Friday, September 6, 2019

Reeve Whitson

William writes:

In Tom O’Neill’s book Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties we learn about Reeve Whitson, a CIA agent disguised as a hippie. He was a close friend of Sebring, Tate and Polanski. He also knew Charles Manson. He had advance knowledge of the murders at the Tate house, because he had the house under surveillance. He was at the Tate house after the murders were committed but before the police arrived. Whitson was the one who coerced Hatami to cooperate with Bugliosi during the investigation. He threatened Hatami with deportation back to Iran if he did not cooperate. He not only helped Bugliosi, but he also gave much help to  Paul Tate during his private investigation of his daughter’s death.

O'Neill's information on Whitson provides strong support for the proposition that military and intelligence agencies were involved in the Tate LaBianca murders, bringing the CIA’s Phoenix program of assassination and torture of Vietnamese non-combatants home to America. The purpose behind the plot was to incite terror among white people and put the blame on black radicals.

119 comments:

Mon Durphy said...

Buuuuuullllllshit

William Weston said...

O'Neill mentions the story of Manson going back to the Tate house with a "mysterious partner." Since O'Neill's sources said that Whitson was in the house after the murders but before the police came, O'Neill draws the conclusion that Whitson was Manson's partner. This cannot be correct. Manson's partner left a pair of eyeglasses by the steamer trunks. As I have indicated on an earlier thread, according to the Marie Vigil letters, the man who left the eyeglasses was Robert Linkletter. However, I am not disputing O'Neill's sources. Whitson could have gone into the house after Manson and his partner left, perhaps to perform necessary but mundane tasks such as removing bugs from the telephone and/or other places before the police arrived.

katie8753 said...

Reeve Whitson? That sounds like a made up name. Let's try Whit Reevson. Or Sonny Reevwhit.

Or Reevie Sonwhit. This is from the Twilight Zone!

katie8753 said...

He was a close friend of Sebring, Tate and Polanski. He also knew Charles Manson. He had advance knowledge of the murders at the Tate house, because he had the house under surveillance.

William, if this guy was a close friend of Sebring, Tate and Polanski, and knew about the murders before they happened, why didn't he warn Tate & Sebring? That doesn't make any sense.

beauders said...

I found Whitson to be the most interesting of the characters that O'Neill presented. Who knows if any of it is based in reality. Whitson though is mentioned in literature on the web as being at least associated with the CIA.

William Weston said...

Reeve Whitson was born March 25, 1931. His mother was a dancer and his father was a world-renowned acrobat. He had a talent for acting and moved to Los Angeles to be an actor at the Pasadena Playhouse. A search of newspapers.com shows that he grew up in Kendallville, Indiana, got married to Mary Worch of Santa Monica on Jan. 7, 1952, and that his father worked in the circus. When Reeve starting working for the CIA is unknown.

There is more to his background, but I skip to Aug. 9, 1969. He was living with his parents in Los Angeles. The morning after the murders, his father realized his son had not been home. Knowing that his son was going to 10050 Cielo Drive the night before and because of reports that one of the bodies was unidentified (Steve Parent), his worried father called the police. Reeve finally returned home late that night, but never said where he was during the hours he was missing.

Whitson told Frank Rosenfelt, former president and CEO of MGM, that he met Manson before the murders at Cielo Drive, and the murders could have been prevented, but no one in law enforcement would listen to him. O’Neill interviewed Paul Tate, Sharon’s father, who said that Whitson was a friend of Roman, Sharon, and Jay. Tate said Reeve was “very, very helpful” in Tate’s private investigation. He was very helpful with the police investigation and with District Attorney Bugliosi.

Why did he not warn his friends Roman, Sharon and Jay? That is a great question, Katie. In spite of his disclaimer to Rosenfelt, I think he was part of the plot to kill them and subsequently got involved in the subsequent cover-up of the role of the CIA and military intelligence in the murders. The Manson Family was certainly involved, but they were not the only ones.

Mon Durphy said...

It's all bullcrap, I may not be a believer in Helter Skelter being the motive but some of these conspiracy theories are beyond ridiculous

Mon Durphy said...

He's interesting because he's made up or at least his story is, it's a figment of someone's imagination, I laughed just as hard at this as I did at David Berkowitzs claim of his neighbors dog telling him to kill lol

katie8753 said...

I've got several comments to make but right now I'm dealing with some personal crap. Hopefully I can get on in the next couple of days.

CarolMR said...

I hope everything is OK, Katie.

katie8753 said...

CAROL!!! Good to see you!! Yeah everything's okay, just some stuff I've gotta get thru.

Ajerseydevil said...

Chaos reads like a bad spy novel CIA spooks MK Ultra Manchurian candidates really just ridiculous
Even the interesting parts such as why Manson's parole was never revoked after all of his arrests for some fairly serious crimes went nowhere we've all heard this before I was hoping maybe the reasons would finally be expained but never where don't waste your money there's plenty of really good book's on the subject I believe my collection on the subject is right around 30 books

Mon Durphy said...

The craziest thing is 30 books is just the tip of the iceberg, I'd bet if one of the real experts in the TLB community sat down for a few hours and listed them there would be at least 150, if you added magazine articles, movies, TV specials, musical recordings, podcasts, you'd be at 1000 or more

CarolMR said...

Glad everything is OK, Katie!

starviego said...

Krenny later testified that she was sure the American Flag on the sofa wasn't there during the murders.

And the scene was littered with marijuana and cocaine, even though no residues of those drugs were found in the body fluids of the dead.

I am now thinking those items were planted at the scene to subtly demonize the victims and to enable police to go off on their sham 'drug burn' diversion.

starviego said...

William Weston said...
"Why did he not warn his friends Roman, Sharon and Jay? That is a great question, Katie. In spite of his disclaimer to Rosenfelt, I think he was part of the plot to kill them and subsequently got involved in the subsequent cover-up of the role of the CIA and military intelligence in the murders."

I agree. No way this guy was just there to watch.

William Weston said...

starviego said...
I am now thinking those items were planted at the scene to subtly demonize the victims and to enable police to go off on their sham 'drug burn' diversion.


I agree.

The LAPD wanted to tie the murders to drug dealers who might have had a motive for murdering Frykowski. O’Neill got an unpublished manuscript called “Five Down at Cielo Drive” written by three authors, Lt. Helder, Paul Tate, and an FBI man named Roger LeJeunnesse. Has anyone ever heard of it?

According to the manuscript, Helder told Whitson to cozy up to anyone who knew Frykowski’s suppliers, especially those in Mama Cass’s circle.

So having a CIA undercover agent learn more about the habits of drug dealers in order to pin the blame on them would be in keeping with the cover-up strategy of setting up the innocent (albeit unsavory) in order to allow the real murderers to go free.

starviego said...

William Weston said...
O’Neill got an unpublished manuscript called “Five Down at Cielo Drive” written by three authors, Lt. Helder, Paul Tate, and an FBI man named Roger LeJeunnesse. Has anyone ever heard of it?

Yes, excerps were in the book by Alyssa Statman and Bree Tate.

Mon Durphy said...

