Wednesday, August 31, 2005

I am going to take a Peees......

(our title comes from Juan Flynn's purported comments after his "Last Supper")

In preparation for the next TLB Book Review I've been rereading 5 to Die and there's a section in it where we learn about Juan Flynn's "Last Supper" at Barker Ranch as Charlie, Tex, Clem and Bruce prepare to send him to NOW. Obviously Flynn was a major source for the book, because it appears to have been written before the trial.

Which gets me to thinking... how did some people know it was best to jump ship and bail on Charlie while others didn't and are still paying the price? If Katie had run to the DA say on September 20th 1969, she'd be married with three grown kids by now. If Leslie had called up the cops with her dad on October 1, 1969, she'd be walking around today. They didn't. Hell , Susan was already out of jail free, she just had to keep spouting the same bullshit she had been. She didn't.

Yet, Watkins knew he had to suck up to the DA, even as he was heading back to the Ranch to bang the girls. Poston may have seemed a simpleton, but he signed on to the Helter Skelter motive in a millisecond. Danny DeCarlo was a hardcore toughass biker but quick as shit through a goose he decided to sell everyone out for a walk. And Kasabian of course goes without saying.

If you read a lot of true crime like I do, the basic lesson if you are involved in a conspiracy to commit a crime is to be the first person to cut a deal- you can end up going home with no charges.

But my thought of the day is- is it simple self-preservation or something more? How were some people astute enough to say whatever BUG wanted them to say and others were not?

I muse.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

The Lost History of TLB

This entry is more for my reference than yours, although you are welcome to decipher it.

So far-

1- FIVE DOWN ON CIELO- Book- Paul Tate- Manuscript exists- Reference- News Reports

2- MANSON'S SECOND IN COMMAND- Book- Paul Watkins- inaccurately titled early draft of MY LIFE WITH CHARLES MANSON- pages exist in the Archives of Aesthetic Nihilism- no idea if a full manuscript exists.....

2b- Screenplay based on Watkins book- never seen- referenced in 1989 by Paul on CNN's Larry King live with Maureen Reagan

3- UNTITLED- book by Linda Kasabian- book to warn people about what can happen to you- reference Trial Testimony as published in Zamora book. Kasabian was supposed to receieve 25% of the profits. May not exist.

4- UNTITLED- book of history of the Family- by Squeaky Fromme- was writing it at the time of Ford assassination attempt- referenced in Bravin book- continued existence unknown.


Trial By Your Peers is out of print. It is long. It is one of the first, if not THE first, books written on the case. It has more typos and sloppy layout than a professional book should have, but fewer in total than a single page of a Bill Nelson book. It is published by Girodias Associates. A quick Google lends one to think the company published this book and a few others and then went under. The cover could not be less imaginatively designed or less attention grabbing if two three year olds had made it out of construction paper. It’s also the most fun I had this week.

I had read the book maybe twice before but never this closely. It is really TWO books in one. In the main throughline, Juror-Author (as he refers to himself many times) William Zamora, a six foot two, good-looking (he describes his looks about 20 times in the book) Nicaraguan immigrant decides to do his duty and sit as a juror in the Charles Manson Murder Trial. We learn about all the hardships (only one free cocktail a night!) the jurors suffered during sequestration. We go behind the scenes during deliberations.

The other book is trial transcripts, restructured for easy reading. MUCH trial transcript- like literally three or four times what we have in the Bug’s book. If you pay close attention you can learn that according to Judas Kasabian they called the kids “elks”; that they hung string things near their waterfall encampment that they called “witchy things”; that Linda actually thought she was a witch while at Spahn and called herself “Yana”… and so on.

In the main book, we learn about Zamora and the other jurors petty battles, concerns, imagined slights. Zamora sounds like he has a narcissistic personality disorder- he is always right and the bailiffs and other jurors are wrong. Several times he paints himself as a hero (He helped an old lady up the stairs!) and a lothario (he meets a Brazilian girl at the pool and busts a move!). This section is beyond tedious. Beyond rambling. I couldn’t track which juror was which, which woman he called an “elephant” and which lady he liked. I guffawed out loud as he clucks about promiscuity among the jurors. I mean I know the book is 1973, a different time, but really, this is after the sixties, and “young” Zamora sounds more prudish than my grandfather. It really is appalling to read and follow, just badly written and this constitutes about half the book.

The biggest discovery in this section is that Zamora and several of his closest friends in the jury pool HATE Manson’s attorney, Kanarek, almost from the first day of the trial. I mean they hate the guy. Sure he sounds annoying and out of control- but for a juror to admit hatred of the attorney for the main accused from day one- what chance at an impartial trial did these people have?

In the trial transcript section (and follow me, it is not a book in two sections- they are mixed up in a jumble which makes it very hard to follow) if one pays close attention one can pick up some MAJOR shit. At the end of one day Kasabian testifies that Charlie told her to HIDE Rosemary LaBianca’s wallet inside a toilet; early the next day, I am sure after Bug prep, she states that Charlie told her simply to leave it in the bathroom. Also later in the book one gets the sense that Fitzgerald (one of the attorneys) is making a great case but is being undermined by Kanarek. Finally, one gets the sense that STOVITZ was actually the brilliant prosecutor, eventually replaced by Bug, and that Stovitz doesn’t support some of the Bug’s crazy theories.

