Social Networking At Its Finest.

Hey I'd like to plunge a bayonet into your mother for no fucking reason and then have you forgive me on television?

Sounds like a plan?

I am shocked she even has fifteen friends.

Note that daughter Rommi Soto (married) is not one of them.

A Gay Man Called Me A Penis And Then Proceeded To Lie and Censor The Truth

You know it's hard enough to find the truth out there without dilettantes, homophobes and liars forming their own school club to promote their fiction. You would think the lesson of JimNY, aka Savage, sitting in a rubber bed of his own spew would be a lesson to those who cross the Col's quest for facts. But apparently not.

Last night I was directed to the new "Helter Skelter Forum" by some of you who were alarmed at their rampant thievery from other sites. I didn't know from theft, and I am a Col not a judge, so I thought "Hey, a new site." I joined. Easy enough. (by the way guys, just so you know, the last site I joined that banned me, repeatedly mind you, was the Yahoo KTS site and it is now a pathetic, limping wad of goo. Just saying, laugh all you want, but you're next.)

So I clicked on some places and here is what I saw and posted.

First, they have the nerve to say "Give us credit" when in fact they steal from other sites without credit. That kind of set the tone. Go look at the Gary Hinman autopsy material they stole from Truth on Tate LaBianca. Cropping materials doesn't mean it is "yours". So I very nicely mentioned this in a posting, like "Hey how can you say one thing and do another." Fine.

Then I came upon this thread, where this chick Martine is offering to ask the BUG questions. Now there is only one question to ask the Bug- how can you live with yourself when you convicted people based on motives you know are lies? But no one is asking that. It's like "What KIND of Latin Music do you like BUG?" Okay I exaggerate but not much. In this thread they argue about whether the BUG beat up his mistress and stalked his milkman thinking he was the father of BUG Jr. I respond to several of the sillier comments, calling them nonsense. I am extremely polite for me, not calling them liars and stupid idiots, which of course they were.

Then the clincher- there is this huge thread where they discuss Steve Parent's homosexuality. There is this one extreme homophobe, Silver, who refuses to accept the reality that the kid was gay. It's 2010 and he is still hating on Steve, while trolling alleyways his own self, no doubt. Then there is this guy eddy, the ugly, lonely gay guy who wants everyone to know he has special information (Did you chug one off with Steve back in the day, grandpa?) about Steve. Some moron says there was no semen so Steve and Garretson never copulated (umm, swallowing?) and this goes on for pages. Some super cretin says "does it matter whether the BUG did it or Steve was?" and I point out that it matters very much why a victim was at the house and that the prosecutor is known for psycho behavior before and after the trial.

I swear I am modulated, considering what these shitbirds are doing, stealing, banning and generally making shit up.

So this morning I am banned, as if the truth can ever be banned. Since I have four other accounts, I am able to read this from the self hating gay guy eddy-

This pillock joined the forum in the early hours and spent nine posts bitching, making obnoxious comments to some of you and trying to discredit the forum in any way he knew how. Accused us of stealing from another forum (a forum several of us were banned from) and subsequently he didn't get any further. So I imagine he'll write a 'scathing' review of this forum at his blog. So if he does, you'll know why he didn't last in here.

Amazing. First I have to look up pillock. It means penis in uneducated British street slang. For a thief it isn't surprising that he is of the street. A gay guy calling other men penis? Wish fulfillment I suppose.

And because you were banned for abuse at another forum you would never steal from them? Or you blatantly steal from them in misguided revenge? Obvious to me.

So what do we know? SJ, who uses the photo of Abigail as a photo, is Jasonwarmes or something. He was Moonglow on Cat's forum until he left to start his own and steal everything from Cat without crediting. Morning Glory, the main thief of materials, was called Lady Noel before it put the lotion in the basket or else it gets the hose.

So does it matter in the end if some sad refugees from the truth started their own island of misinformation? Yes and no. If they are willing to ban and lie and steal they need to be monitored which I shall do through the other accounts including one they think is a close friend. But they disgust me even more because they refer to the Col's research throughout even reprinting whole posts but don't link back. They stole the entirety of Claire Watkins post on Granta and don't link back. Then they claim they give credit and want it in return.

eddy I am not a penis, though you can SUCK ME. You're a fraud who can't even accept who he is. But the Col knows who you all are and now, so do all true TLB scholars.

Running from Running Water

Here's a photo I haven't seen before. It's Ron Hughes. He looks happy, even though his sartorial sensibilities are severely infected. He needs a shave. He is raising his fist in some sort of power salute which was stupid even then (Slippy Power?). He has Kanarek by his side. Kanarek doesn't look like the homeless troll last seen a few years ago on some TV Special. The guy whose storage locker was supposedly sold at auction to constitute the "Railroading" book.

And as the Col says, there's no show without Punch and there's the BUG in the back, lurking and seeming smug, wondering if the milkman really fucked his wife or not.

Also, if you made me bet, Hughes either just had a toke or was about to try one out.

Some short time later the poor guy drowned in Sespe Springs. We established that it wasn't a murder here. Also if you can find the newest version of Sanders, he says he drowned in the flash flood.

It makes me wonder what the defense attorneys were thinking. Like Fitzgerald seemed like a smart cat- he had to know that all of them were busted and you should plead. They all acted like it was theatre- all of them. And that is hard for me to fathom.

Abigail- The Overlooked Link?

Sources and information agree that Sharon wasn't thought to be at Cielo that night. So there is no connection to the motive. Woman just was at the wrong place and the very wrong time.

Same with Parent. Whether he serviced Garrettson or got serviced by him (ummm I mean "tried to sell him a stolen clock radio") Tex and the gals certainly had no idea that he was up there. So wrong place, wrong time again.

I don't think they were after Jay. If they were, the motives include
1- Drugs
2- Drugs
3- Bad Haircuts
4- Tied up Naked Women (his thing)
5- Drugs

Examined in order
1- He used a lot of them
2- They were sold through the salons
3- Have you seen these things?
4- Could he have pissed off the wrong husband?
5-Did he have some drug connection to Tex who worked in a fully equipped Salon at one point?

Then we have Voytek. The motivations there include-
1- Drugs
2- Drugs
3- Polish Mafia
4- Drugs

Examined in Order
1- Did he sell bad ones?
2- Did he steal some?
3- Did I make this up?
4- Did he step on the wrong toes?

