Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Los Angeles Magazine- 40 Years of Charles Manson (final)


mpaul26 said...

Thanks, Col.,

It's admirable that they went to the mouths of the horses, but, aside from the acknowledgement of the investigative cock-ups, the horses still seem to be reading from well-chewed scripts.

ColScott said...

one fucking comment is all I get for all that scanning?

Sbsugar said...

Easy there, Colonel....this is the first I have seen of it. I do appreciate your hard work and always intriguing blog. Not many people would go to all that trouble to scan it in. Something I probably would have never seen otherwise.


A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Amazing, Colonel. There will be other pithy and witty commments, after the material has been digested, of that I am certain. Thank you for presenting this material.

Pristash said...

Yes, Col, thank you very much as I am sure I never would have seen it either. Very interesting, and I am glad that some people are willing to talk, but wish others would as well. How do they track down Garrettson and only get one paragraph or so out of him? Especially with how his story changed over the years.

And finally, Jess Buckles! Are you fucking kidding me? Whatever happened to that guy? He should die in the streets penniless! But knowing the LAPD, he probably retired as assistant chief or commissioner or some such thing!

jadedjamie said...

I have already told you that I love you ,what else do you want? Seriously, thank you. I found the comments on the Bug interesting. You just know they would have liked to say sooo much more. Pristash, I would also like to know more about Garretton. How many times has he changed his story?

Anonymous said...

An interesting read indeed, but unfortunately not much new here. It's frustrating that any current reporting turns out to be "Helter Skelter for Dummies."

I do wonder who were the ones that hung up on the author when he called them. Clem perhaps?

Thanks, much, Col.

Anonymous said...

P.S.: I am booked for Dearly Departed Tours "Helter Skelter Tragical History Tour" on Saturday, July 11th. Have any of you taken this tour of the TLB sites in the LA area? I will be in the LA area 7/10-14 and am looking forward to doing a little TLB exploring. Any other ideas are appreciated!

Anonymous said...

I read this right after you put it up, but I couldn't think of anything interesting to add. It's mostly a rehash of the conventional wisdom. Bugliosi admits that he wanted to put Charlie away (badly). I would not call that a shocking revelation.

Since there is nothing new to talk about, I'll put forth my view on where we are 40 years later.

Manson was the leader and inspiration of this gang of disturbed homicidal yoots. That's obvious, despite his famous "I was just a failed small time hood" routine, which is an obvious con. There are many, many believable first hand accounts that describe his role as an intelligent and charismatic leader, and only one individual with first hand knowledge that says otherwise: Manson himself.

Bugliosi does what you'd expect him to do. He holds the person he has good reason to believe inspired and directed this homicidal lunacy as responsible as the misfits who carried out the killings by indicting him for 8 counts of conspiracy to commit murder. Perfectly reasonable, given what Bugliosi had come to know about the case.

He makes the best case he can. He creates a narrative and backs it up with testimony, some of it from witnesses that are offered deals in return. This is not unusual, it happens all of the time. It is up to the jury to decide whether those witnesses are telling the truth. The jury buys Bugliosi's version of events and Manson is convicted along with the actual killers. I believe that time has shown the jury to have been, in the main, correct in their assessments of the basic facts of the case.

Anonymous said...


Bugliosi's book is attacked, one of the strands of his case, the "Helter Skelter" motive is disputed, Debra Tate's credibility is challenged, attempts to dig up remains so as to pin more murders on Our Gang fail miserably but to this day, no one makes a good argument that Manson is not the principal actor in all of this, that you can remove Manson from the scene and still have 8 dead people (including Shea).

Looking for the "truth" comes down to figuring out what the killers thought they were doing versus what Manson's personal motivations were.

The killers have revealed their version of what happened. They killed because they were trained to kill when the time was right, and Manson, who was their teacher and leader told them it was time. They say they viewed themselves as soldiers in a war against the social order at large, and that they killed with the same sense of moral righteousness that the soldiers of an army have.

Manson may have wanted Frykowski and Leno Labianca dead as part of some mob business, and the other victims may have been collateral damage, with Shea killed as part of a coverup. He may have had personal motives such as revenge or class envy. He may have wanted to frame the Black Panthers in order to save him from their retribution for the Crowe incident. He may have been just having fun seeing how much bloody mayhem he could stir up. Sanders famously hints (without any solid proof) at Satanic goings on. In any case, it appears likely that the killers believed that they were killing as part of a war that was prophesied to them by Manson. And Manson's personal motivations, while unclear, none the less drive him to unleash them by telling them that it was time.

