Mrs. Seymour Kott was an earwitness, her sole contribution being that she heard shots after midnight:
Helter Skelter. page 24:
At 10070 Cielo, Mr. and Mrs. Seymour Kott had already gone to bed, their dinner guests having left about midnight, when Mrs. Kott heard, in close sequence, what sounded like three or four gunshots. They seemed to have come from the direction of the gate of 10050. She did not check the time but later guessed it to be between 12:30 and 1 a.m. Hearing nothing further, Mrs. Kott went to sleep.
At 10070 Cielo, Mr. and Mrs. Seymour Kott had already gone to bed, their dinner guests having left about midnight, when Mrs. Kott heard, in close sequence, what sounded like three or four gunshots. They seemed to have come from the direction of the gate of 10050. She did not check the time but later guessed it to be between 12:30 and 1 a.m. Hearing nothing further, Mrs. Kott went to sleep.
No
where is Mrs. Seymour Kott identified as other than "Mrs. Seymour
Kott" or simply "Mrs. Kott." It is surprising, then, that Mrs. Seymour
Kott--professionally known as Ethel Fisher-- has her own Wikipedia page:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethel_Fisher
In 1961, Ethel Fisher left Miami and her family to concentrate on her painting. After traveling in Europe for a year, she resettled in Manhattan with her second husband, art historian Seymour Kott....
At the end of the decade, Fisher and Kott left New York and rented a property in the Hollywood Hills next door to the home of Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski just weeks before the Manson murders took place. Their account of that night was published in several books about the murders. In 1971, they bought a 1926, multi-level Spanish Colonial home on a slope above the Pacific Ocean in Pacific Palisades...
In 1961, Ethel Fisher left Miami and her family to concentrate on her painting. After traveling in Europe for a year, she resettled in Manhattan with her second husband, art historian Seymour Kott....
At the end of the decade, Fisher and Kott left New York and rented a property in the Hollywood Hills next door to the home of Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski just weeks before the Manson murders took place. Their account of that night was published in several books about the murders. In 1971, they bought a 1926, multi-level Spanish Colonial home on a slope above the Pacific Ocean in Pacific Palisades...
She was a painter of some renown, at least in the art world. Her works have been exhibited at, among others:
Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles, CA
Special Collections, University of California, Los Angeles, CA
The Morgan Library and Museum, New York, NY
The Museum of the City of New York, NY
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY
The Norton Gallery, West Palm Beach, FL
The Security Pacific Bank Collection (now Bank of America), CA
Special Collections, University of California, Los Angeles, CA
The Morgan Library and Museum, New York, NY
The Museum of the City of New York, NY
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY
The Norton Gallery, West Palm Beach, FL
The Security Pacific Bank Collection (now Bank of America), CA
---------------
So
here's the question: Was her name deliberately obscured to protect
her professional reputation? It's a small thing, but it seems just
another case of how the big names were being protected from any
association with the Manson infamy.
Mrs. Seymour Kott (1923–2017)
Another unresolved question I have is who were the guests at the Kott house that night--the ones who left "about midnight," according to Bugs' book? You'd think the investigators would have wanted to contact them, to see if they saw anything on their drive away from the house, as the killers allegedly would have arrived on scene just minutes later. Maybe they were 'prominent' in some way too, and pressure was applied to leave their names out of it.
Tom
O'Neill disclosed that an anonymous blogger-"Enty"-claimed that the
actor Dean Stockwell had some kind of encounter with Tex Watson at the
top of Cielo Drive the night of the murders:
This
recently deceased Academy award nominated movie and TV actor had
success early in his career and a second wind later in his career. In
between, he was part of a wild generation and during that time became
friends with an infamous figure who had his own family. The night of a
famous crime, he was present having driven himself there but did not go
inside the house of the actress. One of the perpetrators of this crime
gave hours of recorded testimony to his attorney and mentioned this but
no one believed him.
(referring to Stockwell, Manson, and Tex Watson, obviously)
Stockwell, of course, is best known as an actor, but he also took himself seriously as an artist:
Pacific Standard Time, Los Angeles Art 1945-1980, by Rebecca Peabody, pg78
For
many, sharing works of art was a private, intimate act, and a great
number of art works made by this circle of artists were never exhibited
publicly. This was the case with many of the works made by Stockwell, a
former Hollywood child star, who began creating intricate collages of
found pictures that mingled historical and contemporary imagery and
sources.
Stockwell,
known professionally as R. D. Stockwell in the art world, was doing
collages in this period on a professional level (he designed one of Neil
Young's album covers, for example). As was Mrs. Seymour Kott, Given
this commonality, is it possible Stockwell was a guest at the Kott
residence that night, and ran across Tex at the top of Cielo as
Stockwell left the house at about midnight? The timeline fits,
certainly.
85 comments:
Thanks for this. I have been looking into Seymour Kott for some time, but could find nothing on his wife. The description of the Kott dinner guests leaving "around midnight" once again does not fix an exact time of that event. This is somewhat important to me, as Tex and company probably did not arrive to Cielo and cut the phone lines until after the Kott guests departed.
Did Tex witness the cars of the Kott guests parked on the street, and wait to cut the lines until he watched the last one leave? If so, what does this say about the arrival time of the killers at Cielo?
Seymour Kott, in that videotaped NBC interview, claims he heard nothing after midnight.
Yet in an LA Times Article deated Aug 27, 1969, he claims he heard shots and screams at "2 or 2:30am – no earlier ."
"I heard a loud shot, a woman’s scream, then another shot."
http://www.cielodrive.com/archive/tate-neighbor-heard-shots-screams-in-murder-house-about-2-in-morning/
So which is it? That's rather dramatic difference.
People are always asking why Garretson didn't hear the gunshots, yet the Kotts were only half the distance to the front gate area where the shots were fired, and their house was in a direct line-of-sight. The sound waves didn't have to curve around the hillside and travel over and around the main house to make it to the backhouse. Yet the Kotts never bothered to check out the source of the noise?