Oh yeah, back to the review- the book is interesting as a relic, superseded by the fact strewn lunacy of Sanders’ THE FAMILY and the novel fairy tale of the Bug’s own HELTER SKELTER. I find it AMAZING and HIPOCRITICAL that Zamora was published by Girodias, he of the porno-based Olympia Press. I find it more interesting that the book is forgotten by history- that has gotta hurt the old ego, huh Bill?

Since I have been transferring all my Aes-Nihil tapes to DVD I have gotten to see Zamora in modern times. He thinks he is Ricky Ricardo, I kid you not, showing up in ascots and yellow jackets. Usually the host isn’t sure what to do with him, because, well, he is boring. On the LEEZA Gibbons show a few years ago, while Fitzgerald is still alive, he and Zamora get into a real shouting match at the end- Fitzgerald stays calm while Zamora, with surprisingly bad English grammar, loses his shit all over the stage. Fitzgerald alleges that he and Zamora had a chat during deliberations about not executing the girls, which, if true, would be against the law for both. I believe Fitzgerald.

In 1976, riding on the coattails of the Bug’s book, TRIAL BY YOUR PEERS was re-issued as a paperback with a lurid, derivative cover and the title BLOOD FAMILY. It seems to be the same book. It doesn’t seem like it sold that well, because copies are hard to find. Good.

Mr. Zamora, you sent people to the gas chamber because you didn’t like their lawyer. Wherever you are, know that we laugh at your ploy for the spotlight and know that your rubbish book is all but forgotten.



Saturday, August 27, 2005

KTS Get Together

The Col missed the KTS get together last Saturday but sent along a greeting and puzzle for the crack legion- and along the way learned that you have to trust your eyes and not a caption. Denise educated me that someone who did not look like Garretson was NOT Garretson, although I cannot find a notation for who she said it was supposed to be. Maybe after I crack open my trial tanscripts but they are not easy to get to right now. Anyway LOVE to Kts- Peace in our time and all that!!!

Saturday, August 20, 2005

Hey Oogler Is a Good Name for You Snotnose!

Steve, who uses a name for himself to mock a sister of one of the victims at KTS writes-

I remember Heaven's boyfriend (harold), was in this
group before saying that Rosemary was a drug dealer
and caused her own death, but we all know how much we
could believe anything that he said!


Hey Snotnose, wipe off your face. I NEVER EVER SAID ANYTHING OF THE KIND, RETARD. It is not true. You don't remember shit.

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Listen To Me People!!!!

I was burning my stuff to DVD like I said and I ended up watching Paul Watkins talking to Maureen Reagan on CNN back in 1989. Paul would be dead in a year and didn’t look well. He also was vaguely incoherent, repeating himself and sort of realizing he was not making a point halfway through the broadcast. I had seen this when I bought the tape from Aes-Nihil but sat riveted last night.

Hypocrisy does that to me.

I submit to you, gentle readers, that Paul is a prime example of what I call the “Nice Guy Con Man.” Dig it.

Paul was not at Tate or LaBianca because he was already sent ahead by his supposed leader Charlie to prepare the group’s escape route to Death Valley.

Instead he found a replacement guru (described on the CNN show as “an old man”- LOL) named Crockett who told him that Charlie was bullshit. Okay.

He by his own admission knew shit had gone on that dark August weekend, but instead of suggesting the police investigate his friends, he stayed in the desert hiding.

He then ratted his news out to the Bug and was one of the main architects of the Helter Skelter theory. Something Charlie probably told him once became the main raison d’etre of the Family and a means for Bug to bury Charlie.

AT THE SAME TIME he went back to the ranch and started banging all the girls again and actually tried to wedge himself in as leader of the Family. When that failed he agreed to testify against Charlie. When that was exposed, somebody supposedly tried to kill him.

Great high drama stuff--- except all it does is establish Paul as a loser playing both sides of the street. Either Charlie is the devil and the Family is evil and you are gonna be a hero to shut them down… or not.

On CNN, near as I could tell, he broke a ten year silence (since writing his book and promoting it) to warn us about Cult like behavior. Telling us (in 1989 no less) that America was experiencing an epidemic of Cults was laughable. Listening to him pretend to recognize a caller named “Jenny” was beyond lame. “I lecture about all this all the time”. Sure you did Paul. In between he mutters that his book was adapted as a script (whatever happened to that movie? No one wanted to support a con man?) and that therapy helps defeats Cults.

I feel bad that the guy died so young at 40. I wonder where Martha Watkins is and whatever happened to his two kids.

But Paul- I’m calling BULLSHIT on ANYTHING you ever said.

Saturday, August 13, 2005

Various and Sundry

--- In the new world of Detente we offer a big hugs and some prayers to KTS' Heaven and her family... the loss of a loved one is never easy. Take care.

--- Our personal driver moved on to other things this week... he and his stripper girlfriend are now headed to New Mexico for some sort of competition. The Col wishes Dave Godspeed and Good Luck.

