After a long holiday hiatus you are probably ready for something new to read. Here's a new batch of scratch for you!
As you can see by the first page of the pdf some 16mm movie film was taken into evidence during the raids and aftermath at Barker Ranch. It looks like they were not able process the film. You have to wonder if this was the infamous film that everyone has looked for, or maybe film of the Family singing and talking, or if it was film that was already in a camera that was stolen.
Scratch 2 file 20 pages
Very cool that, thanks to this recovered official document, we now have proof that LE did indeed find and confiscate "Family Home Movies" (that pre-dates the stuff Hendrickson began filming at Spahn and other locales in late 1969). Will we ever get to actually see even one frame of this confiscated material? You may disagree, but I'm going with "F*** No!" Seeing this document makes me think about the material that Greg Jakobsen supposedly shot at Spahn in the spring of 1969 for the Family documentary. That's a chapter of the Family story that was never, IMO, investigated sufficiently. Besides still photos, was anything shot on 16mm film? Was anything shot on video? Who actually filmed it? Exactly when was it shot? Does the footage still exist and who currently has possession of it? Were there any meetings between Jakobsen, Melcher and NBC-TV executives to discuss this project? It would be nice to think that, someday, there will be answers to these questions but, to be brutally honest, I'm not betting on it.
ReplyDeleteThanks Deb, good stuff as usual.
ReplyDeleteSixties, we eventually will see anything and everything law enforcement took or produced during these investigations. 100%
@cielodrivecom....I feel pretty confident in stating that "eventually" will NOT be within your or my lifetimes! LOL!
ReplyDeleteSixities, fair enough. Hang in there for five more years and you should be good
ReplyDeleteCielo, I hope that you are correct, but out of curiosity, do you have a reason for your five years time confidence? Is there a legal deadline or any FOIA-type action that I’m missing?
DeleteThanks as always, Deb. Sixties, I have to believe what is discussed here has to be 16mm film. Video, I think, was still in its infancy, and quite expensive. As well, Roman Polanski did have a video camera at Cielo, but it was funded by the film studio as an official expense.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of that, video of a dinner gathering in the living room of Cielo does exist, and it is in posession of LADA in those Manson trial boxes. It features Abigail, Voytek, Witold-K, and another woman. This recording includes sound, and it is described in Bugliosi's book. It would be nice to be able to finally view that as well.
Thanks DebS.
ReplyDeleteLooking at bits and pieces of someone’s notes and doodles makes you appreciate seeing things organized in a report or document.
A fews things in “Scratch 2” sort of jump out. I remember seeing them before more clearly described.
1. Page 4 - Mr Troster, Jail Canyon, Red Toyota, and Hall Canyon. In “Desert Shadows”, Chapter 2, Powell talked to Mrs Inez Troster concerning these facts while he was investigating the arson of the skip loader.
2. Page 10 - (VIN) IDs. 3 of the ID are listed in the 10-10-69 Barker Arrest Report.
3. Page 12 - “4-5-6”. 10 girls were arrested on 10-10-69 at Barker and Meyers Ranch’s. The arrest forms used for the girls that day were different from the 3 guys (and different from both the girls and guys on 10-12-69). Instead of listing a 4 digit “AR-####”, the girls were just indexed “Subject Number(s) 1-10. “4-5-6” referred to Pugh (Good), Morse (Morehouse), and Schwarm (Von Ahn). In the 10-10-69 Barker Arrest Report, “4-5-6” are charged with possession of “The gun in a mail bag”.
4. Page 14 - (number) “3313”. Manson’s number from 10-12-69 was “AR-3313”.
5. Page 7 - (number) “3316”. Vance’s number from 10-12-69 was “AR-3316”.
6. Page 9 - Charges. A lot of what is shown also appears in the “Barker Charges Spreadsheet “.
Re: the TV documentary. I wonder if it was the same documentary that the Lord Family was scouted for? The Lord Family was a big group marriage acid commune around Taos, New Mexico, circa 1969. They are described in at least two books from that era, Elia Katz's "Armed Love" and Richard Fairfield's "Communes USA." In one of the books, there is mention of the group being considered for part of a network TV documentary on hippie communes. Was there ever a completed major network hippie commune documentary circa 1970?
ReplyDelete@toadstool: If such a network-TV documentary from 1969 or 1970 ever surfaces, I'd definitely like to see it. However, I'm only aware of the CBS documentary from 1967 on the SF scene...if there was one done specifically focused on communes,I'm not familiar with it. I'll have to see if I can find either of those books you mentioned online. Yours was a very informative post with some excellent potential leads.