Seymour Kott is himself somewhat of a cypher. He was nearly 50 at the time of the murders, and we know nothing of what he did in the decades prior, or what he did in the decades after, other than he was allegedly an 'art historian.'
"...just another case of how the big names were being protected from any association with the Manson infamy"
Which people were protected?
At some point Seymour and his wife moved to the Pacific Palisades. He was born Dec. 18, 2019 and died July 10, 2012 according to Ancestry.com. Thrre is another article on his wife in the Palisades News, entitled, "Painter to Painter: Ethel Fisher and R.B. Kitaj."
Candice Bergen, Mama Cass, and Angela Lansbury and Dean Martin via their children. And Steve McQueen, who I suspect really WAS at a party there that night(IMO only). And all those other Hollywood types that allegedly had met Manson. And by extension the big studios associated with those artists.
What kind of protection did they receive and from whom?
They didn't get subpoenas to testify(mostly), and they weren't hounded by the media(their agents probably told them not to talk)--and some of them left the state to escape the publicity.
What relevant information did any of those people have that would warrant a subpoena?
Torque said...
At some point Seymour and his wife moved to the Pacific Palisades. He was born Dec. 18, 2019 and died July 10, 2012 according to Ancestry.com.
At the ripe old age of -7.
Cielodrive.com said:
What relevant information did any of those people have that would warrant a subpoena?
You know Star, Cielo. Once a CT, always a CT.
I'd say that once one has read the trial transcripts, they're looking for egg in their face to suggest that Candice Bergen, Mama Cass, Angela Lansbury, Dean Martin and Steve McQueen had anything remotely of interest or weight to add to a murder case against Charles Manson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Susan Atkins and Leslie Van Houten, let alone something that would compel them to testify.
starviego said:
Angela Lansbury and Dean Martin via their children
That's pretty lame. Deirdre Lansbury ceased to have any meaningful connection with the Family after 1968 and Deana Martin testified in the Watson trial.
As for Candice Bergen, her boyfriend Terry Melcher testified in both trials.
And all those other Hollywood types that allegedly had met Manson. And by extension the big studios associated with those artists
There is nothing suspect or untoward about wanting it kept quiet that someone indicted for murder may have moved vaguely in your circles. That's the kind of information you let leak after the trials are over when you're doing interviews and slip it in ¬> "Oh, by the way, you remember the Charles Manson case ? Well, he used to......"
When the police and in particular Bugliosi were investigating, they found that Charlie had rubbed shoulders with quite a few famous people. But none of this was germaine to the case against him. All this stuff about things being covered up is so much flat beer after the big build-up.
Torque said:
The description of the Kott dinner guests leaving "around midnight" once again does not fix an exact time of that event
But there's never been an exact timeline because the perps weren't exactly timing events. And most of the times that a time is given, it's estimates or occasions where people changed their original estimate. Mrs Kott is a great example. She, by her own admission, had no idea when she heard the shots. Her time was an estimate and a pretty way off one if one takes into account Rudolf Weber or Tim Ireland's supervisor, Rich Sparks, who seemed a little more sure of the time. So if Mrs Kott's time estimate of hearing the shots is so way off, that hardly inspires confidence that her guests left around midnight. Unless of course, they did leave around midnight and just drove past 10050, not noticing anything.....because they weren't looking for anything and just wanted to get home to their beds !
starviego said:
Seymour Kott, in that videotaped NBC interview, claims he heard nothing after midnight.
Yet in an LA Times Article dated Aug 27, 1969, he claims he heard shots and screams at "2 or 2:30am – no earlier ."
"I heard a loud shot, a woman’s scream, then another shot."
Yeah, Seymour Kott, the first of the Cielo publicity hounds, this is your life !"
Just a general observation WRT hearing the shots. I don't have an opinion on whether anyone heard the shots other than the perpetrators and the victims. It's plausible to me both ways: someone did; no one did.
I would like to remind people that that when making their speculations about who should have heard what, I'm going to guess that many/most here have fired a 22. Most often this would be from a rifle. I have many times.
The quality of the sound of a 22 is not like what you hear on movies or perhaps have heard from other guns. A 22 makes a sort of a smacking sound, snapping, almost. The closest approximation would be to take an 18 inch wooden ruler and hold one end firmly on a table top, and pull the other end upward, creating quite a bit of tension.
When you release the raised end of the ruler, it would snap back against the table top.
This is really a lot like a 22 sounds from close range.
This is just to inject a limit to what the gunshots might have sounded like.
I can clear up the anonymity issue. I see this issue pretty consistently while conducting research using historical documents.
Up until the women's empowerment movement in the 1970s, wives were often referred to as Mrs. Husbands Name. Her sole credit was being associated with her spouse, and anything she accomplished was tempered by his presence. In research, it's incredibly hard to identify their names without finding official records such as marriage certificates.
Sorry to spit on your theory but kudos to you for finding her name.
shoegazer said:
This is really a lot like a 22 sounds from close range.
This is just to inject a limit to what the gunshots might have sounded like
Would that apply in the dead of night in the canyons ? Maybe Ethel partially recognized the sound, being familiar with it. She didn't seem to think they might have been the sounds of a car backfiring, which one of the security patrol men did, later that night.
So this is where we're at?
"Why does does Mrs. Seymour Kott have her own Wikipedia page?"
Because...
"She was a painter of some renown, at least in the art world. Her works have been exhibited at, among others:
Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles, CA
Special Collections, University of California, Los Angeles, CA
The Morgan Library and Museum, New York, NY
The Museum of the City of New York, NY
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY
The Norton Gallery, West Palm Beach, FL
The Security Pacific Bank Collection (now Bank of America), CA"
You've answered your own question. :-)
gt:
Would that apply in the dead of night in the canyons ? Maybe Ethel partially recognized the sound, being familiar with it. She didn't seem to think they might have been the sounds of a car backfiring, which one of the security patrol men did, later that night.
The quality of the sound--resembling a longish ruler slapping against a tabletop--would be consistent, but how this sound might carry given topography, atmospheric conditions, competing noise, is open to interpretation.
It is the intrinsic quality of the sound, itself, and not how well it would carry, that I was discussing. Cello vs violin. Alto vs bari sax.
