I wonder if this documentary will mention the name Bobby Beausoleil. MOST Manson documentaries haven't, even though his incarceration was the reason that the TLB murders happened.
Tennant claimed that the baby had been cut from the womb, according to his brother. That to me was the most astounding revelation in the interview series.
Listened to the first one, the brother of William Tennant and found it fascinating! His description of Sharon as fragile and not looking him in the eye, and shaking. I could picture that, to some extent, from the interviews and footage of her. Debra Tate felt like she was watching her sister in Once upon A Time...In Hollywood, but characterization in the movie is much more cheerful and confident. I guess she was a mix of both. Says he's pretty sure he saw Watson outside the Sea Witch club with friends of his. Says Roman was with underage girls and boys. Describes the paranoia following the murders, and some of the scruffy people who'd previously invited to parties and one kicked out of the Tate residence.
http://downtownlalife.com/ is where Dr. Don Noyes of the first interview has several pieces on Sharon Tate. There is a link to Sharon Marie Tate on the left column.
That is an interview with Steven's girlfriend at the time. Once upon a time I tried to get her to speak with me. She did not respond. These guys had better luck, fortunately, and obtained what I could not. IMO it is well worth the listen- no zingers, no new information about the crime but a very real perspective on Steven Parent, how this impacted her life at the time (and after) and a heart wrenching bit about her final meeting with him.
David- legal question not pertaining to this thread:
A & B conspire to kill C. B actually kills C, A is not present. A is on trial for the murder of C prior to it being proven that B actually killed C. Can it be proven that a conspiracy between A & B makes A culpable for the murder given B has not been proven guilty of any crime?
prefeteria said: " As soon as she said – I was bawn and raised in El Monte Califawnia – I thought East Coast and stopped listening. "
That's the notorious 'SoCal drawl' that people from that area had in earlier generations even up to and including mine (which is now old). Things have changed quite dramatically down there in the last 60-80 years.
David said: " I started with the last one."
So did I and I agree while it doesn't reveal a whole lot about the case it helped make Steven Parent more of a real person than a tragic one-dimensional entity.
I’m on episode 3 and so far, that’s the most entertaining (if you can call it that) of the first 3. He’s at the part where he’s discussing LVH and her role as lesser than the others (in the eyes of the jury).
He found Linda’s testimony to be the most damaging.
I also find it very interesting that the main points we seem to argue about here the most (HS and it’s validity or falsehood) didn’t seem to have much relevance is his eyes or the other jury members. And he stated almost as fact, that Charlie just wanted fame (which he received thru infamy) and that the motives seemed weird.
Thanks for posting, Matt! Can’t wait to listen to the remainder!
I was first struck by the episode with Steven's girlfriend. I am always very interested to learn more about the victims as people ... good, bad or in-between.
I also find it very interesting that the main points we seem to argue about here the most (HS and it’s validity or falsehood) didn’t seem to have much relevance is his eyes or the other jury members
I've just finished a very interesting book called "Inside the Manson jury ~ from deliberation to death sentence." It was written by Herman Tubick, who was the jury foreman. The interesting thing is that he finished it in 1973. It wasn't ever intended for publication; he said that he didn't want to profit from crime or put the families of the victims through any more pain and stress. So he and his wife Helen wrote it and when it was done, left it in a box and forgot about it. Tubick himself died the same year Clem was paroled {1985} and it wasn't until a couple of years ago or last year that their daughter who has been a nun most of her life {both his daughters were nuns} happened to find the manuscript and gave it to their cousin who was collecting family heirlooms and he got in touch with the same Deborah Herman that helped Diane Lake with her book and published it. While there are many talking points regarding the book and a few mistakes and lots of spelling and punctuation oversights, it's a really good book. In it, William McBride is also interviewed in bits and gives his perspective, which is very insightful. And for the purposes of those that think that the jury was duped by a motive made up by Vincent Bugliosi, Tubick makes it clear throughout that it was the evidence presented that swayed them, not the motive. He says it was the witnesses on the stand and the evidence; McBride says more or less the same thing. Rosemary Baer, wife of juror John Baer, doesn't emphasize the motive in her book "Reflections on the Manson Trial" that came out in '72 and William Zamora {of whom Tubick is as close to savage as he gets throughout, he really didn't think much of him !} says the same thing. The motive wasn't really a big thing for them. They thought it was weird, yes. But that's not why they convicted and voted death. And though it may come as a surprise to some, the way that the defendants behaved in court, even Manson attacking the Judge, drawing a knife across the throat at Linda Kasabian and punching Irving Kanarek, Atkins throwing down Bugliosi's notes and the chanting and threats, had no bearing on their decision. Because whatever decision they made had to be able to stand up according to the evidence.
