Mike Love will make up anything to sell books

[Robbie Mac]

Who is to say that Mike isn't repeating exactly what Dennis told him about his experience with Manson.

Well, first of all, Charlie didn't kill an African-American. He shot an African-American,  Bernard "Lotsapoppa" Crowe, but Crowe survived. Secondly, Dennis was never present when Crowe was shot, but a friend of Dennis witnessed the shooting.

[Rick5150]

As someone of mixed race, I really don't find that funny.

So am I, but it is not about race - it was that Howard said something so inappropriate to Mike about his wife that made me laugh.

[Debbie KL]

As someone of mixed race, I really don't find that funny.

So am I, but it is not about race - it was that Howard said something so inappropriate to Mike about his wife that made me laugh.

That certainly made me cringe.  I hope behind the scenes Mike told the guy off, but who knows?

About the claimed conversation between Mike and Dennis - I guess what I find frustrating is that, as best I can tell, it was never mentioned while Dennis was still alive to confirm or deny (not to mention why it wasn't reported to the authorities).  That wouldn't bother me quite so much if I weren't also seeing other changes in BB "history" after, once again, people aren't around to confirm or refute.  We'll see if the book continues from Mike's interviews with that tone.

We'll see if this is a big part of the book or not.  It's certainly been a big part of Mike's interviews over the past few years, and posts by Mike advocates here.

[guitarfool2002]

What hasn't been noted is not long after the Manson comments to Stern, Stern asks Mike about writing a book, and Mike says there were already "slugs" or proof printings of a cover or something made for a book...and this is in October 1992. So if a cover/design or whatever Mike referred to was done for a proposed book as of fall '92, it's an interesting comparison to 2016.

[guitarfool2002]

Getting back to the actual topic that generated some headlines and teasers this week - Consider all of the comments and calls to 'reopen' the case and again all the reaching out to various police officials and DA staffers and all of it.

It's 2016. The claim was made by Mike on a syndicated radio show in 1992 (and possibly earlier if something turns up?), there is audio of the claim being made. If there had been enough to go on to reopen the case, surely word would have gotten back to the DA's office at the time (fall 1992), and to those who were involved in the original investigations and prosecutions since the original investigations were just over 20 years old at the time and many of the original people involved on all sides of the Manson case were still alive.

Being somewhat of a follower in the historical sense of the Manson case and interested in the details and background that didn't make it to Bugliosi's successful prosecutions and subsequent book - especially since it goes to the darker core of the LA rock and celebrity scenes that I'm sure most would like to see thrown down the proverbial well and forgotten for eternity - It is surprising to see this much space being devoted to reopening the case when the same information being promoted as warranting a re-examination and reopening of the case has been "public" since 1992. At least since 1992 where we have the exact same claims being made on air.

[filledeplage]

Getting back to the actual topic that generated some headlines and teasers this week - Consider all of the comments and calls to 'reopen' the case and again all the reaching out to various police officials and DA staffers and all of it.

It's 2016. The claim was made by Mike on a syndicated radio show in 1992 (and possibly earlier if something turns up?), there is audio of the claim being made. If there had been enough to go on to reopen the case, surely word would have gotten back to the DA's office at the time (fall 1992), and to those who were involved in the original investigations and prosecutions since the original investigations were just over 20 years old at the time and many of the original people involved on all sides of the Manson case were still alive.

Being somewhat of a follower in the historical sense of the Manson case and interested in the details and background that didn't make it to Bugliosi's successful prosecutions and subsequent book - especially since it goes to the darker core of the LA rock and celebrity scenes that I'm sure most would like to see thrown down the proverbial well and forgotten for eternity - It is surprising to see this much space being devoted to reopening the case when the same information being promoted as warranting a re-examination and reopening of the case has been "public" since 1992. At least since 1992 where we have the exact same claims being made on air.

GF - Here is the big difference (or some of them) as between 1992 and now. 

First, the growth of the internet can raise awareness and have people pull to gather to share information about missing persons or evidence, and John/Jane Doe cases.   
 
Second, the greater awareness of prosecutorial misconduct and the general ethical awareness of not hiding-the-ball with evidence. DA's offices are run by lawyers who got elected.   

