Thursday, June 30, 2011
There's an interesting anecdote in the first part of the new Hendrickson book DEATH TO PIGS that caught my eye. In it he describes watching as Nancy Pitman's mom came storming to Spahn Ranch (during the trials mind you) getting mental on her because she had borrowed a 35mm Camera and not returned it.
Fascinating story, with Nancy hiding in embarrassment and what not. Hendrickson tells the story in order to show that there were still family ties, and of course with what we know about some of them, he was right. Obviously Nancy remains close to her family today.
But wtf man, wtf? Mom wants a camera back, some piece of property, not her daughter who would later go into hiding in the sewers?
Different times indeed!
Saturday, June 25, 2011
In DEATH TO PIGS Hendrickson makes a side remark at one point that a shitload of hippy bodies would show up every week in places like Topanga Canyon, to the point where people began to get annoyed.
This triggered a major thing that always bothered me about TLB. Is it possible, that right UP TO TLB, the cops didn't give a shit?
1- Zero clearly is murdered and the cops, by all reports, accept the bullshit Russian Roulette with a loaded gun excuse.
2- Crowe is shot and obviously had to go to the hospital, but you don't hear anything about an extensive investigation.
3- The other murders that Buglisoi tries to pin on the Family, like the Scientology students and Joel Pugh- does it feel to any of you like these were priorities for law enforcement?
4- Even Gary Hinman, which today would be first page news, doesn't feel like that big a deal. I mean, if they had properly investigated it they would have by DAY TWO tracked down Mary Brunner who used to live there for god's sake and had some idea. They only got a suspect because stupid Bobby slept in a stolen car.
It just feels like a few deaths were no big deal to the cops. Until the movie star got it in the stomach.
Some if this stuff happen today and there is NO WAY nothing happens.
Monday, June 20, 2011
No the headline doesn't refer to AC, Poirot or JimNy.
I was reading some of the new Hendrickson book last night, DEATH TO PIGS. It's a fun read for all 3 of us who care about the truth. Otherwise it simply summarizes interviews he has on film I would rather see as interviews.
So in one chapter the BUG shows up (like always) and Merrick and Hendrickson try to talk to him. He mostly talks over them.
In an interesting bit of mumbo jumbo BUG kind of admits that he isn't sure why Charlie sent Linda. That she didn't kill anyone but she must have known that killing was happening on the second night. That had Sadie kept her deal he still would have only gone after Linda for 2nd degree murder. He doesn't seem to really believe the "she had a license" explanation and speculates that maybe Manson loved her and wanted to lock her in to the group.
He also talks about the "why" go to 3301 Waverly and Merrick tries to point out that someone at the house had called the cops during a party at the True house next door, but BUG says he researched that and dismisses it out of hand.
Also much babbling as BUG says he'll appear on film for free he doesn't want no stinking $500 and then hey offer him $1000. He also hates on Sanders book quite extensively for not understanding the "significance" of these murders.
This all got me wondering- WHY did BUG decide to make up the Helter Skelter motive?
1- To hide something because he did not like the real motive
2-He was too lazy to find the real motive
3- He was too stupid to figure out the real motive
4- Because anyone who would stalk his mailman for fathering his child is nuts and would therefore come up with a nuts motivation like Helter Skelter.
Personally I have always believed it was #4. That was what Aaron Stovitz personally told me at dinner- it was nuts and all the attorneys tried to stop BUG from being nuts. In the new book, they actually point out a quote where BUG admits that Jakobsen, Watkins and Brooks, when first interviewed, never mentioned the Helter Skelter bullshit AT ALL and that it took multiple interviews until they did. Plant much?
So anyway that was that - and then I started wondering about #1.
BUG barely made Melcher testify.
He did everything possible to control all witnesses. He still tried to control Kasabian on Larry King.
He allowed Charlie et al to go forward with weak lawyers.
He did regular interviews with the TV people.
He was determined to not only win, he was determined to get Charlie and bring the whole thing under his control.
It was almost as if he wanted to make sure NO OTHER MOTIVE was even offered.
What would he want to put a sock in?