Now let's look at Abilgail
1- Drugs
2- Money and lots of it
3- Social Activism
4- The Coffee Wars
5- Drugs

And Examined in order
1- Doesn't seem like she did much more than smoke some weed. But her BF was a heavy duty user and dealer which brings this motivation into the equation.
2- Girlfriend was rich as hell, a bona fide heiress for god's sake. Who benefited by her death? Lt. Columbo would look into that.
3- She seemed to be ahead of the curve as far as equal rights and shit, at least by what we are told. Did the Establishment have a problem with this?
4- Goddamn Starbucks!
5- She supposedly worked at centers to help people get off Drugs. Did she meet a maniac or two there?

Looking at this all closely we have-
A- Lots of Drugs- which is the probably connection to everything if the killer knew Melcher was gone. But I don't think they DID know.
B- A big mess- why kill people for no reason, Tex you fucking animal!

Here's a newly uncovered photo of Abigail. It is lovely.

What do you all think?

The Col Faces GoRightly So You Don't Have To

Adam GoRightly (not his real name anymore than Adam Gabriel is Clem's real name) is a poseur. He is one of these guys that fakes living on the edge. There's the other guy Brian Butler who is the same thing. Brian once interviewed Bobby and then tried to charge people to watch the interview- without Bobby's permission or knowledge. They are counter culture groupies.

Adam's first book on Manson was called THE SHADOW OVER SANTA SUSANNA PASS ROAD. Also known us "I read a lot of books and now I regurgitate them, look how slick I am." He promoted that book with a message board that he used to ban the Col from because the Col knows more than he does. I think the Col is even mentioned in one of the Chapters. Because when you are vomiting up information, somehow the Col matters to your readers.

Anyway he just published a new book. It is not actually published so no trees died for this shit. It is called A WHO'S WHO OF THE MANSON FAMILY. You can waste your money for it HERE.
It is only digital because that is what all the cool kids are using these days.

Never mind that fact that the entries on The Family are more thorough on CieloDrive.com or even the evil Mark Turner's site. FOR FREE. Or that you can learn 100 times more on Cat's site- this fucker only includes "Family" so he doesn't even address scores of other TLB subjects. Let me just give you three random reasons why this fucking just sucks it.

1- Mary Brunner is followed by Charlene Cafritz. Mary is THE founding member of The Family and the mother of Charlie's son. Cafritz is some society psycho who maybe visited the Ranch. Cafritz gets a longer entry than Mary. Fuck off Adam.

2- "Bernard Crowe lived at 7008 Woodrow Wilson Drive near Sunset"- I mean, douche, Sunset is actually miles (plural) from this house. Ever hear of Google Earth? You barely write anything in this book anyway shouldn't it be ACCURATE? Take five minutes and check the fucking map, ADAM!

3- "Haught's life was snuffed out and he truly became a Zero"- I mean fuck you sideways Adam- hard. You don't get to sound like Hunter S. Thompson or even sucky Ed Sanders without being talented and you aren't.

Book Report- Dear Class- this book could have and should have been so much more but GoRightly is just after your money. Stay the fuck away.

[[PHOTO: Adam GoRightly, the douche on the left, discusses why looking like a leftover large ass Seventies Porno Extra is a good idea]]

There's One Less BUG to Lie to Us

To be fair, I think the original Helter Skelter miniseries is brilliant. It started the Col's obsession and fascination with this crazy world of TLB. Sure it is full of shit just like the book- but so riveting! DiCenzo was brilliant as the BUG. Smug, self important and pompous he really conveyed the BUG of the novel. There's two moments in the miniseries where he turns and breaks the fourth wall and looks at us- when he joins the case and when he ends the show. Chilling and wonderful. RIP George. Thanks to AB for pointing this out. Oh, btw he died August 9, althought not in Los Feliz.

Character actor George DiCenzo dies

Thesp portrayed prosecutor in 'Helter Skelter'

By RACHEL ABRAMS

Character actor George DiCenzo,who portrayed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi in "Helter Skelter," died Aug. 9 in Newtown, Pa. He was 70 and had been in failing health since a near-fatal accident a few years back.

He toplined as the author of the book, Bugliosi, in the 1976 telepic on investigation and trial of cult killer Charles Manson.

Thesp, who attended the Yale School of Drama, led a career that spanned more than three decades.

DiCenzo appeared in series, including "Gunsmoke," "The Waltons," "Hawaii Five-O," "Police Story," and "NYPD Blue."

In pics he was featured in pics such as "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," "Back to the Future," and "A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints," which was his last outing.

He also did voiceover for toons "He-Man and the Masters of the Universe," "Animaniacs" and "Mafia: The City of Lost Heaven," among others.

In 1992, DiCenzo appeared with Nathan Lane in the Broadway production of George C. Scott-helmed "On Borrowed Time."

In addition to acting, DiCenzo's voice could be heard on numerous commercials and in later years, he was an acting instructor in New York and Philadelphia.

Survivors include wife, Donna, a son, three grandchildren and a sister.

Donations may be made in his name to to a Woman's Place, P.O. Box 299, Doylestown, PA 18901.

Once Upon a Midnight Dreary...

(been busy, will try to have more for you even though there doesn't seem to actually BE very much new)


So I am more convinced than ever than ever that Linda Kasabian knows more about what happened than she is letting on. And I theorize that she maybe did NOT know when the case was happening but that she knows now. Through the trials. Through the coaching of the BUG. Through just living the lie.

Think about it. Remember we all were shocked when Bug openly coached and corrected her on Larry King last summer? How obvious and fucked up was that?

But if you are going to sell the lie, as BUG did , then you need to make sure that the liars go along with the lie. And at some point that means they need to learn the truth. Otherwise how can you avoid it?

Amirite? I mean, when you tell your mom you weren't out all night you do so fully knowing what you WERE doing.

Long time readers know I think she should have gotten the chair like the rest of them. That there isn't an honest bone in her body. But in order to be successfully DIShonest doesn't she have to know at least some of the truth?

SHOCKER- Leslie Denied

Leslie Van Houten heads to her 19th parole hearing Tuesday, July 6. Being held for murder as part of the notorious Manson Family’s grisly Tate La Bianca Killings in August of 1969, Van Houten has been denied parole 18 times.

After the California Death Penalty was overturned and death sentences were commuted to life, Van Houten a devout Manson follower found herself in the California Institution for Women in Chino, while Charlie and several others reside in Northern California prisons.

Parole didn’t bode well for any of the family.

Patricia “Katie” Krenwinkel keeps company at the Chino Women center, as well and was last denied parole for the 11th time in 2008.

