In 1992 a hoax was published, THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER, in which the forever unknown killer was alleged to have been the husband of a 1880s woman poisoner. It was nonsense, attempting to link two separate but famous murders of the time, akin to alleging that Richard Speck was the Zodiac.
Longtime Manson Researchers no doubt have seen Maury Terry's THE ULTIMATE EVIL on the fifty cent rack during a library sale. Written in 1987 it is one long series of conspiracies that essentially allege satanists all over the United States getting together and killing randos because reasons. The Son of Sam? Charles Manson? CIA? Mind Control? Sure why not.
It is a supremely silly book.
In 2003 a sad, deranged individual named Steven Hodel published a book called BLACK DAHLIA AVENGER where he tries to work his Daddy issues out by blaming his deceased father (of course) for a string on unsolved woman murders in LA in the 1940s. Since idiots listened to him he has published multiple subsequent books in which he alleges Daddy was The Lipstick Killer and The Zodiac and who knows who else, maybe he killed Hoffa too.
The above trend shows you that the True Crime arena is sloppy, lazy and filled with people alleging absolute bullshit without any proof- oh, as long as the people being talked about are dead.
On February 4, 2019 I reviewed on this illustrious blog the first section of CHAOS by Tom O'Neill. In that review I noted my history with Mr. Tom and provided evidence that he was a dick I also pointed out that the book was, as far as that section was concerned, filled with lies and incorrect statements. I offered to help review the rest of the manuscript and took the liberty of offering the assistance of you all (blog readers) to try to get things right. Tom of course refused.
The book came out, sold a few copies and has vanished. No serious researcher will ever consult it.
Tom as a "journalist" (his jacket blurb lists only magazine writing credits for mags that have been shut for over a decade) is of the slimy type who works like this- "Answer my question". "No comment." " Well if you don't answer my question (which you have every right not to do) I have to conclude you have something bad to hide" He states several times that he tried to get a hold of celebrities and others who did not want to speak with him, then implies that they are guilty of some unexplained shit.
But once the finished volume came out the whole thing turned into the ramblings of a deranged fan. In fact much of it reads as bad fan fiction, if you were a fan of shitty sixties spy novels.
A good portion of the book is all about how hard it was for Tom to write the book. They advertised that it was 20 YEARS!! in the making as if that was a good thing. It took 20 years because he waited for people to die so he could accuse them of things.
For example- BUG was a punk. My hatred for BUG was public on the ONLY Official TLB Blog while Bug was alive. I had clear reasons- he made up the motive that has confused this case for 50 years. He lied under oath,. He stalked his milkman. He beat his mistress. You do not usually get an actual crazy person in charge of a major prosecution but then we haven't had an actual crazy President before now.
But you have to remember Tom is an angry, credulous child. He befriends BUG to get background for his book. BUG wants to control the narrative (shocking!). He and BUG fight. He gets a hold of some documents (not reprinted in any format) and alleges BUG committed perjury. BUG threatens him. O'Neill is freaked out.
What the hell did he think was going to happen?
I focused on this section (the rest gets worse) because back when I liked the guy (pre his TV interviews about Charlie's Karate School Inc) I knew he had met with Terry Melcher and gotten some hot information from him. It was a secret rendezvous on a rooftop. This was over 15 years ago and conveniently Melcher is dead now.
The big reveal is that Melcher probably hung out at the Ranch again at least once after the murders. OO-EE-OO. BUG hid that from the defense. If it had ever come out....what? I mean Crazy Tom basically says that this BOMBSHELL would lead to the killers being released. Uh huh.
So this is not useful, is not interesting and could only matter to Terry and BUG. But you read the book and you conclude that this is better than DNA- to Tom O'Neill.
The second half of the book goes the full Conspiracy Tinfoil Gamut. Manson's parole officer was CIA. Another dead guy was the linchpin for a mind control operation. Jet fuel cannot burn steel girders. Kubrick shot the fake moon landing. HAIL Q!
Tom contacted me in June after the book was published to ask if I had any questions. I held off on this review because it seemed pointless. The book was not mattering because it was the life's work of an angry wannabe journalist who was going to publish the book no matter what, even if there was no story.
Tom hopes his readers will fall for shit people fall for on the internet all the time. Life is not a narrative. It doesn't always make sense one hundred percent. There are things I cannot explain about Amanda Knox's behavior, but there is plenty of evidence that she killed her roommate. I am uncertain if Charlie did go back to Cielo; I do not know whose glasses they were; I think Kasabian was more involved. But Tex Watson and the girls still stabbed all those people. Not being able to explain EVERYTHING does not make a case weak.
I am sad this book is out, because that means I cannot mock Tom about it any more.
I hope he found the journey worth it. The end product was a waste.
UP NEXT: The Col Presents THE LAST WORD on ONCE UPON A TIME ...IN HOLLYWOOD
ReplyDeleteO'Neill's book is just chock-a-block full of new information and startling revelations. He is careful to fully source everything he says. So I am surprised some of you are indifferent or even hostile to what he claims. Are you saying that O'Neill is simply falsifying or exaggerating what his sources told him? Could you cite specific examples in the book of where he is doing that?
Sure, many of his sources are now dead, but others are very much alive to rebut what O'Neill says. For example, O'Neill claims to have found handwritten notes by Bugliosi from the DA's files that show three more Melcher contacts with Charlie and Family after May of '69. O'Neill showed copies of those notes to ex-prosecutor Steven Kay; and since then I haven't heard Kay denounce O'Neill. None of the living witnesses he quotes in the book have done so; so I have to assume the info is good.
