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

[Ron Bulman]

This was discussed somewhat not too long ago on another thread.  There I mentioned all I know about the subject other than supermarket tabloid headlines at the checkout was seeing the movie Helter Skelter ad the drive in when it came out and what's in Jim D's Reclaiming Parkland in relation to Bugliosi.  Any one's opinion on the one most truthful comprehensive book on the subject would be appreciated.  I'm not into the gore other than the necessity of it, more the details, actions of those concerned.

The other thread did bring out the fact the song is about a carnival ride, not murder, racism or drugs.

 

[James DiEugenio]

The Family by Sanders is a decent book.  But it does not have enough documentation.

As ST Patrick noted, the Schreck book is a nice alternative also.  But its really expensive.

I have not read the O'Nneil book yet.  I just ordered it.

[S.T. Patrick]

Where Schreck differs from Chaos, Mae Brussell, Dave McGowan, and some of the other anti-Bugliosi alternatives, as well, is that Schreck doesn't believe Manson was CIA or Process Church, either. I'm oversimplifying it here - and really shouldn't since his book is over a thousand pages - but he makes a compelling case that the Tate-Labianca murders were a part of a drug deal gone bad. The Straight Satan biker gang ties into that also. Schreck deals with all of this in the shows and in the book. He is going to be in L.A. for the anniversary. He'll be showing the documentary and speaking on the case. I'm personally hoping the book will be re-released then, as well. 

[John Kozlowski]

3 hours ago, S.T. Patrick said:

Where Schreck differs from Chaos, Mae Brussell, Dave McGowan, and some of the other anti-Bugliosi alternatives, as well, is that Schreck doesn't believe Manson was CIA or Process Church, either. I'm oversimplifying it here - and really shouldn't since his book is over a thousand pages - but he makes a compelling case that the Tate-Labianca murders were a part of a drug deal gone bad. The Straight Satan biker gang ties into that also. Schreck deals with all of this in the shows and in the book. He is going to be in L.A. for the anniversary. He'll be showing the documentary and speaking on the case. I'm personally hoping the book will be re-released then, as well. 

What podcast player do you recommend to listen to your show? The apple podcast app and stitcher don’t go back far enough to listen to your shows with Schreck.

Edited July 17, 2019 by John Kozlowski

[Cliff Varnell]

5 hours ago, S.T. Patrick said:

Where Schreck differs from Chaos, Mae Brussell, Dave McGowan, and some of the other anti-Bugliosi alternatives, as well, is that Schreck doesn't believe Manson was CIA or Process Church, either. I'm oversimplifying it here - and really shouldn't since his book is over a thousand pages - but he makes a compelling case that the Tate-Labianca murders were a part of a drug deal gone bad. The Straight Satan biker gang ties into that also. Schreck deals with all of this in the shows and in the book. He is going to be in L.A. for the anniversary. He'll be showing the documentary and speaking on the case. I'm personally hoping the book will be re-released then, as well. <emphasis added>

In Manson In His Own Words Charlie makes a compelling case the Hinman/Tate/LaBianca murders were part of a drug deal gone bad.

According to Charlie's "confession" he got out in front of a  Susan Atkins-inspired plot to commit copy-cat "witchy" crimes to convince the police the Hinman killer was still loose, so they'd let Bobby Beausoleil go.

Like everything else in Manson's life the attempt was a failure.  Sadie Atkins blood lust brought the whole crew down.

 

 

[David Andrews]

I'm starting the O'Neill Chaos book.

What do readers know about the house next door to the LaBianca house?  Different accounts say Manson once went to a party there, or "partied" there (subtle difference).  O'Neill says that Manson "once stayed" in the house.  Then O'Neill says that the house was unoccupied on the night of the murders,  "but it was no matter. The neighbors, Manson decided, would suffice as targets, because they, too, no matter who they were, symbolized the establishment he sought to overthrow with Helter Skelter."

This is a big implication, that Manson was originally targeting the people next door.  Who were they?  It's extra puzzling when O'Neill repeats the story (true?) that the LaBiancas experienced burglaries where the furniture was rearranged in the Family's signature "creepy-crawly" style.  Was Charlie working both houses?

If the LaBiancas suffered creepy burglaries, and Leno owned an antique gun collection, why wasn't he sleeping on the couch with a piece nearby on the night after Tate? 

Edited July 17, 2019 by David Andrews

[David Andrews]

28 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

In Manson In His Own Words Charlie makes a compelling case the Hinman/Tate/LaBianca murders were part of a drug deal gone bad.

According to Charlie's "confession" he got out in front of a  Susan Atkins-inspired plot to commit copy-cat "witchy" crimes to convince the police the Hinman killer was still loose, so they'd let Bobby Beausoleil go.

Like everything else in Manson's life the attempt was a failure.  Sadie Atkins blood lust brought the whole crew down.

 

 

No offense, but the "Free Bobby" copycat crime plot has been discussed and is pretty much part of the case history by now.  But Manson chose the targets - he even chose Hinman for Bobby.  Hinman turned into murder.  Why blame Atkins for LaBianca after Charlie was aware of the horrors at Hinman and Tate?

Edited July 17, 2019 by David Andrews

[Cliff Varnell]

 

 

1 hour ago, David Andrews said:

No offense, but the "Free Bobby" copycat crime plot has been discussed and is pretty much part of the case history by now.

That doesn't stop people from recklessly speculating as to the motive for the crimes.

Quote

But Manson chose the targets - he even chose Hinman for Bobby.

It was a drug deal gone bad.  Manson didn't order Bobby to kill Hinman -- all they wanted was money and Hinman resisted.

Quote

 

  Hinman turned into murder.  Why blame Atkins for LaBianca after Charlie was aware of the horrors at Hinman and Tate?

