Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Ruminations


Thoughts from the Col....

.... If I don't post for a week I get these Welcome Back emails. Fact is, I haven't been anywhere. I post when I feel like it. Sometimes daily. Sometimes hardly at all. You don't pay for my keen observations, so too bad if you want more- or less. You get what you get.

....This is the ONLY Official TLB Blog.

.... Referring to the above- while all aspects of the case fascinate me, I am mostly interested in the motives behind what happened. Because BUG lied to the world. If you want a truly comprehensive look at TLB try Bret's site. I am not interested in competing. If you want to discuss the case freely try KTS. I am not interested in competing. If you want to see a site where someone tries to make themselves important, try Mark Turner's site.

.... I notice people in the press asking about Karl Stubbs. I recall blogging on him over two years ago.

.... It is like clockwork- I see a TV program about TLB that is just shamefully bad and they always thank Mark Turner.

.... What no one seems to be getting in all the new Barker Ranch coverage is that the actual authorities in Inyo County don't want to spend the money. Because there aren't any bodies.

.... I was sent a link to JIMNY's new Blog- the one with a picture of Leslie saying "I miss you". Truly a tragically deluded man. I am glad I blew off that pathetic group of Candygramma losers.

....I would still like to find George Denny. Is this guy alive?

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Barker News


In something out of the TWILIGHT ZONE a living blue whale was located at Barker Ranch in Death Valley.



____________

Graves Possibly Found on Manson Ranch

JULIANA BARBASSA,Associated Press,
AP
Posted: 2008-03-16 19:18:38
Filed Under: Crime News
DEATH VALLEY NATIONAL PARK, Calif. (March 16) -- Bone-white stretches of salt, leached up from the lifeless soil, lay like a shroud over the high desert where a paranoid Charles Manson holed up after an orgy of murder nearly four decades ago.

Now, as then, few venture into this alkaline wilderness -- gold-diggers, outlaws, loners content to live and let live.

But a determined group of outsiders recently made the trek. They were leading forensic investigators searching for new evidence of death -- clues pointing to possible decades-old clandestine graves.

And the results of just-completed followup tests suggest bodies could indeed be lying beneath the parched ground. The test findings -- described in detail to The Associated Press, which had accompanied the site search -- conclude there are two likely clandestine grave sites at Barker Ranch, and one additional site that merits further investigation.

Next step, the ad hoc investigators urge: Dig.

For years, rumors have swirled about other possible Manson family victims -- hitchhikers who visited them at the ranch and were not seen again, runaways who drifted into the camp then fell out of favor.

The same jailhouse confessions that helped investigators initially connect the band of misfits living in the Panamint Mountains to the gruesome killings that terrorized Los Angeles hinted at other deaths. Manson follower Susan Atkins boasted to her cell mate on November 1, 1969, that there were "three people out in the desert that they done in." Other stories surfaced. In the absence of bodies, they were forgotten.

"We prosecuted Manson and the family for all the murders we could prove. But you know, could he have killed someone else? Possibly. Could another member of the family have killed someone? Sure," said Steve Kay, a former deputy district attorney.

Last month, equipped with cutting-edge forensic technology, the investigators assembled in the ghost town of Ballarat for a 20-mile ride in all-terrain vehicles to the ranch.

The team included two national lab researchers carrying instruments to detect chemical markers of human decomposition, a police investigator with a cadaver-seeking dog, and an anthropologist armed with a magnetic resonance reader.

Also in the group were a woman whose life was forever marked by the cult's brutal murder of her pregnant sister, and a gold prospector who was once Manson's closest neighbor and remains intimate with the sharp creases of the Panamints.

An Old Hand Helps Out

Prospector Emmett Harder guided the expedition.

He had a claim on Manley peak, one of the jagged points looming over Barker Ranch, while the Manson family camped out there in the late 1960s. He shared dinner with the band at times, and gave the men work.

During one of these visits he heard Manson say, "We're not hippies; we're here to get away from the troubles of the world."

Later, Harder would learn more about the cult leader's belief that the end of the world, which he called "Helter Skelter," was near -- and Manson's conviction that through murder, he had a role to play in accelerating that chaotic time.

For the last 5 miles of the rugged gravel road from Ballarat, the route tilts sharply upward as it enters narrow Goler Wash.

"The family's plan was to make this impassable -- you can see how you could do that here," said Sgt. Paul Dostie, a police detective and dog handler from the town of Mammoth Lakes, pointing to the boulders that protrude like bones from the canyon walls. Any of them could be rolled into the wash, blocking passage.

Barker Ranch was one of several hide-outs used by Manson and his followers.

The killings that launched the cult onto national newspapers had been orchestrated from Spahn Ranch, a former Western movie set that served as backdrop to episodes of "Bonanza" and "The Lone Ranger."

It was to Spahn that the killers initially retreated after the 1969 murders of Gary Hinman on July 31; Sharon Tate, Jay Sebring, Voytek Frykowski, Abigail Folger and Steven Parent on August 9; Leno and Rosemary LaBianca on August 10.

This was to signal the start of the apocalyptic race war that Manson told his followers would pit blacks against whites. He preached that they would emerge from the desert at the end and rule over the survivors.

But a daybreak raid on Spahn Ranch on August 16 by Los Angeles sheriff's deputies looking for car thieves netted 26 arrests. All were released a few days later on a technicality -- a misdated warrant -- but Spahn was no longer safe.

Barker Ranch was where Manson withdrew in those last, frenzied days.

Tate's Family Never the Same

Retracing his steps nearly four decades later, the search group stopped at the dilapidated house. From the porch, the view was clear for miles, broken only by the long twisted stems of creosote bushes and knee-high bunches of desert rabbitbrush.

"After the murder, my mom became a shell of herself," said Debra Tate, who was 17 when her sister, actress Sharon Tate, was killed. Her younger sister Patti was 11. "I filled in at home, as best I could."

Debra Tate's mother, Doris Tate, emerged from years of depression when she heard that a Manson family member was seeking parole.

She gathered 350,000 signatures, helping keep the murderer in prison. She also lobbied successfully to change state law to ensure the rights of victims' family members to make statements during sentencing and parole hearings.

Doris Tate died in 1992. Her youngest daughter Patti followed in 2000. Now Debra Tate, 10 years younger than the glamorous, doe-eyed Sharon, whom she grew up admiring, attends the parole hearings alone.

"My mother specifically asked me to carry on," she said, adding, "It's my life."

She has given herself two tasks, she said: making sure her sister's killers never go free, and helping other families find the peace that has eluded her.

"If there are bodies here," she said at the ranch, "we need to find them and send them home."

About 100 yards behind the house, Dostie readied his trained dog, Buster, for the search.

"Go find Fred!" Dostie said, releasing the dog on the command that sends him searching for human remains.

The dog bounded away, zigzagging over the terrain. Then he lay down in a depression in the ground, quivering, ears upright. Buster looked at his trainer and emitted a high-pitched whine.

"He's alerting," Dostie said, throwing the dog his reward and planting a flag on the site.

Searchers Bring in Equipment

Meanwhile, Arpad Vass and Marc Wise, senior researchers from Tennessee's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, were readying the first of the instruments they'd brought, capable of chemically detecting evidence of decades-old human bodies. It was a hand-held device shaped like a gun.

"It's a crude sniffer," said Vass. "It gives us a quick indication of areas we want to come back to."

The machine detects fluorinated hydrocarbon compounds, one of the approximately 400 types of volatile organic compounds emitted by human bodies during decomposition. Focusing on these compounds is important because Vass believes they're formed as the fluoride added to urban drinking water is released after death.

Their presence helps differentiate a human bone from bones from wild animals, explained Vass, who has spent years developing a decomposition odor database using bodies donated to the Oak Ridge lab.

The instrument beeped at regular intervals. As it approached the ground, the beeping accelerated until it was a steady stream of sound.

"That's impressive," said Wise, a senior researcher at Oak Ridge specializing in environmental analytical chemistry. Vass agreed.

Using a thin, 3-foot long probe, Vass tested the soil in the area. It slid into the ground without much effort.