Don't just claim O'Neill is a fraud--prove it to us with your own counter-information backed by sources.
Col, I view the timing of the release to be nothing more than an opportunistic money grab- not that there’s anything wrong with being smart about timing. No doubt Tarantino did that too.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of all the hocus pocus stuff- I’m glad someone out there explores all of the intangible non factual stuff. That doesn’t mean I buy into any of it of course, but think that exploring those little nuggets of information or non information is a good thing. I just have an issue when someone insinuates those very loose pieces of information as factual and that I should believe it.
Anything with Melcher, Dennis Wilson, or the other Hollywood elite- damage control. That’s it. I believe Bugs knew that and played the game to protect them and I’m 1000% sure that still happens today unless there’s a smoking gun that’s unavoidable.
Much like you, I don’t believe anything new will come out unless someone talks- at this point, that’s Tex, Linda, or Pat. I think Waverly went down exactly as the narrative says.
Co-signed, and AMEN TO THAT
DeleteThe cottage industry of writing about how one's father was a famous uncaught murderer has lead me to try and find a relative who could have been the Zodiac, Jack the Ripper or D B Cooper. My imagination has always failed me.
ReplyDeleteI found it an interesting read to be sure, especially for the fact that O'Neill was able to interview so many individuals, even though many of these have passed away now. I found the interviews with Altobelli and also Billy Doyle to be most interesting.
ReplyDeleteNamely, if one goes to Cielodrive.com and listens to the Audio Archive taped interview with Doyle, he(Doyle) says many kind things about Voytek. Yet in the O'Neill book Doyle describes Voytek as "crazy" while at Cielo. What does that mean, and what are we to believe?
The part about Melcher visiting Manson after the murders--even if true--means what? Did Melcher figure out that the Family committed the murders, then approach Manson to beg to have his life spared? (We know the Family knew that Melcher was living at his mother's house at the time of the murders).
If Stephen Kay was so appalled at Bugliosi's prosecution conduct, it does not appear to show all these later, as Kay remains a firm believer in keeping the killers behind bars. One would think that Kay(or someone)would attempt to get the killers a new trial?
Far be it from me to disagree with El Colonel, but O'Neill did do some original research with his interviews. It's unfortunately a notebook dump of a book. The CIA and conspiracy stuff is pointless and casts serious shade on the better parts of the book. Overall, the book is about twice as long as it should be.
ReplyDeleteDan Piepenbring is listed as co-writer. I assume he finished it from O'Neill's scraps. 2019 was a big year for Piepenbring. He also ghost-wrote Prince's memoirs, as he documented in his big "New Yorker" article.
The most interesting parts of the O'Neill/Piepenbring book are the Terry Melcher interview(s) and the Rudi Altobelli interview(s). Altobelli spoke about how much Melcher admired pre-murder Manson and how often Melcher enthusiastically spoke to him about Manson. Which doesn't mean anything motive-wise, it's just details to more understand the fabric of the events.
Like El Colonel wrote, though, there are no bombshells. One of the alleged bombshells is that there was a tape of Beausoleil calling Spahn Ranch after his murder arrest, later destroyed by the police or prosecution. In his recent "Rolling Stone" interview, Beausoleil denies that because the only phone at Spahn Ranch that could have been called was a pay phone, which did not allow collect calls.
As I am loath to research that point, can anyone offhand remind me of whether or not it is generally accepted that Beausoleil called Spahn Ranch after his murder arrest and, if so, how?
As far as books related to this topic, I give a big recommendation to Mike Stax "Swimming Through Darkness: My Search for Craig Smith and the Mystery of Maitreya Kali." Born around L.A. in 1945, Smith is best known as a songwriter for the Monkees, Glen Campbell, Andy Williams, and the Lettermen. In 1968, he spent time with the Manson Family, before losing his mind in Afghanistan later that year. After returning to the USA, he proclaimed himself Maitreya, the long-awaited Fifth Buddhad, before retiring to a homeless and anonymous life on the streets for 40+ years. Though the fine book doesn't dwell on it much, Manson, and his crimes, seemed to have had a powerful effect on Smith.
Chris Till
Chris, George Spahn had a private phone line in his house. In theory Beausoleil could have called that number, Squeaky or another of the girls were at George's house pretty much all the time. That only addresses the "how" portion of your question, I have no idea if that call was made and taped.
ReplyDeleteUnless law enforcement had a warrant to tap George's phone I'm not sure why or how any calls would have been taped. I've not seen in any reports that George's phone was tapped by LE.
starviego- He does NOT provide any evidence of anything, so your position that we need to provide evidence against his lies is not how it works
ReplyDeleteAstroCreep- I know Tom reads this blog so his pages upon pages of BUG being a big old meanie ring hollow. Again, he was a big old meanie when he was alive. If you are going to make a big deal about revelations, make them big deal revelations
Torgue- Kay gave a cover blurb endorsement to Hodel so I would not care too much what he thought about anything. He also is FULLY aware of what was done illegally by BUG. The Craig Smith book is awesome- Max Frost and I obsessed about it when it came out
BTW, Chaos did not "disappear" -- It made the New York Times bestseller list, boosted in no small part by O'Neill's appearance on Joe Rogan (more viewers/listeners than any other talkshow host today). You hate the guy -- I get that. But you're making up your own false narrative the same way you're accusing him of. You can certainly criticize someone's work without lobbing cheap put-downs. I'm surprised you didn't call him the "f" word (the one with three letters).