Now, WRT to a 22 report being described as a car's backfire, it's like the old Blackadder exchange where one character gushingly says to another that "It's said that the Infanta's eyes are bluer than the waters of the Aegean Sea." And another asks him if he has actually seen the Infanta's eyes, to which the first speaker says "no".
The second speaker asks if he has ever seen the Aegean, and again the answer is "no".
At which point the second speaker (probably Atkinson) says:
"So you're telling me that you're comparing something you've never seen with something else you've never seen?"...
My point is that many people in the discussion group may never have heard either a 22 (or other caliber firearm) or a car's backfire at this point in time. In 1969 there was a better chance that a common person would have heard either or both.
Me, from my perspective, having heard backfires and firearms reports (many different kinds), in honesty I'd never describe a .22 cal report as being anything like a car backfire. To my ear, a backfire and a large gauge shotgun might be compared.
Again, 22s sound like a sharp snap. Like at shooting galleries in carnivals.
Peter:
So this is where we're at?
Yes, and I'd say we've been there a l-o-n-g time...
;^)
Correction:
I said:
"...a backfire and a large gauge shotgun might be compared."
Should be small, or low gauge shotgun; the lower the gauge number, the larger/more powerful the shotgun is. Therefore, 20 gauge is less powerful than 16 gauge, which is less powerful than a 12 gauge.
More directly, a car backfire--which is seldom heard in this era of electronically controlled ignition--sounds to me a lot like a 12 gauge.
Starviego,
Thanks for the article.
I see a couple of things a little differently.
1. Unless I see an LE document that either states that LE did not ask the Kott’s for their guest list or that LE was provided with their guest list but chose not to interview the guests, I will not by default presume that LE did not know who was present; or not interview any of those present. While the “FIRST HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION PROGRESS REPORT” does summarize part of the Kott’s interview, I’ve never seen “Addendum #9” and it’s successor - interviews after the report was complete.
This reminds me of a discussion about the (6 drinking) glasses found at Cielo by LE. A number disagreed because this was not stated in the progress reports or shown in photos of the crime seen. But in one of the earliest articles concerning the incident, Roman said that he was asked by LE if he knew of a party because LE found 6 glasses. The location of the glasses was not stated.
2. The probability is very low that there was a conspiracy coverup to protect the identities of any of the Kott’s guests. If the Kott’s didn’t provide the guest list or provided just a partial guest list, it may have been because the Kott’s decided to not burden (some of) their guests. It’s also possible that some of the guests asked them to not mention their names. If these adult guests felt they had info to help LE, they knew how to contact LE. If I were the host I would not have provided names and if I were a guest I would have been “pissed off” if the host provided my name.
3. If by some chance Stanton encountered Watson that night, I wonder if Stanton left the area for the rest of the year or did he remain in the LA area?
4. Keep on digging
One of the things that really bugs me about this case is how I’ve never seen any report or discussion about the upside down “Olympia?” beer can under the mail box. That may hold the key to “life, the universe, and everything “.
TorF, thanks for reminding us about that Olympia beer can. It is plainly visible in one of the photos in my recent post. Although I think that can has no special significance concerning this case, I often wondered who placed it there.
I know that the gardeners of Cielo(Dave and Tom) would park in that area of the gate with their girlfriends, and maybe had a few beers. Mind you, I also once saw a photo of the back seat of the '59 Ford murder car, and it was full of beer cans in the floorboards. Most of these I believe were Coors, but possibly an Oly can or two? Not that I think one of those cans fell out of the back of that car when Tex and the girls arrived...
shoegazer said:
It is the intrinsic quality of the sound, itself, and not how well it would carry, that I was discussing
I understand that. Mine was a supplementary question that still applies.
Now, WRT to a 22 report being described as a car's backfire
Ethel never did describe what she heard as being like a car backfiring. She said she heard gunshots.
the old Blackadder exchange where one character gushingly says to another that "It's said that the Infanta's eyes are bluer than the waters of the Aegean Sea."
I feel that was a poor piece of writing, even though I can see why the audience would find it funny. It relied on the comic delivery rather than the script itself because the character making the statement begins with "it's said that..." which lets him off the hook and ∴ doesn't matter whether he's seen the Infanta or the Aegean Sea. He's relaying what is said, not trying a bit of fake smartness.
My point is that many people in the discussion group may never have heard either a 22 (or other caliber firearm) or a car's backfire at this point in time. In 1969 there was a better chance that a common person would have heard either or both
I get that. At the same time, as an aside, I have heard cars backfiring on many occasions and I have noticed, they carry a variety of different sounds, some higher pitched, some deep and almost guttural, some sounding like breaking wood. It depends, I guess, on the size of the car and condition of the exhaust/engine.
TabOrFresca said:
The probability is very low that there was a conspiracy coverup to protect the identities of any of the Kott’s guests
I agree. If any of them had had anything of note to add that would have made life easier for the prosecution, they would have been called in. We learn absolutely zero about them. One may find it interesting though, that people like Ethel Kott, Rich Sparks, Maureen Serot and Mila Weber weren't called, given that from our oblique perspective, they had what could be regarded as some interesting supplementary information that related to the actual times that the murders took place. But then, it turned out not to be important because it was always known Manson wasn't there and nothing was ever introduced to show that Pat, Susan, Tex and Linda weren't there.
Starviego tends to see conspiracies by "those in power" in every neighbourhood bodega and truck stop. The more I look at the evidence that was actually presented, the more I can see that many of the subsequent talking points, while being great to debate and speculate on and whatnot, have little relevance to what was the main job at hand ~ to convict people accused of murder. Angela Lansbury and Dean Stockwell are completely irrelevant to that. What could Mama Cass have said at trial that would have made the slightest bit of difference ?
In England, over the last 15~20 years, we've had numerous incidents of it coming out that a celeb or "person in a prominent position" has tried to use the courts to block the papers from publishing certain information {affairs, drugs, gay dalliance, paedophilia, financial dodginess, etc} that they have felt doesn't show them in a good light. I wonder how much of that ever took place within the Manson saga....