Hey Grim- I don’t think of the courtroom antics would be significant to the jury- it was the rest of the world that was solidified and why Charlie was publicly elevated to the status of leader of the family. The family members proved that.
Why didn’t they hold curbside vigils for Bobby? I know why they didn’t, I get it, simply making the point that had not other things been in the works, why wouldn’t they have done the same for Bobby?
Thank you all for listening to my series, and for posting it on this terrific blog!
More than finding any new information on the case, I wanted to pursue more of a human interest angle and hear the stories of people who were on the edges of this infamous history. What role has it had in their lives for the past 50 years?
I know if I set eyes upon Jay Sebring just a few hours before his murder, I would replay the image of him in my mind again and again. Stevens girlfriend really moved me as well. The regret she had over their last exchange. It took two years to get her to interview with me. The juror did say to me (in a section I think I edited out) that he and the other jurors reunited a couple of times over the years. And I think Tennant’s revelation that he thought he saw the baby cut out...I’m sure the sight of her was so horrific that his mind filled in something even more graphic.
I might post another episode soon. Someone else who has never been interviewed got in touch with me last week. If the interview happens, it could fill in some info on Gary Hinman.
Just finished the series. It was very entertaining and gleaned a lot from each episode. A unique, inside perspective from all of those involved. Thanks again for posting, Matt!
"That's the notorious 'SoCal drawl' that people from that area had in earlier generations even up to and including mine (which is now old). Things have changed quite dramatically down there in the last 60-80 years."
Wow, thanks!
I just finished watching the 1976 Helter Skelter on DVD and I had two main criticisms:
1. Thought the acting of the Manson girls was mostly terrible. There was a style of "trashy chick" acting that was popularized in the 1950s-60s (see any Elia Kazan movie, or movie with Lee Remick).
2. The girls' accents. I thought they were too New York because the actresses came from NYC.
Excellent call on both Kazan and the Lee Remick school of acting. I remain convinced that she is absolutely the worst "legitimate" actress I have ever seen.
prefeteria said: " As soon as she said – I was bawn and raised in El Monte Califawnia – I thought East Coast and stopped listening. "
That's the notorious 'SoCal drawl' that people from that area had in earlier generations even up to and including mine (which is now old). Things have changed quite dramatically down there in the last 60-80 years.
For what little it's worth, to my ear this is indeed an "old Anglo" SCal accent. I was born and grew up near Bakersfield (lots of "Okie" accents),and lived and worked in S Cal until 1987.
Also, I believe you can hear some of the early mid-west in that kind of accent, and the descriptive terms and exclamations are pretty folksy.
There is a definitive LA-type accent that's shaped by class and culture and for this I'd suggest The Beach Boy's songs, and Robert Redford. There can be a very hard R, and in some cases there's a lot of nasality.
Somewhat off-putting is the silly background music accompanying the introduction of "Tina". This shouts "We're presenting a human interest backstory, now, friends!" And this immediately suggests that someone is into manipulating the listener's emotions.
That said, in the small part of the Tina interview I listened to, she seem to me to be a legitimate long-time resident of the area, and she sounds very much like the old-time Anglo Californians I grew up with and later met.
"Excellent call on both Kazan and the Lee Remick school of acting. I remain convinced that she is absolutely the worst "legitimate" actress I have ever seen."
Heh, thanks.