Because the "witchy" bit was Susan Atkins' idea.  Charlie was gone when Hinman was killed -- it was Atkins' idea to write on the walls with Hinman's blood.  It was Atkins' idea to commit copy-cat crimes.  Charlie got out in front of it, sure, but the plot was hatched in Sadie's blood lust.

Edited July 17, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[Darrell Curtis]

21 hours ago, David Andrews said:

I hear what you're all saying, and I'm re-reading the Mae Brussell transcript, which I'm familiar with.  I agree that there are machinations, real or suggested, before and after the murders.  But I can't write Manson a pass as a "patsy," any more than I'll write one for Watson or the girls.  Call me a conservative. 

Are we agreed that Beausoleil killed Hinman in the company of some Family girls, over a drug deal to a motorcycle gang that Manson was ultimately financially liable for? 

Are we agreed that Tex Watson and Family girls killed the LaBiancas?  That enough of the Kasabian testimony is valid and uncoerced?  Are we agreed that Susan Atkins' jail cell confession is not a plant?

Are we agreed that the statements of culpability and remorse made by Watson and the jailed Family girls in seeking parole are uncoerced and accurate?  Or do we feel they take responsibility in order to protect some military intelligence assassins that they fear, or are concerned that a parole board will not believe in?

Then no hall pass for Charlie.

But how did Tex Watson know which one was the phone line?

This set of murder cases, let me tell you - the more you study them, the more you feel like you're splashing through a room ankle deep in blood.  And I'm reactionary enough to deny Manson "patsy" status just for the sake of my disgust, not to mention the suffering of the victims.  I can, and do, look for more guilty parties, however.

Agreed to your three points. Calling Manson a patsy is ludicrous. Even if he wasn't present before, during or after any of these murders, he still was involved, still was the mastermind. Or at least the central hub around which these events emerged and helped spur them on, although I think mastermind is a true statement.

Having said that, Jim's previous comments sum up something close to the picture that emerges after reading the book by Sanders and Adam Golightlys' "Shadow Over Santa Susana"

[Cliff Varnell]

I dunno how many drug-addled rocknroll freaks y'all have dealt with, but over the past 50 years I've known droves of 'em.

I wouldn't apply the word "mastermind" to any of 'em.

[Darrell Curtis]

6 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I dunno how many drug-addled rocknroll freaks y'all have dealt with, but over the past 50 years I've known droves of 'em.

I wouldn't apply the word "mastermind" to any of 'em.

I've dealt with quite a few drug addled freaks, not of the rocknroll variety, mainly just Bay Area street people, Deadheads etc. Most of them couldn't mastermind much of anything. But there were one or two who could have been quite dangerous.

I tried to correct my statement, as it did seem a bit too much, but the forum won't save the edit. It remains for ever in 'saving' so post it here instead.

"Agreed to your three points. Calling Manson a patsy is ludicrous. Even if he wasn't present before, during or after any of these murders, he still was involved, still was the mastermind. Or at least the central hub around which these events emerged and helped spur them on. It seems there were a few central players in the Family, and the sum was greater than its parts, in terms of the murders they committed.

Having said that, Jim's previous comments sum up something close to the picture that emerges after reading the book by Sanders and Adam Golightlys' "Shadow Over Santa Susana". I note Jim's comments about the Sanders book. It's value (and the Golightly book as well) is that it pokes holes in the Bugliosi theory, shows how silly it was/is, and presents some viable alternatives."

[Cliff Varnell]

1 minute ago, Darrell Curtis said:

I've dealt with quite a few drug addled freaks, not of the rocknroll variety, mainly just Bay Area street people, Deadheads etc. Most of them couldn't mastermind much of anything. But there were one or two who could have been quite dangerous.

We're on the same page.  I put Dead Heads and Drunk Punks in the same "rocknroll freak" category.  I've lived in the Haight Ashbury for 30 years, etc.

Darrell, ya gotta check out Manson In His Own Words (w/Nuel Emmons).  He doesn't spare anyone, much less himself.    That book leaves me with the impression there was no real "masterminding" going on.

[Darrell Curtis]

9 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

We're on the same page.  I put Dead Heads and Drunk Punks in the same "rocknroll freak" category.  I've lived in the Haight Ashbury for 30 years, etc.

Darrell, ya gotta check out Manson In His Own Words (w/Nuel Emmons).  He doesn't spare anyone, much less himself.    That book leaves me with the impression there was no real "masterminding" going on.

I'll take the suggestion and put the book on my list. As to rocknroll freaks, I'll take a Deadhead over a drunk punk any day. Dealt with many of those in Deep Ellum in the 80's. A Deadhead never made me fear for my life, as disturbing as some of them could be.

[Cliff Varnell]

3 minutes ago, Darrell Curtis said:

I'll take the suggestion and put the book on my list. As to rocknroll freaks, I'll take a Deadhead over a drunk punk any day. Dealt with many of those in Deep Ellum in the 80's. A Deadhead never made me fear for my life, as disturbing as some of them could be.

Heh heh.  I promoted hardcore punk rock in Reno Nevada 1980-2.  Some hairy moments of near-death, indeed.

Some great punk bands out of Texas in the 80's -- Butthole Surfers, MDC, the Big Boys, the Dicks.

[S.T. Patrick]

7 hours ago, John Kozlowski said:

What podcast player do you recommend to listen to your show? The apple podcast app and stitcher don’t go back far enough to listen to your shows with Schreck.

The Apple podcast app and Stitcher should both go back far enough. On the Apple app - which I use - you, for some reason have to scroll down and click "available episodes." Then they should all pop up. I wish Apple didnt make you go through this step to see all episodes... but they do. Its my understanding that Stitcher has something similar, but I havent used it in a while.