A federal judge has ruled that the Los Angeles Police Department can have 40-year-old taped conversations between one of Charles Manson's most fervent followers and his late attorney to see if they can help solve more murders.
U.S. District Court Judge Richard A. Schell ruled Sunday that Charles "Tex" Watson waived his right to attorney-client privilege when he allowed the lawyer to sell the tapes to an author who wrote a book about Watson, who was convicted of several murders.
LAPD robbery-homicide detectives are seeking the tapes because they believe that during the several hours of conversations, Watson "may have discussed additional unsolved murders committed by followers of Charles Manson."
Investigators believe the so-called Manson family may have been responsible for more than the nine murders they were convicted of four decades ago. Over the years, everyone from Manson himself to his prosecutors have said his followers were connected to more killings.
The judge's ruling affirms a bankruptcy judge's decision last year that the LAPD can have the tapes of Watson and attorney Bill Boyd, who died in 2009. The tapes were found when Boyd's old law firm filed for bankruptcy. Watson, however, appealed that ruling, claiming they were privileged.
Schell, however, said Watson's decision to sell the tapes to Chaplain Ray, Watson's coauthor of the 1978 book "Will You Die for Me? The Man Who Killed for Charles Manson Tells His Own Story" waived his attorney-client privilege. The judge also noted that Watson was by his own motion willing to allow police to hear the tapes but not take them.
LAPD Cmdr. Andrew Smith said the LAPD will send detectives to Texas to pick up the tapes once Watson's 30 days to appeal the decision expire.
"We are looking forward to getting these tapes and thoroughly analyzing their content," he said. "We owe it to the victims and their families to ensure every facet of the case is thoroughly and completely investigated."
Watson has denied the tapes will reveal any additional killings. He is serving a life sentence for killing actress Sharon Tate and four others.
Manson prosecutor Stephen Kay said Manson bragged about additional murders. Over the years, questions have persisted about a man's apparent suicide in England, the drowning of an attorney in Ventura County and whether bodies are buried at the California ranches the cult called home.
The murders for which the Manson family were convicted all occurred in the summer of 1969. In late July, Gary Hinman, 34, a musician, was stabbed to death. About a week later in early August, four Manson followers — Watson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel and Linda Kasabian — made their way to the Benedict Canyon estate rented by Tate and her husband, director Roman Polanski. There they killed Tate, 26; Steven Parent, 18; Jay Sebring, 35; Voytek Frykowski, 32; and coffee heiress Abigail Folger, 25.
Later, Manson himself entered the Los Feliz home of Leno LaBianca, 44, owner of a small supermarket chain, and his 38-year-old wife, Rosemary, and tied them up. He left them to die at the hands of Watson, Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten, who wielded knives and forks from the LaBianca kitchen. Spahn Ranch hand Donald "Shorty" Shea was killed later and his body concealed on the ranch for years.
Schell's ruling came as a follower of Manson, Craig Carlisle Hammond, was arrested Sunday on suspicion of trying to smuggle a cellphone into Corcoran State Prison for the 78-year-old Manson, who has been caught twice before with a cellphone. Hammond was arrested on three charges and faces a court date next month.
U.S. District Court Judge Richard A. Schell ruled Sunday that Charles "Tex" Watson waived his right to attorney-client privilege when he allowed the lawyer to sell the tapes to an author who wrote a book about Watson, who was convicted of several murders.
LAPD robbery-homicide detectives are seeking the tapes because they believe that during the several hours of conversations, Watson "may have discussed additional unsolved murders committed by followers of Charles Manson."
Investigators believe the so-called Manson family may have been responsible for more than the nine murders they were convicted of four decades ago. Over the years, everyone from Manson himself to his prosecutors have said his followers were connected to more killings.
The judge's ruling affirms a bankruptcy judge's decision last year that the LAPD can have the tapes of Watson and attorney Bill Boyd, who died in 2009. The tapes were found when Boyd's old law firm filed for bankruptcy. Watson, however, appealed that ruling, claiming they were privileged.
Schell, however, said Watson's decision to sell the tapes to Chaplain Ray, Watson's coauthor of the 1978 book "Will You Die for Me? The Man Who Killed for Charles Manson Tells His Own Story" waived his attorney-client privilege. The judge also noted that Watson was by his own motion willing to allow police to hear the tapes but not take them.
LAPD Cmdr. Andrew Smith said the LAPD will send detectives to Texas to pick up the tapes once Watson's 30 days to appeal the decision expire.
"We are looking forward to getting these tapes and thoroughly analyzing their content," he said. "We owe it to the victims and their families to ensure every facet of the case is thoroughly and completely investigated."
Manson prosecutor Stephen Kay said Manson bragged about additional murders. Over the years, questions have persisted about a man's apparent suicide in England, the drowning of an attorney in Ventura County and whether bodies are buried at the California ranches the cult called home.