Third, the emergence of DNA evidence and "innocence projects" which unearth evidence that should have been "exculpatory" - meaning the person in prison was "framed" so it all cuts both ways.  We have all seen on TV people who have been decades in prison for crimes they did not commit.  Now those prosecutors face ethical ramifications.  And, while I am not accusing those prosecutors of misconduct, I find it telling that they don't want the door opened to re-examine their work.  They should welcome new information about cold cases. They should welcome a new generation taking  fresh look at the cluster of cases that remain.  If the feds were happy with their case solving record, they would not have infused federal dough in 2011.

Fourth, when I finally read this book, I will look for the context in which Dennis may have "blurted out" this information to Mike.   

The fact remains that there is much that is unsolved, concerning crimes that had the gruesome and heinous markings that went beyond just killing someone with one bullet.  The bodies were hacked, after they were dead, and their blood was used as paint with bizarre messages. 

This is not about Mike.  I look at it as more about Dennis.  If I were one of Dennis' kids, I might want to know if part of Dennis' torture, that made him an "unavailable parent," related to something horrific that he witnessed.  What is striking is not that he did not report the incident.  He was too terrified to testify.  Why would he call the cops if he was too afraid to sit in a courtroom full of armed officers and testify? 

And why it surprises people, given Dennis did not testify, after the Manson family ripped him off in 1969 dollars to the tune of $100k, and threatened his children, surprises me.

 

[guitarfool2002]

But the issue here is that the claims were made on what was at the time the #1 morning show in Los Angeles, heard on station KROQ, in the fall of '92. At that time the Manson case and the court cases related to it were roughly 20 years old and not only were most of the individuals involved on all sides still alive, but some were still working on the police force and in various prosecutor's office and DA positions who were there in 1969 and knew the case firsthand.

If claims are broadcast on KROQ in Los Angeles in fall 1992, on the #1 morning radio show in the city, that there could be yet another murder involving Manson, people close to the case would have found out about it. Now in 2016 when many of those people involved are either passed on or retired, it's a hot issue? They had word of this in 1992, they had more opportunity and more firsthand resources still on the force who worked the case at that time, and now it's a hot issue? It already would have been in 1992 if it was truly new info for those involved on the investigative and procedural front.

[SMiLE Brian]

The claim is to make Dennis look bad by making him an accessory to murder.

[filledeplage]

The claim is to make Dennis look bad by making him an accessory to murder.

An accessory or a terrified witness?

[filledeplage]

But the issue here is that the claims were made on what was at the time the #1 morning show in Los Angeles, heard on station KROQ, in the fall of '92. At that time the Manson case and the court cases related to it were roughly 20 years old and not only were most of the individuals involved on all sides still alive, but some were still working on the police force and in various prosecutor's office and DA positions who were there in 1969 and knew the case firsthand.

If claims are broadcast on KROQ in Los Angeles in fall 1992, on the #1 morning radio show in the city, that there could be yet another murder involving Manson, people close to the case would have found out about it. Now in 2016 when many of those people involved are either passed on or retired, it's a hot issue? They had word of this in 1992, they had more opportunity and more firsthand resources still on the force who worked the case at that time, and now it's a hot issue? It already would have been in 1992 if it was truly new info for those involved on the investigative and procedural front.

The 1992 timeline is relevant because what was not known about DNA relevance and internet sharing and the indexing systems of evidence. Now if you leave a water bottle behind you, an investigator can take that to a lab and connect you to a crime because you leave DNA everywhere.  Family members can be used for DNA samples to unidentified remains.   These criminals are now coming up for parole hearings. That is news.  Where are all those missing bodies?   

Howard Stern is Howard Stern and has made a living on being provocative and he is an equal opportunity insulter/offender.  He tells it as he  (Howard) sees it.

Shame on that office if someone is coming forward in 2016 and their family member is Jane Doe #59 and they don't re-open her case without the glare of media pressure.   It is an embarrassment to have the feds come in with money to help solve cold cases. 

What you aren't looking at is the politicization of cases and they can be, especially high-profile big money people who have influence in both law enforcement and in DA's offices.

The "nobody" people deserve an answer too; not just the Roman Polanski's of the world.      

 

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

The claim is to make Dennis look bad by making him an accessory to murder.

That's what they do...Mike or his 'lapdog'. Whether it's a claim in his book, or having someone PM dirt about  people in the Wilson camp in the guise of 'friendship' (but really just gossiping), that's what they do.  If you get on their bad side or they are jealous, making up lies seems to be their modus operandi. Which one day could result in a libel suit if the interest was there.

