Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Court Transcript - Hinman Case (Motive - Money)

People v. Manson , 71 Cal.App.3d 1

[Crim. No. 21765. Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division One. June 23, 1977.]

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES M. MANSON, Defendant and Appellant

(Opinion by Loring, J., with Wood, P. J., and Hanson, J., concurring.)
Charles M. Manson (Manson), Susan Denise Atkins (Atkins) and Bruce McGregor Davis (Davis) were indicted by the grand jury for the murder of Gary Allan Hinman (Hinman) on July 27, 1969, in violation of Penal Code section 187 (count I); count II charged that Manson, Atkins and Davis entered into a conspiracy to commit murder and robbery on or about the "25th through the 28th day of July 1969 in violation of Penal Code section 182.1." Three overt acts were alleged: (a) that on or about July 25, 1969, they "did travel to the vicinity of 964 Old Topanga Canyon Road, Malibu, in the County of Los Angeles" (b) on or about July 26, 1969, they entered the residence at the same address (c) on or about July 26, 1969, Manson and Davis "did drive away" from the same address in a Fiat automobile owned by Hinman. Count III of the indictment charged Manson, Davis and Steve Grogan (Grogan) with the murder of Donald Jerome (Shorty) Shea (Shea) "between the 16th day of August, 1969 and the 1st day of September, 1969" in violation of Penal Code section 187
The trial of Manson was severed from the trial of the other defendants. fn. 1
Manson made a number of motions prior to or during the trial (all of which were denied): (1) to represent himself as his own lawyer or as cocounsel; (2) to disqualify the trial judge; (3) dismissal; (4) to plead once in jeopardy; (5) change of venue; (6) to sequester jury; (7) to [71 Cal.App.3d 12] exclude evidence. He also filed a demurrer to the indictment and challenges to the grand jury which were overruled..

