Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Yana Repeats Her Tales

History to tell 'Manson' story

Family's lookout driver featured in Sept. 7 special

By James Hibberd

July 27, 2009, 11:00 PM ET

Charles Manson's lookout driver will tell her story to viewers for the first time in decades in a History special on the Manson Family murders.

For the 40th anniversary of the shocking Hollywood murder spree, the network has scheduled the two-hour "Manson" on Sept. 7. It features an extensive interview with Linda Kasabian, who stood guard while her fellow cult members murdered actress Sharon Tate and others.

The star witness for Manson's prosecution, the reclusive Kasabian hasn't been extensively interviewed since an "A Current Affair" special on the 20th anniversary of the murders in 1989.

The special recounts the nine months leading up to what Manson dubbed Helter Skelter, a two-night murder spree that he and his LSD-addled followers thought would incite a race war.

Susan Werbe, Nick Godwin and Simon Lloyd will executive produce the special.

Sunday, July 05, 2009

Yana Kites

So this is something none of us knew- Linda went so far as to fuck up dumb Sadie. Nice lady.



Manson Family member Susan Atkins, aka Sadie Mae Glutz, broke the case when she told fellow jail inmates at the Sybil Brand Institute the details of the Tate and LaBianca murders. Initially the prosecution intended to call Atkins as its star witness, but the deal fell apart. The explanation typically given for the collapse is twofold. First, Atkins provided an account of the crime to the Los Angeles Times, thereby polluting the jury pool. Second, she fell back under the sway of Manson. Both stories are true. However, there was also something else

GARY FLEISCHMAN, Linda Kasabian’s lawyer. Now 75, he practices in Northern California. Linda Kasabian had seen them committing mayhem at the Tate house. She had driven the killers to the LaBianca residence, but she hadn’t done anything. Still, she was technically guilty of first-degree murder. I said to her, “You’re broke. You’re pregnant, and you were there. You must become a prosecution witness.” The prosecution already had Sadie. I call her Sadie, but her name is Susan Atkins. She was an active participant in the murders and was going to testify against Manson. I told Linda, “Sadie is flaky, and they’re gonna sell her out before it’s done. They promised her no death penalty, but they will screw her over. She killed people. We have to help this process along.” I told Linda, “You start passing Sadie kites.” A “kite” is a letter that goes into the prison system. I said, “Hand her a kite and talk Charlie-talk to her.” Linda knew exactly what I meant. Charlie Manson always spoke in these sort of backward riddles. So I told Linda, hand Sadie some kites that say, “Your lawyer is the D.A., the D.A. is your lawyer, the D.A. is Charlie, Charlie is selling you out, and you’re being sold.” So Linda starts passing these kites to dumb Susan Atkins. This goes on for a couple of months, and Susan clams up. She ain’t gonna say anything else to help the prosecution. They have to find somebody else to testify.

One day Aaron Stovitz, the head of the trial division, called me. He said, “I want to talk to you.” I said, “I’m going to get my hair cut at the barbershop at the Beverly Wilshire hotel. Come on over.” So he drives out, and he makes me an offer. A very strange confluence of events had occurred. They needed Linda Kasabian, and she needed them. They gave her total immunity. They couldn’t make their case without this girl.

Linda Kasabian wasn’t scared of Charles Manson at all. She wasn’t built that way. She was a flower child. The Family started bugging me to get her not to testify, pestering me. Lynette Fromme, you know, Squeaky, was sent by Manson to see me. She would come and sit in my office. One day I threw her out physically. She only weighed about 90 pounds. She looked like a rat. Another woman, Catherine Share, who was even weirder, would also show up. She played the violin. I just saw her on television—she looks like a matron today, very pretty lady. Squeaky and Share kept showing up. So finally one night we went to the jail to see Linda, and they confronted her. They said, “You should be one with us.” And Linda answered, “I am one with myself, and that’s all.” That was the end of that.

Thursday, July 02, 2009

Freaky Crime

You should go read this article from October 1969 Los Angeles Magazine here. I copy it to the blog for the inevitable day when the link goes dead and we need it for research.