It's a damn shame, really, because Mike is letting his vendetta against the Wilsons cause him to act a certain why which overshadows his musical contributions in the general public's eyes, which is him doing himself a grave disservice. He deserves better than that, but he won't allow himself any better because of his own jealousy

[CenturyDeprived]

The claim is to make Dennis look bad by making him an accessory to murder.

That's what they do...Mike or his 'lapdog'. Whether it's a claim in his book, or having someone PM dirt about  people in the Wilson camp in the guise of 'friendship' (but really just gossiping), that's what they do.  If you get on their bad side or they are jealous, making up lies seems to be their modus operandi. Which one day could result in a libel suit if the interest was there.

It's a damn shame, really, because Mike is letting his vendetta against the Wilsons cause him to act a certain why which overshadows his musical contributions in the general public's eyes, which is him doing himself a grave disservice. He deserves better than that, but he won't allow himself any better because of his own jealousy

What I want to know is what a person who so obviously acts out of jealousy (like this) would think when seeing someone else act that way. Would they judge that other person and be completely oblivious to their own actions? Probably yes is my guess. Mike probably thinks an example of a jealous person whose actions caused them to shoot themselves in the foot is Murry (which he'd of course be right about). But that doesn't mean that just because Mike isn't *as* ridiculously nuts as Murry was, that he himself doesn't come across as his very own brand of a jealous nutjob more often than not.

Maybe behind closed doors, in private, Mike would admit to being jealous. I wonder if he's ever told a shrink that. I can't fault Mike for being jealous; it's a very human emotion. I just fault the resultant actions, which have greatly harmed his reputation. And I fault all who have enabled this by being yes-men/women. They *have* to know this is true. I won't go into the reasons why I think they let it happen. The harm from jealously is basically the 2nd or 3rd biggest worst thing this band has ever had to endure longterm, other than obvious things like the results of childhood abuse, drugs and mental illness. Lest anyone think this is "bashing" (it's not), I just happen to sincerely, deeply desire a member of my favorite band to *not* harm their reputation any more, and to be respected. I guess I'm a dreamer.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

He's shooting himself in the foot himself! There are people who won't go see him live because they don't like him, which is a negative for the band because they themselves are really good. Some will immediately dismiss anything he's done in the past because they don't like him as a person. So if that is his definition of a jealous person, then he fits his own description.

[CenturyDeprived]

He's shooting himself in the foot himself! There are people who won't go see him live because they don't like him, which is a negative for the band because they themselves are really good. Some will immediately dismiss anything he's done in the past because they don't like him as a person. So if that is his definition of a jealous person, then he fits his own description.

I'm sure he just chalks up all those people to being crazy, blind Wilson lovers, who of course misunderstand everything. Blame, blame, blame. No nuance. Some are crazy blind bashers, but many are open-minded people who appreciate Mike's work, but have simply had enough BS. Again, Mike thinks he's the most misunderstood man in rock music, and he publicly asks why people vilify him. That, to me, says that he thinks there is not one single legit reason why people find fault with him, and he is baffled. That's textbook (fill in the blank here). It is truly sad. Not the way I wish things were. It ain't all his fault (of course), but some things simply are.

[SMiLE Brian]

The jealousy has ate Mike up, its like he has to bring up BW's past drug use to bring his genius "back to earth" in Mike's mind. Mike is too obsessed with BW (the person of 1975 with problems) compared to the timeless composer of Brian Wilson.

[urbanite]

I think it's impossible to discuss the Beach Boys history and not discuss Brian's drug and mental health problems.  I object to it being discussed ad nauseum, so I'll wait for the book and come to an opinion as to Mr. Love's mention of it..

[Debbie KL]

I think it's impossible to discuss the Beach Boys history and not discuss Brian's drug and mental health problems.  I object to it being discussed ad nauseum, so I'll wait for the book and come to an opinion as to Mr. Love's mention of it..

From the previews, I think it's safe to say that it's covered in Brian's book.  I suppose if you want to re-hash the same old sh*t we've been reading for years, people here can go ahead.  If Mike has something new to say, I'm sure I'll hear about it.  Otherwise, I'm not in the mood...Your "Ad nauseum" comment would be my idea of this all after these decades, unless it's from Mr. Wilson.  And he doesn't seem to mind addressing it in his book - you know, from the man himself and the context of the situation.

