I'm currently reading Helter Skelter for the first time

OP did you see the tv movie from 1976? The opening music will creep you out.

REDRUM! REDRUM!

Don't spoil it for everyone!

I read HS years ago & what was completely mind boggling was all the bungled police work. If Manson & his followers had even been somewhat sane/strategic, they likely never would've been caught and we'd be speculating to this day who killed them. We expect a certain amount of incompetence from cops, but this was a very high profile crime - and yet they still screwed it up.

Also, its hard to remember a time when celebrities were so accessible, living without security, protection, etc. It seems like another planet.

R1, no I haven't yet. Might check it out after I've finished the book. Curious about the theme tune now.

[quote]what was completely mind boggling was all the bungled police work

Totally! I am only two chapters in and it really is mind blowing.

I read that book when I was 15. I still haven't forgotten it, and will never read it again. Just horrifying.

LOOK OUT!

HELTER SKELTER...duh duhduh duh... HELTER SKELTER!

[quote]Also, this is just me being a gay man, but random guy turns up at your house at 11.45pm to show you his clock radio? I mean, from what I am reading that is exactly what did happen but I initially was like: "oh yeah that sounds like a quick rub n tug for sure".

It's so hard to tell because people, especially teenagers, really did barter and trade back then as a matter of course. I'm just old enough to remember thrift and junk shops also taking trades, you didn't always have to buy with cash.

Polanski just seems like the kind of guy a lot of people would dislike, and for good reason. I'm reading the Andy Warhol Diaries and Polanski was at Dani Janssen's Oscar party while he was out on bail, and acting like a real shit.

[quote]James Caan was there with his boyish wife, a beauty. They're all marrying younger girls who look like they're thirteen, the Hollywood thing. Roman was there, he’s out on bail now for the thirteen-year-old-girl. He jumped on Alana’s ass and said he was going to rape her.

Alana was Alana Hamilton, this was 1977 so between her marriage to George Hamilton and Rod Stewart.

[quote]It's so hard to tell because people, especially teenagers, really did barter and trade back then as a matter of course. I'm just old enough to remember thrift and junk shops also taking trades, you didn't always have to buy with cash.

This is the kind of thing I love learning about, and it's always a good reminder of how easy it is to put your own modern day views onto the past and interpret things incorrectly.

R7 - I GOT BLISTERS ON MY FINGERS!!!

[QUOTE]Polanski just seems like the kind of guy a lot of people would dislike, and for good reason.

He's such a fucking creep, hey? I find it interesting reading how many of his contemporaries didn't like him and thought he was gross. So many of those people who signed the Free Polanski petition on the other hand seem to be younger, a different generation who really only know of him through his art. From my admittedly weak knowledge of the matter. But I did think, maybe if those idiots knew him they wouldn't be so quick to demand his freedom?

I would guess she was just another prototypical rock star’s “muse” like a fuck horse liken to that of Babe Buell. There seems to be a certain type of blonde bombshell that seems to make these forlorn music geniuses bust a nut over and inspire them. Don’t be mistaken, I will forever be thankful for the musical gems these would-be incels germinated had they had no musical talent without these magical pussies.

I haven’t read it yet either, OP. It’s on my list though.

When I get the bottom I go back to the top.

[quote]He's such a fucking creep, hey? I find it interesting reading how many of his contemporaries didn't like him and thought he was gross.

I can't remember the details, but if I recall, Polanski was fucking other women right up to Sharon's death & not long after. In retrospect, you can see why the public & the cops probably thought he had something to do with her death, since he was likely done with her & certainly didn't want a kid

These people have been investigating the investigation for 17 years now, online. Collectively, they seem to know more about this crime than anyone. What they know and have discovered is really amazing, it's an enormous and deep research into this set of murders, and involves the history of the US during the 1960s, really; they don't seem to think too highly of Bugliosi or his "Helter Skelter" explanation of the motive for the murders:

I meant to define ‘rock stars” to any Hollywood hot shot. Of course, Roman Polanski was a director, not a rock star. Still, he was an ugly dwarf of a man notwithstanding his film talent. Why would Sharon Tate fuck that thing? BARF!! At least Shampoo Warren Beatty was a stud muffin. I could get behind that one.

I get that it might be an interesting period piece to read, but aren’t there much more up to date examinations that will have better coverage and insight at this point?

R18 IDK what are they? Anything as scary?

^"The Family" by Ed Sanders is famous. The Manson Blog has discussions of lots of other books that have been written about it, and goes into detail about their reliability. There were a lot of people in Manson's cult who were not involved with the killings and many of them have published memoirs, some flakier than others.

Helter Skelter is made up hogwash.

Read Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA and the Secret History of the Sixties.

^suborned

R8 - Yes, I thought his showing up with the radio was just a ruse, too. He was actually interested in boinking the guy.

The Manson Blog, R16, covers ALL the possible angles, and in so much detail it'll take you a very long time to work through it all. Was it a drug deal gone wrong, drug deal revenge, CIA plot to discredit the "free love" crowd, mis-directed attempt to kill Doris Day's son, Terry Melcher, and on and on and on.

I'd love to do some creepy crawling, not sure if I could suppress the giggles while doing so.

There is no credible evidence that any creepy crawling ever actually occurred, per the Manson Blog, and it is pretty strongly sourced info.

Someone always shills for that Manson blog on these threads, but I've tried reading it and it's melodramatic, poorly written, and poorly sourced. It's more about the bloggers, always talking about "when I did this" or "I thought that." Every update is more about the little group they've assembled, both writers and their blog followers, and it repeats the same stuff over and over without ever creating a real, comprehensive, complete summary.

That's how most true crime blogs and forums are run. It's all about creating a narrative where little bits and pieces are found and create a big stir, and you have to create these big stirs every few weeks to keep interest, but there are never any solutions. A solution is an answer. Their audience gets the answer they want and then the move on; the bloggers don't want their audience to move on.

I'm not saying I don't understand the allure of following a case in this way (or on forums, Reddit, what have you) and just talking and talking about it, but I also don't understand posting a link to the blog and saying "well, here's all the info you need," because there is no way anyone -- not even the blog owners -- can process and collate everything on that blog into a cohesive whole. There are no real answers there. Discussion, sure, but not answers.

I've never got the whole true crime blog thing; it's one thing if it's unsolved crimes, but for crimes like the Manson family murders, I think people try to find alternative explanations for what was otherwise inexplicable behavior caused my a convergence of events that can't really be understood in the present. I mean, I guess it's all harmless, unless you go down the rabbit hole like that ex of Patton Oswalt, but it seems like there are better uses of your time out there.

I like you, r27.

No, I mean I really, really do.

You have plans for Saturday night?

[quote]they don't seem to think too highly of Bugliosi or his "Helter Skelter" explanation of the motive for the murders:

I'm vaguely aware of the Helter Skelter theory, and I think that's the thing I'm sorta thinking will be along the lines of the "Darlene Ferrin knew the Zodiac" theory. Definitely not taking everything in this book as gospel. But I think for me it's such a seminal work that I need to read it and then move on to further information afterwards, like I did with Zodiac. I always kind of fun to then read the: "What people thought here was wrong" type information.

One of the Manson prosecutors-not Bugliosi-implied in an interview that Parent and Garretson were hooking up or something.

Parent lived in El Monte, far from the Tate house-it’s about 30-35 miles from Benedict Canyon.

[quote]One of the Manson prosecutors-not Bugliosi-implied in an interview that Parent and Garretson were hooking up or something.

Interesting! In the second chapter of HS, Bugliosi briefly mentions that it was investigated whether Garretson was gay.

As someone with a law background, the focus on polygraphs is bewildering to me, and I believe they are still used in the US today. One of the first things we learnt at law school was that they are junk science. Bugliosi even points out that they are inadmissible as evidence. It's so weird to me.

Well, just about to head off to work, will crack on with a few more chapters hopefully on the way there and back. More anon!

I don't think lie detector evidence is admissible in court but LE can use them as a tool in interrogation process if a defendant or lawyer is stupid enough to consent

Lie "detectors" are used to pressure and manipulate the suspect so that they blurt out something that doesn't gibe with something else they have already said.

The entire interrogation from before someone even walks in there is meant to psych you into saying more than you should, even if you are not the perpetrator of the crime.

I agree, R30, HS is the basic book on the murders and it is still fascinating just because of the record of how the police came to discover who the killers were and the general circumstances involved, and the antics involved in the trials. I think the book has been edited and reissued 3 times since it was originally published, with additional information (of course Bugliosi has died by now). But contrary to the naysayers above, that Manson Blog has some truly incredible detective work on it; it is not a bunch of typical crazy internet nuts (although those do appear on there from time to time, and are dealt with witheringly and with a lot of humor). The general consensus there is that Bugliosi used the "Helter Skelter" storyline to inform his theory of the case, to present to the jury. The Bloggists demonstrate, in the trial transcripts, where Bug coached his witnesses to support that line, and prevented them from clarifying their testimony in any way that would have undercut the correctness of it. It's not a question of the wrong people being convicted of the crime (as is true with many such true-crime scenarios), it's a question of what was the actual motive for the deranged killings. The connections amongst ALL the protagonists in the story are just amazing, and those are things that Bug did not have the time or the inclination, or the wherewithal to investigate. It's been over 50 years, and lots of information re these events has been hunted down since Bugliosi's book.

Helter Skelter is essentially a cover story.

R4 if Susan Atkins wouldn’t have opened her mouth about the killings, it would’ve been someone else in the family or Charlie himself. Charlie loved attention, as did most of the family. This is even in the best case scenario with a somewhat saner and more organized unit.

I believe Michelle Phillips wrote in her autobiography that the Manson people "creepy crawled" her house when she and John were married.

[quote][R8] - Yes, I thought his showing up with the radio was just a ruse, too. He was actually interested in boinking the guy.

The guy who was originally supposed to be Bugliosi's co-counsel thought so too.

In addition to the biography Manson: The Life and Times of Charles Manson by Jeff Guinn, I highly, highly recommend You Must Remember This' series Charles Manson's Hollywood.

I can't remember if the detail is in The Family or not, but there's a bit in the biography that talks about Charlie driving to the Tate house after the murder to creep-crawl it. There's something about that I find utterly terrifying. I'm also absolutely sure he found William Garretson.

R38: Michelle Phillips was notorious as a liar and and attention-seeker re these crimes and this scene, well before she wrote a book. The Manson folks, including the huge majority of them who were not involved in the murders, said that although some of the Manson girls referred to it, it had not happened. There was a neighbor of the LaBiancas', on the same street, whom the Manson folks had spent time with at home, and that area is usually where folks have claimed that the "creepy crawling" took place, but it appears to be unsubstantiated hot air, given out during the trial, for its obvious chilling effect. Again, there's no credible evidence that it occurred.

r40 Thanks for that info.

r40, well that's disappointing.

There is loads of real stuff to make up for that. Example, the man who was awakened in the middle of the night by Tex Watson and gals, the night of the Tate murders: he found these youngsters running his hose out in his front yard (they were washing the blood off of themselves); they claimed they just wanted a drink of water. They had parked waaay down the street, and headed off towards their car, walking calmly. He followed them a way and then went back to bed. I think he may have been a retired police officer, a pretty old guy. He didn't realize what he had come in contact with until much later, as the trial publicity was gearing up. His statements are pretty scary. He's lucky Tex didn't kill him too.

R4 Starting with cop mishandling the discarded gun that the son and father found.

R43, interesting, I have just finished the section of the book where Susan Atkins has been blurting everything out to Virginia, and she is bragging about that moment, saying it was with the Sheriff of Beverly Hills. When Virginia says there is no Sheriff, she's like: "Oh the mayor or whatever".

Just home from work and finished The Murders section and also a couple of chapters into The Killers ("October 15-31, 1969" and "Novmber 1-12, 1969"). Susan Atkins is a crazy motherfucker, huh? I mean, I'm going to guess they all were, but she is seriously batshit. And the way she talks about all that stuff in the way she does, it's so creepy and I don't blame Virginia for going off to literally have a shower after one of their conversations. I kinda love the whole two call girls trying their best to solve the mystery from within gaol aspect.

More and more we're seeing such incompetence from the police - it reminds me very much of the Zodiac when it comes to how different forces refused to share information due to jealousy etc. That's just pathetic!

I just read the name Bruce Davis and that rings a bell to me. Was he suspected of being Zodiac at all?

I also accidentally opened to the pictures page while I was reading this morning, and there is a photo of Zero, the guy who died "playing Russian roulette" and it is CREEPY! It's his dead body, yes? If I had seen that pic as a kid I would've had nightmares for sure.

R35, I agree, from the little I know all these connections really are fascinating. Also, I might have trouble explaining this, but this whole case is like a fascinating little microcosm of the times, if that makes sense. The various personalities involved, the connections to everyone, the end of the Summer of Love, the connections to Zodiac even... a case like this that goes beyond a crime to a segment of society as a whole and what that meant for the time is so interesting to me. It's why I find cases like Zodiac and Jack the Ripper so interesting, really.

Fascinating to read your post about the Helter Skelter theory too, thanks!

(oh R43, just to clarify, I was interested because you clarified what really happened compared to Susan's strange storytelling, I didn't mean it to come across like: "Well actually, the book says..." I legitimately meant: "Oh, that's really interesting!")

Hedy Lamarr also claimed in an interview that she was being threatened by members of the Manson Family (after the murders.) Although she was in mentally fragile state at the time,

Accuracy and motive aside, the book would probably get cancelled today. Especially the way Bugliosi continuously comments on the looks of he Manson girls. He calls Mary Brunner “singularly unattractive.”

R21 is right.

Got to meet Marilyn Burns who played Linda Kasabian in the TV movie. It was a huge ratings hit and I got to tell her how good she was in it.

R45 I guess you've already picked up on it, but both the Zodiac killings and the Manson Family Murders are widely believed in the U.S. to have been carried out by the American intelligence community. They were essentially state terrorism aimed at wealthy and socially well-connected people.

The Manson killings were meant to frighten Hollywood and the Zodiac was aimed at researchers and STEM workers in the nascent tech industry of the Silicon Valley area (threatening them by killing their children.)

That's what all of the police "bungling" is about.

^Well... that's the first I've heard anything like that!

It doesn't get openly talked about. Maybe that can change.

I meant to say, above, that Polanski gets even worse when you read the transcript of his polygraph interview and him talking about meeting Sharon, which really is him just talking about himself and what a stud he is going around fucking all the women he wants. Gross little gnome.

[quote] Still, he was an ugly dwarf of a man notwithstanding his film talent. Why would Sharon Tate fuck that thing? BARF!!

Woody Allen, too. I’m a fan of much of his work, but he’s physically repulsive.

Boomers will fall over dead when it is revealed that just about everything that happened after 1968 was a lie. Jfk had to go so the Saturn worshippers who remain in power could take over. Manson was a false flag. 9/11 was a false flag. The entire Laurel Canyon scene was a. Government operation. Read "weird scenes from the canyon" by David McGowan to find out that your favorite rock star was a government plant. The entire counter culture movement was a lie.

[quote]Woody Allen, too. I’m a fan of much of his work, but he’s physically repulsive.

While WA has clearly gone down hill, he was once one of the best directors out there & he carried Mia's career for years; I suppose Polanski, along with his tragic past (family killed in the holocaust, etc), had a similar attraction for Tate, who wasn't exactly the best actress in the world and was well-served by hitching her wagon to a (then) hot director. Had she lived, she probably would've decided that the career boost wasn't worth dealing with his bullshit.

R56, I've heard that almost every celebrity from the 1960s onward is ACTUALLY an alien replicant. Have you read that too? The CIA is behind it all, of course, the same diabolical masterminds who seemingly were never able to track down Osama bin Laden for an entire decade when he was hiding out in the open, in full view...ahem [>>cough-cough<<]. And Charles Manson predicted ALL of this, of course.

As a long-time True Crime aficionado, I would place "Helter Skelter" in my Top 10, if not Top 5 (with "Fatal Vision, [Jeffrey MacDonald]," "A Mother Gone Bad [Patsy Ramsay]," "Blind Faith [Robert Marshall]," and "Deadly Greed [Charles Stuart]").

Thorough, captivating, horrifying, enlightening.

R56, 1949 Boomer here. Still alive!

I've read that book about Laurel Canyon; it is a fascinating eye-opener. I knew about some of the parentage, but the military and CIA blood connections to "counter-culture" musicians and actors far exceed statistical probability.

But your date is off. Try 1963. Or even Ike's Farewell Address warning about the Military-Industrial Complex.

R16, Tell that to the LaBianca refrigerator.

Manson, by Jeff Gunn is also very good. It’s more about the whole SF Haight Ashbury thing and how a lunatic like CM flourished in such an extraordinary environment.

R60 The LSD being pushed in the counter culture and at universities was being sold by the CIA.

Not to derail, but you do have a point that these murders are ultimately related to the political upheaval after the Kennedy assassination. The CIA were, to put it mildly, thrilled that JFK was dead and took the opportunity to seize as much power as possible after he was gone.

It was mostly taken care of behind closed doors, but it went on for years and manifested publicly in weird ways.

[quote]OP did you see the tv movie from 1976? The opening music will creep you out.

"It's Today" as sung by Lucille Ball from 1974's Mame.

Nana had to chase some of the Manson girls away from her block parties during the Summer of '69 as they'd hang out under the picnic tables, scrounging for scraps of Mrs. Moe Howard's Tuna Casserole.

Excellent book. Chilling.

DA Vincent Bugliosi was outstanding.

To digress, because of r66's compliment to Bugliosi:

His book on the OJ trial is a devastating take-down of Marcia Clark, a completely inept, out of her depth, lazy prosecutor.

The OJ jury was never going to convict him. The prosecution could have played video of him doing it and it would have been a hung jury.

I loved the alternate take in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. Especially Leo casually barbecuing one of the Manson girls with his trusty flamethrower. Lol.

R69, I didn't think I would agree---but I do! So poignant and awful, though, to know, at the end, what really transpired.

R69 as I'm reading this book I really do feel more and more how satisfying the ending of that movie really is. Those kids did some really terrible, fucked up stuff to people, and what happened to them in the movie is really apropos, considering.

Today I managed to finish The Killers chapter on the way to and from work and also got two chapters into the next chapter, The Investigation - Phase Two ("November 18, 1969", and "November 19-21, 1969").

First of all, who the fuck was the elderly woman living in the dog house?! That was so bizarre, and just casually mentioned. What?!

He flagged it himself, but I did get slightly thrown off once Bugliosi entered the scene too and started narrating from a closer perspective. But I got into it pretty quickly. A couple of places I feel he hasn't explained something fully, but maybe he will later. Like, I know what creepy-crawling was (ugh!) but it's just brought up here in a way that feels like the reader is already meant to know what it was. But you know, not a huge deal.

My feelings about the people hanging out at the ranch is really that it was such a pathetic way to live. Free love and orgies and communal living don't sound like bad things in and of themselves, I mean, I'm all for do whatever you want and fuck and have fun, but the way this was set up just seemed, yeah, pathetic. Manson was clearly very clever to brainwash the girls into being like that and then using them as bargaining tools to get what he wanted. But the men coming up there to fuck girls whenever they wanted seemed so pathetic too (incidentally, I know an ex Hell's Angel who is the biggest love out there, he gives me a big bear hug every time I see him and I have so much time for that sweet man, but the portrayal of the Satan's or whatever they were called in this book does nothing to change my opinion that most men who get involved in this stuff are really insecure about their masculinity).

I know maybe I should feel more sorry for these kids, but they all seemed so dangerous. Scarily, in the pictures section, I noticed that Bobby Beausoleil is a dead ringer for a guy I used to know who is a big druggie, and is, last I heard, currently involved with bikies selling drugs (we've all said we're waiting any day now to hear he's been murdered).

The bit about Susan Atkins fellating her own child made me want to hurl. Please god make that be one of the rumours that never actually happened.

The bit that is really creeping me out still is how terrified people are who are in the vicinity of The Family. We're talking terrified bikers, ranchers, etc. That's insane.