Supposedly Debra Tate has the manuscript for the book, one of the claims in it was that Paul Caruso was representing Tom Harrigan and when Helder saw the new MDA drug on the to reports he wanted to get a sample analyzed but didn't know where to come by it so he asked Caruso if Hartigan would give him a sample and he did, it's awfully convenient how often Caruso's name pops up in the TLB saga

Mon Durphy said...

Tox reports, typo

Mon Durphy said...

Winifred Chapman claims the flag was there so either you take the word of a murderess or the flag was on the couch when Chapman left on Friday afternoon and then put back by whoever went back to the scene, perdonallp I believe it was there and Krenwinkels goofy ass didn't notice it or just plain lied, like Harold True said "Krenwinkel carries her brains in a lunchbox" lol

katie8753 said...

According to Statman's book (I think that's where I read it), Doris told Sharon to get rid of that flag because if Paul Tate saw it he'd hit the roof. So I think, like Mon says, the flag was there and Krenwinkel either didn't notice it or was was lying.

William Weston said...

Mon Durphy, you’re forgetting Manson, his mysterious partner, and of course Whitson who was in the house after the murders but before the police came. There were a lot of discrepancies in the crime scene that could be resolved by assuming persons other than Tex’s team made entries into the house. Krenwinkel did not see the flag on the couch. The flag was put on the couch after she and her co-murderers left, where it would be seen by Winifred in the morning.

katie8753 said...

William I think Doris saw that flag on the couch a couple of days before the murders.

Mon Durphy said...

No, I said Winifred testified that the flag was on the couch THE DAYS LEADING UP TO THE MURDERS AND THE DAY OF, so that would mean someone took it off after she left and replaced it by the next morning OR Krenwinkel is either forgetting it was there (most likely) or lying about it not being there (least likely), most people in the group regarded Pat as either extremely shy or a tad mentally retarded which I believe whole heartedly

Mon Durphy said...

Also William this whole Reeve Whitson is bullshit, he was never there, I've heard NOTHING up until now of his claims of being there and oddly enough these claims surface right around the 50th anniversary, as Archie Bunker used to say "let's cut the crapola, heh?"

Mon Durphy said...

Just as a general statement regarding the killers you have to take into account that BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION they took HUNDREDS of trips on hallucinogenic drugs in addition to smoking marijuana daily, these people are bound to forget various things that most look at as things that are mere footnotes such as what piece of furniture was where, who said what first, where the flag was, what time it was, etc, etc

Mon Durphy said...

I'm pretty sure the last time Doris was in the house was for the watching of the moon landing but I do remember her saying it was there though I highly doubt it was upside down like the pics from Aug 9 show, I can't imagine that would be too cool with Col Paul lol

Mon Durphy said...

How did O'Neill get the transcript to the book, I heard Debra had it?

William Weston said...

O'Neill said he got his copy of the book from another journalist.

starviego said...

Mon Durphy said...
"...Winifred testified that the flag was on the couch THE DAYS LEADING UP TO THE MURDERS AND THE DAY OF"

Where did she say that? Got a link?

katie8753 said...

I've gotta say, I agree with Mon on this one. I've never heard of this Reeve guy in my life, and I've been studying this case for years. It seems that every time someone new "writes a book" they come up with all kinds of things that have never been thought of. Now Manson is a "secret agent"? I find that hard to believe.

In Krenwinkel's first parole hearing, she pretty much said she didn't remember anything about that night except chasing down Gibby. She was probably 3 sheets to the wind at the time. I hardly think she was looking at furnishings in the house when Tex "sic'd her" on the residents.

I wouldn't base any findings on what she says.

Mon Durphy said...

Trial transcripts

Mon Durphy said...

Did Statman swipe it from Lt Deemer when she stole all the other stuff from his house?

Mon Durphy said...

Take a person (Krenwinkel) with an IQ just barely in the 3 digits to begin with and add in the hallucinogens, pot and babblings of a man she's in love with (Manson) and you've got a woman operating on a bowl of porridge for brains

starviego said...

katie8753 said...
"I've gotta say, I agree with Mon on this one. I've never heard of this Reeve guy in my life"

His name first popped up in the book 'Sharon Tate - A Life' by Ed Sanders, which came out in 2016:
"..Hatami testified at the trial that Manson wanted to know where 'somebody' lived - referring to Terry Melcher. Hatami directed him to the caretaker's guest house on the other side of the pool, where Rudy Altobelli lived. While Manson was near the porch, Sharon Tate came to the door to ask who it was, and saw Manson.
(For his part, in an interview with Mr.Hatami while researching this book, Hatami told me he has no memory at all of Manson coming to the front door of Cielo Drive, but that the memory was suggested to him by an investigator named Reeve Whitson, who worked for both Col.Paul Tate and the prosecutor Vince Bugliosi."

starviego said...


Versions of how the flag got there:

Coroner, Thomas T. Noguchi and Joseph DiMona
pg132
...the large American flag draped over the couch. ..the housekeeper* told me, "That flag has always been here. It came with the house."
*Winifred Chapman, presumably.

Greg King's book quoting BUGLIOSI :
« Mrs CHAPMAN told police investigators that it had simply been placed on the back of the couch as a decorative touch a few weeks earlier ».

Sharon Tate Remembered by Sheila Wells
The red, white and blue nursery colors reminded me of reading about the murder scene and how there was an American flag draped over Sharon's sofa. I asked about it. Sheilah nodded. "Yes, it's true, there was a flag draped over the back of the sofa. It had been there ever since Voityck and Gibby (Abigail Folger) moved in. It belonged to them. Whenever I went over to Sharon's and I'd see the flag there, I'd tell her it wasn't right. She'd nod and say she knew, but that Gibby and Voityck thought it was very funny. "That was Sharon. She knew that the others were making fun of the flag, of the establishment. She didn't go along with it, but she felt it might hurt them if she took it away.

katie8753 said...

Well (1) the flag was there and (2) I don't know why that's a point of conjecture and (3) I've still never heard of Reeve Whitson. If he worked for Bugliosi I don't remember his name being mentioned in his book, unless it was just a sentence and I've forgotten it.

BTW, Hatami took many pics of Sharon at Cielo Drive. Is there a pic with the couch with a flag?

I can look, but I have to say, I'm just exhausted and will retire for the night.

And don't nobody say "yeah". LOL.

Mon Durphy said...

Basically a long winded version of what I said, Chapman said it was there

Mon Durphy said...

Another one of Ed Sanders mysterious names with stories too interesting to be true, animal sacrifices, human sacrifices, porn movies filmed of the family at some Malibu mansion, Susan drinking blood and pooping on stairwells, Charlie biting through umbilical cord, blah, blah, blah, The Family is more a work of fiction than Lord of the Rings

starviego said...

katie8753 said...
"I've still never heard of Reeve Whitson.Who was Reeve Whitson?"