Calling his cell at Corcoran State Prison home, Charlie won’t have a peek at parole again until 2012. He was last denied in 2007 for the 11th time.

Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme faced life for an assignation attempt on President Gerald Ford, but was released August of last year. Squeaky was involved but not charged in the Family's 1972 Stockton murders in the house on Flora St.

Susan “Sadie Mae” Atkins died from a brain tumor serving her life sentence in the Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla, at the age of 61. Her request for parole one year prior to her death, due to her debilitated state and paralysis was unanimously denied. Being denied parole 18 times, she holds the honor of longest incarcerated female in California’s history.

Linda Kasabian escaped imprisonment as a witness for the prosecution turning state’s evidence for immunity.

Convicted of seven counts of murder one and one count of conspiracy, Charles “Tex” Watson waits for his 14th parole hearing in December 2011, at Mule Creek State Prison in Northern California.

Serving two life sentences at the California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo for the Hinman and “Shorty” Shea murders, Bruce Davis was granted parole by the Board in January of this year. The decision was overturned by Governor Schwarzenegger last week. He will again be eligible in 2011.

I missed this when I went to the Bathroom

I kinda told you so weeks ago----

Schwarzenegger denies parole for former Charles Manson family member

June 28, 2010 | 4:35 pm

A convicted killer described as a top assistant to mass murderer Charles Manson has had his parole recommendation denied by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Bruce Davis, 67, imprisoned for the 1969 killings of musician Gary Hinman and ranch hand Donald "Shorty" Shea, was recommended for parole in January by a two-member Board of Prison Terms panel.

But in a letter released Monday, Schwarzenegger reversed the decision. "I believe his release would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society at this time," the governor wrote, pointing out the gruesome nature of the crimes. "The first-degree murders for which Davis was convicted were especially heinous because both victims were abused, tortured and mutilated."

Davis did not participate in the 1969 Manson family murders of actress Sharon Tate and six others. Nonetheless, he "occupied a major role in the Manson family hierarchy," Los Angeles District Atty. Steve Cooley said in May.

Cooley wrote Schwarzenegger in May asking that Davis not be paroled. Davis, according to Cooley, had continued to "minimize, rationalize and offer excuses" for his role in the murders.

Davis had been denied parole 25 times before the panel recommended he be released. While in prison, he became an ordained minister and earned master's degrees in philosophy and religion via a correspondence program.

Murdering Harlot Still wants out

Notorious Manson Family member Leslie Van Houten asks to be set free -- again

Leslie Van Houten has been behind bars for over 40 years and has asked to be released on parole 18 times, however, each time the former Manson Family member has been denied her freedom.

She is now 60-years-old and is once again asking to be set free.

Although Van Houten did not take part in the horrific 1969 murders of pregnant actress Sharon Tate and four of her friends, she was involved in the killing of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca, which occurred the night after the Benedict Canyon massacre.

According to reports, on August 10, 1969, after being driven to the couple’s home by Charles Manson, Van Houten, Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, Linda Kasabian, Steve Grogan and Patricia Krenwinkel entered the home.

Van Houten, along with Krenwinkel and Watson stabbed Rosemary multiple times. Van Houten is said to have then changed into the dead woman’s clothing and scavenged the refrigerator for food.

To read about the Tate and LaBianca murders and see photos regarding the brutal slayings, click here.

The Pasadena Star News reports that officials at the California Institution for Women in Riverside County describe Van Houten as a model prisoner.

Susan Atkins attempted to gain her freedom for the 13th time last year, but was denied parole. She died in prison in September of brain cancer.

Leslie Thy Name is Murdering Whore

'Leslie, My Name Is Evil' Stars Talk Manson Cult, Suburban Culture

* May 20, 2010
* |
* By: Chris Jancelewicz




Canadian films are all snow and desolation and melancholy, right? Not anymore. 'Leslie, My Name Is Evil', a pseudo-fictional feature film directed and acted by Canadians, is found somewhere opposite on the spectrum, far from where we would expect it. Focusing on the Manson Family murders and subsequent trail of the late 1960s, the movie is a dark, satirical stab at the heart of what makes America America: the nuclear family, religiousness, 'wholesome' values, and military prowess.

In his film, director Reginald Harkema (known for his zany style and outlandish hair) looks specifically at one of the Manson girls on trial, Leslie Van Houten (Kristen Hager), as she goes from straight-laced daughter to outright devotee of the Manson cult. Harkema juxtaposes her journey with that of Perry (Gregory Smith), another buttoned-down youth who's selected as a member of the jury for the trail.

At times psychedelic and at other times sobering, 'Leslie' is an interesting departure from the usual Canadian canon. Moviefone got together with Harkema, Hager, and Ryan Robbins (who adeptly captures the manic essence of Charles Manson) to talk about the making of the film, and what it was like to embody – sorta – some of the most notorious people in American history.

Reg, what inspired you to make a film like this? And about this topic?

Harkema: It was a confluence of two things: the first Pink Mountaintops' album being in heavy rotation on my turntable with the song 'Leslie' playing, and me stumbling across a first-edition copy of 'Helter Skelter' at Value Village. I thought I could make some money off of it, but then I learned that the hottest Manson chick was this Dutch Christian girl named Leslie Van Houten – who's the exact same age as my mother. Then I wondered, "How could my mother become a hippie death cult murderess?"

I guess that's all it takes.

Harkema: That sucked me into the book, and then I found this little tidbit about one of the jurors being infatuated with Leslie. I thought that was an interesting story to tell between two people who can't speak to one another.



Those courtroom scenes can be really intense. Especially Leslie's stare – it's hypnotic!

Hager: Well, thank you! I think.

Reg, did you ever balk at the subject matter, or about approaching it in this way?

Harkema: The only time I ever sort of balked was when my next-door neighbour slipped me some ketamine, and I started having an out-of-body experience. I really felt like I was being sucked into hell. 'Halloween' was also on TV. Let me tell you: never try ketamine while writing a film. [Laughs]

What sorts of reactions have you received at film screenings?

Harkema: It's divided. People love it and hate it. Someone called it the second-worst movie of the year.

Hager: Yes, I would say exactly that. People are polarized.

How much research did each of you conduct for these roles?

Hager: I did more research than I've ever done for any other role. Ever. I spent a good month essentially locking myself up in my apartment watching anything and everything on Manson and his girls. Interviews, YouTube, documentaries, books, culture... you name it. I let it sink in and that was that.