Did Manson believe his own teachings, regarding the great war we (rightly or wrongly) call Helter Skelter? It is not inconceivable that he may have, to one degree or another. It is also possible that he had other motivations which did not require any larger philosphical framework than his own personal desires.

Let's be clear. When we say we are looking for "the truth", that's what we are talking about, and that's the only real mystery left in this case: why did Charlie tell his chosen followers that it was time, and why did he direct them to the specific residences on Cielo and Waverly. Given that that knowledge lies only inside the twisted mind of Charlie, it is likely that we will be denied the satisfaction of knowing.

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that Bugliosi railroaded an innocent (of murder) Manson. Bugliosi was right to prosecute Manson for conspiracy to commit murder, his case against Manson has been proven to be substantially correct, the jury was right to find Manson guilty, the parole boards are right in keeping Manson locked up and the governors have been right not to pardon Manson.

Pristash said...

Hey, Col,

Does the LA Mag publish letters to the editor? If they do that would be a good follow up too to see what kind of reaction this article gets.

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Have noticed that "everyone" says that Charles manipulated them... except for those who swear he didn't, whom the magazine did not bother to interview. Would hardly call this a fair and balanced article, since they apparently did not talk with any supporters.

Of course, the party line is that those who "renounced" Manson are correct, and those who remain his friends are brainwashed followers.

Jean Harlow said...

Thank you Colonel

jadedjamie said...

I have a serious question, which will probably be laughed at, and may only be wishful thinking on my part. Does anyone think that Manson will have the true story told after his death? Like Lucky Luciano did when he wrote a book before he died, only to be published after his death? If you think about it, it would be very "Manson like" of him. He would want to leave something new for people least they dare forget him. {not possible} He would never snitch while alive, but after death? One last question, has it ever been explained why the dogs that Garrettson took care never barked that night? They barked at LE the next day. Could Garrettson have been paid to quite them, hence the reason he is the only one to live?

Anonymous said...


Who are the people that you think should have been interviewed, that weren't?

Would what they have to say prove that Manson did not conspire to cause the murder of the Tate/Labianca 7 plus Shea?

If you do, I'd really like to hear a summary of your arguments.

Anonymous said...


Thats an interesting question. I would say that Manson has told us everything he is going to tell us.

Manson has said:

He went to the Tate residence after the murders had been committed "to see what his children had done". I would say that is almost certainly true.

That he has personal knowledge of one or more murderers who are free and living among us. This is probably true.

That he never personally murdered anyone. He could be telling the truth about that, not sure.

I think that's as much as he will ever cop to. He is an extremely self-centered individual. I doubt that he gives a damn about posterity or the historical record. As far as he is concerned, when he is dead the world ceases to exist.

jadedjamie said...

BC, Thank you. Do you think he has ever told anyone the whole truth? If so, who? Squeaky? As far as sending only those who he deemed expendable to TLB, I could belive that except for Katie. Do you think he found her expendable?

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Whom I'd like to see interviewed: Lynette, Sandra, Cathy G., Jennifer G., Susan Bartell. But that's not gonna happen, because they likely know that the commercial media is just gonna demean them.

Hostile witnesses, Linda Kasabian. Stephanie Schram. Kitty Lutesinger. Mary Brunner. Again, not likely to happen. Fear of negative publicity overwhelms truth. Still, would like to hear their "adult" perceptions.

The chick who was being held hostage by Bernard Crowe, think her name is Rosalie (?)

GreyWolf... well, "Inside Edition" did *that* interview but then edited it into sound bites that sold the most dish soap.

It'd be interesting to interview various neighbors and bystanders, including Garettson, and any other shirt-tail acquaintences that have a peripheral relationship to the case. Give me three days alone in a room with them, I'd find out who was selling smack to whom.

Roman Polanski. "Sooo, whatever happened to the extensive collection of kiddie porno tapes?" And yeah, I DO think that's relevant. People get killed over drugs, gambling, porn and the attendant income / outlay issues.

And Charles himself, of course. Asking the right questions. But as he's said, "It's like they were gonna talk to you about your book, or something important to you, and then they ask 'what did you have for breakfast this morning?' "

I'd SURE like to have a discussion with the police officer that issued the traffic citation... what day did he write the ticket? What location? What happened to him afterward?