[CenturyDeprived]

I think it's impossible to discuss the Beach Boys history and not discuss Brian's drug and mental health problems.  I object to it being discussed ad nauseum, so I'll wait for the book and come to an opinion as to Mr. Love's mention of it..

From the previews, I think it's safe to say that it's covered in Brian's book.  I suppose if you want to re-hash the same old sh*t we've been reading for years, people here can go ahead.  If Mike has something new to say, I'm sure I'll hear about it.  Otherwise, I'm not in the mood...Your "Ad nauseum" comment would be my idea of this all after these decades, unless it's from Mr. Wilson.  And he doesn't seem to mind addressing it in his book - you know, from the man himself and the context of the situation.

Exactly. Unless Mike's book begins to approach the subject of Brian taking drugs by having some unconditional empathy for what may have drove Brian to do them (as a loving family member should), including both childhood trauma as well as stressors/thorns in Brian's side around Brian at the time, it just will most likely become incredibly gratuitous.

I'm thinking the book will be short on self-reflection. Mike blaming the Wilsons' chaotic lifestyles for making Mike himself getting obsessed with his drug of choice (TM), with little awareness of what Mike's own role may have been on the other side of the equation. I hope to be proven wrong.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

The man doesn't DO self reflection,  just pass the blame while attempting to levitate

[Lee Marshall]

... many are open-minded people who appreciate Mike's work, but have simply had enough BS. Again, Mike thinks he's the most misunderstood man in rock music, and he publicly asks why people vilify him. That, to me, says that he thinks there is not one single legit reason why people find fault with him, and he is baffled.

I cut him slack for quite awhile...thinking that he likely AND SENSIBLY regretted being the gigantic ASSHOLE and MILLSTONE he was circa 66/67 and  beyond.  No wonder he was deemed unsuitable as a partner. [ for writing or otherwise]  But after losing Dennis and then Carl...and after seeing his MANY solo attempts FAIL. [except for Kokomo and its somehow catching the public's fancy way out in the middle of left field ...never to be duplicated in ANY way, shape or form ever again]  Well one would have thought that maybe...just maybe...this sad old facsimile of a real Beach Boy would have figured 'sh*t' out.

But as the saying goes...and he proves it seemingly every inch of the gawd-forsaken way...He doesn't know sh*t from shinola.  I'm not sure if he's to be merely despised or to be pitied.  He certainly is pitiful.

The lead-up to his 'book' being foisted on an unsuspecting public has been the atrocious and hideous work of a traitor and an individual devoid of anything of note in the way of moral fibre.  It's only because of his contributions from the FIRST HALF of the 60s that many give him any kind of break.  Anything after that which rang a bell was just a happy accident.  And they trust him to take the LEGACY on  tour?

Well...ain't that just a little bit misguided?

Yup!!!

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I agree, Lee. I kept giving him the benefit of the doubt  but the past couple of years did it for me, especially considering the reasons I had came from someone I no longer trust.

[the professor]

Any and all mentions about Manson makes me depressed and sick, and speculation makes it worse: linking DW to these events is even more so. . . .

As to motive: if Mike is the great spiritualist he studied to be, he would do something to create beauty and bliss rather than pick at the wounds of horror like this.

Whether DW saw such an act or imagined it, he certainly mired himself in enough Manson lore to be traumatized forever by the known murders. . .

this is not the way I wanted to start the day

[HeyJude]

There are certainly ways to call Dennis to task for his involvement in the Manson saga. I don't think delving into the topic and making a reasoned, understanding assessment of the situation that does lay some level of responsibility on Dennis is unwarranted.

The problem is that belaboring the Manson stuff is just part and parcel with what Mike does about all of the Wilsons. He's the 80-year-old parent berating their kids about stuff they did nearly a half century ago. He's calling people to task for things that nobody disagrees with? Manson? Bad news. Drugs and alcohol? Bad. Who is saying otherwise?

I'm not surprised at all that Mike gets into the Manson thing, because it allows him to beat an issue to death that doesn't need to, and it's also in some cases (the babysitter story) not even so much about something that happened, but something that simply *could have happened but didn't*.

I guess we'll see in the final book how often, if at all, Mike is able to empathize or sympathize for Dennis as well. Clearly, Dennis was troubled with the Manson situation for years afterwards. I don't think anybody has evidence that Dennis was anything but regretful over that saga.

