of Aranda and Bruton we will not use Susan Atkins’ testimony before the Grand Jury in any way, directly or indirectly”
Kanarek would later use this decision as “evidence” that the Prosecution knew the testimony was tainted because they were complicit in obtaining it.
This Bruton-Aranda issue comes up again with respect to three other out of court statements by Atkins: (1) statement by Virginia Graham purportedly containing conversations with Susan Atkins, (2) tape recorded conversation between Ronnie Howard and Susan Atkins, (3) tape recording of Dianne Lake describing conversation with Susan Atkins.
Peter said...
ReplyDeleteI wonder why the DA would say that he would have only charged his star witness with a lesser crime?
Bugliosi told Joan Huntingdon and Laurence Merrick "under the laws of conspiracy, she would be guilty. But I would never have asked for the death penalty for her...because she didn't go into the house, she didn't do any stabbing." When Joan said that possibly Linda didn't know there was going to be any killing at Cielo Bugliosi says "The 2nd night she did, the 1st night she possibly didn't know. She was guilty." When Joan later asks if she would have got off, that's when Bugliosi says they would have gone for 2nd degree murder for her.
Connecting Manson to the conspiracy was more than just his words or actions those two nights
Well, yes. That was the centrepiece of the entire case. Domination at the very least had to be shown and by the very nature of the beast that had to go back quite a bit further than the 2 nights.
It should be stressed that there were 3 motives and that each motive belonged to Charlie, not just HS.
I think you are incorrect about the GJ testimony. At the very least it could come in to impeach Atkins when she took the stand during the penalty phase if she contradicted herself
It could only be used against her if she recanted which is what happened. Had Susan remained onside with the prosecution, nothing that she said to the GJ could be used against her or her co~defendants. Because that is the deal that she made with the DA's office, not because of anything else.
I bring Susan's testimony up really in relation to Linda, not Susan. The Judge told Daye Shinn that any deal Susan had with the DA disappeared as soon as she took the stand and said she'd lied to the GJ so by the time Atkins was up there testifying, she was fair game. But going to Susan's deal in regards to Linda, before she recanted, the position was that whatever she had said to the GJ could not be used against her. Therefore, with that in mind, Susan would not really have been able to testify against Linda unless there was some evidence pertaining to Linda to corroborate that which she said. Which put the advantage with Linda. What I've been getting at for a while is that by taking the route she took, she took the harder route. And even Bugliosi could see that and says so. You imply that she lied. She had no reason to do so. It doesn't make her any more "get off~able."
Peter said...
ReplyDeleteThis Bruton-Aranda issue comes up again with respect to three other out of court statements by Atkins:...(2)tape recorded conversation between Ronnie Howard and Susan Atkins
Where did Ronnie and Susan have a tape recorded conversation ?
David said...
or the absence of testimony on some matters is at least interesting
I agree with you on that.
As the DA, right, not on cross? How many witnesses are you going to give me or take away? I don't get Atkins, right?
Yes, as the DA. You get whatever is legally available to use as witnesses.
I'm genuinely curious.
Grim said: "Yes, as the DA. You get whatever is legally available to use as witnesses."
ReplyDeleteStill need clarification: I am assuming I don't get Atkins and don't get other Family members who did not testify at the trial. Please confirm.
It will take a bit to put together a case. I'm not an expert on what each witness specifically said from memory. Since I don't think a post, The Trial of Linda Kasabian, is something that would interest many due to the unavoidable legal issues like Burton-Aranda it won't be a priority for me.
Once I get it outlined I'll let you know.
I can tell you this: I would pursue conspiracy to commit murder and felony murder. Both provided a 1st degree murder conviction if proved (making VB's statement there....odd). And I will say I believe I can convict her on both, especially the second.
In a strange twist of irony (for me) one of my key witnesses may end up being Dianne Lake.
Grim.
ReplyDelete"It could only be used against her if she recanted which is what happened. Had Susan remained onside with the prosecution, nothing that she said to the GJ could be used against her or her co~defendants. Because that is the deal that she made with the DA's office, not because of anything else."
I don't know where this comes from. It has no basis in the applicable law or in the facts of this case and is contradicted by what actually appears in the record.
Had Atkins held course she would have testified against Kasabian. And whatever little physical or circumstantial evidence they had against Linda would have provided the hook.
The recorded conversation is referred to in the record. I believe the last day of pretrial motions right before jury selection began.
I think you should get Atkins testimony as to Kasabian' s involvement. Which would basically be her GJ testimony.
ReplyDeleteWe're pretending that the rolls are reversed and that Atkins struck her deal. Right?
Conspiracy and felony murder. Nail her skank ass to the wall Davey.
David said...
ReplyDeletewhy didn't she remember the Frykowski incident until after her interview with VB
I don't know. There again, Winifred Chapman didn't remember washing the door to Sharon Tate's bedroom until ages after and then, only when it was brought up.
since she wasn’t tried we likely don’t have every piece of evidence or testimony that might have been used against her. VB had absolutely no reason to offer any of that
He had no reason to but two years after telling Huntingdon, Merrickson & Hendrickson that he'd have gone for a 2nd degree murder charge against her, he wrote "If Susan didn't testify, we'd need Linda, but without Susan's testimony we had no evidence against Linda so what could we offer her ? Fleischmann wanted immunity for his client, yet from Linda's standpoint it would be better to be tried and acquitted than get immunity, testify against Manson and the others and risk retribution by the Family."