--- I hope Adam Parfrey at Feral House publishes Bobby Beausoleil's new book- It is gonna be a corker.

--- I have been transferring my Aes-Nihil tapes to DVD and catching glimpses in the background. Bill Nelson was a scary looking dude before the self-destruct switch got pulled.

---We are gonna start a book review series real soon. It will be wild and eclectic but all case-related- stay tuned!

(the picture came with a title "soft things"- which reflects the post - so I used it.)

Friday, August 12, 2005

About the State's Star Witness

Ms. June Emmer questioned by Irving Kanarek (August 3, 1970) out of the jury’s presence due to being a conditional witness that may not be able to testify later:

Q: How long have you known Miss Kasabian?

A: She stayed a month with me at my house between the middle of October and the middle of November.

Q: Now, while she stayed at your house did Linda Kasabian discuss with you LSD?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, directing your attention to the matter of acid and LSD, would you please tell us whether or not Linda Kasabian told you that she had consumed acid or LSD?

A: Yes. She told me when she was carrying her baby, Tanya, she took it, and for me not to believe everything I see in the papers about taking LSD as far as having a child.

Q: What did she tell you concerning her stay in California?

A: She had a ball there and really enjoyed it.

Q: Did she tell you that she had been in a $250,000 house?

A: Yes.

Q: And did Mrs. Kasabian state words to you, anything, as to her state of mind towards other people when she went on trips?

A: She did not care what happened when she went on trips.

Q: Do you have in your mind a meaning for the word trance?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, directing your attention to Linda Kasabian, would you state that what you observed concerning her, as to whether or not she appeared to be in a trance?

A: Yes, she...

(Objection by Bugliosi. Sustained. Response stricken from the record.)

Q: Would you indicate to us, Mrs. Emmer, what her manner appeared to be to you?

A: Hippie-type.

Q: And when you say hippie-type, what do you mean, Mrs. Emmer?

A: The way she dressed.

Q: Did she wear shoes?

A: No.

Q: Mrs. Emmer, at one time while you were discussing a $250,000 home with Mrs. Kasabian, did you ask her why she was at this house?

(Objection by Bugliosi. Requested an offer of proof as to the validity of the question.)

KANAREK: Well, I believe the Sharon Tate home, your Honor, is worth about $250,000. And it is our belief that Linda Kasabian was in that house, that Linda Kasabian had a participation in these murders that is far and much greater than Linda Kasabian has testified to.

(Objection overruled.)

A: Yes.

Q: What did she tell you?

A: She told me she couldn’t tell me. I said, "Why not?" I said, "What kind of people do you know with that kind of money?" She said, "I just cannot tell you."

Q: Do you have an opinion, Mrs. Emmer, as to the truth, honesty and integrity of Linda Kasabian?

A: I know she lies.

STOVITZ: May that be stricken your Honor, as pure speculalation, pure conjecture, and pure malarkey?

OLDER: It is non-responsive. The answer is stricken.

Q: Well, you lived with her for a whole month?

A: Yes.

Q: Did her father tell you what his opinion was concerning her reputation?

A: Yes.

Q: You had occasion to observe her, and among other people besides yourself?

A: Yes.

Q: All right, would you tell us what, then, her reputation for truth, honesty and integrity was in the fall of 1969 in the community in which she lived in Miami?

A: She was a liar.

Q: What was her reputation, was it good, bad?

A: All I can say is she just lied, that is all.

Q: What is her reputation for truth, honesty and integrity, good or bad?

A: It was bad. (The record notes there was a pause before replying.)

Q: Did she ever state to you-did she ever state to you anything concerning the taking of any other drugs other than LSD or acid?

A: She told me she took them all.

June Emmer cross-examined by Stovitz (August 3, 1970) out of the jury’s presence. Note that many objections by Kanarek have been deleted for clarity:

Q: Mrs. Emmer, when Linda Kasabian first came to Florida, she first moved in with her father, is that right?

A: No.

Q: Whom did she move in with?

A: She arrived on a Saturday and spent Saturday night, her and the baby, upstairs over the liquor bar. Her father could not be found.

Q: Was there any particular reason her father could not be found?

A: He has weekends off and sometimes he goes out in his boat or goes here or there.

(Missing testimony about witness being twenty nine years old and her husband, in the Fall of 1969, was sixty two.)

Q: When Linda came to live with you she was more or less like a young person to you and you and Linda started to talk, is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: One of the things that you and Linda got to talk about was your drinking habits, isn’t that right?

KANAREK: I object your Honor, on the grounds that it is immaterial, irrelevant.

OLDER: Sustained.

Q: All right now, do you imbibe a little? Do you partake of alcoholic beverages from time to time?

A: Yes.

Q: And do you find that as the occasion arises, when you have taken too many alcoholic beverages, your memory becomes a little bad at times?

A: Yes.

Q: This weekend, for instance, you have not taken an excess of alcohol, have you?

A: I have four or five drinks a night.

Q: What about this morning, did you have four or five drinks this morning?

(No response from witness.)

Q: The shaking of your hand, especially when you took the oath, is that because you were nervous or the four or five drinks?