Robbins: Yeah, I'm with Kristen. I think I came on a week-and-a-half before we started filming, so I didn't have as much time to prepare. It was a cram session for me. There is a lot of Manson's audio available, so I used that. And Reg had given me this book, essentially written by Charles Manson. I was more interested in his perception of himself than other peoples' opinions of him. I mean, no one willingly follows a madman unless there's a reason. I wanted to explore the girls and Manson from other angles.

Harkema: Follow them and bed them then, Ryan! You cutie. [Laughs]

Robbins: Now, now.

Playing Manson is obviously a major role. Actors would step over one another to play him. Were you ever nervous at all about taking this on?

Robbins: I went in apprehensive, but also a little excited. Speaking with Reg, I was really confident about his approach and vision. Keep in mind, our film is more of a statement than a biopic. There was more freedom that way.

Kristen, what was it like for you to go from Red Lake, Alberta to playing a Manson follower?

Hager: [Laughs] Well, it wasn't unlike Leslie's journey from a small suburban home. Fortunately I went to theatre school and had a few other jobs in between, but hands down this is one of my favourite roles. Definitely the most challenging.

What was the hardest scene you filmed for this movie?

Hager: [Laughs] For me, that's easy. It involved a kitchen knife and some blood. From the moment I read the script, I knew the murder sequence was going to be a challenge.

What were you actually stabbing?

Hager: A cardboard box. I don't know if there was anything in it or not. The make-up lady was sitting a bit too close to the box, squirting blood into my face and eyes.

Harkema: That was actually the toughest day for me. We were shooting in the middle of November in Toronto but it was supposed to be standing in for California in August.

What about you, Ryan? What was the hardest scene for you?

Robbins: Well, day one, the first shot is me having to have sex with Kristen. [Laughs] It's like, "Hey, how you doing? I'm the second guy you have sex with! Sorry about that."

Hager: It's always like that with every job I have. Intimacy is always the first thing.

Robbins: It was especially challenging because I was strapped to a huge cross in nothing but a loincloth with naked women dancing all over the place.

Harkema: That's really tough, Ryan! [Laughs]

If you can pinpoint it, what would you say is the main message you hope to send with this movie?

Harkema: I think it's a message-less movie. Take what you can from it. The only thing I hope to get out of this movie is that a boy and a girl, a girl and a girl, or a boy and a boy will go to it on a date and get into a big fight about what it means, and then have great make-up sex.

What stood out to me as the main issue was the stubborn adherence to that nuclear family, right-wing, religious ideal. It still seems to be prevalent today, 40 years later.

Robbins: That's what I remember thinking too, when I read the script.

Harkema: Yes, we're still making the exact same mistakes. My girlfriend of 10 years is American. We go to Tennessee and have Christmas with her southern Republican father, and then the other Christmas we'll go to Olympia, Washington with her mom's family, who are all dope-smoking lesbians. So the cultural divide of America is clearly demarcated, and that's what the movie is about – about how much that still exists today.

Like Clockwork

Cooley says ex-Manson follower shouldn’t be released from prison
L.A. County’s district attorney says Bruce Davis, 67, who has served 38 years in prison for the 1969 killings of a musician and a ranch hand, continues to ‘offer excuses’ for his role in the slayings.

By Kate Linthicum, Los Angeles Times

May 1, 2010

A convicted killer who has been described as mass murderer Charles Manson's "right-hand man" should not be released from prison, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley told Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Friday.

Bruce Davis, 67, who has served 38 years in prison for the 1969 killings of musician Gary Hinman and ranch hand Donald "Shorty" Shea, was recommended for release by a two-member Board of Prison Terms panel in January.

In a letter to the governor, who has the power to reverse parole recommendations, Cooley wrote that he believes that Davis "continues to minimize, rationalize and offer excuses" for his role in the killings.

"The viciousness of the Gary Hinman and Shorty Shea murders, the relationship of those murders to an effort to incite a race war ... and Bruce Davis' attempts to minimize his criminal responsibility make him an unreasonable risk of danger to society," the letter reads.

Michael Beckman, Davis' attorney, said his client has taken responsibility for the crimes and has changed since entering prison.

Davis has a sterling disciplinary record, Beckman said, has become an ordained minister and has earned his master's and doctorate degrees in philosophy and religion via correspondence school.

"If the goal of prison is to rehabilitate and get prisoners back into society, he's a textbook example," Beckman said. "He's not going to bother anybody. He's just going to go home to his wife."

Davis was not involved in the 1969 Manson family murders of actress Sharon Tate and six others. But, according to Cooley, he "occupied a major role in the Manson family hierarchy."

He was convicted in the killings of Hinman, an aspiring musician, and Shea, a stuntman and a ranch hand at the Chatsworth ranch where Manson and his followers lived. Police found a Black Panther symbol at the Hinman murder scene, which prosecutors later said was an attempt to incite a race war, which the Manson family called "Helter Skelter."

Manson and most of his co-defendants have repeatedly been denied parole. Susan Atkins died in September, shortly after a state parole board panel rejected her plea for a "compassionate release" because of brain cancer.

Davis had been denied parole 25 times before. At his 26th parole hearing, a two-person panel recommended he be freed. The governor can allow the decision to stand, reverse it or send it back for further reconsideration by the entire parole board.

What Did Bruce Know and When Did He Know It?

In the comments one of our esteemed regulars pointed out that Bruce might be the last to know what really happened with some of the more prominent events. That got me wondering what he might actually, really know.

Before we posit, we need to reflect upon what his relationship was with Charlie. If Watkins was the puppy dog, and Watson the pit bull, that makes Bobby the rival and Bruce the confidant and right hand, with Clem the court jester.

Bruce, when his actions can be tracked at all, is always at Charlie's right hand.

He arrives with Charlie at Hinman for the ear lopping.
He is right there in the fray with Shea.
He is convicted in both.
Upon Charlie's orders, he vanishes in the sewers.
Upon Charlie's orders, he gives himself up, never to be a free man again.

So we know he's close. If there was an actual NUMBER TWO then that would be Brucie.

So what does Bruce know, for sure?

--> How Hinman went down, and why. I mean what were they talking about in the 35 minute drive over there?
--> Who else was involve in the Shea Murder and cleanup (Gypsy?)?
--> Who killed Doreen Gaul? (I think he did)
--> What happened and why at Cielo (I believe he went there hours later with Charlie)
--> Why was LaBianca targeted? ( He knew True )

Any one of these answers would change the study of this case forever.

So yes, I would love to see Bruce answer them.

But he won't.

And therefore he should not be freed. Which I don't think he will be anyway. Bobby has only half the murder convictions that Bruce has and he's stuck too.