I remember when Mike gave that speech at the "CalSaga" band gig during the C50 tour, and talked poignantly and tearfully about how drugs have negatively impacted the lives of the band members and their families. Heavy stuff. I used to think that was a humanizing moment for Mike. But even then, and certainly since then, he hasn't really shown much true empathy or sympathy towards the Wilsons regarding the topic. Was he crying for everyone, for just the families, or just himself? I don't know, and while I don't think it's right to *only* or even *predominantly* sympathize for only drug and alcohol abusers and not the people around them that they affect, I think some level of empathy and sympathy are more than appropriate for the Wilsons. It's not as if they *haven't* paid a pretty high price.

[CenturyDeprived]

There are certainly ways to call Dennis to task for his involvement in the Manson saga. I don't think delving into the topic and making a reasoned, understanding assessment of the situation that does lay some level of responsibility on Dennis is unwarranted.

The problem is that belaboring the Manson stuff is just part and parcel with what Mike does about all of the Wilsons. He's the 80-year-old parent berating their kids about stuff they did nearly a half century ago. He's calling people to task for things that nobody disagrees with? Manson? Bad news. Drugs and alcohol? Bad. Who is saying otherwise?

I'm not surprised at all that Mike gets into the Manson thing, because it allows him to beat an issue to death that doesn't need to, and it's also in some cases (the babysitter story) not even so much about something that happened, but something that simply *could have happened but didn't*.

I guess we'll see in the final book how often, if at all, Mike is able to empathize or sympathize for Dennis as well. Clearly, Dennis was troubled with the Manson situation for years afterwards. I don't think anybody has evidence that Dennis was anything but regretful over that saga.

I remember when Mike gave that speech at the "CalSaga" band gig during the C50 tour, and talked poignantly and tearfully about how drugs have negatively impacted the lives of the band members and their families. Heavy stuff. I used to think that was a humanizing moment for Mike. But even then, and certainly since then, he hasn't really shown much true empathy or sympathy towards the Wilsons regarding the topic. Was he crying for everyone, for just the families, or just himself? I don't know, and while I don't think it's right to *only* or even *predominantly* sympathize for only drug and alcohol abusers and not the people around them that they affect, I think some level of empathy and sympathy are more than appropriate for the Wilsons. It's not as if they *haven't* paid a pretty high price.

I wonder how much Mike knows how profoundly touching that moment was for people to see. It's not like we, as fans, *need* to be privy to touching moments of tears by people in bands. In reality, it's certainly none of our business. But that said, once he decided to have that moment in public, it was a truly amazing, incredible thing to see firsthand as I did, and very hard to not get choked up at, and it absoultely humanized him to everyone in the room.

Yet as Mike is so concerned with his reputation (an understandable thing with anyone with as maligned a reputation as he has), I wish he'd understand that people will empathize with him so, so much more if he just got his jealousy and rage in check, and didn't ruin the goodwill that his aforementioned display generated.

I'm very proud of Mike for admitting to having anger issues in the Rolling Stone article. The thing that I want to know, is why Mike doesn't discuss what problems his issues have caused with the band. Obviously he knows he has problems, so it would stand to reason that he'd want to fix them out of realization that having such traits was manifesting in some undesirable behavior, yet this behavior is the white elephant in the room which he doesn't talk about, but which continue to plague his reputation with nearly every new interview. TM ain't working.  

The reason that Mike cannot be truly happy is that he has two choices: 1) say humanizing things, and *actually* properly deal with his issues, thus acting in a kind way with unconditional empathy towards his cousins, not publicly dredging up decades-old grudges and their addictions (many people have destructive addictions of their own, including Mike), and see that the hate against him will not go away overnight, but will erode little by little... or 2) Say some humanizing things, not get some immediate result of an ocean of respect from the industry and his peers, and then go back to subtle (and not so subtle) passive-aggressive insults and jealous outbursts against his bandmates, both living and deceased, and actively wonder/ask why he's vilified. Mike has chosen option #2, and that makes me real sad. I guess neither option will result in happiness.

Yes it's true that Mike gets more heat than many other people would, but that's largely because the weight of history, and decades of things he's said/done have made people have a very small tolerance level for his crap anymore.  That could greatly be diffused by him not defending some of his indefensible actions (and not just ignoring they ever occurred - by admitting to acting badly), all of which I await to see if anything of this sort happens in the book; not holding my breath.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Well said.