It really wasn't Kazan's or Remick's fault - it was a style of the times that lasted too long.
Kazan was a great director, and Remick did excellent work in movies & stage later on, when she aged out of her sex kitten persona. But that sex kitten stuff gives me da creeps (see early Jane Fonda for more of same.)
There is something of material interest in the interview with Dennis Hurst, tape 2, The Delivery Man.
According the the First Homicide Report, two steamer trunks were delivered at 4:30 PM on the 8th. There has been considerable speculation on where those trunks were located in 10050 Cielo Drive after delivery.
Hurst delivered the bike at about 7:30 PM of the 8th. He spoke with Sebring briefly as Sebring opened the front door and stood in the entryway.
It would be interesting to ask Hurst if he can recall seeing any trunks in the entry, when he spoke to Sebring. If he can positively recall not seeing them, we might next infer that they were already in the LR, near where they were knocked over.
This might tighten the intrusion/attack sequence somewhat, tending to eliminate or narrow some rearrangement of the trunks by the intruders.
Perhaps this information was in his trial testimony, or in any interviews with Bugliosi.
Yes. B does not have to be proven guilty of the crime for A to be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder as long as the DA can prove the conspiracy (agreement) between A and B, with a specific intent to commit murder and that C was murdered by a co-conspirator (B) in the course of the conspiracy.
David, thank you! It seems odd to me that until B is proven guilty that conspiracy could be applied. In my example, we know B killed C but if applied to our judicial system, A’s jury doesn’t know for a fact that B killed C, correct?
I assumed from your scenario that the DA knew B killed C and could prove it. If he didn't the DA would not bring charges until he could. The scenario is not that different from what might have happened with TLB.
At the outset the original lawyers for SA and LVH wanted to sever their trials from Manson because they were going to use diminished capacity and throw Manson under the bus. If all three had been severed would they have proceeded against Manson? Yes.
But if they can't prove a co-conspirator actually committed the murder they would not bring charges until they did. But they don't need a conviction of B to proceed: as with Tex under the scenario, above.
Did the book mention any of the jurors being annoyed or effected by Kanarek’s tactics?
Oh gosh, yes. Although from time to time all the defence lawyers annoyed them with what they saw as stalling tactics, Kanarek was more than the main culprit. Much of their irritation stemmed from the fact that they were sequestered for so many months and spent Thanksgiving and Christmas at the Ambassador hotel. Tubick lost his brother during the trial and one of the alternate jurors {they were holed up right there along with the regular jurors} lost his Dad. Because they both believed in serving their community and country, neither left the jury to attend the funerals. Come to think of it, William Zamora lost his sometime lover during the trial too. In general, none of them wanted to be there and therefore anything that prolonged the trial, especially if it came across as frivolous, was grist to the mill in justifying their angst. There were a number of times during the trial when they saw no action for days and no one was allowed to explain what the reasons were. It was actually quite funny how easily they seemed to see through Kanarek's tactics. I think he may even have been unofficially scapegoated for their lengthy time away. If you can find a copy of the book, it's worth a read. It's not perfect but at least there's no wild fanciful conspiracy theories. There's some nice touches that are quite surprising, like when it was Herman Tubick's birthday, as he walked into court, he says Charlie looked at him and mouthed "happy birthday" and later when the women were being taken on a route that passed the jury room, they started singing "happy birthday." I also thought it was funny that Manson would try to have staring contests with the jury. They could rarely beat him !
I listened to the last one with Steven Parent's girlfriend, finally, and it was really poignant and personal. I just have a hard time squaring what she is saying with a previous post about Steven having a male lover at the same time. From her point of view it seems as if he had nothing else going on, but it's hard to know. I'm guessing if the interviewer knew the stories of his supposed gay life he kept quiet so as not to ruin the interview.
Off topic but...Erica Gavin posted a rare photo two says ago on FB (printed on a matchbook to hand out...must've been many more at one time) of her and Paul Fitzgerald taken during the time they began dating during the trial.