Starviego said:
So here's the question: Was her name deliberately obscured to protect her professional reputation?
No. That is often how married women were referred to in those days. I always thought it odd, even as a kid. Communal surnames, OK, but the first name too ?
It's a small thing, but it seems just another case of how the big names were being protected from any association with the Manson infamy
Was Ethel Fisher really a big name ? A name so big that it's taken until 2023 for the top Manson blog in cyberspace to reveal that she was actually Mrs Kott ?
You might have had a point if we were talking about Mrs Nixon....
Me:
the old Blackadder exchange where one character gushingly says to another that "It's said that the Infanta's eyes are bluer than the waters of the Aegean Sea."
GT:
I feel that was a poor piece of writing, even though I can see why the audience would find it funny. It relied on the comic delivery rather than the script itself because the character making the statement begins with "it's said that..." which lets him off the hook and ∴ doesn't matter whether he's seen the Infanta or the Aegean Sea. He's relaying what is said, not trying a bit of fake smartness.
You're missing the point, which is precisely that people will accept blind comparisons and come away with what they feel is a satisfactory conclusion without knowing anything about either point of comparison.
In the skit, the first character was dreamily impressed with what he *thought* the Infanta might be like, based on some hearsay ideas about the waters around Greece.
I'm saying that I suspect that there are some readers here who hear about the shots being compared to a car's backfire, and they, too, have experience of neither of the things being compared, and yet will draw what they think are meaningful conclusions from a completely uninformed comparison.
So far as "She [Mrs. Kott] didn't seem to think they might have been the sounds of a car backfiring," that's all fine, but I was referring to this part, "...which one of the security patrol men did, later that night." I'm making it clear that in my opinion it's not likely to hear a .22 and think it was a backfire.
There is no mystery associated with Mrs. Kott. Referring to married women using the husband's name was the expected born in those days, strange as it now seems to some.
As for the dinner guest question, that's intriguing. Likely unknowable, but intriguing.
shoegazer said:
You're missing the point, which is precisely that people will accept blind comparisons and come away with what they feel is a satisfactory conclusion without knowing anything about either point of comparison
I wasn't missing the point. I get the point. I was commenting on a piece of writing, as an aside, as I am wont to do at times. It's not in any way connected with the topic at hand. A bit like, my sons and I have this long-running debate about the phrase in which the glass is seen as half empty or half full. I know exactly what it means, I know exactly what is being conveyed. I'll even use it on occasion or accept it when people use it. But I think it's a stupid phrase. English is full of daft phrases like that. I like them precisely because I see them as daft.
I'm saying that I suspect that there are some readers here who hear about the shots being compared to a car's backfire, and they, too, have experience of neither of the things being compared, and yet will draw what they think are meaningful conclusions from a completely uninformed comparison
I don't doubt it. But that's where one must trust {or not} the perception of the person making the comparison. After all, it's their comparison.
I was referring to this part, "...which one of the security patrol men did, later that night." I'm making it clear that in my opinion it's not likely to hear a .22 and think it was a backfire
Not to get into a big long-drawn-out argument over what is essentially nothing, but the only reason I'm going to disagree with that {in the friendliest way} is because there's no accounting for the different ways in which people's perceptions work within their own being. That we may perceive something one way doesn't equate to someone else perceiving it the same way.
Now, for the record, I've always argued that there's no way the security patrol man, Marceau Mounton, could have heard Watson's shots, principally because of the time. The police report states:
"At approximately 0330, Mr. Mounton heard what he first believed to be three backfires, but on reflection, felt the reports were too sharp and short to be backfires. He said the reports were two close together, and then one shortly thereafter. Mr. Mounton was positioned on the south side of the residence and could not be sure from what direction the sound came." This has often been used to try to prop up a much, much later timeline of the crime in the effort to shoehorn in one of the alternative theories for which there's no evidence.
people will accept blind comparisons and come away with what they feel is a satisfactory conclusion without knowing anything about either point of comparison
This happens a lot in life. And in reality, it has to. Because there are so many things that one may hear about in life's journey that are outside one's direct experience at that time. If a woman that has had 4 children vaginally, tells a 20-year-old guy that's never had toothache 😬 that the only pain she's experienced worse than labour and childbirth was an abscess in the gums {or for that matter, vice-versa}, is he wrong to accept that, having experienced neither ? 🤔
If i was even awake to hear a few shots from a .22 in the middle of rhe night, living in a place like that, I would have looked up from what I was doing. Said ro myself "Hmm. What was that." Then I would have listened quietly for about 15 seconds. And, hearing nothing, gone back to whatever it was I was doing and forgotten all about ithe whole incident within the next 10 minutes.
GT:
I'm going to delete the rest because it's rapidly veering off into pedantic drivel, which does the group no good, but offer up one last illustration:
"At approximately 0330, Mr. Mounton heard what he first believed to be three backfires, but on reflection, felt the reports were too sharp and short to be backfires."
Now to stretch your analogy, I'm in the place of the woman with both vaginal births and abscesses, and I'm telling all the 20-year old guys out there--that Mounton's description makes sense to one who has experienced both gunshots and backfires.
Thanks for clearing that up.
If the sound of a .22 was that of taking an 18 inch ruler on a table top and pulling one end DOWNWARDS, to make that cool "Twaaaaangggggg" noise, this thread would be much funnier.
make that cool "Twaaaaangggggg" noise,
Hah!
Testifying to hearing that kind of noise in the night certainly takes the sinister, implied menace away, doesn't it?
;^)
I'm sorry, but I can't get the Twaaanggggg" out of my head. I keep thinking of people making a statement or testifiying:
"Now, Mrs. Kott, what exactly did you hear that night?"
"well, I was awakened by a single twaaaaanggg, and there was an interval of silence that was soon broken by two more twaaangggs in rapid succession..."
Ah, Jesus....
Imagine Don Martin (Mad Magazine) doing all the sound effects everyone claimed to hear that night....
This is where we've come too...indeed
I remember one drawing of a woman's boob popping out of her shirt with the sound effect. Can't remember the sound, "pffffoing" or something, but I thought that was so funny, the image has stayed with me for 40+ years.
