gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
671923 Posts in 27044 Topics by 3973 Members - Latest Member: Tante September 22, 2021, 10:24:20 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: 'CHAOS' The new Manson book  (Read 4080 times)
Shady
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6397


I had to fix a lot of things this morning


View Profile
« on: August 23, 2021, 09:41:22 AM »

Has anyone else read this? It is wild!

Dennis and The Beach Boys play a big role in it. It alleges that Dennis was involved in a cover up with Terry Melcher after the murders. That Hollywood knew right after that the Beach Boys were involved and they were shunned, FBI bugging Beach Boys offices..  crazy stuff.

No Beach Boys talked to the author but he does talk to some exes of Dennis, despar is in it. Really interesting stuff, The book is getting a lot of attention.

Logged

According to someone who would know.

Seriously, there was a Beach Boys Love You condom?!  Amazing.
juggler
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 973


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2021, 12:12:36 PM »

On your recommendation, I borrowed the eBook and skimmed the relevant chapters.  Yes, it's very dark stuff indeed, alleging that Dennis and particularly Terry were involved much longer and more deeply with "The Family" than had been previously acknowledged.  The author seems to believe that Vince Bugliosi covered for Terry and minimized his involvement.

Something new-ish with respect to BB history is the author's suggestion that Gregg Jakobson had very limited musical talent and that Denny gave Gregg songwriting credits as a "thank you" for testifying in the Manson trial so Denny didn't have to.  Not sure that I really buy that.  If we were talking just about a few Sunflower-era credits, it might be plausible, but if the Denny-Gregg collaboration was more pretense than reality, why would it have continued into Pacific Ocean Blue 6 or 7 years later?  The Manson thing had surely blown over by that point, so I'm very much inclined to believe that Gregg's songwriting credits were deserved.
Logged
DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1957



View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2021, 12:25:47 PM »

I read this last summer, and wrote this song about it:

https://youtu.be/lHnWb4B4TSA

Logged

Shady
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6397


I had to fix a lot of things this morning


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2021, 01:19:26 PM »

On your recommendation, I borrowed the eBook and skimmed the relevant chapters.  Yes, it's very dark stuff indeed, alleging that Dennis and particularly Terry were involved much longer and more deeply with "The Family" than had been previously acknowledged.  The author seems to believe that Vince Bugliosi covered for Terry and minimized his involvement.

Something new-ish with respect to BB history is the author's suggestion that Gregg Jakobson had very limited musical talent and that Denny gave Gregg songwriting credits as a "thank you" for testifying in the Manson trial so Denny didn't have to.  Not sure that I really buy that.  If we were talking just about a few Sunflower-era credits, it might be plausible, but if the Denny-Gregg collaboration was more pretense than reality, why would it have continued into Pacific Ocean Blue 6 or 7 years later?  The Manson thing had surely blown over by that point, so I'm very much inclined to believe that Gregg's songwriting credits were deserved.

That was actually John Stebbins who suggested that to the author
Logged

According to someone who would know.

Seriously, there was a Beach Boys Love You condom?!  Amazing.
maggie
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 109


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2021, 03:38:13 PM »

On your recommendation, I borrowed the eBook and skimmed the relevant chapters.  Yes, it's very dark stuff indeed, alleging that Dennis and particularly Terry were involved much longer and more deeply with "The Family" than had been previously acknowledged.  The author seems to believe that Vince Bugliosi covered for Terry and minimized his involvement.

Something new-ish with respect to BB history is the author's suggestion that Gregg Jakobson had very limited musical talent and that Denny gave Gregg songwriting credits as a "thank you" for testifying in the Manson trial so Denny didn't have to.  Not sure that I really buy that.  If we were talking just about a few Sunflower-era credits, it might be plausible, but if the Denny-Gregg collaboration was more pretense than reality, why would it have continued into Pacific Ocean Blue 6 or 7 years later?  The Manson thing had surely blown over by that point, so I'm very much inclined to believe that Gregg's songwriting credits were deserved.

To my knowledge neither Gregg nor anyone else has ever claimed that he made musical contributions to Denny's songs, just the lyrics?