And although it's true we don't have every little thing about Linda, it's also true that nothing in particular that was going to lean her towards conviction came up during the investigation. There were concerns, such as the way she'd left Tanya at Spahn or potential eyebrow raisers like her going out stealing with Sadie but in terms of TLB ? Nothing came up and in retrospect, nothing emerged even in privileged communication between suspects like Atkins and Van Houten and their lawyers.
Nonymous said...
The Mark Ross stuff was interesting
Robert H mentions in his book the intellectual authority that Mark carried with the Family and he could see that he was close with them, but also somewhat nervous of them.
David said...
ReplyDeleteStill need clarification: I am assuming I don't get Atkins and don't get other Family members who did not testify at the trial. Please confirm
Confirmed.
In a strange twist of irony (for me) one of my key witnesses may end up being Dianne Lake
That would be both ironic and, to my warped sense of humour, amusing.
Davey? Only one person ever called me Davey on here and only one in the real world: my mum.
ReplyDeleteGrim said: "I think it (Haught aka Zero) was a highly suspicious death but on the other hand, what else could they call it ? He put a loaded gun against his head and pulled the trigger. The woman that was with him didn't have prints on the gun. There were no kind of mitigating circumstances that suggested murder and when someone did, they weren't prepared to stick around to substantiate what they were saying. "
ReplyDeleteWell I'd call it a potential homicide. The woman with him didn't leave prints because Davis handled the gun after. And a proper investigation would have researched the motives involved. Like Col said a good while back, (paraphrased) cops didn't care about dead hippies.
[Both Ross and Grogan continue to refuse throwing out bigger bones to all researchers and also make themselves look culpable]
Grim said: "One has to ask the question, why should they ? They're not under any obligation to 'researchers'. They're not under suspicion for any deaths. I'm not sure what they would be culpable for."
One doesn't have to ask that question unless you're also going to ask why shouldn't they ? Saying they're not obligated is an oxymoron. Grogan was already convicted of one death and is undoubtedly a walking almanac of all things Manson. Ross is suspect by deep association and the fact the murder/suicide occurred in his house plus the fact he's too scared or worried about self-incrimination to tell us more than he obviously knows (as highlighted in the vid). Between the two of them alone without the others they likely have most if not all the answers to the mysteries.
Do it for mom.
ReplyDeletePeter said...
ReplyDeleteI don't know where this comes from. It has no basis in the applicable law or in the facts of this case and is contradicted by what actually appears in the record.
Had Atkins held course she would have testified against Kasabian. And whatever little physical or circumstantial evidence they had against Linda would have provided the hook
From the agreement between Atkins and the DA's office, dated 4/12/69:
Discussion was had as to whether or not immunity should be given to Susan Atkins in exchange for her testimony at the Grand Jury hearing and subsequent trial. It was decided that she would not be given immunity.
Mr Caballero made it known that at this moment his client may not testify at the trial due to her fear of the physical presence of Charles Manson and the other participants in the Sharon Tate murders.
Discussion was held concerning the value of Susan Atkins’ testimony. Agreement was reached upon the following points:
1. That Susan Atkins’ information has been vital to law enforcement.
2. In view of her past cooperation and in the event that She testifies truthfully at the Grand Jury, the prosecution will not seek the death penalty against her in any of the three cases that are now known to the police; namely, the Hinman murder, the Sharon Tate murders, and
the LaBianca murders.
3. The extent to which the District Attorney’s Office will assist Defense Counsel in an attempt to seek less than a first degree murder, life sentence, will depend upon the extent to which Susan Atkins continues to cooperate.
4. That in the event that Susan Atkins does not testify at the trial or that the prosecution does not use her as a witness at the trial, the prosecution will not use her testimony, given at the Grand Jury,against her.
Bugliosi goes on to write "Caballero had made an excellent deal, as far as his client was concerned. If she testified truthfully before the grand jury, we could not seek the death penalty against her in the Hinman, Tate, and LaBianca cases; nor could we use her grand jury testimony against her or any of her co~defendants when they were
brought to trial. As Caballero later put it, ‘She gave up nothing and got everything in return.’
For our part, I felt we got very much the short end. Susan
Atkins would tell her story at the grand jury. We’d get an indictment. And that would be all we would have, a scrap of paper."
As Bugliosi points out later on, if Susan didn't testify there was nothing on Linda and because of the Aranda ruling by the California supreme court, the prosecution couldn't introduce as evidence any statement by a defendant that implicates another defendant. So whatever Atkins said, provided she went ahead and testified at the trial had to be corroborated. Linda left no physical details of her presence ~ no prints, no bloody clothing thrown away, Rudy Weber couldn't positively identify her etc and the circumstantial stuff was, as was put in a memo, at best, anemic.
The recorded conversation is referred to in the record
Does it say where and when it happened and the circumstances surrounding it ?
David said...
ReplyDeleteI am assuming I don't get Atkins
Just out of interest, suppose you have Atkins ?