A: My shaking has nothing to do with my drinking whatsoever.

Q: Do you drink to stop your shaking?

A: No. When I drink I shake more.

Q: All right, now, did you ever see Linda drink?

A: Once.

Q: When was that?

A: All I seen her, during the month, was take one beer, that is all.

Q: Now, when did your husband pass away?

A: November 22nd.

Q: 1969?

A: Right.

Q: And following your husband’s demise did you increase your drinking habits or did you decrease your drinking habits?

(Objection. Sustained.)

Q: All right now, was your husband ill at the time Linda left Miami?

A: He was under a doctor’s care.

Q: And when Linda left Miami, when was the last day before that that she lived with you?

A: The same day. She left from my house to go to the airport.

Q: Now you like Linda’s father, Mr. Drouin, right?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you have any matrimonial plans?

A: No.

Q: Do you feel that Linda’s affection for her father or her father’s affection for Linda in any way interferes with your relationship with Mr. Drouin?

KANAREK: This is assuming facts not in evidence. In fact the contrary is true, the father feels Linda is a liar.

OLDER: Overruled.

STOVITZ: I suggest you stand next to your witness if you want to coach her. It’s very disconcerting your standing over there.

A: All he does is work for me.

Q: How long has he worked for you?

A: For my husband fourteen years.

Q: How long has he worked for you?

A: Four years.

Q: In other words you were only married to your husband four years?

A: Three years.

Q: Three years?

A: Three.

(Missing testimony. Kanarek had traveled to Miami to speak to Emmer and he was paying the expenses for her trip to Los Angeles.)

Q: Did you ever discuss the term "reputation" with Mr. Kanarek?

A: Yes.

Q: What do you understand the word "reputation" to mean?

A: What she is known as.

Q: Now, besides Mr. Drouin, did you know anyone else that knew Linda Kasabian at Miami Beach, Florida?

A: Her father’s girl friend.

Q: What is her name?

A: Judy. Judy Short.

Q: Is Judy here in California now?

A: No.

Q: Where have you last seen her?

A: She helps Rosy at the bar. Rosy is Linda’s father.

Q: And did you discuss Linda Kasabian with anyone else besides her father and Judy?

A: Yes. A neighbor across the street.

Q: What is that neighbor’s name?

A: A Mrs. Frye.

Q: Do you like Linda Kasabian?

A: She never did anything to me.

Q: Mrs. Emmer, would you like a drink of water?

A: No, thank you.

Q: Your mouth is still not dry?

(Objection. Overruled.)

Q: Mrs. Emmer, you stated that you had about five drinks last night, is that right?

A: Not last night, no.

Q: The night before?

A: (No response from witness.)

Q: Now, what about one occasion in Miami Beach, Florida, when Linda Kasabian was telling you all of these things about California, how many drinks did you have on that occasion?

A: I never drink in the daytime. I have a couple of drinks at night as most people do.

Q: Was this conversation in the daytime or the nighttime?

A: Daytime.

Q: All right. Now, one of the things that she said to you about California was that she was in a house with beautiful chandeliers, is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: Did she describe what type of chandeliers, whether they were French Provincial, or the Spanish type, or whether the early American chandelier?

A: No.

Q: Did she show it to you in a book?

A: No.

Q: Tell us everything you remember about the chandelier and about the house.

A: She told me she was in several homes worth over $250,000, with chandeliers. That is all she told me.

Q. Linda told you that she was using acid when she was carrying Tanya, is that right?

A: Right. She told me not to believe everything I read in the papers. Because she was taking a lot of it when she carried Tanya, and she said "Look at that baby; there is nothing the matter with it."

Q: How old was Tanya when you saw her?

A: Two and a half.

Q: Did she walk?

A: Yes.

Q: Was she saying words? Did she say anything like "Mommy" or "Daddy" or "Charlie" or anything like that?

KANAREK: Or "Aaron?"

A: She used the word "Mama" and "love."

Q: And aside from going around barefooted and being a little hippie-ish, did Linda appear to be a normal girl?

A: Yes.

Q: As far as you are concerned, the amount of alcohol that you drank in no way affected your opinions whatsoever; is that right?

A: No.

Q: And the amount of alcohol you drank in no way affected your memory?

A: I told you I had a couple of drinks every night; but during the day, that is when we talked, because we were home alone.

Q: At the bar did you have a couple of drinks each night?

A: No. I wasn’t at the bar. I was home with her.

Q: At night?

A: During the day.

Q: What about having a couple of drinks; when did you have a couple of drinks?

A: At night. I never drank in the daytime.

Q: At the bar or at the house?

A: At the house.

Q: Was Linda there when you were having a couple of drinks?

A: Yes.

Q: And didn’t she, on one of those times, ask you, "Judy" - she called you Judy, didn’t she?

A: Right.

Q: Didn’t she say, "Judy, why do you drink so much?"

(Objection. Sustained.)

(Missing testimony. Emmer had only talked to three people about Kasabian.)

OLDER: There is no evidence that Mrs. Emmer is familiar with the general reputation of Linda Kasabian in the community for truth, honesty and veracity. Therefore her testimony regarding reputation as to Mrs. Kasabian will be stricken….