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere are several situations I will address:
ReplyDelete1. I talked with Maury Terry on the telephone twice pertaining to ROCKY BATEMAN, and other items
re: The OJ Simpson Case & Saga in 1995. Mr Terry was respectful & courteous to me.
He was on the TV Tabloid Show,
"Hard Copy," discussing a car, that has not been talked about much, that was at 360 Rockingham in Brentwood, according to Terry, around 10:00pm on the night of June 12th, 1994, and then wasn't there
(MYSTERIOUSLY DISAPPEARED)
when Limousine Driver Allan Park
picked-up OJ Simpson to go to LAX. Maury Terry was a staunch supporter that OJ killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.
2. Ed Opperman, of the oppermanreport, had a round table discussion that I listened to here
👇
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi5nzwBFHHs
with approximately 70% of the talk pertaining to Charles Manson. It's a long listen and VERY interesting. How many details are true?
Who knows?
I don't know any of the roundtable people, but I am familiar with Ed Opperman and his discussions pertaining to The OJ Simpson Case. Opperman doesn't believe that OJ killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.
A lot of people are talked about.
Roman Polanski
Abigail Folger
Sharon Tate
Leno LaBianca
Brooke Shields
Bob Hope
Terry Melcher
and a whole lot of other people & organizations that are in someway connected to The Charles Manson Case & Saga.
Speaking of Terry Melcher, this is what interested me in this
Blog-post by
ColScott/Don Murphy.
It is the comment by Starviego about:
"three more Melcher contacts"
I have commented on this blog about a contract that Charles Manson wrote for me with my encounter with him in January of 1969.
3. In this YouTube Opperman video, The M/C group The Straight Satan's are referred to.
(DeCarlo, not by name)
They (The Straight Satan's) were NOT the main M/C group that
hung-out at SPAHN RANCH when The Charles Manson Family lived there.
According to George Christie in my Twitter DM correspondences with him, he confirmed some items.
I can't blame Matt for not posting my email to him re: George Christie. I'll just leave it at that.
I get a lot of readers & commenters on my Twitter OJ Simpson Case threads.
One is Debra Tate
(sister of murder victim Sharon Tate)
Another is OJ Simpson's Attorney at this time, Malcolm Lavergne.
I have also corresponded with Kim Goldman.
I did have some correspondences with a journalist regarding the
Charles "Tex" Watson audio tapes that have yet to be made public. I can prove what this journalist told me......
Mr Murphy/ColScott,
Just so you are aware,
I DID NOT start the FEUD with Robert Jay Marczak pertaining to
Rose McGowan & Oliver Stone that started "HINTGATE."
MARCZAK STARTED IT trying to get me to delete a tweet.
Please ask Matt about some of my past.....I may back-off sometimes,
but I DON'T CAVE-COMPLETELY-IN...
Let us both please leave this McGowan/Stone situation in the past & discuss The Charles Manson Case & Saga.
Thanks
Mario George Nitrini 111
------
The OJ Simpson Case
For those that might be interested, here are just a very few of the notes I took as I was reading (Kindle edition):
ReplyDeleteThere is an early reference to LVH as a “former homecoming princess from Orange County.” Everything I have ever read, including the testimony of her mom at trial, indicates LVH was born at a hospital in Altadena and grew up in Monrovia. Seems startling to be so wrong fifty years after the fact about so basic a piece of biographical information.
Then there is this, referring to the trial beginning in July, 1970:
The six defendants—Charles Manson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Susan Atkins, Leslie Van Houten, Steve Grogan, and Linda Kasabian—received the kind of scrutiny known only to the most famous celebrities in the world.
I always thought Clem was tried much later, for Shea’s murder, and not along with LVH, LK and PK. I’m sorry, but if you’re going to write a book that claims to upset one of the trials of the century, you should at least be accurate as to who is being tried.
From a more conspiratorial perspective, much is made of SA’s probation being terminated by a judge. As presented, it’s possible for the reader to envision some sort of devious, suspicious process by which the court reached this decision. But the reality as I have understood it is different. I’ve read the so-called Witches of Mendocino files, and they appear to tell me that SA and others were in fact represented by counsel, because we see paperwork from an attorney, dated the day after the court’s decision, requesting payment for having represented SA. If I am reading these documents correctly, the situation is radically different than what the book alludes to. Instead of some CIA plot, we simply have an attorney telling the court a better story than the PO. I agree that Roger Smith no doubt played an interesting role, but the situation appears fundamentally different than how the book characterizes it.
Speaking of the Witches of Mendocino, the book also mentions “marijuana quietly spiked with LSD.” One, I’ve always understood that LSD can’t actually be ingested that way successfully, because the LSD molecule can’t survive combustion. Two, the same files mentioned above state the charges very precisely, and they specifically refer to capsules of LSD; nothing in these files suggests spiked weed. Where does the book’s claim come from?
I have plenty more, but I don’t see any need to go further, as these capture my reaction to the book. I see basic facts that don’t match what I have always seen documented, and this is shocking given the author’s continual, almost ceaseless reminder that this book took about twenty years to complete. And I see cherry-picked facts used to support a specific position. This is a personal opinion, of course, and I welcome any and all comments where I might be too harsh or too misinformed.
Mario George Nitrini 111 said...