Robert C said...
Well I'd call it a potential homicide
So would I. But we say that very much from a hindsight position. My comments about why the police ruled it as they did are from the point of view of November 5th '69.
And a proper investigation would have researched the motives involved
I wonder about that. After all of this time, we don't really have any kind of inkling as to why Zero may have been murdered. There's been all kinds of hints and speculations about others, but never really his that have stuck.
One doesn't have to ask that question unless you're also going to ask why shouldn't they ? Saying they're not obligated is an oxymoron
Earlier you said you were disappointed that they couldn't provide more "such as confirming Reet was at Venice & Spahn." Well, what if she wasn't ? Both men looked at her picture and had no recollection of her. What bones were there to throw out to researchers ?
You also said they made themselves look culpable. Culpable for what exactly ? Ross wasn't at the house when Zero died. As Ziggy pointed out, Clem was in prison until after both deaths. Much of the Family also were when it was known that Reet was still alive {she wrote a postcard on 31st October}.
Yes, Ross made his connection with the Family seem rather less than it was and Robert H comments in his book about Mark's sometime state of mind and it also becomes clear that he had a tighter relationship with them than the impression he gave. But to what end ?
Sometimes we act like people that we think are suspect should acquiesce to our whims and I was questioning that. If you're asking "why shouldn't they answer questions for researchers ? " I'll tell you. There's no reason for them to. There's no inkling that they did anything wrong.
But they did answer what was put to them. Just not how it would have been liked.
Ross is suspect by deep association and the fact the murder/suicide occurred in his house
Actually, that's why neither are under any obligation. To say that someone is suspect because of who they associated with is rather pushing it in my view.
Did anyone else think that Clem's speech structure in the doco still seemed a bit... Manson-y? What i mean by that is during the heyday of the the Family all the members sounded the same in their speech and parroted each other. I've watched the clip a few times and i just thought his speech pattern seemed a bit "off centre"... if that makes sense.
ReplyDeleteAnd just for the record i'm not trying to insinuate anything about Grogan here.. in fact i think it was pretty shit of the 'investigators' to ruin his night by asking him questions about things that don't really even pertain to him except by association.
Grim said: "Bugliosi goes on to write "Caballero had made an excellent deal, as far as his client was concerned. If she testified truthfully before the grand jury, we could not seek the death penalty against her in the Hinman, Tate, and LaBianca cases; nor could we use her grand jury testimony against her or any of her co~defendants when they were
ReplyDeletebrought to trial.'
You do realize the 'deal' as set forth in your comment doesn't say that? Something that has always struck me as 'embellishment' if this is truly the deal.
Grim said: "Just out of interest, suppose you have Atkins ?"
I win because Sanders is absolutely correct. In fact, my preliminary review of this issue appears to make her conviction without Atkins boil down to one fact: is the evidence of her being in the car on one or both nights sufficient? To me there is a strange irony there as that same issue, IMO, convicted Manson. The jury will want to convict. The murders were gruesome. To me, preliminarily- please, that is the only issue I have.
PS: Aranda would have no greater impact on Atkins' testimony then it did on Kasabian's and actually there is more corroborating evidence for the obvious reason she was in the house and Kasabian (allegedly) was not.
[GRIM said: "So would I. But we say that (Haught homicide) very much from a hindsight position. My comments about why the police ruled it as they did are from the point of view of November 5th '69."]
ReplyDeleteNo difference to me. "Back then ..." it was as fuzzy as it is now. A guy without any known motive in bed with at last one woman out of several plus Davis in close proximity decides to shoot himself in the head. Doesn't add up at all. Has suspicion of murder all over it. What would be the motives for that ?
[GRIM said: "I wonder about that. After all of this time, we don't really have any kind of inkling as to why Zero may have been murdered. There's been all kinds of hints and speculations about others, but never really his that have stuck."]
The major players (except for Haught) are still alive and ripe for pressing interviews and more.
[GRIM said: "Both men looked at her (Reet) picture and had no recollection of her. What bones were there to throw out to researchers ?"]
Grogan really didn't clearly answer the question. He got nervous and started talking about how that was another time, he was another person, and he had to go. Ross flat out said he didn't want to say more, not that he didn't know more. There's an implication there he knows more even though he claimed he never saw her before. It's this "knows more" rather than was actively or indirectly involved in the murders of Reet and Haught among others that bothers me. Their fear of retribution or reluctance to self-incriminate.
[GRIM said: "You also said they (Grogan & Ross) made themselves look culpable. Culpable for what exactly ?"]
What I mentioned earlier .... "Grogan was already convicted of one death and is undoubtedly a walking almanac of all things Manson. Ross is suspect by deep association and the fact the murder/suicide occurred in his house plus the fact he's too scared or worried about self-incrimination to tell us more than he obviously knows (as highlighted in the vid). Between the two of them alone without the others they likely have most if not all the answers to the mysteries."
[GRIM said: "Ross wasn't at the house when Zero died."]
How do you know ?
[GRIM said: "To say that someone is suspect because of who they associated with is rather pushing it in my view."]
Not in mine. To begin an investigation everyone associated is suspect until it can be narrowed down.
Robert C said: "Grogan was already convicted of one death and is undoubtedly a walking almanac of all things Manson."