Thursday, August 11, 2005

Charlie Walks

Unlike KTS Jackie I don't post to tell you my keyboard is broken. I'm not gonna tell West Virginia jokes or obsess about spanking anonymous women over the net (how pathetic is Jimmy Nelson, I asked in an earlier post?). I'll only post when we have something to discuss. Like Global Thermonuclear War. Aka Helter Skelter.

Let's Play.

So you are sitting on the jury back in 1970. You're not a retarded housewife or a gullible businessman. You are a smart, educated person with an open mind not named Janice. You're determined that if you are gonna be sequestered all this time, you are gonna be impartial. Cool.

You weigh the case of Tex. Done. Fry the bastard. You got fingerprints, you got eyewitnesses, you got enough. Oh wait, he's in a separate trial. My bad.

You weigh Katie. She wrote at the LaBiancas. She left palm prints. Guilty. Fry the bitch.

You got Susan. She was there and snitched the whole story. Bye bye girl.

You got Leslie. Again we have evidence that she did it. What are we debating? Guilty as OJ!!!!

Now they want you to fry Charlie. And goddamn the guy has been an asshole during this trial. Not even amusing- scary. But that don't make him guilty. He is only guilty if he PLANNED these murders with the others, if he ordered them, if he was a co-conspirator. You are told that conspiracy is the same as killing under the law, and you agree that it should be. You think the standard of proof for a conspiracy should be higher than for a killer- you want to be sure the bastard really did conspire before you fry him.

He wasn't there at Tate and his followers at best claim uniformly that he ordered them to "do something witchy." Maybe he wanted them to put a spell on Sharon. Not enough.

He tied up the LaBiancas and stole their money. Very bad man. But nobody said he said to kill anyone. Maybe he wanted them threatened.

Okay Okay Okay you say. WHY did he order the murder of seven people he never met? Give me one clear reason WHY and I'll convict his ass, you think.

You are told- he did it to start a race war that would end with him ruling the world.

Uh huh.

You think.... the writing on the walls evoked the Hinman killing which means that related people did it all right... but NO ONE thought Hinman was done by the Panthers.

Not a single cop thought Panthers had done Tate or LaBianca.

If there was a desire to start a race war why did they write "Pig" on the door at Tate rather than "Fuck Whitey?". Why did they write "Death to Pigs" instead of "Death to the White Oppressor"? In fact, what the HELL did they actually do that made anyone THINK it was a black uprising?


Now, maybe you think, they were just incompetent. But you are a smart, logical person. You respect the Bug, but you don't abandon reason at his request. Maybe Tex THOUGHT that was why he was killing. But even that isn't clear. And there was a theory called Helter Skelter at the ranch that Manson believed it. But there were also theories of underground rivers. Also known as mirages.

You think. You ponder. But it doesn't pass the bullshit test. Here is a motive unlike ANY in the history of jurisprudence. A guy sends flunkies to kill random people and start a race war so he can rule the world? It doesn't go down the gullet you think. Whatever the motive was, this was NOT the motive.

You don't need a motive to nail Charlie under the law. But under logic, if you want me to believe he ordered these jerks to kill random people I would like a reason. And you offered me a reason THAT DOESN'T MAKE A LICK OF SENSE.

As scared as I am by him, ours is a country of laws.

Charlie walks.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Radio Silence

Calm down. We didn't go anywhere. Some people like to commemorate the anniversary of the TLB Killings. I know that mega-collector John Aes-Nihil had his "last supper" at El Coyote Monday. Or was it Tuesday? Other people like to post everywhere "Oh those poor people" and feel better. Some like to have ten minutes of silence and then go on abusing their children.

The Official Blog chose to maintain radio silence these past two days. There really is NOTHING new to say about seven horrible killings from thirty six years ago EXCEPT "Oh, they happened thirty six years ago."

The Official Blog is here to discuss, learn, and educate about the beforehand and aftermath of these awful events. If you want to learn about the murders themselves, study Susan Atkins' Grand Jury testimony. It contains many secrets for those who open themselves to it.

Monday, August 08, 2005

New Book Alert

I just spent twenty minutes plowing through KTS just now and learned nothing new except that Denise is having breakfast at El Coyote on the 20th. I wonder if I am invited- she said KTS members so I would qualify!!! The Posts were especially lame today- INANITY thy name is Jimmy Nelson. After Scott Nelson and Bill Nelson why is anyone named Nelson allowed to be a member while your poor Col suffers with superior knowledge suffers in silence anyway? Sad and a shame.

So this weekend I wasn't blogging I was enjoying my money and my supermodel wife and I noticed a display in the window of Book Soup of a book I was NOT aware of. The book is called .45 Dangerous Minds : The Most Intense Interviews From Seconds Magazine .

This is a book I did not know was coming out. I used to get Seconds Magazine whenever I could but it was never easy because it was poorly distributed. For twenty bucks you get a shit load of interviews. What is nice about the interviews is that they are by intelligent people who ask intelligent questions.

