Talk:Charles Manson

More victims found?

Forensic Experts Find Possible Evidence of More Charlie Manson Murders --87.79.251.32 (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Revolver

In the physical-evidence paragraph, with which the "Investigation and arrest" subsection concludes, the gun Tex Watson used at the Tate residence is referred to as "the .22-caliber Buntline revolver." If the model of the gun is to be mentioned, the better phrase might be:

the Hi Standard Longhorn revolver

On page 54 of Helter Skelter (Bugliosi 1994, right at the beginning of the "August 16-30, 1969" chapter), the gun is identified as "the Hi Standard .22 caliber Longhorn revolver." The gun is then said to be "[p]opularly known as the 'Buntline Special.'" On pages 353-54 ("September 11-17, 1970"), there is an indication that, in his trial testimony, Danny DeCarlo referred to the gun as "a Hi Standard .22 caliber Buntline revolver."

Having no real knowledge of the topic, I’m concerned that reference to the gun as a "Buntline" or a "Buntline Special" will incline a gun-savvy reader to think the weapon was manufactured by Colt, not Hi Standard. See Wikipedia's Colt Buntline article (including the article to which it links), as well as "Wyatt Earp’s Buntline Special," a December 1997 article from Guns and Ammo.

As you see, I also recommend omitting the mention of the gun’s caliber, which seems to me an unnecessary detail and comes up interestingly near the Manson article’s end, in the subsection headed "Cultural reverberation."71.242.159.196 (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Postscript: Here are some more Helter Skelter references (from Bugliosi 1994, page 104, "November 17, 1969"):

The detectives asked [Danny DeCarlo] what other hand guns he had seen at Spahn.

A. "Well, there was a .22 Buntline."

...

The detectives had DeCarlo draw the Buntline. It was nearly identical with the photo of the Hi Standard Longhorn model....71.242.159.196 (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Post-postscript (page 199, "December 15-25, 1969"):

...Sergeants Calkins and McGann drove over to Van Nuys and picked up the .22 caliber Hi Standard Longhorn revolver.

...

[The Sebring bullet] had been fired from the .22 Longhorn.71.242.159.196 (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

P.P.P.S. In the photograph that appears between pages 340 and 341 of Bugliosi 1994, the gun is referred to as "[t]he nine-shot, .22 caliber Hi Standard Longhorn revolver." Maybe the best phrase for the Wikipedia article would be "the distinctive Hi Standard revolver" or, simply, "the distinctive revolver."71.242.159.196 (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"The distinctive Hi Standard revolver" works for me. I'll make the edit myself.

BassPlyr23 (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This is all fine with me, I knew it had been called a .22 Buntline, but I know nothing about guns. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Clothing discovery

In the physical-evidence paragraph, with which the "Investigation and arrest" subsection concludes, the sentence about the television crew’s discovery of the killers’ bloody clothing after the publication of the Atkins crime-account is as follows:

Acting on that same newspaper account, a local ABC television crew located and recovered the bloody clothing discarded by the Tate killers.

Previously, the sentence included the word "quickly" – i.e., "quickly located and recovered" the bloody clothing.

The newspaper account was published December 14, 1969. (Bugliosi 1994, page 193, chapter headed "December 14, 1969.") The TV crew apparently located the clothing the very next day. (The discovery is related on pages 197-198, near the beginning of the chapter headed "December 15-25, 1969." It precedes the account of Susan Atkins’s pleading of non-guilty, which account is introduced by the words "On Tuesday, December 16.")

December 14, not incidentally, was a Sunday, which means that December 15, on which the crew seems to have located the clothing, was not only the very-next day but the first work-week day after the newspaper story's publication.

I think the word "quickly" was valuable and should be reinserted.71.242.159.196 (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. "Quickly" will be re-inserted. BassPlyr23 (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Date format

I got "scolded" by some random person for converting the date format about this AMERICAN citizen into the date format that American's are familiar with. I was told to use the backwards British format, and I would like to know why. This is NOT Britipedia, nor is this a British article. Unfortunately this article has been protected against editing by new accounts, so until my account is a little older the dates will have to remain backwards. Oldschoolgod13 (talk) 19:28, March 20, 2008 (CDT)

I don't see any dates which are not wikiformatted, except in the references. Are those the dates you intend to change? (Accessdates should be in ISO 8601 format.) You are correct that a U.S. subject should use U.S. spelling and formatting according to the Manual of Style for national varieties of English. —EncMstr 00:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as those are the ones that I likely got scolded for correcting. I was told to "change my preferences" to see the dates in the correct format. Does that person not realize that the vast majority of people that view Wikipedia do NOT have accounts, and can not "change their prefs" in order to see correct date formats? Oldschoolgod13 (talk) 20:12, March 20, 2008 (CDT)

Not weighing in either way, but I think the article proper does have a few dates in the British format:

• Next to last paragraph of "Conviction and sentencing": 29 March 1971 and 19 April 1971.