ReplyDeleteI don't know how anyone could possibly argue with that.
He was at dinner on August 8th and likely heard whatever Manson said: "Now is the time for Helter Skelter"
He was in the car August 9th and rode all the way to Venice.
He is frequently suggested as the associate who returned to Cielo with Manson (if that happened).
He was alleged to have been involved with the Hoyt incident at the beginning.
He allegedly went after Schram and Lutesinger when they fled Barker.
DeCarlo claimed he uttered the words "We got five piggies."
Clem was allegedly in the bunk room when the killers returned from Cielo and Manson questioned them about what happened.
Grogan parroted Manson every time he was interviewed or testified.
Yes, I'd say he is a fount of knowledge about all things Manson.
Robert C said: "Not in mine. To begin an investigation everyone associated is suspect until it can be narrowed down."
I have to agree with that one too. Especially since Ross has always been "slippery". Y Lee Freeman: interesting choice for an alias even if he did recant everything he said.
No finger prints on the gun or holster. An unnamed witness claimed there were 6-8 people in Ross' house when Haught was shot. Only 4 were there when the cops showed up. Russian Roulette with a fully loaded gun. It's Ross' house. In fact, I have a recollection there is a police report somewhere that says the gun used was registered to Mark Ross. How is Ross not a suspect?
And remember: "Shorty committed suicide with a little help from us."
Robert C said...
ReplyDelete[GRIM said: "Ross wasn't at the house when Zero died."]
How do you know ?
It was established that he was at an acting class that evening. Cliff asks him in the documentary. Interestingly, the class was run by Laurence Merrick. I think it also comes up in "Inside the Manson Gang." Ross said the police were there when he got back from his class.
Ross didn't want to talk about his further relationship with the Family but it's no secret ~ it's in Robert's film and book. But Ross did say that there were times when he'd enter a room and there was an atmosphere and things would go quiet and from time to time he'd wonder what all that was about. He was adamant that Bruce was in charge and he said that he reflected sometimes "that could have been fucking me, pal !" Which indicates that he, putting together Zero's death and Bruce's later convictions, wasn't entirely sold on the suicide idea, even though he said he could think of no reason they would have had to kill him.
Grogan really didn't clearly answer the question. He got nervous and started talking about how that was another time, he was another person, and he had to go
He asked when she was last seen and said she looked familiar. He said he didn't remember Mark Ross which isn't entirely surprising as the footage they showed him was 47~48 years old. He only started getting nervous and evasive at that point which again, is hardly surprising. There's not many of us that, having committed and then been convicted of murder, would want people around us knowing this in a public forum, especially if we'd changed our name and even if it was nearly 50 years ago !
We already know that the woman on the film they were trying to quiz him on could not have been Reet and Clem wasn't about when Reet and Zero died. So again the question arises, what are you actually saying ?
To begin an investigation everyone associated is suspect until it can be narrowed down
I agree. Which would tend to let Ross out.
The major players (except for Haught) are still alive and ripe for pressing interviews and more
Even assuming that, they didn't talk to any of them {well, they asked Bruce but he declined to be interviewed}.
David said...
Robert C said: "Grogan was already convicted of one death and is undoubtedly a walking almanac of all things Manson."
I don't know how anyone could possibly argue with that
I didn't see anyone arguing with that !
It's Ross' house. In fact, I have a recollection there is a police report somewhere that says the gun used was registered to Mark Ross
I don't know if you've seen the documentary yet but they talk to him about this. He said it was his gun. I did think it was interesting when he said he didn't know Zero enough to mourn him and limited himself to the Zero 'suicide' time frame when speaking with Cliff..
An unnamed witness claimed....
Since when do we accept as fact the claims of an unnamed witness ?
Grim said: "Since when do we accept as fact the claims of an unnamed witness ?"
ReplyDeleteAh, I just mentioned it because VB seemed to believe it, likely because he trusted the reporter- Cohen, I believe, who told him.
Grim said: "I don't know if you've seen the documentary yet ...."
Nope and I'd rather 'watch' it here as I will hear the BS about Reet Jurvetson and it will begin to sound like Charlie Brown's teacher. I recommend anyone wanting to research suspects for her case begin in Malibu and unless you can put oh say Watson there on November 14, 1969 find a different suspect pool.
Grim said: "He said it was his gun."
Grim, that would make him a suspect at least until his alibi checked out. I'm not suggesting he is possibly guilty I was agreeing that for the reasons I stated at the time, if the LAPD had actually treated the case as a homicide those factors make him a suspect and if I were the detective and even if he had an alibi I might try to find some of the hash being smoked in his house and charge him on that basis just to see what he might want to say to avoid the charge.
[GRIM said: " So again the question arises, what are you actually saying ?"]
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm saying is what I again mentioned before < Grogan was already convicted of one death and is undoubtedly a walking almanac of all things Manson. Ross is suspect by deep association and the fact the murder/suicide occurred in his house plus the fact he's too scared or worried about self-incrimination to tell us more than he obviously knows (as highlighted in the vid). Between the two of them alone without the others they likely have most if not all the answers to the mysteries. >
That is, both Grogan and Ross withhold a lot of information that they unfortunately do not feel comfortable revealing for (understandable ? ) aforementioned reasons yet I think for the sake of historical accuracy as well as closure for the victim's families they should take some risk and provide us with revelations. In a way Dianne Lake has recently been brave enough to take that risk even if it's perceived as not full disclosure by some or many.