"Undisturbed soil isn't this easy to probe," he said.

"The loose soil area is roughly like this," he said, using the tip of the instrument to draw a long oval on the ground. "It's about three feet deep."

"We need to do an IR," he said, turning to Wise.

He was calling for the next piece of machinery -- larger and heavier, but more specific. It could be calibrated to detect different compounds, using technology known as infrared spectroscopy to "read" a particular molecule's profile.

"We're getting the highest hits here, where the ground is soft," said Wise. "There's definitely something down there," he said. "We just can't know yet exactly what until we dig."

"Or who," said Vass.

The men crouched close to the ground, gathering three samples of dirt from each area of interest for further analysis using more finely tuned lab equipment that could not be brought into the field.

The group broke for lunch. Dostie shared bread and cold cuts in front of the ranch house where Manson was finally arrested, in October 1969, after being found crammed in a bathroom cabinet.

Afterward, Daniel Larson took up his part of the investigation. The head of the archaeology department at California State University, Long Beach, Larson has used Ground Penetrating Radar and a magnetometer -- an instrument that can peer 12 feet into the ground -- in archaeological work and to help find mass graves.

At Barker Ranch, he took 2,025 readings of the ground at the suspect site, stopping every four inches within a 26-by-20-foot grid, looking for discrepancies that indicated earth had been moved.

"What I'm looking for is the pit, not the bones," he explained.

He'll have to return later to use the Ground Penetrating Radar. The soil still held some moisture from recent storms, and that could disturb the results.

Prospector Recalls Runaways

Watching the scientists do their work, Harder spoke of his memories of the Manson clan -- the churlish, armed young men, the pretty girls with blank, doll-like expressions.

"I didn't feel real easy around them," he said. "They picked up all kinds of people -- hitchhikers and stuff."

He particularly remembers two teenage runaways who escaped the ranch, then stopped at a nearby mining camp for food. They had enough fear in them to make it out of the rugged mountains barefoot, said Harder.

They turned themselves in to the California Highway Patrol at the mouth of Anvil Springs Canyon -- booked as Stephanie Jean Schram, 17, a runaway from Anaheim, and Kathryn Rene Lutesinger, 17, runaway from Los Angeles, on October 10, 1969.

"Both females stated that they were attempting to run away from 'Charlie' the leader of the 'family' and that they were afraid of their lives," read the CHP report.

Their fear was well-founded. Following the police raid on Spahn Ranch in August, Manson and the family killed ranch hand Donald "Shorty" Shea for "snitching" and buried him out there.

That body wasn't found until more than eight years later.

"I dug it up myself," about a quarter mile behind the ranch house, said Sgt. Bill Gleason, a now-retired homicide investigator with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department.

"There were rumors of other deaths, minors killed out in Death Valley," said Gleason, who took part in the original Spahn Ranch raid. "We just didn't have anything concrete to link to the Manson family."

The runaway girls didn't know how close they'd come to becoming another one of these rumors.

The day the runaways turned themselves in, CHP officers headed to Barker Ranch for the first of what would be two car theft raids.

On their way, they arrested two men -- booked as Gary Milton Tufts and Randy J. Mourglea -- whom they found asleep at the mouth of Goler Wash, a sawed-off shotgun between them. They were from Barker Ranch, CHP said.

When told of the arrests, both girls told officers they believed the armed men were sent "to stop them from walking away," according to CHP's report.

Were others less lucky when they tried to escape?

Searchers Want to Dig Deeper

Vass said that, considering the quantity and the types of markers of human decomposition found, the cadaver dog's response, and the probing exercise, he found enough evidence to warrant further testing at a deeper level and a full scale excavation at Barker Ranch, according to the report he issued to law enforcement.

"I'd recommend a dig, excavate the sites," said Dostie, who reviewed the report.

But if a body is found on the Barker Ranch, then what?

The likelihood of a new prosecution appears slim. Locating remains would just be the first step, said Patrick Sequeira, the Los Angeles County deputy district attorney who has been in charge of the Manson family parole hearings since Kay's retirement.

"You have to tie them to someone who has disappeared, and there were a lot of people floating in and out of the family environment who were runaways, or hiding out," he said.

Then investigators would have to find out who killed them, where, and who could testify, he said.

The Manson family members currently in prison are already serving life sentences -- the maximum penalty allowed at the time the crimes were committed.

Still, Sequeira did not discourage the efforts of the crime scene re-investigators. "I'd love to see them put something together," he said.

Why Bother With Facts?

.... Charlie is their source? Of course Charlie is nuts- gone.

.... Barker Ranch is not acres and acres....

And most importantly- this is all bullshit. No bodies will be found.

How lame.

Saturday, March 08, 2008

Deane's Ex Wife











So we have some new members-welcome.

Deane Moorehouse's ex wife has joined us. She gave this great interview to Bret.

I keep mentioning this new book that Tom O'Neill has been writing for like ten years. I can't wait to see it. Probably bullshit but who knows.

Well anyway, I just learned from Deane's ex that Tom interviewed Deane in 03 for his opus and that Deane dismissed the molestation charges using lies and more lies. Marilyn the ex has contacted Tom and asked him to talk to her. Because he does after all want the truth. Don't you Tom?

She hasn't been contacted. Tom reads this blog and steals many of my contacts.

Come on Tom- don't lets start a checklist of inaccuracy again.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

The Manson Girls


Yet another crappy low budget film is being planned on the subject, THE MANSON GIRLS. Being produced by the guy who did MONSTER, Brad Wyman (most famous in Hollywood for running naked through the corridors of Cannes) and Donald Kushner another exploitation producer, the script does NOT include Charlie at all. It is kind of like doing a movie but missing the entire point.

Lindsay Lohan is attached to play Linda Kasabian. Which is odd. Clea Duvall played her in the bad HELTER SKELTER remake and was suitably unattractive, like Linda. Lindsay is pretty. And talented. In this movie she has to do extensive nudity. Sounds like an extremely lame film.

Then again, La Lohan did CHAPTER 27, about the murderer of John Lennon, so maybe she has a thing for killers. Although that film never came out.

Weird

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Debra Tate's Legacy of Shame


Debra Tate has re-opened the Tate Family Legacy site.

Thanks to Bret for the news.

So there is an email there to ask her questions about her Family. The one that she professes to love.

Here are some questions I have-

1- If you are a spokesperson for the Family, how come you were disinherited from your parents' wills?

2- If you are a spokesperson for the Tates, and want to invoke the name of your sister Patti, when was the last time you saw her kids? (Hint- I can't remember is a valid answer.)

3- Why do you run a picture of Col Tate, your dad, and then refuse to bury his ashes according to his wishes, keeping them on your kitchen table so you can laugh at his ghost every morning?

4- Is there a bigger hypocrite on the web than you?

5- Why do you continue to claim ownership of Sharon's image when in reality IF there is any ownership it belongs to Paul Tate's estate- your child and Patti's child- NOT YOU?

6- Why do you show up looking for attention and donuts at the parole hearings of people who never even saw your sister? Patti and Doris never did such a thing.

7- How much does it suck knowing you will never be Sharon?

Feel free to forward these questions to her... or ask your own!

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Leslie Sues


Leslie Van Houten, the murdering slut who went into a stranger’s house, put a bag over her head and killed her is suing the Warden of her prison. Her lawsuit is filed essentially the same as the one filed by Susan Atkins.

As a disbarred attorney I will translate---

Leslie alleges

1- That she is sentenced to life with the possibility of parole.
2- That there is a checklist of things that one needs to do to obtain parole.
3- That she has done all these things.
4- That by denying her parole in 2004 the Warden and the commission viokated her rights.
5- That she is thus being held there illegally and that the government should show cause why she should not be released immediately.
6- That barring that she is to be considered a political prisoner being held illegally by the State of California.

Christie Webb, Leslie’s attorney, also alleges that Staten Island Jim has no nutsack in the pleadings. Okay, okay I jest.

I understand why Leslie is doing this. She isn’t getting out ever anyway, so why not? I mean, she could light herself on fire that would get her out sooner. But she is trying all legal remedies. Everything short of granny porn.