The murders for which the Manson family were convicted all occurred in the summer of 1969. In late July, Gary Hinman, 34, a musician, was stabbed to death. About a week later in early August, four Manson followers — Watson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel and Linda Kasabian — made their way to the Benedict Canyon estate rented by Tate and her husband, director Roman Polanski. There they killed Tate, 26; Steven Parent, 18; Jay Sebring, 35; Voytek Frykowski, 32; and coffee heiress Abigail Folger, 25.
Later, Manson himself entered the Los Feliz home of Leno LaBianca, 44, owner of a small supermarket chain, and his 38-year-old wife, Rosemary, and tied them up. He left them to die at the hands of Watson, Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten, who wielded knives and forks from the LaBianca kitchen. Spahn Ranch hand Donald "Shorty" Shea was killed later and his body concealed on the ranch for years.
Schell's ruling came as a follower of Manson, Craig Carlisle Hammond, was arrested Sunday on suspicion of trying to smuggle a cellphone into Corcoran State Prison for the 78-year-old Manson, who has been caught twice before with a cellphone. Hammond was arrested on three charges and faces a court date next month.
30 comments:
Our words reveal who we are.
The title of your post says it all Col.
The title of the post indicates that there is nothing on the tapes.
If words reveal who we are you need a renaming to "Worthless Fuck"
Col.....Much Ado About Nothing sounds right as far as Tex discussing unsolved murders with his attorney.
But I'd still like to hear what they talked about.
Agreed- the title of the post is right on...
and agreed it is still going to be interesting to listen to the words of a monster as he felt at the time...
I'm reposting this comment I made at Eviliz.
I think it's pretty obvious that Tex would not reveal any secrets on these tapes that would be damaging to himself. He might however reveal something that could be damaging to others, namely the Family members currently imprisoned. While California can collect DNA from prisoners the law that allows for that is not retroactive and DNA can only be collected from those arrested after 2008. In order for DNA to be collected from the prisoners that were incarcerated before 2009 there needs to be grounds and compelling evidence to demand the DNA. These tapes have the potential to create the grounds to do that.
Today it's all about the DNA, it transcends any witnesses that may or may not be alive today. DNA does not suffer from faulty long ago memories. Matthew Roberts had to do a DNA comparison with a probable grandson of Charles Manson to try to determine if Charlie was his birth father. Why? Probably because Charlie would not willingly give up his DNA because then it could legally be entered into the databases. Sure, the prison personnel could grab a fork or cup that Charlie used and do a DNA test but collection by that route would not hold up in court. The same goes for any of the others currently imprisoned, Davis, Beausoleil, Van Houten and Krenwinkel.
I think the Tex tapes hold a great amount of potential and am pleased at the ruling by the Texas judge. Here is a five page pdf on the California DNA collection law.
http://ag.ca.gov/bfs/pdf/69IB_121508.pdf
DNA? o.k. maybe
wouldn't they have to have other victims to match the DNA to???
Bruce is the zodiac after all- Pugh, the Scientology kids, Habe
LULU/Katie/Patty- Usserly's family or someone else in mendicino, or other areas
Charlie- left bodies all over the place they test every jane doe, or unsolved crime covering the time he was out on probabtion
You say
Tex would have known and talked about this- and DNA could confirm it...
Never thought about that
Tex relating something he didn't see personally first hand to a third person sounds like hearsay to me... and if he was there himself wouldn't that make him an accessory at least? so why incriminate himself? I still don't see any advantage to him talking about anything at that point.
when Clem fessed up info he got to walk.. none of the other desperate bastards would have squeaked after that to cut a deal????
IF any of them knew something....
but maybe- hey my fingers are crossed he answers all the questions and we can end the debate and sing kumbaya to each other :)
Los Angeles said they had about a dozen unsolved cases where they would like to get some sort of resolution. I'm not sure if they meant only cases in their jurisdiction or other jurisdictions as well. It's reasonable to think DNA might have been developed by now from some of those unsolved cases.
I'm not sure about the hearsay ruling out any further investigation as many times that is what gets an investigation going in the first place. If LE knows a particular person to pursue they can usually develop more concrete evidence from that hearsay if there is merit to the hearsay. Like placing that someone at a certain place and time when the crime occurred.
deb- I know you know more about this than I do and this is something I never considered personally. It sounds like it makes sense. It also is asking for a lot of pieces to fall into place and to me that places a lot of expectation for these tapes...
Of course- that will make it all the more explosive if they do lead to anything... all that important info sitting there all these years..
Happy Easter and Passover Col and all...
Doc Sierra
It is surely no surprise to you by now that Katie has moments of uncontrollable incoherence, in which she rages against the machine.