[GRIM said: " It was established that he (Ross) was at an acting class that evening. "]
Was there time for him to have committed the crime, gone to class and returned to face the police questioning ? Could he have left class early, left after the murder, and returned to face the police with his alibi ? Or does he simply know the details of why Haught was shot and doesn't want to reveal for fear of personal safety ? And how did Haught get his hands on the gun owned by Ross ? Or was Haught even holding the gun when it went off causing the fatality ? And didn't Davis tell the police Haught was playing Russian roulette when the gun was fully loaded ? And did Cottage, purportedly with Haught at the fatal moment, pull the trigger ? Lots of unanswered questions here. And then in the vid Ross simply doesn't want to discuss it !!! He didn't say he didn't know ... he said he didn't want to answer much of anything beyond saying he didn't not recognize Reet (but that she could possibly have been in his house at some point !!!!).
[GRIM said: " I agree. Which would tend to let Ross out (as a suspect)."]
Not in an initial investigation. Ross should have been more thoroughly questioned regarding what was happening in his house and how his gun wound up being the weapon of choice not to mention where he'd been all along. I mean if the same happened to me in my city today I'd be down at the local police station in a NY minute along with everyone else at the gathering in my house, for starters being pumped for who else was there and left before the police arrived, why the finger prints on the gun were gone and why did Blah-Blah handle the gun afterward ? I mean with 4 or 8 people, under individual questioning (interrogation), someone's going to slip, blab, or the stories are not likely to match which gives more information for the police to pursue.
[GRIM said: " Since when do we accept as fact the claims of an unnamed witness "]
Put in context I don't think David said it was a fact, only that a witness suggested there were perhaps 6 to 8 (presumably not including Haught) people there at the time, up from the four living ones found.
David said...
ReplyDeleteAranda would have no greater impact on Atkins' testimony then it did on Kasabian's and actually there is more corroborating evidence for the obvious reason she was in the house and Kasabian (allegedly) was not
But is there corroborating evidence against Kasabian ? In Simon Davis' book, he puts together an interesting set list of circumstantial evidence against Manson that, when put in the way he does, is very strong and as often happens, one set of circumstantial evidence points to and possibly combines with another. Atkins could corroborate pretty much anything against Pat and Tex. What independent proof, physical or circumstantial, existed with Kasabian ? What proof was there that she was in the car on either night outside of Atkins' say so ?
Her GJ testimony wasn't sufficient to even indict Clem. So loopholes existed for certain individuals.
If all of this happened today or if DNA technology was used back then as it is now, then Linda would have been shitting bricks because there's a possibility some of her would have transferred to the clothes she chucked over the ravine.
if I were the detective and even if he had an alibi I might try to find some of the hash being smoked in his house and charge him on that basis just to see what he might want to say to avoid the charge
That's pretty inventive ! I get the feeling that it may not have been taken that seriously as a charge by then {it barely touched Paul Watkins or Stephanie Schram and they were just teenagers when they got busted} but for all that, it may well have shaken him sufficiently in combination with having been shaken by a death in his house and by some of the behaviour of his guests that he later said made him wonder.
Assuming there was no physical evidence, or statements by Kasabian implicating herself. The only corroborating evidence in addition to Atkins's testimony had she testified for the prosecution, would be the testimony of someone that did not participate in the murders, linking Linda to the crime. So someone like Dianne or Hoyt testifying that they saw Kasabian drive off with the others would probably be the best you could do. But if believable could be enough.
ReplyDeleteCalifornia Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) (2017)
335. Accomplice Testimony: No Dispute Whether Witness Is Accomplice
Supporting evidence, however, may be slight. It does not need to be
enough, by itself, to prove that the defendant is guilty of the charged
crime, and it does not need to support every fact (mentioned by the
accomplice in the statement/ [or] about which the witness testified). On
the other hand, it is not enough if the supporting evidence merely shows
that a crime was committed or the circumstances of its commission. The
supporting evidence must tend to connect the defendant to the
commission of the crime.
Robert C said...
ReplyDeleteboth Grogan and Ross withhold a lot of information that they unfortunately do not feel comfortable revealing for (understandable ? ) aforementioned reasons yet I think for the sake of historical accuracy as well as closure for the victim's families they should take some risk and provide us with revelations
On this specific case ? I couldn't see anything Grogan was withholding. He was in custody when both Zero & Reet died. He thought the woman in the film clip was Cathy Gillies {interesting in itself that he remembered her}. Now, he may have info that Zero was murdered or of other murders, but that's kind of our call isn't it ? The same could be said of Leslie or Pat or Bruce or Tex {especially !}. It's an assumption on our part that information is being withheld. Grogan was obviously uncomfortable being questioned on the subject but who wouldn't be ? But he answered he questions that were put to him. He didn't want to go into detail about his past to two guys who just amble into his workspace that he doesn't know from Adam {no pun intended}.