The New Violence: An Age of 'Freaky' Crime?

Los Angeles magazine published this fearful story in October 1969, just two months after the Tate and LaBianca murders shocked L.A. Writer Myron Roberts' search for the connection between drugs, madness, and “freaky crime”—not to mention a handy “reasonable person’s guide” to self protection—reveals a city desperate for understanding and a return to order

Los Angeles magazine, October 1969

Some murders, like some men, are singled out for fame because they are peculiarly symbolic of their times.

In the ‘20’s it was the Leopold-Loeb case, with its trappings of flaming youth and the New Rich produced by a runaway stock market.

In the ‘40’s it was the Black Dahlia. The label, affixed to a then anonymous young woman found mutilated in Los Angeles, somehow suggested all those millions of young girls who had left home and family to seek wartime jobs and adventure in the big city, just like in the Betty Grable movies, only with a different ending.

In the ‘50’s it was the Finch-Tregoff case in West Covina, with its cast and setting of the wealthy dentist, an aging, expensive and unwanted wife, the country club, the suburban ranch home with a new station wagon parked in the driveway, and weekends in Las Vegas with a pretty young nurse.

And now we have the Sharon Tate case, surrounded by a dazzling array of exquisite symbols of our time: drugs, strange sex games, a bizarre new culture, “rich hippies,” ritual murder and a poor dumb kid from El Monte who wandered into the midst of this freaky scene to die.

Why, among the thousands of “cheap murders” which occur every year in this country (the current rate is one every 43 minutes) were these crimes pounced upon by the press and the public? Clearly the “celebrated” murder tells us something about where the public’s head and heart are at a given moment.

Homicides very much like the Black Dahlia case occur with depressing regularity these days, for example, and hardly anyone but the police and those close to the victim bothers to regard the event.

Clearly, too, the Sharon Tate case would have been a spectacular event in any era. But it seems to belong to this time and this place. Somehow people identified with it, in the way people seem to identify these days with strange movies like Rosemary’s Baby. Within days there was another, similar murder in Los Angeles which police believe to have been the work of a “copycat killer.” A kind of fear ran through the city that was almost palpable. One overheard women standing in line at the supermarkets comparing, not hair styles or washing powers, but doorlocks. Tract salesmen in places as far away as Palmdale reported they were getting inquiries and actual sales from people who said they’d had it with living in the city, where they were afraid not only to walk the streets at night, but to stay at home as well. On a nationally televised talk show, originating in New York, Peter Fonda, himself a sometime symbol of the “freak” culture, casually remarked that he was going home to his family in Los Angeles—if they were “still alive” by the time he got there.

In the days following the Tate case residents of Beverly Hills and Bel-Air rushed to hire guards and install expensive alarm systems. Most of the city’s plusher pet shops were cleaned out of guard dogs. A Studio City kennel had to airlift German Shepherds in from Iowa to meet the demand. Even so they sold every dog they could supply at prices ranging up to $1250 for a full grown, attack-trained German Shepherd.

What seems to be most frightening to people in Los Angeles and elsewhere is the unpredictability of so much contemporary crime. Note some of the crimes which have happened in Southern California recently:

A woman was trying to cross a street when a car swerved out of its lane, deliberately struck her and knocked her down. The driver stopped, saw her trying to crawl back to the sidewalk, listened to her moaning with pain, then backed up and ran over her again, killing her. He then got out of the car, grabbed her purse and fled.

A couple stopped to give a ride to two young men. The men raped and beat the woman to death, knocked the man out and robbed him.

A man was stalled on the freeway. Somebody stopped to help him. After trying for several minutes to get the car started, the benefactor turned in disgust upon the stranded motorist, slugged him, robbed him and drove off.

Pasadena police report finding jagged bits of broken bottles carefully but lightly covered by sand at the bottom of children’s slides in parks throughout the city.

A semi-official document prepared by the LAPD estimates there are 700,000 paranoids in the U.S., according to the best psychiatric estimates. That means at least 70,000 in California, mostly in large cities.