O'Neill cites an impressive list of witnesses who vouch for Whitson's presence in the scene:


pg188
Frank Rosenfelt, former president and chief executive of MGM: "Reeve knew a lot about the Manson situation..."

pg189
Richard and Rita Edlund: "I knew he helped in the Manson investigation... Reeve was among those, if not the one, who broke the Tate case... He operated in the CIA... He was friends with Jay Sebring and Polanski was a buddy of his, and the Beach Boys--and he met Manson through all this."

pg190
Neil Cummings, lawyer friend of Whitson: "...when it came to Manson, he "was closer to it than anybody.."
"He was actively involved with some sort of investigation when it happened. He worked closely with a law enforcement person and talked quite a bit about events leading up to the murders... He had a reason to believe something weird was about to happen at the [Tate] house. ... He told me he was there after the murders, but before the police got there. Whitson had the Tate house under surveillance, ... which is how he knew something was going to happen. On the night of the murders, he'd been there and left."

pg193
Whitson's wife, Ellen Josefson: "He was working for the CIA..."
"He(Whitson) said that his mother and Sharon Tate's mother were close" she said.

pg196
Linda Ruby, cousin to Whitson: "He(Whitson's father) knew that Reeve had planned to visit the Cielo house the night before..."

pg199
FBI agent Roger "Frenchie" LaJeunesse: "Reeve Whitson was a part of putting the book together, the linchpin between all of us."

pg200
LAPD Sgt Mike McGann, Tate investigator: "He was heavily involved." McGann was nearly certain that Whitson was in the CIA, and found him "very credible."

pg201
"Reeve was my main person to help me," PJ Tate said. "He's been a friend of Roman Polanski and Sharon and mine and Jay Sebring... He was very, very helpful."

pg203
John Irvin, British film director: "Whitson had very good connections with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Office."


Mon Durphy said...

If the FBI or CIA allowed the murders of 5 adults and one full term unborn baby to happen while supposedly surveilling the scene there would be an uprising in this country the likes of which haven't been seen since the Civil War

Mon Durphy said...

Lol "an impressive list of witnesses who vouch for him", all I see is one firmer film company president saying only "he knew about the Manson case", "Richard and Rita Edlund" whoever the fuck they were, Neil Cummings "a lawyer friend" of Whitsons (again WOW!!), Whitsons wife (not exactly an objective witness), Linda Ruby a cousin of Whitsons (again, not objective), 2 detectives working on the TLB case who are desperate to find ANY motive in a case that appears to have none EXCEPT drugs and robbery, and a British film director claiming Whitson had "very good connections with LASO" along with thousands of other people in LA

katie8753 said...

pg201
"Reeve was my main person to help me," PJ Tate said. "He's been a friend of Roman Polanski and Sharon and mine and Jay Sebring... He was very, very helpful."


Sorry Starviego, this all sounds like nonsense to me. I can't imagine Paul Tate lauding someone who could have prevented his daughter's death. Who is this O'Neill guy?

starviego said...

O'Neill also quotes the LAPD's Lt. Helder, who refers to Whitson in the book "Five Down at Cielo Dr" under a pseudonym "Walter Kern," confirmed by LaJeunesse.

William Weston said...

Hatami mentioned the name Reeve Whitson four times in his testimony at the Manson trial. He said it was Reeve who brought him to Bugliosi during the investigation.

O’Neill interviewed Hatami who said that Bugliosi knew Reeve very well.

Hatami also told O’Neill that he first heard about the murders from Reeve. He got a call from Reeve Whitson at 7:00 in the morning, a full NINETY minutes before Winifred Chapman arrived at the Cielo house. Whitson told him that Sharon and four others were dead.

O’Neill got a lot of help for his book from Stephen Kay. Kay told him that Manson and Watson had been to the Cielo house when Terry Melcher and Candace Bergen were there. O’Neill also was given access to never-before-seen documents showing that DeCarlo said that Melcher made three visits to Spahn Ranch after the murders and spoke with Manson. This contradicted Melcher’s testimony that after his May 1969 visit to Spahn Ranch he never saw Charlie again.

I bring these last points up to show that O’Neill’s book should be taken seriously for the information it contains from documents and from people close to the case.

Mon Durphy said...

Sorry but I just dont believe he was in that house before Winifred and the cops got there, it would have been front page news at the time, and if you're saying Whitson knew the murders were taking place and did nothing to stop them then he'd have been suspect #1

Mon Durphy said...

This whole ONeill book thing is a collection of tin hat conspiracy bullshit timed PERFECTLY to be released within months of the 50th anniversary and the release of the Tarantino, the only "facts" in it are what has already been public knowledge for decades

Mon Durphy said...

Tarantino movie, typo

Mon Durphy said...

Couple more things after reading your post, why of all people would Whitson call Hatami about the murders first? Also God bless Steven Kay because I think he's a true advocate for victims he does tend to exaggerate things, Susan killed Sharon, Manson read Nietzsche all the time, dogs ate before people, etc, etc and on the claims of Melcher being at Barker after the murders look at the source, Danny DeCarlo, one of the biggest lying scumbag pieces of shit to ever come down the pike

beauders said...

I would love it if Stephen Kay wrote a memoir, not just for the Manson stuff but because he nailed that scumbag Lawrence Bittaker. As I said on the other blog, the other day I hate Bittaker with a passion. He's never going to be executed but hopefully he will suffer a long painful death. He's scared to die now that he's in he's eighties, so I don't see him killing himself. When I learn of Bittaker's death 'I am going to party like it's 1999." That is assuming I outlive him.

beauders said...

Also Mon I think Whitson might be the truest character in O'Neill's book, but I think people are going to throw the baby out with the water on this one. All be told I love a conspiracy book. I really loved Peter Levenda's "Sinister Forces" three volume set.

Mon Durphy said...

There's a clip on YouTube of him explaining away his crimes to a reporter, everything is poor me, no one ever gave me any help, I just thought I'd try out some fantasies, etc, he's a sick sick dude

Mon Durphy said...

Yeah, look I can see Whitson as a very bit player in the whole saga but as some Matt Damon Bourne Supremacy operative, not while the grass is green and the sky is blue

Mon Durphy said...

I agree with you on Kay, I'd like to sit down in a bar one night and listen to some stories, he seems like a really nice guy

grimtraveller said...

William Weston said...

Hatami mentioned the name Reeve Whitson four times in his testimony at the Manson trial

No he did not. He mentioned him once. And that was after he'd already been mentioned by VB.

He said it was Reeve who brought him to Bugliosi during the investigation

Very interesting the way you put that. You give a certain impression that actually is not so. LAPD were looking for Hatami at the request of Bugliosi because Bugliosi wanted to know if what Rudi Altobelli had told him about Manson turning up at his pad and having been sent there by the people at the main house {and 4 of the 5 Cielo victims were at the house that day} could be corroborated; Bugliosi obviously couldn't get corroboration from Sharon, Jay, Gibbie and Wojiciech and Altobelli had mentioned that he thought Hatami was there that day.
Whitson went to Bugliosi's office with Hatami as a friend of Hatami. He didn't "bring" Hatami. In fact, it's Bugliosi that brings out the fact that Whitson was with Hatami and his part in all the proceedings is as relevant as any flies that may have been in the office at the time.

O’Neill interviewed Hatami who said that Bugliosi knew Reeve very well

How would Hatami, who met Bugliosi only a couple of times, and on official business {ID photos, trial} know who Bugliosi knew, well or otherwise ?