She probably would benefit from help, and for all we know is receiving help, but your insensitive, intolerant reaction both on Lynyrd's blog and here (why here?) are not the kind of help she needs. They just fan the flames of her rage.
Would you consider just leaving this one, accepting Katie's obvious inner demons and just walking away. It would be the kindest thing to do.
In peace
FrankM
Lets not be so quick to say someone knows more than someone else. Mandatory DNA testing for all convicted felons started in the 1990s. A 50 state DNA crime bank computer was established in 1998. No current inmate has the ability to refuse to give a DNA sample. Around 500 California felons refused to provide DNA samples and were physically forced by court order. But just like a fingerprint, if you do not have something to match it to, the DNA sample is useless.
Tex is sure pissed
Col. We're awaiting you to update the blog and share your pics from Evilzs tour
boy, I sure do wish someone would explain the Col's absence.
really really nice post Frank. I know we have clashed a bunch, but that is one great sentiment you expressed.
I have a piece of information that comes from Susan Atkins' 1976 part 1 interview that I believe reveals when Parent was shot. Her statement is not a matter of semantics, but rather a statement she means. She said they saw a car coming "up" the driveway. Up the driveway always refers to the location of a house. If you see a car coming up your driveway, where are you in relation to your house? This tells me that Susan, Tex, Pat, and Linda were in the Tate yard when Parent arrived...not when he was leaving like we have all been told. This is no small piece of information about the time-line of events. My thinking about what Parent said is also telling in relation to Susan's statement about a car coming "up" the driveway. This puts Parent in a position of seeing what they had just done or were doing when he arrived. He says," don't hurt me, I won't say anything." Say anything about what,Steven? I believe Parent was arriving when all this was going down. It also answers a theory about Parent being shot outside the car and placed in his car by someone. I think Susan means what she said...UP the drive way coming towards the house...not leaving the house.
Hey Col,
Nice to see you enjoying yourself on Eviliz2013 tour. And now we finally get to match a face to the blog.
But how about getting back to the task at hand.
A insightful post from you would go a long way to erasing some of the drabble I unfortunately read at the inbred blog.
Hey, Bobby. I understand this problem with regard to my comment about Susan saying what she said in that interview. We would have to conclude that Susan's "up" is really "down." Or, perhaps Garrett is a total liar altogether...still wondering why he's alive?? All I know is that I would would never confuse coming up a driveway with down. I'm one of those who believes that "other" people are involved in this. A guy named Steve Gowyn from a site called "The center for an informed America," talks about a guy named brandt who knew the victims at the Tate residence tried furiously to contact the LAPD with information just days and weeks after the murders with no luck. He then jets out of town to a stones concert at Madison square gardens and tries to rush the stage and, of course, is stopped. That night he is found dead of an OD. The author suggests the guy was going to grab the stage mike and spout out something pertaining to what he knew about the murders...Read the story about this guy name Brandt from this author..it's a very credible story...not heresay. Anyway, like most people with regard to this case, It doesn't ever make any sense on certain levels.
Post script to Bobby. The center for an informed America. You will find the article on Steve Brandt under Part VIII of the Laural Canyon history of the 60's about 3/4 of the way down. The researchers name id Dave...not Steve. Anyway, Bobby, It's worth the read if you don't already know about this story of Steve Brandt.
So, now wanting to dismiss anything out of hand...Steve Brandt...was he connected to Joel Rostau at all? He too was found dead in NY in May of 1970.
The Stones played two nights at MSG in late November...performances documented nicely in their album Get Yer Ya Yas Out and in the Maysles Documentary GIMME SHELTER. Any footage of Steve Brandt trying to make his stage announcement?
Hi, starship. Only one can imagine there's perhaps a "blurb" in some news paper or magazine during that time. I have to say that I don't know who Joel Rostau is. I'm very impressed with David Mcgowan who runs a site called"the center for an informed America." His Laural Canyon series on that site is incredible. I haven't read all the articles yet, but perhaps there is something about Joel and Brandt. the Manson case drives me nutty. I feel like i'm in a maze that someone put together to keep all who enter in the dark. I know there are many who feel the case is what it is, but I can't help my notion that this case is the tip to a rather large iceberg.
WORD.
I wonder if implementing reverse engineering to the Manson case would yield any insight. I suppose if we really knew why the murders occurred and who really did what, we still wouldn't believe it. My first order of business when I die is to go into the pavilion of history and finally see what really happened.
Hi, David,
I am familiar with that site and the Laurel Canyon info. I think fully about 85% of it to be utter nonsense.
That said, I agree with you about the Manson case and how it can drive one nutty. I too believe there is more to the story.