There is so much info to take in, and all the aliases just add to the confusion. But there was a brief comment about how some of the men were planning to kill Kitty Lutesinger and another girl just before the police raided the Barker Ranch. I hope they explain that further, that freaked me out.

I keep mentioning Zodiac here, I know, but because I'm so familiar with that case and it happened around the same time, I'm interested in parallels. One thing I never quite realised is that Zodiac was already underway when Manson happened. I thought Manson was closer to 1967/68 for some reason.

One of the great true-crime books. Yes, there are other things you can read about the Manson case if you want to weigh different perspectives, but this one is foundational. Even if Bugliosi were completely off base with the motive (and I don't think he made it up out of whole cloth), his and Gentry's book would be worth reading for the comprehensive coverage of the investigation and the sensational trial, as well as the background on the victims and killers. The last part of Jeff Guinn's (quite good) Manson biography is essentially a condensed version of the Helter Skelter trial portion.

Two books I'd un-recommend: Nuel Emmons's Manson In His Own Words, which I suspect was more Emmons than Manson. The Family by Ed Sanders, mostly for Sanders's precious, dated "Far out, man!" prose.

I've liked all of Bugliosi's books I've read, the others about criminal cases he was involved in (Till Death Us Do Part, And The Sea Will Tell) and the ones in which he sounds about OJ, the Kennedy assassination, the Supreme Court, George W. Bush's war policy. He obviously thought VERY highly of himself as a courtroom presence, but then, he had the record to back it up. He was already admired and feared in the L.A. legal scene when the Manson case landed on his desk.

R71 The Zodiac started slightly before, he was already named and in the news by the time the Manson murders happened. The Tate-Labianca happened three weeks after the Moon Landing, and a week before the Woodstock Music Festival.

[quote]The Zodiac started slightly before, he was already named and in the news by the time the Manson murders happened. The Tate-Labianca happened three weeks after the Moon Landing, and a week before the Woodstock Music Festival.

That's right, first Zodiac was December 68. My gosh a lot of pivotal things happened around that time. As I mentioned above, this is what fascinates me about these points in history. I'm not a huge fan of the 60s as I am of other decades (20s, 30s, 70s), but the tail end of the 60s has a lot to sink your teeth into.

The ideal movie about the Manson Family would be an “LA Confidential” or “Mulholland Drive” type of movie set in the late 60s. The vampire house-invasion scene from “The Return of Count Yorga” (1971) was inspired by the Manson Murders.

It's funny, as I'm reading the book, my mind is imagining it portrayed in a David Fincher type way.

I always believed that the years 1968 to around 1970-71 were the nuttiest years in America’s history. Nuttier than today, for sure.

R77 There was a lot of instability. What I find amazing is how people took all of the assassinations and assassination attempts in stride and kept on living like they hadn't happened.

Michelle Phillips is not a liar.

[quote]One of the great true-crime books. Yes, there are other things you can read about the Manson case if you want to weigh different perspectives, but this one is foundational. Even if Bugliosi were completely off base with the motive (and I don't think he made it up out of whole cloth

Karina Longworth, the host of the podcast I linked to gave her take on the whole Helter Skelter thing: Manson didn't actually believe in the Beatles were speaking to him to cause a race war, but it WAS a convenient way to keep control over the Family, which was starting to fray, and if they kicked off a race war and toppled straight society in the process, awesome. I'm just plugging the series again. There's only one episode that's specifically about the murders, but the stuff about Hollywood during the period is fascinating--episodes about Dennis Wilson, Terry Melcher, Kenneth Anger's relationship with Bobby Beausoliel, Sharon's relationships with both Jay and Roman, and confronting what became of Roman after the murders head on.

[quote]I've liked all of Bugliosi's books I've read, the others about criminal cases he was involved in (Till Death Us Do Part, And The Sea Will Tell)

I really liked both of those, but And The Sea Will Tell does kind of laze out at the end, where he just presents trial transcripts.

R79 I agree. She knew a lot of stuff, a lot of the Manson clan hung around Cass. Frykowski and Folger were Cass's neighbors.

[quote]Michelle Phillips is not a liar.

Who do think started the rumor about Mama Cass and that damn ham sandwich?

Highly recommended the 1973 Oscar-nominated documentary feature Manson. The filmmakers spent time interviewing the Family at the Spahn (?) ranch. Fascinating

Sharon Tate was incredibly lovely, but no actress. I always get irked when some people theorize about what a great future awaited her, when she’d probably have ended up a Hollywood Wife to some other heavy hitter after divorcing Polanski.

[quote]More and more we're seeing such incompetence from the police - it reminds me very much of the Zodiac when it comes to how different forces refused to share information due to jealousy etc. That's just pathetic!

R45 It's still true today. Local police don't want to share info with State police and State police don't want to share with FBI -- everyone wants to be the hero so none of them pool information.

^And it's worse if it's an international crime!

Bugliosi is what the Powers That Be used to apply to whitewash stories before Netflix started doing "documentaries".

Sharon told friends that she was more interested in being a wife/ mommy than a star .

I remember reading an excerpt from either an interview with Susan Atkins or her book but she mentioned how quiet Sharon was at one point when it was just the two of them before Tex came back in. Susan had her in a headlock and she was just eerie quiet listening to what was happening. That always gave me chills.

Sharon's eyes are larger, her nose looks natural, unlike Amber's which now resembles a modified Sissy Spacek model.

Sharon actually attempted to flee when Susan Atkins ran outside during the pandemonium. All 3 killers caught her and brought her back to living room . Sharon Beg them to take her with them and give her two weeks to have the baby and then they could kill her. When she realized they were showing no mercy , she begged for them to cut the baby out and save the baby . It’s too horrifying and sad to contemplate.

Sharon was not exaggerating when she said “ all I want to do is have my baby .” Maternal instincts kicked in overdrive

[quote]R91 Sharon's eyes are larger, her nose looks natural, unlike Amber's which now resembles a modified Sissy Spacek model.

I’ve never paid attention to Amber Heard over the years, but with the Depp(s) trial being in the news this week, I’ve been looking at old pictures of her. She really is gorgeous (even if half of it is, as with all stars, Hollywood magic)

Baloney story.

Just got home, and am still in The Investigation - Phase Two, just finished chapter "December 9-12, 1969".

Bugliosi is an interesting character. I can't work out if he is a blowhard of the "everyone else is a shit person, and so yet again here I have to come to save the day" type, or not. I do appreciate him calling out quite bluntly the bad police work and other terrible behaviour of people. I mean, for the most part he literally names names and says how crap they are at their job. This book was really popular when it came out, wasn't it? That's gotta sting.

But as a poster above said, he's sort of unnecessarily blunt in parts too. He describes so many women as being "unattractive", for example. But I was also interested in how he described certain witnesses and why he was worried about them, etc.

As I have a law background here in my country, I am interested in a number of the ways things work in America, or did at the time. This bit interested me:

[italic]Under section 1118.1 of the California Penal Code, if at the end of the People's case the court feels the prosecution has failed to put on enough evidence to sustain a conviction on appeal, the judge is empowered to acquit the defendants. They aren't even required to put on a defense to the charges.[/italic]

Just little things like that interest me. I also giggled (with approval) a bit at Bugliosi's frustrations with trying to do things properly. "Texans are straight shooters, LAPD told me. They'll hold him until we get around to sending an arrest warrant." and Bugliosi is like: "Uh, how about we cover our asses here and do it the right way?" Incidentally, I'm not sure what can be considered a "straight shooter" about people not following the law, but just one of those silly things people say, I guess.

Reading Susan Atkins' testimony was hard going. I don't blame them having to stop because a juror felt ill. That was just awful stuff. It will be interesting going ahead to see what facts change, as she seems to be changing her story a lot between tellings anyway, and I'm not sure how trustworthy any of these people are.

[quote]Bugliosi is an interesting character. I can't work out if he is a blowhard of the "everyone else is a shit person, and so yet again here I have to come to save the day" type, or not. I do appreciate him calling out quite bluntly the bad police work and other terrible behaviour of people. I mean, for the most part he literally names names and says how crap they are at their job. This book was really popular when it came out, wasn't it? That's gotta sting.

One of the defense attorneys, Paul Fitzgerald, was angry about being portrayed as a bungler in the book. I had thought he sued for libel, but I don't see mention of it from a little searching (not a deep dig). Bugliosi was nicer about Fitzgerald in the new afterword for the 1994 reprint.

However, Bugliosi does give credit to others he thought did a good job, even rival lawyers Maxwell Keith and (before he died/was murdered) Ronald Hughes.

R71, You seem to have a touch of naivete about you.

What part of all available descriptions of Susan Denise Atkins makes you question any depravity associated with her?

What part of all available descriptions of the Hell's Angels makes you think your huggy pal is in any way representative?

Finally, I have trouble understanding why you did not originally associate these murders with the notorious and fraught-filled Summer of 69: the Moon landing; Chappaquiddick; the Tate-LaBianca murders; Woodstock. (To add: The year effectively ended with Altamont, complete with a murder by, ahem, the Hell's Angels).

Lay off him, R98. He's already had it explained to him, anyway. Do you know anything about Australian politics? No.

[quote] Highly recommended the 1973 Oscar-nominated documentary feature Manson. The filmmakers spent time interviewing the Family at the Spahn (?) ranch. Fascinating

It’s hard to find. I saw it a couple of times back during the days of VHS. I was able to find it at a rental store that had a great collection of obscure movies. I wonder if someone could find it from an Amazon reseller or something but you’d need a VHS player. But yes, if you find this crime interesting, which I certainly did, it’s a fascinating doc.

PS just looked it up. It is available on DVD if you can find it.

R100 I watched it on Youtube years ago.

It’s still available on YouTube. I just checked.

Susan Atkins died of cancer in prison in 2009. She had asked to be released in the days before her death, but was denied by her victims families.

I'll be a dissenting voice on the 1973 Hendrickson/Merrick Manson documentary. The filmmakers had good access, and for a while it's interesting to see and hear from these notorious figures so close to the time of their greatest notoriety (Brenda, Sandy, and Squeaky, armed, singing the McCartney-written Badfinger hit "Come and Get It," implying they would kill anyone who got in their way), but it's duller than it should have been. When it's not telling us very basic things about the case and the Family, it's drifting aimlessly through hippie life on the ranch.

Still, those fascinated by Manson and related matters should see it and make up their own minds.

One of the co-directors (Merrick) was violently murdered a few years after the film was released. It was unrelated to the Manson followers.

Fun adjacent fact: When Sharon Tate's sister died a couple of years ago, there was a story about how she pioneered victim's rights, affording the opportunity for victims & their families to give an impact statement, parole boards taking into account statements from victim's family members, etc. Obviously she was one of many, but the high profile killing gave her a platform that other victims did not have.

I always wondered whatever happened to the Manson family kids; were they adopted & never learned their identity? What a creepy thought - that Charles Manson might be your father. Or that the mother you never knew will spend the rest of her natural life in prison.

[quote]What part of all available descriptions of Susan Denise Atkins makes you question any depravity associated with her?

I never questioned her depravity.

[quote]What part of all available descriptions of the Hell's Angels makes you think your huggy pal is in any way representative?

I actually pointed out even knowing him didn't change my opinion of the others.

[quote]Finally, I have trouble understanding why you did not originally associate these murders with the notorious and fraught-filled Summer of 69: the Moon landing; Chappaquiddick; the Tate-LaBianca murders; Woodstock. (To add: The year effectively ended with Altamont, complete with a murder by, ahem, the Hell's Angels).

I don't know about a lot of this stuff. That's why I'm reading up on it and showing an interest here. To learn more.

You seem to think I meant a whole lot of things I never said or implied. I think your post says a little bit more about you.

Thanks, R99, I just saw your post then. I appreciate it.

Charles Manson's oldest son committed suicide, and he explicitly stated that part of his reason was never being able to outrun his father's legacy even after he changed his name. Hopefully, the rest of the Manson kids were blind adopted and never knew their origins.

Susan Atkins really was nuts if she thought she'd ever spend a day out of prison. The powerful Folger family has never sought publicity, but they are the ones making sure that the main Manson murders die in custody. That includes Waters' BFF Leslie Van Houten, too.

Can’t believe none of you bitches have brought of the beloved goddess of DL and her connections with the Mansons.

The MB's most recent post, from 4/11, re anomalies with the physical evidence found and reported at the Tate/Polanski residence. Apropos re the trial evidence; note that there are presently 47 comments, too:

Epic has a really good series on the Manson murders. Very thorough

As others have mentioned “you must remember Manson”’podcast is excellent.

Atkins is more than evil than Manson.

What is it with CIA operatives and sexual abuse of children? It's like their calling card.

[quote]Fun adjacent fact: When Sharon Tate's sister died a couple of years ago,

Funner fact. She ain't dead.

Read Murdered heiress living witness… you’ll be creeped out and intrigued how this woman lived after a group of people within her own company implemented a diabolical plan to torture and murder Dr Wagner. She was even declared dead by a medical doctor after being electrocuted. The thing is, she wasn’t dead. She regained consciousness and escaped from the 2nd floor room she was being held captive in. The whole book is amazing and frankly hard to believe. But public and medical records exist to validate her story.

R117 WTF, you’re pulling our legs.

I’m trying to find a good link, but 10 or so years ago there was a crazy bitch calling herself Rosie Tate Polanski, claiming she was Sharon and Roman’s unborn child and was cut out of Sharon at Cielo Drive.

She had some involvement with William Garretson too.

I think there was also someone claiming to be Zezozo Zadfrack Glutz, Sadie's son that she claimed to fellate for a while there too.

And of course, Pooh Bear, Charlie's son with Mary Brunner committed suicide.

Michael Brunner did not kill himself. Charles Manson JR killed himself in the 70’s I believe

This thread is fascinating. I'm remembering some link between Montgomery Clift and the Folger heiress but am too tired right now to google.

My bad, it was Tate's mother who was eulogized for her work on pioneering victim's rights; the daughter Debra is still active in the fight, though a sister did die of breast cancer several years ago.

Is there not an Australian analogue to this, OP? There's usually something.

Doris Tate was an utter badass.

Here she is speaking out against Tex getting parole.

Mrs Tate said in interview that while she was face to face with Tex, there was a moment where she felt her eyes turn black with rage like Manson’s. She said she could have killed Him . But she thanks God she did not give into it

Did they ever find out who Zero was?

Who would read it a second time?

OP Steven Parent was gay, and likely was stopping by to see if Garretson was down for a quickie. If he was or not is a fact now lost to history, as Garretson is gone.

Parent was likely a thief who was fencing stolen electronic equipment. Garretson's life during the brief time he was living in Rudy Altobelli's cottage at 10050 Cielo is fascinating, and has been explored in detail at the Manson Blog, including what he did the day that the murders took place. Garretson's stories about what happened that night varied a lot, and much of what he said about that evening boggles the mind, in terms of its plausibility.

I’m re-reading Murdered Heiress Living Witness

I read HS a long, long time ago. I read Bugliosi's book about the OJ Simpson trial more recently. I have worked in law enforcement and my opinion of Bugliosi is that he is too full of himself, too confident, can't see gray areas because he's so *sure* of his opinions and observations. I wouldn't trust his observations on everything.

Linda Kasabian had prosecutorial immunity & did testify. I don't remember the trial much, but that must have been a huge help for Bugliosi. Marcia Clark had no insider witnesses to put on the stand.

I think Marcia Clark did a good opening statement during the OJ trial. In retrospect and, after reading a few books on the OJ Simpson trial, maybe Christopher Darden (co-counsel to Clark) wasn't much help. I think he and Marcia got along well, as friends, but was he helping her win the case? Maybe not. It was an uphill battle, either way.

I had to go back and read some of the details of the murder at the Tate house, and holy shit, poor Voytek Frykowski really got the brunt of the brutality. Probably because he fought back, including pulling out some of Susan Atkins' hair.

[quote]Linda Kasabian had prosecutorial immunity & did testify. I don't remember the trial much, but that must have been a huge help for Bugliosi.

I don't know how much of it was embellished, but I came away from Helter Skelter thinking Linda would have testified even without full immunity.

For the 40th anniversary in 2009, one of the channels did a long documentary with some reenactments (they cast a butt-ugly guy as Bobby "Cupid" Beausoliel, completely missing the point), which also had interviews with Bugliosi, Debra Tate, Catherine Share, and in one of her very rare media appearances, Linda. She was clearly still very haunted by it, and I walked away with the impression that she felt like she deserved prison time for it...which Debra Tate viciously agreed with.

It would be interesting if Linda would’ve run to the neighbors or something to get someone involved if that would’ve saved any lives. I think there still would’ve been some killing by the time she and a neighbor would’ve gotten back. Or even calling the police I’m sure some sort of hell would’ve broke loose by the time they got there. Vincent did the best he could by getting her by putting the actual killers away, but I can see her feeling responsible to some degree.

[quote] I don't know how much of it was embellished, but I came away from Helter Skelter thinking Linda would have testified even without full immunity.

That immunity was negotiated between Bugliosi and Kasabian's attorney. I doubt that Kasabian offered to do plead to some type of felony and do X amount of years (in exchange for her testimony). She wanted and got full immunity (no jail) b/c Bugliosi wanted to win his case.

Debra Tate would probably have been upset with any deal that Kasabian got. Understandably so, but sometimes people don't understand that evidence has to be admissible, "relevant," etc. You can't just throw the whole kitchen sink at a jury.

Linda Kasabian was the getaway driver. If this had been a bank robbery, she would have been on equal footing with the people robbing the bank.

[quote]That immunity was negotiated between Bugliosi and Kasabian's attorney. I doubt that Kasabian offered to do plead to some type of felony and do X amount of years (in exchange for her testimony). She wanted and got full immunity (no jail) b/c Bugliosi wanted to win his case.

I'm far too lazy to pull the book out, but I have a pretty strong memory of Bugliosi writing that she would have taken a plea deal, but that she had a great lawyer who knew the negotiating power he held. I don't know, it's been a few years since I reread the book.

But it was all win/win. She got a great deal and Bugliosi made his case dealing with the one person present who didn't actually kill anyone.

Hey VOTN! I haven’t seen you in ages.

[quote]Is there not an Australian analogue to this, OP? There's usually something.

Hmmm... I can't think of anything in particular, though this is a big country with a lot of places people could disappear into with their little cults. I just never hear about them. We do have the highest number of "micronations" in the world, apparently. I do seem to recall that Aum Shinrikyo had purchased a sheep station or something in Western Australia, and they were found to have been testing chemical warfare there, but I'm a bit hazy on the details.

The most notorious case we have here I think would be the Ivan Milat backpacker murders (inspired the movie Wolf Creek), or secondly the Snowtown murders (people found in barrels in South Australia).

[quote] She was clearly still very haunted by it, and I walked away with the impression that she felt like she deserved prison time for it...which Debra Tate viciously agreed with.

At the point in HS that I am at at the moment, Bugliosi points out that while Atkins, Krenwinkel and Van Houten were smiling and peaceful, Kasabian was crying and looked distressed. Which seems the normal reaction, what was going through the heads of the other three I have no idea. It's interesting to me too that John Waters is arguing so much for the release of Van Houten too. She sounds nutty in this book too.

I watched One Upon a Time in Hollywood yesterday. It's interesting that he begins diverging from the known story with Linda Kasabian grabbing the car keys and driving off. Also, while I'm only a couple of hundred pages into HS so far, Tarantino really does view the Hollywood set there through rose tinted glasses. It almost seems a bit silly. But Margot Robbie is delightful to watch.

r141 I thought so, too. Some people slammed the movie theater scene, but I thought her face ran a gamut of emotions: pride, joy, insecurity, sheepishness, satisfaction. The same as when she is just driving in her car. Somehow those scenes hurt more than any realistic violent scenes would have. She was a beautiful young woman with her whole life ahead of her whether she continued acting or not.