In a nutshell, she says “I have a right to parole and have done everything right and you suckers are not letting me out.”

Probably doesn’t help that she calls the Warden and others names and sues them. But whatever.

Why does her argument fall to the ground? Because she doesn’t have a right to parole. It is that simple. It is POSSIBLE she could get paroled. But she won’t.

Why then does she keep suing?

What else does she have to do with her time?

[Pictured- Leslie the killer and her great father who said on CNN that he never has talked about the murder of Rosemary LaBianca with his daughter the fucking murderess]

Friday, February 08, 2008

Leslie Van Houten Murdering Harlot




I heard that you wanted MORE Leslie from Nellie's old site.
Why would I decline your wishes?

  • An Editorial by Bill Nelson

    The next person to have a parole hearing is Leslie Van Houten and it should take place in May, since she received a one year denial just last May 28, 1998. Having served thirty years for her participation of murder in the LaBianca home, she has the best chance for a parole date. She was charged with one count of murder and one count of conspiracy. She did not physically participate in the brutal stabbing of Leno LaBianca who was tethered in a defenseless position by Manson and Tex Watson. Leslie entered the private home without a weapon but she and Pat immediately obtained knives from the victims kitchen.

    Leslie likes to talk about starring into an empty room during the brutal stabbing and claims she only stabbed Rosemary in the lower back some sixteen times after Tex demanded she do something. She whispers softly to the assembled members of the parole board that Rosemary was already dead. It is a moot point.

    What Leslie fails to talk about is her willingness to fight, subdue, tie down, wrestle and brutalize Rosemary in the sanctity of her private residence while getting ready for bed around 2:00 A.M. on that fateful August 10, 1969 Sunday morning. She held Rosemary down while Pat tried unsuccessfully to stab the victim. Leslie struggled hard with the victim, she put a pillow case over the victims head, a lamp cord around the neck and when Rosemary was tough enough to get up off the bed at hearing the screams of husband Leno being butchered by a lying Tex Watson, she called for Tex - trustworthy killer - to finish the job the two Slippies were unable to do.

    Leslie Van Houten was more than a passive demure little obedient slave. She was an enthusiastic willing thrill seeking killer. After the blood shed, during the quietness of death, Leslie wiped down the house seeking to destroy any prints left by the killers. She did a very good job at that. There were no prints found in the house from Manson, Watson, Van Houten or Krenwinkle. Left in the wake of madness were two brutally stabbed victims, a husband and wife, and the only reason given was to start a race war between the Black and White races of America. That is why Pat took the time to write in blood on the living room wall above the front door "
    RISE", and over the wall facing that door, "DEATH TO PIGS", then on the refrigerator the misspelled words "HEALTER SKELTER". Oh, while Tex took a shower, Pat took a fork from the kitchen and stabbed the dead corpse of Leno several times. Then, in an expression of total depravity, she wobbled it, left it in the stomach wound, and is said to have remarked something like "This will freak out the children when they come to Sunday dinner tomorrow."

    There was one more thing Leslie has not talked about lately, she was angry at not being asked to participate in the massacre at the Tate/Polanski residence the night before.

    Fast forward. Thirty years later. Incarceration, three trials, remorse and a little bit of Jesus thrown into the mix, Leslie wants to go home. She has a job waiting. She has offers of financial support. Her life is pretty well together now, she is the beneficiary of a devoted following called "Friends of Leslie".

    Leslie has what Rosemary and Leno lost. There is no organization called "Friends of Rosemary" or "Friends of Leno" for they have all but been forgotten. Murdered. Dumped. Their cries for help, their pleas to live fell on deaf ears.

    W
    hy did I work with Alice LaBianca last year to present a letter to the Board of Prison Terms opposing the release of Leslie Van Houten? First of all, Alice was not manipulated to do that by me, as some friends of Leslie have suggested, far from it. Alice LaBianca is a very independent woman. She laughed when that suggestion was given to her.

    I did it because the LaBianca family needed to get beyond their grief and do something positive. The LaBianca family has been judged for having never spoken out and that changed last year. Alice did the right thing. Do I think she will once again do it this year? I think not. Will we see a LaBianca family member appear before the hearing to oppose the release of Leslie? It is doubtful. The senseless murders inside the LaBianca home thirty years ago froze the family in terror and they have never recovered. Part of that terror is their fear of the daughter of Rosemary, Ms. Suzann LaBerge, and that is a story I have not been fully told.

So what would it take for me to step aside and not oppose the parole date for Leslie Van Houten?

There is nothing Leslie Van Houten can do. I will never support her release. The motive for the murders, and the brutality of the killing should close the door to that prison entrance for ever. The only way Van Houten, Atkins or Krenwinkle should ever come out of CIW is in a pine box.

Leslie Van Houten has the right to request a parole date, she does not have a guarantee that the state is obligated to give her one. The state has the responsibility to hear her appeal each time the Board of Prison Terms assembles at the California Institute for Women for a Van Houten hearing. Each time I listen to the words of Leslie and study her demeanor during the hearing, I ask myself about the cries of the victims. But then, my mind returns to the present and I watch to see if the panel is listening or sympathetic towards the matured woman before them.

Yes, the panel has listened and they have shown interest in her progress. It gives caution to the Deputy District Attorney representing the people of the great state of California.
There are some things that I would like to see Leslie Van Houten clear up before the parole board gives her a date though. It would illustrate remorse, understanding and rehabilitation.

Did Manson and Watson enter the home together?

What does Leslie know about the claims of Gypsy that the Manson family creepy crawled the LaBianca house within two weeks of the murders?

Did she hear any questions from Tex about Leno giving him a little black book?

Does she know anything about the brass door handle ending up in the refrigerator some two weeks after the murders in the LaBianca kitchen?

What, if anything, does she know about the arrangement of logs before the fire place some two weeks after the murders?

Did Leslie know Joe Dorgan, the boyfriend of the daughter of Rosemary? Dorgan rode with Manson with other bikers.

Where did Tex hide that bayonet? My first book proved he did not throw it into the Hyperion water as he claimed.

Were the bushes they slept in near the steps leading to the freeway?

Did Leslie know Marina Habe, a female murder victim known to have visited the Spahn Ranch?

Did Leslie actually participate in the burial of the remains of Shorty Shea following his murder, as I have been told?

These are fair and logical questions for the lady anxious for a parole date. These are some of the questions I personally would like to ask Ms. Van Houten. But, I am not on the board and I am not the one to decide if she is granted her wishes for a release date.

I plan to video tape the hearing in May once again. I will be there to document and record the events as they transpire. If she receives a date I will not be surprised. If she is denied because of the new Governor Gray Davis I will not be shocked. The board who grants her a date will have to be strong and the Governor who signs off on it will have to have some rather large shoulders. The outcry would be much louder than the joy from the Friends of Leslie.
Is Leslie Van Houten a threat to society? Maybe not. But then again, neither are Rosemary and Leno LaBianca.

Footnote below:

  • VAN HOUTEN, LESLIE LOUISE F/W 5'6 brn brn 8-23-49/48 POB: Iowa
    Nicknames: Leslie DL# DD 436893 (temp)
    aka's: Sankston, Leslie Mary,
    Owens, Leslie Sue; Alexandria,
    Louella Maxwell; Alexander, Louise
    Susan
    Arrested with Manson family
    Convicted of the murders of Rosemary & Leno LaBianca.



  • One more comment from the Editorial above...3/2/99

    The parole board is allowed to ask questions about the commitment offense, the record of the inmate prior to the life crimes, the progress inside the institution, the psychological evaluation, plans for a parole date, and questions about things relating to the crimes.
    Bruce Davis was questioned about the fact he did not inform law enforcement of the burial site of Shorty Shea. Bruce Davis was asked about his opinion as to the suitability of Charles Denton "Tex" Watson to get a parole date, even though the question had nothing to do with the main line of questioning. Davis was asked about the shooting of Bernard Crow. He was not involved in the crime.
    Van Houten may be asked questions showing her suitability for a release date and that may be determined in part, by her willingness to answer related questions. These questions were raised outside the prison last year and they may be asked of Leslie at the hearing this year.

