American Theater: The Manson Murder Trial Was a Hoax
“I can’t judge any of you. I have no malice against you and no ribbons for you. But I think that it is high time that you all start looking at yourselves, and judging the lie that you live in.”
Charles Manson
APOLOGIES IF you thought this would be a one or two-part paper. I did too. After several months of hinting at the Manson murders hoax, what are we on now, chapters six or seven? I’ve lost count. Point being, it has taken a book.
There’s much more that can be said, but does there really need to be? We have already looked at the various actors involved. Sharon Tate’s father was Intel. The murder photos were faked. The list of celebrities invited to the Polanski house on the night of the murders is essentially a who’s-who laundry list in the spook community. Even the Beach Boys were in on it. And while I won’t speak for the nervous reader who’s presently rocking back and forth this very moment, hugging a globe in their lap, I have satisfactory concluded that the Charlie Manson Intel project was not only scripted out in advance, it went down on a movie set.
Still, where the collective consciousness is involved, it is the 1970 trial, via television, where the mass Mind took shape. Inside and outside the courtroom, Intel was pulling out all the stops, sparing no expense. Jerry Rubin of Chicago Seven fame called Manson a hero, and Rolling Stone head Jean Wenner wanted to publish a cover story proclaiming Manson’s innocence. Both were Joos. As has already been established, the purpose here was to destroy the hippie. But Intel had every perfect right to do so. For they created the hippie, you see. Not enough people were frightened of them by the summer of 1970, and so they made a remake of the Manson murder movie in 1976, and called it Helter Skelter. Television again. I am told that scared the chicken shapoopy out of far more viewers than the original trial. Just goes to show that people have a penchant for performance. Fantasy is preferred over reality, especially when they tell you it’s only acting but based upon a true performance story, as is the case with Helter Skelter.
More than likely, we’re looking at two separate movies. There is everything leading up to the murder at the Roman Polanski house, which we have already dutifully covered, and then there is the trial of Charlie Manson, both of which were released successively in 1969 and then 1970 respectively. Different cast. Different directors. Mostly. Only Manson landed a spot in both films, as he was said to hang out with Laurel Canyon royalty, but even that is based upon hearsay. Just as we would expect of any sequel with something to prove, the second movie hammed it up to the point that your typical understudy like Susan Atkins was capable of out preforming Sharon Tate. Shortly before he died in 2017, aged 83, Manson told one reporter over the phone: “I’m the most famous human being, not only that is alive, but the most famous human being that has ever lived,” reminding us again what he and the crew were going for.
In the half-century since, we have seen other sham trials, but in 1970, and with a $3 million price tag, the media amusement park called Manson proved to be one of the most expensive trials in American history. District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi even bragged about that fact on camera. Just look at Bugliosi standing before the press. Enjoying ourselves a little too much, are we, hmmm? This little fact put Manson up as a direct competitor to the Charles Lindbergh Jr. kidnapping case, the Sam Sheppard murder trial, the Monkey Scopes trial, and the Chicago Seven. All of them, Intel run. I encourage you to take another look at Manson trial media coverage with woken eyes. Yeah, it’s that bad.
Where was all that money being funneled to—Bugliosi? It couldn’t have been Manson’s hack attorney, Irving Kanarek. And certainly not Leslie Van Houten’s attorney, Ronald Hughes. Manson had earlier been prevented from cross examining each witness, despite requesting to represent himself, and Kanarek later declined to do the same. There was no evidence ever brought against Manson, and the jury was excused when he was finally brought to the witness stand. The defense rested without calling a single witness. What this means is, Manson was not allowed to make a defense, and why do you think that is? Hold that thought.
And speaking of incompetence, Ronald Hughes was a “hippie lawyer” who failed the bar three times. He had never even been in a courtroom until the trial, furthermore arriving in shirt sleeves, telling Judge Charles Older that his one jacket was at the cleaners. The 250-pound Hughes then borrowed a jacket from a newsman half his size. The next day, he wore a suit worn by Raymond Burr while playing Perry Mason, picked up at a movie auction for $5. Meanwhile, Daye Shinn, attorney for Susan Atkins, was sentenced to three nights in jail for contempt of court. Do any of those plot points sound vaguely familiar? They were both recycled for the Joe Pesci comedy, My Cousin Vinny. The bonus here is that the official narrative reminds us how Hughes was an expert in counterculture recreational practices like drugs and matters of witchcraft. So, the defense had that going for them.