So I don't see how musical talent or lack thereof would even enter into it. Denny just had trouble expressing himself in words.
Logged
juggler
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 973


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2021, 05:50:09 PM »

To my knowledge neither Gregg nor anyone else has ever claimed that he made musical contributions to Denny's songs, just the lyrics?

So I don't see how musical talent or lack thereof would even enter into it. Denny just had trouble expressing himself in words.

That's certainly a valid point, but this is relevant quote from the book:

Dennis Wilson’s biographer John Stebbins believed Jakobson “testified to protect Wilson from having to do the same.” Wilson gave Jakobson cowriting credits—and therefore a steady stream of royalties—on many of his songs, even though Jakobson “had no idea what he was doing” in the studio, where it seemed he “didn’t know a guitar string from a piano key.”

O'Neill's clear implication here is that Gregg's credits were, at least partially, a quid pro quo for testifying in Denny's place.  I know that John S. is a member of this forum, so maybe he's discussed this issue before, but saying that Jakobson lacked (or lacks) musical talent and implying that his songwriting credits were perhaps undeserved aren't necessarily the same thing.  You can believe that Jakobson was a non-musician but a decent (or at least helpful) lyricist deserving of whatever credits he received.  But I think O'Neill is pretty clearly suggesting something other than that.

BTW, another interesting thing in the book is the suggestion by Terry that Bugliosi didn't want Denny testify because they thought Denny was crazy and detached from reality.  Melcher talks about Denny possessing an "antigravity" device with Terry at least believing that Denny thought it was real.  Of course, Dennis' various issues of recklessness and substance abuse have been well-known, but the idea that he was suffering from delusions or paranoid fantasies is kinda news to me.  If this is  true, one wonders to the extent that Dennis might have been suffering from some of the same mental-health issues that plagued Brian though perhaps was better at concealing it?
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9614


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2021, 06:48:33 PM »

I had read about Tom O'Neill's book and had already explored probably more than the average amount of Manson related histories and theories, and had a pretty solid opinion that most people didn't know the full truth about Charles Manson and how deep the story actually ran beyond Bugliosi's "Helter Skelter" account, which seems to still be the accepted mainstream version of events.

But holy crap, when Tom O'Neill was interviewed by Joe Rogan last April about the book...some of the details were brand new, mind-blowing, and pretty much takes the accepted history and mainstream knowledge of the Manson story and ripped it to shreds.

I'd highly recommend the book to anyone with even a passing interest of the story, and even more of an interest in hearing the full story behind the accepted versions everyone knows.

O'Neill is the real deal, in my opinion. He literally lost his career and a lot in his personal and financial life (it basically bankrupted him with various lawsuits and the like) in order to write and research this book. It took him over 20 years or so to finish it. I don't think the Manson story has ever been told in such detail and with such background in one resource.

What readers may find is that they share O'Neill's frustrations in that his research would get him half a step from a true "smoking gun" document or source which would nail it together, only to find those key pieces of evidence were either lost or destroyed. So it becomes a huge collection sometimes of circumstantial evidence, or a collection of everything that would fit...akin to a 5,000 piece puzzle...but the last piece after 4,999 fit would be missing.

Short synopsis of a few key points and questions I had prior to the book, with more after the book: Vincent Bugliosi was a deeply flawed man who used tactics most would find immoral if not distasteful in order to win a conviction. So to convict Manson, Bugliosi spun a tale which he thought would convince a judge and jury to win the case. But it wasn't even touching on many (if not most) key areas and individuals involved with Manson. What was left out begs the questions why was it left out, or who wanted it left out? And why did Bugliosi mess with testimony and eyewitnesses as the claims are that he did?

Next, and even more compelling if not disturbing: How were Manson and Lee Harvey Oswald's killer Jack Ruby connected?

That alone is worth reading the book.

And that specific issue also raises the questions of how and why Charles Manson got multiple "get out of jail free" cards after his release, specific to when he was floating around San Francisco in the mid 60's, when any number of infractions he committed would have caused most parolees' parole to be immediately revoked and they'd be sent back to prison. Manson had someone (or something) watching over him, it would seem, and he kept skating by and stayed out of prison when anyone else would not have had such luck with the justice system.