    Her defenders at any cost will have to pray Leslie is truthful, forth coming, and receptive to whatever related questions the panel decides to ask. Certainly, questions about members of the Manson family being inside the LaBianca residence within two weeks of the murders and the letters from Leno to his daughter documenting the facts are reasonable.

    T
    o the Friends Of Leslie and other sympathetic supporters of the murderers I ask, What have you done for the victim's families in your life time? Absolutely nothing!

Thursday, February 07, 2008

The Col's BASIC FOOD GROUPS- Part One


I got accused of hypocrisy in the comments by some new readers who didn't go back and read previous posts.

So when challenged in the future I will post some of my BASIC FOOD GROUPS, ie. ideas and thoughts of MINE so that we can tag them and have them for handy reference in the future. This way instead of telling someone to go fuck themselves they can read for themselves.

#1- The Col supports release for Bobby Beausoleil and not Leslie Van Houten. Isn't this hypocritcal?


I say no. I will give you my reasons. These reasons are SOUND. You do not have to AGREE with them but they are valid and sound.

1- The most base and basic one is the following- Bobby denies nothing, admits his wrong doing and blames nothing on Charlie. This is crucial to me. Maybe he did not in the past but he does now. I cannot release a murderer who still contributes to the lies of the case. Leslie needs to say I DID it , no one MADE me do it, I did it cause I was young, bloodthirsty and stupid and I am sorry. It wasn't post mortem, I tied the woman up in her own home and put a pillowcase on her head and stabbed her and I AM SORRY. Until then I will support Bobby's release and oppose Leslie's. She still has the possibility of release just like evil Mark Turner might find bodies buried under Barker and I might shit gold.

2- Bobby's murder was in the heat of the moment. He was out of control and scared. He ran afterwards, left town. Leslie went in to a house, knowing she was going to commit murder, and boasted of it later. I see a difference.

3- Rosemary LaBianca was an innocent stranger. Gary Hinman was a fellow drug dealer. Does that make his life worth less? No. Is death a frequent side effect of dealing drugs? Yes.

These are my reasons. There is NO hypocrisy- it is well thought out.

Thanks for playing.

Alice LaBianca


Okay it was the EX wife looking for attention. And sure, it came from Nellie. But ten years ago, that murderous lying bitch Leslie Van Houten, first had to face the family of her victims. Here, courtesy of Nellie, is the first letter ever sent by a family member to the Van Houten Parole Board.

----

Manson and his minions thrust our family name into public focus when they murdered Sharon Tate and her house guest one night, then they killed my former husband and his wife in a most brutal manner the next night. Their shocking criminal actions became known as the TATE-LABIANCA MURDERS. We lost our privacy and our obscurity.

My family never became vocal, we did not become activist, we relied on the justice system to seek and find the justice that was due us. We have never been asked by the District Attorney’s Office to participate in opposing the release of any of the killers. After all, they all received the death penalty, and that was all our family could expect.

But we can no longer remain silent. Let me preface my remarks by this statement:

We do not desire to become activist. We do not desire to be bombarded by the media and have our privacy destroyed. Yet, we must make a statement about the parole hearing for convicted murderer , Leslie Van Houten.

She entered the home of Leno, father of my children, that August 10th, 1969. She participated in the deaths in that home. I know, she says she only stabbed Rosemary after she was already dead from the relentless stabbing of Tex Watson. I know she denies having stabbed Leno. I even understand she has been a model prisoner for all these years. It doesn’t matter!

Leslie Van Houten has been fed, given medical care, clothed and housed for nearly thirty years. I understand she even completed a college degree and a Masters degree. My children had no such gifts. They, like other law-abiding citizens growing up, have had to face the realities of life without the help of their father. It has not been easy for them. I know Ms. Van Houten has a web site with Susan Atkins. I know she has a lot of friends who work for her freedom. That is unfortunate.

Leslie Van Houten chose her own path. She chose to follow the instructions of Charles Manson. She chose drug crazed killers as her family and she became one of them. But what about my family? When do we get our parole? When does Leno get his parole?

Sympathy for these killers, and especially this one is misplaced. Sympathy, understanding, and compassion should be given to the victims of murder and not the killers. In all these years, not one of those killers have expressed remorse to our family, -- not even Leslie Van Houten who says she did the least in the murders. If she is really ready for parole then amends to the family should have already been done.

Page Two - Alice LaBianca

The Manson murders…Breaking our silence

When Leslie’s father appeared on Larry King Live, my family was denied speaking on air by the producers to answer Mr. Van Houten’s accusations that the LaBianca’s didn’t care!! Not one of us was allowed on the show.

Make no mistake about it, the entire LaBianca family has suffered untold deprivation, frustration, anxiety and financial ruin because of these murders. Leno’s mother died of a broken heart just six years after her son’s murder, losing the business to merciless creditors – the family business that Leno was managing and she and Leno’s father had founded in the late 1920’s.

We emphatically oppose the release of any of the Manson menage. When the death penalty was repealed after their convictions, their sentences were converted to Life with possibility of parole. Even the California State Legislature found that unacceptable! They voted to make the entire Manson family an exception! The California voters also took action so we now have "Life without parole" as it should be!

It’s a sacrilege to Leno’s memory that the family has to be confronted with parole hearings for these individuals every few years. We are glad for her maturity and her model prisoner status, but that does not equate to freedom.

We also want to say that Suzanne LaBerge, daughter of Rosemary, the murdered wife of Leno at the time, does not represent the LaBianca family. She certainly did not represent us at that May 4, 1990 parole hearing for Tex Watson, when she made that pathetic appeal for his release because she "forgave" him.

As Ms. Van Houten continues her incarceration, let her continue to remember that what she did that fateful night was forever. The Manson family mark on this society is deep. As deep as the stab wounds to their helpless victims.

Alice LaBianca, author of NO MORE TOMORROWS through her friend, Bill Nelson, author of MANSON BEHIND THE SCENES, and a leading Manson family expert. www.mansonmurders.com

It was the encouragement from Nelson, that our family is speaking out. Please do not believe our silence has been uncaring.

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Mark Turner Is Desperate












Mark Turner has a big announcement for January 31- Today!


Wait for it.

Hear it comes.

There have been rumors of dead bodies buried at Barker Ranch. And so for most of 2007 some fools, I mean people, have been out there with dogs looking. And they let little Markie come along.

Excuse me I am going to vomit.

Bleeechhh. Thank you.

Okay. So here is where he explains his big announcement.

A first year philosophy student can explain his logical syllogisms. The other team of dogs failed to find any bodies not because of the damn humidity but because there aren't any. He also blames that asshole Melton for the lack of funding. But then these are people that listened to the asshole in the first damn place. They are not smart. Debra Tate was at the ranch with the dogs- either she thought she might get to eat one or she was snorkeling for truffles. What a crock of shit!

And he loves that MOST EVIL show wherein the senile psychologist believes the lies of Gypsy Share.

Bleeech! Excuse me.

Here is an interview with a cop with too much time of his hands. He cites Ed Sanders, the same unreliable hippie loon who used asshole Melton as a source for his books. THAT'S good cop work!

Then he goes on to explain why a dog with the name BUSTER might have smelled a 500 year old Indian grave. Public Funds being wasted as I type.

Here he says " I spoke to a source who interviewed Manson around year 2000. Manson had a handler who is another inmate, who is a "jailhouse lawyer."" - and a friend of a friend of mine can fly without a plane.

There is no way to tell without digging if they are Native Americans, old prospectors, Manson Family Victims, or if the dogs made a mistake. Or just wishful lunacy.

BUT The BUG is very supportive. And he loves Latin Music Cds.

Debra Tate would like funding for the dogs. And a dozen large pizzas.

Cyber Detective Mark Turner has helped.???

BLECCH.... excuse me.

What did Mark do again? Ask Barbara Hoyt to make up more fucking bullshit lies?

Grave Sites? or maybe just a nice place to piss?