I might as well mention it now. Hughes disappeared on November 27, 1970 while on a ten-day recess and camping near Sespe Hot Springs. His decomposed body, wedged between two boulders in a gorge, wouldn’t be discovered by “two fishermen” until March 29, 1971, conveniently the very day in which the jury returned death penalty verdicts against Manson and his girls. What are the chances? Hughes had been attempting to get the girls sentences reduced by pushing the narrative that they were under Manson’s spell. Perhaps he was simply trying to do his job too well, or he had stumbled upon something that he wasn’t supposed to see. You tell me. The official narrative has repeatedly pushed the idea that the Manson family bumped him off, but that’s ridiculous, as a bunch of kids playing hippies actually had a real-life hippie on their side. Most likely, he had absolutely no experience as a lawyer because he was just another actor like Joe Pesci.
Uh-oh. IS THAT a picture of Susan Atkins giving the 666 sign to the media? I think so. Go ahead, laugh it up, Krenwinkle. It almost seems shocking, in this day and age, how so many pictures of Atkins are strewn across the Internet, thanking her employment. Doesn’t everyone know about the sign of success by now? I suppose not. But that’s how Intel wants it, easily accessible for your viewing pleasure. They like to lay it on thick. Somebody has to pass notes in class, letting the neophyte in on their little scheme while simultaneously mocking the rest of us. It’s also how they force us to push the cognitive dissonance even deeper.
I dare you to watch footage again of Atkins, Kasabian, and Krenwinkle orbiting the globe while walking the exceptionally lit hallway, in route to trial. Look at them, perfectly framed like a trio of spoon-fed LSD zombies, playing the part of the Wayward Sisters while singing the songs which Hollywood music executives had rejected for movie cameras. Theatrics. Atkins later claimed in a 1976 interview that her performance was due to LSD, but who was offering the chemicals to them: the police officer with the blond wig or the one suspiciously sporting the neck of a runway model? Am I expected to believe that all three hadn’t splashed down from orbit yet? According to Atkins in her 1976 interview, yes. That is precisely the look they were going for.
.
.
Like everything else we’ve already covered, even the courtroom was a movie set. I’ll just go right out and quote Miles Mathis here. “Tell me that doesn’t look like a scene from a play.” Where did those girls buy their clothes? The director of this movie wants you to think hippies dressed that way, but only actor hippies, pulling from the actors’ trunk, dressed like that. Not even Vito Paulekas hippie clothing boutique looked that bad. Don’t tell me their prison cell came with a sewing table. If anything, it looks like they played creepy-crawly in Grandma’s reject scrap pile. To quote from Miles Mathis again, “Van Houten looks like she was dressed from the wardrobe of Star Trek.” And why wouldn’t she? We know Hughes pulled his coat from a Hollywood closet.
DURING ONE stunning moment in August of 1970, Manson held up a front page of The Los Angeles Times for the jury, which read in bold print: “MANSON GUILTY, NIXON DECLARES.”
How did Manson even manage to slip The Times into the courtroom? Did Mother Manson bake him a cake with a file in it too?
We are told this nearly resulted in mistrial. Oh dear. Never mind the fact that Judge Older allowed Magazine articles from LIFE Magazine, which had already judged Manson’s guilt and were probably somehow tied to the scriptwriters in this psychodrama, into the courtroom as evidence. The judge simply asked how each juror felt about what they saw when Manson flashed The Times, and they assured him they weren’t influenced by anything which President Nixon had said. How adorable. In yet another twist of irony, Juror No. 2, Shirley Evans, said the Nixon headline didn’t affect her in the slightest, as she had deduced the President’s words to be fake news. They just love rubbing your face in it, don’t they?