Interviewees I'd NEVER want to hear from again. 1.) Barbara Hoyt. We have only her fragile word about the dread screams in the night and the LSD hamburger. And I find her quite unreliable. Gotta wonder how much self-medication was /is going on there. For a health professional, she certainly doesn't look / sound terribly healthy. 2.) Juan Flynn. He got "cut off" and has been sour-graping ever since. 3.) Catherine Share. Unless I am doing the interview. "So, Ms. Revolutionary Wanna-be, did Charles brainwash you and force you to sell drugs, hold up a gun dealership and steal credit cards, like ten years after your acquaintence? Who came up with the brilliant plan to hijack an airliner, anyway?"

Jaded Jamie: That's a fabulous idea. I'll get right on that.

agnostic monk said...

thanks for going to all the trouble of scanning and posting the article, Col. very much appreciated.

Anonymous said...

Nice list AC. What about Brenda McCann?

Your post is an interesting answer to some good questions other than "was CM guilty of conspiracy to commit murder", "was CM capable of inspiring and leading certain people to kill" and "were the murderers motivated by the teachings of CM".

The questions your post seems to be answering are "who is still loyal to Charlie" and "did the victims get what was coming to them". Those are legitimate questions.

I would maintain that I have heard no allegation against any of the victims that comes close to what Charlie is accused of, to whit: directing young people who had accepted him as their teacher and mentor to murder 8 people.

Roman Polanski didn't do that. Abigail Folger didn't do that. Leno Labianca didn't do that. Bugliosi didn't do that. Charlie did.

Whatever obscure motive CM may have had, I doubt it was to save the world from perverts like Roman Polanski and milk man adultery accusers like Bugliosi. At least I have never heard that theory. Maybe one of the loyal and true followers of certain ideas of non-specific origin who never considered themselves part of a "Family" can tell us if that was the case.

I wouldn't try to defend Catherine Share's life. But how about that video of her and the gang crawling on their hands and knees on the streets of Los Angeles. Whose idea was that? Kind of devoted to the worlds most famous and persecuted failed small time petty criminal.

I would point out that we have heard ad infinitum from Sandra Good. And it is the same old weird combination of extolling the virtues of CM while trying to deny that CM was able to influence anyone. I would guess that the others would offer up the same formula.

In other words: there is no "truth" that they can tell, other than who is loyal and true and who is a naughty little snitch. The basic narrative of this case still floats along.

Anonymous said...

Phony Revolutionary?

I'm not saying this makes Catherine Share a role model for the yoots of America, but she was taking bullets for the cause. I'd say that's a level of commitment that goes beyond writing threatening letters to corporate CEO's.

Come to think of it, when exactly has Sandra Good, everyones favorite poor little rich girl, put her ass on the line? Squeaky strapped up with a 45 and pulled it on the president. Sure, it was in condition 2, no round in the chamber, but she could have been shot for that. Where was Sandy?

So, resolved: Catherine Share was a real revolutionary and Sandra Good was/is a rich girl who likes to write nasty letters, talk big about being down for the struggle, and then go horseback riding.

jadedjamie said...

This is something that I have just found and thought you guys may like. Since I am a newbie, I am sure you have seen it, as you are all 10 steps ahead of me. This is one of the most revealing, coherent
interviews of Manson that I have come across. There is little of his usual yin/yang ramblings.

I think there are 7 parts.

jadedjamie said...

Sorry if the links did not post. It is called Charles Manson Rare Interview. It is on Youtube, of course.

spookycatz said...

Thank you for all the scanning. It is appreciated.

Brian Davis said...

Col, I just caught up and thank you very much for posting that report.

I had not heard or read much from the actual investigators of the murders over the years.

Interesting because I had heard of police theories such as the drug angle as McGann says.

But, McGann also says Sharon didn't use drugs.

Did she or didn't she. If not during pregnancy, prior ?

McGann says Jay Sebring only smoked pot. But I'm sure I have read, ("Helter Skelter", I think) that cocaine was found by police in Sebring's car.

Was this how McGann thought back in 69' during the investigation ?

Because he isn't even facing the facts is he ?

McGann says they investigated Leno LaBianca's possible ties to loan sharks and something new to me, Labianca's time on a bank board allegedly backed with mob money.

McGann still didn't seem to rule this mob theory out in the article. He stated "we got no where".