All the Mads are archived online BTW. Wouldn't be surprised if there was a Manson one. Fits Mad's melieu.
POIT!
https://images.app.goo.gl/6bREwXUEkTuaqVia7
Manson or Ted Nugent?
https://images.app.goo.gl/JDphWSFcNmCweKz19
Peter said...
All the Mads are archived online BTW.
Thanks for the heads up on that, Peter.
The stuff they produced in the 50s & 60s was incredibly influential and just really, really funny... no Robert Crumb, Simpsons, South Park or Rick & Morty without 'em. I spent hours last night going through the archives and revisiting my lost youth :-) What a great resource.
Dean Stockwell was a fixture of the Topanga Canyon Scene I wrote about in an old post "Canyons". He and Russ Tambyln ( Another former child actor who played the leader of the Jets in West Side Story- and whose daughter was both "Joan of Arcadia" and Charlies long lost daughter on Two and Half Men on TV) were a major part of the "Topanga All-Stars" and very good friends with Neil Young. Neil may be Russ Tabmlyn's Daughters (Amber) Godfather? not sure and too lazy to look it up. They were introduced to Neil by his first wife Susan who ran a small restaurant in Topanga and they got Neil into the Topanga art scene.
Nice post :)
grimtraveller said...
Deirdre Lansbury ceased to have any meaningful connection with the Family after 1968..
That's conjecture. We don't know the details on how long she was associated with the Family.
We do know that Angela Lansbury & Co relocated to Ireland in 1970, so that would be a known benchmark one can go by. I am not aware of Deirdre being named in any of the mid-1969 raid & arrest sweep activity coverage, so one can reasonably assume that she wasn't a regular & steady participant in the group over that summer.
Hoyt testified at multiple trials that she was picked up by Didi and Stephanie Rowe on 4/1/69. It’s the only date that I have seen tied to her. I’ve never seen a report (field or arrest) mentioning her. Other than the common stories of Didi introducing Pitman and Didi’s credit/money being shut off (which are undated), I’ve only seen one other thing. Phil Kaufman mentions her being sexually active during the time he spent with Manson in early spring 1968 (Hippy Cult Leader, James Buddy Day).
Peter...it's "Ploobadoof"! The sound of Wonder Woman undoing her brassiere.
starviego said:
That's conjecture. We don't know the details on how long she was associated with the Family
Note the word "meaningful."
And while it's true we don't know how long she was associated with the Family, one can read between the lines of those who have spoken about her. Susan, Tex and Paul Watkins barely, if at all, mention her in their books, both Dianne and Squeaky do, but Dianne says she'd come and go and after a point is never mentioned ~ whereas others are mentioned multiple times. Squeaky says some really nice things about her {actually, they both do} but then she drops off the edge of the earth like she was abducted by aliens ~ whereas pretty much everyone else get multiple mentions. If you're going to make a case for her having any meaningful or significant contact after 1968 {Babs Hoyt notwithstanding} or April '69, the onus is on you to do so because none of the Family do.
tobiasragg said:
We do know that Angela Lansbury & Co relocated to Ireland in 1970
True. But that doesn't tell us anything about Deidre's association with the Family. And her Mum's main reason for getting out to Ireland was that both her children were addicted to heroin ~ not really a Family staple.
"tobiasragg said:
We do know that Angela Lansbury & Co relocated to Ireland in 1970
True. But that doesn't tell us anything about Deidre's association with the Family. And her Mum's main reason for getting out to Ireland was that both her children were addicted to heroin ~ not really a Family staple."
This is untrue, in part. Going from what one or both of the female Lansburys have shared in interviews, Angela & her husband hauled off to Ireland because the son was heroin-addicted and the daughter was also using drugs and associating with the Manson clan. The Family has been mentioned by both, and more than once over the years, when they spoke of this. There were other factors or influencers at play too, including a wildfire that had damaged or outright destroyed the family CA home.
OK, I'll re~phrase that. One of her Mum's main reasons for heading out to Ireland was that both her children were addicted to heroin ~ not really a Family staple.
According to Matt back in 2011, according to Angela Lansbury, their house burned down in September 1970, after which they moved to Ireland. If true, that leads me to conclude that when Angela talked about the Mansonistas in interviews, she wasn't really batting on a straight wicket. It was another of those examples where spice can be added to a life story by throwing in a Charlie/Family reference or connection. And it doesn't answer the main question being asked here about Deirdre's actual connections with the Family during 1969. We can say for sure that she was at least in some contact up to April '69 although sparse. But beyond that, in every account I've come across, she is non-existent and utterly conspicuous by her absence. I can't find anywhere where anyone mentions her, even in passing, after she meets Babs Hoyt who has just run away from home. Even there, logically, it makes sense that Dede might take her to where the Family would be staying, even if she herself was no longer a permanent fixture there {she'd know, because according to Dianne Lake, she would come and go and according to Lake, this pertained to early on, the implication being that Nancy stayed and Dede didn't} because it would be the ideal place for a runaway to be sheltered.
tobiasragg said:
Going from what one or both of the female Lansburys have shared in interviews
Can you link to any Deirdre Lansbury interviews that you know of ? I can't find any anywhere.
The impression I get from anyone that talks of Deirdre is that she wasn't really a member of the Family as such, even the way Brenda, who was her friend and originally met the Family together with her, describes the meeting, the implication is that she threw in her lot with them, but Dede didn't {a point Jeff Guinn makes too}.
We're not really in disagreement ¬> my bone of contention is Starviego's assertion that the rich and famous {sometimes because of their kids} of Hollywood somehow received protection from association with Manson.
"my bone of contention is Starviego's assertion that the rich and famous . . . "
Okay, well go type to Starviego, then. I offered the Lansbury departure for Ireland as a hard and recorded timestamp one could use when exploring Deirdre's association with the Manson people. I went on to indicate that the girl does not appear on any arrest or raid documentation. I don't know what you're going on about, but it certainly isn't based on what I posted here.
tobiasragg said:
Okay, well go type to Starviego, then
I did.