It's fascinating reading. No more spoilers. But here's O'Neill on Joe Rogan's show for 3 hours discussing it:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7tcmg3

Anyone who believes Bugliosi's "Helter Skelter" accounts, or who wishes to just close the book on Manson entirely for whatever reasons, should seriously consider at least listening to the interview at that link, and reading the book, and then seeing if those opinions of the Manson story change at all. It feels like we've been sold a false bill of goods for 50 years after doing so.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Ian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1680


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2021, 09:20:14 PM »

One thing I noticed though is that the timeline for Dennis is complicated. The book suggests that the summer of 1968 was one of endless partying by Dennis with the family but Dennis was on the road from July 1 to July 17 and again from August 2 to August 24, so that summer was not really a long one. Seems more like the family was hanging out at his house and when he was around he participated. Summer really seems to mean late May-June 1968 when the BBs were not touring.
Logged
18thofMay
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 1440


Goin to the beach


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: August 24, 2021, 12:02:07 AM »

I had read about Tom O'Neill's book and had already explored probably more than the average amount of Manson related histories and theories, and had a pretty solid opinion that most people didn't know the full truth about Charles Manson and how deep the story actually ran beyond Bugliosi's "Helter Skelter" account, which seems to still be the accepted mainstream version of events.

But holy crap, when Tom O'Neill was interviewed by Joe Rogan last April about the book...some of the details were brand new, mind-blowing, and pretty much takes the accepted history and mainstream knowledge of the Manson story and ripped it to shreds.

I'd highly recommend the book to anyone with even a passing interest of the story, and even more of an interest in hearing the full story behind the accepted versions everyone knows.

O'Neill is the real deal, in my opinion. He literally lost his career and a lot in his personal and financial life (it basically bankrupted him with various lawsuits and the like) in order to write and research this book. It took him over 20 years or so to finish it. I don't think the Manson story has ever been told in such detail and with such background in one resource.

What readers may find is that they share O'Neill's frustrations in that his research would get him half a step from a true "smoking gun" document or source which would nail it together, only to find those key pieces of evidence were either lost or destroyed. So it becomes a huge collection sometimes of circumstantial evidence, or a collection of everything that would fit...akin to a 5,000 piece puzzle...but the last piece after 4,999 fit would be missing.

Short synopsis of a few key points and questions I had prior to the book, with more after the book: Vincent Bugliosi was a deeply flawed man who used tactics most would find immoral if not distasteful in order to win a conviction. So to convict Manson, Bugliosi spun a tale which he thought would convince a judge and jury to win the case. But it wasn't even touching on many (if not most) key areas and individuals involved with Manson. What was left out begs the questions why was it left out, or who wanted it left out? And why did Bugliosi mess with testimony and eyewitnesses as the claims are that he did?

Next, and even more compelling if not disturbing: How were Manson and Lee Harvey Oswald's killer Jack Ruby connected?

That alone is worth reading the book.

And that specific issue also raises the questions of how and why Charles Manson got multiple "get out of jail free" cards after his release, specific to when he was floating around San Francisco in the mid 60's, when any number of infractions he committed would have caused most parolees' parole to be immediately revoked and they'd be sent back to prison. Manson had someone (or something) watching over him, it would seem, and he kept skating by and stayed out of prison when anyone else would not have had such luck with the justice system.

It's fascinating reading. No more spoilers. But here's O'Neill on Joe Rogan's show for 3 hours discussing it:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7tcmg3

Anyone who believes Bugliosi's "Helter Skelter" accounts, or who wishes to just close the book on Manson entirely for whatever reasons, should seriously consider at least listening to the interview at that link, and reading the book, and then seeing if those opinions of the Manson story change at all. It feels like we've been sold a false bill of goods for 50 years after doing so.