Hatami also told O’Neill that he first heard about the murders from Reeve. He got a call from Reeve Whitson at 7:00 in the morning, a full NINETY minutes before Winifred Chapman arrived at the Cielo house

And he didn't report this to the Police ? And we're supposed to believe that this Whitson basically knew something was up beforehand but said nothing and allowed it to happen and yet was supposed to be a friend of PJ, Roman, Sharon, Jay and Bugliosi ?
William, you simply make no sense precisely because you entertain multiple disparate theories and you drag in as your evidence pretty much any source that catches your eye at the time.

Mon Durphy said...

This whole ONeill book thing is a collection of tin hat conspiracy bullshit

That, Dave, is being pretty generous.
It sounds like Shreck writ large but without the 900+ pages.

Mon Durphy said...

We don't always agree on things but this guy spent what 25 years on this and this crap is all he came up with? Reeve Whitson? Really?

Mon Durphy said...

The funniest thing is "Whitson" knows about the murders a full hour before Chapman and who is the first person he tells? Shahrokh Hatami of course hahahahahahaha

grimtraveller said...

William Weston said...

Hatami also told O’Neill that he first heard about the murders from Reeve. He got a call from Reeve Whitson at 7:00 in the morning, a full NINETY minutes before Winifred Chapman arrived at the Cielo house

You do realize that if this is true, that Hatami witheld crucial information from the Police, went on the stand and testified in a trial and basically stood by while someone was tried and sentenced to death and now is happy for all the world to know this !

However, I am not disputing O'Neill's sources. Whitson could have gone into the house after Manson and his partner left, perhaps to perform necessary but mundane tasks such as removing bugs from the telephone and/or other places before the police arrived

And got in a quick call to Hatami !
Well, for 50 years, we've had a sackful of those that were "supposed" to be at Cielo that night. Now, we have 2 men claiming to be the driver of the white sports car on the night of the LaBianca killings and a virtual "after hours" Cielo party involving Robert Linkletter, Charlie, the mystery partner and Reeve Whitson.
Blimey !

In spite of his disclaimer to Rosenfelt, I think he was part of the plot to kill them and subsequently got involved in the subsequent cover-up of the role of the CIA and military intelligence in the murders. The Manson Family was certainly involved, but they were not the only ones

Sounds like there was quite a queue just waiting to off a pregnant actress, a coffee heiress, a barber and a......well, Wojiciech.

starviego said...

O'Neill cites an impressive list of witnesses who vouch for Whitson's presence in the scene

Not only are they not impressive, you're kind of being rather evangelastic there, with the stretching, old pal. Sometimes, it's actually worth following theories to a logical conclusion. Ask yourself what it logically means to have "witnesses that vouch for Whitson's presence in the scene." Of the 9 people you mention, one of them says Whitson was there. I have to confess to a certain amusement at the personages you drag out to lend credence to your theories of the moment. I thought you surpassed yourself in bringing in such an authority as Quincy Jones to tell us all how Sharon's Dad led the investigators to Charles Manson.......but Neil Cummings !
Who is he again ?

beauders said...

Grim glad you’re back, where have you been?Odd coincidence do you guys know the judge in the Green River Killer, Gary Ridgway was Richard Jones, Quincy Jones brother. Ridgway is another scumbag who will never adequately pay for his crimes, that is unless he gets tied to some murders here in Portland. He dumped bodies in Portland and there are a bunch of missing prostitutes in that time frame in Portland as well. That dude killed 50+ women and bargained for his life. He told and then showed where a lot of missing women were. He was not very intelligent an IQ around 85 he was a savant to murder instinctively knew how to kill and get rid of bodies.

beauders said...

Ridgway’s victims were my age, I was in high school through most of it. It was a huge deal here in the Northwest. I hate him too.

Mon Durphy said...

Ridgeway was an asshole, there was a great part during his trial where one of his victims father's stands up in open court and forgives him and Gary breaks down weeping uncontrollably, it's heartbreaking on both sides

starviego said...

Grim said
"Ask yourself what it logically means to have "witnesses that vouch for Whitson's presence in the scene." Of the 9 people you mention, one of them says Whitson was there."

I did not mean the 'scene' of the crime, rather the general milieu around crime scene before and after.

starviego said...


From RFK Jr's instagram post on Wednesday's death of Thane Eugene Cesar, prime suspect in his dad's 1968 murder:

“The LAPD unit (SUS) that investigated my dad’s assassination was run by active CIA operatives. They destroyed thousands of pieces of evidence,” RFK Jr. stated.

And these are the people we entrusted to get to the bottom of the TLB case. Ha!

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Hey grimtraveller,
I'm also glad you're back👍😄

Please check-out the comments from this blog-post
👇
http://www.lsb3.com/2019/08/leave-something-witchy.html?m=1
pertaining to comments by myself, Bobby, & Ms Katie regarding
"The Construction Site."
Thanks

Mario George Nitrini 111
-------
The OJ Simpson Case

Mon Durphy said...

Beauders in an interesting twist to the Ridgeway/Green River case detectives Dave Riechert and Bob Keppel went to Florida to interview Ted Bundy since alot of his victims were in the same area and killed in similar ways, this was fairly early in the case in 1984 and one of the first things Bundy recommended was staking out a fresh dump site and watch it for a few days and that Ridgeway would be back to interact with the corpse which was one of the hallmarks of Bundy's crimes and was also exactly what Ridgeway was doing

William Weston said...

Good to see you back, Grim!

Now that your posting again, maybe you can put up Hatami’s testimony on Whitson. I have these numbers from O’Neill’s book in reference to Hatami and Whitson: 22239, 144483, 14508, 14542, 14554.

katie8753 said...

Well Grim, your fan club is calling.

But I've got my eye on you. Not the bad eye, the good eye. LOL.

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

I did not mean the 'scene' of the crime, rather the general milieu around crime scene before and after

I wondered about that but it works either way. There are a number of people mentioned, for example in that first Tate police report, many of whom were involved in the investigation whom we never hear of again. They could have played a part ranging from major to minor.
We know that Reeve Whitson was an investigator of some sort. That's not in any doubt. It does seem that his place in the scheme of things is being ramped up in the absence of anything new and groundbreaking.


Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Please check-out the comments from this blog-post "leave-something-witchy"
pertaining to comments by myself, Bobby, & Ms Katie regarding "The Construction Site"