A. Hinman Murder                                                                              
Paul Piet, Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff, testified that in response to a call from Michael Erwin he arrived at 964 Old Topanga Canyon Road in Malibu on July 31, 1969. He discovered the body of Hinman lying on the floor of the living-bedroom-type room. It was badly decomposed. Investigation disclosed a bullet hole in the kitchen cabinets. Near the body were Buddhist prayer beads known as "Jizu." Blood was on the body and clothing and splattered around the inside of the house on the walls and furniture. Written in apparent blood on the living room wall were the words "Political Piggy" and a drawing that appeared to be like a paw print of an animal.
An autopsy established that Hinman had been stabbed twice in the chest; that the cause of death was a stab wound through the heart. There was a large cut on the left side of the face through the left ear to the left lip of the mouth, which could have been caused by a sword. [71 Cal.App.3d 13]
On and for some time prior to September 1, 1969, Manson was the leader of the so-called "Manson family." People v. Manson, supra, 61 Cal.App.3d 102, describes the composition, activities and modus operandi of the Manson family and need not be repeated here.
A fingerprint of Beausoleil, who was a member of the "Manson family," was found in Hinman's house on a door frame between the kitchen and the hall. A nine millimeter bullet was recovered from under the sink which could have been fired from a nine millimeter Radom gun. Hinman's Fiat station wagon was seen at the Spahn Ranch, where the Manson family lived, fn. 4 on July 28, 1969, by Deputy Sheriff George D. Grapp and other officers.
Beausoleil was found in the Hinman Fiat station wagon on Highway 101 in the San Luis Obispo area on August 6, 1969, by Forest J. Humphry of the Highway Patrol. Beausoleil was arrested. After Hinman's Fiat was impounded, officers found a knife in the rear spare tire well under a rubber mat.
Ella Jo Bailey testified for the People that she had known Manson since 1967 and travelled extensively throughout the southwestern United States with him, Mary Brunner, Patricia Krenwinkel and Lynne Fromme, and that they moved to the Spahn Ranch in 1968 where she met Davis and Beausoleil. Several times during May and June 1969, Manson talked to Bailey and others about "going out" to get money to buy dune buggies to go to the desert to live. In July of 1969 Manson talked to several members of the family about the need to get money and names were discussed of various persons from whom they could get money. Hinman's name was discussed and the fact that he owned a house and stocks and bonds. On July 26, 1969, Manson told Bailey and Bill Vance that he wanted them to go to Hinman's house and persuade him to join the "family" or sign over all of his property and automobiles. Vance said he had better things to do and walked away. That night at about 6 p.m. Bailey saw Manson talking to Beausoleil and Davis. Beausoleil had a knife (People's exh. 18) and Davis had a nine millimeter Radom gun (People's exh. 30). Subsequent investigation by officers established that Davis had purchased the gun under an assumed name. Bailey saw Brunner and Atkins dressed in dark clothes. Bailey saw Brunner, Atkins, Beausoleil and a fourth unidentified person drive off in [71 Cal.App.3d 14] a ranchhand's car which was driven by the fourth person. Davis was still in the parking lot.
Two nights later Bailey saw Brunner and Atkins drive up to the Spahn Ranch in a Volkswagen microbus which Bailey had previously seen in the possession of Hinman. Bailey went with Brunner in the microbus to a eucalyptus grove on the Spahn Ranch. Bailey observed that there was no key in the microbus and the ignition wires had been wired together. On the seat of the microbus Bailey saw a purse with $27.64 in it. With Bailey's help, Brunner wiped off the microbus. The next morning Bailey saw Hinman's Fiat station wagon at the Spahn Ranch. Later that morning Bailey saw Manson in the presence of about six other people carrying a sword. Bailey testified:
"Charles [Manson] stated that after the phone call had come to the ranch asking for help, fn. [5] he and Bruce Davis had gone to Gary Hinman's house, and he stated at the time that they arrived, Mary [Brunner] and Sadie [Atkins] and Bobby [Beausoleil] had gotten the gun back away from Gary Hinman.
"He stated that he had words with Mr. Hinman, and they had a heated argument, and then it became necessary for him to quiet Gary Hinman down, and he stated that he used a sword and cut Gary Hinman from his left ear down to his chin. ...
"He also said that he had quieted Gary down, and the girls put Gary in bed, and that Mr. Hinman asked for his prayer beads and after that he said that he had left Bobby to finish up. ...
"He said that two or three shots had been fired at the house. He also said that Bobby was foolish to ever let Sadie hold the gun on Mr. Hinman. ...
"He said that all they had gained from going to Gary's house were the two vehicles and around $27."
Alan Leroy Springer testified that he spent a night at the Spahn Ranch about August 10 or 11, 1969. In effect Manson tried to recruit him to join the family. Manson explained how they got things: "Well, we will go up to the door and knock on the door of their houses, and when they come [71 Cal.App.3d 15] to the door and open it up, ... we'll just do them in or stick them. ... Everything behind the door is yours, then, ... for the taking." Manson said that he had "whacked a guy's ear off; ... a Hinman." Manson said that he took Hinman's truck away from him. Manson said: "Well, we cut this guy's ear off" and somebody asked "Who was that?" and Manson said "That was Hinman."