Hard pass on Rogan. The blokes wanker.
Logged

It’s like he hired a fashion consultant and told her to make him look “punchable.”
Some Guy, 2012
"Donald Trump makes Mike Love look like an asshole"
Me ,2015.
>PapaLaPap<
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 355


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: August 24, 2021, 01:06:15 AM »

On your recommendation, I borrowed the eBook and skimmed the relevant chapters.  Yes, it's very dark stuff indeed, alleging that Dennis and particularly Terry were involved much longer and more deeply with "The Family" than had been previously acknowledged.  The author seems to believe that Vince Bugliosi covered for Terry and minimized his involvement.

Something new-ish with respect to BB history is the author's suggestion that Gregg Jakobson had very limited musical talent and that Denny gave Gregg songwriting credits as a "thank you" for testifying in the Manson trial so Denny didn't have to.  Not sure that I really buy that.  If we were talking just about a few Sunflower-era credits, it might be plausible, but if the Denny-Gregg collaboration was more pretense than reality, why would it have continued into Pacific Ocean Blue 6 or 7 years later?  The Manson thing had surely blown over by that point, so I'm very much inclined to believe that Gregg's songwriting credits were deserved.

To my knowledge neither Gregg nor anyone else has ever claimed that he made musical contributions to Denny's songs, just the lyrics?

So I don't see how musical talent or lack thereof would even enter into it. Denny just had trouble expressing himself in words.

I seem to recall that Stanley Shapiro claiming that he wrote WIBNTLA all on his own(?) (And off course excepting the CHAOS man himself)...
Logged

Comics/cartooniés
(Fun Fun FUNniés)
Manga/animé
Bande dessinée
Tegneserié
Shady
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6397


I had to fix a lot of things this morning


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: August 24, 2021, 05:35:03 AM »

To my knowledge neither Gregg nor anyone else has ever claimed that he made musical contributions to Denny's songs, just the lyrics?

So I don't see how musical talent or lack thereof would even enter into it. Denny just had trouble expressing himself in words.

That's certainly a valid point, but this is relevant quote from the book:

Dennis Wilson’s biographer John Stebbins believed Jakobson “testified to protect Wilson from having to do the same.” Wilson gave Jakobson cowriting credits—and therefore a steady stream of royalties—on many of his songs, even though Jakobson “had no idea what he was doing” in the studio, where it seemed he “didn’t know a guitar string from a piano key.”

O'Neill's clear implication here is that Gregg's credits were, at least partially, a quid pro quo for testifying in Denny's place.  I know that John S. is a member of this forum, so maybe he's discussed this issue before, but saying that Jakobson lacked (or lacks) musical talent and implying that his songwriting credits were perhaps undeserved aren't necessarily the same thing.  You can believe that Jakobson was a non-musician but a decent (or at least helpful) lyricist deserving of whatever credits he received.  But I think O'Neill is pretty clearly suggesting something other than that.

BTW, another interesting thing in the book is the suggestion by Terry that Bugliosi didn't want Denny testify because they thought Denny was crazy and detached from reality.  Melcher talks about Denny possessing an "antigravity" device with Terry at least believing that Denny thought it was real.  Of course, Dennis' various issues of recklessness and substance abuse have been well-known, but the idea that he was suffering from delusions or paranoid fantasies is kinda news to me.  If this is  true, one wonders to the extent that Dennis might have been suffering from some of the same mental-health issues that plagued Brian though perhaps was better at concealing it?

I remember that, Dennis thought the device could make his car fly over traffic

I dont know how Dennis was at this time but it doesn't jive with the music he was starting to make
Logged

According to someone who would know.

Seriously, there was a Beach Boys Love You condom?!  Amazing.
Juice Brohnston
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 605



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: August 24, 2021, 09:25:40 AM »

It's been a couple of years since I read the book, but every August I tend to go down the Manson rabbit hole for a bit...

Great book, and I agree, the author really sacrificed a lot in his 20 year pursuit of the story.

What makes the whole Manson story fascinating, to me at least, is that we absolutely know who committed the murders. But the reason why, as portrayed by Bugliosi is flawed, if not outright crap. So it's that age old question, do the ends justify the means in the Halls of Justice?

Your head can blow lean off when you try to connect all the dots in Chaos. I'm surprised O'Neill didn't go insane, writing this.