Did Ross withold ? What he refused to go into was his connection with the Family after the death of Zero. He talked about the gun being his, he said he didn't know how they found it as it was in a couple of boxes and concluded that the people staying in his house {he said there were 7 of them} had been rifling through his stuff and were up to some strange shenanigans but at the time, did the hippie thing and respected their privacy with his willingness to live and let live.
I mean with 4 or 8 people, under individual questioning (interrogation), someone's going to slip, blab, or the stories are not likely to match which gives more information for the police to pursue
According to HS, they were questioned individually and the stories of Linda, Sue, Cappy & Bruce all tallied.
Interestingly, none of them nor the nameless guy that spoke to the reporter Jerry Cohen said anything about Ross being around. I can only assume he would have been checked out.
One thing caught my attention though and that was that the call came from one of the people in the house and when the Police arrived, the body was still warm so there wasn't much time to synchronize alibis if that's what happened.
Maybe Zero being a little hashed shot himself without meaning to actually kill himself, after remarking that there was only one bullet in the gun and spinning the barrel.
Like you, I don't believe it was a suicide. All I'm saying is that I can understand why the Police listed it as one.
It's the last of the deaths or attempted 'misdemeanors' with a Manson connection that was treated with anything less than full attention and suspicion. In fact, from here onwards the Family would be seen to be responsible for almost everything as we see from the principal players in this documentary.
[Grim said: " On this specific case ? I couldn't see anything Grogan was withholding. He was in custody when both Zero & Reet died." ]
ReplyDeleteWhat they were after with Grogan was his visual recognition of Reet, not his involvement in her murder since we know of his restrained whereabouts at that time. If Grogan had said yeah, he'd seen Reet a couple of times at Spahn then that strengthens the connection between Reet's acquaintance, death and the MF.
But I was not confident Grogan really made a sufficient effort to try and remember Reet due to his nervousness and urge to flee. Like Windy Bucklee said on the vid, Reet probably didn't look like her high school formal pic while running around LA and especially Spahn if she were there. I felt the same way with Ross when he looked at Reets pics for half a second and said nope even though at the second meeting he asked to see them again. I think they both needed to have a good look and imagine what she might have looked like as a free spirit in those halcyon days.
Grogan may also as you suggest have information regarding Haught's demise but that's not what the researchers were focused on in the vid ... yet (meaning the future because Shepard is still on this cold case). Meanwhile, Ross also carries similar culpability for refusing to disclose what he knows about the Haught case and other high crimes and misdemeanors of the MF.
[Grim said: " It's an assumption on our part that information is being withheld."]
Well of course, silly, but an extremely accurate one with high probability. Both David and I highlighted that. You even agreed yourself.
Beyond this I referenced Grogan & Ross more generically with regards to their knowledge base with all things MF -- once they (and the others too) die off then it's truly over except for the continued titillation of trivia research. That is, except for you flying over here with a shovel to dig for evidence, there's very little else to be learned at this point unless one or more of them blab, even a little like Dianne, or a credible witness appears. So we're counting on you and your shovel.
But then next there's the Willett couple's case that needs to be worked on too ....
there's culpability all over that one times two ....
Robert C said: " Like Windy Bucklee said on the vid, Reet probably didn't look like her high school formal pic while running around LA and especially Spahn if she were there."
ReplyDeleteDammit Robert! You are going to make me watch this crap. They have her cloths: knee high natural colored leather boots (buckle at the top on the outside), fairly worn/scuffed, a rather unique looking two inch wide belt, blue genes and a blue corduroy jacket similar in style to what we might call a blue gene jacket if a bit longer and a T-shirt.
One could fairly easily photoshop her into them and then show them the picture, which might be interesting.
Unless they did that......
David -- yeah, the History Channel is in the business of entertainment, not historical accuracy. But if you can wade through both parts there's definitely some interesting nuggets. I enjoyed seeing Ross as he is now and listening to Grogan,
ReplyDeleteIt was stated in the vid Ross was surprised the investigators found him. I don't know how Grogan felt when he found out two recognized him from his past nor what he might do about it like move and disappear or ? Or was he already aware he's been outed ?
Also David - I don't recall any fully clothed body pics of Reet shown to those guys in the vids, just two formal head shots and a third of her post-mortum. (psssst -- it's jeans, not genes ;-)
ReplyDeleteGenes: Damn! Thanks, Robert.
ReplyDeleteThis documentary was shit. it had something to do with somethings, but overall, it was a TV show. I'm from Sweden, I've kept up with everything on this blog, even the hour long comments to read. And for that, I can honestly say that they did not o enough research. This was a TV show that was designed or us all to agree with the show. Yes you had deb from the blog on, but c'mon. I'm sure deb even had higher hopes on this "documentary"... seriously, so American. all about stigma. do some reseach. About "Zero" ... susan atkins had sex with him when he shot himself, according to her cellmate Ronnie Howard. And "aesop called it a ritual according to "Inside the Manson Gang Movie".. c'mooooon. research America.
ReplyDeleteHello Lily. Politics aside (Sweden vs. America), I've heard that before too about what Atkins and "Aesop" said. The question is, do you believe them ?