• Third paragraph of "Aftermath": 16 August 1969.

• Next to last paragraph of "Aftermath": 5 September 2007.

• "Parole hearings": 23 May 2007.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Here's what I get for the paragraph of the first item:

The effort to exonerate Manson via the "copycat" scenario failed; on 1971-03-29, the jury returned verdicts of death against all four defendants on all counts.[91] On 1971-04-19, Judge Older sentenced the four to death.[108]

It appears to be following my date preference correctly. What is your date preference set to, and what do you see? —EncMstr 01:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

With my very-limited knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia, I didn't even know I had a date preference. I just checked mine. It's set at "No preference."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Forgot to mention: I see the dates as I indicated them above: Day-numeral, Month name, Year-numeral. No commas or hyphens.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize that "no preference" was an option. I guess it means that it doesn't reformat dates, which explains some odd edits I've noticed over the years. —EncMstr 01:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just took a cursory look at the whole article in the edit window. I think you're right. My no-preference setting is displaying the dates as they are typed in the window — although, interestingly, the wiki-format brackets on month-and-day combinations that are typed in the American style — e.g., "March 23" — appear to be automatically entering a comma after the day-numeral.

I suppose the dates in the article proper should be formatted consistently — but again, I'm not weighing in for either the British or the American format.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've converted the five British-style dates I listed above to American style.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Oldschoolgod13, you weren't scolded by a random person. I was the one who approached you, using an informational template and explained to you about auto-formatting and why what you did was an unnecessary waste of time. It was done because in looking through your IP contribution list, you'd been changing this in articles consistently for a while, sometimes removing the brackets altogether or changing to a format which uses a suffix to an ordinal number (changing 1 June or June 1 to June 1st), which is an incorrect format. You went through this article itself and switched the dates in the body of the article within the brackets, which does nothing to the display for persons who have registered accounts and have set preferences.

You are a random person to me, nothing more, nothing less. AS I said earlier, the vast majority of people who use Wikipedia have ZERO interest in editing or registering an account. The rules (as I read them) state that an article is to follow spelling and date formats that conform to the subject's nation of origin. Changing of preferences or registering of an account should NOT be mandatory to get the information that is sought in the format to which you are accustomed. Oldschoolgod13 (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The above response fairly much sums up why this is a dead issue to me. If wikilinked 12 March vs. March 12 is so confusing to someone, then frankly, you have a huge amount of work ahead of you in fruitlessly spending time switching them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you don't like how certain things are displayed, then, darn it, you're going to have to register an account and set your preferences. Do not come in and state things in terms that imply that the message was from an uninformed person. Meanwhile, the Manual of Style only urges the arbitrary changing of spelling, etc., for articles that have strong national ties, with examples such as United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force and mostly recommends maintaining consistency in the variety of English spelling in a given article. The MoS also says If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety. I also noticed that you did a lot of "spelling corrections" in articles with an international interest, such as Magic: The Gathering. You were approached because eventually, this all becomes an issue, which it hadn't yet been.

So, you're going to tell all of the students that would use Wikipedia for school research to register an account? I HIGHLY doubt that they care enough about Wikipedia to go through the effort. And yes, I DID change things in M:tG, as the game originates and is predominately played in America. We aren't allowed to "Americanize" articles like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, since they originate in Britain, yet have higher readerships here in America. Be consistant. Oldschoolgod13 (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I used them as examples. I won't debate this here. I did think that schools didn't much care for the use of Wikipedia for research. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article is protected for editing by unregistered persons at this time because of the mounting amount of vandalism from anonymous IPs. That's a sad fact that protecting the page can only diminish. Sorry for your troubles. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Were Oldschoolgod's original changes executed for the sake of consistency? If so — and if the changes did not affect the display for persons who have set preferences — what was the problem? The five British-style dates I just changed were in a sharp minority; they were outnumbered by about thirty American-style dates (not all of which include a year).