My focus in reading was really on Terry, and it helped me to understand where he stood in all this. And there still is lots of confusion, and I suppose Terry took the real story to his grave.  Overall though I think Terry was really infatuated with the idea of free access to the girls. The few times Terry spoke of the Family, he went out of his way to say how the girls were beneath his standards, he only dated models etc. Outright deflecting, IMO. These girls, on Charlie's command were up for all sorts of 'activities', that I'm sure Terry wasn't getting from Candace Bergen or whomever. Ruth Ann Moorehouse was young, and attractive, and Terry tried to convince Bergen that they should hire her as a maid at Cielo. Terry was lending Dean Moorehouse his car and credit card, allegedly.  He was just way more involved than he let on. It doesn't make him responsible, but it's certainly questionable behaviour. O'Neill says Terry was meeting with Manson, post murders. And another thing I found odd was that Actress Olivia Hussey, who moved into Cielo after the murders, said Terry was back living there.  Just a lot of weird stuff
revolving around Terry.

O'Neill discovers that Tex's lawyer has 20 hours of tape , which is the first recorded discussions of the Murders, supposedly.  And I think around 2013 , he was trying to get access to them. LAPD got their hands on them and never released the contents....why after 50 years?? Makes you wonder.
Logged
juggler
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 973


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: August 24, 2021, 01:21:35 PM »

I remember that, Dennis thought the device could make his car fly over traffic

I dont know how Dennis was at this time but it doesn't jive with the music he was starting to make

I'm not sure we can say that what Dennis was doing musically at the time disproves detachment from reality.  Remember, we're talking about the Wilson brothers.  Brian certainly proved time and time again, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it's possible to do great things musically while, as Jack Rieley once said, "walking on the other side of the street."
« Last Edit: August 24, 2021, 01:22:44 PM by juggler » Logged
Ian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1680


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: August 24, 2021, 01:44:29 PM »

Answering my own questions-I see that Manson's new probation officer learned he was living with Dennis by June 3 1968 and visited Dennis's mansion on June 6 1968
Logged
juggler
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 973


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: August 24, 2021, 05:45:07 PM »

My focus in reading was really on Terry, and it helped me to understand where he stood in all this. And there still is lots of confusion, and I suppose Terry took the real story to his grave.  Overall though I think Terry was really infatuated with the idea of free access to the girls. The few times Terry spoke of the Family, he went out of his way to say how the girls were beneath his standards, he only dated models etc. Outright deflecting, IMO. These girls, on Charlie's command were up for all sorts of 'activities', that I'm sure Terry wasn't getting from Candace Bergen or whomever. Ruth Ann Moorehouse was young, and attractive, and Terry tried to convince Bergen that they should hire her as a maid at Cielo. Terry was lending Dean Moorehouse his car and credit card, allegedly.  He was just way more involved than he let on.
revolving around Terry.

Yeah, that bit in the book wherein Terry brags about having brought later-gf Michelle Phillips to the DA's office with him and telling them, "This is my girlfriend, do you think I’d want to be with any of these…?"  Terry seems to have considered this argument the ultimate checkmate, but it's pretty lame, IMO.  Denny was certainly a much bigger celebrity than Terry, and *he* clearly didn't think he was too good for those girls.  And, besides, there's no accounting for taste.  I mean, look at Arnold Schwarzenegger.  He was a huge international star and a married man with 4 kids, and he was having sex with his not particularly attractive cleaning lady.  Thus, the "these women are beneath my standards" argument is pretty weak.

You know, in another recent thread about LSD, we had some discussion about how odd it was for someone as seemingly straitlaced as Bruce to have been at what Mike Love described as an acid-soaked orgy at Dennis's house.  Now, AFAIK, there's no particular evidence that Terry was at that party too.  But would it have been so odd if he were?  After all, Bruce and Terry were BFFs.

BTW, here's Mike's description of the party as reported by People magazine:

Love himself met the aspiring rock star Manson – who, along with his “girls,” had moved into Dennis Wilson’s home, where they spent Dennis’ money, took his clothes and ate his food – over dinner at the house with fellow performer Bruce Johnston. After the meal, Manson summoned the men to the den, “where he turned on a strobe light and revealed all of his girls lying there, naked,” Love writes.