I offered the Lansbury departure for Ireland as a hard and recorded timestamp one could use when exploring Deirdre's association with the Manson people
Yes, and I'm pointing out that it doesn't really do that. Their family leaves the country in or after September 1970. Babs Hoyt says she met Deirdre on April 1st '69. That's 17 months in which nothing is noted of her involvement. In Mansonia, that's a pretty long time.
"That's 17 months in which nothing is noted of her involvement. In Mansonia, that's a pretty long time."
Who claimed otherwise? I simply noted the timing as a point of reference. Good god, you can discover endless ways to "not really disagree" with something, lol.
We remain friends, tobias.
It's not about "friends", dude. I replied to the guy's comment with what information I had - info that hadn't been shared at that point. Your contribution was a sniffing "sorry, THAT information is not helpful enough." Disagree all you want over factoids or opinion, but do realize that no one here is looking for your value judgment over the quality of their response. If you have something better to offer, then go for it - but sometimes it is better to keep on scrolling rather than vomiting your opinion atop other people's contributions. That is friendly banter, friend.
Shall we take the next dance, Tobias ? 💃🏿 🤸🏿♂️
tobiasragg said:
do realize that no one here is looking for your value judgment over the quality of their response
My point had nothing to do with the quality of your response because my first word was one of agreement with you.
Neither was I being 'sniffing'👃🏿. If you took it that way, other than saying it was not intended that way, there's nothing I can do about that.
We've had discussions comprising of disagreements quite a few times before, and they've generally been good-spirited, with what might seem on the surface to be little nitpicks coming up now and again. But I've not taken them that way. I see it as part and parcel of in-depth discussion. An example that springs to mind is when we were talking about the sounds Linda Kasabian heard standing outside 10050 Cielo, or Tex's different recounting of his encounter with Jay Sebring. There was a bit of "well, that's not quite true" or "that doesn't really matter" or thoughts that the other was perhaps not presenting or seeing what was written as the other was seeing it, etc. It's simply the way we've generally speaking always gone on with each other. I pretty much always like and enjoy your contribution even if I don't agree, or am seeking further clarification or am using a given quote as a jumping off point. We were even said to be involved in a pissing contest a while back, which we both refuted.
Anyway, all that aside, I quite enjoy some of these little side-trips. They can sometimes be more surprisingly useful than they appear at first glance.
tobiasragg said:
vomiting your opinion atop other people's contributions
'Tis the stuff of the comments section outside of a dictatorship ! 😄
Angela Lansbury claimed for years that their move to Ireland was to get her kids away from the drug scene. Yet in a 2014 interview, she admitted that a big reason for the move was their fear of Manson:
www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11305741/Angela-Lansbury-saved-daughter-clutches-Charles-Manson-uprooting-Ireland.html
Late actress Angela Lansbury once had to pry her daughter from the clutches of convicted murderer and cult leader Charles Manson - revealing that she moved her entire family from Los Angeles to Ireland in order to protect her youngest child from the sinister criminal.
Which kind of implies that there were contacts way past the last confirmed one in April of '69.
Is this DiDi(far left) in this photo of the girls kneeling outside the courthouse?
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qHMQrfTZHQU/T4VeWQs2sII/AAAAAAAAA-0/6niHcbN-2ZM/s1600/didi.jpg
Some more on the Didi debate here:
https://www.mansonblog.com/2012/04/didi.html
"Is this DiDi(far left) in this photo of the girls kneeling outside the courthouse?"
Had the daughter hung out with the Manson group then drifted away by '68, Lansbury would not have cited the Manson factor when speaking of her move out of the U.S. Back in '68 these were just a bunch of dirty drifters, not THE "Manson Family" - and Lansbury was never the type of celeb to retroactively claim connection to those crimes. I also remember reading that DiDi had stolen money from her parents during her association with the Manson group, which could have led to the investigation/discovery within the family about exactly who their daughter was associating with.
We know that the family departed the U.S. in 1970, but we don't know when in 70 this happened. The Manson trial (and associated sidewalk gatherings) didn't begin until June 1970. I'm not sure how all of those puzzle pieces fit together, but it's more info for the timeline I guess.
Their Malibu home burnt down on Sept. 25, 1970. They stayed at a hotel and then a friend's house before moving overseas, which may not have been until early 1971.
tobiasragg said:
We know that the family departed the U.S. in 1970, but we don't know when in 70 this happened
According to Matt in both 2011 and 2012, it was September 1970.
"Their Malibu home burnt down on Sept. 25, 1970"
Ah ha! Great find, so it is entirely possible that the daughter was at least semi-involved with the Manson clan through at least the first part of the trial. Thanks Starviego!
On Cielo's site, there's a statement that Deirdre Lansbury actually had a note from her Mum, saying that she could travel with the Family.
Cielo, where does that info come from ?
starviego said:
Angela Lansbury claimed for years that their move to Ireland was to get her kids away from the drug scene. Yet in a 2014 interview, she admitted that a big reason for the move was their fear of Manson
And I find that problematic. She says different things at different times. In the Radio Times in 2017,¬> For Lansbury, any pain caused by her life in Hollywood was mostly a result of her children, Anthony and Deidre, becoming addicted to drugs, including heroin, in the 1960s. Worse, living in Malibu, Deidre had become involved with some members of the Manson Family, the cult that murdered the actress Sharon Tate and eight others.
“Everybody knew about Charles Manson – the family were living up there in the hills, you couldn’t be a resident and not know,” she recalls. “God, that was a terrible period.”
When their house burned down in 1970, Lansbury used it as an excuse to move her entire family to Cork, in Ireland, where she had holidayed as a child.
This is confusing. Did everyone know about Charles Manson ? Which period is she talking about ? Wherever I find her talking about the period, it's the drugs that she's concerned with. The Manson part seems like a "spicer-upper" in retrospect. He only became publicly known when he was arrested for TLB. So which is it ?