And while we're on the subject: What is meant by "access dates," which, as is mentioned above, are supposed to be ISO 8601 format?JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

An "access date" is the date that an URL was last checked. It's a nice thing to have in case the URL goes 404 so it's easier understand why it might have died, to track down a replacement, or find it in an archive. If you use the {{cite web}} template, there is a parameter accessdate which is used, for example, as accessdate = 2008-03-19. You type in the date you checked the URL. —EncMstr 04:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I updated my posting, which hopefully explains the issue as I saw it. When I saw what changes were made while still an anonymous IP, I looked at the contribution history and noted what I outlined above. It is only circumstantial that it was brought up on this article. The problem is that not all cases I ran across were done for consistency, but an American preference, as evidenced in edit summaries, which becomes an issue. The proper response should have been for Oldschoolgod13 to approach me on my talk page about it specifically, as I did him or her, but since that didn't happen, I outlined my rationale here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm — well, I’m sure we’re all pleased this contretemps has eliminated the few non-American dates in the article about this patriot.

Maybe that’s not the right word. Anyway — I’ve found the links to the "auto-formatting" and "cite web" pages helpful. At a glance, most of the webpages that are linked in the article’s footnotes seem to have access dates, which are split just about 50-50 between British and American formats. Just under half of the dates are wikilinked. (Again — these are quick counts.)

I’d guess there is no access date that has been created via the cite web template. The template appears to offer wikilinked and non-wikilinked dates. (I take "wikilinked" to mean "in the form of an internal link to a Wikipedia article.") I don't know when access dates should be wikilinked and when they should not.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Leona

In the subsection headed "Second imprisonment," I have inserted a passage about Manson’s marriage to, and child with, "Leona." I have inserted it only because Leona and the child are, rightly, mentioned in the infobox at the article’s head and because, if you will read "Children," which is item number 44 in Archive 1 (July 2003 – 30 October 2007) of the present talk page, you will see that an editor questioned the existence of Leona and the child.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hoyt clip

In adding (to "Aftermath") a paragraph about statements Barbara Hoyt made on a recent episode of Discovery Channel's Most Evil, I included a link to a YouTube clip from the episode. Because the clip presumably infringes Discovery Channel's copyright, the link is probably in violation of Wikipedia policy; but in the absence of, say, a Discovery Channel transcript to link to, there is no other way to source the statements. That's why I went ahead and posted the link; I am hoping that editors who are more Wikipedia-savvy than I am will know what, if anything, should be done about this.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 07:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes, Youtube isn't a good source for the reasons you outlined. In the past, when I've come across such situations, I usually try to find the citation from the actual show or episode, most often through the website for the network. I'll see if I can find one for this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As I see you've added. I think that link is sufficient for citation and the youtube can come out. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Have followed your recommendation to remove link. This is a problem that can’t have been unnoticed at Wikipedia heretofore: How does one adequately footnote quotations from television broadcasts?JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There are citation templates that outline how to cite a television episode at WP:Citation_templates which has one specific one, {{cite episode}}, which is outlined in more detail at Template:Cite episode. Note that you don't have to use all the parameters in the template and it can be used either vertically or horizontally. Hope that answers your question. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I just used the "Cite episode" template, which has generated a footnote more helpful than the one I'd assembled by myself. Maybe the Discovery Channel itself will eventually post the pertinent transcript or video, which may be linked; but for the time being, this is pretty good. (I cheated a bit, in that I relied on Wikipedia's own Most Evil article for the airdate and the season and episode numbers; but that seems minor.)JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Soil testing

I'm not entirely satisfied with how this paragraph is worded. While I grant that article doesn't say specifically that there will be testing at the Myers Ranch, it also doesn't say specifically that the sheriff was disatisfied with methods used by original investigators, which is a rather broad statement. It actually says that not all of the dogs were handled in an established manner, and that they had asked for further testing in spots where dogs had indicated with consistency that bodies may be present. There was more to the original investigation than just the dogs. Soil testing was ordered for a few spots where dogs gave consistent findings. The article also says that additional testing was continued, and from the way I read it, says that some soil testing had already been conducted. It does, however, say that this was being done prior to any excavation, and not being done rather than excavating. It's more conducive and probably more correct to say that further testing is being pursued to clarify findings from the previous investigation before proceeding. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Just saw your comment here. If you'll give me a few minutes, I'll reread the article and respond.71.242.159.196 (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I’ll address your points individually:

1 — It is not clear why the Sheriff spoke of Myers Ranch. The original (AP) report had to do solely with forensic investigation at Barker Ranch. The CNN report’s opening sentence indicates that there will be additional soil tests at "a California ranch" — singular. The next sentence restates the AP report, namely, that indications of human remains had been found at Barker; nothing is said about Myers. As long as the Wikipedia article includes links to both articles, the Wikipedia visitor will be able to make what he or she will of the Sheriff’s mention of Myers; the Wikipedia article should probably avoid it.

2 — Possibly, the Wikipedia article’s statement that the Sheriff was not satisfied with the investigators’ methods is unacceptably broad. The Sheriff indicates only that he was not satisfied with the use of the search dogs, although one wonders whether he thinks the investigators should have employed — or, at least, recommended — the "minimal intrusion" methods he himself has now ordered. At any rate, he does not think the investigators’ conclusion that bodies are likely buried at the ranch is highly-reliable; he has expressly stated that the tests he has ordered will answer the burial question "with a high degree of reliability."

3 — It's hard to say whether the original investigators, including Dostie, have done any additional testing since the AP report. In the CNN report, Dostie refers to two dogs, not just the one that was mentioned by AP; he mentions the Oak Ridge equipment, some of which, as the AP article had indicated, was used the day Dostie used his own dog and some of which was to be used on another day or offsite. Also, the CNN report refers to work the investigators did "earlier this month" (March) — whereas the work reported in the AP article was apparently done in February. It's possible, in other words, that Dostie and the investigators he was working with did follow-up at the ranch after the publication of the AP report; but regardless, the tests ordered by the Sheriff have not yet been conducted. As things stand, the Sheriff has been publicly confronted — via AP — with the original investigators’ recommendation to dig; having examined the results of their investigations — whether or not those investigations include work that had not been done at the time of the AP report — he has concluded that further investigation is warranted. Accordingly, he has ordered the minimally-intrusive tests that, as we have just said, will reliably indicate whether bodies are buried at the ranch.

4 — As reported by CNN, the Sheriff’s statement is careful: Attention to property rights is compelling reason "to be as cautious as possible and use every reasonable testing method available before disturbing the ground with excavation"; the minimally-intrusive tests he has ordered will determine very-reliably whether bodies are buried at the ranch. I see no indication that the Sheriff has ordered excavation. I get the impression he will not order excavation if the tests he has ordered are negative. The word "but" at the head of the CNN article's fourth paragraph is not insignificant.

Your recommendation is valid; how about the following:

Though they recommended digging, CNN reported on March 28 that the Inyo County Sheriff, who questioned the methods they employed with search dogs, had ordered additional tests before any excavation.71.242.159.196 (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think one of the articles mentioned the proximity of the Myers Ranch, and it wouldn't surprise me to hear that they will be investigating further on that property. There was a lot about the first news release that bothered me in how it was executed - such as why Debra Tate was allowed to be there during an official search. In any event, subsequent media questions have led to checking more thoroughly. Your suggested wording is a lot more reflective of the reports as I read them. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A search at Myers Ranch wouldn’t surprise me either. The proximity of Myers was mentioned in the CNN article, presumably to enable the reader to understand the Sheriff’s mention of the place. As for the presence of Debra Tate during the original search: I can’t tell whether the original search was official in any sense, the presence of Dostie notwithstanding. It might simply have been an effort by citizens who had information on which they wanted to act (and that they felt had been ignored). Now, arguably with the help of the Associated Press, they’ve spurred official action; they’ve given the Sheriff cause to act, even if he’s not yet convinced there are bodies buried at Barker. — Anyway — I’ve inserted the revision you more or less approved. You’ll see that, in the sentence about the upcoming test results, I took the liberty of removing the word "expected" — simply because the revision had too many words to begin with.71.242.159.196 (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This sounds quite good to me. It's concise, covers the major points and is thorough. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Parole