Mind you, Manson held up another sign on the day after Nixon’s statement which read: NIXON GUILTY. This is simply Intel’s way of telling you who was behind the psyop, and that is the Nixon administration. Ironic, isn’t it? We’re often told how Nixon lost the 1960 election to Kennedy because it was the first televised debate, and yet nobody owned television quite so effectively as Nixon calling Neil Armstrong on the moon from a landline telephone.
DECADES LATER, during a September 2, 2009 episode of Larry King Live, Vincent Bugliosi called Linda Kasabian the only real hippie among the Charlie Manson crew, essentially outing everyone else out as fake hippies. To celebrate the 50th anniversary of the psyop, Kasabian appeared alongside Bugliosi wearing sunglasses and a wig, letting us know that even then she was acting while doing a very terrible job at it. Nowadays she lives alone in an undisclosed location, but that’s because she’s tired of playing the part. Bugliosi did most of the talking for Kasabian, probably due to the fact that Kasabian hadn’t acted in decades, and her lines were sloppy. Somebody needed to make sure she got her story straight, and who better than the ringleader? But in 1970, nobody could keep Kasabian’s mouth shut. That was her role. Chatterbox. Her babbling is legendary, as Linda “The Mouth” Kasabian had so much to say that her courtroom testimony lasted for 18 days, nearly as long as she spent living with the Family. Kasabian was simply Intel’s way of tying up as many loose ends as possible. Without Linda Kasabian, as Bugliosi has repeatedly reminded us, Manson would have walked.
Kasabian is given the same profile as those of her other Manson Family Troupe Members. Her father abandoned her while she was but a child. Her stepfather mistreated her. Friends, neighbors, and teachers described her as a good student but “starry-eyed romantic” who was “forced to grow up too soon.” She dropped out of high school at the age of sixteen and fled west “looking for God.” Your typical D.A.R.E. commercial. She found LSD and Charlie.
Her introduction to Manson apparently came in July of 1969, a little over a month before the murders. The story we are given is that Kasabian was handed off to Catherine Gypsy Share by somebody named Charles Blackbeard Melton, a friend of Paul Watkins but also a friend of her estranged husband, Robert Kasabian, while he and Melton left on what has been described to us as a “South American sailing adventure.” Gypsy told Kasabian about “an idyllic ranch outside Los Angeles where a group of hippies were establishing a ‘hole in the earth’ paradise to escape an anticipated race war which they referred to as Helter Skelter” and Kasabian thought this was neat because it reminded her of Hopi legends she’d read as a child, furthermore telling us where Intel was drawing inspiration. Kasabian had also reportedly landed in the Haight, looking for “Jesus.” What are the odds? Was she one of Colonel Louis West’s hippie actors? We are not told.
She then sat in the car on the night of the Roman Polanski house murders, and again on the following night during the murders of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. We are told that she only drove the murderers to their respective movie set destinations, but I have little reason to believe that she drove anywhere except to the courtroom.
I should probably stop beating around the bush, as you have probably noticed by this point how I have afforded zero effort whatsoever upon disproving the LaBianca’s murder. There is a huge difference between the two murder scenes, and that is because the LaBianca’s were probably really murdered, thereby bringing credibility to the entire narrative. Not that the Manson family had anything to do with it. The LaBianca homicides were a mob hit, thinly disguised as a copycat killing, and easily orchestrated by top brass. Kasabian and her fellow actors’ members were simply handed a script and told what to say.
Why wouldn’t Kasabian confess to driving to the LaBianca’s? It’s not like she drove to the Polanski house either. Had Intel invested in enough actors for a third murder scene, she would have confessed to that too. There were 25 unidentified fingerprints at the Polanski house. How embarrassing. I should have mentioned that little detail earlier, and it’s somewhat embarrassing that I’ve waited this long to bring it up, but better late than never. 25 unidentified fingerprints are a clear sign of the presence of spooks setting up the crime scene.