The First Cop Who Messed The Crime Scene Dies

Danny Galindo dies at 88; LAPD detective in Tate-LaBianca murder cases
He was the first detective to arrive at the scene of the LaBianca slayings and conducted a detailed search, according to the book 'Helter Skelter.'

From a Times Staff Writer

April 8, 2010

Danny Galindo, a retired Los Angeles police detective who helped investigate the notorious Tate-LaBianca murders, died of a heart ailment Tuesday at Huntington Memorial Hospital in Pasadena, his family said. He was 88.

"He was an important member of the Manson murders investigative team," said Vincent Bugliosi, who was the chief prosecutor in the case. Cult leader Charles Manson and several followers were sentenced to death (later reduced to life terms) in the 1969 murders of actress Sharon Tate, Leno and Rosemary LaBianca and five others.

Described by Bugliosi as amiable and hard-working, Galindo was a member of the LAPD's prestigious Robbery-Homicide Division when he was sent to the Tate house in Benedict Canyon, where the first five killings took place on the night of Aug. 8, 1969. As he told Los Angeles magazine last year, he took charge of the evidence being gathered and stayed to guard the house after the other investigators left the gruesome scene.

The next night he was filing reports at Parker Center downtown when he was called to the scene of two more murders, this time in the Los Feliz area. He was the first detective to arrive at the LaBianca residence and conducted a detailed search, according to Bugliosi's book about the murders, "Helter Skelter." Galindo later testified about the results of his search, including finding the word "WAR" carved into the abdomen of Leno LaBianca.

On the night of the LaBianca murders he was asked by a television reporter if the Tate and LaBianca murders were related and regretted his answer. "I told him, 'I think it's more of a copycat case.' I introduced that expression, and I've lived with it forever. It was a hell of a mistake on my part," he said in the Los Angeles magazine piece, "because it wasn't until much later that things would begin to fall into place."

Galindo was born in El Paso on May 4, 1921. He flew a fighter plane for the Army Air Forces during World War II and was awarded the Purple Heart and Flying Cross after he was shot down over Germany.

He joined the LAPD in 1946 and quickly became a detective. He retired from the department in 1977 after three decades in homicide. He later worked as an investigator for the State Bar of California before starting his own investigations firm.

He is survived by his wife of 53 years, Margie, a son, a daughter and a grandchild.

It Takes All Kinds...

Since starting the first TLB related Blog I have long encouraged others to follow in my footsteps. Some have done a good job. Most have brought the crazy in a big way. Long time blog students will remember JimNY Savage. His blog was full of self pity and stupidity, with delusions of relationships with lying murderess Leslie Van Houten. He also got the Col's Youtube account torn down. So I hope he is locked up somewhere.

I just discovered this blog. I know, but seriously how can I keep up with everything. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has got one.

The blog reads like the Col's retarded third cousin. I have outlined my position often enough that I find it creepy and scary when I see it repeated here, and incorrectly.

There is NO doubt that the BUG was not interested in the truth. There is no doubt that he invented the motivation of Helter Skelter. There is no doubt that Charlie never killed anyone.

These are all true, as any real student of the case will tell you.

This does NOT mean that Charlie didn't get a fair trial. He did. He COULD have played the game better and gotten a better trial. But he CHOSE not to. The law doesn't protect you from your own idiocy and being your own counsel is idiotic.

This does NOT mean that Charlie is some innocent naif. He was present at Hinman and cut his ear. He was present at Shea and orchestrated that murder in many ways. He shot Lotsapoppa. He WAS the leader at Spahn's despite AC's nonsense.

So when I see a blog like the one linked to above, I get depressed. Because the crazies make it harder for the rest of us.

Manson Can Go Free! (part two)

If Manson were properly advised, by his newly appointed advisor, he would, at the very commencement of his trial, do the following:

1) He would appeal for a trial away from Los Angeles County on the basis of a campaign of vilification being conducted against him by the media. He would stress the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Sheppard Case.
2) Manson should attack the California method of selecting the members of the Grand Jury. The selection of the Los Angeles Grand Jurors, for your information, is under the personal selection of the Superior Court Judges. In Jan. 1970, those judges announced the 1970 Grand Juries, whose average male age was sixty-eight years! The female members have an average of fifty-five.

An analysis of the ruling majority of these jurors shows that they belong to the WASP ethnic majority and tend to reflect the economic and social philosophy of the judges. Since the list of the jurors is highly secret and is not released to the public until the last possible moment, no citizen has the opportunity of investigating the background of these men and women who have the power to destroy a fellow human being by issuing a criminal indictment for whatever reason. The District Attorney can always find a reason.
Thus, a Grand Juror can be a Nazi, a white supremacist, a Bircher, a Wallacite…he can have a passionate hatred for young people or for the color of your skin, or for the beliefs and convictions with which you have been associated.
The background of the Grand Jury explains why no policeman has ever been indicted for a killing a member of a minority group. These jurors tend to believe that the cop has inalienable right to commit genocide under the banner of Law and Order.
Grand Jurors are personal selectees of the judges. The judges can sleep well at night knowing that they can depend upon them to return the kind of verdict they want.
This is why Manson must attack the method used by judges to select grand juries. The theory of the grand jury, as it evolved in England, and in the United States was that the members of the jury represented the over-all community—not just one ethnic group in the community. The average age of the members of the Constitutional Convention in 1779-1781 was 40 years. The average age of the 1970 Los Angeles County Grand Jury is sixty-three! And what a hell of a mess those old people have plunged the country into!