It is well understood that Manson has been given life in prison since capital punished was abolished in CA in the seventies. But is there any reason that he is eligible for parole? Shouldn't his sentence been changed simply "life in prison" WITHOUT the eligibility of parole. I think this information is crucial to the article. -silic0nsilence (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that was an option, although I'll defer further information to one of the other editors who are more up to date on his status. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I and others appreciate this. It seems to me that going from death to life without parole seems to make more sense than death to life with chance of parole. Why would CA want to give everyone they were putting to death a chance to return to society? 68.193.84.36 (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Under California law, the change of sentence from death to life imprisonment made Manson eligible to apply for parole after seven years, dated, apparently, either from his conviction or from imposition of his sentence — both of which took place in 1971. This is indicated a page or so from the end of "A Shared Madness," the epilogue of Bugliosi and Gentry's Helter Skelter. In the afterword composed for the book's 1994 edition, it is stated that Manson's first parole hearing took place — on schedule, so to speak — in 1978. (I've just added this information to the article.) Bugliosi and Gentry don't go into the reasoning behind the law. If I had to guess, I would say that the California Supreme Court decision that invalidated the state's death penalty automatically converted already-imposed death sentences to life imprisonment under the terms of whatever life-imprisonment law was then in place -- or had been in place at the time of the commission of the crime.71.242.159.196 (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A bit more info: A footnote (number 45) to the closing sentence of California v. Anderson, the 1972 case that invalidated California’s death penalty, is as follows:

"[A]ny prisoner now under a sentence of death ... may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the superior court inviting that court to modify its judgment to provide for the appropriate alternative punishment of life imprisonment or life imprisonment without possibility of parole specified by statute for the crime for which he was sentenced to death."

I don’t know whether that means the statute that was in place at the time the crime was committed or the statute in place at the time of California v. Anderson. Anyway — I’ve added the information to the article.71.242.159.196 (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

New Album - One Mind

Manson has released a new album called One Mind. It's under a Creative Commons license. I think this is worth mentioning, but I don't know many details (is it a recent recording or is it old material, etc.). Anyone know anything more so we can put it in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lancelottjones (talk • contribs) 20:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The article's footnote-link to a recordings-list at mansondirect.com indicates that One Mind was released in April 2005 and that it contains music, poetry, and speech that was then new. I've added that information to the sentence about Manson's released recordings.71.242.159.196 (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Belated postscript: Yes, the album was released under a Creative Commons license. The article now notes that fact, which is supported with footnote-links.71.242.115.59 (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Monkees

Is it true that Manson once auditioned for a part in the television series The Monkees ?jeanne (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To me that's doubtful. If you mean for one of the starring roles, then no, it's not possible since the show was cast long before Manson was released from prison. If if was for a bit part, I still doubt it, since the Monkees show ended in early 1968, only a few months after Manson was released from prison. According to searches on Google, this is just another one of those silly urban myths, and in fact, The Monkees article makes mention of the myth. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is another story I read in Christopher Andersen's biography on Mick Jagger. On page 5, the author states that Manson attended the Stones free concert at Altamont and that Jagger tried to strike up a conversation with Manson. That sounds incredible to me. What do you think?jeanne (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the talk page is for discussing improvements to the Manson article. However, I'll answer your question, since it appears that Andersen hasn't done his homework. If you will check the article on the Altamont Free Concert, you'll see that the Stones concert took place on 6 December 1969. Then if you'll check this article, you'll find that Manson was arrested in October 1969. He hasn't been free since that arrest. In my opinion, this kind of glaring mistake casts doubt on the reliability of Andersen's writing. If, by chance, the information about the Monkees audition was also in Andersen's book, then I'd probably stop reading it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my faulty memory.I knew the Altamont concert took place on 6 December 1969.It's just that I always had it in my mind that Manson was arrested in early 1970 not October 1969.Had my memory been better I'd have known the book couldn't have been accurate. Anyway,jeanne (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)I cannot imagine Jagger, in the chaos that was Altamont, approaching Charles Manson amongst a crowd of thousands!!