This has a bizarre "six degrees" with Gavin in Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, the women in BtVotD wearing the actual clothing worn by Sharon Tate at al in Valley of the Dolls, the bloodbath at the end of Beyond being influenced by TLB, Gavin having to deal with Squeaky crashing at her home...which made her uneasy...etc...
I can't repost it hear but, IF interested, check her FB page or Google it.
Just a curio...no big deal but interesting nonetheless
Interesting interview with Steve Parent girlfriend. I was working while I was listening to it so I may have missed something. She talks about seeing her prom photo in the HS book. She contacts a lawyer but didn't hear if anything came of it. I am surprised that VB didn't need to get her permission to use it. Back then, it wouldn't have been posted public on social media which would have made it public access. So I wonder where Vince got the photo from. I can't imagine that Parent's parents would have given it to him. Maybe he got ahold of the yearbook or something. I missed all of that or there were no answers to that.
On the vice channel a show called Hamilton's Pharmacopia who does he visit hidden in the lonely desert of new Mexico no none other than Mr Willey from the infamous group from the LA area The Process Church of the Final Judgement he was one of the high ranking member
I wonder if this documentary will mention the name Bobby Beausoleil. MOST Manson documentaries haven't, even though his incarceration was the reason that the TLB murders happened.
ReplyDeleteKindve like how most who petition for BB’s freedom conveniently forget to bring up Sassy Bottoms.
ReplyDeleteTennant claimed that the baby had been cut from the womb, according to his brother. That to me was the most astounding revelation in the interview series.
ReplyDeleteIs there something I haven’t already seen in these if I have all/most of the books/films/etcetcetc?
ReplyDeleteListened to the first one, the brother of William Tennant and found it fascinating! His description of Sharon as fragile and not looking him in the eye, and shaking. I could picture that, to some extent, from the interviews and footage of her. Debra Tate felt like she was watching her sister in Once upon A Time...In Hollywood, but characterization in the movie is much more cheerful and confident. I guess she was a mix of both.
ReplyDeleteSays he's pretty sure he saw Watson outside the Sea Witch club with friends of his.
Says Roman was with underage girls and boys. Describes the paranoia following the murders, and some of the scruffy people who'd previously invited to parties and one kicked out of the Tate residence.
http://downtownlalife.com/ is where Dr. Don Noyes of the first interview has several pieces on Sharon Tate. There is a link to Sharon Marie Tate on the left column.
ReplyDeleteWell I only saw one piece on Tate by him, then a story on something else by him.
ReplyDeleteI started with the last one.
ReplyDeleteThat is an interview with Steven's girlfriend at the time. Once upon a time I tried to get her to speak with me. She did not respond. These guys had better luck, fortunately, and obtained what I could not. IMO it is well worth the listen- no zingers, no new information about the crime but a very real perspective on Steven Parent, how this impacted her life at the time (and after) and a heart wrenching bit about her final meeting with him.
David- legal question not pertaining to this thread:
DeleteA & B conspire to kill C. B actually kills C, A is not present. A is on trial for the murder of C prior to it being proven that B actually killed C. Can it be proven that a conspiracy between A & B makes A culpable for the murder given B has not been proven guilty of any crime?
David – how did you validate that "Tina" from #6 was for real?
ReplyDeleteAs soon as she said – I was bawn and raised in El Monte Califawnia – I thought East Coast and stopped listening.
prefeteria said: " As soon as she said – I was bawn and raised in El Monte Califawnia – I thought East Coast and stopped listening. "
ReplyDeleteThat's the notorious 'SoCal drawl' that people from that area had in earlier generations even up to and including mine (which is now old). Things have changed quite dramatically down there in the last 60-80 years.
David said: " I started with the last one."
So did I and I agree while it doesn't reveal a whole lot about the case it helped make Steven Parent more of a real person than a tragic one-dimensional entity.
I’m on episode 3 and so far, that’s the most entertaining (if you can call it that) of the first 3. He’s at the part where he’s discussing LVH and her role as lesser than the others (in the eyes of the jury).
ReplyDeleteHe found Linda’s testimony to be the most damaging.