Somebody else
talks about toilet paper and mob hits.

So what is the big news? Mark spent most of 2007 feeding Babs Hoyt and Debra Tate truffles and took fifteen cars and dogs out to Barker Ranch and found nothing.? White Rabbitt Mach 2.

To repeat the big announcement using their own useless words as they wonder about bullshit funding...
There is no way to tell without digging if they are Native Americans, old prospectors, Manson Family Victims, or if the dogs made a mistake.

My big announcement? I chew gum sometimes!

PS- that noise you hear is Bill Nelson rolling in his grave.

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Other Groups and The Col


The Col doesn't play well with others. I admit that. All my report cards always would say that. Why? Well that should be obvious. Most people aren't worth playing with. They are willfully ignorant, lazy, or just biologically stupid.

When I started on my quest for the truth of TLB eleven years ago, it was a different world. The only site was Nellie's unless you counted ATWA which I didn't. ATWA spent pages telling me Charlie was not five feet two. And he is. Soon after Nellie spewed his puke into the ether the Ronson board appeared. FULL of pretenders to being in "The Family." The only "real" person was Karen Mccoy Montecillo who claimed to be a girlfriend of Steven Parent. She was a girl who was his friend, but him being gay, not his girlfriend. And she is now dead. Ronson eventually was revealed as phony with a Neve Campbell obsession. Nellie was outed by ATWA as a multiple count child molester. As was Larry Melton, the asshole known as White Rabbitt. Charlie made Blue shut ATWA down and I think that was the beginning of the end of her obsessions with him.

After that implosion around the turn of the century, the only place left was the YAHOO Group Killed the Sixties. On several occasions the Col saw that there were people there that knew what they were doing. The Col would join up there and get chased out because he had no time for small talk. He wanted to know what they knew. The Col must have been chucked out AT LEAST 25 times. Finally, he arranged to stay and mostly watch. Mostly.

Mark Turner had had his site, and occasionally updated it. No real firsthand research. Not often enough. It was a good site to have. Then he started a message board and banned people who told him he was delusional. This made him evil. He then started defending and promoting Dennis Rice, even trying to sell a (fraudulent) vest for the guy who left his children behind to be molested by Clem and others.

Somewhere in there I saw the Candygramma group and found something interesting in there. This has led to the biggest time suck of the last two years as the Col fought with stupid trailer park housewives who look like shit and know shit. I would get sidetracked by Jim, the delusional obsessed fan from, Staten Island who used to post here as "Savage". Then delete every post for no reason at all. What a mess. But he does understand much of the case, even if he believes a hardened, remorseless old lady should be freed. And Aaron over there always got it, but chose to stay with the biddies anyway. I left last week, and despite some illiterate, retarded emails from Candyass and Cuntyl who got their own bad selves moderated at KTS, I am done with it.

This leaves Bret's site. I don't know where the hell he came from, but some dude in Iceland has put me, AesNihil, Scramblhed, Turner, and any researcher in to the case to shame. He doesn't show his opinion often and when he does I tend to disagree. But his site is THE site out there now.

THIS place is a site of my opinions, thoughts and references as I look for the truth. People who are not wankers are welcome to post THEIR thoughts and opinions. This is not an intramural baseball game. If people want to attack and mock us, good. We have been here for years and yo can find more truth here than anywhere but Bret's. By discussing the idiocy of CG we give her power when she deserves none because, well she is an idiot.

If it isn't a reliable, primary source it doesn't deserve our attention. I mean, weeks spent dealing with Melton, who is a sad excuse for a human? No more.

Forward for the truth. It is out there.

Monday, January 21, 2008

Polanski SOLD


HBO inks U.S. rights to 'Polanski' doc
By Gregg Goldstein and Steven Zeitchik

After an extended and mutating round of dealmaking, HBO picked up all U.S. rights for Marina Zenovich's documentary "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired." The network's docu division will handle the Sundance title's cable bow, with a theatrical release still to be determined. The feature tracks the iconic director's statutory rape trial and urges a second look at the particulars of the case. TWC bought all rights excluding North America and U.K. TV on Saturday. The deal closed after 2 a.m. Sunday morning. In the final round, bidding came down to HBO, ThinkFilm and Roadside Attractions, with Netflix, A+E and the History Channel attempting various partnerships with theatrical distributors. Since its debut Friday night, "Polanski" was one of the only films to attain universal praise at this year's festival. The other was Nanette Burstein's docu "American Teen," which had top bidders awake until around 4 a.m. Sunday. The sellers and buyers decided to sleep on it and resume talks after sunrise. Jeffrey Levy-Hinte and Lila Yacoub produced "Polanski." Cinetic Media and Josh Braun at Submarine Entertainment repped the filmmakers in the deal.

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Larry Melton, Asshole


Larry Melton.
I am sick of talking about this prick.

In his incoherent, unpublished book, he boasts about having sex with underage girls well into the seventies.
He is a registered sex offender for dealing in KIDDIE PORN.

He was never a member of the Manson Family. NEVER. At best he met Squeaky somewhere thinking she was a small child. And that is a maybe.

He has lied to the police.

He is an ugly shit who lives under a bridge and lets goats pass.

Because there is no honor in a group that allows people like him, I am officially leaving CandyGramma's Yahoo Group. I will miss Jim's rants and Aaron's knowledge. But CG and Gloria and the Biddies Cheryl spend more time making up rules and not following them than finding the truth.

THIS blog I realize is for advanced scholars of TLB. That group is a playpen for pre-schoolers who believe Ruth Ann Moorehouse posts among them.

Enough of all this. I hear Tom O'Neill got a book deal for later this year on his book that will "blow open the case". I can only wish that it is true.

Friday, January 18, 2008

Roman and the Rape


Getting to the bottom of the Polanski case
Why did Roman Polanski flee the country? A dogged filmmaker attempts to find out.
By Kenneth Turan
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

January 17, 2008

IT all came together for Marina Zenovich, director of "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," during one of numerous conversations with Polanski's agent Jeff Berg about the filmmaker's possible participation in her documentary. "Berg said, 'Why are you making this film, everyone knows this story.' And I said, 'No, you know this story, but everyone doesn't know it.' "

Polanski ended up not participating, but Zenovich turned out to be right. Her compelling, smartly told film, debuting Friday night in Sundance's documentary competition, takes the seemingly familiar story of the circumstances surrounding Polanski's fleeing the country after pleading guilty to having sex with a minor and tells it with such intelligence, dispassion and detail that it's like we've never heard it before. Which is exactly the point.

"Everyone thinks Polanski fled because he was afraid of going to jail, but people don't know the real story," the engaging, articulate Zenovich says. "That can only be told by the people who experienced it." She quotes David Dalton, Polanski's attorney, who says, "Only three people know the story and one of them is dead."

The dead man is the judge in the case, Laurence J. Rittenband, who died in 1993. As described by both Dalton, who has never before spoken publicly about this, and his opposite number, prosecutor Roger Gunson, Rittenband engaged in actions that would have turned Perry Mason's hair gray. "I remain astounded," is how Dalton puts it. "This case will never leave me."

Astounded or not, Dalton was quite reluctant to participate in Zenovich's film, as was almost everyone else. "This was a very long process, nobody wanted to talk about this," Zenovich says wearily of the literal years of importuning it took to get everyone on camera. Not only were people like Dalton and close Polanski friend Andrew Braunsberg difficult to convince, they refused to sign releases for their interview footage until they saw the finished film.

Zenovich, whose previous docs include "Independent's Day" and "Who Is Bernard Tapie?," succeeded because "you can see that I'm disarming, genuine and I have good intentions. It can be endearing that you're trying so hard. I never give up."

Zenovich's interest in Polanski was piqued by a 2003 Los Angeles Times piece that talked about "the 30 years of limbo" the case had caused for the director. Then she saw Lawrence Silver, who represented the girl in the case, say on TV that " 'the day Polanski fled the country was a sad day for the American judicial system.' That didn't make sense to me, I wanted to understand why he said it."