Swastika Tattoo

I think someone should post some information on Manson's swastika tattoo, such as where he got it, when he got it, and why he got it. Noitanod (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The swastika was just an adaptation of the X he put in his forehead during the trial and it's actually backwards. It's not an important facet in the life of this man, and it certainly isn't relevant to his infamy. Essentially, running down his tattoo history is trivia and well beyond the focus of this article. I'm firmly against exploring this in the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Terry Melcher

I just had another look at the article and I'm confused.It says that Manson met Melcher;then it says that Melcher was meant to come over to hear Manson's recordings but never showed up.Did Melcher ever get the chance to listen to the recordings at a later stage?Manson, in his interview with Geraldo states that he" didn't go to Terry Melcher,Melcher came to "him.So what does that indicate? jeanne (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn’t treat the whole of Manson’s involvement with Melcher. Information from various sources is as follows:

Melcher met Manson at Wilson’s house; he met him there twice. (Bugliosi 1994, page 156.) The first time was probably in the summer of 1968. (Melcher’s Tate-LaBianca trial testimony.) On one of the two occasions, Wilson gave Melcher a ride back home to Cielo Drive. Manson came along; he played his guitar and sang in the back seat. Manson and Wilson let Melcher off at the gate. (Bugliosi 1994, pages 156-57.)

After that, Melcher went twice to Spahn Ranch to hear Manson and the girls perform. Melcher was "not enthused" by what he heard. (Bugliosi 1994, page156.)

The first time Melcher went to Spahn Ranch, he went to audition Manson. (Bugliosi 1994, page 185.) This was on May 18, 1969, and was, according to Melcher, at the request or instigation of Melcher’s acquaintance/associate Gregg Jakobson. (Melcher trial testimony.) "[I]t was a Sunday afternoon, and it was a favor to Gregg." (Trial testimony.)

The second time Melcher went to Spahn Ranch, he introduced Manson to a Michael Deasy, who had a mobile recording unit and who Melcher felt might be more interested in recording Manson than he was. (Bugliosi 1994, page 185.) This was "a fews days later," i.e., after the first visit to Spahn. Gregg Jakobson came, too. (Melcher trial testimony.)

Deasy might have gone out to Spahn Ranch a few more times (and possibly even recorded Manson), but Melcher didn’t see Manson after the second visit to the ranch. (Melcher trial testimony.)

To back up:

In early January 1969 — i.e., in between Melcher’s first meeting Manson at Wilson’s house and Melcher’s later visits to Spahn Ranch — the Family began its brief stay at the "Yellow Submarine" (the Canoga Park house, mentioned in the article). (Watkins, My Life with Charles Manson, Chapter 12.) There, the Family members practiced music for their album to trigger Helter Skelter. (Watkins, Chapter 13)

Before mid-March, while still ensconced at the Yellow Submarine, the Family got the impression Melcher had promised to come to the house to hear their music. (Watkins, who reports this, does not quite make clear how this impression arose.) The group prepared for the visit. They waited all afternoon, but Melcher did not arrive or call. Manson was seething: "That motherf***er’s word isn’t worth a plugged nickel." (Watkins, Chapter 13.)

This supposed non-appearance of Melcher is also mentioned by Tex Watson in Will You Die for Me? Watson was apart from the Family for three months, from December 1968 to March 1969; he seems to have heard about the non-appearance after he returned to the Family. He states that Manson's "version of events" was that Melcher had promised to come. (Will You Die for Me?, Chapter 11) "Once again Terry Melcher had failed Charlie. More than ever, Terry Melcher — in his house at the top of Cielo Drive, with his power and his money — was the focus for the bitterness and sense of betrayal that the Family felt for all those phony Hollywood hippies who kept silencing the truth Charlie had to share." (Watson, Chapter 11.)

Note that Melcher’s supposed non-appearance at Canoga Park — as well as Manson’s March 23, 1969, call at Cielo Drive (mentioned in the article) — take place before Melcher’s eventual visits to Spahn Ranch (in May 1969). Manson's abortive call at Cielo Drive, in other words, does not seem to mark the end of his involvement with Melcher.

Also from Bugliosi 1994:

"According to various Family members, Melcher had made numerous promises to Manson, and hadn’t come through on them. Melcher denied this: the first time he went to Spahn, he had given Manson fifty dollars, all the money he had in his pocket, because 'I felt sorry for these people'; but it was for food, not an advance on a recording contract; and he’d made no promises." (Bugliosi, page 185.) He "wasn’t impressed enough" with Manson’s talent to prepare and record him. (Page 185 also.)

In speaking with Susan Atkins at Sybil Brand Institute, Atkins’s dorm-mate Virginia Graham got the impression Manson and his group "were hostile toward Melcher, that he was too interested in money." (Bugliosi 1994, page 87.)