I also find it very interesting that the main points we seem to argue about here the most (HS and it’s validity or falsehood) didn’t seem to have much relevance is his eyes or the other jury members. And he stated almost as fact, that Charlie just wanted fame (which he received thru infamy) and that the motives seemed weird.
Thanks for posting, Matt! Can’t wait to listen to the remainder!
I was first struck by the episode with Steven's girlfriend. I am always very interested to learn more about the victims as people ... good, bad or in-between.
ReplyDeleteAstroCreep said...
ReplyDeleteI also find it very interesting that the main points we seem to argue about here the most (HS and it’s validity or falsehood) didn’t seem to have much relevance is his eyes or the other jury members
I've just finished a very interesting book called "Inside the Manson jury ~ from deliberation to death sentence." It was written by Herman Tubick, who was the jury foreman. The interesting thing is that he finished it in 1973. It wasn't ever intended for publication; he said that he didn't want to profit from crime or put the families of the victims through any more pain and stress. So he and his wife Helen wrote it and when it was done, left it in a box and forgot about it. Tubick himself died the same year Clem was paroled {1985} and it wasn't until a couple of years ago or last year that their daughter who has been a nun most of her life {both his daughters were nuns} happened to find the manuscript and gave it to their cousin who was collecting family heirlooms and he got in touch with the same Deborah Herman that helped Diane Lake with her book and published it.
While there are many talking points regarding the book and a few mistakes and lots of spelling and punctuation oversights, it's a really good book. In it, William McBride is also interviewed in bits and gives his perspective, which is very insightful. And for the purposes of those that think that the jury was duped by a motive made up by Vincent Bugliosi, Tubick makes it clear throughout that it was the evidence presented that swayed them, not the motive. He says it was the witnesses on the stand and the evidence; McBride says more or less the same thing. Rosemary Baer, wife of juror John Baer, doesn't emphasize the motive in her book "Reflections on the Manson Trial" that came out in '72 and William Zamora {of whom Tubick is as close to savage as he gets throughout, he really didn't think much of him !} says the same thing. The motive wasn't really a big thing for them. They thought it was weird, yes. But that's not why they convicted and voted death. And though it may come as a surprise to some, the way that the defendants behaved in court, even Manson attacking the Judge, drawing a knife across the throat at Linda Kasabian and punching Irving Kanarek, Atkins throwing down Bugliosi's notes and the chanting and threats, had no bearing on their decision. Because whatever decision they made had to be able to stand up according to the evidence.
Hey Grim- I don’t think of the courtroom antics would be significant to the jury- it was the rest of the world that was solidified and why Charlie was publicly elevated to the status of leader of the family. The family members proved that.
DeleteWhy didn’t they hold curbside vigils for Bobby? I know why they didn’t, I get it, simply making the point that had not other things been in the works, why wouldn’t they have done the same for Bobby?
**I don’t think THAT the courtroom..... **
DeleteGrim, question:
DeleteDid the book mention any of the jurors being annoyed or effected by Kanarek’s tactics?
I stand corrected on the accent. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteThank you all for listening to my series, and for posting it on this terrific blog!
ReplyDeleteMore than finding any new information on the case, I wanted to pursue more of a human interest angle and hear the stories of people who were on the edges of this infamous history. What role has it had in their lives for the past 50 years?
I know if I set eyes upon Jay Sebring just a few hours before his murder, I would replay the image of him in my mind again and again. Stevens girlfriend really moved me as well. The regret she had over their last exchange. It took two years to get her to interview with me. The juror did say to me (in a section I think I edited out) that he and the other jurors reunited a couple of times over the years. And I think Tennant’s revelation that he thought he saw the baby cut out...I’m sure the sight of her was so horrific that his mind filled in something even more graphic.
I might post another episode soon. Someone else who has never been interviewed got in touch with me last week. If the interview happens, it could fill in some info on Gary Hinman.
Thank you again for listening!
Interesting that Sandy Tennant was supposed to be at Cielo the night of the murders. I've never heard that before.