Oops - R140

And Sharon was truly a delight in real life . She was down to earth and easy going . Very kind too

Too bad she was saddled with a cheating, sack of shit husband. Wasn’t he with another woman the night she died?

No ☝🏼Roman was in London filming a movie . He was set to fly back to LA in a week

He was in London filming a movie - and fucking someone else while there.

He’d already cheated on her a bunch of times.

He did cheat unfortunately.

That wouldn’t have changed. So had she lived she’d be a miserable wife, or single mom. Not that dying is better, but let’s not glorify her prospects.

R148, Sharon would have absolutely no problem finding another man . She did love Roman though . They were happy together

Would she want one? Right away? She’d be a single mom in the interim.

I've been reading a bit today, and am up to the beginning of Part Five, "Don't You Know Who You're Crucifying?".

I feel Bugliosi is making a bit too big a deal on the effect "take the back alley" or similar would've had on Charlie. The whole Helter Skelter/Beatles thing is nuts, like some teenage moron reading way too much into the music he loves. It just blows my mind that people paid attention to it for even one moment, even if on drugs. I've done things in the past, and I've never become credulous. Perhaps the point is more that these were often severely damaged people who were being given drugs and told all this stuff? Also, I'm aware that not everyone thinks this theory was even a thing, so that could be the answer. I will have to do much more reading after finishing this book, that's for sure.

Susan Atkins has just declined to testify, so they're going with Linda Kasabian, which, thank God! Having to have any deal with Atkins would've been pretty unpalatable.

Dennis Wilson sounds like a fucking idiot. I don't like Danny DeCarlo. I can't put my finger on why exactly, but I don't warm to him.

Why does Kitty Lutesinger keeps going back and then leaving The Family? Bugliosi makes this throwaway reference to her doing that, but she knew they were wanting to kill her, yes? And she was apparently scared for her life. I don't understand. I thought Beausoleil wanted to start his own group once he was out, so I mean if it were due to having had his baby, why wouldn't she just stay away from The Family and wait to join him when he's released? I'm probably trying way too hard to understand the motivations of some pretty fucked up people.

I'm finding it hard to wrap my head around some aspects of the case, mostly around all the people involved, because there are a LOT of them, with so many aliases. The main members of The Family, ok, I get it. But who were these miners or whatever who were around the Barker Ranch too, one of whom was trying to "deprogram" members? Like, I understand what was happening, but I guess I'm just confused because I don't really understand what these ranches were like. These other people were there, but they weren't The Family. Were they employed by someone to be there? Were they also living on the land and away from society? I thought it said they were miners, but then it also made it sound like they just lived out there and were fucking the girls too, and then they were scared for their lives. Yet part of me wondered why they had to be right there in the same area as The Family. I am assuming these ranches are huge areas of land that the owners themselves can't really control, is that right? Like the stations here in Australia that can sometimes be 100s or 1000s of kms large?

I'm probably not being very clear on what is confusing me here, just I guess who all these other people were, how closely were they in with The Family, why were they so focused on interacting with The Family and not just going somewhere else if they felt the whole thing was creepy. In particular, the one guy was like: "I needed to make myself useful to Charlie" and I guess I just don't get why. Am I making sense?

And so to get this really clear in my head - The Family lived concurrently on two ranches, is that right? Spahn, which was the old movie set and close to LA, and Barker which was out in Death Valley? And they would travel back and forth between them.

I think it's just the huge number of people involved that has slightly confused me here.

Now that I've also read that Leslie Van Houten apparently "only" stabbed a dead body, I can imagine why John Waters probably thinks she's different and more capable of rehabilitation, maybe? I dunno, it's all so weird.

R151 Bugliosi is dropping a lot of hints about who Manson was involved with and mincing words, since he wouldn't have been allowed to openly say it in at the time. He knew who he was referencing and he's vague because he's tiptoeing around something.

There was psychological manipulation going on in addition to the drugs.

There are a lot of more salacious details that he either omitted or didn't know at the time that have come out in later books. Early on in the trial, one of lawyers--I think it was Paul Fitzgerald, Patty's attorney--was starting to push back on Charlie's dictates, and came home one night to find Squeaky in his bed, with the message that he could get in line and have some fun with her, or they would kill him.

Which is why there's no doubt in my mind that the Family killed Ronald Hughes.

There's also the detail that Ouisch, who was handed over to Charlie by her parents, who were part of Wavy Gravy's Hog Farm. It was either Dennis Wilson or Terry Melcher who was into her which is why they kept coming to Spahn. And she was underage at the time, which is extra gross.

R153 Why would her parents do that?

A lot of questions R151 but yes, there were a lot of people involved - there is, as you say, the 'core' Family members but also a lot who came and went. Even core members like Tex Watson are part of that latter group as he left and then came back again. I guess some liked the life at Spahn with the sex and drugs and rock and roll (and ponies!) but just as a temporary thing, not permanently. All in all it would have been a fucked place to live IMO - eating half rotten food out of dumpsters and having to listen to Manson's nightly sermons. If you wanted to live a free and easy lifestyle in 1960s California I'd imagine there were more attractive places to do that than Spahn Ranch. One plus I guess would be having Juan Flynn around! He looks hot in the few photos of him and seemed like a decent guy.

The manson blog site that someone upthread recommended to you is good for filling in details. You can look up articles on everything Manson related via the tabs on the right-hand side and the comments are worth reading. They can sometimes get nearly as combative as DL, though no one gets called a frau or a cunt or a big fat whore.

I think Death Valley was sold to the Family members as being the place where they'd find the bottomless pit of the whole Helter Skelter philosophy but for Manson, the main attraction seemed to be being further away from the law as they were involved in criminal activities long before they started killing people. So they alternated between Spahn and Barker and Myers ranches, moving food and equipment out to Death Valley and keeping people at these locations. I think Manson wanted to 'keep' Spahn because it was close to LA so to that end Squeaky and others stayed at Spahn so a Family presence remained but the ranches were their remote 'safe spaces'.

The miners just happened to be out at Death Valley prospecting, ran into a few Family members and learned about Charlie and the whole Family thing. Manson wasn't there and the miners were able to deprogram members such as Paul Watkins and Brooks Poston. So it was just coincidental that the two groups came into contact.

Another good site for background info, osrting out who's who etc is cielodrive.com. The link is to its entry on Barker Ranch. As for motivations, that is what got me interested in this case years ago - not so much the motives for the murders but why would people do that for him. I still haven't answered that to my own satisfaction but like you, realise it's probably pointless looking for any 'sense' or logic when it comes to these people. I also wondered about Manson's ability to control them even in minor ways but have come to the conclusion that he was just a conman who happened to be released back into society at the perfect time and in the perfect place to 'father' his Family.

You guys have really come through, thanks so much for your explanations, links and also for not making me feel like an idiot (honestly, I was just getting a little bit confused in some parts and felt quite dumb). Some of this stuff is really getting pretty sordid. I read a mention of Hog Farm re: Dianne Lake I think her name was? The one who was beaten by Manson. The book said her parents were part of the Hog Farm thing and she was introduced to group sex really young, and the book doesn't explain any more about what Hog Farm was, and I'm not sure I want to know, and my god sometimes I want to be off this world.

Danny DeCarlo mentions being really into one of the girls because she was so sweet and he thought of her like a daughter and I'm just thinking "my god, if you thought of her like that and were sleeping with her too, I just don't know what to do with that information". And the way everyone was speaking at the time, no one really seems to have a problem with this stuff (although I think Bugliosi does, I meant more law enforcement, and just people in general. No wonder people defend Polanski, so many of them are creeps themselves). Talk about a different time!

[quote]I read a mention of Hog Farm re: Dianne Lake I think her name was? The one who was beaten by Manson. The book said her parents were part of the Hog Farm thing and she was introduced to group sex really young, and the book doesn't explain any more about what Hog Farm was, and I'm not sure I want to know, and my god sometimes I want to be off this world.

Was is Diane? I might be mixing two of them up. Mea culpa.

Yes it really was a perfect combo of time and place for Manson like I said in R155. But I guess that for every person who stayed with him there were many others who thought 'no way!' and pissed off real quick. It seems the most damaged people fell under his spell and became followers.

With the murder motive, I do think that for Manson, Cielo Drive came about from his rage at being denied the musical fame he thought he deserved - Terry Melcher's old house, the falling out with Wilson, the rich people living there. All people he wanted to be and things he wanted to have but couldn't achieve. Gary Hinman seems to be to stop him going to the cops for trying to rob him (and almost cutting his ear off!) and Shorty Shea was a similar motive - thinking he'd heard about the murders and would dob them in. It's the La Biancas that I don't get at all - it would tie in a bit with making Helter Skelter 'come down' but I doubt Manson ever truly believed in it. There are lots of theories about the La Biancas but who knows.

[quote]It's the La Biancas that I don't get at all - it would tie in a bit with making Helter Skelter 'come down' but I doubt Manson ever truly believed in it. There are lots of theories about the La Biancas but who knows.

In my mind, the LaBiance murder happened because Charlie thought they'd fucked up on Cielo Drive and the police wouldn't make the connection to the Hinman murder, so he went to another area he was familiar with and more directly orchestrated the scene.

Remember, he went to Cielo the night of the murder to rearrange things.

Is it known for sure that he went to Cielo that night? I know it's been rumoured/claimed, but it seems a very risky move for someone who preferred others to do his dirty work. If police had turned up while he was there he'd be trapped given the house's location. Then again, there are many unexplained things at Cielo, like large amounts of Sharon Tate's blood on the porch when according to the 'official' accounts she was in the living room the entire time. So I could believe that he might want to play around with the scene.

The other case that intrigues me is Jack the Ripper. With him, it's the 'who', with Manson it's the 'why'.

[quote]Is it known for sure that he went to Cielo that night?

I mean, absent any video of him doing it, I guess there's no way to be absolutely certain. I first read about it in the Guinn book, and I don't know this for a fact, but it seemed like he'd interviewed Pat (I don't recall him coming out and saying it, but he he had a lot of details from her perspective, and only her perspective, so it didn't seem like he was exclusively using secondary sources), and she would know.

And assuming the info is correct, I've always thought William Garretson either saw Charlie or Charlie found him. I don't know why he would have left him alive, but the weird behavior always seem liked more that just shock to me.

The Guinn book is good I reckon and it's worthwhile reading sources other than HS. I just didn't recall where I'd read the 'Manson went back' story. He said it was to 'see what his children had done' IIRC. The wanting to see it seems in character; it's the putting himself at risk that seems odd. He could ascertain there was no one on the property before entering but once there ...

I feel sorry for Garretson. He later claimed to have seen Krenwinkel chasing Abigail Folger didn't he? And also the door knob turning when Watson ordered her to check the guest house. If Steve Parent is textbook wrong place at the wrong time scenarios, Garretson is someone who was both incredibly lucky but also damaged for the rest of his life by that luck and the guilt it brought.

My friend has the Guinn book, so I will for sure borrow it after reading HS.

[quote]Was is Diane? I might be mixing two of them up. Mea culpa.

Oh, not a problem; where I'm up to in the book he has mentioned the Diane girl and Hog Farm, but I don't know yet whether Ruth Ann was also part of that.

Re: La Bianca - could it be to do with The Family having gone to parties next door before and maybe an interaction with the La Bianca's then?

The poster who told me I might have to keep the lights on isn't wrong. I'm feeling really quite creeped out at the moment.

[quote]Did they ever find out who Zero was?

I have no more information about this yet, but I can't get that picture of him in the book out of my mind. Freaked out here, thinking of it.

[quote]The other case that intrigues me is Jack the Ripper. With him, it's the 'who', with Manson it's the 'why'.

Me too. Both cases go far beyond just the crimes too, and become very much about society at large at the time, and involve a lot of people from all walks of life.

[quote]OP did you see the tv movie from 1976? The opening music will creep you out.

Is this the one you mean, R1?

Yes R164 - both Manson and Jack the Ripper seem to be part of a 'perfect storm' of time and place. With JtR you have the beginnings of the police force, the start of the newspaper trade, the spotlight it put on conditions in the East End and the hysteria surrounding the actual killings. And of course the fact he was never caught. Do you think that he was just some anonymous local who knew the area and was able to evade capture but not someone who has ever been named as a suspect? I recall reading some Ripper historian saying that he believed that if the Ripper was ever able to appear before all those who study the case, the collective response would be 'And who the hell are you?'.

With Manson you have the juxtaposition of the 60s peace and love vibe with what seemed like a bunch of hippies committing horrific murders. Add a beautiful, young and very pregnant celebrity and an insane sounding 'official' motive and there you go - a case that still intrigues people 50+ years later. I think it is largely why van Houten will never get out - no politician is going to want a 'Governor Frees Manson Killer' headline hung around their neck.

[quote]I just didn't recall where I'd read the 'Manson went back' story.

It's also in The Family, I think. I just read Guinn before I'd read that.

[quote]Oh, not a problem; where I'm up to in the book he has mentioned the Diane girl and Hog Farm, but I don't know yet whether Ruth Ann was also part of that.

No, you're right. I think she was 14 when she went to Charlie. I think Ouisch had a father who was some kind of hippie preacher, which may be why I mixed them up.

[quote]The poster who told me I might have to keep the lights on isn't wrong. I'm feeling really quite creeped out at the moment.

Not to beat this drum, but the idea of Charlie going back to the house is utterly terrifying to me. I have no idea why, aside from Garretson he couldn't have hurt anyone. But the image of him looking at the carnage just sends a chill down my spine.

Same with Linda misdirecting them from the apartment of the actor she knew. Even if she went to a rando's apartment and pretended there was no one there, she saved that person's life. And of course, Susan taking a dump on the building's stairs when they couldn't kill someone else. Bugliosi described her as an animal, and I don't think he was wrong.

[quote]Me too. Both cases go far beyond just the crimes too, and become very much about society at large at the time, and involve a lot of people from all walks of life.

Giving one last plug to You Must Remember Manson. It's the most compelling recounting of the burgeoning New Hollywood and hippie music scene that Charlie was trying to move in.

For me, one of the biggest takeaways from this book was unrestrained freedom Boomer teenagers were given. So many of Manson's members were runaways or kicked-out of the house and essentially never checked-up on again. This very rarely happens today as the parent would be seen as legally responsible. It seemed so easy to be a grifter back then. You could flee your hometown, change your name, and never be found! Also, I have a question for the LSD users here: they apparently were taking LSD non-stop for several months, how much of an impact would this have on breaking the psyche and conscience? Do you think it's just an excuse or did it play a large role?

Yes R166 I listened to that podcast too and thought it was very good at giving a sense of the time in LA. Just the fact that a Beach Boy would pick up hitchhikers or even hitch himself (IIRC Watson picked him up hitching one time) shows that it was a different time with different attitudes.

There's lots of chilling aspects to the case - for me, Tex Watson saying to Frykowski 'I'm the devil and I'm here to do the devil's business' is a spine chiller and he certainly made good on his word.

R4 most celebs do live without security in upper middle class (though priced as upper class) homes in SoCal. They can’t afford a Kardashian style compound. I know bringing them up triggers some fonts but these types of threats might have been what Meghan and Harry were going on about. Suddenly feeling very exposed while being well know, with a internet hive of troll that want your head on a spike for saying something negative about the RF.

California fonts say repeatedly that they run into celebs all the time or see them walking their dogs. I’m JYC they are even more exposed, though their apartments are more secure.

I grew up in a rough neighbourhood and it was not uncommon to hear teens brag about how they wouldn’t mind killing someone for no reason whatsoever. People under the age of 25 are scary and unpredictable.

[quote]Do you think that he was just some anonymous local who knew the area and was able to evade capture but not someone who has ever been named as a suspect? I recall reading some Ripper historian saying that he believed that if the Ripper was ever able to appear before all those who study the case, the collective response would be 'And who the hell are you?'.

I think this is most likely too.

You know the part of JtR I always come back to thinking about is the murder of Liz Stride and the man Israel Schwartz walking past who saw her being assaulted by one man and then was followed or perhaps chased by a second man. I keep wondering - did he see the killer in that moment?

[quote]Not to beat this drum, but the idea of Charlie going back to the house is utterly terrifying to me. I have no idea why, aside from Garretson he couldn't have hurt anyone. But the image of him looking at the carnage just sends a chill down my spine.

Yeah that, and all the creepy-crawly stuff terrifies me. I think home invasion is one of the creepiest things. The Original Night Stalker freaks me out for the same reason. Also, the whole thing with Garretson makes me shiver. What actually happened that night from his perspective? It's really unsettling, even if it is "just" him sitting listening to music and not knowing what is going on. But the other options just get progressively creepier.

[quote]Same with Linda misdirecting them

Not got to this bit yet, but I am very interested to read about it, as it has just been flagged that a number of other possible murders were going to be committed that night. I just had a look through the second collection of photos in the book and it does mention Linda telling Charlie: "I'm not like you, I can't just kill people" or something.

Photos of the two bikers (Danny and Al) show two men I find pretty attractive, which I wasn't expecting. Someone above mention Juan being hot and he certainly was.

[quote]Giving one last plug to You Must Remember Manson.

Thank you, I will definitely get onto more sources once I've finished this book. One thing I definitely want to find is a comprehensive and at the same time simply described timeline of all events.

[quote]For me, one of the biggest takeaways from this book was unrestrained freedom Boomer teenagers were given.

Right? So much of this stuff fascinates me too. Also how people just could go somewhere and start anew with a different name. That would be almost impossible in my lifetime, it's fascinating.

I don't think it was all bad, either. A number of teenagers at that time were also looking after themselves and making adult decisions in a way I think Gen Z today would struggle with. I don't mean running away and joining cults, but just getting around and doing things. Like the 15 year old in HS who knew all about how to call things into the police, was in the middle of warming the car up, etc.

[quote]for me, Tex Watson saying to Frykowski 'I'm the devil and I'm here to do the devil's business' is a spine chiller and he certainly made good on his word.

The way Tex was treated in Texas gaol before going to California made me mad to read about.

[quote] For me, one of the biggest takeaways from this book was unrestrained freedom Boomer teenagers were given. So many of Manson's members were runaways or kicked-out of the house and essentially never checked-up on again.

Those kids were raised by parents who’d experienced WW2 and the Great Depression. People born in the late 1910s and 20s were generally tough as shit. Also they were not really that square. I knew people from that generation and they were not as uptight as the generation who became parents during the Reagan years.

I think a few people probably saw the Ripper - most of the victims were seen with someone not long before they were killed, with both Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes coming to mind. I think though that in both cases the males were only seen from behind so no one got a good look. And descriptions of height, clothing etc all seem to vary! I used to read a Ripper forum and they get even more argumentative with one and other than those that are interested in the Manson case.

Manson (through Nuel Emmons) also describes his return to the Cielo scene in the In His Own Words book published in the mid-1980s. He claims he took along a Family member. He doesn't say whether it was a man or a woman, but it's implied it's not one of the killers from the first trip, and it's someone he really trusted. (Maybe Nancy Pittman/Brenda McCann?) I think they planted the glasses that didn't belong to anyone on the premises or to any of the killers.

[quote]I can't get that picture of (Zero) in the book out of my mind. Freaked out here, thinking of it.

That's Zero's morgue photo. His eyes are closed in the un-doctored version; open eyes have been pasted on for the one in the book. If that's supposed to make it look LESS creepy, it definitely doesn't work.

It's strangely hard to find a photo of him when he was alive. At one time, there was a picture on one of the Manson sites that was conclusively demonstrated to be of someone else.

Were those ranches (Spahn / Barker) actual working ranches or abandoned land? Gold miners? Sounds like a way to eke out a living.

This thread has gotten me re-interested in Manson stuff to the point where I've been reading Tex Watson's 2021 parole hearing on the cielodrive site! In between a lot of umms and aaahs and not remembering stuff he says it was Manson and someone called TJ who went back to the house after the murders.

Spahn had been a set for movies and TV shows but with the decline of Westerns, made whatever money it did out of hiring out horses to go riding in the hills behind. The Family helped out with looking after the horses and taking people on trail rides as part of staying there. Just another strange aspect of this strange case: Riding with the Family.