Michael Moynihan interviews Bobby Beausoleil. It's an interesting interview insofar as Bobby basically admits to being guilty, but then seems justifiably pissed off at the lengths the DA went to find him guilty in his second trial. The DA was even threatening Brunner with the loss of her child if she didn't say what they wanted. Nice people.

Michael also interviews Charlie in possibly his most coherent interview ever. He talks about a lot of things and it was a very good read.

Arthur Deco interviews the Bug (No show without Punch!) and I have to tell you, I wish I could read the outtakes. He lets the Bug's ego ramble on about his "expertise" with cults and Manson being pure evil, before asking him the million dollar question- if Charlie was really leading Tex and Sadie and everyone, then is it okay to have sought the death penalty against them? Otherwise known as the "how can you have your cake and eat it too, stupid Bug?" question. Vinnie thinks for a minute and calls it a very smart question, then stutters and changes the subject.

There are a lot of other good interviews in there, including Ed Sanders, Marilyn Manson, David Bowie, JG Ballard, Henry Rollins, Allen Ginsberg, Anton LaVey, Joe Coleman, Peter Sotos, Joe D'Allesandro, Ron Jeremy and more.

Go ahead love- treat yourself!

Thursday, August 04, 2005

IRONY, Thy Name is Manson

Film about Robert Blake's wife to film in B.C.

VICTORIA - A film about the death of actor Robert Blake's wife is scheduled to begin filming in Victoria on Dec. 6.

Bonnie Lee Bakley was gunned down on May 4, 2001.

The 71-year-old Blake – the star of television's Baretta, as well as movies like In Cold Blood – has been charged in the killing, and jurors are currently being selected for the trial.

The film will begin with Bakley's murder, which occurred while she was sitting in a car waiting for Blake to return from a Los Angeles restaurant where they had just dined.

The killer, however, will not be shown.

Larry Thompson, the made-for-TV picture's producer, said the identity of the murderer is left "up to one's own determination" in the script.

"The point we're trying to make in our movie is she desperately wanted respect, love and fame, and she paid the ultimate price. Who killed Bonny Bakley isn't as important as how she lived," Thompson, who once managed Blake, told the Associated Press.

Titled Dying for Stardom: The Absolutely Unbelievable True Story of Bonny Lee Bakley, the runaway production is to star Steve Railsback as Blake, a former child star who appeared in the Our Gang comedies.

Thompson bought the rights to Bakley's story from Margerry Bakley, her younger sister.

"She was a train wreck to begin with," Thompson said of Bonny Lee. "She was literally married some 12 times to men ... most of them who she knew only for days or through mail correspondences."

The movie's budget is $6 million US. It is scheduled to air in April, when the trial is expected to conclude.

"We have everything except the verdict," Thompson added.



Troubled actor ROBERT BLAKE is allegedly furious his actor friend STEVE RAILSBACK has agreed to play him in a TV movie of the ex-BARETTA star's murder trial.

The movie will investigate claims Blake shot his wife BONNY LEE BAKLEY to death on 4 May (01) after eating at VITELLO'S restaurant in California.

And the 71-year-old, who denies the murder, is terrified HELTER SKELTER star, Railsback will portray him in a negative way, because the script is based on story rights approved by Bakley's sister MARGERRY, reports US newspaper the CHICAGO SUN TIMES


Blake wanted me dead: Ex

LOS ANGELES - Long before he was accused of killing second wife Bonny Lee Bakley, "Baretta" star Robert Blake set up a "contract" hit on his ex-wife and the actor she was dating, according to her shocking new testimony.

Sondra Kerr-Blake said friends later told her of Blake's foiled plan to have her and Steve Railsback, best known for his role as Charles Manson in the TV flick "Helter Skelter," whacked in the late '70s, according to her deposition obtained by the Daily News.

"I found out from several different people ... that he had put a 'contract' out on me and the other man I was seeing at that time," Kerr-Blake, an actress, testified at a recent fact-finding session in the Bakley family's wrongful-death suit against the 71-year-old actor.

Last March, a jury found Blake not guilty of charges he murdered Bakley, 44, and tried to hire aging movie stuntmen to kill her so he could have custody of their daughter, Rosie.

In the civil trial scheduled to begin Aug. 29, attorney Eric Dubin, who represents Bakley's kids, said he'll turn the tables when he gets Blake on the witness stand.

"It will be a showdown. If the detectives and the DA had the same opportunity I have, Robert Blake would be in prison today," Dubin said.

Blake did not testify at his criminal trial, but in the civil case, he has no choice.

Blake's lawyer, Peter Ezzell, could not be reached for comment.

Dubin said he also will call powerful new witnesses, like Blake's ex-wife, to expose the "In Cold Blood" star's alleged history of violence and murderous plots.

In a story stranger than a Hollywood screenplay, Kerr-Blake, who played a prison inmate in "Helter Skelter," alleged that Blake planned to have her and Railsback killed at a card game in the same house where Manson's followers had murdered actress Sharon Tate.

The slaying was supposed to look like "retribution" for their participation in the 1976 film, she testified, but the couple skipped the card game and inadvertently foiled the plot.

Blake even asked a famous movie-star pal to hurt Railsback, Kerr-Blake testified.