I'm quite happy to acknowledge Dede ran with the Family all the way up to when her family left the USA, but in order to do that, there needs to be some kind of evidence that this was the case. And her name is conspicuous by its absence. You'd think that she would be mentioned by someone. You'd think she'd've turned up in "Death to pigs" or one of the Family, either at the time or subsequently would have mentioned her as being around. And as Tobias pointed out, she doesn't show up on any raids or arrests. I'd love to know where the Angela Lansbury note story comes from...
Starviego, this piece adds a couple of small details to the Lansbury story, most of which are already fairly known I think. Apparently it was mid 1968 where Didi's drug use was discovered and when her access to the family credit cards was cut off. They also place her as driving the bus when Barbara Hoyt was picked up and drawn in, which was April 1969. At best, Lansbury was an occasional presence in the Manson clan, perhaps she began to hang with them less once things took a darker turn in June 1969? The raids and true legal difficulties didn't begin until mid-August, maybe that scene had grown too ugly for her some time during that summer and she chose to hang elsewhere.
https://themansonfamily-mtts.medium.com/the-children-of-the-stars-b231f52ad59c
Deirdre Lansbury
Pardon me, Deirdre Shaw.
Grim, it comes from The Family, 1st edition. It was removed from subsequent editions
https://www.cielodrive.com/Lansbury.jpeg
Lansbury's house burned down in the same fire that took down Spahn Ranch
Thanks, Cielo.
The LA/Laurel Canyon scene was a pretty small one, really. Especially back then. The separation between the accomplished "haves" and those not quite there was barely existent. A situation Charlie helped to end, of course. But yes, the Manson people and Charlie himself were everywhere and generally well known. Not by name or anything, but they were *around* and Manson definitely made his connections - including meeting Angela Lansbury a couple of times and making a rather memorable impression on her, from what she has shared.
The six-hour Helter Skelter: An American Myth is probably the definitive documentary on this mess; it is one that should be viewed by anyone with more than a passing interest in these affairs. These filmmakers take us places we've never been before: inside the Dennis Wilson house, on the streets and playgrounds where little Charlie once played. We view footage we've never seen and hear from family members who have rarely spoken of their time with the group, such as Stephanie Schram. Anyway, one of these six hours is devoted to Charlie's quest for fame and a record contract, and we hear from these people who were on the scene at the time. One tells the most fascinating story about Charlie, who was visiting Whisky A Go Go with a large party that included Terry Melcher. I won't relate the entire story, but Charlie essentially clears the dance floor - the crowd stepped out of the way to watch little Charlie dance. Charlie was an oddball to be sure, but people seemed to be fascinated with him, at least on some level. That's part of what led to the horror and paranoia once his involvement with the murders was made public. Charlie and his people had been *among* them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd2KmZUFxws&ab_channel=LinAndreeva
Cielodrive.com said:
it comes from The Family, 1st edition. It was removed from subsequent editions
Thanks.
Just out of interest, do you believe it ? I notice that Ed is way off regarding Deirdre's age.
tobiasragg said:
The six-hour Helter Skelter: An American Myth is probably the definitive documentary on this mess
It's certainly one of the better ones I've seen.
Matt did a post on April 11(?) 2012 about that photo of the four girls in front of the court house and asking if the one on the left was Deidre Shaw. In the comments people write about the robe she's wearing and saying it looks expensive and may have been from Pamela Courson's boutique, and also showing photos of Sharon Tate and one other woman in similar robes. I've already forgotten who the other woman was and also someone points out the real name of that clothing, not a robe. Anyway, towards the end of comments Matt says a former Manson family member contacted him and said that girl in the picture wasn't Deidre, for whatever it's worth.
Cielodrive.com said...
What relevant information did any of those people have that would warrant a subpoena?
Yet they DID appear in court, sort of:
Deanna Martin was subpoenaed to testify in the Tex Watson trial. According to her, Melcher had some kind of deal with Bugliosi so she wouldn't have to testify in the TLB trial.
Candice got an even better deal. She wasn't subpoenaed for the TLB either, and for the Watson trail she merely had to sit in the back of the courtroom with Bugs to see if she could ID Tex. She claims she didn't recognize him.
Knock Wood pg203 "When I received a subpoena to appear in court, Bugliosi arranged for me not to testify publicly, and instead sat with me in the back of the courtroom when Watson.. was brought out.. "
grimtraveller said...
I'd love to know where the Angela Lansbury note story comes from...
Ed Sanders is then the only source at the time that claimed this. Interestingly, this was never repeated by any of the mainstream media. Though no one today can deny that Ed was right and that Didi did hang with the Family.
It is also interesting that Angela Lansbury is one of the few parents that Charlie ever met while he was still free. (Ruth Ann Moorehouse's mom and dad are the only other ones.)
Though Witness to Evil, by George Bishop c.1971 pg419 had this:
"in 1967 Sandy received a monthly allowance check from her father, George Good. She regularly turned the money over to Charlie but apparently it wasn't enough; Charlie visited (daddy)Good on at least three occasions and threatened violence if the allowance was not increased. Good, because of his fear of the Family leader, reportedly changed his place of residence and ceased all communication with his daughter."
"reportedly changed his place of residence and ceased all communication with his daughter."
And he was far from the only one. The hero worship Charlie has received for all of these years has always confounded and amused me. This was NOT a person that most people embraced in the real world, during that brief time he was free. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Tobias:
This was NOT a person that most people embraced in the real world, during that brief time he was free. Quite the opposite, in fact.
It was a really weird time, though, tobias. I can recall that quite a few older people who considered themselves enlightened, bohemian, cosmopolitan, educated were looking for guidance--mystical or worldly, depending on what they felt lacking in. Hence gurus of various stripes. So it's certainly true that most people would not go for his pitch, some of those who did seemed not to be the kind who'd buy his line.
Manson was a bargain basement guru.
starviego said:
no one today can deny that Ed was right and that Didi did hang with the Family
I didn't know that this was ever in dispute.
It is also interesting that Angela Lansbury is one of the few parents that Charlie ever met while he was still free. (Ruth Ann Moorehouse's mom and dad are the only other ones.)
He met Dianne Lake's parents. Dianne said that he and her Mum got on well, and he praised her Dad for being such a free thinker.