I did read that at the time. For some it was possibly a fascinating exchange because as is your wont, you tend to be a great promoter of intrigue and mystery and you have a way of seeming like you have some dynamite for demonstration.....but it never explodes. Now, you'll know from past exchanges that I don't take what you have to say with any seriousness, not because I'm disinterested in what you say, but because you continually dangle but don't deliver. And this has been going on since the start of 2017. I don't advocate people calling you names as has happened on this and another site and in fact, as you know, I defend you on that. But not on substance....because as far as I can see, there hasn't been any.
I will say this; I have no idea if you met Charles Manson in January of 1969 on some construction site. I neither believe nor disbelieve it although I'm being generous there because you've given me way more reason to disbelieve it. But you frequently mention that he never said anything about a race war, but that he mentioned 'revolution.' Well, the obvious question to me would be "why would he be talking about a race war to a complete stranger in January of 1969 ?" You weren't in the Family. The Family only first heard about HS on new years eve 1968. In January the actual mechanics of HS were barely formulated in Charlie's mind. He'd been talking to Gregg Jacobson about a race war {known then as "the shit is coming down" but it was very general} since they first met in May of '68. But it was in those early days of '69 that it began to assume a definite shape and that the rest of the Family began to understand and assimilate it {well, as much as they did understand and assimilate it}. Other than Gregg Jacobson and Stephanie Schram's sister, virtually no one outside the Family {or close contacts like Juan Flynn} has a pre~August '69 concept of HS. But after the murders, it's pouring out of the woodwork {Al Springer, Danny DeCarlo, Virginia Graham, Ronnie Howard, Don Ward......and Manson himself as well as other Family members}.
Besides which, even if Manson met you and didn't mention a race war, so what ? What does that prove ? He probably didn't mention his Mum or his son but it doesn't mean they weren't in his mind. In fact, did he even mention the Family ? Did he mention Tex ? Sadie ? Brenda ? TJ ? Little Paul ?
If I come across as harsh, I don't mean to. Anyone that engages with me should by now know that at the very least, notwithstanding my style and sense of humour {or lack thereof !} I'm robust. I won't accept something just because someone says it. I'll research it and test it and weigh it up and shake it to bits ~ and I insist that people do likewise with what I say.

Mon Durphy said...

Kay, I'd like to sit down in a bar one night and listen to some stories, he seems like a really nice guy

I know what you mean about him, I kind of agree but, he definitely has had issues for almost half a century where Bugliosi is concerned......

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Well grimtraveller,
nice to see you're in top form being skeptical about me.....lol.

You say grim:

"Well, the obvious question to me would be "why would he be talking about a race war to a complete stranger in January of 1969 ?"

I don't know. Perhaps Manson thought he could recruit me at some point?
Who knows?
But I will tell you this. When I went to The Fireside Inn that night to see him play his guitar & sing, there were 4 girls oowing & ahhhing with his every move. I've thought to myself many times:
what if one of those girls would have come over and talked with me, would I have "followed-her-around?"
I was only 19 at the time. I can honestly say, I'm very glad I never found out.
And as Manson being a musician & singer? My opinion was Charles Manson was not very good at all.

So, does my Twitter inter-action with George Christie mean nothing to you? C'mon Grim, you know better.

And for my legal reasons and MORE, I comment & blog a certain way.

So, with that said, I hope you & your family are doing well Grim.
And yes, you have defended me in the past
(Thank you).

Mario George Nitrini 111
----
The OJ Simpson Case

grimtraveller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
grimtraveller said...

William Weston said...

Hatami’s testimony on Whitson. I have these numbers from O’Neill’s book in reference to Hatami and Whitson: 22239, 14483, 14508, 14542, 14554

There's nothing connected with him on page 22239 ~ that's Squeaky's testimony. This is the first time Whitson comes up during Hatami's period under oath;

BUGLIOSI: Do you recall coming into my office, Mr. Hatami, about a half a year ago?

A:Yes

Q:On the fifth floor of the Hall of Justice?

A:I don't remember the floor. I came to your office

Q:You will have to talk up a little more loudly

A Yes. I came to your office,

Q And you were there with a man named Reeves Witson?

A:Yes.

Q:He is a friend of yours?

A:Yes.

Q:And I had a conversation with you about this man who walked up in front of the Tate residence?

A:Yes, you did.

Q:Did I show you some photographs?

A:Yes.

This is the second time:

RONALD HUGHES:Were you called in by Mr. Bugliosi? Did you come down on your own?

A: No, I have been called by his office to come down

Q:Who was present when you were shown the photographs?

A:Mr. Reeves Witson

Q:And Mr. Bugliosi?

A:And Mr. Bugliosi

Q:And yourself

A:And myself

Q:And no one else?

A:No one else

beauders said...

where have you been?

Oh, just lurking for a while. I actually have been checking in most days since May. It was very tempting to engage in some of the posts, especially with Destroyer of Opinions. If I had, they probably would have run to a lot more posts than the many that certain of the threads did ! I also was conscious of not rehashing and repeating myself, especially when many of the issues that were brought up, I'd commented on endlessly over the past 4 years. It's almost inevitable, however, even if only in a small way but I get wary eventually, if I find myself saying the same thing again and again.
Incidentally, big thanks to you for mentioning the "Inside the Manson jury" book by Herman Tubick. I'm currently reading it and it is fantastic, notwithstanding the spelling and punctuation errors and wrong dates here and there. Along with Zamora's book {of whom he is highly critical} and John Baer's wife's book, it is gold dust for seeing the jury's perspective. One learns again that the jury were not sunshine supermen but flawed characters, just like us.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

One correction grimtraveller.
When took Charles Mansonbt that "construction site," and later went to The Fireside Inn to hear him play & sing, I had just turned 18 years old, not 19 years old.

Oh brother, these senior moments are becoming more & more frequent.
GESH......LOL

Mario George Nitrini 111
------
The OJ Simpson Case

katie8753 said...

And life just gets more better and more clearer!

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Ha,ha Ms Katie.
Maybe for you
"life just gets more better and more clearer"
but for me?.......NEVERMIND...lol

Mario George Nitrini 111
-----
The OJ Simpson Case

grimtraveller said...

This is the third time. Note the characters involved.

FITZGERALD:Are you in charge of the prosecution of the case of People vs. Manson, et al?

BUGLIOSI:I guess you could say that

Q:In connection with your duties thereto and therewith, did you have occasion to interview the preceding witness in your office in the month of April, 1970?

A:Yes. April or March, I don't remember the exact month

Q:And was that the first time that you had spoken with this witness?

A:Yes

QDid you direct that he be present at your office at a particular time?

A:Yes

Q And how did you do so? Did you have a police officer contact him, or did you contact him by phone?

MR MUSICH: I object to the question as immaterial, your Honor, how he got there

Q:Just ‘foundatiorial, your Honor

A: I learned about the existence of Mr. Hatami from Rudy Altobelli, and at that time I contacted the LAPD and I told them to find Hatami and bring him to my office. And Reeves Witson, a friend of Mr. Hatami, and Mr. Hatami, appeared in my office.

Q:Do you recall the date?

A:No

Q:Do you recall the time of day?

A:I think it was around noon if I'm not mistaken

and finally:

KANAREK:All right, now, did you cause Mr, Hatami's conversation with you to be recorded?

BUGLIOSI:No

Q:Did you cause a stenographic reporter to come in and take down any notes concerning your conversation with Mr. Hatami?

A:Yes, I dictated a conversation and under the disclosure order I gave you a copy of my conversation with Hatami

Q:I am taliking about when you were vis-a-vis...

A:No, there was no one else there, just Reeves Witson, myself and Mr. Hatami, no other reporter there

Q:Like the court reporter here?

A:Right, there was ro reporter


The most immediate thing to notice is that Hatami only mentions Whitson once and even then, only because he's asked who he came to Bugliosi's office with. All the other times he is mentioned by Bugliosi.
Going back to the point about Whitson suggesting the memory of Manson being the one that Sharon looked at that day back in March '69, Hatami has always been consistent ~ he has no recollection of ever seeing Manson in the flesh. He didn't even see him during the trial.
Reeve Whitson could of course be the spook extraordinaire....but once again, what ends up happening is that theories abound because there are many people that just refuse to accept the verdict as it came down and go looking to find reasons why it must have happened. This will always be among the alternatives greatest weakness ~ plus the sheer number allied with the non existence of hard corroborative evidence.

katie8753 said...