On the other hand:

According to Ed Sanders (in The Family, 2002 edition), Rudi Altobelli, as well as John Philips of The Mamas & The Papas, made statements that indicated Melcher — not just Wilson and Jakobson — spoke enthusiastically of Manson. (Sanders, pages 61-62.)

Sanders places Melcher’s second visit to Spahn Ranch on June 3, 1969 (Sanders, page 135) — i.e., more than a "few days" after the first visit, of May 18. Sanders also quotes Candice Bergen’s autobiography to the effect that Melcher had spoken favorably of what he’d heard of Manson and the girls: he had supposedly spoken of "soft, simple girls; sitting naked around this Christlike guy, all singing sweetly together." Melcher supposedly asked Bergen if she wanted to come to the ranch. (She declined.) Sanders, page 136.

Bergen, as you probably know, was Melcher’s girlfriend, who lived with him at Cielo Drive. According to Sanders, Bergen said, in her autobiography, that, in January 1969, Melcher abruptly — and without explanation — instigated the couple’s move from Cielo Drive to the Malibu home of his mother (Doris Day). (Sanders, page 116.)

I haven't read the Bergen autobiography.71.242.115.59 (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Postscript: At the beginning of the article's subsection headed "Crowe shooting; Hinman murder," I've noted Melcher's two visits to Spahn Ranch.71.242.115.59 (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Post-postscript: On page 133 of The Family (2002 edition), Sanders states the following:

People interviewed in the Family claim that [on May 18, during the first visit to Spahn Ranch,] Melcher told Manson he’d have to sign some contracts … with one of Melcher’s publishing companies. But Charlie was very much against signing contracts. Too plastic, man. He just wanted the money.

Melcher’s trial testimony, as linked above, is missing a page on which this subject — of Melcher’s discussion with Manson re contracts — is first addressed. Accordingly, I don’t know how Melcher said the subject of contracts came up. There is the following exchange, between Melcher and Vincent Bugliosi, who is asking the questions:

Q. Now, when you were telling Mr. Manson about the guild or union, and contracts and royalties, were you telling him this in the context that you were personally interested in recording him and there were things that you wanted him to do, or were you giving him general advice?

A. General advice.

Q. You were not telling him these things in the context that you wanted him to do these things for you?

A. No, I told him about--well--

Q. You can answer that yes or no.

A. Well, to do that I will have to get into what I was just about to talk about, and that is the recording trailer.

Q. Yes, I will get into that, Mr. Melcher. I am asking you now, you were not tellling him these things in about guilds and contracts and royalties in the context that you were interested in him and this is what you wanted him to do for you, is that correct?

A. No.

Q. That is not correct?

A. No, I'm sorry--yes, that's correct, I was giving him general advice, yes.

A short while later, after Melcher has described the second Spahn Ranch visit, on which he brought Michael Deasy, there is the following exchange:

Q. After this second audition, which basically was for the benefit of Mr. Deasy, I take it; correct?

A. Solely for the benefit of Mr. Deasy.

Q. After the second audition, did you explain to Mr. manson the benefits of any association he might have with Mr. Deasy?

A. Yes. I think I explained that the reason for bringing Deasy out there was the fact that he could record him right there and record exactly what was going on, you know.

Q. And did you explain--go ahead--I'm sorry.

A. And record exactly what was going on there at the ranch, instead of going into a studio in Holywood, which involves unions and guilds and a lot of other things, a lot of papers.

Q. You explained to Mr. Manson, the, that Deasy was the only way that Manson could get around the necessity of joining a guild and entering into contracts, et cetera, is that correct?

A. The only way that I knew of, yes.

Q. You told Mr. Manson this?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know if anything materialized between Deasy and Manson thereafter?

A. I think Mike Deasy went to the ranch a few more times, and he may have recorded him, and he may not.

Q. You don't know?

A. I am not sure.

Q. You have never recorded Manson; is that correct?

A. No, I haven't.

Q. And you have never made any film of him?

A. No, I haven't.

Q. After this second occasion that you went to Spahn Ranch, which was a couple of days after May 18th, 1969, did you ever see Mr. Manson thereafter?