On August 10, 1971, while the instant case was on trial, during the testimony of Springer and while the prosecutor and Manson's lawyer were at the bench conferring with the judge, Manson who was seated at counsel table leaned over to Sergeant Paul J. Whiteley, fn. 6 who was also seated at counsel table and said (according to Whiteley's testimony): "Springer is lying. I've never met the man. He just jumped on." Whiteley said: "I didn't put you at the Hinman house. Mary Brunner did." Whiteley then testified further:
"And then Mr. Manson stated, 'Sure, I went to Hinman's house and got the gun and sliced his ear. I don't deny that. I told Bobby [Beausoleil] how to stand up like a man. He had a woman's thoughts. I told him what to do -- no. [Interruption] ...
"Uh -- 'I told him what to do. Hinman deserved to die. He was selling bad dope.'
"And then there was a pause, and he said, 'He was greasy.'
"And that's the end of the statement."
Whiteley's testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Officer Clifford Patrick Blackburn who overheard the counsel table conversation between Manson and Whiteley except that Blackburn testified that Manson said: "... I held the gun on him, and -- I told Bobby ... [Bobby Beausoleil] -- to kill him. And I even showed him how to do it. ... it wasn't really a conversation. ... Manson did all the talking." When the court was trying to determine whether Manson's statements to Whiteley were made voluntarily, Blackburn testified in chambers that about a week previously Manson had made a similar voluntary statement to Whiteley. [71 Cal.App.3d 16]
When Manson testified fn. 7 in support of a motion to suppress the testimony of Whiteley and Blackburn, he also corroborated the conversation stating: "In general Mr. Whiteley's statements were right. ..." He admitted going to Hinman's house, that he took the gun away from the guy "... and I had to cut him." and he requested the girls to stay there and clean the place up and clean Hinman up. Manson testified that he didn't look at Whiteley as "anything but a brain that I could program. And I dropped a lot of information in his head that would be useful to me later on." Manson testified that he talked to Whiteley "Every chance I get." Some of the conversations occurred in the presence of Manson's lawyer. The court concluded that Manson's statements to Whiteley were not solicited by Whiteley and that they were freely and voluntarily given by Manson for some purpose of his own, and that they were spontaneous. The court said that it had witnessed conversations between Manson and Whiteley at counsel table while Manson's lawyer was seated between them. [71 Cal.App.3d 17]
Marius John Arneson testified that in 1969 he lived at the Spahn Ranch, that he left the ranch and returned in late July or August 1969, that Beausoleil drove him and Manson in a white Fiat station wagon to look at a Volkswagen microbus which was on the Spahn Ranch, that Manson gave him Hinman's Volkswagen microbus which had to be "hotwired" to drive, that Manson gave him a pink slip and instructed him that if he ever got in a hassle over the registration to say that he had gotten it from a Gary Hinman who was supposed to be a Black Panther.
Brunner was called as a witness by the People. By means of prior inconsistent statements (a transcript of her testimony at the trial of People v. Beausoleil, supra), fn. 8 the People established that in the latter part of July 1969, around midnight, Brunner, Beausoleil and Atkins were driven to Hinman's house by Davis. Beausoleil asked Hinman for money. Hinman said he did not have any. Beausoleil pulled a gun. Beausoleil and Hinman got in a fight in the kitchen. Beausoleil hit Hinman over the head more than once with the gun. Hinman's head was cut and bleeding. Beausoleil asked Brunner to clean up Hinman and gave Atkins the gun to hold on Hinman. Beausoleil went into the living room. Hinman took the gun away from Atkins. Beausoleil returned to the kitchen and resumed the fight with Hinman. During the struggle the gun discharged and a bullet went under the sink. Manson and Davis entered the house. Manson had a sword. Manson and Hinman struggled in the living room. Brunner was in the kitchen. Manson came into the kitchen with his finger cut. Brunner bandaged Manson's finger and went into the living room where Atkins was bandaging Hinman's ear. Hinman's ear was cut in two and he had a cut running down his cheek. Manson and Davis left Hinman's home in Hinman's Fiat station wagon. Atkins, Brunner and Beausoleil stayed at Hinman's house Saturday and Sunday for two days and nights. During this period Atkins answered the telephone and, using an English accent, told the callers that Hinman had gone to Colorado because one of his parents was sick.
Jay Hofstadter and Richard Siegel testified that they telephoned the Hinman home. Hofstadter testified that he telephoned Saturday, July 26, 1969, that a female answered the phone and said that Hinman had gone back to Colorado because his parents had gotten in an automobile accident. The girl said she came from London. She spoke with a British [71 Cal.App.3d 18] accent. Siegel called on Sunday, July 27, 1969. Siegel testified to the same effect.
Brunner's prior testimony also established that during the two-day period that Atkins, Brunner and Beausoleil stayed at Hinman's house, Hinman lay bleeding and sleeping. Atkins, Brunner and Beausoleil searched the house for things of value. They found "about twenty bucks" and two pink slips and two white slips to the cars. Beausoleil had Hinman endorse the pink slips. While Atkins and Brunner were in the kitchen, they heard a noise and rushed into the living room and Brunner found Beausoleil with a knife in his hand. Hinman had been stabbed. He was bleeding from the chest. They cleaned the place up obliterating fingerprints. Hinman went into a coma. Beausoleil said it was all over. Hinman then started breathing with a "loud raspy breathing." Beausoleil put a pillow over Hinman's head. He asked Brunner to hold it. Brunner did so for about two minutes and gave it to Atkins. They left Hinman's house in his Volkswagen which they had to "hotwire." Brunner took the nine millimeter Radom gun with her.