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Terry Melcher, this is what interested me in this
blog-post.....it is the comment by Starviego about: "three more Melcher contacts"
I have commented on this blog about a contract that Charles Manson wrote for me with my encounter with him in January of 1969
Mario, there is almost a universe of difference between a 'contact' and a 'contract.' The more you try to convince us of the significance of what you have to say, the more you highlight the insignificance of what you have to say.
starviego said...
O'Neill's book is just chock-a-block full of new information and startling revelations
When you say 'new' are you referring to 'new to you' {as in, you were not aware of these things}, 'new to the world' {as in this is stuff that has never ever been revealed anywhere before, ever}, or 'new things that old characters are now saying but which carry a now significant spin' ?
O'Neill claims to have found handwritten notes by Bugliosi from the DA's files that show three more Melcher contacts with Charlie and Family after May of '69. O'Neill showed copies of those notes to ex-prosecutor Steven Kay; and since then I haven't heard Kay denounce O'Neill
Kay has rarely been in the habit of denouncing anyone publicly.
None of the living witnesses he quotes in the book have done so; so I have to assume the info is good
How many times can you tell us of an author publishing a book and in the immediate aftermath, everyone or even loads of people quoted in the book coming out to denounce it ?
I was at my older sister's once and I happened to pick up an old newspaper and in it was an article that quoted her. As I read, I thought, "this doesn't sound like her at all" so I asked her if she had indeed said those things and she said absolutely not. But she didn't go after the journalist {such as they were} or publicly denounce them. Silence is not a confirmation of truth.
Kay has rarely been in the habit of denouncing anyone publicly??? Until recently, Kay attended every parole hearing as the voice for the LA District Attorney's office, and he brags about winning in every hearing. How did he do that? By denouncing the 'family' members publicly -- both in court and in the many interviews he's done for both news reports and in that multi-part Manson doc on MGM+.
DeleteYikes Grim,
ReplyDeleteI mis-read Starviego's comment.
You're right,
Starviego said contacts. I thought it read contracts.
Grim, I'm not trying to convince anyone. Anyone can believe what they want with what I say.
No problem for me
Mario George Nitrini 111
----
The OJ Simpson Case
DebS: Thank you.
ReplyDeleteWhere I live, in Ohio, law enforcement routinely tapes phone conversations emanating from our county jail. I recall studying a USSC case in which this is broadly allowed, without warrant, as an inmate does not have, or should not have, a reasonable expectation of privacy with jail calls. I cannot recall what year that decision was made, but it may have been subsequent to 1970.
Someone asked...
ReplyDelete... can anyone offhand remind me of whether or not it is generally accepted that Beausoleil called Spahn Ranch after his murder arrest...
I’ve sure seen it in writing before. Guinn’s book for example states:
Beausoleil called Spahn Ranch from the L.A. County jail. Charlie hadn’t returned yet from San Diego with Stephanie Schram, so Linda Kasabian took the call. Beausoleil explained that he’d been arrested for murder—he stressed that Charlie should know that everything was okay and he was keeping quiet.
Chris, I hadn't considered that the jail phone would be taped and that's entirely possible.
ReplyDeleteChris Till said...
ReplyDeleteAltobelli spoke about how much Melcher admired pre-murder Manson and how often Melcher enthusiastically spoke to him about Manson. Which doesn't mean anything motive-wise, it's just details to more understand the fabric of the events
I can't see why that's such a big reveal given that in his trial testimony, Altobelli commented that he'd heard about Manson before he met him as Dennis Wilson, Gregg Jacobson and Terry Melcher used to talk about him and his lifestyle.
Col Kentucky Fried Chicken said...
My hatred for BUG was public on the ONLY Official TLB Blog while Bug was alive. I had clear reasons- he made up the motive that has confused this case for 50 years. He lied under oath. He stalked his milkman. He beat his mistress
a] Susan Atkins in conversation with Virginia Graham in early November '69, 2 weeks before Bugliosi was even on the case, earmarked HS as a motive. Leslie Van Houten in taped interview with Marvin Part in late Dec '69, earmarked HS as a motive. Both were private conversations. Bugliosi did not make that up. You're wrong about that, you're always wrong about that and regardless of what witty repartee you come up with in reply, you'll continue to be wrong about that.
b] I, the news vendor on the corner and the entire planet are still waiting for you to prove this. You merely demonstrate that immature trait of "repeat something often enough and it will be taken as truth whether it is or not." If VB lied under oath, prove it.
As for Stephen Kay being aware of anything illegal that Bugliosi did, well, his evidence and its veracity, as I've been telling you repeatedly since 2016, wouldn't convict water placed in a freezer of becoming ice. He had no evidence worthy of the word. You know it, I know it, Steve Kay knows it....and the judge knew it.
c] Who gives a shit if he stalked his milkman ? His milkman had absolutely nothing to do with the workings of Charles Manson's mind or guilt. And even if VB did stalk the guy, his jealousy and insecurity had nothing to do with the workings of Charlie's mind either.
d] Trying to drag in an alleged beating of his mistress some 3 or so years after the jury convicted Charles Manson is scraping the barrel even for you, mate.
And Tom O'Neill is the angry credulous child ?
Physician, heal thyself !
Grim you ignorant slut
ReplyDeleteYou see no value in the knowledge that BUG was mentally ill, unstable, abusive and capabale of lying in a capital case. Everyone who knows you sees no value in the food you consume that could be better used to feed the homeless in major cities.
It is completely established that Helter Skelter was a bullshit theory that was weaved together by a mentally ill Polish Dwarf.