No one knows how many of these are potential or actual killers. As for the number of potentially homicidal drug addicts or users, the figure is probably astronomical.

Is the sense of public terror real or hoked-up to sell newspapers and magazines and elect politicians who prey on fantasy and fear? Bald figures alone do not tell the story, although the story they do tell is grim enough. In brief, one American in every 22 committed a major crime last year. (In Los Angeles 250,000 serious crimes were committed last year. This means that if you have lived here for five years or more and have not been a victim, statistically, you’re a lucky man.) On the other hand your chances of being killed in a traffic accident are 15 times greater than the probability that you will be murdered. And there is no great hew and cry about auto safety which even remotely compares to the uproar about Law and Order.

Former LAPD Police Chief Thad Brown, for 18 years Chief of Detectives, puts it this way: When he was working homicide during the early ‘forties, there were about 70 murders a year. (Now there are over 400.) In those days he was proud of the fact that 90% of the murders he investigated were solved within a year. The procedure was fairly simple: check out a victim’s family, friends and associates. Find someone with a motive for killing him and in most cases you had the killer. Today police are reluctant to divulge the proportion of solved to unsolved murders. But they admit it’s nothing like 90%. The problem is that so many of today’s murders seem “senseless.” “Homicide used to be a fairly easy crime to solve,” says LAPD Sgt. Don Ferguson. “But today you have so many cases like those Michigan college girl murders— we’ve had many similar cases here in California—where it’s almost impossible to tie the victim and a logical suspect together.”

In Thad Brown’s day, logic, reason, and careful detective work almost always brought results. He likes to tell, for example, about the case of a young woman homicide victim. The only clue was a pack of matches found in the room. He noticed that the matches on the left side of the pack had been used. Deduction: find a left-handed male acquaintance of the victim and he had his killer—and it worked. Or about how he carefully forged a chain of evidence that sent L. Ewing Scott to prison for the murder of his wife despite the absence of a corpus delicti. (He has a theory about where the late Mrs. Scott’s remains are stashed away which may be of interest to San Diego Freeway commuters.)

One difficulty with crime today is that we are beginning to know how little we know. The Victorians could pontificate with great certitude, for example, about “the criminal mind.” But Beverly Hills Police Chief Joseph Paul Kimble, for one, believes “most criminal acts today are committed by so-called normal people who react abnormally to a stress situation.” To disabuse ourselves at the outset of some of the most enduring and least credible clichés held by partisans of the left and right about crime, consider these facts:

1. For many years, liberals and intellectuals have believed and preached that crime was the fruit of ignorance, poverty and social injustice.

Fact: Crime in America seems to rise and fall during given periods for reasons no one really understands. The prosperous ‘20’s, for example, were a period of soaring crime rates, as are the affluent ‘60’s. The depression decade of the ‘thirties was generally a time of falling crime rates. Thus crime seems to rise and fall in inverse ratio to the general prosperity. Finally, in prosperous Sweden where there are almost no extremes of poverty or teeming slums, crime is rising even faster than here in America.

2. Sociologists, psychologists, etc., often argue that crime is the result of a “climate of violence.”

Fact: The violent World War II era saw the lowest crime rate of this century in America.

3. Policemen and other exponents of the hard line in America insist that the real source of much of today’s crime lies in the increasing “permissiveness” shown to the young in this “Spock-marked generation.”

Fact: The most crime-ridden part of the U.S. is the South, instates like George Wallace’s Alabama, where neither Dr. Spock nor the permissive-liberal philosophy is in great vogue. The last time we had a great “crime wave” was in the ‘twenties, a heyday of conservatism, hanging judges and the KKK.

4. The ordinary citizen tends to believe that criminals are a class apart who prey on basically honest and decent folk “like ourselves.”