Drugs? Maybe. LAPD had already speculated about this but maybe sure.
Copycat? Maybe, but I don't think he ever took it seriously, so why cover it up.
Black Book? Maybe but I don't even know what the fuck that means and it only surfaced as a real theory years later.
I don't know.
But it did get me thinking. I mean, IF he did cover up the true motive, what was it and why?
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
In the comments one reader, Mr. Poirot (probably not a Belgian detective) writes the following rant.
There are so many problems in this statement that after a while I get so frustrated I cannot take it sometimes. The fucking guy says he has read the blog but he obviously cannot read then very well. Because he is just factually incorrect about so much shit. Sorry Poirot, but you do in fact deserve this public lashing.
So there we have it. One of the reasons this is too hard. People refuse to actually read properly.
Friday, June 10, 2011
The Col always liked to believe that Charlie at least thought Terry still lived at Cielo. I mean the BUG Is easy to ignore and fucking Terry managed to say almost nothing while he was alive.
But assuming the validity of those notes, which admittedly were all jumbled (like notes usually are, right?) Charlie ASKED FOR TERRY'S ADDRESS. That is way different from "Hey, he no longer lives here" and Charlie is all in the middle of trying to impress big rep Rudy and doesn't hear. It is an actual response and acknowledgement that the guy has moved.
So if we accept that, then major possibilities are just gone. The house was chosen either due to seclusion or due to targeting one of the people there.
Leaving aside seclusion and realizing that we at the Blog deal with reality not fantasy- What is the chance that Charlie had a beef worthy of slaughter with somebody who just happened to be at Terry's old house?
Let's go further--- No one thinks Sharon is there. She isn't the target. If she isn't there then Sebring isn't either. So that leaves Abigail or Voytek as the target. I'm throwing down with the Pole. But if he is the target, what are the chances that Manson or a Rancher even knew the fucking guy?
I wonder if maybe while up there with Rudy he bumped into Voytek. One thing led to another, drug burn, revenge?
This thing is so hard to sort out....
Monday, June 06, 2011
So I met with this cool young filmmaker who made this great Manson doc a couple years back. He brought with him a book of Rudy Altobelli testimony that Rudy had given him. He let me copy it so we will be blogging it soon enough.
Inserted in the book was a 3 page very yellowed, old document that seems to be Rudy's notes for his testimony at trial. Some of it is very interesting to say the least.
Conversation with Manson
Left for Rome 2/24/69
On 2/23/69 he was getting packed and taking a shower and dog started to bark and Manson was in outside the house alone on the patio (between screen door and the front door) (Sharon was in front house getting packed)
He introduced himself and Rudy knew who he was and Rudy opened the front door and spoke to him but he did not enter the living room he had met the summer before and Greg Jackson wanted a ride to the beach (Dennis Wilson) and Charles Manson was there with people and a little boy –
Sat for a few moments, listened to tape of Manson playing music – stayed for a few minutes and left.
Manson asked where Terry was – He said he was in the front of the house and she said to come to the back since he was looking for Terry.
Sharon told Rudy on the plane that she saw Manson that day.
He told Manson he had to leave for a 1 year – clients to make movies
Manson said he was going also to make a movie and Rudy said yes, understand you are very talented
He also asked for Terry’s address
He then asked when Rudy would be back, he would like to talk to him again – Rudy said – over a year.
Rudy never saw Manson except at the house that once and at the beach. Maybe another time – don’t remember.
Roman moved in February 15, 1969.
Terry moved out in January 1969.
Roman left for Rio de Janero a day before or after Rudy called to obtain consent for Garretson’s to stay and told Roman he would take care of the dogs and keep guest house clean.
Garretson moved in on March 24.
Roman said Sharon was going to Rome also and that he would go with Sharon (Sharon was going to make a movie)
Other people were there when Sharon saw Manson at the door
Photographer – Hatami (friend of Roman)
(he was at the funeral)
Rudy thinks these people were there when they talked on the phone and she said a few people were here
Manson has semi long hair – no beard, pants and shirt and on the top a space seemed to be between his teeth and bad teeth all around.