That's cool about your stand on Laural Canyon...we all must stand somewhere. With regard to thinking The murders are more than what we know...Do you mean that the Helter Skelter theory is hard to believe? Or, do you feel that the reason behind this was to cover-up information the victims may have had that they shouldn't have had? I would give my right arm to know the truth. I would give my left arm, but I write with that one.
I am down with that...
I think there has to be more of a motive than Helter Skelter. It's probably drugs at tate, mabe contract at LaBianca...there just seems to be too many other things that happened later to some of the others associated...
And so if Steve Brandt was convinved he would be murdered next...why? If we are to believe him then Sharon was definitely a target, correct? What is it that they had done or were into that would lead to their brutal murders? Occult?
Imagine if what you knew could bring down the political structure in L.A. as well as the Hollywood personalities of the time. Add to that the police Department's upper level. It has been suggested, and you might know this, that Sharon's dinner with several people, including RFK, may play a role in this case. I know this kind of thing is hard to prove, but these victims were into "things" that may have put them in danger long before the murders. Look at this world today. Did you ever think you would see the kinds of things that are going on today? I've always said that if a Government can get away with killing its president...JFK, it can do anything to anyone, and make it all look like someone else did it. Why is it so hard to believe that the victims may have known things that put a contract on their heads? The Manson case is filled with so many odd events that one has to suspect something else is going on here...too many webs that make no sense. If this was just a run of the mill murder case with victims no one knew, the events of the case would fall into place...not this one. If you look at most Hollywood murders, why are they always suicide when the crime scene always suggests something else. Or, they never find who did it. I would have to say that most people following this case knows it's not what we have been told. If it is something else, it was put together long before it happened.
Damn, Col, three months and counting. You're posting over at Liz's, why not an update here?
I wanted to respond to a post you made over there but I don't post there anymore. So I have to take a shot here.
You asked why anyone would believe anything that Catherine Share might have to say now given her past history as a perjurer, credit card thief and shootout participant. It's a legit question.
For a Christian, such as Catherine is now, the answer is simple scripture - "Thru Him all things are possible."
From a secular perspective it comes down to if you believe people are capable of fundamental change. I happen to believe they are - I'm pretty sure you believe the opposite.
I'm not arguing with you, if you believe Share is 'once a liar, always a liar" that's your perspective. And I recognize you very well could be right in her case.
I'm just curious, I seem to recall reading somewhere, maybe even here on this blog, that you had communications with Nancy Pittman. Would you be equally skeptical of anything she had to say? Or is it a case of you like her and just simply don't like Gypsy?
At some point you have to give us a few observations about your experience on the tour. It's just cruel not to.
Mr. Manson...AKA ColScott,
Not referring to the son, just the father.
I now have most of this figured out.
It is very interesting that I continue to learn new facts about this case even today. My brain has consumed all of the information from the sites that I know about and I have come to a conclusion that I am sure you arrived at long ago. I think that the truth you are looking for is not motive, but real truth from the people that were involved. Some of the players have actually told the truth but no one can be sure. I was a big fan of the HS motive for a long time. Now I know that it was not made up and did play a part in some of the thinking but not until the paranoia set in. I think Tex had a big part in the HS idea. Bug needed this glue to hold it in place because he knew that the trial would never take place without it. There would be a trial but it would be a trial for each individual, and that would take up more time that would end in re-trial. I am not sure if the Bug thought he could actually win before the trial but he knew Charlie would come thru. I don't think Bug knew what he would help create because of it.
So, yes, Charlie was the maestro or glue of the family. I think the family was more of a set of clicks than a congregation of Kool-aid drinkers. I think the family was set up like the mob. They had a head but also had captains with their own ideas, their own people who they were loyal to. I think that Charlie tried tried to get to Melcher but wanted only to scare him by sending messengers to his old residence. I think the idea of using a copycat murder was only a way for Charlie to cover up his real reasons for sending people to those locations. He knew Melcher no longer lived there, it worked.
I think you are looking for the real truth on why those locations were chosen, which players actually did the killing, not just holding a knife, and why so many in the family all have different stories to tell. That is why I think it is so difficult, because they all had different thoughts about what was going on, what happened, they had no collaboration except for the time the entire group was in Charlie’s presence. He never expected that he would need to have them all defend him at the same time.
Am I beating a dead horse?
Boring, ridiculous post trying to prove Helter Skelter BS, other post alleging the answer is with some magical make believe Deity in the sky, no insightful lectures or enraged tirades.
Where are the enlightening post from the Col?? Regal us of tales on why you crossed over to the dark side tour 2013. Are you busy playing pee knuckle with LSB or changing out Cats litter box? Can't find Nemo or The Col.
I'm a faithful reader of this blog and have never posted a comment but I feel compelled to post this plea for the Col. To return...I sorely miss his voice of reason!!
Post a Comment