Well, how far do you think your going to get with a short investigation ?

It is afterall, the UNDERWORLD.

Breaking through takes years.

I don't think they stuck with the mob investigation long enough in regards to the LaBianca murders.

Also, has it actually been proven that Leslie Van Houten stabbed Rosemary AFTER Rosemary was dead ???

Or is it just possible Rosemary was already dead and that is what LVH chooses to believe ?

And how about Bugliosi's closing statement in the article in reference to GOD ? WOW !

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Blipcrotch said: "I would maintain that I have heard no allegation against any of the victims that comes close to what Charlie is accused of..."

Well, first of all, I don't think that anyone "deserves to die", or that anyone who is a crime victim "gets what is coming to them". But in the harsh underworld of drugs, gambling and porn, enforcement is a reality for those who don't pay their billz.

Secondly, Polanski DID direct young people to engage in painful and humiliating sex acts for the purpose of lining his own pockets. Not twenty-somethings, who should have been able to think for themselves, but teens and little kids. So, whoooo had "influence" over young people?

And Frykowski was dealing drugs. How I wish the cop in the interview had specified exactly WHAT narcotics and HOW MUCH were found in the Tate-Polanski house. Mind you, this is what was left over, AFTER Sadie and Tex grabbed handfuls for themselves.

No, that doesn't mean Frykowski or Polanski (or their families) deserved a death sentence. But people who play around mud puddles shouldn't act surprised when they get splashed.

FrankM said...

Ace says:

Polanski DID direct young people to engage in painful and humiliating sex acts for the purpose of lining his own pockets. Not twenty-somethings, who should have been able to think for themselves, but teens and little kids. So, whoooo had "influence" over young people?

Not that I'm trying to preach in favor of the vertically-challenged Pole, but has this ever been substantiated in any detail. I mean that he filmed or had sex with underage girls for the purpose of making money?

And other than Ms Geimer, is there evidence that he had relationships with other young (read underage) girls.

I know he liked young-looking girls, but how true is the criminal side of this?

Just wondering.

Frank (who has been away)

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Read Charles's "celebrity sex" letter, Frank. That was unusually candid, as he didn't give permission for it to be published.

Anonymous said...

The damn is busting open... Squeaky's getting out, Charles Watson is now pleading for Susan to get her compassionate release. Fact is, there is such a thing as psychological resistance, and if Squeaky and Susan get released and the world doesn't explode, then comes Leslie, Bruce, Bobby and maybe Pat??? Tex knows he's never getting out. Charlie was never in prison, know what I'm sayin, man?

Anonymous said...


Either the victims deserved to be murdered or they didn't. You can't say in one breath that they didn't deserve it and then in the next one go full on "Piggies", otherwise words don't mean anything.

Pristash said...

The one thing I feel sorry for Bugliosi: he had to deal with those idiots from the LAPD...and apparently, after seeing Changeling, this has been going on since the 1910s or so!

The point about the mob angle not being persued long enough on LaBianca is probably a good one.

I have always been fascinated by the fact that the LAPD was asking Garrettson during his polygraph about Pic Dawson and his gang...slighty more than 24 hours after the bodies were discovered! How and who from did they get this info that apparently convinces them that Tate is so drug related and so not "political" as in Hinman (which if he was a drug dealer, wouldn't his murder be considered drug related too?)that when LASO calls Buckles during the autopsy he can just blow them off and LASO doesn't persue it further?

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Blip, nobody deserves to die of lung cancer either, but if you smoke cigarettes, it's likely that you're gonna. If you wanna die in your armchair when you're 90, don't indulge in risky behavior.

Pristash said...

Um, could it be a sign of the apocalypse? Squeaky is really getting released? Isn't she just about the only unrepentent Manson Family member in prison? Where will she go? What will she do? What TOWN is she gonna move to?

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

"Inmate Locater" says so, as well, therefore it must be true.

Marliese said...

Col, thank you for letting us know about this article, and for your time scanning too.
It's still on the stands here so i was able to get a copy.

Devastating picture of Catherine Share, and Barbara Hoyt obviously.
Bugliosi as in charge as ever, and interesting comments from Juan Flynn, we rarely hear from him.

Disappointing there wasn't more from Garretson, and that all the contributors commented, but no questions were asked of them. I wonder...under what terms did they agree to speak?

Thanks for leading the way...again.