TJ would be Thomas "TJ the Terrible" Walleman, who was with Manson when Manson shot Bernard Crowe (fatally, they mistakenly thought). He became a reluctant prosecution witness, and his testimony linked Manson to the gun used in the Tate killings. He would make sense as Manson's companion on the return trip to Cielo.

[quote]His eyes are closed in the un-doctored version; open eyes have been pasted on for the one in the book. If that's supposed to make it look LESS creepy, it definitely doesn't work.

Jesus! You are right, that definitely didn't work. Holy cow I'm going to be jumping at noises tonight. It's nearly 1 in the morning and I need to get to sleep and even the slightest sound has me on edge at the moment.

I just read one more chapter before bed (so, you might say it's my own fault), the one where Linda Kasabian tells her version of events. I had a brief thought as I was reading: what if it were Linda who had turned the door handle on the guest house, noticed Garretson and left and said nothing about it? She had already lied that the back of the house was locked up and the guest house was beyond that, if I remember correctly.

But, then I quickly realised it's not very likely. She would've reported she had done that as she was willing to tell everything she could remember and she would've remembered that. Also, how far away was the guest house? She probably didn't go that far or bother too much, it sounds like she was trying her best to pretend she wasn't there at all.

There were SO many people who might have been killed that night if not for other circumstances: the people in the house with the children, the people in the houses that were too close to each other, a priest or minister in that church, the person in the white sports car, the actor that Linda had fucked, hell even the man on the fourth floor if the other Family members had gotten trigger happy too early. It's so weird to think you could nearly be the victim of a crime like that and have escaped without knowing it.

R173, I think you're right. The East End sounds like it was crowded then, even in the early hours of the morning. Those witness statements are so varied. I have a fantastic book "The Facts" by Paul Begg, which covers everything. Not only are the witness statements so varied, they're also chilling a lot of the time. I am sure some people made shit up for attention, but even so. The story the two women told about the "mysterious man with the black bag" who tried to get one or the other of them to go with him down into an alley - brrr! And here I go again, I'm never going to sleep, haha!

R167, constant use of LSD can make you highly suggestible. Charlie would dose all his family members before giving his nightly sermons, while he stayed sober or took a very small dose. It's part of the technique he used to break their will.

Always remember, Charlie started out as a pimp. He was very good at manipulating vulnerable people, especially young women. That doesn't excuse what Katie, Sadie, and Leslie did, but it does explain some of what happened. Any young woman with enough self-esteem to say no to Charlie didn't get to stay on the ranch. This was dramatized hilariously in the Charlie Says movie: One of Charlie's male followers brings a pretty young girl around, he starts his manipulative bullshit on her, and she tells him to fuck off. He flips out and tells her to leave.

Maybe read a ghost or vampire story to set your mind at ease R179 - after all, unlike psychotic killers, ghosts and vampires aren't real. Or are they? Nah, don't worry - I'm in the same time zone as you and also about to turn out the light!

Manson was also in his 30s. So, it would be like going back to high school & dealing with teenagers.

Interestingly (to me), George Carlin said that part of his success was being a little older (30s) when all the Summer of Love stuff was happening. When you're a little older & more experienced, you have the edge on younger people.

Hehe well I hope you sleep well, R181! As I hope for myself ;). And you make a good point really. Ghosts, vampires, supernatural stuff never scares me. It did when I was younger, but not now. But someone creeping into your house in the night is a real thing that can happen, which is why stories like this always give me the heebies.

Agree r167 it certainly was a very different time. After the first half of the 20th century with WW1 + WW2 and then the stodgy 50s, the sixties just exploded. My parents were children of immigrants living in NY. They hated hippies, anything to do with women’s lib and hippie music. They liked Frank Sinatra, women barefoot and pregnant, and children seen and not heard. My older siblings (who should have embraced the 60s culture) were into the greaser culture and like 50s pop music (Frankie Avalon, etc)

IMO, this crime will be remembered for centuries.

It was an incredible book, which my child self found just laying around the house and which I probably had no business reading. That and "The Exorcist." Parents didn't worry so much what we did, read, or saw in those days.

[quote]I had a brief thought as I was reading: what if it were Linda who had turned the door handle on the guest house, noticed Garretson and left and said nothing about it? She had already lied that the back of the house was locked up and the guest house was beyond that, if I remember correctly.

I believe Pat Krenwinkel was the one who was supposed to check the guest house, and claimed to have done so. She was doing that while Susan Atkins was looking through the house (and finding Jay, Sharon, and Abigail), and Tex was guarding Voytek F.

“ Manson did not kill my daughter, Susan Atkins , Tex Watson and Patricia krenwinkle killed my daughter..”

“They were all diabolical killers”

“ Manson doesn’t scare me, it’s the others that scare the hell out of me.”

Doris Tate

Forgot to add: my older siblings who hated the hippie culture, are now MAGAs idiots.

Although, Im sure there are lot of boomers, who were hippies, and are now MAGA

I read that only a small percentage of youth became hippies. The hippies' cultural impact was far greater than their numbers.

[quote]R169 I know bringing them up triggers some fonts but…

Helvetica Narrow gets extremely nervous, but Arial Bold and Copperplate try to cheer her up.

Most learn to live with it.

I read it years ago and felt sorry for the housekeeper who found the bodies.

No Comic Sans, though, please.

Most Ripper eyewitnesses, at least the ones the police considered the most credible, gave generally consistent descriptions: 5 feet, 7 or 8 inches, stocky build, ruddy complexion, mustache, wearing a medium to long overcoat and some sort of peaked hat.

[quote]For me, one of the biggest takeaways from this book was unrestrained freedom Boomer teenagers were given. So many of Manson's members were runaways or kicked-out of the house and essentially never checked-up on again

It's not impossible for people to completely vanish these days, but the late 60s and 70s were really the golden era for it. The fact that the majority of the interstates had been completed made transit easier. Probably also the reason for the seeming explosion of serial killers as well.

Wasn't there a body of a French-Canadian woman who'd been missing for decades who was identified within the last ten years? There was speculation that she'd been another victim of the Family.

I know Catherine Share has said she thinks there are other bodies buried on Barker Ranch. They actually tried to do a dig maybe fifteen years ago, but it's National Park Service land now, and they were shut down when they found Native American artifacts.

[quote]I know Catherine Share has said she thinks there are other bodies buried on Barker Ranch.

She's the one played by Lena Dunham in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, yes?

[quote]I read it years ago and felt sorry for the housekeeper who found the bodies.

There's quite a dispassionate tone taken about her in the book too, basically just spoken about as being too hysterical to be a good witness.

[quote]I believe Pat Krenwinkel was the one who was supposed to check the guest house, and claimed to have done so. She was doing that while Susan Atkins was looking through the house (and finding Jay, Sharon, and Abigail), and Tex was guarding Voytek F.

Thanks for that, that's interesting and makes it even weirder that Garretson survived the night, based on what I've read so far.

[quote]It was an incredible book, which my child self found just laying around the house and which I probably had no business reading. That and "The Exorcist." Parents didn't worry so much what we did, read, or saw in those days.

Child of the 90s here and can confirm this too. I was allowed to read anything from my parent's bookshelves. Occasionally they would check in about how I felt about something (I remember dad doing that with Stephen King's Rose Madder because he found that story had a lot of really disturbing stuff in it), but never stopped me. As a teacher of mine once said: "Kids only get out of stuff what they are ready to get out of it. Everything else will go over their heads", which is definitely how it was with me.

Catherine Share was detached due to a traumatic childhood of so much loss

R189 Well, of course only a small percentage of teens in the late 60s became "hippies".

Not any different than any other trendy youth culture like Goths or Punks or Beatniks. A few assume those identities, then they become trendy and fashionable (usually for a hot minute) and a few more play at following that cultural trend (but it's mostly about wearing the clothes for a short period of time) and then it's on to the next "cool" thing.

And, there's always a few hardcore cases that try and live that lifestyle forever instead of giving up after a year or two of it when you're in the 15 to 25 age group.

We call those people "sad and pathetic".

As a child of the 70s I read all sorts of things that were lying around the house: Harold Robbins and the Falconhurst/Mandingo books - I read heaps of the latter and they were an eye-opener in addition to having an affect on other body parts.

In terms of rules, our only real one when out and about was to head home when the street lights came on.

[quote]In terms of rules, our only real one when out and about was to head home when the street lights came on.

Same here (for the 1990s). I'd get home from school, hop onto my bike and go cycling off wherever. We had to be back for tea. If it was summer we would go out again after tea. When it was colder or wet, I'd hunker down in front of the oil heater with a book I had grabbed off my parent's bookshelf, and at a certain age was looking for anything that had sex scenes in it, haha. Staying up late at night as a kid while my dad introduced me to movies that he loved which nowadays would be considered too 'scary' for kids, but I loved the thrill.

I want to give these wonderful experiences to nephews but these days it's all about how everything could damage the kids and they need to be protected. The children's shows they watch are so dumbed down it's offensive. And uh oh, now I've ended up on a random 'things were better in my day' rant, which wasn't my intention. I just really wanted to say, I get you R198. There were some good things about those days.

[quote]She's the one played by Lena Dunham in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, yes?

That's right. She's had a fascinating life. She was a bit older than most of the other girls (I think she was on the north side of 25). She was born in Paris during WWII to two Resistance fighters who ended up committing suicide. Adopted by an American couple, she ended up in the counterculture, and started an affair with Bobby Beausoleil after meeting him on the set of a porn movie, and through him got connected to Charlie. She served as kind of the den mother. Went to prison for a while for fraud, then spent the rest of her life speaking out against cults.

If there's one former Family member that I believe is truly penitent and trying to make things better, it's her.

She wasn't dissimilar looking to Lens, but was prettier. She definitely deserved better.

Wow, R200, that is fascinating, thanks for sharing! I'll definitely read up more on her too!

[quote]No Comic Sans, though, please.

Comic Sans is the Chandler of the Font Friends.

Yes R200 she does seem to regret her involvement with Manson and what the Family ended up doing. One of the things I find interesting is how many Family members talk about how it all started to turn violent and paranoid in early 1969. Before then it had been fun and games and playing cowboys and cowgirls but it then took a darker turn, with armed sentries, hand to hand combat training and so on. One theory I've read is that in the lead-up to the murders Manson felt he was losing his hold over his followers and needed to somehow bring them back under his control and the killings were a way of re-tightening his grip.

You seem very familiar with the whole situation so I'm curious in your opinion of Linda Kasabian if you care to share it. Bugliosi painted her as the Family's equivalent of the 'good German' but she did go back to Steve Parent's car to steal his wallet IIRC and there's that Yana the Witch story of her picking up a hitchhiker after fleeing Spahn and telling him, seemingly approvingly, how they were killing 'rich pigs in LA who tried to act like they were hip' or 60s words to that effect. If anyone had to get immunity for their testimony then she was the 'best' but I do wonder if her level of involvement was somewhat whitewashed.

[quote] Not sure if that's right or not, but I am taking everything with a slight grain of salt.

Why would you do that? It's probably the most accurate representation of the Manson killers that was ever written. It's not a hack job. Bugliosi knew everything there was to know about that case. Of course he would. t was his job to know. He was trying to prosecute Manson and his gang, after all. And he did his job superbly, getting them all found guilty and sentenced to death. Too bad the sentences were never carried out. Charles Manson lived a long life in prison, but that was no punishment for him. Prison was home for him. As for the others, if they were married, like Tex Watson, they got conjugal visits (he fathered several children that way) until Doris Tate's lobbying eliminated that. But to this day the Manson killers are trying, always trying, to get out of prison. They'll never stop trying to do that.

[quote]One theory I've read is that in the lead-up to the murders Manson felt he was losing his hold over his followers and needed to somehow bring them back under his control and the killings were a way of re-tightening his grip.

Also why he kept them looking for the bottomless pit out in Death Valley. No time to foment resistance over being tired and starving if you're too busy to think.

[quote]You seem very familiar with the whole situation so I'm curious in your opinion of Linda Kasabian if you care to share it

I don't think she's completely the naif that Bugliosi portrayed her as, no. She's had legal problems over the years as well, although most of those were related to drugs and alcohol, and frankly, I'd probably have addiction issues if I'd been through what she had.

I don't know if any of the member have much more to say, but I hope someone is trying to get a thorough oral history. They're starting to die off, with Charlie and Susan hopefully roasting in hell as I type, but Barbara Hoyt also died a few years ago.

Sandra Good doesn't maintain her website anymore, but still seems she's still nutty about Charlie.

Weird to think that even without his involvement in the Hinman murder, Bobby Beausoleil would still have a pretty big footnote in the history of the counterculture due to his involvement with Kenneth Anger and Frank Zappa.

Thanks R205. And Kasabian seemed quite happy to go and rob thousands off her ex almost as soon as she hooked up with the Family and IIRC left her daughter behind with them when she fucked off. Plus she went along on night 2 so yeah, she may have been the best of a bad bunch.

Sandra Good never lost that crazy eyed look eh, plus has continued to lobby for Manson, along with Fromme. I wonder what Mary Brunner thinks about it these days, if she thinks about it at all.

I was the poster who said they were reading Watson's latest parole bid at cielodrive and he seems to have forgotten a lot or gotten it confused - at one point he seems to be muddling up night 1 with night 2. The commissioner constantly interjecting wouldn't have helped but I can imagine that those events are becoming more and more hazy with the passage of time, even for those who were directly involved. It stands to reason that people who study the case may well know more about what they said and did than the actual perpetrators do these days.

Re Bobby, he may also have had a successful career in other bands or in his own right as a musician or actor. He was briefly in Love and could well have become a major player in the LA music scene as it seems he had more genuine talent than Manson. I never found him particularly hot but can see why many would. But he was too baby-faced for me - I'm also the poster who thinks Juan Flynn was the hottest of the guys at Spahn and the fact he was a ranch hand and not a Family member makes him even more appealing. But yeah, the killers, even Watson and Krenwinkle, really fucked up their lives and all for the approval of a creep and a conman. It's an irony that the only one to get out is Clem, the person they called Scramblehead and considered a moron. Last laugh I guess.

[quote]I don't think she's completely the naif that Bugliosi portrayed her as, no. She's had legal problems over the years as well, although most of those were related to drugs and alcohol, and frankly, I'd probably have addiction issues if I'd been through what she had.

I remember the interview of Kasabian and Bugliosi together in 2009. It was clear that life had not gone well for her in the 40 years since 1969. Even with a gentle interviewer (Larry King, I think?), she needed a lot of help from Bugliosi, who obviously was still very fond of her, to answer questions. She came off as foggy and possibly depressed.

It was quite a contrast to her performance in the trial, of which I've read the transcripts beyond the ones reproduced in HS. She was a strong witness then, even holding up well to Kanarek's epic badgering.

[quote]One theory I've read is that in the lead-up to the murders Manson felt he was losing his hold over his followers and needed to somehow bring them back under his control and the killings were a way of re-tightening his grip.

I've lately been reading more about cults and it's amazing how this happens with all of them, to a tee. I'm also quite interested in reading about them because I sometimes wonder - what would be the cult leader that could "get" me? If at all. I'm pretty naturally suspicious of people so I always think I'd never fall for something like this, but I wonder if there is something out there that could get all of us?

[quote]Why would you do that? It's probably the most accurate representation of the Manson killers that was ever written.

Only because I've heard others say that there are inaccuracies in the book, really. I'm not deliberately misbelieving what Bugliosi is saying, but more being prepared to find out on further reading that some things aren't as clear cut or some facts have come out since the book that alter a couple of things, even just small things.

Incidentally, not much has been said about him in the book so far, but it's Bruce Davis I am finding one of the creepiest guys, just based on his pictures and the little bit that has been said about him.

[quote] I don't think she's completely the naif that Bugliosi portrayed her as, no.

In comparison to the others I guess she could called a "naif." She was by no means perfect. But at least she never killed anybody.

Here's another site for you OP, which also has lots of info on all aspects of Manson, the Family, the murders etc. Hope you slept well last night!

Bruce Davis is the least discussed of the imprisoned Family members. Maybe it's because he was not involved in Tate-La Bianca but was convicted for being one of the participants in Shorty Shea's murder. Shorty, along with Gary Hinman and Steve Parent, seem to be the 'forgotten' victims to some extent because so much emphasis in placed on the other killings.

Manson wasn't just older during the counterculture days, he was a hardened criminal who'd already done time at Alcatraz. Those poor dumb kids running away from home to find nirvana on the streets of San Francisco were just fresh meat to predators like Manson. He wasn't the only one, but he was the worst.

Barbara Hoyt used to post on some Manson discussion forums. She and Debra Tate became friends after years of attending parole hearings together.

She said she started speaking out at the hearings because she was afraid they would come after her if they ever went free, but she came to believe that it was a debt she owed society for getting mixed up with them in the first place.

[quote]Hope you slept well last night!

Haha, I did, after a little while of jumping at noises outside the window (I live near bushland) haha. Thanks for the link!

Manson and possibly Bruce Davis returned to Cielo a couple of hours after killers came back to Spahn. According to Manson, he thought that Texan Sadie were exaggerating about the murders and he wanted to go and make sure there were no fingerprints etc. there are rumors that Manson and Davis drag Sharon’s corpse to the front door and they were going to hang her like a pig and for whatever reason they didn’t and they brought her back to the couch area.

Looking at the pictures of the girls, Barbara Hoyt certainly seems to have been much more attractive than the others. But then I had this thought - the 60s was the era of the "twig" look, wasn't it? Would Hoyt have been considered attractive then considering she was curvy? I guess I'm asking because I can see why the 'less conventionally attractive' girls could be manipulated into feeling loved and part of the cult. I just had this flash to that episode of Absolutely Fabulous where Patsy was talking about how hard it was for Eddie to be living during that time.

"What did they call her?"

"Eddy was called The Shredder because she used to eat huge amounts of tissues."

"Whole toilet rolls"

Leslie was the least into Manson sexually . Manson resented her and mocked her as “Tex’s girl.” Leslie was motivated to kill to get her boyfriend ( Bobby) out of jail .

I read the book AND watched the miniseries as a kid. The part I remember most from the latter was the housekeeper running screaming from Cielo Drive.

The house keeper, an African American woman was actually offered to spend The night that night because it was so hot and she had to be at work early in the morning back at work and she declined

R218, I would never be able to stop thinking about that if I were her. Really chilling!

The 1976 Helter Skelter miniseries was the better of the two overall, but the 2004 remake is worth seeing for one reason alone: Jeremy Davies's brilliant Manson. I prefer him to 1976's Steve Railsback, who's scary, but in a hammy wide-eyed-madman way. (I think it was Sandra Good who said she never would have followed Railsback's Manson for a minute.) Davies is creepy in a subtle, mesmerizing way. I could believe his hold on the Family members.

Of course, Davies is famous for playing the cowardly member of the unit in Saving Private Ryan, and earlier he had been excellent as the lead in David O. Russell's first film, Spanking the Monkey. His Manson potential was first suggested in Steven Soderbergh's Solaris with George Clooney.

Just curious: are helter skelters a thing in the US? In the UK and here in Australia they are what you call those slides that circle down around a central tower. Funnily enough, my pre-Kinder group that I was sent to when I was 4 was called Helter Skelter, after the play equipment.

I was just wondering what the hell Manson thought it meant. Did he hear those words and think it was this amazingly deep thing because he didn't know what it was referring to? Because that is so completely mock-worthy, I can't even begin.

☝🏼John Lennon said in interview that he cannot imagine in any way how the song was pushing for a race war

[quote]I was just wondering what the hell Manson thought it meant. Did he hear those words and think it was this amazingly deep thing because he didn't know what it was referring to? Because that is so completely mock-worthy, I can't even begin.

In the U.S., helter-skelter usually is an adjective meaning hasty, confused, chaotic. That's how Manson and the group heard and adopted it. A state of "helter-skelter" was going to ensue with societal breakdown, a race war and all that. Paul's song on the Beatles' White Album was clearly about the English amusement ride (all the talk of getting to the bottom and going back to the top, "and I see you again").