Oh Mario I wasn't even talking about you! But SMOOOCH to you!!!! Have a nice evening!!!

grimtraveller said...

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

nice to see you're in top form being skeptical about me.....lol

I am, if nothing else, consistent on that !
In all seriousness though, the dictionary definition of sceptical is "not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations."
Put yourself in my position. Someone you don't know, ostensibly on the other side of the world, appears and starts making claims about "HAPPENINGS" at "SPAHN RANCH" when some bikers hung up there at the same time a group of people that spawned a number of murderers. And it just so happens to be from a case that has given rise to so many alternative theories and conspiracies and not a great deal of consensus about anything. And whenever this 'someone' is challenged to back up whatever cryptic utterances they gush forth, they just utter more of the same and bring in other cases not remotely connected.
Yeah, I'm sceptical !

So, does my Twitter inter-action with George Christie mean nothing to you? C'mon Grim, you know better

The big reveal was that Danny DeCarlo "ratted out" the Manson crew which was against the biker code.
But that has been public knowledge since September 1970.
And no, I don't know better. In order for me to know "better" you need to stop speaking in riddles and like Nehemiah, say it straight and say it straight where you're blogging ! I don't care for twitter interaction.

And for my legal reasons and MORE, I comment & blog a certain way

That's kind of neither here nor there. Frankly, if I was afraid of any comeback, I wouldn't even be getting involved in an on~line discussion that anyone in the world with an internet connection could chance upon. I certainly wouldn't play the game of being a tease but if I did, I wouldn't be irritated if people didn't take what I said with any great seriousness. It's the inevitable outcome of the crypic utterances.

Ajerseydevil said...

why Manson's parole was never revoked after all of his arrests for some fairly serious crimes

Why would someone's parole or probation be revoked for getting arrested ? Convicted, yeah, I can see that. But getting arrested is only the start point of a long and difficult process. The USA and UK operate {and did back then, at least ostensibly} on an "innocent until proven guilty" rationale.

William Weston said...

According to the manuscript, Helder told Whitson to cozy up to anyone who knew Frykowski’s suppliers, especially those in Mama Cass’s circle

Doesn't this contradict your belief though ? If LE and the CIA were so powerful, why didn't they just pin it on the innocent ?

Mon Durphy said...

regarding the killers you have to take into account that BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION they took 100s of trips on hallucinogenic drugs in addition to smoking marijuana daily, these people are bound to forget various things that most look at as things that are mere footnotes such as what piece of furniture was where, who said what first, where the flag was, what time it was, etc, etc

That would apply, even if they hadn't taken loads of drugs over a 4~5 year period. What can anyone remember about a place they went yesterday, and I mean detail specific ? Some people have a fairly good memory recall; of the death troupe, Susan & Linda seemed to. Some have atrocious recall, Tex & Pat falling into that category. One should remember, it was dark, most of them were unfamiliar with where they were and they weren't exactly studying the scene. They weren't there particularly long and so people trying to weave the "someone rearranged the scene afterwards" line of thought is onto a loser if they try to utilize the memories of the killers and how they left the scene.
None of them saw the scene in the daylight and none of them saw the place again after they'd left Cielo.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

grimtraveller,
It's not a problem for me for you to be Skeptical of me.
If you're not interested what I tweet on Twitter about
The Charles Manson Family & Saga, again, no problem for me.

Thanks for your replies back to me.

Mario George Nitrini 111
-------
The OJ Simpson Case

William Weston said...

Grim said,
The most immediate thing to notice is that Hatami only mentions Whitson once and even then, only because he's asked who he came to Bugliosi's office with. All the other times he is mentioned by Bugliosi.

Thanks, Grim, for giving us the testimony. That clears things up. However, to be fair to O’Neill, when I said that Hatami mentioned Whitson four times, I was being a bit sloppy in my choice of words. What O’Neill said was that Whitson’s name “appeared four times, all during Hatami’s testimony.” When you have what Hatami testified and what Bugliosi testified regarding Hatami’s testimony and gather these statements together under the aggregate phrase “Hatami’s testimony”, then you can see that O’Neill was not careless in how he represented his source. It might have been more accurate to say that Hatami said the name once and Bugliosi said it three times, but I don't see how O'Neill could have put that in his text without appearing overly pedantic.

grimtraveller said...

William Weston said...

I don't see how O'Neill could have put that in his text without appearing overly pedantic

Yeah, I can see that.

William Weston said...

Reeve Whitson’s father knew his son was going to the Cielo house the night of August 8. The next morning when he heard about the murders, he was worried his son was among them. He saw Reeve later that night.

Since Reeve Whitson was at the house the night before the murders, when was he there?

He could not have been there prior to the dinner engagement at the El Coyote, otherwise he would joined Sharon, Jay, Wojtek and Abigail.

The time of departure to the restaurant is tied to the delivery of Abigail’s bicycle by Dennis Hurst. According to Sanders, p. 197, Hurst came between 6:30 and 7:00. According to Bugliosi, p. 85, the time was between 7:30 and 8:00.

They had dinner at the restaurant and left about 9:45. As soon as they got home, Abigail spoke to her mother on the phone around 10:00.

About the same time, the dogkeeper William Garretson, arrived back at the guest house, transported by hippies in a van who gave him a ride from Sunset Boulevard. According to Bobby Jameson on his blog, he and his friend Harvey Dareff were at or near the Tate house the night before the murders. A police report said that Bobby and Harvey were hippies, users of drugs, and car thieves. They were connected to Ed Durston, boyfriend of Diane Linkletter.

Since Reeve was a CIA agent posing as a hippie, he would have been among the hippies in the van. He was a close friend of Sharon and Jay, and thus the presence of the other hippies at the front door would not have aroused suspicion. The police report mentioned above said that Dareff was at the house to deal in drugs.

I bring this up because I believe the occupants in the house were given lethargy-inducing drugs to reduce their will to resist, perhaps LSD tainted with an animal tranquillizer.

This was essential because Sharon and Jay might have put up quite a fight with their martial arts skills acquired from training by the master Bruce Lee. They might have even overcome such dimunitive females as Susan and Katie. Thus some tainted drug had to be given to them.

Mon Durphy said...

Rick Dalton got Susan with the flamethrower and Cliff Booth smashed Krenwinkels face into the phone, fireplace mantle, glass picture on the wall and the coffee table so it's all good

katie8753 said...

Maybe Whit Reeveson is like an imaginary friend. Or better yet, he's like "The Flash". Maybe he was there during Sharon's lunch with friends but nobody saw him because he moved too fast. He was probably there for the bike delivery, the hippie van delivery and at El Coyote dining. But again, nobody saw him. He might have been seated between Jay & Sharon at dinner, being BFF's with them and all.

But then, he was Gone With the Wind.

Sorry guys, I'm having a hard time believing that someone with super powers like this mysterious guy was so very close to Sharon & Jay, yet did nothing to prevent their murders.

starviego said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
starviego said...

