.jpeg)
I dislike having to step on an important post like the Tenerelli Files but the Charles Alan Green situation has become time sensitive.
You will recall back at the end of August 2022 I posted a piece on Charles Allen Beard and what had become of him.
Since I made my post Cielodrive was able to get copies of Green's parole hearings through the 2020 hearing where he first was granted parole. It was reversed by the governor. Unbeknownst to me when I initially published the post, Green was having another parole hearing on September 1, 2022, the same week I put up the post. He was again granted parole by the two-person parole hearing board.
Cielodrive requested the hearing transcripts for the 2022 hearing but it takes 30 days for those hearings to be released. In the meantime, I read the 2020 transcript and found it to be completely at odds with what Green had said to Lynette Fromme and Charles Manson about his parents being in law enforcement.
In the hearing he affirmed to the parole board members that he had been raised by Hells Angels and prostitutes, his father was killed in a gang fight either before he was born or shortly after and he generally had a very violent upbringing. (Reading between the lines, Green was presenting himself as the victim and whatever he had done was not his fault but the fault of his mother and the environment he was raised in.)
Once Cielodrive received the 2022 hearing transcripts we found he had essentially said the same thing.
What? In one instance to Fromme and Manson he says he had a law enforcement upbringing and to the parole board he claims to have been raised by Hells Angels etc. Something was not right and I aimed to find out what was true.
I found that everything Green told the parole board was a lie. Then I set about writing a letter to the DA's office in the county where Green was convicted with my findings. I snail mailed the letter to the DA because I was afraid that since I had a number of attachments that an email wouldn't be read for fear of viruses or something. To my dismay, I did not hear back from the DA's office, not even an acknowledgement that they had received my letter. I even emailed the DDA that attended the 2022 hearing a couple of weeks later to ask if he had received it. Crickets.
I asked Cielodrive if there was something else that could be done. He suggested writing to the chief of victim services at the CDC (California Department of Corrections) since he had worked with her before on other issues. Cielodrive sent her an email of introduction and she agreed to hear me out. I couldn't have been happier about the outcome.
The victim services woman said she would send my letter to the chief of BPH (Bureau of Parole Hearings) investigations for their consideration. It took a few weeks before I heard back. The day before yesterday, Monday, I got the outcome.
From the woman at victim services-
Hi Deb, thanks for your patience. BPH updated me this morning – see below. The information that you submitted has been reviewed by BPH Investigations and the information will all be included in the package that is going to be sent over to the Governor’s Office. I hope this helps. Stay in touch
What BPH investigations sent-
Dear Katie, we have reviewed the allegations and the hearing transcript. We are sharing this information with the Governor’s office so they will have it as well.
You can help too by sending a note to the governor opposing Green's release. It can be done by snail mail or email. Remember that he is incarcerated under the name Charles Alan Green and his prison number is B93617. His prison number should be included in whatever you send. For the subject choose "Parole-Governors Review" in the drop-down menu. According to my calculations the 120-day review period by BPH and the governor ends on December 29, 2022.
https://govapps.gov.ca.gov/gov40mail/
None of this would have been possible without the help of Cielodrive and of Buntline Special who helped gather the material for the attachments and edited the first draft of my letter. It was kind of snarky!
Amid all the sniping that the comments sometimes induce it's through conversation that we can make a difference.
What ever happened to "transportation to the antipodes"?
ReplyDeleteLOL That would be nice but then he would be someone else's problem and they might deal with him even more inefficiently than we have. I seriously cannot believe that no one in the prison system checked out the stories he has been telling. He almost got away with it.
ReplyDeleteVery nice work Deb, Cielo & Buntline. My chest is swollen with pride.
ReplyDeleteThis is amazing news. I am so thankful and fortunate to have been able to witness yourself, Bunty and Cielo "behind the scenes" working diligently for the truth!
ReplyDeleteAs always, great work Deb. Really surprised the DDA never responded
ReplyDeleteIf Newsom finds out is that this guy was even peripherally connected to Manson, his parole is toast.
ReplyDeleteI don't have any doubt that Gov. Newsom will learn of Green's connection to Manson. Cielodrive was able to get a reply from the DDA that attended the 2020 parole hearing. That DDA had moved on to work in a neighboring county so he wasn't much help but he did tell Cielodrive that the fact that Green was associated with the Family was not in his file.
ReplyDeleteI think where it will become a permanent part of his file is when he has his next parole hearing, assuming the governor reverses this parole grant. If so, he will never get out of prison. Green struck me as being as callous as anyone could be. His lies about how he was raised are so outrageous and they were designed to wring the maximum amount of sympathy from the parole hearing board. The next hearing is not going to go very well for him because no one likes to be duped.