When Paul sang "Look out, helter skelter! She's coming down fast, yes she is," the Family wasn't picturing a woman on playground equipment.

[quote]Will you, won't you want me to make you/I'm coming down fast but don't let me break you/Tell me, tell me, tell me the answer/You may be a lover but you ain't no dancer

I thought it was really obviously about rough sex.

Before it got ugly and evil, Manson and gang were only into orgies , mind trips and music

Everything was groovy when Manson still thought he had a chance of making it as a singer. His voice and songs were actually pretty good, and he had excellent connections via Terry Melcher and Dennis Wilson. Manson was older and not particularly hot, but he was deeply charismatic, good at starfucking, and women loved him. He might have really done something.

What ruined him were his own demons--the couple of times he made it into a recording studio thanks to Melcher or Wilson, his nerves brought the vicious criminal instincts out. He wouldn't let anyone tell him what to do, even how to work unfamiliar equipment, and at one point he pulled a knife on a recording studio tech. After that, he had no real chance of making it in the music business, and that was entirely his fault.

By early '69 he was desperate and broke, and his dreams of fame had evaporated. He was afraid of losing his followers--some were already disillusioned when Charlie didn't become a rock star like he promised he would. That's when his darkest instincts came out and he decided to find fame another way.

Manson has a serious narcissistic need to be famous . He became a household name and part of our pop culture. He beat the wrap

[quote] there are rumors that Manson and Davis drag Sharon’s corpse to the front door and they were going to hang her like a pig and for whatever reason they didn’t and they brought her back to the couch area

There was no physical evidence to support that theory. No blood smears that would indicate it.

I know, R222, it's so bizarre. And it would be "everybody point and laugh at the idiot who suggested it" type ridiculous - except that people actually died.

[quote]In the U.S., helter-skelter usually is an adjective meaning hasty, confused, chaotic. That's how Manson and the group heard and adopted it.

Thanks, mate! That at least makes a bit more sense.

I'm into the middle of The Trial chapter at the moment. As I mentioned above, this is very interesting from the perspective of how trials are done in the US compared to other places I'm familiar with (UK and Australia). Many principles are the same, it's just that in the US there's a lot more showboating around trials. Like, if I discovered many lawyers in the US were actually frustrated actors it would make sense to me. It seems as much about the ego of those involved as it is about getting justice.

Based on Bugliosi's descriptions, this Kanarek fellow is seriously irritating, I can't imagine what it'd be like to deal with him. I'm hoping someone slaps him at some stage, haha.

OH MY GOD! Someone just tried to murder Barbara Hoyt with an LSD-laced hamburger!!

This story just keeps getting more and more bizarre!

(incidentally, [italic]can[/italic] one murder someone with LSD? I was always under the impression that you could only get so high and then it wouldn't have much of an effect. I'm totally willing to be wrong on this, it's just that's what I'd been told once.)

[quote](incidentally, can one murder someone with LSD? I was always under the impression that you could only get so high and then it wouldn't have much of an effect. I'm totally willing to be wrong on this, it's just that's what I'd been told once.)

What the book ultimately says on that topic is accurate. I don't think you can really fatally overdose on it, but your perceptions can be altered to a degree that you bring harm to yourself. Bugliosi mentions Barbara running through the Honolulu traffic.

Thanks, R232.

Incidentally, I just looked up Barbara Hoyt on YouTube and there are clips of her being interviewed outside the court. Belonging to that Family must've done a real number on her, she is certainly acting strange in some respects and giggling and saying off things, like asking to say hi to her sister, something like: "Hi Piggy Mose Katrina". "Piggy Mose?" asks a reporter, "What does that mean?"

"I think it's Spanish for 'Pig'," she responds.

Ahhh, just to add, R232, because I am responding to the book as I go along, I hadn't gotten to the part a few chapters later, that states:

[quote]Although we had presumed - as I suspected the involved Family members had also - that an overdose of LSD could be fatal, we learned from medical experts that there was no known case of anyone's dying from this cause. There were many cases, however, where LSD had resulted in death from misperception of surroundings: for example, a person, convinced he could fly, stepping out the window of a tall building. I thought of Barbara, running through the traffic of in downtown Honolulu. That she hadn't been killed was no fault of the Family.

What Helter Skelter downplays because it would have affected Bugliosi's case is the massive amounts of drugs the Family were on. Daily acid trips will wreak havoc with your sense of reality, and it may account for their blanked-out weirdness. In addition, they were severely undernourished and overworked due to the harsh conditions on the ranch. Cult leaders often starve and overwork their followers so that everyone's thinking gets clouded.

Also, the night of the murders, Katie and Tex were doing a lot of speed. Bugliosi asserted that the killers were clear-headed that night so that the jury wouldn't reduce the charges because of diminished mental capacity. In reality, the killers were pretty fucked up. Doesn't excuse what they did, but it helps explain their violent and nonsensical behavior.

R235, the killers really have limited remorse if any . They all are sociopaths/ narcs

🔪 🩸 bump

I periodically peruse Bobby Beasoliul ( sic) website . He’s quite talented in art, music and a good writer . His life could have been magical if he did not get caught up with that group. Bobby was an occasional presence at Spahn . He did get involved With some drug dealing with that Biker Gang Straight Satan’s . I wonder if Manson had not cut Gary’s face , if Bobby would have let him live. ? Check this out- When Bobby, Sadie and Mary Brunner or holding Gary hostage looking for him his money in his home in Topanga canyon, Bobby stepped into the shower or the restroom and Susan Atkins has a gun on Gary Gary wrestle the gun from her and had the gun and Bobby return on all three of these assholes. Gary starts to cry and says “I’m a Buddhist, a pacifist “ and hands the gun back to Bobby. That should’ve soften these people up it didn’t. When Gary went to the couch she was crying and he was saying over and over again this Buddhist chant and Bobby coldly says “you’re doing good Gary keep it up” coldhearted bastard

Beausoleil was sexually and physically abused by his parents and ran away from home for good at age 14. He was seriously damaged before he met Manson. Maybe he would have made something of himself if he'd never met Charlie, but I doubt it. He could have taken Gary Hinman to the hospital (as Hinman pleaded for him to do) and, at worst, come out with an assault charge he could have pleaded down. Instead, he stabbed the man to death.

Beausoleil also had his own little family (harem) type thing going on before he hooked up with Charlie, r239. That’s how Gypsy and some of the other girls first came into Manson’s orbit - through Beausoleil.

Apparently Manson appreciated guys like Bobby and Paul Watkins - another early member of the Family - because they were good looking enough to entice young girls to hang around until ugly little troll Charlie got his hooks into them.

[quote]He calls Mary Brunner “singularly unattractive.”

To me she's a dead ringer for Martha Plimpton.

I agree on Gary and hospital. Watch this. Benson always sent someone else with a person Patricia Krenwinkel wanted to visit her parents he sent a couple of girls with her etc. But Bobby should have taken Gary to the hospital. Gary would not have snitched on them. But watch this video . It gives more insight

R240, Manson was SEXUALLY attracted to Bobby and Paul. Manson liked guys more than gals . He used women .

Manson also spent a lot of time incarcerated / institutionalized. Even in his 30s, he had lived more of his life "inside" vs. outside.

[quote]Most Ripper eyewitnesses, at least the ones the police considered the most credible, gave generally consistent descriptions: 7 or 8 inches

Pics please.

[bold]#TeamMuleDick

Danny Decarlo r246? His nickname was donkey dick Dan

[quote] His voice and songs were actually pretty good,

Uh, no. If they were Terry Melcher would have gotten him a record deal. He could have done that easily enough. I can't believe anybody would think Manson had talent. That was one of his demons: he had no success at all as a musician. But there was a good reason for that. His music was shit.

He was a lyrical genius who was compared to Dylan . His singing voice in the 60s was good there was a hypnotic melody there

I always wondered: when the Family entered the house on Cielo Dr., did they recognize actress Sharon Tate? Or were they not movie fans?

"Little Larry" Bailey, the twinkiest Family member. Like Ruth Ann "Ouisch" Moorehouse, he was a teenager at the time.

I don't think they did R250 - it was a fairly insular life on the ranch. The only mentions that they made about the victims that I know of is Krenwinkel saying to Manson something about 'they were all so young' and her, or Atkins, commenting that they were beautiful.

[quote]Catherine Share was detached due to a traumatic childhood of so much loss

Yes, she had an incredibly sad story: Both parents, members of the French Resistance, committed suicide rather than be taken by the Nazis; one grandparent died in a ghetto and two others died in a concentration camp; and her adoptive mother killed herself after being diagnosed with cancer.

She aged the best of the girls in my opinion.

Terry Melcher gave up on Manson as a potential rock star when he realized how fucking crazy he was. He only stayed in contact with Manson for drugs and girls.

Manson sounded no worse than a lot of singer/songwriters of the period. However, even if he'd been sane, he was a bit old to be a pop music star at that point.

[quote] He was a lyrical genius who was compared to Dylan . His singing voice in the 60s was good there was a hypnotic melody there

Who compared him to Dylan? You? Shut up, you dopey troll.

[quote]He was a lyrical genius who was compared to Dylan.

Maybe by Sandy and Squeaky.

His songs are interesting to listen to, but I don't know if I'd find them such if he hadn't gone on to notoriety for things other than music. He was a modest musical talent.

[quote] I always wondered: when the Family entered the house on Cielo Dr., did they recognize actress Sharon Tate? Or were they not movie fans?

I'm posting Tate's filmography (within Wikipedia page). I don't know whether she was that famous / well-known before she died.

Sharon Tate got famous after her death. Not before. She was a minor starlet; her biggest role was in "Valley of the Dolls" but that didn't make her any more well known. I don't think she ever had a real acting success. In all her movies she was just eye candy. I think if she'd had her baby she would have abandoned her career altogether to concentrate on being a mother.

I read this book when I was nine. It's the first book I bought with my own money.

I went down the rabbit hole for a time with Manson and was reading the numerous stories by his many disturbed followers. One of the women had a horrific childhood and some very triggering descriptions of abuse at her grandfather's hands. The entire thing ended up making me feel truly ill. Manson was one deranged cookie. It was truly disheartening to read about how her parents succumbed to the drug culture of the sixties. Their abandonment of her led to her joining his "family". Sad fucking story and really blew the lid off the idiots like Oliver Stone who tried to make those days seem magical. I think the seedy dark underbelly of the sixties found its end in Manson's homicidal fantasies. I'm still mystified as to why people to this day try to whitewash him. He was obscene.

[quote]I read it years ago and felt sorry for the housekeeper who found the bodies.

Two people posted comments years ago on the Cielo Drive blog claiming that she was their nanny and had PTSD and other issues after the murders.

I don't know about Sharon's fame at the time. Polanski was a famous director by then, and she had starred in VOTD, which must have been a sought-after role (the film did well at the box office). Co-starred with Dean Martin...

I think if you were a film fan at the time, you would know her face.

[quote]She aged the best of the girls in my opinion.

Absolutely agree with that. She was resilient in a lot of ways.

Gypsy grew up in Encino

I've just finished the book! It was funny, at the end with all the where are they now stuff, I honestly found I just didn't care if most of them had good lives or not. Well, maybe with the exception of Barbara Hoyt, who seemed to have done good and I was happy to see. I wasn't wishing harm on many of those members, but I dunno, I just didn't feel as heart-warmed as I think I was supposed to? I was a bit weirded out with the statement that Clem was apparently doing well for himself, considering he had been in trouble back in the day for exposing himself to young girls. That seems like something to worry about continuing.

All the people who became Christians afterwards, and this is kind of listed as a good thing, but I guess to me it just seems like swapping one weird philosophy for another, and it doesn't surprise me that people who had a need to be filled by Manson would go on to try and fill that need with Christianity. I mean, it's been around so long that people don't really think how utterly bizarre a lot of what the Bible says is too. On that note, I was really interested in Bugliosi's musings on Manson's relations to Scientology and how that could've taught him a few controlling techniques, and from there also The Process (which sprung out of Scientology) which really was (is?) a creepy little cult. Well, aren't they all, really?

Bugliosi did start to bug me (no pun intended) a bit more towards the end. He really is a blowhard, but also I have to give him credit that he managed to keep much of that from irritating this reader as it could've done (this book is nowhere near as annoying in that regard as is Mindhunter by John Douglas, who spends most of that book up his own bum). I wasn't convinced with his arguments for the death penalty (we don't have it in our country), but I was impressed that he always credited the defense when they made good arguments, like the one who made his arguments against the death penalty.

The story of the fishermen who found the body and left it a day because they didn't want to ruin their trip is the kind of brief story you hear about in life that really sours me on human beings. Funnily enough, that is actually the plot of an Australian movie, whose name escapes me at the moment. I haven't seen it, but in that case it was the body of an indigenous girl which added another dimension to the whole thing.

R261 really taps into my feelings about this all too. I actually will need a bit of a rest before reading up some more on this case, if I decide to. There's a lot about this that makes me feel gross.

[quote]Sad fucking story and really blew the lid off the idiots like Oliver Stone who tried to make those days seem magical. I think the seedy dark underbelly of the sixties found its end in Manson's homicidal fantasies. I'm still mystified as to why people to this day try to whitewash him. He was obscene.

Right? I think what gets to me about this is that here really was a dark underbelly in the sixties, a lot of it also focusing on the entertainment industry and it just leaves a horrible taste in the mouth. I wonder what the reason for it was - like an extreme pendulum swing away from the conservatism of not only the 50s but decades of what "appropriate behaviour" was, so "all brakes were off"? Because when I hear and read stories about 70s sexuality, you know swingers/key parties, people being much more casual about sex, it seems more sweet and fun than the more drug-fuelled almost nihilism of the 60s. Maybe as I said, it was like a pendulum. Also, maybe I have no idea what I am talking about, hehe.

Also, I'm sure I have read a bit about Terry Melcher before (poor Candy Bergen) and he seems like he was a typical son of a famous person (ie arrogant dickhead) and this may be a moral failing on my part but in the book when he was shown as being frightened for his life, I kinda thought: "well, that won't do you any harm, dickhead."

(ran out of space)

Oh and finally, how much was Bugliosi pointing the finger at Shinn as the leak throughout the book, without ever coming right out and saying it. I think the statement in the afterword about Shinn being disbarred for misappropriating a client's money was intended to say it all.

[quote]All the people who became Christians afterwards, and this is kind of listed as a good thing, but I guess to me it just seems like swapping one weird philosophy for another, and it doesn't surprise me that people who had a need to be filled by Manson would go on to try and fill that need with Christianity.

In the Emmons/Manson book (again, don't rush to read it), Manson-via-Emmons has a pretty good line about that. He mentions that Susan and Tex both have since written books in which they made much of finding the Lord in prison and becoming committed Christians. He says if they're as committed to Jesus as they were to what he was telling them to do in the late '60s, then Jesus has two very solid followers.

[quote]The story of the fishermen who found the body and left it a day because they didn't want to ruin their trip is the kind of brief story you hear about in life that really sours me on human beings. Funnily enough, that is actually the plot of an Australian movie, whose name escapes me at the moment.

Was that fact-based? I know it was the plot of a 1981 Raymond Carver short story, "So Much Water So Close to Home." It was one of many Carver stories incorporated into Robert Altman's 1993 film Short Cuts. Fred Ward and Huey Lewis (the one and only) played two of the fishermen.

[quote]He says if they're as committed to Jesus as they were to what he was telling them to do in the late '60s, then Jesus has two very solid followers.

Yep! I imagine this is a very accurate statement.

[quote]Was that fact-based?

You know, I'm not sure. And I can't remember the name of the film to double check but if I do, I'll look into it. It certainly (unfortunately) sounds like the kind of thing that could be fact based.

[quote]All the people who became Christians afterwards, and this is kind of listed as a good thing, but I guess to me it just seems like swapping one weird philosophy for another, and it doesn't surprise me that people who had a need to be filled by Manson would go on to try and fill that need with Christianity.

There's an interesting quote from Pat in the Guinn book about Susan's conversion. She said something about how convenient it was that Susan got to be instantly forgiven for what she'd done by accepting Jesus. Pat also had a line about how she stopped believing in God at the LaBianca house because she remembered praying for it to stop and then it didn't. I don't know why it took until the second murder for her to get to that point.

I just tend to judge actions over words, which I guess is why I think Catherine and Barbara were the ones who became better people in the process.

Fascinating thread. I don’t know much about the murders or the Family outside of the basics but I will definitely be picking up HS

It really is the whole milieu the thing took place in. It just seems so alien that you could be hanging out on the beach one minute and smoking Mama Cass' weed the next.

I always wondered what the effects of the knowledge of his role in all of it had on Dennis Wilson's fate.

And also, truly Terry Melcher too, who had his own career at the same time as the discovery that his mother was broke while she was also dealing with both having tastes change from her style of movie and having aged out of them anyway.

I too read this book at a young age–I think I was 10 or 11 years old. My parents owned it and I was a child who was naturally drawn to the morbid. Having read it again as an adult, I can say that it is a very well-written book—and it is scary. My dad was born in LA and lived there for most of his childhood, and he remembers when the Manson murder happened. My grandparents were terrified.

There's a scene in Polanski's Rosemary's Baby, where a paper back novel with artwork that looks like Helter Skelter is behind Rosemary's bed. Eerie.

Terry Melcher was a good man . He had a breakdown after the murders and was haunted the rest of his life . He made no promises to Manson he took an interest at first and just like in Hollywood Beach changed his mind. Plus, Terry was at Spahn Ranch and witness Manson without his fake mask on. That turned them off

Yes, of course, when he was at home on the ranch Manson was well-known to usually just dispense with the mask he wore habitually, while out shopping, at the grocery store, or dropping off his clothes at the cleaners, etc.

One story I read online (who knows if it is true) is that Melcher, after meeting Manson and his followers, told his mother (Doris Day) about them. Also that Manson had come to the Cielo house to see Melcher when Melcher was not home. Story was that Doris advised her son to move from the Cielo house.

Has that (Doris's warning) been confirmed in any of the stories that came out about the events?

I thought I read that Melcher treated the women in his life and just women in general pretty terribly. Maybe I got that wrong, and apologise if so.

Manson's son?

Seems to be.

[quote]an Australian movie, whose name escapes me at the moment.

Jindabyne?

Terry Melcher was far from a good man. He cheated on Candace B. all the time. He was also somewhat obsessed with Ruth Ann Morehouse (Ouisch) and at one point wanted to hire her as a live in maid, while living with Candice. Wanted to have her as a live in sex slave pretty much. She was only a teen at the time.

Bergen Cielo sounds like a fancy vintage that could do well. Who wants to open a vineyard?

I read Helter Skelter when it came out. I was staying with my sister and her bf the weed dealer at the time. He had given me a couple of joints that evening. And I started reading the book. I became convinced somebody had broken into the house and were going to kill me. I hid under the bed.

That was the last time I smoked weed.

R276, are you autistic? I am referring to a mask of sanity, the mask of a con artist you dumb shit

R284 It is you who is the autist! R276 was engaging in observational humor.

Thank you, 285. Appreciate it. -R276 (dropping my mask just this once, teehee).

Barbara Hoyt had an Ali MacGraw look back in the day. Beautiful hair.

I wish in "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" Tarantino had added an imagined scene in which the big movie star Doris Day comes to visit her son Terry Melcher at a recording studio, encounters eager starfucker Charlie, and ices him. How about that for Americana. Wasn't there some story that Doris heard about Manson and told Terry to get out of that house?

[quote]Jindabyne?

That's the one! And I just looked into it briefly, it was based on "So Much Water Close to Home". So there you go!

What do people think of all the potential murders listed towards the end of the book that Bugliosi suggests could be Family crimes? In a few of the cases, I thought he really was reaching a bit. I don't know what's been found out by those cases since then.