BUG lied under oath in a capital case. Deal with it, turd man
Tbe Colonel
ReplyDeleteWrong on Helter Skelter
Wrong for America
Peter
ReplyDeleteIf you would like to maintain that a motivation that was literally stitched together by a deranged legal midget was the reason for 7 murders, knock yourself out. Or just knock yourself out anyway Brah
Saying it's not the motive is different than saying Bugliosi made it all up. Bugs just used Charlie's own con to put the rope around his neck. Deal with it homeslice.
ReplyDeleteSaying it is not the motive (it isn't) is different from saying BUG made it all up (well he made up the motive and the contents but sure, Charlie did say those words. BUG took a lot of Charlie babble, suborned perjury, pressured witnesses and connected Charlie (who was miles away) to 7 murders using a bullshit motive. Deal with it home skillet.
ReplyDeleteFIFY
Torque said...
ReplyDelete"The part about Melcher visiting Manson after the murders--even if true--means what?"
It means Melcher committed perjury on the stand. And if Bugs encouraged Melcher to lie, then he was suborning perjury. Also, he violated the rules of discovery in not turning that evidence over to the defense.
It goes to motive: Obviously, the 'put the fear into Melcher the Welsher' theory does not stand, as Terry cannot have been that afraid of them if he was still seeing them after TLB.
I don’t see it Col. I do see all kinds of statements made to LE officials about HS well before Bugs was assigned the case. Was it the motive? Hardly, but it does connect Chuckles to the murder rap. In terms of Bug’s tenacity, I’d rather that and those chumps rot in jail versus some softy do-gooder dbag and they walk.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteCol Scott,
Who's the Polish Dwarf? Are you saying Roman put the Helter Skelter motive together?
"It is completely established that Helter Skelter was a bullshit theory that was weaved together by a mentally ill Polish Dwarf".
YEP I think Polanski wrote that story. Remember Bob and Roman knew MAJOR people; a fixer and a Nixon cabinet member...uh KISSINGER? BOTH he (henry) and ROMAN loved them some Jill St John (who roman wanted to play vs his character in Vampire Killers before Tate). Read up on the coded response Col. Tate renders about Polanski. Occams Razor slices again.
Delete@Starviego:
ReplyDeleteOf course, yes. Understood. My previous question was not a legal one, but rather an existential question of what exactly were the reasons Melcher would have been visiting Manson after the murders.
What I was after in my question was the reason for the following: "Melcher was on acid, on his knees."(O'Neill, p.132). This was an original quote from the LASO files, describing a post TLB meeting between Melcher and Manson, where Melcher appears to be very afraid, at least to me. Perhaps it was the acid that allowed Melcher to approach Charlie, and perhaps beg him to leave him(and perhaps his mother and girlfriend alone?)
O'Neill goes on at length questioning Melcher on the roof of Melcher's condo about the post-murder visits, and basically gets nowhere. Melcher did intimate that it was Dennis Wilson who was the one who knew the truth, but I have never read anywhere that Wilson divulged anything, either.
In the end, O'Neill had to admit, "No, I hadn't cracked Melcher..." And finally, "I never spoke to Melcher again. He died in 2004, at age sixty-two, of cancer. To my knowledge, he never gave another interview about Manson or wrote his memoirs."(p 135)
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deletegrimtraveller said...
ReplyDelete"When you say 'new' are you referring to 'new to you' {as in, you were not aware of these things}, 'new to the world' {as in this is stuff that has never ever been revealed anywhere before, ever}, or 'new things that old characters are now saying but which carry a now significant spin' ?"
All those things. For example the Sharokh Hatami claim that he got a phone call from Reeve Whitson telling him about the murders before Chapman had even discovered the bodies. That was the single biggest revelation from the book, IMO.
ColScott said...
ReplyDeleteGrim you ignorant slut
You see no value in the knowledge that BUG was mentally ill, unstable, abusive and capabale of lying in a capital case. Everyone who knows you sees no value in the food you consume that could be better used to feed the homeless in major cities.
It is completely established that Helter Skelter was a bullshit theory that was weaved together by a mentally ill Polish Dwarf.
BUG lied under oath in a capital case
As I said, you got nothing.
Nothing at all.
In fact, you got less than nothing. You can't even spell 'capable' but that's kind of appropriate for our current subject matter !
ColOctopusPrime said...
ReplyDeleteEveryone who knows you sees no value in the food you consume that could be better used to feed the homeless in major cities
But this is why the food you consume is worth its weight in high finance. What witty repartee ! Even I can appreciate the superb humour that you regale us with on many an occasion. To call you the court jester of Mansonblog is not to do you justice. You are beyond comedy gold. And I feel no shame in admitting that you are the funniest person that has ever graced any TLB blog I've been on. I really should watch some of your films !
Maybe in my old age {I'm getting there}.
ColScott said...
ReplyDeleteYou see no value in the knowledge that BUG was mentally ill, unstable, abusive and capabale of lying in a capital case
Actually, I do.
I've been around mentally ill, unstable and abusive people for a significant portion of my life. And just like with those that don't tick those boxes, nuance ranks high. Just because someone outside their job is an abusive so and so does not mean that they carry that into their job. Now, I accept that they might.
The problem you have is that what always goes before you is your hatred of Vincent T. That colours pretty much all that you say and as a result, means you can't really be taken seriously. Don't take this the wrong way man, but the reality is that some people simply humour you "coz you're the Col." "Dang ! He had a website ! He talked with Aaron Stovitz !!!"