Fact: Police have surveys which demonstrate that, under the right conditions, 90% of the American people admit to having committed some offense for which they might have been jailed if caught. In an official publication, the LAPD agrees with Rapp Brown that indeed “violence is as American as cherry pie.” And Chief Kimble observes, “crime is an American Way of Life. From the blue collar worker to the white collar executive, it penetrates every strata of our society.” To which Thad Brown (now doing private detective work for business firms) adds, “Hell, I thought I knew something about crime during 42 years on the force. But most of that was penny ante compared to the capers these business men pull on each other every day.”

5. “Crime does not pay.” “Tell that,” says Chief Kimble, “to the slum kid who sees the rich pimps and dope pushers driving around town in caddies and wearing silk shirts.”

6. “Education is the best means of preventing crime.”

Fact: Most educators agree that this is the best educated generation of young people in our history. It is also the most prone to crime. One in every six teenage boys was brought before juvenile authorities last year alone. Those peace-loving, gentle, idealistic Under Thirties are responsible for fully 70% of the crime in the country, including an unprecedented number of rapes, armed robberies and mass slaughters. Both Kennedys were cut down by members of the Now Generation. It was a young man who killed fifteen people and wounded twenty-five one afternoon in Texas. It is a young man who is charged with the murder of the Michigan coeds. This is not meant to indict an entire generation. But even the most violent partisan of the young can hardly deny that this is perhaps the bloodiest and most lawless generation of young people to come along since Hitler’s Storm Troopers turned Europe into a graveyard. Incidentally, the Germans, too, were well educated.

It is practically impossible to travel anywhere in the urban U.S. now without encountering forms of behavior which would have been considered unthinkable even five or six years ago. Girls as young as 14 and 15 hitchhiking alone at night as if they’d never heard of rape. Attractive kids of apparently comfortable backgrounds begging on the streets. Others, sitting hollow-eyed on sidewalks or curbs looking like zombies.

Is there a connection between all this unconventional behavior and soaring crime rates? The police, among others, think so. The common denominator, they believe, is drugs. Perhaps they are drawing an oversimplified picture of the situation, but recent research on the subject doesn’t exactly prove them wrong.

All of the kids’ rationalizations notwithstanding, the fact is, as Dr. Edward R. Bloomquist documents in his carefully researched recent study entitled Marijuana (Glencoe Press), that pot “releases inhibitions and impairs judgment with such predictability that a user with criminal tendencies will readily commit crimes.”

As everything we know about history, psychology and human nature confirms, with certain rare and saintly exceptions, men, particularly young men, are seldom very far from violence. To maintain civilization at all, we usually need all the judgment we can get.

“I tend to be evangelistic about the drug scene” admits Lt. E. E. Kearney of the LAPD. “There simply is no question that there has been a tremendous fallout of violence as the result of widespread use of drugs.”

Moreover Kearney believes that the violence associated with drug use is likely to grow a great deal worse in the immediate future because of two factors: Relatively mild Mexican pot is being replaced by hashish, a form of marijuana made in the Middle East which is approximately twenty times stronger than the now familiar Mexican variety. Secondly, the increasing use of amphetamines, “speed,” by kids promises some charming new developments on the social landscape. In the words of Dr. Donald B. Louria of Cornell University (interviewed by Gail Sheehy in New York magazine), speed is a drug “taken solely for kicks by a subculture increasingly populated by thrill-seekers, psychopaths, angry sociopaths and young persons incapable of functioning in society.” After a few months of use, observes reporter Sheehy, it leads to “depression, weight loss, sexual deviations and finally paranoid psychosis. Speed simply makes people behave as if they were crazy.”

There is not much doubt that most young people in Southern California try some kind of drug at some point in the process of growing up today. Just as not every young man who gets loaded during his adolescence winds up a drunk, so not every youngster who tries pot winds up a heroin addict, a speed freak or a card-carrying member of the “drug culture.” That drugs have transformed hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of the young into unpredictable and occasionally criminal personalities is also inescapable, however, in the face of current crime statistics and the expert testimony of virtually everyone, including those entirely sympathetic to the youth revolt. And yet our society remains curiously ambivalent in the face of such a threat. A good many respectable intellectuals, people who wouldn’t dream of shooting speed themselves, seem to regard the right to take drugs as one of our Civil Liberties and have confused the drug scene an the crime scene with political dissent, opposition to the Vietnam War and improved race relations. The fact that young Negroes and Mexican-Americans were the first victims of the drug-pushers has led to a number of people to confuse sympathy for the cause of civil rights to tolerance of drugs—when in fact, as even the most militant black leaders themselves testify, dope is the enemy of the black man’s struggle for liberation.