katie8753 said...

Interesting reading. I had forgotten that Manson wanted Ella Jo Bailey to go to Hinman's and try to convince him to join the family, so they could get all his money. She blew him off.

I had read somewhere else that Manson wanted Ella Jo to go kill Hinmna and get his money. I think the first explanation sounds more logical.

katie8753 said...

I meant Hinman, not Hinmna. LOL.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

According to this document, the motive was strictly money... as opposed to retribution, for a bad drug transaction.

Actually, I don't see any mention of a drug burn anywhere on here... unless I'm missing something.

Molly's version of Hinman not being a major drug dealer of any sort, is strongly supported here.

katie8753 said...

I never thought Hinman had much money. He was a music teacher, and I don't know what they made back then, but it's still beans now, so it probably wasn't much more than $6,000/year. Plus he was still going to school, so I guess it was part time work anyway.

If he had lots of money, wouldn't he be drivin a '69 T-Bird or something instead of having 2 broken down hunks of junk?

You know, Charlie was a pretty smart guy, but made some dumb decisions.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Thanks Bob... evidently, I did miss something at midnight, when I was trying to put this together. LOL

It just goes to show ya... even on the original court documents, the testimonies are conflicting.

It's almost impossible to pin things down for certain (using verifiable facts), regarding any portion of this case.

I think there's actually several "truths".

Every person involved in any situation, perceives events differently, and hence has their own truth.

Like I always say:
You can have a couple that's married for 15 years.
During the divorce, they have two totally different versions of the same events.
Sometimes it's so disparate... it's impossible to believe, they both lived under the same roof all those years.
Add 20 more people... crime... and a bunch of drugs... and how many stories (or "truths") are you gonna get? LOL

Molly67 said...

Most of the people on
these boards are already locked
into their own theory.

Even if you had the truth in
front of you. You wouldn't
believe it anyway. I can see
why, you back the killers and
you buy their motive I don't.

No, Charlie isn't a smart guy.
If he was he wouldn't be in

To you Gary's life means nothing.
To me it did. And I am more than
happy to speak for him. At least
I know that I am doing the right

As for Manson he is a worthless
piece of garbage to me.

stella1971 said...

I've just finished reading Marlin Marynick's "Manson Now" where the author states Hinman was killed for "inheritance money". As support he quotes jail letters from both Beausoleil and Manson. Urghh - too many conflicting stories - makes my head ache.


PS: Thanks for the welcome Lynyrd -I'll do my best not to lurk...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...


So glad you could make it!

Thanks for your input!

Personally, I believe the money/inheritance motive.

Hinman doesn't strike me as the major drug pusher type, and from everything I've seen and read, he doesn't appear to be the type to swindle folks either (regarding drugs), even if he was...

There evidently wasn't many visitors to Hinman's, as you would expect at a major drug location.

Also, If he was burning people on drug transactions regularly... he likely would have a lot less folks speaking so well of him

Bobby plays-down the drug burn motive, and who ought to know, but him... right?
After all, he is the one who killed the man.

Manson is the one who perpetuates the drug burn theory, off-and-on... but, he changes his story on everything as his mood dictates... and depending on, who he's talking to.

I believe Marynick has the story straight.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Molly>>>>
"Most of the people on
these boards are already locked
into their own theory.

Even if you had the truth in
front of you. You wouldn't
believe it anyway. I can see
why, you back the killers and
you buy their motive I don't".

I don't think anyone is backing Manson, or the killers, specifically.

I didn't see any mention of "drug burn" in the court document... upon my quick inspection, before uploading it to the site.

I found that very powerful suggestion, that the drug burn theory was generated afterwards..

After reading... Bob found that Manson did mention the drug burn issue in the document... something that I had missed.

Molly... I'm not sure who, or what you're referring to... as far as folks being in support of the killers.

Reading over documents to see what was testified, doesn't make someone supportive of killers.

I'm not seeing your point.

atl4u67 said...

I was just born during this time and my dad was one of the first police. Officers to arrive on the scene m? Dad my hero