ReplyDeleteLily said: "susan atkins had sex with him when he shot himself"
ReplyDeleteHaught (Zero) shot himself (allegedly) November 5, 1969. Atkins was in jail.
I did mention to the production crew about the piece from the Henrickson film which has Ronnie Howard “discussing” the Zero "murder". While Howard misappropriates names etc (and is largely an unreliable personality) I felt it was worth at least an examination.
ReplyDelete"even the hour long comments to read."
ReplyDeleteGrim
There's a time for Sun Tzu's "The Art of War," there's a time for Tolstoy's "War and Peace."
ReplyDeleteSun Tzu and your comments? Come on Grim- step back from that. Tolstoy? On various levels, 'yes'. I would agree.
ReplyDeleteAnd not just length
ReplyDeleteDavid said...
ReplyDeleteSun Tzu and your comments? Come on Grim- step back from that
😆 😆
THE whole thing wasnt very good, the best part was confronting clem in oakland,ca ...im surprised he was so nice to them. he could have just told them to fuck off...lol..i like when clem said ''that guy is dead'' ...
ReplyDeleteMark Ross(Aesop Aquarian) on Starsky & Hutch playing a very Manson like cult leader. Kinda interesting!http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2r3u5a
ReplyDeleteThanks for that link, James. He wasn't a bad actor. Aside from the frightening changes in his appearance, did anyone notice his fingernails?
ReplyDeleteMatt lmao! Yes! I saw the nails. Ew yuck! If those nails could talk!
DeleteWatching the show now. I am friends with Marlin Marynick, the author who provided the interview tapes. It was interesting to see him and to learn that he had these tapes and was willing to share them.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, what drew me to this blog was my immediate connection of Mark Ross/Aesop Aquarian to the Source family. I knew instantly that that must’ve been the reason for the name change. It’s funny that the detectives or “research expert “ had no inkling of the very obvious connection.
Those links must be expired, they take me to 404 pages. Anyone have a copy of this to share, or know where else it may be available for viewing?
ReplyDeleteNick said...
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone have links to the Reelz Documentary, Final Words?
Dani_P said...
I'm watching the REELZ special right now and they have Bobby and Cappy talking
grimtraveller said...
Sounds like an interesting documentary; I'd like to see it
Purely by chance a couple of nights ago, I found it and watched it. I was just ready to crash out but I stayed up and watched it because you never know whether these uploaded videos will be taken down before I get around to watching it.
It was interesting and I'm surprised just how similar it is to the History channel one; for example, they both interview Stephen Kay and Michael Channels, they both utilize the input of well respected TLB bloggers {DebS and in this case, Cats77}, they both intersperse the action with Charlie's voice from phone calls, they both play fast and loose with the views of authors that we know {in this case, George Stimson. Much of their conclusion runs counter to his} and both come with an agenda, primarily an anti HS & prosecution one, that causes much twisting the night away and leaves the viewer with more of a convoluted leap of imagination to contend with than HS ever does.
The REELZ one has Charlie blaming Bobby for suggesting copycats and also puts them on Tex; Bobby, in his zeal to discredit Bugliosi's book declares he'd rather spend the rest of his life in jail than cop to anything in the book and be free and by some of the things he says, demonstrates that he really does know less about the case than mere bloggers, which I find curious, to say the least.
There's much inaccurate info and Cathy Gillies puts herself in the position of either having to admit she lied on the stand about wanting to go and help with the murders or admit she's lying in this documentary by saying she didn't know what was going on and that Pat & Leslie were protecting her by not letting her get in the car on the Saturday night. Either way, it's a bit of a pig's ear. I was also intrigued by her statement of Linda's involvement, something of a throwback to the Family line during the penalty phase, yet has never been substantiated.
To be honest, they couldn't have chosen two worse reps to scotch the prosecution angle than Cappy & Bobby.
George gives a good account of himself but all the various angles given as to motive rather cools his ardour. And it felt like Babs Hoyt's contribution got chopped before anything she said that didn't fit the maker's criteria. Brian, the radio guy seemed to have only one direction in which to go and that was scotching the prosecution, no matter what it meant or how higgeldy piggeldy it leaves the alternatives.
So, all in all, I have to conclude that while it's no worse than the History channel one, it can't claim to be better either.
starviego said...
ReplyDeleteA couple of real revelations from the Assistant Prosecutor Steven Kay:
Part II 1:00:20
Steven Kay: "(Manson) threatened Ronald Hughes, who knew Manson and the Family before the murders. He was a UCLA law student and he would go out to Spahn Ranch and do drugs with the Family."
Narrator: "Despite having spent time with the Family recreationally, Hughes was never indoctrinated into the fold. There's no evidence he bought into Charlie's world view, but he was close enough to get wrapped up into the drama of a murder trial."
But his stuff about Ronald Hughes was off the scale. Has anyone else ever heard that he knew the Family pre TLB and had been to Spahn ? I'd read that somewhere recently but it wasn't substantiated
Well, well, well. In Charlie's "speech" during his TLB trial, he actually confirms this. When talking about the .22 Bunline gun as evidence and saying that he didn't deny having the gun, he stated "Mr Hughes has been over to my house several times before these trials. The Police come by at least 3 times a week. They go through the house. They have seen the gun. It lays in the corner. People play with it like as if it was a toy. Anybody could have picked that gun up and done anything they wanted to do with it."