Of late we have even seen public drug festivals, such as the much publicized Woodstock Festival, where hundreds of thousands of young people, most of them stoned out of their heads, sat listening for days to the drone of rock music. A number of commentators, including Life Magazine (which rushed into print a few days later with a special $1.25 supplement devoted entirely to the festival), have described this as a cultural event of monumental import, just behind Genesis and the landing on the moon. The fact that these rock fans did not engage in the widespread violence which we have come to expect as more or less normal at such gatherings was also widely hailed by commentators in the press. No one stopped to ask why the absence of violence at a large, public gathering of the young should be considered any more remarkable than the fact that the fans who go to a football game every Saturday afternoon in the fall do not, customarily, tear up the stadium or attack one another.

Life’s own house youth apologist, a young columnist named Barry Farrell, found himself somewhat confused by the mass acceptance of the rite. “The press and even the police seem content to write it off as a victory for peace and love,” puzzles Farrell, who had undoubtedly expected to adopt that line himself. “In a way, it was. But I would have thought that the significance of a half-million young Americans spontaneously creating a society based on drugs would have caused some slight concern.”

He then proceeds to define his own “bad vibrations” to the event:

“As one who has believed that the justification for using drugs lay somewhere in the zone of psychic freedom, I was disturbed by the bovine passivity they induced in this mass of free minds. For almost everyone present, the freedom to get stoned together was more than freedom enough.

“The Rubicon we felt ourselves crossing was the line of restraint between the old drug culture of the underground and some new authorized form, dangerously adaptable to the interests of packagers, promoters, the controllers of crowds. It was a groovy show, all right, but I fear it will grow groovier in memory, when this market in our madness leads on to shows we’d rather not see.”

Farrell’s misgivings are quite understandable. Those with somewhat longer memories, in fact, tend to regard the Woodstock syndrome not so much as a new social phenomenon but as a contemporary variation of another youth festival—the Nuremberg Rallies—where Hitler, Goebbels & Co. were the featured group and the multitudes of fans were stoned on slogans instead of grass.

“Don’t put on a black jacket and dark glasses unless you are prepared to kill,” Stokely Charmichael is reported to have advised some of his young followers. It is sound advice. It demonstrates that Stokely understands symbols and their consequences. Charmichael is saying that those who wish to merely talk about “revolution” and dress up as revolutionaries without being prepared for violence, death and prison, are fools or charlatans. So the educated middle class youngster who plays at “freaking out” has, consciously or not, set off along a certain path, and unless he is prepared to go all the way, he is simply a fool. The victims in the Tate massacre would seem to demonstrate how quickly and unexpectedly game-playing can turn into something more serious.

The price of membership in the “drug culture” is firm and fixed: To paraphrase Thomas Hobbes’ description of the miserable conditions of factory workers in the 19th century, the life of the drug addict is “nasty, brutish and short.” This, of course, is hardly true of the occasional pot smoker, but even here some facts tell a much grimmer story than most young people believe. For example, the LAPD recently did a study of 229 juveniles arrested in 1961 for possession of marijuana. The department wanted to know what had happened to these people five years later—in 1966. They found:

38, or 16%, were subsequently arrested for possession of heroin.

76, or 38%, were arrested again for possession of marijuana.

46, or 20%, were arrested for robbery.

17 were arrested for rape.

Of the entire group, almost four in five were re-arrested and 16% served time in a state penitentiary.

The irrationality, the mindless capriciousness of the New Violence, has inspired a new kind of fear among people, which in turn breeds its own alarming consequences.