It's ironic that Lynette put anything in her book about Green because if she had not there wouldn't have been any red flags as to what he was telling the parole board.
This guy Charles Green committed kidnapping and rape against a woman near Spahn Ranch on July 17, 1969. He was arrested right there at the ranch (according to Fromme) for the crime on July 21, 1969 and hauled away by the cops, never to return. Less than a week later Bobby Beausoleil stabbed Gary Hinman to death. A week and a half after that another Charles went on a bloodthirsty rampage that became the raison d'etre for this blog. On the basis of his later crimes, one can only speculate what violence-prone Charles Green's role would have been in Manson's Helter Skelter bloodbath.
ReplyDelete@Gorodish you sound like a fool. It's apparent from what Lynette wrote he was just a 16yo who hung around the ranch, as lots of people did who aren't on the LAPD list. I know of Topanga Canyon locals who'd hang out there from time to time. He committed a crime with no relation to them and they never saw his face again. Trying to tie him to them is pretty stupid.
ReplyDeleteDoes it sometimes seem to others here that we have people seeking a Grand Unified Theory of Mansondom?
ReplyDeleteD./Manson Mythos/LaCalandra/etc.etc. :
ReplyDeleteAs far as tying Green to the Family, I was just engaging in some speculation. That's kinda what these blogs are about. Sorry you always feel the need to insult people who don't think your idol Charlie was Mahatma Gandhi. I enjoyed Lynette's book as a daily journal of both the wild times and the mundane aspects of life at Spahn; however, she downplays and soft pedals any violent aspects of the family in order to cast an idyllic scenario. I get the feeling to this day she's never quite gotten over having to leave Spahn Ranch. I live and work in Simi Valley. I know people in my own age group (65 to 70), that knew Sherry Cooper from childhood; that saw Danny DeCarlo's bread truck always parked near Royal and Hartley; that saw the girls in the supermarket dumpster at Los Angeles Ave. and Yosemite; that saw Steve Grogan sitting outside of a pool hall in a poncho looking spaced out-but none of them ever claimed to have been at Spahn in 1969. SO I am glad that you "know of Topanga Canyon locals who'd hang out there from time to time." Maybe you've talked to Bryan Cranston or Pete the Stunt Man. I do know that if I ever want to know about life in late 1960s Los Angeles, I am not going to go on the word of a guy born in 1982.
Have a great week!😀
Dennis, your blinkered bias has gotten you well and truly spanked. 🤛 🥊
ReplyDeleteComing from you that's funny.
ReplyDeleteThese people knew all sorts of people from all sorts of life. People that barely knew them made it on that list, while others who knew them very well didn't. There is one person on it who met Charlie once in their life.
shoegazer said:
ReplyDeleteDoes it sometimes seem to others here that we have people seeking a Grand Unified Theory of Mansondom?
What do you actually mean by that ?
D. said:
It's apparent from what Lynette wrote he was just a 16yo who hung around the ranch, as lots of people did who aren't on the LAPD list
It's apparent from what Lynette wrote that Lynette is basically no different to anyone else in terms of what she knows, despite being there. As she herself put it "there was a lot going on and I didn't know the half of it."
Writing that the victim was 60 and that she was shocked at the woman's age puts a whole different spin on the story ~ as Lynette herself points out ~ she claims she saw the woman in one of the police cars.
Some of her writing is fanciful and full of shit, for example, claiming that Bobby Beausoleil was the father of Linda Kasabian's child when such a feat was biologically impossible.
He committed a crime with no relation to them and they never saw his face again. Trying to tie him to them is pretty stupid
Such a statement might have legs and be defendable had it not happened in mid-July 1969. Unfortunately, by that point crime and criminal thinking were rife in the Family and with that went the feeling that one could get away with criminal action. Like a few other things, it was so clearly part of the air that people were breathing which in itself legitimizes what one does on the wrong side of the law, whether directly sanctioned by Charlie or not. Is it a coincidence that Charlie himself was part of a rape complaint in and around that period, or he and Danny were involved in an assault complaint involving Danny's wife or that Linda Kasabian, Paul Watkins, Barbara Hoyt and Brooks Poston {go ahead, tell us you believe nothing they said, they all held a grudge and were lying bullshitters....} all describe forced sexual situations independently of one another or that when Charles Melton and Bob Kasabian came to get their $5000 back that had been stolen they were threatened openly with knives or that when Tex conned Bernard Crowe out of £2700 Charlie went round to sort it out with a loaded gun hidden in his belt....