Gradually, Zenovich became consumed by the lives of the story's characters, including 54-year-old Judge Rittenband, who loved celebrity cases and turned out to have a 20-year-old mistress. But she was especially struck by Polanski, just a few years past the murder of his wife Sharon Tate, and the girl in question, Samantha Geimer, who is interviewed on camera about the case. "They've been prisoners of this story," she says, "but the facts are wrong."

What is most interesting about "Wanted and Desired" is that prosecutor Gunson and defense attorney Dalton, as well as Geimer's attorney Silver, all agree that Judge Rittenband acted improperly, attempting to stage-manage events in a way that was out of legal bounds.

"Despite what he did, Polanski was screwed over by the judge, he fled because the judge pulled the rug out from under him," Zenovich says. "It was like Polanski was caught in one of his movies, this kind of stuff isn't supposed to happen, everyone was shocked that a judge would behave like this." As Polanski himself puts it in an archival clip, "I was a mouse made sport of by an abominable cat."

With its spotlight clearly on the judicial aftermath, "Wanted and Desired" does not focus on what happened between Polanski and the girl past putting both their statements to the police on the screen as type. That sex took place is not in dispute, and Zenovich, who says "if it was a violent rape I wouldn't have made this film," calls it "a tragedy for all involved. It's not for me to judge."

After literally years of trying, Zenovich did finally meet Polanski for an off-camera lunch in Paris near the end of filming. "He said it would look like self-promotion to be in the film," the director says, but the event was hardly a waste. "After having someone in your head and in archival footage for over three years, that meeting was satisfying, to say the least."

Thursday, January 17, 2008

You Made a Fool of Everyone


Following up on MOTIVE we move slightly off of Tex and we move on to SADIE.

Here are my current thoughts and ramblings about this bitch.

1- WHY in the name of God did Bugliosi use her in any capacity when the woman is clearly legally insane? He succeeded perhaps in permanently muddying the waters but seriously, did he have no ethics at all to repeatedly put a crazy person on the stand?

2- She thinks it actually matters who stabbed Sharon Tate. It doesn't- every one of those pukes that were there that day deserves to fry, including Linda. But she has changed her story so much it actually hurts my head. My instinct? I believe her grand jury testimony- it holds together the most.

3- Her motive- well she wanted to fit it. She liked the speed she was getting from Tex. Oh and she is fucking insane.

4- The Motive? To be honest, I don't think she knows. She was useful to Charlie because she was bugfuck nutso. But she was so wild and wooley that Tex didn't even take her the next day. She might have second hand information about motive, but I don't think she really knows why she threw her life away.

Thoughts? Disagree?

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Sway


'Sway' by Zachary Lazar

A novel conjures a powerful prism in which to view the potent, still-rippling contradictions of the late '60s.

By Mark Rozzo LA TIMES

January 6, 2008

Sway

A Novel

Zachary Lazar

Little, Brown: 260 pp., $23.99

"HE was a pain in the arse, quite honestly," Keith Richards said not long ago of his late bandmate Brian Jones, with whom he, along with Mick Jagger, founded the Rolling Stones in the early 1960s. Amazingly, Jones -- the troubled blond waif who played a Vox Phantom Teardrop guitar as well as an untold number of exotic instruments on a slew of Stones records -- still has the power to rile people up: By name alone, the prolific indie band Brian Jonestown Massacre (a subject of the surprisingly resonant 2004 documentary "Dig!") suggests an enduring cultish fascination with the doomed musician, who was found dead in his swimming pool on July 3, 1969.

"Sway," Zachary Lazar's second novel (after 1998's "Aaron, Approximately"), places a fictionalized Jones in the midst of a triumvirate even more uneasy than the one completed by Richards and Jagger. By highlighting the little-known links among Jones; Kenneth Anger, the notorious filmmaker behind such oddball, darkly camp creations as "Kustom Kar Kommandos" and "Inauguration of the Pleasure Dome" (he is also the author of "Hollywood Babylon"); and Bobby Beausoleil, the would-be California rock star who became Charles Manson's murderous yes-man, Lazar has created a powerful, infernal prism through which to view the potent, still-rippling contradictions of the late '60s. It's no mean feat. Despite the era's nearly impossible richness, fresh insights are hard to come by. (Witness, if you must, Tom Brokaw's recent prime-time retread, "1968.")

In Lazar's telling, Jones, Beausoleil and Anger turn out to be strange mirrors of one another: compelling, sometimes annoying personalities driven by the times, making the most of its catch-as-catch-can hipster opportunism; spirited dabblers whose ambitions are thwarted or dwarfed by their cohorts in a period of zooming possibility; dreamers whose divergent fates -- death, prison, survival -- illustrate how the decade's long and winding road forked into many paths, not all of them leading to happiness or enlightenment or money-minting commemorative world tours. The connections that Lazar forges are not entirely whimsical, either: The Stones were apparently introduced to Anger's work through the London gallery owner Robert Fraser, a.k.a. Groovy Bob. And Anger did, in fact, cast an unknown Beausoleil as the Lucifer figure in his short film "Invocation of My Demon Brother." (Jagger would score the film.)

Told in appropriately kaleidoscopic episodes that veer from Los Angeles to London and beyond, "Sway" opens with a lazy afternoon at what seems to be the Spahn Ranch above Chatsworth, the Manson family's preferred hide-out, circa 1969. The ragged collection of hippies and Brentwood runaways holed up there doesn't make much of an impression on the wayward Beausoleil, a good-looking kid who briefly played with Arthur Lee before that Angeleno legend went on to form Love.

"It was like a lot of other places he'd been in the past two years," Lazar's narrator observes, in the first of many evocative passages that sum up the times. "[E]verywhere along the coast now there were groups of young people with nowhere to go and no money to spend. It was as if they were living in a fort or a tree house." But as with any fort or treehouse, there needs to be a bully. Here, it is Manson himself, who has an eerie way of getting inside Beausoleil's head: "Not bad," Manson tells his skittish sidekick when they take a drive to break into a house in Benedict Canyon. "Just driving around on a Thursday, getting high. Why don't you just cool off and relax?"

There's nothing relaxing, of course, about those words, which echo throughout "Sway." Lazar ingeniously elevates this innocuous catchphrase of the era to the level of creepy mantra. Similar words are tossed at an increasingly unstable Jones in 1967, after the famous drug raid on Richards' country house and during the Stones' subsequent journey to Marrakech. Anger uses them when coaxing his straight subjects -- including Beausoleil -- to appear in his homoerotic films. And, most famously, they're uttered by Jagger at Altamont on Dec. 6, 1969, as Manson and his followers faced murder indictments: "Everybody just cool out," the caped singer pleads, while nearby a member of the local Hells Angels kills a pistol-wielding black teenager in the crowd.

Meanwhile, we follow Anger's course from an L.A. childhood in which he gravitates toward an Aleister Crowley-esque text called "The Sephiroth" and experiences terror at any thought of the future. A sensitive boy growing up in a not particularly gay-sensitive time, he realizes that "people like him ended up living in residence hotels. They worked as floorwalkers in department stores, cooked their meals on a hot plate." As Anger embarks on his singular career -- cobbling together films that win the attention of Jean Cocteau (and eventually inspire the likes of David Lynch and John Waters) -- we find that he shares with Jones and Beausoleil an outcast quality that will become emblematic of the 1960s: "Everyone under thirty has decided that they're an exception -- a musician, a runaway, an artist, a star." (Variations on this riff turn up throughout.)

Perhaps the most compelling of Lazar's three intertwining story lines is that of Jones and his bandmates. We first find them in 1962, huddling in their squalid Edith Grove flat with their filthy socks drying on a radiator and struggling to work their way through the simplest of Chuck Berry songs. Jones is the glue that bonds the creative partnership of Richards and Jagger. As he teaches Jagger harmonica and steers the nascent Stones through their paces, we come to understand that this young man -- already a father -- will never again have so much power in the band. Jones is there at the crucial moment of inception: "They're trying to be serious and sarcastic at the same time." It's a duality -- adroitly pinpointed by Lazar -- that expresses so much of the '60s, which were as much about the idea of the put-on as they were about the celebration of innocence.