A. No.71.242.115.59 (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Post-post-postscript: Sanders reports that a friend of Dennis Wilson’s was at the apartment where Bernard Crowe was shot (July 1, 1969, as mentioned in the article). The friend called Wilson; and the news of the shooting apparently got to Melcher, maybe through Gregg Jakobson. Sanders, who does not provide his source for any of this information, raises the possibility that this caused the final break of any plans Melcher might have had to deal with Manson. (See Sanders 2002, pages 148-49 and page 155.)

After raising that possibility, Sanders states the following (again: without providing his source):

One day Manson asked Jakobson if Terry had a green spyglass set up outside of his beach house in Malibu.

"Yes," Jakobson replied.

"Well, he doesn’t now," chortled Charlie. (Sanders 2002, page 155.)

In Melcher’s trial testimony (again: linked above), there is this:

Q. Were you living in Malibu, Terry, during the summer months of 1969?

A. Yes.

Q. At the same address [that you moved to after you left Cielo Drive]?

A. That's right.

Q. Did you have a telescope at your beach house?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Was it green?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you call it a green spyglass?

A. Well, I called it a green telescope, I guess, or a spyglass.

Q. Where was this green telescope located?

A. I had a deck in front of the house, and it was sitting on the deck. By the front of the house, I mean on the beach side.

Q. The ocean side?

A. Yes.

Q. The beach side of the house?

A. Right.

Q. Did this telescope ever disappear during the summer of 1969?

A. Yes, it did. Sometime in either July or early August. Sometime in July or August.

Q. Either late July 1969 or early August 1969, the telescope disappeared?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How do you place it as late July or early August?

A. Well, I knew that I had it on the 4th of July because I had a party that day, that night, and everyone was using it to watch--there was a sailing regatta, you know. So that is why I know for sure that the telescope was there, you know.

Q. You have never gotten the telescope back?

A. No.

Note that July 4 — a date on which Melcher knew he still had the spyglass — is after the Crowe shooting (July 1, to note it again).

After recounting the supposed spyglass conversation between Manson and Jakobson, Sanders states the following (again providing no source):

Manson began to become infuriated with Melcher. He was welching on his commitments. One day, Manson sent Leslie and another girl to Malibu Canyon to see Melcher. Melcher wouldn’t see them but talked to them through the intercom at the door. "They used to talk about kidnapping him," [Family member] Kitty Lutesinger remembered. (Sanders 2002, page 155.)

In Melcher’s trial testimony, there is this:

Q [from defense attorney Paul Fitzgerald, who is cross-examining]. Were you aware of girl friends of Mr. Manson that lived near you on the beach?

A. No, were there?

Note that Sanders doesn’t say the girls lived near Melcher.

On page 133 of The Family, Sanders suggests, subtly, that, in testifying, Melcher was not entirely forthcoming about his level of involvement with, or interest in, Manson. He mentions the Fifty Dollars that Melcher gave Manson on the day of the first visit to Spahn Ranch (mentioned, too, in Bugliosi 1994, at page 185, as noted above.) Quoting Melcher less than completely, he writes the following:

"I hope it wasn’t construed as an advance on a recording," Melcher later testified at the Manson trial where he tried to assert he never ran around with the Family.

As linked above, the transcript of the testimony is actually as follows:

Q [from Vincent Bugliosi]. Did you give Mr. Manson any money that day, May 18, 1969?

A. Yes.

Q. How much did you give him?

A. Everything I had in my pocket, I think about fifty bucks. That was like, you know, they seemed to need it, you know.

Q. When you say they, you are referring to Mr. Manson and the group there at Spahn Ranch?

A. Yeah, I assume, or I hope it was not construed as an advance on a recording or something like that.

Q. Did you tell Mr. Manson that day that you were willing to record him commercially?

A. No.

Lastly, I’ll mention this, also from Melcher’s testimony:

Q [from Paul Fitzgerald, defense attorney]. Do you recall the last time you saw Charlie Manson?

A. Yeah, just a few days--

Q. Aside from today.

A. Yeah, just a few days after May 18th.

Q. And what was that, do you recall?

A. I was at the ranch again. I came back with this other fellow, Deasy, I mentioned, within two or three days I think.

Q. And the last time you saw Mr. Manson were your relations with him pleasant and cordial?

A. Yeah, I hope so. I was bringing someone over to help him out or help him get recorded. I think he did record him as a matter of fact, I'm not sure.71.242.115.59 (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)