She said actor Burt Young, who played Sylvester Stallone's grouchy brother-in-law Paulie in the blockbuster "Rocky" films, told her that Blake had asked him to "beat up" or "do in" Railsback around the same time as the failed hit.

Young "said he refused and told Robert to get somebody else or why didn't he just go have a talk with Steve," Kerr-Blake testified.

Ironically, Railsback is set to portray Blake in an upcoming movie about Bakley's life.

Kerr-Blake, who was married to Blake for about 20 years and is the mother of his two adult kids, Noah and Delinah, also alleged she was verbally and physically abused by him.

According to the deposition, she also said Blake, who reportedly suffered an abusive childhood, once told her, "I always thought it was my father who I was like, but it turns out it was my mother ... she's a killer. She's a killer just like me."

Wednesday, August 03, 2005


People ask, how did you get to be the "Official" Blog for the Tate/LaBianca case?

Many moons ago during the Ronson Board days, many haters questioned my knowledge and authority, only to be shown up. It got so bad that the ignorant wanted my head. They thought I might be a disbarred attorney from Hawthorne Ca, a mediocre film producer from LA or even a house painter in the San Fernando Valley. Some people still think I am one of these things. I threatened to start an "Official TLB Message Board" and many laughed.

I never got around to it because I was spending too much time doing actual research- and now we have this Blog. It is Official because-

1- We were first.
2- We know what we are talking about.
3- We applied for "officialness" from the National Blog Authority" in the Crimea.
4- The Col Says So!

Penguins Don't Come From Next Door!

Interesting news from, a site that I really need to give my opinion on to you guys some day... the owner, a very attitudinal Mark Turner, spent probably three million man hours entering the locations of key scenes related to the Tate LaBianca case into an interactive map.


Some of it is of zero significance. Like does it really matter even to Squeaky where she lived or went to school in 1967? Probably not one bit. And yes, it is interesting to see just how far middle class Steve Parent had to travel to keep his assignation at the Garrettson guest house. But not that revolutionary.

But what is REALLY interesting about this insane task is just how close the Family operated to places they knew.

We all know that the LaBianca house was RIGHT NEXT DOOR to the Harold True house, a place where Charlie and some of the Family had partied multiple times.

How interesting that when the killing krew split up that night and the other team went to kill Nader (and failed) that he lived just about NEXT DOOR to the Mark Ross (friend of the group) house where Zero committed "suicide" by playing Russian Roulette with a fully loaded gun.

The gang had been to the Tate house before back when Melcher lived there. But I didn't know that it was so close to the location of the Process Church back in the day.

Even the Hinman murder house seems to be like down the street from where Bobby and the Clan stayed for a while.

I am not sure what the ramifications of this really are... I doubt ANYONE even the police did anything remotely like this before. It really gives you a sense of the space of the case and who knows what other links it will reveal.

I don't like you Mark Turner- but your site is REALLY good.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

She Was a Gypsy Woman

Catherine "Gypsy" Share was last seen, according to the horrendous book MANSON BEHIND THE SCENES by Bill Nelson, Registered Sex Offender, in Texas in the Witness Protection Program with a fully grown (now probably 30s) son and a husband in hiding. The book tells in hard to follow detail of Bill's stalking of Gypsy through some strange business he was in selling Christian Yellow Pages (is that a book where you buy Christians for sacrifice?). He was with a Channel 2 News Crew which followed him to Church in order to film Gypsy praying. Surreal! Once there he pissed off the pastor and everyone he could find. He then promised the footage would not run and Channel Two ran it anyway.

Subsequent to this, Gypsy appeared on TV on Hard Copy in 1997 with the Bug (there's no show without Punch!) where he looked old and confused as to why he was there and she lied about things she said at Charlie's trial and became the last in a long line of blamers.

She was writing with one Jana Hughes a book according to Nelson called She Was a Gypsy Woman. This COULD be a major addition to the canonical research of the case. Gypsy was with Bobby during the filming of Ramrodder (where she displays extensively her firm naked body!). Gypsy is seen clothed and not throughout the Manson Documentary by Hendrickson. She had an interesting life before Charlie as a musician and refugee from Hungary. She was allegedly and likely involved in the burial and crime scene clean up of Shorty Shea. She was involved and served time for the Hawthorne Robbery and shoot out. She ran with some hard core criminals after the Family disbanded, and then ended up Christian (uh huh) and in the Witness Protection Program.

Where is this book? Sure, she'll spin the story and lie through her teeth like Paul, Sadie, and Tex. But in between we will learn more details. Will She Was A Gypsy Woman become a lost book like Five Down on Cielo? The Col hopes not!!!!

Monday, August 01, 2005

Whither Karen?

It always amazes me when people think I am somebody who I am not.

It reminds me of MANY years ago and the case of Karen McCoy Montecillo. She was posting on the old Ronson board and then subsequent boards to defend the honor of her high school boyfriend that was murdered, Steven Parent.

At the time, there were many phonies including the board operator himself who pretended to be Ouisch. I didn't believe she knew Parent and I knew for sure that she wasn't his girlfriend since Steve, according to all indications, liked boys. In this day and age who cares who he dated- but I was sure it wasn't Karen.