I also thought he was reaching a bit with his Manson and Hitler comparisons. When he got to: "they were both vegetarians!" I was a little bit like: "your biases are showing a bit there, mate". I guess vegetarianism was viewed much more suspiciously back in the 60s?

As another poster mentioned, read (or listen on audible), Tom O'Neill's Chaos...it's riveting and opens up more questions than it answers. Very little about the case was what it seems, and big mysteries remain. Some of the same characters showing up involved in other major crimes of 60s and 70s. Why after the August murders did Melcher make his way to the clan's Death Valley camp and throw himself at Manson's feet and beg forgiveness?? (Witnessed.) I can't wait for his follow up book.

I don't know if this is true - Candice said after she and Terry moved to Malibu that the Manson family "creepy crawled" their new home.

Interesting, R291. All I know from Helter Skelter is that Manson was told they lived at Malibu by Rudi when he went to Cielo Drive, but not the address.

I wonder if they found out the address some other way after finding out it was in Malibu, or did Rudi say more than he meant to and didn't want to admit it?

r292 I think Malibu was a smaller town then, maybe they identified their home by their cars. Candice and Terry were very fortunate the "family" was arrested when they were.

Terry was staying at his mother's Malibu beach house. Probably not hard to find out where Doris Day lived.

R293, this has been the slight trouble with reading this story; I don't really understand LA at all, either its history or how it is currently. I have been, once, in 2016 (it rained most of the time, first rain in 2 years apparently), and I just remember how HUGE it was. Looking at a map my friend and I thought we could walk everywhere (we scoffed at the idea that people didn't walk in LA) only to find you would walk for hours and not get anywhere.

So, reading this book, all these addresses that are in the 10s of thousands, I found it so hard to imagine everything. But it makes sense that Malibu was a smaller place then, also it seems like maybe the rich and famous weren't AS sequestered from the rest of society then either? Probably have Manson to thank for that too.

[quote]What do people think of all the potential murders listed towards the end of the book that Bugliosi suggests could be Family crimes? In a few of the cases, I thought he really was reaching a bit. I don't know what's been found out by those cases since then.

They absolutely killed Ronald Hughes.

Catherine has said that she remembers some hikers appearing at Barker Ranch that she never saw again.

Has Angela Lansbury ever spoken about the Family? Her daughter Didi treated them to a lot of meals on Angela's credit cards, but they vanished on her once she was cut off.

[quote]They absolutely killed Ronald Hughes.

Oh yeah, I definitely didn't have questions about that one. Poor fucking guy.

Do you know what else weirded me out about the trial? I don't know if this was a 60s thing that has changed now, or a US thing, but it is unconscionable that the jurors weren't receiving their wages while on the case. Here you get paid your normal wage while you are on a case. The fact that some of these people went back to no job is ridiculous. And the fact that the lawyers were all out of pocket and missed out on money. How?! That seems completely wrong and strange.

Personally, I think Ronald Hughes drowned during the heavy storms. Vehicles were getting stuck, like his did. His companions managed to hitchhike out of the area, but he stayed. Authorities couldn’t even attempt a search and rescue, the weather was so bad. I doubt the Family managed their way in and out across a flash flooding creek and found him somewhere in a remote area.

I don’t doubt that they would have killed him given the chance. But I think he was a victim of the elements and poor planning.

R298 watch this . He was petrified of these people. Benson resented him because he wanted to get Leslie Van Houten off. Manson wanted to take everybody down he’s a demonic Titanic .

[quote] He was also somewhat obsessed with Ruth Ann Morehouse (Ouisch) and at one point wanted to hire her as a live in maid, while living with Candice. Wanted to have her as a live in sex slave pretty much. She was only a teen at the time.

Oh, someone always brings up that unsubstantiated, bullshit story on these Manson threads, that Terry Melcher was obsessed with one of Manson's dirty little girls, the gorgeous babe Ruth Ann Morehouse. I don't know where that story came from but it has zero credibility. Him wanting her as a live-in "sex slave", in the same house with him and Candace Bergen....that pretty damn laughable.

Detectives questioning Melcher about his involvement with Manson suggested that he was chummy with Charlie (actually he wasn't) because he wanted to fuck Manson's harem. Melcher said he then took out photos of some of his former girlfriends, all of them "real beauties" and told the detectives that with women like that to go to bed with why would he want to fucks Manson's "clap-ridden, unwashed dogs?" Of course there are those who would say "Why of course he fucked Manson's girls! What man wouldn't want to fuck ready and willing teenage girls?" Well, I guess there are some very slimy guys (like Dennis Wilson) who would. But I don't think Manson's smelly, dirty, druggie, nasty girls appealed to Terry Melcher. You'd have to be a specific type (a biker, a hippie, a musician who would fuck anything) to go for Manson family girls.

Anyone remember who were the two girls that escaped the ranch? I think it was after the murders

How did Charlie find Spahn ranch?

Here comes R300, right on cue. Are you Melcher's kid or something? Why else is it so impossible to you that he slept with Moorehouse? Half of LA did.

R301, I think that was Barbara Hoyt and a girl called Sadie or Sally? Can't remember, but when they found a dead body of one girl, according to HS they initially thought it was the other girl who left with Barbara but then they found that girl alive and well elsewhere.

[quote]I also thought he was reaching a bit with his Manson and Hitler comparisons. When he got to: "they were both vegetarians!" I was a little bit like: "your biases are showing a bit there, mate". I guess vegetarianism was viewed much more suspiciously back in the 60s?

I didn't take it that way. Manson had talked quite a lot about his admiration for Hitler. The parallels started there, so Bugliosi was just cataloging similarities, not all of them alarming in and of themselves: unsuccessful artists, short men, vegetarians/animal lovers, Nietzsche readers, great persuaders even of those set against them. We're not supposed to think Manson's crimes are equal in significance and scale to Hitler's, although Bugliosi clearly feels that's only because Manson didn't have the means to affect as many people, not because Manson was "better." I found those musings interesting.

I haven't read it in a while, but I think in the same section he ticks off some similarities between Manson and Jesus: apostles, a "Judas" betrayer figure among them, a flight to the desert, a trial. And again, the Jesus comparisons started at the source.

[quote] Why else is it so impossible to you that he slept with Moorehouse? Half of LA did.

"Half of L.A." slept with the dirty little girl? I think you're overestimating her appeal.

Fair points, R305. Maybe I was getting just a bit fatigued at that point in the book.

King Baggot, the young Los Angeles news cameraman who found the bloody clothes and was a prosecution witness, was the grandson of a silent film star of the same name. This younger Baggot became a busy cinematographer in the '80s and early '90s. His credits included Some Kind of Hero, Revenge of the Nerds, The Last Starfighter, Tough Guys, Vice Versa, and Where the Day Takes You. He also shot Madonna's early "Burning Up" video.

Revenge of the Nerds. Mmmm. Great, GREAT movie. Interesting.

I read Dianne Lake's book a few months ago. She was so young, with awful parents, didn't really have a chance. But she's done okay for herself.

Another pop culture footnote to the case is that the fellow prisoner who gave Manson one of his first contacts in the music/film industry was Phil Kaufman, who worked as a driver for the Rolling Stones and as road manager for country rock pioneer Gram Parsons, among others. It was Kaufman, along with another person, who abducted Parson's body from the airport where it was awaiting being flown to Florida following his death from a drug overdose. They took it out to Joshua Tree and set it alight in a failed attempt to follow his wish to be cremated in the desert.

Kaufman lived for a while in the house next door to the La Biancas and produced an album of Manson's songs. A very interesting life he has led, and this is really just a snippet of it.

Ruth Ann was hot jailbait: As one poster in another Manson thread memorably put it, Manson peddled Ruth Ann's little pussy all over town to help solidify her industry connections.

R300, it's fine if you didn't want to fuck Ruth Ann. It's fine if you think Melcher was a saint. But there's plenty of source material that notes Ruth Ann's popularity as one of Manson's prettiest whores as well as the fact that Melcher was infatuated with her for a time.

*his industry connections

I thought Margaret Qualley's portrayal of a composite Manson girl was excellent. She was perfect.

[quote] But there's plenty of source material that notes Ruth Ann's popularity as one of Manson's prettiest whores as well as the fact that Melcher was infatuated with her for a time.

What "source material" claimed Terry Melcher was infatuated with the unwashed Moorehouse? What credible "source material?" C'mon, let's hear about all the "source material."

Ruth Ann was VERY young and cute in a natural way.

Go to the link and scroll down. There’s no doubt a straight guy, in the 60s, would find her attractive.

[quote] There’s no doubt a straight guy, in the 60s, would find her attractive.

Everybody has different tastes. Also, not all men are attracted to teenagers.

Interesting article

No, R315, I'm not playing your little receipts game. If you want to paint Melcher as a saint, go ahead. The record doesn't back you up, but you do you, boo.

Yep, that is true R312. She was a pretty girl and had this sweetness (probably an act) about her. Donkey Dan DeCarlo really liked her too.

That picture of Ouisch - she looks a lot like the main Manson girl from OUATIH.

In the novelization of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Tarantino gives "Pussycat" Moorehouse's exact backstory and the real name of Debra Jo Hillhouse. She wasn't really a composite: She was Ouisch. She so resembles the real-life person I wonder if Tarantino had to pay Moorehouse something.

Oh, and in the novelization she doesn't just offer to suck Cliff's dick: She strips naked and spread eagles to entice him. Glad Tarantino didn't attempt that onscreen, even if the nudity was hidden on camera.

Also, Hillhouse is involved with Terry Melcher:

[quote]Terry did think Manson was one interesting far-out cat. But even in those regards, Terry wasn't as fascinated with him as his other friends (Dennis Wilson and Gregg Jakobson) were. The real reason Terry Melcher spent so much time with Charlie and "The Family" when they were camped out at Wilson's pad wasn't due to any potential that the record producer saw in Manson in a business sense. It was due to the fact that Terry loved fucking a fifteen-year-old dark-haired angel named Debra Jo Hillhouse, who had taken up with The Family. When Terry first met her, she still went by her real name, Debra Jo. But shortly afterward she only answered to her Family name, "Pussycat."

[quote]Debra Jo had joined Charlie’s Family when she was fifteen, at the time the youngest of the bunch, and she was undoubtedly the beauty of the bunch. Only statuesque Leslie Van Houten gave her any competition. And Terry Melcher wasn’t the only one—Dennis Wilson loved fucking Debra Jo too. In fact, the only serious connections Manson ever made in the Los Angeles music scene weren’t due to Charlie’s music but due to the allure of Debra Jo Hillhouse’s pubescent pussy. Debra Jo held a special place in the heart of Terry Melcher. (If Debra Jo could sing, she’s the one who would have gotten a record deal.)

[quote]And bear in mind all this was occurring during the time that Terry Melcher was living with sixties-era zeitgeist beauty Candice Bergen. But even with beautiful blond Candy Bergen at home, Terry couldn’t pass up Pussycat encounters. At one point his affection got so brazen that he tried to hire Debra Jo as a house girl and move her into his Cielo Drive home with Candy and himself. (Candice Bergen might’ve been oblivious about a lot of things, but she knew enough to squash that idea.)

Tarantino, Quentin. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (pp. 84-85). Harper Perennial. Kindle Edition.

How do you pronounce it - Oooo-weesh? I think I read old George Spahn gave Ruth the nickname.

In my mind, it's "Weee-sh."

I thought the nickname from George Spahn was Squeaky, since that's what she did when they fucked, but again, I could be remembering wrong.

That's too disturbing to think about (sex sounds from "Squeaky"). Ugh.

Squeaky was the name George gave to Lynnette Fromme VOTN, which came about cause she'd squeak and squeal when he pinched her thigh. Dunno where Ouisch's nickname came from. Maybe she said 'weesh' whenever Charlie wanted to fuck her.

One story is it was the whoosing sound her jeans made when she walked.

[quote] I'm not playing your little receipts game. If you want to paint Melcher as a saint, go ahead. The record doesn't back you up, but you do you, boo.

You can't play any "receipts game" because you don't have any receipts. And what "record" are you referring to? What record backs YOU up? And "You do you, boo?" Are you drunk or high or retarded or all three?

As for Melcher, no one called him a saint. But he seemed smart enough not to want to fuck Manson's disease ridden, smelly teenage slaves. Besides if he was into sex with underage teenage girls I don't think he would have gotten his fill from Manson's nasty sluts. He probably would have gotten some high class madam to provide him with pretty, CLEAN teenage nookie.

[quote] She was a pretty girl and had this sweetness (probably an act) about her. Donkey Dan DeCarlo really liked her too.

"Sweetness?" I don't think she had much of that, although Danny DeCarlo did call her "one of my special sweeties." He also said he was appalled as her lust for blood. He quotes her as saying "I can't wait to get my first pig." And course she tried to kill Barbara Hoyt by giving her a hamburger laced with 10 tabs of acid. "Sweet" she was not.

Those Manson waifs were, basically, homeless, runaway, uneducated, druggie trash. It's pretty funny to see them discussed like they were some kind of fascinating celebrities. They were "famous" as killer-adjuncts and sluts. What is this, "Pink Flamingos" ??

This is supposed to be fairly recent picture of Ouisch.

Awfully close to mug cradling there.

[quote]Those Manson waifs were, basically, homeless, runaway, uneducated, druggie trash

But Susan was the only one who had tits, which left Manson unable to hire them out as go-go dancers.

R331 Wow, livin' the dream. If that's her, I'd say she kept it together more than some of the others. I sometimes wonder what I would say if I met one of these formers, ones that weren't directly involved in the killings. Would I be courteous and open, or feel the need to walk away from the bad vibes? Anyone else?

Your intuition would kick in, I'm sure R334. You'd be able to feel if that was a person you could be around.

That photo at R331 could be any women with dark hair and swarthy complexion. Who knows if it's the infamous Manson slut Ouisch or not? If it's her, she looks very tacky.

Inspired by this thread, I'm reading the Greg King book. It's as good as I always heard it was, a real companion book to Helter Skelter.

I'm still in the first half, which is all about Sharon. She seems so terribly vulnerable, surrounded by danger: exploitation of her beauty and body, a cheating husband, all the dark-themed movies she was connected to, the LA party scene, hippies, bad people. She's sweet and naive, open to it all.

Really interesting, R337, and quite heart-breaking too. She is sounding a bit like one of those "probably too pure for this world" type personalities, would that seem fair?

Certainly too pure for that malevolent milieu, R338.

It's interesting to me because of course people would talk someone up after they had died in such a vicious way, but time and again we're hearing these reports that seem to show she actually was as lovely and sweet as people said post her murder.

In "Helter Skelter" Bugliosi said of Sharon Tate:

"Hollywood is a bitchy town. In interviewing acquaintances of the victims, LAPD would encounter an incredible amount of venom. Interestingly enough, in the dozens of interview sheets, no one who actually knew Sharon Tate said anything bad about her. Very sweet, somewhat naive...these were the words most often used."

Her autopsy report stated:

Cause of death: multiple stab wounds of the chest and back, penetrating the heart, lungs and liver, causing massive hemorrhage. Victim was stabbed 16 times, four of which wounds were in an of themselves fatal.

Reading Helter Skelter was an interesting experience in finding the story very interesting but also it raising questions in myself about reading true crime and having that interest.

R342 How so? It can get too disturbing. Your hobby shouldn't traumatize you.

Read the book. Saw the movie. The movie is just as frightening.

I was alone in my parents' house for the part of the summer that I first read the book, at age 21. I had to close all the curtains in the house every night when it got dark, the only time in my life I've ever even thought about doing something like that.

In the Greg King book, Sharon is portrayed as a would-be sophisticate. She spends a fair amount of time in Europe, is interested in and open to the new freedom of the 1960s: free love, drug experimentation, etc. At the same time, it seems like that's not really who she is; at heart, she's more of an all-American 1950s girl.

The 60s destroyed the 50s and that wholesome ideal of America.

Garrison should have heard everything. The guest house was so close to the main house and Parent had visited him moments before he was killed. He said he was listening to music, which should’ve attracted the attention of the killers. It doesn’t make sense.

This book and Stephen King’s “Salem’s Lot” are the scariest books to read alone late at night.

The Cielo Drive house was built in the 1940s for a French actress named Michele Morgan. It was supposed to be her dream house but she moved out not too long afterwards because of strange happenings. Voices coming from the living room, and shadow figures on the front porch, that could be seen from inside the house. Also, a general feeling of uneasiness and dread.

That introduces the question: Was Morgan feeling vibes from what would happen there, or was the ground inherently cursed?

If Sharon had stayed with Jay Sebring, she'd have ended up a pampered Beverly Hills housewife, and he would have created his own hair products empire. He truly adored her, but she wanted Roman for whatever reason.

The lead singer of the 60s group Paul Revere and the Raiders stayed at Cielo Drive for an extended period, several years before Tate and Polanski moved in, and also said the house was haunted. The lights and electrical appliances would go on and off, and he wouldn't go in the master bedroom or use the back door to the house because he said he felt very uncomfortable in those areas, almost panic-stricken. The quickest route to the swimming pool was through the back door but he would use the front door and walk all the way around the house to get to the pool because he couldn't bear to be near the back door.

Was the lot on Cielo Drive just wilderness before the home was built? It does make you wonder what it is about that place that drew such terrible energy.

I've been to Cielo Drive (the street outside the address, not the lot) and it is extremely creepy, but I don't know if that's inherent or just my feeling because I know what happened there.

I remember reading that Terry Melcher, who stayed in the master bedroom, had to use heavy sedatives to sleep there. He said he never had that problem anywhere else.

R45 and if you haven't yet read about the Black Dahlia. Another fascinating case. The old tv movie (1975) Who is the Black Dahlia, with Lucille Ball's daughter, Lucie Arnaz, playing the Dahlia is the best anywhere. You can watch it on Youtube.

I do think Quentin Tarantino did a wonderful thing with Once Upon a Time, humanizing Sharon and changing the ending for us all.

That final scene is brilliant: It's lovely to see all the Manson victims alive and well, but as soon as the words "once upon a time . . . " come onscreen, you are forcibly reminded that this is a fairy tale.

I think Steve Parent and William Garretson actually had a quick hookup. The clock radio story was bullshit to cover the truth.

The stories shared above about the uneasy feelings and haunted feelings of the place are really creepy, and I don't even believe in supernatural stuff, myself. But they did give me a bit of a shiver.

I know in the early '90s Trent Reznor was living there and I think he recorded The Downward Spiral there. Tori Amos talks about how she went there to cook him dinner one night and everything went wrong. Not a spooky story exactly, but it was one of those: "this never goes wrong anywhere else" stories too.

In case no one else already posted this, Rosemary LaBianca's granddaughter was stabbed to death in 2020. Weird.

There used to be another Robert Byrd house situated just down the hillside from 10050 that was nearly identical to it: 10048 Cielo Drive. I looked up that house a few months ago, and it's either been demolished or renovated out of all recognition. Which is a shame, because original Byrd houses are charming and increasingly rare, but I suppose they didn't want the association with 10050.

Here is the original 10048:

The current 10048. I don't think there's any of the original house left.

Wonder if this all was post murder hysteria. Remember all the stars that were supposed to go to Cielo Drive the night of the murders

Possibly. Another story simply says that the French actress who built it moved out because her career in Hollywood sent nowhere, and she went home to France.

What's odd is that for such a charming house, it never could keep a tenant. It was a rental before the murders and a rental afterwards--nobody stayed there that long.

Most of you probably know this already, but 10050 Cielo Drive was torn down in the mid 90s or late 90s and then this absolute monstrosity of a house was built on the lot. The owner was Jeff Franklin, the creator of Full House. He sold it a few years ago.

Another creepy story - when Trent Reznor was living in the house, he woke up one night and a coyote was staring at him through the window. This kind of behavior is unheard of among coyotes. They're afraid of humans and won't approach human dwellings. They tend to stay away.