3) Manson should attack the method of selecting the members of the jury that will sit in judgment on his case.
4) Manson, if the District Attorney attempts to produce and read the Atkins $200,000 confession to the jury, should subpoena Lawrence Schiller, and Manson could and should compel Schiller to disclose and explain what, where, when and how monies were received by Atkins and Schiller for the “confession.”
In view of the past interpretation of the “basic principles of American justice” by California Bar, Manson will probably lose on 1, 2, and 3. But if Manson does not, at the very beginning of the trial, fight for a ruling on these three points, he cannot raise them on appeal. Therefore, it will be interesting to see how his legal “advisor” is going to advise Mr. Manson.
Furthermore, Manson, in his prison cell, must be able to produce some evidence regarding these three points. But if the judge, the prison custodian, or the District Attorney’s office refuses to permit Manson to study these three issues, then Manson has a good opportunity to be given a new trial, even if found guilty.
As to the trial itself, the only course that can assist Manson is the old, old adage: “Keep your mouth shut!” Do not go on the witness stand. Because, at no time, according to the “confession” of Susan Atkins, did Manson appear at the Tate murder site.
The greatest danger that Manson will encounter will be a “deal” between the district attorney’s office and the other defendants. Manson is the target that the establishment wants to shoot down and place in a gas chamber. A “deal” is an arrangement between a prosecuting office and a defendant or a group of defendants to confess to a crime, implicating someone else, in return for a light sentence.
Technically, this is illegal, but it has been used time and time again. The number of innocent persons convicted by this method is staggering.
Manson has as much chance of securing a fair trial in Los Angeles as a Russian in a Siberian labor camp. His theory that he has, or has, the hypnotic power to compel several persons to commit several murders is nonsense and would be laughed out of any Federal court because there is no medical proof in the thousands of medical case histories extant of any person being hypnotized to commit a murder. And to state that one person could hypnotize four other individuals to commit a group murder defies every law of medical and psychic science.
If the District Attorney’s office accepts the theory, then that office is automatically proclaiming that those persons who acted in such a trance or hypnotic state ARE LEGALLY INNOCENT!
For, if they were acting under a trance, they had no will to commit a premeditated murder of another human being. And under the basic principles of American law, no person can be convicted of murder if there be no premeditation, for there is no malice aforethought.
But will Manson, acting as his own attorney, be capable of adequately arguing these issues? Will his advising attorney advise him on how to obtain these facts on cross-examination?
If Manson can conduct a cross-examination, he may be able to hang the District Attorney with his own rope!

Manson Can Go Free! (part one)

We are going to start a new feature here, which is reprinting older news stories from back in the day for your analysis and discussion. Here is a classic... thanks to the interns who retyped it and to the original authors.

MANSON CAN GO FREE: Distinguished attorney maps out Manson’s defense strategy

Charlie Manson has stated that he intends to sit as his own attorney when he goes to trial for the Tate and La Bianca murders. The following article was written by a noted attorney practicing before Federal Courts and various state bars. He is also a prize winning author on laws relating to corporate and government practices, and of several books on international affairs. The following is his commentary on the Manson affair…which outlines the method by which Charles Manson should conduct the defense in his trial. The author prefers to remain anonymous for obvious reasons.

The forthcoming trial of Charles Manson and his alleged band of “hippies” for the alleged murders of Sharon Tate and her companions will be an interesting demonstration of how the law operates in a system administered by and for the members of the establishment.

As one world famous author has said: “Far too many lawyers have the morals of a whore and the soul of a pimp.” And it was probably with knowledge of this fact that Charles Manson stated in his very first appearance in the Los Angeles court: “As far as I am concerned, I consider myself dead.”

How the law – and the legal profession – operated can be seen by observing the conduct of the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office and the two attorneys representing Miss Susan Atkins. From the details slowly emerging from the case, it has become clear that Susan’s “confession” is not the true story of the murders at the Tate home, but that parts of it were concocted by her attorneys with the connivance of a member of the staff of the Los Angeles District Attorney.

The published Atkins “confession” is legally a fake!

Lawrence Schiller, whose background is discussed later in this article, concluded an agreement between Susan’s attorneys and the Assistant District Attorney for the sole and exclusive purpose of exploiting her false confession for the most base purpose: to make a fast back out of the misery and degradation of another human being.

This is how it happened: On Dec. 1 and Dec. 4, 1969, Susan Atkins was released from jail in custody of her two attorneys and the Assistant District Attorney. She was taken to her attorney’s Beverly Hills office on both days and in the presence of an Assistant District Attorney spoke into a tape recorder with a legal stenographer taking notes.

Lawrence Schiller was not in the office on those two days, but on Dec. 13, 1969, the Atkins “confession” broke in the European press. This confession had been sold to the European press by Larry Schiller for a considerable sum of money – thousands of dollars.

Since Schiller could have obtained the “confession” only through Susan’s attorneys, it can definitely be stated that Schiller, the two attorneys, and the assistant district attorney were involved!

It is incredible – by every rule of principle by American law – that two ethical lawyers would permit an assistant district attorney to sit in on their consultations with the client they were supposed to defend – unless all three had an understanding that Susan Atkins was to be used for the purpose of exploiting her alleged “confession” to produce money for themselves, to be split with a public relations man who turns out to be Larry Schiller.

There is no doubt in this attorney’s opinion that no Supreme Court in any state, nor the United States Supreme Court will permit the use of that confession if Manson knows how to use the legal tools he says he knows how to use!

Furthermore, the presence of an assistant district attorney, plus his involvement, directly or indirectly in this nefarious plot to use and exploit Atkins, is gross misconduct and abuse of office! Because the assistant district attorney, in law, in these circumstances, is an agent of the D.A.’s office, and as such, he knew that under the law, his knowledge of the Atkins “confession” would be published, and once published, could and probably will make any guilty verdict reversible in Supreme Court. (This does not in any way implicate District Attorney Younger or other members of his staff, since they could have been totally unaware of what was happening.)

The conclusive evidence that Susan’s attorneys planned the entire “confession” is seen by their statement that up to now they had not received any money from the Schiller activities. But, as seen later, Schiller said he entered into a trust agreement on behalf of Susan. If that be the case, then the two attorneys have no right to that money – especially under those circumstances. Schiller stated that he has given them money; they deny receiving any of the “confession” money. Someone is lying.

Finally, there is no proof that Schiller has even met Susan Atkins, but in any case, how did he arrange a trust agreement with her unless her attorneys were present?

What will the California Bar Ethics Committee do in this case? You can be fairly certain that they will do nothing. The “moral and ethical” leaders of the legal profession will sit on their collective asses and privately applaud this “coup” by two of their colleagues.

Manson instinctively knew that he could not get a fair trial “under the basic principles of American justice.” But if Manson had worn a uniform and had committed murder for his superiors in Vietnam he would have been hailed as a hero. For example, witness the pious outpouring of sympathy for Lt. Calley when he was charged with the multiple murder, the slaughter of thirteen armed men, women and children. In spite of the overwhelming proof that a massacre had occurred, in spite of the fact that the pro-American South Vietnamese Congressional Committee signed a written statement that a massacre of several hundreds of human beings had occurred (N.Y. Times, Jan. 5, 1970), the American press warned that all the publicity that they themselves had released and published in their own newspapers was damaging the case against Lt. Calley because of “undue publicity in violation of the Constitutional guarantee of a free and impartial trial.” And with every publication of the news of the massacre, Lt. Calleys chance for freedom grow geometrically.