The funny thing is that you've got a great perspective on many things when you're not slobbering and chomping on goat ankles, roasted at noon temperatures.
I agree with you about Tom O'Neill. It's just tragic that you exhibit the same tendencies that you castigate him for.
Was Bugliosi capable of lying in a capital case ? Please ! Everyone except my Mum, your Mum and Bill Farr is capable of lying in a capital case.
Did he lie ? If he did, don't just keep spouting it out like the Prez of 'Murka that you endlessly criticize; show us where. Show us how. You blitzkreig any credibility you have left if you spout but don't show.
It is completely established that Helter Skelter was a bullshit theory that was weaved together by a mentally ill Polish Dwarf
If there is one statement that will follow you to the ends of the earth in demonstrating 'hollow' {or as we say in London, 'ollow}, it's that one. It isn't remotely established. It's not even established by the die~hards that believe HS to be total shit. It's believed.
Honestly mate, with that statement, you're the "flat earth" denizen of TLB.
BUG lied under oath in a capital case
If you were my psychologist, I'd probably be paying you lots ! And it would never occur to me why you were living so fine and I was howling at the moon.....
starviego said...
ReplyDeletethe Sharokh Hatami claim that he got a phone call from Reeve Whitson telling him about the murders before Chapman had even discovered the bodies. That was the single biggest revelation from the book, IMO
And in this case, one either believes what the adherents say or not, looking at past, context, evidence etc. I simply do not believe what Hatami is purported to have said on this. For one thing, why in the world would Hatami risk being paraded before the entire world as a perjurer because that's what this "revelation" does. He's supposedly, in effect, saying, that before any bodies had been discovered, Whitson had told him about the deaths. That could have easily meant that the wrong people got convicted and sentenced to death. It certainly means that each of the convictions could be easily argued to be, at the very least, unsafe. It unstitches everything the cops and prosecution came up with, it makes the perps liars of the highest magnitude by admitting to the murders and their attempts to show how they'd changed in relation to parole. It undoes so much in this case as to be worthy of having to re~run the whole shebang again. Just that one little reveal. I know people peg me as {as Ziggy Osterberg or lawyer Dreath once put it} "a HS kind of guy," but it's more nuanced than that. I'm a human nature kind of guy and if there was/is something genuine in any of the other mooted motives, I'm not so pre~cious {I made that word up} that I would reject the merit of them just to stick to my guns. After all, for a long while, I was prepared to give credence to the copycat in conjunction with the 5 prosecution motives.
People were wetting their pants when Ed Sanders' book on Sharon seemed to show that Hatami was pressganged into making statements that, on further examination, he did not make and it turned out that his 2016 statements to Sanders were identical to what he said both to Bugliosi and in court in 1970. So, this big reveal is at very best, questionable.
AstroCreep said...
I don’t see it Col. I do see all kinds of statements made to LE officials about HS well before Bugs was assigned the case
Astro, the Col exemplifies the old saying that "there are none so blind as those that cannot see."
But we still love him anyway. He gives valuable {if often highly questionable} perspective and insight.
starviego- yes to all you say, but it was all documented on the blogs years ago
ReplyDeleteastro- my English must be confusing- I am not saying that Charlie never babbled about HS. I am saying that it was neither a real theory nor a motive and that most of it was made up by BUG
orwhut- I fucked up- Italian Dwarf- sorry
Grim you Ignorant Slut- gotta love that you took four posts to say absolutely nothing at all
ColScott said...
ReplyDeletemy English must be confusing
If only that were the case. You'd be foolproof then.
I fucked up
Naaaahhhh........
gotta love that you took four posts to say absolutely nothing at all
I was talking about you. What did you expect ?
ColScott said...
ReplyDeleteorwhut- I fucked up- Italian Dwarf- sorry
Thanks for clearing that up, Col.
Whut
Col, stick with me here-
ReplyDeleteBugs collects information from multiple sources that proves HS as a ‘philosophy’ that Charlie squawks about. I think we agree there. Bugs doesn’t have to prove motive BUT, in order to rope Charlie in on conspiracy/murder he has to prove this is Charlie’s ‘philosophy’. He also has to prove Charlie as the ‘trigger’ for the murders and I think this is where we (as a collective) simplify the term to “motive” when in reality, it’s philosophy and trigger.
I view the ‘trigger’ for Tate as “get some dark clothes and do what Tex says”. Do you agree and if yes, is that what you believe Bugs fabricated? If yes, Charlie (possibly) walks on Tate.
What do you believe is the ‘trigger’ for LaBianca and how is Charlie not culpable of that murder?
Simplest terms, if the above is true, I believe Charlie possibly walks on Tate but there’s no way out of LaBianca.
Jurors want a motive. If you don't give them one, they will try to supply their own. Bugliosi gave them Helter Skelter to keep the jury focused on the evidence in a trial that went on for 9 months.
ReplyDeleteAstro- I have never disputed the facts of the case. I am not a deluded narcissist like Grim.
ReplyDeleteOn the facts of the case Charlie is not guilty of Tate 1000%- even if he said "Go with Tex and do what he says" there are many ways out of that. On LaBianca he says "yeah I was there, but I had no fucking idea these maniacs were going to slaughter everyone- and hung jury at least.
BUG only gains inches if he gets Charlie as the mastermind. A mastermind has to have a reason, even a stupid one. In the case BUG invented the "King of the Apocalypse World motive."
