 |
| Robert Hendrickson filming Manson |
Robert Hendrickson went with a crew up to Barker Ranch to do some filming for his movie Manson in May of 1970. His visit caught the attention of law enforcement, and he was stopped and questioned.
If you've ever been to Barker Ranch you would know just how desolate the area is, so, it's hard to imagine that law enforcement would know if anyone was in the area at any given time. Even though all participants in the TLB murders were in custody the Inyo County Sheriff's Department and other agencies were patrolling the area repeatedly looking for stray Family members.
On May 3, 1970, the sheriff received word that Manson Family members were possibly in the area of Myers or Barker ranches. The sheriff sent out aircraft to search. They flew over a number of places where the Family was known to frequent. No one was found.
The cost of this search was an unimaginable $30.00, my how times and costs have changed.
In a report dated May 5, 1970 officers interviewed Paul Crockett, Brooks Poston and Paul Watkins in Shoshone. They told the officers that they saw Clem and Gypsy along with a new recruit named Kevin in a Dodge van on May 3,1970. The van was full of camera equipment, two photographers and a mother and daughter from Las Vegas that were identified as having been hired to appear in Hendrickson's film. (These two women could be the women that no one could identify in Robert's film.)
 |
| Crockett, Watkins, and Poston |
This report also states that Robert Hendrickson in the company of Gypsy had been stopped by law enforcement on May 2, 1970.
The last three pages of the pdf are an accounting of an encounter that the officer, accompanied by District Attorney Frank Fowles and other luminaries, had with the ever-charming Gypsy on May 9, 1970.
 |
| Clem and Gypsy |
Read the pages here.
20 comments:
Thanks DebS
I'm reading a book about Deutsche Bank and it makes my blood boil way more than the mansonoids.. I guess it's partly because the manson perps faced justice, while the bankers just floated away on their Golden parachutes. Sorry to go off topic so much; it makes me so mad I had to vent. Trump reneges on hundreds of millions of dollars and he gets to be president,; Charlie writes a bad check for $40 and it's jail for ten years
What's "a d___on your forehead"?
Dan, I've seen a few websites that have compared Trump and Manson. It's like they could be brothers. :)
I'm guessing The d___ is for dick.
Dan S said:
Charlie writes a bad check for $40 and it's jail for ten years
That's the version he would like us all to believe. It's the version he put forth during his testimony during his trial. But like most things that Charlie put about, a good looking at the subject reveals that this is not the case.
He was on parole when he was farting about with the cheque and because he was messing about, violating the conditions, he was sent back to jail to complete the original sentence that he was out from jail on. Pimping, rape, drugging women, fraud, stealing cars, skipping parole, stealing cheques from mailboxes....you make it sound like he was a model citizen that made one silly error for which he should be given a break. The reality is that even then, in the late 50s, he was ruining the lives of young people and people he didn't know. If there was anywhere Charlie should have been at the beginning of the '60s, it was where he actually was ~ prison.
Which is all no doubt true, Grim but I think the real import of the comment was that rich people don't generally go to prison for huge crimes whereas poor people often get slotted for small ones.
And back on the original topic... interesting documents. Thanks, Deb.
brownrice said:
I think the real import of the comment was that rich people don't generally go to prison for huge crimes whereas poor people often get slotted for small ones
Oh, without a doubt. And worse still, there are very few countries anywhere on this planet where that is not the case. And even worse than that, it majors on the kind of practitioners of the law that one can afford when one has 'da bucks'.
I wasn't actually disagreeing with Dan in general because everywhere I've lived or been aware of, that's what happens. Yes, there are a few exceptions here and there, but in general, relatively few rich end up in jail for their crimes. Whereas those on the lower rungs of society rarely escape, even if it's for something like not paying the TV licence fee.
I am not a member of the Giuliani school of zero tolerance.
But I felt that Dan used possibly the poorest example that he could have used in citing Charlie and the cheque, partly because that wasn't how it went down, partly because it was Charlie ! 😃 I've long felt that in his early and teenage years, he received something of a raw deal from the legal authorities. People can call me soft, woke and stupid for pointing that out and frequently backing that up, but I don't see too much great justice coming his way prior to his 20s. But not after that. After that he began damaging people and all the financial messing about of a guy like Donald Trump simply doesn't compare to pimping and raping females. Especially in the 1950s when these things were rarely regarded with any great law enforcement conscience.
Deutsche Bank raped the entire world. Money laundered for the oligarchs and ripped off all their clients with their bs derivatives, destroyed southern Europe by not bailing out greece. They get "big" fines that pale in comparison to the profits.
Trump's in bed with Epstein and"grabs women by the pussy" . His "university" destroyed many people's lives. He let the kurds be massacred and kept aid from ukraine. Charlie is a criminal recidivist loser but at least he knows when he's lost.hitler never raped anyone either
Dan S said:
Charlie is a criminal recidivist loser but at least he knows when he's lost
You think ?
hitler never raped anyone either
What's your point ?
Grim,
I sure have enjoyed your take on others' comments (good and bad) throughout the years. Your comments have made spit out my cocktail (or coffee these days) more times than I can count. Blogger needs a like button. ;)
Deb, thank you for another interesting post.
Robert h would know what I'm talking about.
Monica said:
Your comments have made spit out my cocktail (or coffee these days) more times than I can count
Your cleaner must hate me ! 😄
Dan S said:
Robert h would know what I'm talking about
Well, much of the time, contributors weren't always clear about what Robert was talking about, so him knowing what you're talking about wouldn't be much of a help !
Shame he lost the plot, and the subplot.
Seemed to spend his last years fighting losing battles and being deliberately cryptic.
So, was Clem the father of Gypsy's son? I know this isn't the appropriate post for such a question, but it reminded me.
AustinAnn, I think he was but Gypsy's son was later adopted by her husband Patrick, who has since passed. There's an amended birth certificate for him naming Patrick as his father.
Blogger Tragical History Tour said...
Shame he lost the plot, and the subplot.
Seemed to spend his last years fighting losing battles and being deliberately cryptic.
It seemed he was fighting losing battles to me as well.
As for the deliberately cryptic part, during the time Robert was with us, my mother was dying with Alzheimer's and I often wondered whether Robert had a touch of something similar.
Dan S - Actually, Hitler raped his niece. She was subsequently found dead below the balcony at one of his homes in mysterious circumstances...
She shot herself like Zero
Touche Dan S.
Did Hendrickson have anything to do with the audio recordings of the family, as well as the Brookes and Paul stuff? Would he have been the one who recorded and had those master tapes?
Post a Comment