But notice also that Sgt. Mitchell, who was subsequently indicted for participating in the same massacre, has not received the same publicity as Lt. Calley. Why? Sgt. Mitchell is a black man. The chances are 100 to 1 that Lt. Calley will go free and Sgt. Mitchell will be found guilty and sentenced to hard labor for life. Yet Sgt. Mitchell was obeying the orders of his superior, Lt. Calley. This is another example of how the double standard of the law operates.

It should be remembered that neither Charles Manson nor Lt. Calley made a confession. Calley was at the scene of the alleged crime and gave direct orders to the enlisted GI’s there to commit the alleged murders. Charles Manson was not at the scene of the murders for which he is to be tried.

Both alleged crimes were revealed by persons long after the alleged criminal acts were committed. However, in the Calley case, his activities were concealed by his superior officers in the U.S. Army until an ex-GI, without seeking or receiving any compensation, wrote many letters to the U.S. Defense Department and members of Congress.

After many persons had received his letters – and ignored them – the story came out into the open, and was confirmed by eye witnesses and by official photographers of the U.S. Army in Saigon!

But in the Manson case, there are no photographs showing Manson at the scene of the alleged crimes. The person who implicated Manson was one Susan Atkins – for money in excess of $150,000. Who is Susan, and how did she earn her money?

She claims that she was a member of the Manson “family”, which had semi-religious overtones. Manson, according to Susan, had such formidable hypnotic powers that she, and four other tribal members, committed four or five murders at the Tate residence, and on the following day committed the murders of two other innocent persons. The press, although there is absolutely no proof that Manson was at either of the murder sites, has now connected him to both murders. Susan Atkins has also connected him as the “ringleader” whom she and her companions obeyed under a “hypnotic trance”.

Regularly, at least once a week, the L.A. press keeps hinting that more bodies will be found, which were the work of Manson and his much-publicized “occult powers”. But no more bodies have been found. But the constant reiterations that the police are seeking more bodies influences and molds public opinion. The LAPD now has the opportunity to “solve” every unsolved murder of their books. Thus, the public, and the prospective jurors who will try Manson, will have been brainwashed. And while the Manson affair is trumpeted from every one of the news media, the Lt. Calley trial slowly recedes into obscurity – which is where the American people would like it to stay, according to Gallop Poll of Jan. 1970.

And who is Lawrence Schiller, the man who promoted Susan Atkins for thousands of dollars? He is a man who, according to a national weekly news magazine, “…would do anything for a buck.” A self-styled writer and PR man, Schiller became a public figure by making a fast buck on the controversy surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy.

Since Schiller is now a public figure, his activities can be legally commented upon, and so, with no malice in practice or thought, some of his activities are hereby enumerated:

In Jan. 1967, Capitol Records, a pretty big recording company in these United States, decided that one way of showing an extra profit on their balance sheet would be to bring forth an LP record dealing with the proponents and critics of the Warren Commission. To induce the critics to speak on this record, Schiller, acting as Producer of the record, informed these critics that part of the proceeds of the record would be given to the John F. Kennedy Memorial Society. Based upon that representation, many critics did speak, and waived their fee on behalf of the society.

But no sooner had the record been released than the Secretary of the Memorial Society issued a public statement that they had never been informed of the Schiller proposal. It has been estimated that more than 35,000 copies of the record have been sold, and not one penny of the proceeds have been offered to the Kennedy Memorial Society.

The next caper pulled by the promoter, Schiller, was a Jack Ruby deathbed “confession”. In this grotesque number Schiller decided to go for more then just a buck – he went for TWO bucks. Not only did he collect as the producer of the Ruby “confession” record, but he also collected as the “business agent” for the dying Ruby. But before you could say “pay me”, Schiller was receiving some very nasty words from Ruby’s family.

Schiller also co-authored a book defending the Warren Commission. The book revealed that it was written as fast as Schiller and his co-author could write. The “facts” stated in the book are of highly questionable authenticity, but the establishment press gave the book reviews which helped its sales. Not really good reviews, but it made a fast buck.

With these accomplishments behind him, Schiller really came into his own when he took on Susan Atkins as a “client”. According to Schiller, he obtained a “confession” from his client because he was touched by the fact that Susan was

pregnant, since Susan, by admitting her guilt, would face a long term in prison. With tears in his eyes, filled with compassion for the young mother and her unborn child, he would show Susan how to provide for the child’s college education – not with Schiller’s money, but with the money Susan would receive by confessing to being a member of the “hippie tribe” that murdered Sharon Tate and her companions.

Speaking like a “sob sister” of the old Hearst press, Schiller spoke his feeling on a local Los Angeles TV station. During this interview, Schiller, reclining comfortably, whined out his distress for the unborn Atkins child.

However, when questioned by the television “M.C.” concerning the distribution of funds obtained from the “confession,” Schiller became coy, and then became evasive. The interviewer did not press him too hard. Schiller admitted that the money received would probably run into six figures; he admitted that his share would run between eight and nine percent; he admitted that the money received up to the time of the interview was approximately $50,000 and going up.

He would not discuss the alleged “trust” fund agreement between himself and Susan Atkins. He stated that there was enough money for the unborn child to go through four years of college. But strangely, he would not say who had the trust fund, who was the trustee, and who was the administrator. We only have his word that a trust fund exists.

What he omitted to say is of more importance than what he did say: He did not inform us what would happen to the “trust” if: (1) the baby should not be born? (2) if the baby is born, who receives the interest on the money which accumulates up to the time the child enters college (3) if the baby refuses to go to college or does not have the intelligence or desire to go to college, who receives the money from the trust fund? (4) from the time the child is born until he begins his college studies, how does the child live, and who supports him? (5) who is the administrator of the confession money? Schiller? If so, he has another ace in the hole, because as administrator he could receive money from the trust!

In fact, if the trust fund is, say, $200,000, and the money is invested in non-taxable state or municipal bonds, at nine percent per annum, that would come to about $18,000. Mr. Schiller could have bread on his table for a long time and could indeed send his own children – and grandchildren to college.

Now Schiller has another moneymaking scheme going for himself. During the same TV interview, Schiller inadvertently exposed another method of making a fast buck out of the Manson-Atkins affair. He informed the TV interviewer that he was contemplating a lawsuit against the L.A. Times for “bootlegging” the “confession” of his client, Susan.