ReplyDeleteJust finished the series. It was very entertaining and gleaned a lot from each episode. A unique, inside perspective from all of those involved. Thanks again for posting, Matt!
ReplyDelete"That's the notorious 'SoCal drawl' that people from that area had in earlier generations even up to and including mine (which is now old). Things have changed quite dramatically down there in the last 60-80 years."
ReplyDeleteWow, thanks!
I just finished watching the 1976 Helter Skelter on DVD and I had two main criticisms:
1. Thought the acting of the Manson girls was mostly terrible. There was a style of "trashy chick" acting that was popularized in the 1950s-60s (see any Elia Kazan movie, or movie with Lee Remick).
2. The girls' accents. I thought they were too New York because the actresses came from NYC.
I stand corrected. Tell us more about this.
Excellent call on both Kazan and the Lee Remick school of acting. I remain convinced that she is absolutely the worst "legitimate" actress I have ever seen.
DeleteRobertC said:
ReplyDeleteprefeteria said: " As soon as she said – I was bawn and raised in El Monte Califawnia – I thought East Coast and stopped listening. "
That's the notorious 'SoCal drawl' that people from that area had in earlier generations even up to and including mine (which is now old). Things have changed quite dramatically down there in the last 60-80 years.
For what little it's worth, to my ear this is indeed an "old Anglo" SCal accent. I was born and grew up near Bakersfield (lots of "Okie" accents),and lived and worked in S Cal until 1987.
Also, I believe you can hear some of the early mid-west in that kind of accent, and the descriptive terms and exclamations are pretty folksy.
There is a definitive LA-type accent that's shaped by class and culture and for this I'd suggest The Beach Boy's songs, and Robert Redford. There can be a very hard R, and in some cases there's a lot of nasality.
Somewhat off-putting is the silly background music accompanying the introduction of "Tina". This shouts "We're presenting a human interest backstory, now, friends!" And this immediately suggests that someone is into manipulating the listener's emotions.
That said, in the small part of the Tina interview I listened to, she seem to me to be a legitimate long-time resident of the area, and she sounds very much like the old-time Anglo Californians I grew up with and later met.
MGU ... thanks for your efforts. Very enjoyable interviews.
ReplyDelete"Excellent call on both Kazan and the Lee Remick school of acting. I remain convinced that she is absolutely the worst "legitimate" actress I have ever seen."
ReplyDeleteHeh, thanks.
It really wasn't Kazan's or Remick's fault - it was a style of the times that lasted too long.
Kazan was a great director, and Remick did excellent work in movies & stage later on, when she aged out of her sex kitten persona. But that sex kitten stuff gives me da creeps (see early Jane Fonda for more of same.)
Tape 2, Dennis Hurst, that's how upper-middle class people in LA talk.
ReplyDeleteThere is something of material interest in the interview with Dennis Hurst, tape 2, The Delivery Man.
ReplyDeleteAccording the the First Homicide Report, two steamer trunks were delivered at 4:30 PM on the 8th. There has been considerable speculation on where those trunks were located in 10050 Cielo Drive after delivery.
Hurst delivered the bike at about 7:30 PM of the 8th. He spoke with Sebring briefly as Sebring opened the front door and stood in the entryway.
It would be interesting to ask Hurst if he can recall seeing any trunks in the entry, when he spoke to Sebring. If he can positively recall not seeing them, we might next infer that they were already in the LR, near where they were knocked over.
This might tighten the intrusion/attack sequence somewhat, tending to eliminate or narrow some rearrangement of the trunks by the intruders.
Perhaps this information was in his trial testimony, or in any interviews with Bugliosi.
AstroCreep,
ReplyDeleteYes. B does not have to be proven guilty of the crime for A to be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder as long as the DA can prove the conspiracy (agreement) between A and B, with a specific intent to commit murder and that C was murdered by a co-conspirator (B) in the course of the conspiracy.
David, thank you! It seems odd to me that until B is proven guilty that conspiracy could be applied. In my example, we know B killed C but if applied to our judicial system, A’s jury doesn’t know for a fact that B killed C, correct?