ReplyDelete@sixtiesrock: Both of those books ("Communes USA" and "Armed Love") are recommended to anyone trying to more broadly understand the '60s countercultural zeitgeist. Both are non-fiction travelogues, involving American writers visiting various hippie communes in 1969-1970. Both writers visited the Lord Family in Taos, who, like the Lyman Family, have parallels to the Mansonistas, but, gladly, lack the violence. "Armed Love" begins in December 1969 when, as the book phrases it, 'Manson was revealed to the nation.' At that time, Katz saw Manson as a pre-revolution Fidel Castro figure, murderously raiding the city from his mountain hideout. From the modern perspective, this sensibility is as abhorrent as it is absurd, but, as is said, it was a different time then. I assume "Armed Love"'s author is the same Elia Katz who went on to success as a TV scriptwriter in the 1980s ("Hill Street Blues," etc).
ReplyDeleteHolistic Spa Guy thanks so much for your pronouncement I don't know what we would do without your sage advice. (Sarcasm) So, did you mean commentors which are people like yourself who write whatever comes to mind at the end of a post as opposed to the person who created the post? Because we are pretty liberal with the comments and don't delete something because we don't like it. Your comment is still here, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteAnyone still obsessing about this is a brain-dead fool, full stop.
ReplyDeleteSo, you don't have an interest in this topic and therefore think no-one else should? But what are you even doing here if all this disturbs you? You weren't invited, you're not welcome ... what is your purpose?
I suggest you leave us alone here and go back where you'll be happier.
JBernstein - Five years is my own estimate on how long it take to digitize the remaining files.
ReplyDeleteCielo,
ReplyDeleteFive years? Is it volume, expense, access?
David, it's really all of those things. What used to take a few weeks now takes a few months, sometimes years. The DA used to be really mindful of statutory deadlines. Not so much anymore. Logistically, it's a pain because the DA and LAPD turned all this stuff over to the Los Angeles Police Historical Society in 2012. The historical society is the real problem and always has been. The DA is currently working on a large PRA of mine that realistically should've easy peasy. The records sought were digitized in 2015 and they are not longer exempt. However, the DA wants to review the records before disclosing them to me. I objected to this because these records were turned over the historical society is 2012 and the DA should've reviewed them then. Doing so now is prohibited by CPRA because it does not allow public officials to balance the interests of one private party over another private party. Obviously, this would go much faster if I got a court order. But I don't have any experience so I just wait.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Cielo……hmmmmm
ReplyDeleteCielo, am I to understand that all materials formerly with LADA and LAPD have been turned over to the Historical Society? If so, does this include materials from LASO? Many thanks.
ReplyDeleteYes, there’s a lot of LASO stuff there
ReplyDeleteThanks Cielo. All this being said, it would appear to me now that any FOIA requests may ultimately be unnecessary, as basically everything is or will be turned over to the Historical Society?
ReplyDeleteMaterials then would be digitized, and hopefully ready for public view, unless of course some items might remain 'classified '?
Torque said: "Materials then would be digitized, and hopefully ready for public view, unless of course some items might remain 'classified '?"
ReplyDeleteWell, actually...... it will not be like that.
"LAPM provides complimentary research and reference services for a maximum of 15 minutes of research time. Additional research after the complimentary 15-minute time will be charged at a rate of $15 per 30-minute increment, for a maximum of 3 hours. The minimum research fee of $15 must be paid in advance; additional fees will be billed. On a case-by-case basis, LAPM welcomes researchers to visit the museum and archives inperson under accompaniment of Museum staff. Currently, LAPM depends on volunteer historians and researchers to provide this service, and availability is limited. Once this request is received, LAPM will assign a volunteer to this request and will schedule research slots based on volunteer availability. Accompaniment into the archives for research purposes is at the discretion of the Executive Director. Decision is made on a case by case basis. If approved, the rate for archival access is $50 per hour, maximum 3 hours per day."
And you get to pay for digital images at a rate of $10 or $20 per low res image and $30 or $40 for hi res. The price difference is based upon membership and that costs extra.
Membership:
https://www.laphs.org/visit
Research policy:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/622f944d500a583da4e5e414/t/641f253ab41e1468b7031e34/1679762746776/research+policy.pdf
Trust me Torque, the LAPHS is not your friend
ReplyDeleteCielo,
ReplyDeleteIf I can help let me know.
David, many thanks for your detailed information. As it is, I'm currently researching at a different institution under very similar guidelines, albeit without any fees for services presently.
ReplyDeleteCielo, I suppose mine was merely wishful thinking about the Historical Society. That said I don't
think it would do any harm to make an official request for items. The only thing any of these agencies could say is 'no'.