[quote] Remember all the stars that were supposed to go to Cielo Drive the night of the murders

There's a certain perverse glamour that is associated with being connected to the Manson killings. There was no party at the house that night; Sharon Tate, heavily pregnant, was not in the mood for guests. She didn't even want the ones she had. But if you believe the stories half of Hollywood was invited to the house that night. Robert Evans said he was supposed to have been there. Steve McQueen's wife said he was supposed to have been there. Quincy Jones said he was supposed to have gone there to "pick up hair products" from Jay Sebring. Jerzy Kosinski said he was invited to a party there there night.

And here's a new one: Olivia Hussey, who starred in the 1968 version of "Romeo and Juliet", said she was supposed to have moved into the guest house and be a companion/helper to Sharon Tate, but of course poor Sharon was butchered before that could happen. She said her agent, who was also Sharon's agent, arranged for her live with Sharon and be her friend and help her with the baby. Well, that sounds like one big bullshit story. First of all, William Garretson was in the guest house; was Sharon supposed to throw him out? Or maybe the agent would do that? Well, the agent bossed Sharon around when she was a starlet but Sharon's career was on hold at that point. I doubt he had so much control of her life that he would make the decision to throw out Garretson and install a teenage girl who was a virtual stranger to be Sharon's friend and "help" her with the baby. Sharon didn't need any new friends; she had plenty of women friends so she didn't need a teen girl as a confidant. And she'd already engaged a nanny to help with the baby, so why would she need Hussey? The whole story seems like a made up tale Hussey made up to be associated with the Manson mystique. Why do celebrities do this? It seems so nutty. But I guess it brings with it some kind of weird fame.

Yes, lots of people were "supposed" to be at the house that night but had one excuse or another for not going. Most of them were probably lying their asses off, had never even met Sharon, or weren't even in LA that night.

[quote]And here's a new one: Olivia Hussey, who starred in the 1968 version of "Romeo and Juliet", said she was supposed to have moved into the guest house and be a companion/helper to Sharon Tate

Perhaps Hussey's other major claim to fame is her "final girl" role in one of the seminal slasher films, the original Black Christmas (1974).

Yeah, I don't buy every tale from someone who was "supposed to be" at Cielo Drive that night. It's similar to all the people who were "supposed to be" at the World Trade Center or flying to New York or whatever on the morning of 9/11.

Olivia Hussey did live at Cielo Drive for a while after the murders.

A lot of people cycled through Cielo Drive during its years--it had a been a short-term rental for half of Hollywood. Charlie Manson chose the house really well, whether he was considering that aspect or not. Slaughtering four people at 10050 Cielo was going to scare Hollywood shitless, as everybody had stayed there, visited there, or knew people who stayed/visited there.

IMO, Sharon Tate married Roman Polanski because she wanted to star in his movies. No, she didn't deserve to be murdered. But Roman Polanski was very short and physically unattractive. Sharon could have had her pick of wealthy men. Same with Woody Allen and all the women he's dated (aside from Soon Yi).

Jay Sebring was also short and rather plain, just like Roman. Sharon liked small men.

It's true Sharon would have made a fantastic trophy wife: gorgeous, compliant, eager for children. If she'd lived, some mogul would have scooped her up as soon as the ink on the divorce papers with Roman was dry. Jay was hanging around hoping she'd come back to him, but she'd have probably ended up with a big producer or studio chief.

I didn't know that r370. Who in their right mind would have wanted to live in that house afterwards? Just thinking about that makes me uncomfortable. I wouldn't have wanted to be anywhere near that house.

Hussey was the very FIRST tenant after the murders. She said this:

[quote]“It was the most peaceful house in Los Angeles and the safest at that time,” she insisted. “There were no bad vibrations from the house… All I felt was Sharon… What I felt when I entered that house was Sharon’s spirit, which was nothing but pure kindness and sweetness. I wasn’t scared. We also had a buzzer under the desk in the living room so that if anything strange happened or anyone strange would get on the property, you would just buzz… and in three minutes, the entire Beverly Hills Police Department would be there. So it was actually a very safe house.”

As Patricia Krenwinkle was stabbing Abigail Folger in the yard, Folger's last words were "I give up, you've got me", and "I'm already dead".

Chlling.

I thought Sebring had a handsome face, personally.

I'm sure Polanski and Allen had their charms, especially when younger. They were well read, witty, creative, "brilliant." And Roman had his tragic back story as a Holocaust survivor. They both strike me as that kind of ordinary-looking man whom beautiful women feel unusual for being attracted to. Of course, those women weren't so unique.

I remember Pauline Kael (a friend of Allen's for a time, although she often disliked his work) commenting that he always made himself look worse in his films than he was in person. The real Woody Allen was more poised and assured than the nebbish comedic persona of Bananas and Love and Death.

And now the Folgers have got Patricia. When he was alive, her powerful father used his political contacts to keep the main Manson killers in jail. Now Abigail's brother is doing it. They are the real reason Tex, Patricia, and Leslie will die in prison just like Susan did.

The one who really fucked herself was Leslie. If she'd cooperated with authorities during the investigation and trial, she could have gotten off with just a few years or maybe even probation--it's never been proven that Leslie did more than stab a dead body, but she parroted all of Manson's bullshit during the trial and now she's stuck for life.

Successful directors will always have beautiful actresses crawling all over them. Me too-ing does happen, but plenty of ambitious and gorgeous women will gladly fuck an ugly man to get ahead in the business. They'll even marry him.

One of the female inmates that Susan Atkins blabbed to, which broke the case, was a longtime Hollywood call girl and madam. She had actually looked at the Cielo Drive house when it was available to rent. She asked Susan about the colors of the interior to see if she was telling the truth.

Since there is no such thing as ghosts or bad voodoo energy, why would anyone be afraid to stay in the house?

r381 please. Shit like that does exist. I have firsthand experience.

[quote]Jay Sebring was also short and rather plain, just like Roman. Sharon liked small men.

Reminds me of the comment in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood as Damien Lewis is watching Sharon dance and Jay and Roman at either end of the floor that Sharon certainly has a type.

So, the only person who was asked to stay over that night and didn't was the housekeeper, Mrs Chapman (?) is that right?

There was a big party planned for a week later, when Polanski due back from Europe. But not that night.

when Polanski was due back from Europe. Whatever.

Olivia Hussey was Juliet in Romeo and Juliet, and she married Dean Paul Martin, Dean's son. Sharon had worked with Dean Sr. Olivia being a helper to Sharon seems off though, Sharon and Roman had already hired a British nanny who was due to start after the baby was born.

The party that was planned was for Roman's birthday, and he kept putting off his return.

In her book, Hussey said she was planning to rent the guest house before the murders, and had talked to Sharon about it. I guess that would have booted out William Garretson.

Hussey might have found the house peaceful, but her abusive boyfriend Christopher Jones raped her in that house, so . . .

Roman's birthday is 18 August, which fell on a Monday in 1969. So it would have made sense to have a party to celebrate it at some point on the weekend of 15-17 August, one week after the date of the murders. The killers arrived at the Cielo house just after midnight on Saturday, 9 August, having set out from Spahn that Friday night.

Roman said in his autobiography that he totally turned off Sharon sexually once her pregnancy started to show. He wanted his wife's sexy pre-pregnancy body back, and was in no hurry to get home to be with her in the final weeks of pregnancy.

Gibby Folger was ready to dump her drug-dealing boyfriend and re-think her life. She had a plane ticked for Saturday, August 9 to go visit her mother in SF and figure some things out. Had she left just one day earlier, she'd have lived.

R378, "Stabbed a dead body" has always been the apologist view of the actions of LVH on August 10, 1969.

That view has never been proven fact.

More to the point (NPI), LESLIE COULDN'T HAVE KNOWN the actual viability of Mrs. LaBianca at that precise moment of frenzy.

Finally, LVH's awareness and Rosemary's condition notwithstanding, LVH was then and remains equally culpable in the eyes and letter of the law vis-a-vis her murderous cohorts.

LVH, envious of the August 9 killers, eagerly volunteered for the next night, when Charlie's charge was to "do it right."

No pity from Leslie; now no pity towards Leslie. Having escaped the State's full and duly sentenced punishment, she must now live the life the law has given her and consider herself lucky at that.

No felon, having first been given the death penalty and whose guilty verdict remains unchallenged, should be paroled.

50+ extra gifted years of living, breathing, eating, reading, conversing, thinking---let her stay where she is.

[quote]Robert Evans said he was supposed to have been there.

I think Evans said he was supposed to join them at El Coyote for dinner. As was Joanna Petit, the True Crime Forrest Gump.

[quote][R378], "Stabbed a dead body" has always been the apologist view of the actions of LVH on August 10, 1969.

And there was no way to tell which girl made which wound, and a number of them would have been fatal in and of themselves.

Leslie may be the most articulate about her remorse, and I think I do believe her, but at the same, participation in torture-murder kind of overrides penitence.

R357 Yes, the ending is so moving. I got chills just reading your post and thinking about it. A metaphor for life, isn't it – if only.

I think the most damning thing for van Houten is requesting to go along on the second night, knowing at least to some extent what had happened the night before. That shows an abstract willingness to kill and even if she shrunk back when confronted with the reality, and had to be told by Watson to 'do something', is probably enough to keep her where she is no matter how remorseful she has become.

My point wasn't that Houten didn't deserve punishment--even if all she did was stab a dead body (and we'll never know that for sure), she was still legally guilty of murder. My point was that Leslie's lawyer could have made a plausible argument that she was vulnerable, brainwashed, and only guilty of desecrating a corpse. She was young, pretty, and could have been quite sympathetic fo a jury and law enforcement if she hadn't thrown in her lot with the Charlie, Sadie, Katie, and Tex. Ronald Hughes wanted to separate her case from the other killers' but Leslie wouldn't allow it.

All questions of guilt or morality aside, the justice system has always been about cutting deals and Bugliosi probably would have played ball with Leslie just as he did with Linda Kasabian, who was also legally guilty of murder though she didn't commit violence against anyone. Leslie fucked herself out of loyalty to Manson.

Have you guys not heard of the felony murder rule?

R382, prove it.

I have to admit when I watched Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, the ending really got to me and I teared up a little. I thought "if only that could've really happened."

I know, MARY!

We've had some great threads about DLers having ghost encounters and other paranormal experiences. Always interesting to read.

[quote] Linda Kasabian, who was also legally guilty of murder though she didn't commit violence against anyone.

I don't know about that. She never entered the house. All she did was stay outside. Was she the "look out?" If so, she was a poor one, hysterical and overwrought at what was happening. Anyway, I think she deserved immunity in exchange for her testimony. There was some talk of giving the sociopathic Susan Atkins, who spoke unabashedly about how much fun it was to murder people, immunity in exchange for her cooperation. Bugliosi was dead set against that; he supposedly cried "We don't give that gal ANYTHING!"

When I visited Cielo Drive, I didn't see any apparitions, but what I did get was a pervasive feeling of darkness and dread.

Under the felony murder rule, Linda Kasabian was also guilty and was initially arrested with the others and charged with murder. Linda, though, was a relative newcomer to the Family and not so much under Charlie's spell. She was smart enough to listen to her lawyer, turn state's evidence, and receive total immunity.

I don't think Leslie, who DID stab someone, would have gotten off as lightly as Linda, but had she cooperated with authorities she likely would only have served a few years in jail instead of her entire life.

I bought the book "Chaos" on the recommendation of other posters and have been spending this rainy day reading it Wow. I can't put it down What a sleaze Bugliosi was. And how truly awful the entertainment industry is behind the masks.

[quote] And how truly awful the entertainment industry is behind the masks.

I'll never understand why people are so willing to idolise people in the entertainment industry beyond an appreciation of talent. It sounds like such a horrible place full of horrible people.

Bugliosi's OJ book was excellent. He wrote it as if he had been the prosecutor trying the case and holy shit would it have been different. He made Clark and esp. Darden look totally incompetent.

[quote] I can't put it down What a sleaze Bugliosi was.

I don't believe Tom O'Neill's insane accusations against Bugliosi. He conveniently waited until Bugliosi died to smear him. I think he knew if he came out with those accusations while Bugliosi was alive Bugliosi would have sued him from here to kingdom come, and won. O'Neill seems to be some kind of lunatic, an insane conspiracy theorist. I mean Jesus Christ, saying the CIA was involved with Charles Manson in LSD experiments? And all the other craziness he yammers about. If you believe the stuff he says you're the type who believes if you read it it must be true.

The Reeve Whitson guy from CHAOS is a strange one. Never heard of him in any HS folklore before Tom O'Neill's book. Lots of dead ends in the book.

I've been looking at various websites about the Manson murders. I came across this on one of them, in a section of the autopsies of the victims. About Steven Parent it said this:

Steven Parent received three gunshot wounds. Two were considered fatal, perforating his left lung, trachea and aorta, leaving two hemothoraxes (a collection of blood in the space between the chest wall and the lung). The third bullet, which was nonfatal, struck the left side of his face and did not exit. Parent also had one ‘incised’ wound on his left hand. He weighed 162 pounds and was 6’ and ½ inch tall. There was no evidence of spermatozoa, ruling out that his encounter with caretaker Bill Garretson was sexual. He had a blood alcohol level, at the time of autopsy, of 0.02 from the beer he drank before his death. His body, post-autopsy, was collected by his father Wilfred.

"No evidence of spermatozoa, ruling out that his encounter with caretaker Bill Garretson was sexual." Well, I never heard it confirmed like that before, but I believe it. I never heard anywhere (except on Datalounge) that either Parent of Garretson was gay.

Another interesting tidbit in OUATIH is that Bruce Lee was actually training Sharon Tate for her fight scene in The Wrecking Crew. There are several photos taken of the two them together. In a later autobiography he stated he himself was terrified for his family’s lives since they were renting a house nearby.

If someone could please humor me: but there was a poster up thread that stated that the powerful Folger family (Abigail Folger) was making sure the Manson murderers stayed behind bars and this aspect, if true, highly interests me. Could you please expand or explain Abigail Folgers’ family’s involvement? Because from what little I heard, the Folger family did everything they could to distance themselves from her death. It was as if her murder could somehow tarnish the Folger Coffee business. She was outcast because she was acting like a bohemian and not associating herself with the right people. Decades later, it would appear as if the Folger company was completely victorious in this disassociation from Abigail’s grisly murder because no one talks about it. No one seems to care that Abigail was an heiress to the Folger coffee fortune. It’s just wrong that her family tried to disassociate Abigail’s gruesome death because she dared to be with those drug/Hollywood hippy types.

One conclusion in general one can make after reading the better books about Tate-LaBianca, OJ, JonBenet, Capt. Jeffrey MacDonald, and many more cases (my "outlier" has always been the Lindbergh Baby "kidnapping") is that initial on-scene police investigations are too often sloppy to the point of incompetence and sometimes to the impossibility of a consensus resolution.

I was interested in reading this book how much more difficult it is to be able to get viable finger/palmprints as opposed to what we have been led to think.

History would tend to substantiate that ANY and ALL police investigations are sloppy to the point of incompetence and sometimes to the impossibility of a consensus resolution.

David Oman believes in ghosts. More specifically, he believes the victims of the Manson family are haunting his home.

Almost twenty years ago, the Los Angeles private investigator bought a vacant lot in Benedict Canyon, California, just 45 metres from 10050 Cielo Drive.

Cielo Drive is where on August 9, 1969, actress Sharon Tate and four others, Wojciech Frykowski, Abigail Folger, Jay Sebring and Steven Parent, lost their lives at the hands of a deranged cult led by Charles Manson. And Oman was moving in next door.

[quote] Another interesting tidbit in OUATIH is that Bruce Lee was actually training Sharon Tate for her fight scene in The Wrecking Crew.

That's not news. Roman Polanski mentioned that in his memoir long ago.

R412, from what I understand, any filmmakers or writers have to tread very carefully with what they say about Abigail or risk the Folgers' flesh-eating lawyers. That's why she's barely present in any of the books or films. The rumor is that they've used their political contacts in California to make sure that no governor will ever sign off on a main Manson killer's release. That's the way old money works: quiet but relentless.

To clarify, writers/filmmakers could say what they want about Abigail as she's dead, but her point of interest is her connection to the Folgers dynasty, and that family will sue you into the stone-age if you highlight it. That, and the political pressure on the Manson killers, is how they've wielded influence since her death.

I'm not sure how you sue someone for stating the facts.

What grounds would they sue someone?

For mentioning she's the shitty coffee heiress?

Also: do people still drink Folgers?

And, if so.....WHY?

R420 They're owned by Smucker's now. They do institutional sales, the coffee you get on a plane or at a hospital is likely going to be Folgers.

You can sue for defamation or just harass someone with lawsuits if they mention your name in media and it pisses you off. That is, if you have the money and the connections.

***WARNING***Somewhat graphic description below.

To clarify first, all of the autopsy photos of the Manson murder victims were gruesome, but that photo of Abigail Folger’s corpse was awful because it seemed she was stabbed so brutally that a piece of her intestine was exposed. I’m quite sure it was the assault itself that caused it and not some ME procedure. There’s some kind of flesh that is poking out from a stab wound, plus the deep slashes around her mouth. Just OWW! On top of that she was alive for most of it, having to plead for them to stop because she knew she was going to die/already dead almost.

Until her death, didn't Abigail's mother attend every single parole hearing to protest when one of the Family was up for consideration? Doesn't one of her sisters continue to do that?

That was Sharon Tate's family. The Folgers have never attended a parole hearing: They don't have to when they can flex their political muscle behind the scenes.

Sharon's mother Doris Tate at one of Tex Watson's parole hearings in the early 90s. She was amazing! What an impassioned statement she gave to keep Watson behind bars.

When you finish Helter Skelter, try Ed Sanders The Family. A vivid account of the whole thing.

I stand corrected, r424.

Hate to say it but her looks are definitely a winner over his.......any straights on the jury or lez will be won over by her. She is definitely gorgeous and knows how to use her looks.

oops, wrong thread.

R425 Her control and dignity, remarkable. She must have wanted to leap across the table and throttle that evil fucker.

R408, have you read Chaos? The author spent years interviewing every witness, cop, lawyer, judge, official, entertainment figure, and anyone else even tangentially involved or knowledgeable about the case who would speak with him. Everything he says is substantiated.

It is you who are naive.

[quote] Everything he says is substantiated.

IF that's what you think then it is you who is naive. And it bears mentioning again that he came out with the very nasty accusations against Bugliosi only AFTER Bugliosi's death. Highly suspect, that type of behavior is, waiting until someone dies to smear them. I'm pretty sure if Bugliosi were alive he'd wipe up the floor with him legally. O'Neill comes across as a crazy with an ax to grind.

Yesterday I read the account of the night at Cielo in Greg King's book. The blow-by-blow is devastating. The terror those people felt, the vicious violence they endured in their own home. Especially poor Sharon, 8 1/2 months pregnant and having to watch her friends be brutalized and killed first. Unreal. I read Helter Skelter decades ago, but this brought it all to life in a more vivid way. I had to put the book down and collect myself, wipe away a few tears. No wonder the Tarantino ending is so satisfying.

I liked "Once Upon A Time..." but I didn't like the ending that much. Tarantino being all brutal on the killers was over the top (as usual) but he lets Manson himself off scot free!

He should have cut back (a bit) on the getting rid of Tex and the girls stuff, then they should have had a showdown with Manson himself out at Spahn.

Nah, I liked that Manson was barely given the time of day in Once Upon A Time. He'd have loved for the film to be all about him.

Tarantino loved the O'Neill book, fwiw.

R435 Which is why the film needed a coda where we see Cliff (Brad Pitt) turn up at Spahn where he's captured Manson and tied him to the back of a car and drags his ass down the road.

Or, something more ghastly, but quick.

I thought keeping Manson elusive in the film was effective, like how he appeared in the distance, behind Sharon, through the window, and the way he peeked around Jay Sebring and smarmily said "Ma'am" to Sharon.

[quote] Tarantino loved the O'Neill book, fwiw.

No doubt he would. He's crazy.