Well we don't really know Whitson's story at the source. We don't the degree of his involvement or guilt. Did he betray his friends? Or was he himself a willing pawn in a greater scheme he wasn't aware of?

The CIA are not nice guys. They do a lot of illegal, ugly things against man's law, and against God's law. Read up on their history.

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

The CIA are not nice guys. They do a lot of illegal, ugly things against man's law, and against God's law. Read up on their history

I'm in full agreement with you on this. However, it's important not to make the same mistake some make with Charles Manson and ascribe responsibility for every dodgy activity that took place within a given span and vest them with superhuman powers. I'm almost endlessly fascinated by the number of people who seem to have made it their life's mission to discount the overwhelming evidence that demonstrates that for the most part, things were as they were shown to be. The one thing the alternatives have in common, if you bring them to a logical conclusion is.......Charlie isn't ultimately responsible !

William Weston said...

Grim, in the comment I posted above, I mentioned Dennis Hurst. According to Sanders, p. 197, Hurst delivered the bicycle between 6:30 and 7:00. According to Bugliosi, p. 85, the time was between 7:30 and 8:00. I’ll bet Sanders is correct. Can you put up Hurst’s testimony in order to settle who was right, Sanders or Bugliosi?

beauders said...

JerseyDevil what book was that?

Mon Durphy said...

There's about a 6 minute long clip on YouTube put up a couple of months ago of Hurst telling the story of delivering the bike to Cielo, he talked about meeting Sebring at the front door when he knocked and dropping Abigail's new bike off in the garage and taking another one back to the store, I'd have to listen again to see what time he claims but obviously the time he gave at the time of the murders is probably going to be more accident since hardly any time has elapsed

Mon Durphy said...

More ACCURATE not accident, typo

grimtraveller said...

William Weston said...

According to Sanders, p. 197, Hurst delivered the bicycle between 6:30 and 7:00. According to Bugliosi, p. 85, the time was between 7:30 and 8:00. I’ll bet Sanders is correct. Can you put up Hurst’s testimony in order to settle who was right, Sanders or Bugliosi?

Sanders is right.
The first Tate homicide report states exactly what Sanders says in your quote. In the Sanders book that I have it says Hearst delivered the bike between 6.30 and 7.30 which, according to Hearst is accurate as he testified arriving "about 7.00pm" and left "about 7.20."
Not every detail in "Helter Skelter" is correct. For example, Bugliosi states that he learned that Gregg Jacobson arranged for Dean Moorehouse to stay at 10050 Cielo in the period between Terry Melcher leaving and the Polanskis moving in. He also shared this with Paul Fitzgerald who told him he already knew this.
But it's not true. Melcher moved out in January '69 and the day after he moved out, Moorehouse was sent to prison for selling acid ~ he'd been found guilty on Dec 17th '68.
The interesting thing about the Hearst times in "HS" is that both in terms of the police report and the court testimony, what is given in the book is inaccurate but not exactly uncheckable and not of earth shattering proportions. I don't know if it's a typo or just laziness. It's not like the Moorehouse affair which is plain wrong.

Vera Dreiser said...

Grim said:

But it's not true. Melcher moved out in January '69 and the day after he moved out, Moorehouse was sent to prison for selling acid ~ he'd been found guilty on Dec 17th '68.

Vera: Where'd ya learn that, Grim? ONeal's lousy, undocumented conspiracy book?

katie8753 said...

Vera! Good to see you!

Mon Durphy said...

It's a matter of public record, I've seen the court documents but I don't remember where, I think those were the same charges Dean and Tex borrowed Melchers car to drive to court for

William Weston said...

Grim said

Sanders is right.
The first Tate homicide report states exactly what Sanders says in your quote. In the Sanders book that I have it says Hearst delivered the bike between 6.30 and 7.30 which, according to Hearst is accurate as he testified arriving "about 7.00pm" and left "about 7.20."

Thanks Grim,
Another, more serious, error in HS, p. 49, is that it gives the license plate of Parent's car as ZLR 694. It should have been MPK 308. ZLR 694 belonged to Sharon's Camaro.

grimtraveller said...

William Weston said...

Grim said

Another, more serious, error in HS, p. 49, is that it gives the license plate of Parent's car as ZLR 694. It should have been MPK 308. ZLR 694 belonged to Sharon's Camaro

I'm generally pretty unforgiving of errors in books and it's even more annoying when I happen to know the info that is wrong. I've been reading a lot of British footballers autobiographies over the last 18 months and it never ceases to amaze me how people aren't even aware of the dates of certain events in their own lives or the results of matches they are commenting on. I spot them right away. That said, in some cases it's understandable.
In the case of Bugliosi's book, the errors regarding the Hearst bike delivery times and the Parent/Sharon car registrations aren't ones that I regard as serious. Lazy, perhaps. It's such a huge book with such a plethora of facts and information that one can semi-overlook things that don't make a material difference to the case. In the case of Sharon's car, it didn't really matter because the book came out 3 years after the perps were convicted, 5 years after the crime was solved. None of us would have even known the registrations were mixed up. The instance of the book saying that Dean Moorehouse lived at Cielo is unforgivable because it is errantly misleading, pure and simple. It's the stuff conspiracy theories are made of ! I mean, to this day, you will find many people parroting it as fact and creating all kinds of mysteries as a result.

Vera Dreiser said...

Where'd ya learn that, Grim? ONeal's lousy, undocumented conspiracy book?

I actually learned it initially from Cielodrive.com. I'd never really thought about it but I noticed on various forums people mentioned Moorehouse living at Cielo as though it were a fact then it occurred to me that if such a close associate of the Family lived in Cielo, that would be a pretty significant thing yet I didn't recall the prosecution making any noise about it. The Hatami incident would not have taken on such magnitude for them {other than the fact that Bugliosi tried to use it to establish that Manson had seen Tate and vice versa} if Tex and Charlie had been such regular visitors while a Family accolyte actually lived there. So that got my train of thought going and I looked into it. I have the trial transcripts and Rudi Altobelli confirms the dates of who moved in and out and when and who was in the main and guest houses between Melcher's departure and the Polanskis arrival. But you can get some meaty details right here. It's a similar story regarding where the LaBiancas lived, what with all the rumours and theories about Leno moaning about the noise from Harold True's house or chewing out Charlie ~ when a bit of checking will reveal that it never happened. They weren't even in the same vicinity while True lived at the house next door.

And personally, I wouldn't read O'Neill's book unless someone bought it for me and gave it to me. And even then I might not look at it for 5 years.

Destroyer of Opinions said...

I can't believe people are trashing O'Neill's book. It's much more factual than Helter Skelter. And has anybody seen Bugliosi's OJ Special ("OJ Simpson: 100% Guilty")? The man comes across as a narcissistic hypocrite who also is a Mark Fuhrman apologist. The documentary itself raises more questions than it answers and can't shed a positive light on the investigation, which was one of its goals.

William Weston said...

Speaking of Dean Moorehouse at Cielo Drive, I thought the following quotes in Tom O'Neill's article "The Holes in Helter Skelter" show that he was indeed at the house but during the summer of 1968.