DeleteAstroCreep,
ReplyDeleteI assumed from your scenario that the DA knew B killed C and could prove it. If he didn't the DA would not bring charges until he could. The scenario is not that different from what might have happened with TLB.
At the outset the original lawyers for SA and LVH wanted to sever their trials from Manson because they were going to use diminished capacity and throw Manson under the bus. If all three had been severed would they have proceeded against Manson? Yes.
But if they can't prove a co-conspirator actually committed the murder they would not bring charges until they did. But they don't need a conviction of B to proceed: as with Tex under the scenario, above.
AstroCreep said...
ReplyDeleteDid the book mention any of the jurors being annoyed or effected by Kanarek’s tactics?
Oh gosh, yes. Although from time to time all the defence lawyers annoyed them with what they saw as stalling tactics, Kanarek was more than the main culprit.
Much of their irritation stemmed from the fact that they were sequestered for so many months and spent Thanksgiving and Christmas at the Ambassador hotel. Tubick lost his brother during the trial and one of the alternate jurors {they were holed up right there along with the regular jurors} lost his Dad. Because they both believed in serving their community and country, neither left the jury to attend the funerals. Come to think of it, William Zamora lost his sometime lover during the trial too.
In general, none of them wanted to be there and therefore anything that prolonged the trial, especially if it came across as frivolous, was grist to the mill in justifying their angst. There were a number of times during the trial when they saw no action for days and no one was allowed to explain what the reasons were.
It was actually quite funny how easily they seemed to see through Kanarek's tactics. I think he may even have been unofficially scapegoated for their lengthy time away.
If you can find a copy of the book, it's worth a read. It's not perfect but at least there's no wild fanciful conspiracy theories. There's some nice touches that are quite surprising, like when it was Herman Tubick's birthday, as he walked into court, he says Charlie looked at him and mouthed "happy birthday" and later when the women were being taken on a route that passed the jury room, they started singing "happy birthday." I also thought it was funny that Manson would try to have staring contests with the jury. They could rarely beat him !
Thanks David & Grim!
ReplyDeleteI listened to the last one with Steven Parent's girlfriend, finally, and it was really poignant and personal. I just have a hard time squaring what she is saying with a previous post about Steven having a male lover at the same time. From her point of view it seems as if he had nothing else going on, but it's hard to know. I'm guessing if the interviewer knew the stories of his supposed gay life he kept quiet so as not to ruin the interview.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOff topic but...Erica Gavin posted a rare photo two says ago on FB (printed on a matchbook to hand out...must've been many more at one time) of her and Paul Fitzgerald taken during the time they began dating during the trial.
ReplyDeleteThis has a bizarre "six degrees" with Gavin in Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, the women in BtVotD wearing the actual clothing worn by Sharon Tate at al in Valley of the Dolls, the bloodbath at the end of Beyond being influenced by TLB, Gavin having to deal with Squeaky crashing at her home...which made her uneasy...etc...
I can't repost it hear but, IF interested, check her FB page or Google it.
Just a curio...no big deal but interesting nonetheless
two DAYS ago
ReplyDeleteHer Instagram with photo
ReplyDeletehttps://www.instagram.com/erica.gavin/p/BsJhskyFwvU/
Interesting interview with Steve Parent girlfriend. I was working while I was listening to it so I may have missed something. She talks about seeing her prom photo in the HS book. She contacts a lawyer but didn't hear if anything came of it. I am surprised that VB didn't need to get her permission to use it. Back then, it wouldn't have been posted public on social media which would have made it public access. So I wonder where Vince got the photo from. I can't imagine that Parent's parents would have given it to him. Maybe he got ahold of the yearbook or something. I missed all of that or there were no answers to that.
ReplyDeleteOn the vice channel a show called Hamilton's Pharmacopia who does he visit hidden in the lonely desert of new Mexico no none other than Mr Willey from the infamous group from the LA area The Process Church of the Final Judgement he was one of the high ranking member
ReplyDelete