[quote] I thought keeping Manson elusive in the film was effective, like how he appeared in the distance, behind Sharon, through the window, and the way he peeked around Jay Sebring and smarmily said "Ma'am" to Sharon.

Where and when did this happen in the film?

Here:

Thanks, R440.

Now I recall.

I have to watch it again.

I've watched the Blu-Ray version. I'm seeing comments on the link you sent which seems to show that the scene where Manson waves to Cliff on the roof was not in all versions. It was in the Blu-Ray version.

Was it missing from the theatrical version?

This is the first long DL thread in years that I've read through in one sitting. I also read Helter Skelter in high school. Recently I saw the real estate listing for the Cielo Drive property. That sent me down the rabbit hole on YouTube. One of the most interesting things I watched was an interview with the man (boy) who found the gun from the Tate murders in his backyard.

[quote] I'm seeing comments on the link you sent which seems to show that the scene where Manson waves to Cliff on the roof was not in all versions. It was in the Blu-Ray version.

I just watched the movie a couple of weeks ago on Netflix and that scene was definitely not in it. All I remember was Manson coming to the house looking for Terry Melcher and then leaving.

Incidentally, I must try and find a layout of the property somewhere. I still don't quite understand where the guesthouse was supposed to be.

R441 I remember seeing the scene in the theater. But the blu ray does have some extra footage, including an extended scene of Charlie visiting Cielo. At one point he makes eye contact with Cliff on the roof, and goes into one of his little spazzouts, spouting gibberish. Cliff is like wtf was THAT?! Basically the movie portrays Charlie as a scruffy little moron.

Meaning it's a "bonus" scene. There's also a long scene of Rick Dalton and Sam Wanamaker in a lofty discussion of the craft of acting.

I can’t understand why I feel as if I’m so stoned out of my mind whenever I watch OUATIH….especially with the the dog food scenes and when Cliff goes back home to his trailer and eats Mac n cheese.

It's a very trippy movie. I love it.

[quote]Incidentally, I must try and find a layout of the property somewhere. I still don't quite understand where the guesthouse was supposed to be.

The diagram shown in Helter Skelter cuts off the guesthouse, but says it's to the left (in the aerial-type view shown), well beyond the pool. There are some more compressed diagrams you can find on Pinterest and the Cielo Drive blog. Poor Parent went down a long driveway before not even making it past the gate.

Here you go R443. If you scroll down on this link, at the end there's a map showing where the guesthouse was.

The sad thing about Parent is that if he'd left even five minutes earlier, he'd have been down the road and safe by the time the killers showed up.

True r450. He was at the gate, waiting for it to open. The poor kid almost made it out of there.

Amazing how life can turn on a dime. I remember reading about a man who was at a breakfast meeting at Windows on the World the morning of 9/11, and he left just in time to get in the elevator and out of the building. If he'd decided to leave five minutes later, he'd have been trapped and died with everyone else in the restaurant.

r452 there are a number of 9/11 stories like that. Some people were running five minutes late to work, others went down to the lobby to get a sandwich or coffee or went outside to smoke a cig five minutes before the plane hit, etc. They narrowly escaped death by pure dumb luck.

For the person asking about the guesthouse - it's the structure on the right, with the police car parked in front.

Another aerial view of 10500 Cielo Drive, which shows how long the driveway was. The police car in the foreground is parked right in front of the gate to the property. That's where Steven Parent was in his car as the killers walked off the street.

[quote] At one point he makes eye contact with Cliff on the roof, and goes into one of his little spazzouts, spouting gibberish. Cliff is like wtf was THAT?! Basically the movie portrays Charlie as a scruffy little moron.

But what first happened was that Manson came down the driveway and stopped, looking around. The camera is on the roof behind Cliff who has been fixing the antenna and Cliff stops to watch Manson. Manson notices him and gives a little wave. The camera is now behind Manson, looking up at Cliff who does NOT wave back. It's then that Manson goes into his routine.

I watched one of those brief videos on Youtube and Tarantino uses the word "malevolence" to describe what Cliff picks up on at Spawn Ranch. I think what Tarantino was trying to get at was that Cliff is more attuned to the malevolence he picks up (both at the ranch and possibly from Manson) while Jack completely doesn't feel the danger at all when he confronts the car in front of his house. Hence Cliff does not wave back to Manson.

BTW, the car used in the movie is an exact replica of the actual car used that night. The person who owes the actual car offered it to Tarantino to use for the movie, but Tarantino thought that would be going too far.

I think that's the garage, R455, going by the map posted upthread.

I meant R454, about the garage.

That second aerial view is interesting, the neighboring houses seem much closer than I imagined. Surprised more people didn't hear the screams.

In the novelization of the movie, which is more like background notes and retells very little of the plot, Tarantino goes into Cliff's backstory. Cliff is a WWII vet who killed dozens of Japanese soldiers. After getting out of the army, he's killed several times over the years when someone threatened him or pissed him off. During the fight with Bruce Lee, Lee realizes that Cliff would LIKE to kill him, and is only restraining himself with difficulty.

Cliff is the homicidal badass Charlie desperately wanted to be, and for that reason, Cliff is not intimidated by the Family though he realizes exactly what they are.

R456 Well, the Cliff character is a killer himself (something made even clearer in Tarantino's novelization), so he can smell danger as well as sense weakness.

Jinx, R459, well said.

Then again, watching the Spahn Ranch scenes, you feel dread that Cliff might end up like another buttinsky cowboy stuntman, one Shorty Shea. I mean, theoretically someone could have shot him while he was beating Clem.

Other fun facts from the novelization: Rick is a nice, rather sensitive guy who is cursed with undiagnosed bipolar disorder. He goes on to have a great career in the 70s thanks to the publicity boost from the Manson attacks. Trudi, the little girl from the Western, becomes a highly successful adult actress with a couple of Oscar nominations.

Interestingly, the book doesn't tell you what happens to Cliff.

Tex would have shot him, but he just got back a few minutes too late. Cliff was pretty lucky.

R464 You're right, I'm now remembering Cliff's car pulling out just as Tex gallops up. Whew.

So many good scenes, one being when Tex and Cliff are sizing each other up. Cliff makes a point of establishing his violent bona fides - chain gang, punching a cop I think it was. The actor who played Tex (forget his name, he's a fave on here) does a good job emanating quiet malevolence.

...meant to add, I think Tarantino really fucking hated Tex (rightly so, of course). Charlie is kind of dismissed as a douchebag.

Tarantino may believe Watson's recent admissions that he committed ALL of the famous murders: None of the girls had the guts to stab people to death. If you go from that point of view, a Manson family without Tex wouldn't be very dangerous, even if Charlie were still in charge. Also, at the time the murders were committed, Charlie was losing his grip on the family--it's why the murders took place. Imagining a universe where Tex, Sadie, and Katie got butchered by angry citizens, the rest of the Family might have disintegrated.

Not saying this is what WOULD have happened or even that Tex is telling the truth, but if Tarantino believes it, that might explain how he set up the ending.

“ they were all diabolical killers .” -Doris Tate

[quote] None of the girls had the guts to stab people to death.

They had the guts, alright. Patricia Krenwinkel was as vicious as Tex, stabbing her victims with maniacal fury. As for Susan Atkins, she bragged about killing Sharon Tate, saying that poor Sharon begged "Please don't kill me. Please don't kill me. I don't want to die. I want to live. I just want to have my baby." To which she replied (quoting Atkins) "Look bitch, I have no mercy for you."

Once Upon a Time In Hollywood was a 3-hour Family Guy episode.

Find another obsession

r471 that doesn't even make any sense.

r473 There is constant edited cutaways like a Family Guy episode. And it's as stupid as one. The whole thing was Tarantino's dumb fan fiction.

Yes R471 she did but later both her and Watson claimed that it was him, not her, who did the actual stabbing while she held Sharon Tate's arms. That would fit with Atkins' tendency to brag and maximise her role, though why you would want to brag about stabbing an eight month's pregnant woman is another question. She did stab Voytek F in the legs but it was Watson who killed him with bullets, stab wounds and hitting him with the gun's grip. They all played their part but Watson was the one who did the majority of the violence.

Sorry, meant R470.

[quote] she did but later both her and Watson claimed that it was him, not her, who did the actual stabbing while she held Sharon Tate's arms.

Atkins dearly wanted to get out of prison. So does Watson. I think Watson came out with the "I killed them all" shit to make himself look like he was rehabilitated, to make it seem as though he was taking full responsibility for his actions, for coming clean. I believe he thought the parole board would take this into consideration and that it would be in his favor. Of course Atkins would have gone along with this plan because it made her look she wasn't a murderer. But I truly believe Atkins stabbed Sharon Tate. She said she got some of Sharon's blood in her hand and that she tasted it, and that it was "warm and sticky and nice." That crazy cunt was a murderer.

This is newly found audio of Sharon Tate as a Tonight Show guest{Aug. 2, 1967). No video because in the Seventies, much of the older show footage was recorded over, as a cost savings strategy. I always wondered if Sharon promoted any of her films on Johnny Carson? This is a repost of one I placed in the Patty Duke thread.

You may well be right R477 though I can see Atkins being someone who was full of bravado but not actually as 'brave' when it came to killing as she made herself out to be. And of course they were both full of shit and kept changing their stories over the years. At one of his parole hearings, after claiming it was him who murdered Sharon Tate, Watson then laughably claimed that he didn't know she was pregnant! So we may never know which of the two of them actually stabbed ST but we can agree that they were both vicious cunts.

To this day, none of them have apologized to the victim's families.

Not so ideal 50s for Blacks, r346.

R481 Oh please. Look up the definition of "ideal" as a noun, a concept.

I got the O'Neill book, and am about 20 pages in. I mostly buy the Helter Skelter theory - it's just twisted and cockamamie enough to be plausible – but I'm open. I don't mind someone asking questions, we could use more of that in general.

R482, Oh please, yourself and the dictionary you rode in on. There was no extant CONCEPT (noun) OR DESCRIPTOR (adjective) of "ideal [1950s] America" except to White America.

R484 Look at you, Mr or Miss White Knight, so mad to be called out. I referred to the "wholesome ideal of America" that existed in the 50s, not the "ideal 1950s America." There's a difference and you know it. My comment was a general observation about the zeitgeist of the 1950s being radically subverted by the 60s, and the ways the Manson case reflected that. Unless we're talking about the Helter Skelter theory itself, there’s just no need to shoehorn race into it. It’s gratuitous and tiresome.

Well…to be fair, it was nice if you were a white, straight Protestant male in the 1950s. You know, the 9-5 union job, wifey to clean the house and coming home to a cold beer and hot dinner. But my gut tells me it was more fun then because these men could beat the shit out of their wives and rape them every night. They didn’t invent the ‘wifebeater shirt’ from whole cloth, so to speak. So this would tend to belie the myth of the 50s…and then there is the Archie Bunkers of the world. There’s no way to make him appear happy - maybe the fact that he couldn’t rightfully fuck his lil girl himself, Gloria. I mean, who knows?

Shit NEVER, ever got better for black folk.

I’m not black, but I sense the white race wants to kill off black people in some perceivable justifiable way. I don’t know the history or why. I’d say it’s true that most Asians are racist against blacks, but they have never opted to outright kill them because they were black. So this remains a white, male, particularly American phenomenon.

Yawn...can we get back to the topic at hand, please?

Yes…truth hurts. Let’s move along to entertain this asshole.

I'll explain it one last time, for you dummies: I was not saying the 1950s were ideal. I was saying there was a certain ideal held and perpetuated at that time, whether it reflected reality or not. An ideal tends NOT to reflect reality, in fact. If Doris Day's squeaky-clean, wholesome image (IMAGE, not reality) symbolized the 50s, that gave way to her son's hippie milieu in the 60s. And Sharon somewhat straddled the two eras, comfortably or not. But by all means indulge in your knee-jerk white savior complex if it makes you feel better.

I agree with R488. You want to start a threat about how white people want to kill black people, have at it.

I think Pat Krenwinkle was worse than Atkins as she carved up Leno LaBianca. I don't think Atkins even went to the LaBiancas.

When you run across audio only footage of stuff from the 60s and 70s it's usually stuff that was recorded off the TV by fans at home with audio tape recorders.

[quote]I think Pat Krenwinkle was worse than Atkins as she carved up Leno LaBianca. I don't think Atkins even went to the LaBiancas.

She didn't, but only because she was part of Charlie's second group. While Tex, Leslie, and Patricia were killing the La Biancas, the original plan was for Linda, Clem, and Susan to commit a murder or murders in Venice Beach. This didn't happen for various reasons, mostly having to do with Linda sabotaging from within. But the Susan of the summer of '69 wasn't reluctant to kill. I'm sure if the trios had been arranged differently and she'd been sent into the La Bianca house, she'd have been right there, stabbing for a gold star from her God.

Because she was "B" team with squeamish Linda, her biggest crime on the second night was taking a dump on some stairs.

[quote]But the Susan of the summer of '69 wasn't reluctant to kill. I'm sure if the trios had been arranged differently and she'd been sent into the La Bianca house, she'd have been right there, stabbing for a gold star from her God.

Hell, she wouldn't shut up in Sybil Brand about all. the other people the Family was thinking about killing.

Maybe it was just drugs, but I'd believe that Susan was legit crazy.

I wonder if they gave Sexy Sadie Susan any strong painkillers as she battled cancer in jail? Aren’t those meds restricted? I’m guessing only stuff like morphine would have an effect. Sad, even Charlie didn’t feel anything for her in the end. Stupid, gullible and dangerous bitch.

Damaged is the word you're looking for.

ALL Of the Manson family killers were "damaged" in one way or another. Some of "The Family" would NOT kill for Manson. Some would. Bugliosi rightly surmised that the Manson family members who so eagerly killed for him had "some inner flaw. Apart from Charlie." In other words they were really fucked up even before meeting Charles Manson, despite once seeming "normal", like Tex Watson, who had been a football star, or Leslie Van Houten, who was elected Homecoming Queen, or Patricia Krenwinkel, who had been a Girl Scout. Something was wrong with them long before they ever knew him.

There was a sympathetic Rolling Stone article about Bobby Beausoleil, who tortured and killed Gary Hinman, a Manson murder victim who doesn't get much talked about. The male writer of the piece met Beausoleil and seemingly fell in love with him. He ended the article by saying this:

"Sitting in the visiting room, it’s hard not to like the guy, to want to forgive, to want to believe, to want to forgive even if you don’t believe. He’s been here for 50 years. It’s been a long time."

What a freaking idiot.

The frightening thing about Helter Skelter is at the end of the book Bugliosi discusses how there are many many more unsolved murders that are likely committed by ‘the family’.

R500, I seem to recall years ago when I was reading up on the Zodiac killer, that one of those online websleuths was doing a lot of research into murders and disappearances around that time and posited that there was a connection between these mysteries and the Family - in particular, Bruce Davis, I think. I'm not sure if this was taken that seriously, but I remember being quite shocked at home many women had disappeared or been murdered in California in the 60s, it was creepy.

The Marina Habe murder was just awful. Her mother, actress Eloise Hardt, heard something outside their home, and it must have been the kidnapper/murderer. She was found near Mullholland Drive, was thought to know members of the family.

Diane Lake speaks to Buzzfeed.

Read it when it first hit paperback...I came from a household full of readers...from Jackie Susann dreck, UFO books (dad was air forceand had seen them) to history and true crime.

I was 17 at the time and it scared the crap out of me...well, everything did

Has that movie about the Manson girls that Guinevere Turner was doing come out yet? Anyone seen it? Turner herself grew up in a cult, so her perspective may have been interesting.

Are you talking about Charlie Says? It's on Netflix and it's pretty good. Matt Smith is a surprisingly effective Charlie.

R4 I have told the story before about living in Laurel Canyon from *68-70. I lived in a shithole at 8150 Kirkwood. It was 3 beds 3 bath and 3 couples lived there. People came in and out of the house all the time. I have told the story of meeting Manson on the way to Big Sur. Laurel Canyon was almost a free for all. Celebrities allowed strangers to get close and invited them into their houses. It was the whole hippy culture. After Manson, everything shut down and changed. It was like two different worlds.

r507 Did you sing backing vocals on any Joni Mitchell recordings?

Did Manson stink as badly as the books say, R507?

[quote] Did Manson stink as badly as the books say?

He and his whole "family" probably stank to high heaven. And they were riddled with VD. Juan Flynn, a ranch hand at Spahn Ranch where Charlie and the Family were squatting could testify to that. This is from "Helter Skelter":

When first offered the same bait as the other males he sampled it eagerly, to his regret. "That damn case of clap just wouldn't go away. Not for three, four months."

Charlie said "go down to the waterfall and make love to my girls. Juan told Charlie that the next time he wanted to contract a nine month case of syphilis or gonorrhea he'd let him know.

I consider 20th Century to be like the Wizard of Oz. Up until 1963, we were in black and white. After the Kennedy assassination and the Beatles invasion in January 1964, we suddenly switched to color.

[quote]Read "weird scenes from the canyon" by David McGowan to find out that your favorite rock star was a government plant. The entire counter culture movement was a lie.

There's an interesting book that I read probably 20 years ago about how some rock stars were recruited to do anti-drug types of propaganda. I remember the Beach Boys were a big "get" for the Feds, though Brian wouldn't participate, and they would do things like perform at "The Concert For Decency" and other stuff. Neil Diamond did some creepy anti-drug song for a propaganda short, but then put the song on an album and outed himself. He'd been friendly with the Laurel Canyon crowd until then, but they iced him out, and even Joey Bishop gave him shit for it on live TV. There was a bunch in the book on Frank Zappa who had lyrics in songs like "the CIA infiltrated Laurel Canyon," and that it wasn't metaphorical.

I will never remember the name of the book, and I believe it was actually an academic book with each chapter being a study or essay written by a different person.

I've heard Weird Scenes Inside The Canyon talks about some of this but goes too far into crazyland for anyone to find it particularly believable. The entire counterculture movement was not created by the CIA, for instance, but they did infiltrate it.

R506, yes I think that is the one. I didn't realise Matt Smith was in it. I enjoy him, generally. I just recently watched the Mapplethorpe movie and he was great in that. Will have the check it out!

[quote] But the Susan of the summer of '69 wasn't reluctant to kill.

Atkins was full of hot air. She did the stupidest thing in the world by bragging about murdering a pregnant Tate when, in fact, she didn't. Tex did.

Krenwinkel was the more monstrous of the two on those two nights. But because of Atkins' fake gloating, the entire world remembers her as the murderess who killed a beautiful and 8-month pregnant starlet.

R495, I believe Manson encouraged his followers to exaggerate/trash-talk about their crimes while in the pen. It was an old trick meant to keep other inmates at bay -- something Manson would have known about, having grown up in the juvey system. It backfired though. Susan ended up snitching them all out. Van Houten also made self-incriminatory statements about herself and the Family to the police.

Van Houten followed a string of other arrested Family members who had given nothing of value when questioned, and Van Houten didn't either, at first. What was different about her was that she acted as if she were playing a game, and she was too immature to realize that the police were better at it. When they shook her up by telling her about the suspicious "suicide" of Zero, she got shaken and started revealing more and more. She must have had some feeling for him.

^I still can't forget that picture of Zero in the book. Brrr! Really chilling!

R509 Oh god yes. A bunch of us were on a road trip and stopped at a gas station. The guy I lived with knew him because Manson sold weed in the canyon. I stayed in the car and he was probably 4 or 5 feet away from me and he had the worst smell I have ever smelled on another person in my life. He was also filthy and had the greasiest hair. He was disgusting. Almost like he smelled evil.

R516, I remember reading a transcript of LVH's interrogation with the police and was surprised at how forthcoming she became. Even without Atkins blurting everything out, I think the cops were eventually going to narrow in on the Family.

R240 no, Helter Skelter is NOT the most accurate representation of the Manson story. Not by a longshot. There's a great doc about the topic that's on YouTube made by EPIX. Bugliosi, while a brilliant lawyer, had no compunction about being loose with the truth when it served his own ends.