However, he assured the listener that he believed that the L.A. Times and he could arrive at an amicable settlement out of court. He did not say that Susan or her unborn child would receive any of the money he might get from the L.A. Times or that any of such monies would be placed in the alleged trust fund.

With all this going on, the chickens came home to roost with the announcement that Susan’s attorneys were not satisfied with Schiller’s benevolent arrangement of their client’s financial affairs. After all, when a couple of hundred thousand dollars are involved, some of it has got to stick to the real, honest attorneys, not just some public relations man.

But enough of the sobbing Mr. Lawrence Schiller, whose tears of compassion for Miss Atkins and her unborn child would water the Sahara Desert. The important fact is that this “confession” was used by the press to pronounce Manson “guilty”. The trial will be used by the media to create an overwhelming popular belief that hippies, long-haired youths in general, are murderers. The question of Manson’s guilt is not important to them at all.

But to Manson it is very important because his very life is in jeopardy. And what this all comes down to is: how does the law really operate for a person in Manson’s circumstances? What happens before, during, and after his brief appearances before the judge and jury?

gn:Unless Manson understands the

establishment’s rules in Los Angeles, he is dead. From his statements in open court, there is no doubt that Manson does comprehend that his chances of receiving a trial under the basic principles of American justice are as fleeting as a snowflake on a hot summer day. Several examples of California justice, as practiced by the local legal establishment, are hereby set forth to illustrate my point:

One interesting example of corruption of legal practices in California can be seen in a case that occurred some four years ago. In that classic miscarriage of justice, a citizen signed a divorce complaint accusing his wife of committing adultery with a judge of Los Angeles County. In fact, the complaining husband included another attorney as being a partner with the judge.

The outcome of this case is most interesting. The cuck-holded husband was declared insane by a judge who was a friend of the third judge. The husband remains, to this day, imprisoned in an asylum. The wife, who never denied committing adultery with the judge and the attorney, has vanished, but the strange thing is that the estate of the framed husband is being administered by the wife and the attorney he named in the husband’s adultery complaint. The attorney was appointed by the judge, also named in the husband’s complaint! This is what might be called having your cake and eating it!

What is not so surprising is that the members of the Ethics Committee of the California Bar found nothing unethical in the conduct of the judge and his co-adulterer.

This is the kind of “justice” Manson will face when he enters the courtroom.

A final example of the kind of justice given to a member of the establishment – as contrasted to the “common-herd” – is the case of a judge who presided over the Palm Springs area. One would suppose that a judge would have a greater moral stature than a mere attorney, like, for example, Cooper, but a judge always has opportunities which are difficult to dismiss.

In Palm Springs, the judge in charge of the estates of the American Indians systematically swindled the Indians out of monies placed there by the U.S. government. The money had been given to the Indians by a treaty, but the judge, seeing all that money in the hands of “savages” decided to have a picnic looting the estates.

How much he stole the Federal Government never decided, but it was in six figures. When he was caught with his hands up to the elbows in the theft, the Federal Government and the district attorney decided he should be warned to “go forth and sin no more.”

But the judge was permitted to retain the money he had embezzled. After all, what could those savages do with it anyway? Buy a home? Have a little food on the table? Send their children to college? The judge, of course, received only a small salary. Only $28,000 a year. And with taxes and everything, he was entitled to have a little.

And in this case, the California Bar Association did nothing!

Thus, the greatest problem Manson will face will be this corruption of justice by the judges and attorneys who are its administrators. Manson was absolutely correct in his statement that he does not trust any attorney, or the law.

But he may have some hope if he follows a proper legal strategy.

If Manson were properly advised, by his newly appointed advisor, he would, at the very commencement of his trial, do the following:

Bruce Davis : Follow the Bouncing Ball

Now I don't believe that Bruce committed dozens of other murders like the BUG would like us to.
And I don't believe he was the Zodiac like Nellie wanted to believe.
But I spent the weekend caring for my sick supermodel wife and getting stoned and the more I thought about Bruce, the more I think he has to be the key towards solving the motives.
No? Hey maybe not. Let's follow the bouncing ball.


I believe Bruce DOES kill Doreen Gault. Motive- dunno. --->

Bruce is part of the torture of Hinman. Convicted --->

Bruce is part of the torture and killing of Shea. Convicted --->

Bruce is NOT sent to Tate. But I believe he returns in the wee hours with Charlie to see if Tex did what he was asked. Almost as if they didn't believe he would. --->

Bruce is not sent to LaBianca. And I have a very hard time figuring out what he does do that evening. --->

Bruce marries Nancy Pitman and goes undercover in the sewers--->

I don't believe he kills Hughes because I think that is an accident. --->

But he is undercover for MONTHS- so what IS he doing? --->

Then he turns himself in. For good. Supposedly on Charlie orders. But for whatever reason he does- and that's it for him.

Now that he is up for a parole, a parole he doesn't deserve and probably won't get, I hope Sequiera and others get answers to these questions.

I think Bruce is filled with secrets.

Steve Grogan Murdered Shorty Shea and is Now Adam Gabriel, Band Member of Rhythmtown Jive

Finding that C and D letter from the silly lawyer got the Col pissed off all over again. She seems to think that after being a part of the most notorious murders of the last fifty years, Steve Grogan has some sort of entitlement to privacy upon release. Of course, as a failed lawyer myself I laugh at this woman. I especially love the bit where she says he has stayed out of the public eye. I mean WTF he is part of a band and his videos and pictures were all over their website. If that isn't the public eye what is?

Clem has a right to stfu. He has a right to a earn a living and raise a family. Hell, he has a LOT more rights than Donald Shea has at the moment. If he told his bandmates who he was and they accepted him anyway, then fine. If he didn't, that's his concern not ours.

But there is no presumed right to privacy for released murderers. And when he finally dies, Steve will be known as a Manson Family killer. If he is known at all.

So I am sorry Kyndra Miller, she who doesn't have a secretary answering her calls. Threaten me, threaten the missing Bret.

But Grogan is who he is and that's too bad for all of us. Really.

Those Were The Days My Friend

Why am I posting this now? I don't know. Maybe because I just remembered how super pissed off I was almost two years ago when this fucking lawyer sent me this letter acting as if I somehow was responsible for poor Clem Grogan, the man who BEHEADED Shorty Shea.

And somebody better tell me where the hell Bret is. Hey Bret, give me your site I'll make sure it doesn't fucking disappear every two months.

Yes I am in a bad mood thank you for asking.

(click on the letter to make it bigger and more amusing)

Please comment away about murderer Clem Grogan also known as ADAM GABRIEL. Thoughts?