Because people suspect that criminals are often “dope fiends” who will behave unpredictably, they fear becoming involved in reporting a crime. Police find themselves embattled in an effort to protect themselves and a public which often behaves irrationally. Every policeman can tell stories of neighbors watching someone’s house being broken into, of armed robberies, assaults and even murders without anyone even going to the phone to call the police, let alone trying to help the victim. Vigilante groups and neighborhood “protective associations” often wind up shooting each other and their families. There are more guns in Los Angeles today than in Saigon. “Sportsmen’s” magazines suggest sub-machine guns, even anti-tank guns (just $99.50) as an “ideal Father’s Day gift.” Conservatives, such as Governor Reagan, militantly oppose all efforts to unilaterally disarm the public. “WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS” read the bumper stickers on the pickup trucks and campers.

But gun nuts are only another kind of freak, and the same grim epitaphs could just as easily apply to them: Live violently, die violently. Live freaky, die freaky. Somehow, when and if the Sharon Tate case is finally solved, we are likely to see it not simply as the made act of one or more abberant individuals, but as a symptom of the sickness of our time—just as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, for example was not so much the act of cold-blooded killers, as the inevitable fruit of the way it was in Chicago in the ‘twenties.

Whatever its short term benefits, the drug culture at its worst equals madness, crime, violence and early death. It seems a disproportionate price to pay for the pleasure of “freaking out.”


What can be done to protect the young—and ourselves—from the “freaky,” drug-related crime?

Some steps are being taken, although they admittedly represent only a beginning. The Sheriff’s Department of Los Angeles County, for example, has launched an educational program at 41 junior highs, high schools and adult schools throughout Los Angeles. The program, called The Citizen and the Law, brings officers into the schools, and takes school children on field trips to police stations, courts, etc. in an effort to break down some of the barriers between the police and the public.

The Sheriff’s Department, meanwhile, is actively seeking innovative approaches to crime prevention in a radically changing society.

Police generally feel that drugs have become so much a part of the scene among the young today that it is unrealistic to hope for complete eradication. “The best we can hope for is control,” says Lt. R. E. Kearney of the LAPD’s Crime Prevention Section. (Psychologists, educators, etc. are generally even more pessimistic. “The best we can hope for,” they believe, “is a reduced rate of growth in the number of drug-associated crimes.”) Kearney believes that control has to begin by isolating known heavy drug-users within the school or college population, “the same way we would isolate someone carrying a dangerous disease.”

Crimes against property are far easier to guard against than crimes against people, particularly of the “freaky” variety. “If someone wants to kill you,” the LAPD lamentably concludes, “and is willing to take some risk, there probably isn’t much you can do to stop him.”

You can, however, avoid associating with freaks. (Most murders are still committed by someone known to the victim.) If attacked, particularly if you are a woman, scream, resist, fight like hell. When driving alone, keep your car windows closed. If stalled on a lonesome stretch of road, stay inside the locked car until the police arrive. Don’t open the door or windows to strangers. Keep your purse out of sight.

Young girls wearing light, flimsy clothing while traveling about the city alone at night are still the favorite targets of rapists—who frequently do not set out intending to commit rape; something about the attractiveness or vulnerability of the victim gives the rapist his clue. Countless rapes, of course, go unreported, especially among female hitchhikers. Most criminals are opportunists. The more opportunities you create for crime, the more likely you are to be victimized.

Armed robbers are usually violent men seeking a bloody confrontation with their victims as an excuse to prove their “manhood.” Burglars, on the other hand, are more often gentler types who simply want to steal your stuff and get out. Usually, if challenged, they run.

The locks on most tract houses are worthless. Ordinary dime store chain locks are useful chiefly to keep the kids inside the house. For minimal protection against burglary, police recommend a good dead bolt lock. Also, a noisy dog is helpful. Burglars ordinarily do not like fuss.

If you see someone acting strangely in your neighborhood, call the police and they will be glad to come out and investigate. They can usually tell within minutes whether the person is engaged in a legitimate activity or not. It’s too bad that “support your local police” became a political slogan for the crank. Right since, generally, it’s a damned good idea.