On the same night as the LaBianca killings, Manson ordered Kasabian to kill a Lebanese actor named Saladin Nader, whom Kasabian had met a few days earlier while hitchhiking with fellow Mansonite Sandra Good. Mm-hmm, another hitchhiking story. Tired of them yet? I am. Unfortunately, there’s more to come. Saladin Nader picked them up along the side of the road and then drove them back to his Venice Beach apartment for milk and cookies, as Dennis Wilson called it. 33 parallel again. During the early morning hours of August 9, Kasabian claims she purposely led Susan Atkins and Steve Grogan to the wrong door, but Sexy Sadie seems out of character here, as she wasn’t the kind of girl to back down from a challenge—especially where creepy-crawly is involved. Manson furthermore instructed that all three return to the ranch via more hitchhiking. Who picked them up in the dead of night? Your guess is as good as mine.
Again, Linda Kasabian’s courtroom testimony lasted for 18 days. In Tarot, the number 18 is The Hermit, telling us that we have arrived at the end of something. The number 18 is all about retrospective searching. We are presented with a lantern in the dark of night, and instructed to turn around and look back to see if one can make any sense of it. Bugliosi has insisted that there would be no success Manson murder trial without Kasabian. Her testimony is the lantern in the dark of night, as the entire narrative is told through her. In conclusion, Linda Kasabian is the Hermit.
WHEN LAST we met Barbara Hoyt, she was an L.A.P.D. mugshot fashion model. In the time since, and while staying at Baker Ranch, Hoyt overheard Susan Atkins tell Ruth Ann Moorehouse that she killed Sharon Tate. Afterwards, she fled their Death Valley compound with Sherry Cooper. We are told that Manson later caught up with them at a diner in the town of Ballarat, but it was only to give the pair money and send them on their way.
In September of 1970, Intel needed to keep America invested in their fake trial. It’s why three Manson girls, Catherine Gypsy Share, Lynette Squeaky Fromme, and Ruth Ann Ouisch Moorehouse, along with Steve Clem Crogan and some guy named Dennis Rice, were accused of conspiracy to murder, in hopes of keeping Hoyt from the witness stand.
Now, every so often a sitcom likes to go on vacation. The Brady Bunch went on location to the Grand Canyon, and later Hawaii. This is like that. The ridiculous story we are given is that Moorehouse lured Hoyt to Honolulu and then offered her a hamburger laced with LSD. What is this, amateur hour? Sure, lure the fat girl to her death with a hamburger. Did Moorehouse lure Hughes with a slice of LSD cake too? How prosecution would ever allow their star witness to skip the state for a Pacific island party with the Manson fan club is beyond me. Wasn’t Moorehouse under the care of George Spahn? If an underage girl managed to purchase a plane ticket and book a vacation on Honolulu, then either Angela Lansbury or Langley must have been her sponsor. Clearly, Intel was scrapping the bottom of the barrel on ideas. Probably a discarded plot to an unfilmed episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents. For all I know, Polanski was pitched the idea and rejected it just as soundly as that American color version of Knife in the Water.
The Manson Bunch each served 90-day sentences in the Los Angeles County Jail for their attempt, except for Ouish. The explanation we are given is that Moorehouse never served her sentence because she chose not to appear at the sentencing hearing. The Government let that one slide. Sure. Let’s go with that.
I checked. As of last night, you can still catch footage online of Barbara Hoyt being interviewed by the media. The date is stamped September 9, 1971, which pits us right up against the LSD hamburger incident.
After one member of the press asks Hoyt who gave her the hamburger, she looks to her handler, a black woman, and asks: “Am I supposed to say that?”
Her handler returns fire into her ear. Hard to tell, but it sounds like the woman instructs her: “She’s kind of cool it.”
I know, doesn’t make any sense to me either.
Hoyt asks, “Huh?”
Her handler repeats, slightly louder this time: “She’s kind of cool it.”
Hoyt then tells the media: “She says I can’t say.”