What no one expected, from Stovitz on down, was Charlie being all like "Yeah that sounds cool, I'm badass."
Col,
DeleteIt brought him the fame he desperately sought to overcome his daddy rejection issues.
sure- I always felt he wanted fame and he got it, just not like he wanted
ReplyDeleteI finished reading the book recently. It took me a few days to read the first 60%, and it took me 3 months to read the final 40%.
ReplyDeleteLike all books on this case, I approached it with an open mind, but also mindful that O'Neill is generally regarded as a nutter. I found the first half interesting enough, but skeptical of his reporting in certain areas. The Melcher angle was interesting, but even moreso was that of the mystery man, Reeve Whitson. Skeptical, but fascinating in that Joel Rostau way.
But then off the deep end goes Tom, and suddenly I'm ready about labratory mice. It got easy to put the book down at that point, and nearly impossible to pick it back up in an attempt to finish it. This book was never going to see the light of day as long as Bugliosi was alive. Tom was clearly terrified of him.
ColScott said...
ReplyDelete"On the facts of the case Charlie is not guilty of Tate 1000%- even if he said "Go with Tex and do what he says" there are many ways out of that."
The zombies didn't have thought in their heads that wasn't put there by Charlie.
The Family, by Ed Sanders pg351
(around Aug 18) Tex laughed and told Snake, according to Snake, that he killed Sharon Tate: "I killed her. Charlie asked me to. It was fun."
Manson was Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!
Craig Smith wrote the song 'Salesman' that the Monkees recorded ... one of my favorites of theirs.
ReplyDeleteHe also tried to kill his mother...and, was very nearly cast as the "Peter Tork" character in The Monkees.
DeleteExtremely interesting story...reminds me more of Skip Spence or, even Bob Mosley (both from Moby Grape if not familiar) than of Syd Barrett (whom he is often compared to). Syd Barrett was never homeless, still using drugs, without any human contact once removed from the music industry and scene. He was an exceptionally prolific artist (painter) who - true to his eccentricity and, abstract thought processes, would destroy his completed artwork immediately upon completion. He lived in a fair sized home where he painted all the walls in the rooms in varying colors...whenever he felt the need to. He would sleep in whatever room he felt good about sleeping in, so they all had beds. And, THE BIKE (with basket and bell) was in one of the rooms too. His siblings were in regular contact with him.
Craig Smith was completely homeless and very much off the Grid. He (like Spence and Mosley...and, Danny Kirwan of Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac) was not on meds and, wayyyyyy deep into drugs.
Any one of these four musicians (not including Syd) would make fascinating studies.
I guess Craig had the 1968 association with the Manson Family too...not very deeply delved into though...
Zelda said...
ReplyDeleteBut then off the deep end goes Tom...
I managed to get through it pretty quickly, but it sure sounds like you and I reached very similar conclusions when we were done.
It’s one thing to claim that the JFK assassination was the result of a conspiracy. It’s another thing entirely to claim that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy between bigfoot and some extraterrestrials. For a twenty year effort, it’s a sadly disappointing book to me.
How can you say he d have had no idea they'd slaughter the labiancas when he knew about the cielo massacre
ReplyDeleteFinally saw once upon a time in Hollywood. Never spoiled myself so i went from looking for innaccuracies to enjoying his little twist. Looking forward to the review....
ReplyDeleteColScott said...
ReplyDeleteI am not a deluded narcissist like Grim
You wouldn't know a deluded narcissist if you sat next to yourself staring at a full length mirror. You'd like what you saw though.
On the facts of the case Charlie is not guilty of Tate 1000%.....On LaBianca.....hung jury at least
Were you one of the scriptwriters for "Rise of Skywalker" ?
BUG only gains inches if he gets Charlie as the mastermind. A mastermind has to have a reason, even a stupid one. In the case BUG invented the "King of the Apocalypse World motive."
Interestingly, both Al Springer and Danny DeCarlo, before Bugliosi was on the case, pegged Charlie as being behind the killings and both connected the thing about him being leader of the world and the fight against pig society with it too.
What no one expected, from Stovitz on down, was Charlie being all like "Yeah that sounds cool, I'm badass."
Although looking at some of the things said about him throughout his previous times in various institutions, the groundwork was laid.
Zelda Formaldehyde said...
the song 'Salesman' that the Monkees recorded ... one of my favorites of theirs
Same here. It's a great song, one of many from that rather maligned troupe. I love the laconic way Michael Nesmith sings it.
AstroCreep said...
in order to rope Charlie in on conspiracy/murder he has to prove this is Charlie’s ‘philosophy’.....Charlie possibly walks on Tate but there’s no way out of LaBianca
Because the two nights were dealt with as one conspiracy and both Atkins and Kasabian are clear that the opening night's events kick off with Charlie's direction {no one was going anywhere until he called people aside}, I'm not so sure he even walks on Cielo. It's really that second night that fries his giblets and so ties him into that first night.
There's no evidence against Knox.
ReplyDeleteColScott said...
ReplyDeleteI have never disputed the facts of the case.........BUG only gains inches if he gets Charlie as the mastermind. A mastermind has to have a reason, even a stupid one. In the case BUG invented the "King of the Apocalypse World motive."
The facts are that 6~8 months before the murders happened, Charlie was telling the Family exactly what would occur, how people would be cut up and words like "pigs" written on walls in blood. The day before the murders, he even reiterated this to Stephanie Schram's sister.