Far from sounding like a fool, Gorodish has actually hit on something quite stark that shines a searing light on some of the people that were part of the Family and what was going on with them in the very period that all hell was breaking loose. By the time this 32-year-old woman had been raped at knifepoint, Manson had already shot Lotsapoppa, and those at the ranch assumed he was dead and that Charlie had done the deed and was a little wary of the Panthers....
It's actually rather ironic that the more you try to defend Charlie and minimize his doings, the worse you make him look because people are then forced to examine what you're saying and 97% of what you say is found wanting.
It's a simple lesson to learn ~ charismatic people influence those around them for better or worse. That Chuck Green is wholly responsible for rape is not even in question ~ he is and was. Chances are, he may even have done what he did had he never met or been with the Family. But if you water a plant with sugar water, it will remain that plant ~ and taste sweeter than it ought to.
Grim wrote:
ReplyDeleteIt's apparent from what Lynette wrote that Lynette is basically no different to anyone else in terms of what she knows, despite being there. As she herself put it "there was a lot going on and I didn't know the half of it."
Writing that the victim was 60 and that she was shocked at the woman's age puts a whole different spin on the story ~ as Lynette herself points out ~ she claims she saw the woman in one of the police cars.
-------------
The person Lyn saw could have been a police matron accompanying the victim and she assumed she was the victim. Lyn was young and people of that age are not great at judging the ages of anyone over thirty.
In March 1969 two of the Family guys were out trolling for girls to bring home to Charlie. This particular trolling excursion led to Manson being arrested for the rape of a 17 year old girl. The girl described the two guys that were in the car that picked her up. One was obviously Paul Watkins and the other very well could have been Chuck Green. The young rape victim said the second guy was wearing a tan vest, the same as Marilyn Kay said in her report four months later.
DebS said...
ReplyDeleteThe person Lyn saw could have been a police matron accompanying the victim and she assumed she was the victim
True, but it kind of makes my point about what Lynette was aware of even more poignant.
Imagine for a moment that the reports of the rape had never been uncovered. We'd all go to the grave thinking that he raped a 60-year-old. Whether he's a scumbag or not, I don't like to deal in general impressions that may or may not be so, I want specific details to guide my thoughts about a person.
When push comes to shove, Lynette comes across as a liar, a fairy tale merchant, an apologist or someone who knew very little but is banking on her name and association with the infamous Charles Manson. None are very pretty but she's the one doing the writing.
That probably sounds really harsh. It's not meant to but honestly, hers is a view and that only. It needs to be balanced with a whole lot of other stuff.
I wasn't disagreeing with you Grim, I was simply giving an alternative explanation for who Lyn thought she saw. I think Lyn is probably stuck in the time warp of 1969 and she can't move forward because she can't admit that she was wrong to have put so much faith into one very warped individual. The whole lot of them should have listened to Jack Weinberg who said, "Don't trust anyone over thirty."
ReplyDeleteSometimes when considering the few Manson followers I know anything about, and try to examine their backgrounds and their young adult activities prior to Manson, I find that I might have known someone like Leslie Van Houten, but not Susan Atkins.
ReplyDeleteThere may have been some other females who were from backgrounds where our paths might have crossed, but fewer of the men.
I might have played sports with a guy like Watson, but after he moved to LA he would not have been in a sort of circle I'd ever encounter.
With Davis, I can almost see him as someone I might have worked with at manual labor jobs like I used to do in college. I worked with quite a few non-college types. But again, after he sorta dropped out I probably would never have crossed path with him.
The closest fairly sophisticated person whom I've read about--and read their own accounts of Manson--with whom I can connect intellectually was Jacobson. I can see where he was intrigued in a sort of intellectual way with Manson's philosophies. And Manson was leveraging this fairly thin intellectual appeal (I guess he would be seen as sort of primitivist utilitarian with mystical trimmings--at least that's what he presented, I think) with access to the girls and drugs.
DebS said...
ReplyDeleteI wasn't disagreeing with you Grim
I know. And your explanation was definitely plausible if not probable.
I think Lynette possibly gets a certain high status on TLB pages because, well, she's Squeaky, lieutenant-general of the Family, keeper of the flame and the intellectual woman writer that pointed a gun at the president.
But I think she's either in denial, or just as likely, someone who knew very little about things that tons of other people that weren't there and yet have opinions on, seem to know a lot more about. Or a straightforward liar, but like most liars, won't see the stance they take as lies. Charlie did that on trial when he had a go at LE for arresting Bobby "for something he did not do" when he well and knew that he'd killed Gary. Oh, and many other things....