Tom O'Neill writes:

But when had Moorehouse taken up residence in the Cielo Home? Melcher told me he had no memory of it. Bugliosi wrote that it was after Melcher moved out, meaning in January 1969.

I found Moorehouse in the phone book and gave him a call. …

[He said] to was impossible that he’d move into the Cielo house in January 1969, for one simple reason: he gone to prison then. …

Moorehouse said he’d lived at Cielo “off and on” throughout the summer of ’68, when Melcher was there. … He also confirmed a detail from Ed Sanders The Family that Melcher had let him borrow his Jaguar for the long drive to Ukiah.

So Buglisoi’s timeline was wrong and Melcher lied to me. …

Bugliosi had covered up for Terry Melcher during the trial.

William Weston said...

Correction of typo:
[He said] it was impossible that he’d move into the Cielo house in January 1969


O'Neill's article can be found on the internet, or you can read about Moorehouse in O'Neill's book on pages 116-119.

grimtraveller said...

William Weston said...

Speaking of Dean Moorehouse at Cielo Drive, I thought the following quotes in Tom O'Neill's article "The Holes in Helter Skelter" show that he was indeed at the house but during the summer of 1968

I think you'll find that it was at Dennis Wilson's that Dean had some kind of residence during the summer of '68.

He also confirmed a detail from Ed Sanders' "The Family" that Melcher had let him borrow his Jaguar for the long drive to Ukiah

This might be high tension wire drama....were it not for the fact that this has been public record since 1971. It came out in the Watson trial and it was Bugliosi that brought it out. The trial transcript is on Cielodrive.com. You should have a read of it if you haven't already, with particular attention given to the testimiony of Terry Melcher and Dean Mooorehouse.
That Moorehouse had been to Cielo while Melcher lived there in the summer of '68 is no secret.

katie8753 said...

Is Moorehouse still alive? That guy was a nut-job! I wouldn't believe a word that came out of his mouth. He GAVE his daughter to Manson. 'Nuff said.

Melcher moved out of Cielo Drive in December of 1968. I'm not getting that from Helter Skelter, I'm getting that from Candace Bergen's auto-bio.

katie8753 said...

Moorehouse was a bum! He was living with all kinds of people because he didn't want to work and earn a living. That = A BUM! Bums don't earn a living with a paying job, they just move from camp to camp and sponge off folks.

If Moorehouse lived at Cielo Drive when Melcher was there, it's news to me. I can't imagine Candace Bergen allowing that.

But that's just me.....

beauders said...

Katie I remember reading that Moorehouse molested his daughters, he is the worst kind of person.

katie8753 said...

I agree Beauders. That guy was a waste of humanity!!!

grimtraveller said...

beauders said...

I remember reading that Moorehouse molested his daughters

If there's one thing I've come to realize in regard to TLB and other matters of such complexity that have attracted much thought, controversy, speculation and revision, it's that the phrase "I read somewhere" or "I remember reading/seeing somewhere" is one that is fraught with pitfalls because it's almost used as a barometer of the truth of the matter whereas in actuality, it could mean anything, something or nothing at all. I've used it myself.
What I'm getting at is that so many people have said so many things over the years and so often, information has been confused, mis-stated, misconstrued and people have projected something as fact when there has been no evidence to support it or any finding of proof. And it just lingers in cyberspace and in time, becomes accepted as some kind of unshakable truth. That's one of the reasons that there is so much wrong info out there on this subject and why so many ridiculous theories abound and so much importance is placed on anything that appears to be new and vital.
So, with all that in mind, just where would information pertaining to Dean Moorehouse molesting his daughters have come from ? Quite a bit of "what I've read" has actually come from people who weren't stating die-hard fact, but in the mists of time I'd remember what I read but not the circumstance or context. We know that Moorehouse was convicted in 1991 of "lewd and lascivious acts on a child under 14."
But his daughters ?

Mon Durphy said...

He didn't molest his daughters, he was supposedly so protective of Ruth Ann that he originally set out to kill Charlie after hearing about her joining up with the group, as far as the acts on a child under 14 if they're true he deserved a beating within an inch of his life but at the same time you'd have to do the same to Melcher, Wilson, Jakobsen, Manson, Deasy, Polanskis, etc, etc, etc

katie8753 said...

Mon didn't Moorehouse start out as a "preacher" and when he met up with Charlie regarding Ruth Ann he was so "enamoured" by him that he willingly GAVE his same daughter to that leacherous 30-something year old ex-con, supposedly to join up with his "sex cult" in order to partake in the drugs and sex that the "cult" offered?

So, in other words, he offered his own daughter as some kind of "present" to Charlie so that he could partake in the tawdry dealings of the "cult".

What kind of honest, upstanding man does that with his daughter?

If you want to point fingers at child molesters, go ahead, but I think a special finger should be pointed at a father who farms his own daughter out to child molesters!!!

A beating within an inch of his life!

Mon Durphy said...

Yes he did but I was talking about at first I had always heard he actually came looking for Manson and when he found him at Spahn Charlie was able to run his game on Dean and supposedly Dean became a disciple even giving Charlie a baby grand piano for free which I believe Charlie traded for the black bus, what's creepy about Dean is that he was old even in 69, he was born in 1920 which made him damn near a decade and a half older than Manson and 30 years older than the other members of the group

beauders said...

You got me Grim that is why I worded it the way I did, I don't remember were I saw it. I have a really good memory because I have OCD, the only good gift from my diagnosis. I am also considered an information hoarder. That is how I was able to write a 1200 page encyclopedia on Manson, etc.

katie8753 said...

He gave him a piano. HA HA HA!! That just sounds funny. I wonder where Moorehouse got a baby grand.

Mon Durphy said...

Lol who knows and also I stand corrected it was a VW microbus Manson traded it for

Mon Durphy said...

Your own personal encyclopedia or something you had published? Either way it's impressive

Mon Durphy said...

Regarding Moorehouse living at Cielo I never thought there was anything to it then I was listening to a recorded interview with Tom O'Neill who wrote the Chaos book, he said Altobelli told him that Melcher did let Moorehouse live at Cielo off and on during the summer of 1968, apparently this was one of the things O Neill asked Bugliosi in one of their many interviews for the book, O Neill said he started finding so many inconsistencies between that Bugs said publicly and what Melcher told him privately that Vince got so paranoid that he started threatening Tom about putting the things he heard from Melcher in the book

beauders said...

I would love to publish my book but I wrote it a certain way and don't want it to be cut up amd I don't want to be sued. I am considering just putting it online and having a donation fixture.

Mon Durphy said...

I'd be willing to buy it if you ever put just a amateurish copy of it together, at 1200 pgs it sounds like you've got alot of content in it, what would make it EXTRA special is if it was indexed, so often I've found myself looking for info on a specific person, date, place, incident, quote, etc and then having to Wade through a million google entries that go nowhere and in the case of some of the minutia of the case not being able to find anything at all on it

Mon Durphy said...

Also by "amateurish" I don't mean the content of it but the presentation, I'm not looking for anything put together by a professional publishing company or anything

beauders said...

My book is easy to read that's the way I intended it to be and that's why I don't want anyone cutting it up.

Bob 88 said...

Reeve knew where all the bodies were buried, and who was involved