The conversation goes on, and there-in lies the problem. Barbara Hoyt continues expounding upon her courtroom testimony for television cameras. They want their scoop on what she knows about Susan Atkins. Hoyt delivers. What footage remains of this interview has been severely hacked up and edited, telling us there was much more originally spoken. Remember, this is the biggest courtroom drama in American history. To protect their case, the District Attorney’s office wouldn’t have their key witnesses speak to the media, or else chance having everything compromised. And it’s not like Hoyt isn’t absent of her “legal representative.” Why not just haul every Manson girl out to the press room, one at a time, to give their testimony and set the record straight? You know they’d glisten like sparkly Monarch butterflies in the spotlight. Especially Susan Atkins. If this were reality, Hoyt’s babbling would be cause for a mistrial.
THE MAN who called himself the devil and Christ was not given a fair trial because he could not be given a fair trial, if the performance was to work its intended spell. Understand, the Manson trial wasn’t simply good television. It was theater. American theater. Babylonian witchcraft. Manson never intended to represent himself. He never intended to do anything but put on a phenomenal performance. It’s why Bugliosi and Manson needed to meet privately. Did their meeting go against the consent of Manson’s counsel? Yup. Was it a grave violation of Manson’s Miranda rights? Most certainly. But Manson and Bugliosi were the two ringleaders who needed to compare notes. When Manson carved an x into his forehead, his followers passed around a note outside the courthouse and carved an x into theirs. Even the Wayward Sisters were going off of notes. The entire trial was scripted. But that is not to say the lie could be revealed, lest the entire system be exposed.
Remember how the jury was excused while Manson gave his closing defense? His choice words, for those who were allowed to hear it, are indeed brilliant. Before you accuse me of praising Manson, let me remind you that Manson is evil, just not in the same way which we are expected to believe he is evil. Everyone involved—every actor in the know—was evil. Tate and Polanski were evil, just as Bugliosi was evil. Though I prefer the word wicked. Which is to say, they received their slice of the pie in the kingdom which Jezebel once ruled, by way of magic. When Atkins, Kasabian, and Krenwinkle were given a chance to express remorse from the stand, they had none to give, hence wicked, but only because they were speaking on the part of Intel. And that is why Manson’s critique is so brilliant. Consider his closing words:
“These children that come at you with knives—they are your children. You taught them. I didn’t teach them. I just tried to help them stand up.”
Exactly. Just swap out you and I for Intel, and it all makes sense. Manson taught a dualism whereas he was a devil just as much as he is a god, but more importantly, that he is only what lives in each and every one of us. It is ultimately a doctrine borrowed from the Mystery religions, not overlooking just about every Hollywood film, so try to hold off on the moral outrage. But more than anything, Manson was letting us know that our Slave Masters play both sides. So again, for all you voters and stars and stripes saluters out there, try to hold off on the moral outrage.
The Government created Vietnam, a war which Manson claimed Nixon was guilty of, and they created the hippie, by which Manson was accused of playing. It is they who play both the devil and god and then hold us accountable to one or the other. Where the official narrative is concerned, we are only ever given the illusion of choice. The media is set up in no other way. Manson stated as much when he said we needed to stop blaming our children and start blaming ourselves for what we’ve become. Or what we’ve allowed the Children of Cain to make of us—by our own consent. Unto his dying day, Manson was undoubtedly one of the greatest showmen who ever lived.
IS IT ANY coincidence that the California death penalty was suspended in 1972? The actors involved were sentenced to death but had never been intended to die. There were so many characters involved that Intel intended to milk those tits for the following half century. Their first spin-off transpired within months of the guilty verdict, and it involved the Berkeley librarian who had met Charlie Manson somewhere near the corners of Haight-Ashbury. Probably one of Colonel Louis West’s hippie actors. In time, Mary Brunner would come to be known Mother Mary. The Wikipedia pointedly mentions that they met while Manson was 33 years-old. Why stress the number? Perhaps because Brunner was selected to mother his child.
Brunner resurfaced on August 21, 1971, while the Manson trial was still hot on the back burner, but in a telling even more ridiculous than Barbara Hoyt’s LSD Burger.