Turned out, I was half right- she was a friend of the family's, but could not establish that she had dated him since, again, he preferred men. Being a Col of honor, I paid half the bet, donating the money to her son's high school hand group.

Anyway, I never see her posting anymore. When she showed up with Parent's sister to a parole hearing she was pretty big in size. Is she okay? Is she with us? I enjoyed her energy and spunk.

Close the Door Behind You

In the good news department, an email exchange between Heaven and myself may be reducing some of the KTS friction.
In the whatever news, people think I just have it in for the KTS women- I don't, just that some of them (Hi Janice!) post so vehemently when they are so IGNORANT it drives me to the brink. If you must have a slam, hey, Ryled seems to me like he flunked Special Ed. Feel better?

Meanwhile, Granny Caryn all but loses her shit over us this weekend....

I agree, Sue! I've been away for a week and I come back and WE ARE
here because I enjoy discussing this case and reading what others
have to say about it. The next thing I know I'm informed by Heaven
that bits and pieces of one of my posts concerning Debra Tate is on
that asshole's stupid blog along with some of choice names for me
such as "bitch" and "sow" (even though he doesn't even know me or
anything about me). He's become a menace! We are all pretty much in
agreement that we don't want him here because he's such a dick and
simply cannot be nice and YET WE STILL CONTINUE TO DISCUSS HIM!!
WHY???? By discussing him and his dumbass blog, we're just fueling
his fire. Honestly, if he's going to be a topic of discussion, I'm
outta here! We know that he has an infiltrator here and he's just
getting his jollies just by knowing that we're discussing him. Maybe
he would leave this group and Heaven alone if the owner and moderator
made him and his blog a taboo subject. How does everyone feel about
that? Denise? Heaven?


So many questions for this witless cretin---

1- "We are pretty much in agreement"- who is "we" kemosabe- like three of the loudest people over there hate me and that is a consensus? They had a poll against me and eleven people voted and it was far from unanimous to keep me out.

2- I get my jollies many ways. I heard you got yours writing porno for an Elvis impersonator, Caryn.

3- A menace? Why? Just don't read my free speech over here lady. This is the same poster who spent ages attacking Debra Tate and her spokesperson Robin because Debra expressed displeasure with murder photos of her sister all over the web. I mean- why does a Granny get to take umbrage with the victim's sister about ANYTHING?

4- Seems like I know a lot about her- just question her knowledge or intentions and she will spew venom. Touch a nerve, did I?

5- Whether you discuss the blog or not we are here to stay. And I promise you, Granny, any time you say ANYTHING that is incorrect or stupid I will post about you over here. You can't shut me out of KTS and you cannot shut out the truth.

We've been up less than a month and already we are making enemies. Seems like a job well done! The TRUTH will out!

Charlie a Killer?

Sorry all, I was busy the last few days making very much money, but now I am back. There is very much to cover here today so let’s get started.

Shelby and several other regulars here from IMDB took exception to last week’s comment that Charlie didn’t kill anyone. Well he didn’t, but I asked them “Okay, who did he ever kill?” And they all said “Shorty.”

Now catch this- if Charlie killed Shorty you would think one of the people involved would blame him, right? That is what the authorities want to hear, and it just might get you some lighter sentence. But none of them ever do. Here’s some of a transcript from one of Bruce’s parole hearings. He never blames Charlie and he was there. Why do YOU?

INMATE DAVIS: About 10:30 in the morning. Charlie came to a group of us and told us that Shorty had – is either working for the police or going to them. Some way in there he’s a threat. He’s a threat.

CHAIRMAN WAY: Working for the police?

INMATE DAVIS: That Shorty was either working for the police or going to work for the police against us. That was kind of the picture, I think. And so he told ex and me and Clem – well, mainly Tex. He said “So you take care of that. Just take Shorty for a ride.” Some of us got in car, and Tex was in the front seat with Shorty.

MR. BAKES: Who was driving the car?

INMATE DAVIS: Shorty was driving. So we drown down --

MR. BAKES: This is Tex Watson?

INMATE DAVIS: Yeah, so we drove down the hill and --

MR. BAKES: Where were you at this point?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, we started from the Spahn Ranch. We were going down the road toward San Fernando Valley, and Tex stabbed Shorty. Well, first we pulled the car over. He said, “Pull over here.” So we pulled over, and they pulled him out of the car, and they took him down the bank. Well, I got out of the back – I was in the back seat.

BOARD MEMBER SIDES: Who said to pull over?

INMATE DAVIS: Tex told Shorty, who was driving, to pull over.

MR. BAKES: Is this an open area? Is it a residential area? What kind of area is it?

INMATE DAVIS: No it’s not. There’s underbrush and scrub, and it’s a hill coming like this, and the road is going this way, so there’s a bank over here and a bank here. So were going along like this. So he told Shorty to pull over to the right-hand side of the road. He pulled him out of the car.

MR. BAKES: Did he stab him before he pulled him out?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, yes. I didn’t actually see that but I could hear the sound of stabbing, over and over again. I was – the back seat was between us, but I would assume he must have.