He also met the older sisters of Pat and Stephanie Schram.
Starviego said, "It is also interesting that Angela Lansbury is one of the few parents that Charlie ever met while he was still free."
Well, we know that is not factual because there is mention of Laura Sheppard's incredibly heroic mother, the Polish-born Irene Josephine Gazicki/Gazicke, who faced off with CM in the days just prior to the Spahn Ranch Raid. As did the parents of the schoolgirl rape victim (let's not disclose her name and call her "teenager C").
We also know that the mother of two of the underage teenaged girls (let's call them D.D. and D.D.) who were, in fact, informants up to, including, and after the Spahn Ranch Raid, joined Laura's mother in going toe-to-toe with Manson during a visit with Laura's mother and, in at least one other occasion without Josephine G.
Deb has posted much of the official documents that provide this information however, we chose to heavily redact their names. We were able to find background information, schools attended and photos of all of them. We did not post any of these photos because they were pretty heroic considering the circumstances and, we strongly believe that they deserve to have their privacy respected all these years.
I'm sure that there were more parents that fought for their children's freedom from the ugliness that had taken over the commune by the time of the August 16th raid...
You may even be able to find some of the details relating to some of these events and those involved by re-reading all those documents that Deb posted to the blog last summer...especially during August 2022.
These runaways and their parents were fucking heroes!
Cheers
Grim, regarding your question whether I believe Sanders. I don't have high confidence in anything that Sanders is the only source on. My impression of him is that he did more research than he did fact checking. Since the paragraph was removed in later editions, I suspect he was unable to prove the claim about the note.
Star, regarding the Knock Wood passage. Bugliosi wants to establish Watson's connection to Cielo Drive. He does this with Deana Martin (sort of) and Terry Melcher. Even if Candice can ID him - which she can't - her testimony would've be redundant.
What would Martin bring to the Manson trial? Again, it would be to establish Manson's connection to Cielo Drive. This is accomplished by Rudi Altobelli, Terry Melcher and Manson himself, who testified that he had been there five or six times.
If anyone had information useful to prosecution that couldn't be found elsewhere, they'd be subpoenaed. These were lengthy trials with many witnesses. Kenneth Hahn was losing his shit everyday over how much these prosecutions were costing the county. The LADA wasn't just calling witnesses just because they hung out or had some sort of connection to the Family. They had to have information pertinent to case.
cielodrivecom said...
Even if Candice can ID him - which she can't - her testimony would've be redundant.
She lied. She now admits to seeing Watson at the front door of the Cielo house in this interview from Jan 2021: https://www.stitcher.com/show/awards-chatter (at 29:15) She also now admits that they broke the lease at Cielo to get away from Manson. which implies she HAD met Manson too. (worth listening too, just for Candy's obviously faked ignorance of the case).
cielodrivecom said...
What would Martin bring to the Manson trial?
I don't know, but she was subpoenaed for the Watson trial regardless. Ask the prosecutor.
Doug said...
...there is mention of Laura Sheppard's incredibly heroic mother, the Polish-born Irene Josephine Gazicki/Gazicke, who faced off with CM in the days just prior to the Spahn Ranch Raid.
grimtraveller said...
He met Dianne Lake's parents. Dianne said that he and her Mum got on well, and he praised her Dad for being such a free thinker.
I stand enlightened! The other ones I don't credit as their contact with the Family seems to have been rather fleeting.
-------------------------------
Charlie was here!
Here are some photos of the Lansbury home in Malibu, located at 24818 Pacific Coast Highway, circa 1963:
hdl.huntington.org/digital/collection/p15150coll5/id/6348
Candy's 2021 version of why Terry moved is nonsensical and reeks of embellishment. Just look at the timeline
Terry moves out of Cielo Drive on January 2, 1969.
In May of 1969, Terry goes to Spahn Ranch where Charlie auditions for him. Terry invites the family out to his place in Malibu.
If you are so scared of someone that you move, why would then go hang out with said person and invite them to where you moved?
cielo...
Candy's 2021 version of why Terry moved is nonsensical and reeks of embellishment. Just look at the timeline...
You've just identified a real concern that I have when reading about any self-disclosed possible connection with Manson: there's a certain odd cachet that those in the public eye, or those who would like to be, seem to derive from mentioning the connection. Fame by association...a sort of paltry, sick fame.
I really tend to mistrust such revelations, especially those well after-the-fact.
cielodrivecom said:
Candy's 2021 version of why Terry moved is nonsensical and reeks of embellishment. Just look at the timeline
Yep. That's the feeling I got from Angela L too. Her stories and timelines seem off to me.
As for Candy, she really should have got together 👫 with Seymour Kott. They were a match made in hyperbolizing Hollywood Heaven. They could trade embellishments together ! And that would be such a cool name, Mrs Candy Kott !! 😆
starviego said:
Angela Lansbury claimed for years that their move to Ireland was to get her kids away from the drug scene. Yet in a 2014 interview, she admitted that a big reason for the move was their fear of Manson:
www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11305741/Angela-Lansbury-saved-daughter-clutches-Charles-Manson-uprooting-Ireland.html
Late actress Angela Lansbury once had to pry her daughter from the clutches of convicted murderer and cult leader Charles Manson - revealing that she moved her entire family from Los Angeles to Ireland in order to protect her youngest child from the sinister criminal.
Over on Cielo's site, there's an interesting article by Mary Neiswender, from June 1970, in which Charlie says some interesting things, among them:
“They say I’ve strung people out on dope. I say to the kids ‘Why take dope — just leave home — you don’t need dope.’”
The 14-year-old daughter of a Hollywood and Broadway actress, Manson says, he “got off dope” until the girl’s mother returned home from New York.
“I got her off speed…that’s bad. She was 14 and had tracks up her arms like you’d never believe. But her parents came back and she went back on it. Now she’s on heroin.
“I really love kids — I love everybody. I even love that stupid-ass judge, if you can believe that."
I would hazard a guess that this was a reference to Didi.
Thanks for the new info, Grim. The idea of a 14yr old shooting up is a bit extreme, though.
Post a Comment