The plot-line has Mary Manson driving a white van to a Hawthorne, California Western Surplus Store in order to steal 143 rifles and hijack a Boeing 747, thereby threatening to kill one passenger every hour until Manson and fellow Family members were released from prison. What is this, a Jerry Bruckheimer movie? She was of course accompanied by several other Family members. Catherine Share, Dennis Rice, Charles Lovett, Larry Bailey, and Kenneth Como. But when police arrived, it was Brunner who lobbied off the first of 20 rounds. Hawthorne police responded by drilling more than 50 rounds into Brunner’s white van.
Why 143? Because 143 represents the idea of material acquisition with a goal of independence and self-reliance. It is imbued with a sense of independence, of exploring new ways of doing things, of reaching for the previously unreached. Its energy is furthermore described to us as something balanced in that its sense of duty to society is about equal to its sense of duty to ensure its own abundance.
Brunner received a sentence of 20 years to life. She was sent to the California Institute for Women where Atkins and Krenwinkel were serving their sentences. After her parole in 1977, Brunner completely disappeared from the public eye. Where she disappeared to is anybody’s best guess. I was however able to find a quote from Brunner’s child, who is quoted to have said: “We’re closer than we’ve ever been. She lives for the day. She’s very active and enjoying life, enjoying her retirement.” We are expected to be unclear as to what she retired from, but you and I know. Her acting days are long behind her.
IN 1975, Intel was still milking the tits of the Manson cow. Because on September 5, Lynette Fromme, aka Squeaky, stood a little more than an arm’s length from President Gerald Ford in Sacramento, California, and pointed an M1911 pistol at him. Ridiculous. Were they going with the MK-Ultra sub-genre? Hard to tell. How a Mansonite den mother with little or no firearm experience was able to wiggle her way up to the president, we are not told. But more importantly, she hadn’t chambered a round. The gun was blank. Why would Fromme go to all that trouble to take a picture for the media of the gun strapped to her leg while intentionally refusing a single bullet in the chamber? She said the message was for Charlie, but also for the world’s tallest trees, which needed to be saved. Sure. Let’s go with that. Are you really buying it? I’m not. Intel was simply cross-pollinating franchises.
Also, Lynette Fromme broke out of prison in 1987. More cow milking. Fromme may have known her way around George Spahn’s “kitchen,” but escape from prison? Come on. She couldn’t even load a gun properly. Nice try, Langley.
CHRISTIANITY inspired Susan Atkins at 33 years of age, according to news broadcasts in 1981. Whether she actually became a “Christian” at 32 or 34 isn’t nearly so important as the media letting you know that she was 33, and did you know she became a Christian while she was 33 years-old? Kind of like how the 55-acre Spahn Ranch was reportedly 33 acres, according to a December 3, 1969 article in the Long Beach Press Telegram. Did Paul Tate read from the Press Telegram? Probably. Passing notes in class. Look, if you’re going to give inaccurate information, why not say the movie set was 42 or 57 or 39 acres? They wouldn’t, because the 33 was intended to convey a message.
The person selected to co-author Atkins book, Child of Satan, Child of God, (more duality) was somebody named Bob Slosser, who went on to launch the news department of Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network.
1981 was also the year that Atkins married Donald Lee Lai$ure, a self-described Marines Corps. officer, professional Texan, and billionaire heir to an oil business. And if you missed it the third or the fourth time, did you hear how Atkins was 33 years old? Also, it was the same year, aged 33, in which she disavowed her former confession of killing. At 33 years of age, Susan Atkins said she’d lied and declared her innocence. As you can probably tell, Lai$ure used a $ when signing his name. He furthermore claimed to have close connections with Castro. Uh-huh, I knew it. CIA. Meanwhile, he had supposedly already been married 28 times, and lived in a single apartment. Media footage of his car shows that it was riddled with bumper stickers advertising his “billionaire” status, but perhaps more importantly, displayed a picture of Sexy Sadie next to the symbol of a Playboy bunny. Exactly. The CIA narrative is still believable.
Even their meeting is a plot recycled. What are the odds that Lai$ure would have encountered Atkins years earlier on the side of a California highway? You know what she was up to, don’t you?
Mm-hmm, Sexy Sadie was hitchhiking.
Noel
Sources:
Wikipedia, obviously