Lazar's vision of the Stones at their genesis is echoed in another haunting guitar-strumming scene in which Beausoleil attempts to accompany Manson's musical ramblings. Like the Stones, particularly Jagger, Lazar's Manson has a "way of miming his emotions, acting them out so that they came across as artificial and sincere at that same time." Connections like this abound in "Sway." If they sometimes feel forced, they are almost always pleasantly jarring: In the murdered Sharon Tate, we find a doppelgänger for Anita Pallenberg, Jones' imperious German girlfriend, who endures his beatings until finally leaving him for Richards, a blow that may have led to his death. In their brazen invasiveness, the Manson break-ins resemble the various police roustings of the Stones. And the bikers of Anger's cinematic and erotic fascinations resurface, in decidedly hellish form, at Altamont.

Then, of course, there's the spirit of Lucifer, who binds it all together: For Anger, he is the Satan of Blake, "a god of light, a child god, the fallen angel . . . finally coming back." But as the decade slouches toward its bummer of a conclusion, Lucifer reverts from red-hot symbol of Eros to grim avatar of Thanatos: Lazar's crowning irony is to reveal how the revolutionary '60s unraveled under the heel of a retrograde Satan. "That was how the Lucifer role had played itself out," Anger notes with a shudder when he hears that Beausoleil has turned cold-blooded killer. And he looks on with amazement while the Stones struggle, much as they did back in their cold flat, to lay down "Sympathy for the Devil," the ultimate invocation of the demon. "They spoke of evils wrought by humanity in the sway of a sly, sophisticated con man who in the end was just a bewildering reflection of themselves." In "Sway," the fun-house '60s are nothing so much as a hell of mirrors. *

Their Satanic Majesties

SWAY

255 pp. Little, Brown & Company. $23.99.

By Zachary Lazar.

With its motifs of homosexuality, Satan worship, drug addiction, promiscuity, nihilism and general decadence, Zachary Lazar’s superb second novel, “Sway,” reads like your parents’ nightmare idea of what would happen to you if you fell under the spell of rock ’n’ roll.

That’s not to say Lazar has produced a cautionary tale. He sees the novelist’s job as understanding and conveying experience before judging it. And yet “Sway,” a study in amorality, is itself the work of a clear- and sometimes cold-eyed moralist. Lazar has taken territory, the 60s, where the individual blades of grass have long been trampled into the mud by legions of literary, sociological and critical boots, and found something new. What he evokes is unlikely to please either those who condemn the decade as a body blow to decency and authority, or those who celebrate it as a trippy carnival of raised consciousness and experimentation. Lazar’s is a book that has no time for preconceived ideas, that tells the reader exactly the things likely to disturb any cozy notions. He’s a bad-news bear and thus the most valuable kind of cultural commentator.

“Sway” is an elegant and intricate novel that switches between three stories whose players eventually intersect. The stories are that of the Rolling Stones, from their inception as a group of scruffy English R & B enthusiasts to Altamont; the repressed, closeted upbringing of the director Kenneth Anger, whose tamped-down obsession with devil worship and the homoerotic side of rebel glamour burst forth in underground films like “Fireworks” and “Scorpio Rising”; and Bobby Beausoleil, a sometime dealer and aspiring musician, one of the pretty, not especially talented young people who descended on Los Angeles in time to catch the implosion of the ’60s counterculture. Beausoleil lived on the fringes of the Manson family and, at 22, received a death sentence (later commuted to life) for the murder of Gary Hinman, another associate of the group.

It’s not the intersections that matter so much here — the Stones being filmed for Anger’s “Invocation of My Demon Brother”; Beausoleil becoming one of Anger’s lovers and starring in the filmmaker’s “Lucifer Rising” — as the way the three stories echo one another. “Sway” is the tale of people separated by miles or class or intellect or possibilities of escape, all mining the same dark vein.

Too many novelists and critics and not-too-bright pundits have used the Manson murders and Altamont as convenient symbols for the collapse of the ’60s. What differentiates “Sway” from that ready-made sound-bite pessimism is that in Lazar’s view, those events are something like the decade’s fulfillment.

This is a novel about the ’60s in which the great political upheavals, the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, civil rights, Vietnam and the assassinations are barely mentioned. The Beatles, who stood for the greatest sustained explosion of the utopian ideal in all of pop, are dismissed by one character as a group “from Liverpool of all places.” In contrast to the love-and-peace ethos the decade is remembered for, every early Stones gig here ends with a fight. Crowds seem to pack Midlands blues clubs for the sheer pleasure of trying to beat up the band. In “Sway” the freedom that is often vaunted as the cri de coeur of the ’60s is entirely stripped of its communal ideal. It is, instead, a way for people who have always felt themselves on the outside not to feel they have to fit in. It’s a freedom that can result in “Street Fighting Man” or “Scorpio Rising,” or in a group of murderous hippies invading two homes and slaughtering the inhabitants on the orders of a petty thief and failed rock star. Freedom, Lazar is saying, does not inevitably result in noble aspirations.

Lazar has taken a decade spoken of as being about movements and groups and tribes, and given sway to the isolate and the solitary. Brian Jones watches as the group he began is usurped by Keith Richards, the guitarist who barely speaks to anyone, and the singer, Mick Jagger, a student at the London School of Economics who seems a middle-class poseur. For all Anger’s acclaim he might still be the lonely boy in California trolling the docks. Beausoleil holds himself suspiciously apart from the Manson clan.

Lazar’s view of the Stones echoes the English music critic Simon Frith’s 1979 essay on the band in the collection “Stranded,” in which he identifies them as “petit bourgeois jesters, who’ve taken delight in standing morality on its head but retained a touchy egotism, a contempt for the masses that they share with any respectable small shopkeeper. Their rebellion has been a grand gesture, an aesthetic style without a social core.” Or, to put it another way, they will be helicoptered out of Altamont, leaving the terrified masses below on their own.

And yet, Lazar is not unconscious of a touch of heroism in the Stones’ adventure. You don’t compose “Gimme Shelter,” a living elegy for the decade that made you, possessed of both grandeur and dread, if your gaze is entirely inward. The song’s “every man for himself” ethos is not a rejection of compassion but the hardest realism possible, a blunt assessment of everyone’s chances in the aftermath of an era striking an iceberg. But Lazar is conscious of the price for abandoning adventurousness. The absent presence in the novel’s coda — a 2002 encounter between two people who inexplicably survived the era, Anger and Anita Pallenberg — is the Stones themselves, moneyed irrelevancies shortly to appear on another of their rumored final tours.

If there is a literary antecedent to “Sway” it’s Gordon Burn’s 1991 novel “Alma,” a masterpiece that provides another view of the era and is the greatest novel ever about pop culture. Its real kin, in ambience if not method, is Donald Cammell and Nicolas Roeg’s 1970 film “Performance,” in which Jagger starred. Like that picture, this brilliant novel is about what’s to be found in the shadows, the most terrifying crannies of twisted souls, the darkest gleaming gems.


Review: '60s icons of Lazar's 'Sway' embody the energy of the era

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Sway

By Zachary Lazar

LITTLE, BROWN; 255 PAGES; $23.99

Energy is eternal delight," wrote William Blake in "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell." This declaration serves as an epigraph to "Sway," Zachary Lazar's compelling second novel. Plunging his readers into '60s counterculture, Lazar merges episodes from the lives of the Rolling Stones, the Manson family and experimental filmmaker Kenneth Anger. But the novel's central character is that era's strange energy. Lazar's real-life figures are emblematic of a fascinating cultural shift: Something was being born, yet no one could say quite what it was or where it was headed. The energy Lazar evokes was far more powerful than any individual. Impersonal, indefinable, thrilling and dangerous, it seized people and brought them just to the brink - if they were lucky - of chaos.