At first, I wondered if he was being ambiguous as to when, like did he mean Hughes went to Spahn after he was in jail but before the trials actually started {to interview potential witnesses, for example} but Manson is clearly putting Hughes' visits in the same time frame as that of the Police and that of when the gun was actually around which could only mean when Charlie was around.
David said...
ReplyDeleteDavid said...
Grim said: "Bugliosi goes on to write 'Caballero had made an excellent deal, as far as his client was concerned. If she testified truthfully before the grand jury, we could not seek the death penalty against her in the Hinman, Tate, and LaBianca cases; nor could we use her grand jury testimony against her or any of her co~defendants when they were brought to trial.'"
You do realize the 'deal' as set forth in your comment doesn't say that? Something that has always struck me as 'embellishment' if this is truly the deal
If you ever look in on this David; for the past year, I've wondered what you meant by this. What do you mean ?
David said...
ReplyDeleteIn fact, my preliminary review of this issue appears to make her conviction without Atkins boil down to one fact: is the evidence of her being in the car on one or both nights sufficient? To me there is a strange irony there as that same issue, IMO, convicted Manson. The jury will want to convict. The murders were gruesome. To me, preliminarily- please, that is the only issue I have.
Aranda would have no greater impact on Atkins' testimony than it did on Kasabian's and actually there is more corroborating evidence for the obvious reason she was in the house and Kasabian (allegedly) was not
But what would be the corroborating evidence against Kasabian ?
Correct me where I'm wrong here ¬> going through Simon Davis' book and the way he lays out the evidence against Charles Manson that is independent of anything Kasabian said, when added to what Kasabian testified, one can see that it was the corroborative evidence {philosophy, motive, gun, rope, witnesses etc} working together, plus the conspiracy taking in both nights as one conspiracy that helped slamdunk Manson. There was further independent stuff against Krenwinkel {print}, Atkins {jailhouse confession} and Van Houten {Dianne Lake} that settled their hash. They were convicted long before they started confessing all in the penalty phase. But Steve Grogan wasn't even charged. Primarily because there was nothing to link him to the murders independent of Atkins or later Kasabian. Juan Flynn's testimony wouldn't have been sufficient ~ and it's debatable if it would have been in Kasabian's case. I don't believe that simply being in the car is what convicted Manson. It's a whole lot more than that. In the same way that it's an oversimplification that the motive convicted him.
Part of what I don't understand is this: when you say Aranda wouldn't have had any greater impact on Atkins' than it did on Kasabian, do you mean that from the point of view of Atkins not testifying, so it doesn't come into play at all ? It appears that Aranda didn't affect much of Kasabian's testimony because there was corroboration {or corroboration of sorts} where she mentioned Manson. In that regard I really heartily disagree with George when he says in his book that she didn't really say anything that specifically pinned down Charles Manson to murder/conspiracy. Not when one puts together the verbal and the corroborative evidence. But the togetherness isn't there for Kasabian. There's nothing outside of the words of the perps that places her at any of the venues.
Matt posts here that none of the footage in the 1973 documentary, “Manson” was shot before Reet was murdered, and at one point Matt claims that the footage in question was shot in 1970, but in fact, filming began in late 1969. Reet was found murdered in November 1969, so there is a very good chance that she IS the girl in the footage. The girl in the footage also just so happens to look exactly like Reet.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how many people on this blog were even born or old enough to remember when the Manson murders took place. I was.
Just curious how many others here actually remember the murders, and how many have been swayed by the mythology surrounding Manson. Make no mistake. He deserved to be locked up his entire life. I’m sickened by the people who want to romanticize Manson.
Unknown said...
ReplyDeleteClem said right away when shown picture that's Gilles
And he was wrong as wrong can be. There's footage of Cathy Gillies from the same batch shot by Hendrickson that was shown to Grogan. The two women don't look remotely alike and you don't need to have met Cathy Gillies to see that although it was interesting that the Col made the same error earlier.
I tend to really look at people and their features.
Genevieve Gelatto said...
at one point Matt claims that the footage in question was shot in 1970, but in fact, filming began in late 1969. Reet was found murdered in November 1969, so there is a very good chance that she IS the girl in the footage. The girl in the footage also just so happens to look exactly like Reet
Though filming began in late '69, it is important to establish exactly when because sometimes, dates become vital evidence that put an argument, supposition, assertions or speculation to bed forever.
The girl in the film is not and could not be Reet because by the time the girl in the film was actually filmed {whenever that was}, Reet was long dead.
This can be established beyond all doubt.
Robert Hendrickson did not begin filming the Family until he had it from Charlie Manson that he could do so. He tells us in "Death to pigs" that Charlie gave the word to Gypsy to let it happen and it happened.
Charlie gave this word to Gypsy when he was in the LA County jail ~ a place he did not enter until the second week of December 1969, after Susan Atkins had testified before the Grand Jury. The importance of that testifying is simply this; it was that that brought the indictment against Manson that brought him from Independence to LA.
As you point out, Reet was found in November '69.
The girl was not Reet. And she wasn't Cathy Gillies. It's unimportant who she was.