But heck, it was just Charlie's con, right ? That it went on to actually happen the way he outlined it to a number of people {including the rational Gregg Jacobson} is just one of history's great coincidences, right ?
Col, never let the facts of the case get in the way of your hatred of Bugliosi. Oh, hang on, wait....
On the facts of the case Charlie is not guilty of Tate 1000%
At a stretch, you could make that argument if you also were to accept that circumstantial evidence isn't worth a bean. Now of course, circumstantial evidence doesn't always prove a case ~ it could have been interpreted wrongly and a good lawyer can introduce sufficient doubt. But when you put together Linda Kasabian's evidence with the gun, the rope, the actual house on Cielo then add that to the fact that the conspiracy ran the two nights so add to that the thong, the actual house next door to the LaBiancas, what was written at 3301 Waverly and what Susan Atkins told Juan Flynn before they set off and all the connections to Charlie, then for a jury to hear all that and conclude that Manson shouldn't even have been tried is ludicrous.
One shouldn't toss off that phrase "the facts of the case" as though one was talking about a jam sandwich being made up of two bits of bread and some raspberry jam. There were tons of "facts of the case" and one of the most significant aspects of the case is that the defendants did not defend themselves against what was said about them. It's an all too often overlooked point but it is really important. The plethora of facts of the case are what added up to convictions in the end. Helter Skelter is not what convicted Charles Manson. Reading the books by William Zamora and Herman Tubick {plus some of the stuff William McBride says in the Tubick book} makes that clearer than some people would ever want to admit.
AstroCreep said...
Bugs collects information from multiple sources that proves HS as a ‘philosophy’ that Charlie squawks about
One problem I can see with the idea that Charlie didn't believe HS but it was just his narrative to get the others worked up is the the question of "to what end ?" One would pretty much have to accept that 8 months before the summer murders, Charlie was planning murders......unless he believed that this was something, like the fall of the Haight that he'd forseen and actually thought was going to happen, indeed already was happening. The 1970 Rolling Stone interview shows he believed it, Beatles lyrics, prophecy, Revelation, desert and all.
ColScott said...
ReplyDeletethe knowledge that BUG was mentally ill......bullshit theory that was weaved together by a mentally ill......Italian Dwarf
Ironically, the lawyer in the case that had mental health issues was Irving Kanarek. Sometimes, one wonders if those issues weren't already beginning to sprout during the trial, when one looks at some of Kanarek's actions, even when his client, Charlie, was telling thim to shut up or sit down or was trying to have him thrown off the case or complaining that Irving was neither listening to him nor doing as he requested.
O'Neill has actual sources for what he writes from LAPD, LASD and DA files, FOIA requests, published papers and archives. Jolly West archives are at UCLA and can be accessed via appointment. The so-called conspiracy stuff was exposed by the Church Committee report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee , info from Project MKUltra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra , etc. HE MAKES NO CLAIMS THAT ARE NOT DOCUMENTED IN THE RECORD. He does present circumstantial evidence about Manson being in the same clinic as MDs doing research into LSD, violence and mind control but he never tries to claim that was how Manson learned how to use LSD to gain control of his followers.
ReplyDeleteRead the book. You dont have to accept O'Neills conclusions but he does explore other areas where other researchers have not gone.
As a former probation officer, I was always amazed how Charlie was allowed to remain free all this time after his release in 1967. Despite arrests, drug use, association with felons, possession of weapons, travel without permission, no legit employment, etc, he just stayed on the streets. Chaos explained to me that since Charlie was part of Smiths program, he didn’t want him returned to prison. This also explains why the US Parole Commision went to great lengths to keep Manson’s parole file from being introduced at sentencing. Bug fought hard to keep this out of evidence. In 35 years of experience in the legal system, I have never before seen a prosecutor fighting to keep someone’s prison record and parole record from being used in a sentencing hearing. This book explained why to me after all these years. So for me, this was all new information.
ReplyDeleteOld PO
ReplyDeleteReally interesting comments, Manson claimed in the book "Manson Now" that he was put on the Witness Protection Scheme" Can you help us out on how that worked?
Stranger67
ReplyDeleteI can only guess what Charlie meant. He probably saw that he could get away with just about anything in order to stay in this study they were conducting and used it to his advantage. If this was the case, the U. S. Parole Commision would have been crucified if it was shown they ignored violations and allowed Manson to remain on the streets to commit all these murders. The government always protects itself.
Old P.O. Thank You Sir, really appreciate your help...
ReplyDeleteCan i ask one more please, Roger Smith who was we are told was running Mansons Parole from the Haight Ashbury Clinic goes to Medinco County to collect Mansons Child and Foster cares the child with his wife in his own home, this does not seems the normal action of a Parole Officer, have you ever heard of this happening before in the Parole Service?
Stranger 67
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely not. Completely unprofessional. He left the parole system which was good for everyone.
Can i recommend that you all read another book which gives another veiw point on the CIA's Operation MHCHAOS, this is Operation Chaos by MATTHEW SWEET and was released the year before Tom O'Neills. This books DOES NOT mention Manson or his crimes or any connection to them.
ReplyDeleteThe importance of this book that its focus is on the US Army Vietnam deserters and their life in the safe and welcoming arms of Sweden. To the point, the book looks at the Deserters infiltration by the CIA and suspected agent Micheal Vale who strongly controls the group by a method called "Ego Stripping" and he also has an unhealthy interest in "The Beatles" sound familiar?!?...
Sheer poetry, ah!
ReplyDelete