Anger was already pushing 40 by this time. His 1947 film, "Fireworks" - a dark and hilarious fever dream of sadomasochism and maybe the first great moment of gay cinema - won the admiration of Jean Cocteau. In 1964, Anger caused a sensation in the underground circuit. "Scorpio Rising," an anti-narrative stream of images involving biker gangs, drugs, gay and straight sexuality, Christianity and fascism, revealed Anger as an unparalleled chronicler of countercultures (Martin Scorsese and countless others have since imitated the film's combination of pop soundtrack and sheer kineticism). Steeped in the occult and obsessed with a private system of mythology to rival Blake's, Anger wanted to show "how the world was changing" with his next film, "Lucifer Rising." Anger's Lucifer, Lazar writes, "was a god of light, a child god, the fallen angel who after two thousand years of repression was finally coming back. He was the god of desire, illicit desire, the liberator, the revelator."

Initially cast as Lucifer, Bobby Beausoleil was a charming, beautiful musician with whom the director soon became infatuated. When the young man departed for Los Angeles in the early stages of filming, Anger waited in vain for him to return. In "Sway," Anger tries to persuade Mick Jagger, fresh from recording "Sympathy for the Devil," to take the role; Anger eventually made the film with someone else altogether. Ever resourceful, Anger saved his footage of Beausoleil and used it in his disturbing 1969 reflection of America in turmoil, "Invocation of My Demon Brother," which was scored by Jagger and includes brief footage of the Rolling Stones performing. In July 1969, Brian Jones - who had recently been fired from the Stones - died in his swimming pool. Beausoleil, meanwhile, had drifted into the Manson clan; he was arrested for murder in August. The Stones' disastrous free concert at Altamont, at which the Hells Angels killed a concertgoer, took place in December of that year.

Lazar offers several convincing sketches of the band in its early years. At first, Jagger's "chief talent ... is a lack of embarrassment"; onstage, "[t]he noises he makes have nothing to do with singing. But his sheer persistence is a provocation because it's clear that he isn't joking." Eventually, the band elicits enthusiasm that it neither anticipates nor understands: "The sound the girls make is the strangest they've ever heard, not the high screech of adulation but an eerily sexual keen, a thickening moan. ... Every gesture they make now is magnified, triggering panic and exaltation. ... They don't realize they're even making a gesture until the screams get louder, and then they have to just accept it: they're performing, they're putting on a show."

On their triumphant second tour of the States - after they've ditched Jones - the band is well aware of its effect. Lazar's depiction of this music's bacchic appeal is as deft and persuasive as any I've encountered:

"It was a series of vibrations amplified through electric circuits, a current of sound the crowd could feel on the skin beneath their hair, in the cavities of their chests, in their rectums and their groins. It registered in their bodies, in the pulse of their blood, but also in their minds, the part that was always changing, as senseless and illogical as a dream. The band was making sounds, the sounds were coming from the stage, but they were no longer themselves, the people in the crowd were no longer themselves, no one was even thinking about it anymore. They might be a nobody from Romford with the wrong kind of accent, or a mechanic's son with ruined teeth, or they might think all the time about what people had and what they were missing out on, but nobody was thinking about any of that while they were in its grasp. It was basic, energy and sound, life intensified for a few moments, its chaos made plain, the self slipping outside the body, joined in sound to other bodies. It was a feeling everyone had always craved, had always been warned about, a connection to something like the deeper self that used to be called the soul."

Lazar's first novel, the semiautobiographical "Aaron, Approximately," was published nearly 10 years ago. It's too early to pronounce "Sway" a departure - it's too early to say who Lazar is, exactly - but the two books share little beyond a taste for nonlinear narrative. One could object that the Maysles brothers have already documented the road to Altamont in "Gimme Shelter," or that Lazar borrows too heavily from the mosaic approach to storytelling favored by postmodern filmmakers such as Alejandro González Iñárritu ("Amores Perros," "Babel"). But such complaints are forgotten as one succumbs to this richly imagined, hauntingly vivid novel, wherein everyone falls under the sway of someone or something, the culture itself appears spellbound and the pursuit of self finds ironic culmination in the loss of identity.

Do You Think They Know....?


Did anyone tell them it was mostly fiction?

If you HAD $118 to waste would you waste it on this?

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

TexASS Tea


I've been getting a lot of feedback as to what really happened. It's kinda fascinating.

The most thought provoking (doesn't mean they are real)

-->Tex was dealing methamphetamines, cocaine, and other forms of "speed". Frykowski was his loyal customer. Leno LaBianca was a supplier. Which would make your DeLorean theory correct. Everyone else was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Frykowski owed money to Tex, who owed money to LaBianca.

--> The "Devil's business" is a reference to the motorcycle club.

--> Next night, Watson gets the bright idea to go kill the drug supplier, steal all the cocaine, and life will be merry and bright.

--> You are looking at the wrong connection- how well did Tex and Manson know ROMAN?

--> Have you considered that Joe Dornan actually WAS dealing with Tex and they expected HIM at the LaBianca house?

These are all thought provoking ideas. Some of them are breathtaking.

Still, riddle me the obvious...

Rather than THIS, Tex prefers a race war motive? Is he afraid STILL of something?

More discussion please.

----------
Angelos criticizes my world view of CM without reading previous posts. We have new members so maybe I need to summarize succinctly.

Charles Manson was a punkass loser. He was not a leader, a guru or the "Most Dangerous Man alive." He certainly did not organize or mesmerize anyone to commit murder. He should be mocked and laughed at for being a short, stupid, fuckwit. Instead he is held up as the embodiment of evil to make a treacherous DA look good. The real BAD guy is Tex Watson who fucking stabbed and killed seven strangers to death. Whatever the motive, HE is the devil, not CM.

Friday, January 04, 2008

Charles Denton Watson


In the comments, Pritash and others ask if I think Charlie Manson was responsible. Not did he get a fair trial and all- if he was responsible.

He was as responsible as Linda Kasabian. They both attended one of the nights of slaughter, both knew about it and did nothing, both didn't kill anyone.

It doesn't interest me to play semantics. Was Charlie responsible? I can state that he is convicted of nine murders and killed no one. Was Charlie responsible? I can say that the key is MOTIVE. Motive here is everything. BUG made up his motive. But what IS the motive? Will we ever know?

You want to know something people. I think the answer is with one man. Tex Watson.

Dig it.

The Charlie Manson who is in prison now is batshit crazy. He isn't the same guy anymore. Like the David Lynch who did ELEPHANT MAN isn't the same guy who did INLAND EMPIRE. So if you could visit Charlie and use a potion to make him tell you the truth about TLB I don't think he even knows it anymore.

But Tex does. He just ain't tellin'.

Here are Ten Questions for Tex Watson to honestly answer- before he even starts talking about TLB.

1- How many drug burns did you do with dealers BEFORE you burned Crowe?
2- How did you know Voytek Frykowski?
3- Were you and Sadie really speeding the Tate night?

I think he had done other burns. I think he knew Voytek. I think there was a burn there. I do not think he was speeding that night. He was a little bit too in control of things to be out of control if you follow me.

4- What did Charlie have on you besides peer pressure?
5- Did you know Leno LaBianca?
6- What was your relationship REALLY with Susan Atkins?

I think Charlie knew something that he could use against Tex, something huge, which made him a useful murderer. I think he knew Leno LaBianca and that Leno might have been trying a John DeLorean move in order to save the Gateway Markets. I think it is weird that Tex and Sadie are never linked in the literature but they are clearly the two most boodthirsty.

7- Tex, whatever happened to your girlfriend Rosina who was held captive by Crowe?
8- How well did you know Gary Hinman?
9- How well did you know Rudi Altobelli?

Rosina was there when Charlie shot Crowe- and then is never mentioned again. She must have been involved with Tex on the drug deals otherwise why capture her? Where did she go? If he's dealing drugs and burning people, well then that makes him the same as Gary Hinman. He definitely knew Gary. But how and why? Altobelli was in the Hollywood scene, and is the connection to Tate.

10- Where did you get that line " I am the Devil here to do the Devil's Business" from?

It is a great line. One for the ages. He is not a creative guy. What was that line supposed to signify?

Yes, the more I research the more this case becomes about drugs. I think cops were in on it. I think the motive is becoming more and more banal and the fairy tale fading away.

Anyway - what would YOU ask Tex?