“He started passing out LSD tabs and was orchestrating sex partners,” Love writes. “I love the female form, but this was too much.”

Love bowed out to take a shower but found himself suddenly joined by Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, who years later tried to assassinate President Gerald Ford. “Before I could tell her to get lost,” Love writes, “Manson himself arrived.”

“He looked up at me with those dark, beady eyes and said, ‘You can’t do that.’ ”

“Excuse me?” Love replied.

“You can’t leave the group.”

Love made an excuse that he and Johnston needed to return to the studio. “We got the hell out of there,” he writes, “and as we pulled out of the driveway, I thought, Denny, you’ve got a real nut case for a roommate now.”

https://people.com/crime/beach-boys-mike-love-remembers-confrontation-with-charles-manson/
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9614


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 24, 2021, 06:38:59 PM »

My focus in reading was really on Terry, and it helped me to understand where he stood in all this. And there still is lots of confusion, and I suppose Terry took the real story to his grave.  Overall though I think Terry was really infatuated with the idea of free access to the girls. The few times Terry spoke of the Family, he went out of his way to say how the girls were beneath his standards, he only dated models etc. Outright deflecting, IMO. These girls, on Charlie's command were up for all sorts of 'activities', that I'm sure Terry wasn't getting from Candace Bergen or whomever. Ruth Ann Moorehouse was young, and attractive, and Terry tried to convince Bergen that they should hire her as a maid at Cielo. Terry was lending Dean Moorehouse his car and credit card, allegedly.  He was just way more involved than he let on.
revolving around Terry.

Yeah, that bit in the book wherein Terry brags about having brought later-gf Michelle Phillips to the DA's office with him and telling them, "This is my girlfriend, do you think I’d want to be with any of these…?"  Terry seems to have considered this argument the ultimate checkmate, but it's pretty lame, IMO.  Denny was certainly a much bigger celebrity than Terry, and *he* clearly didn't think he was too good for those girls.  And, besides, there's no accounting for taste.  I mean, look at Arnold Schwarzenegger.  He was a huge international star and a married man with 4 kids, and he was having sex with his not particularly attractive cleaning lady.  Thus, the "these women are beneath my standards" argument is pretty weak.

You know, in another recent thread about LSD, we had some discussion about how odd it was for someone as seemingly straitlaced as Bruce to have been at what Mike Love described as an acid-soaked orgy at Dennis's house.  Now, AFAIK, there's no particular evidence that Terry was at that party too.  But would it have been so odd if he were?  After all, Bruce and Terry were BFFs.

BTW, here's Mike's description of the party as reported by People magazine:

Love himself met the aspiring rock star Manson – who, along with his “girls,” had moved into Dennis Wilson’s home, where they spent Dennis’ money, took his clothes and ate his food – over dinner at the house with fellow performer Bruce Johnston. After the meal, Manson summoned the men to the den, “where he turned on a strobe light and revealed all of his girls lying there, naked,” Love writes.

“He started passing out LSD tabs and was orchestrating sex partners,” Love writes. “I love the female form, but this was too much.”

Love bowed out to take a shower but found himself suddenly joined by Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, who years later tried to assassinate President Gerald Ford. “Before I could tell her to get lost,” Love writes, “Manson himself arrived.”

“He looked up at me with those dark, beady eyes and said, ‘You can’t do that.’ ”

“Excuse me?” Love replied.

“You can’t leave the group.”

Love made an excuse that he and Johnston needed to return to the studio. “We got the hell out of there,” he writes, “and as we pulled out of the driveway, I thought, Denny, you’ve got a real nut case for a roommate now.”

https://people.com/crime/beach-boys-mike-love-remembers-confrontation-with-charles-manson/


Just as a footnote to this: Squeaky Fromme herself refuted Mike's claims above with a letter to the editor published in Vanity Fair, which had published excerpts of Mike's book. From the original post made here by RJM:



Letter to the Editor in the December 2016 issue of Vanity Fair:

In your review of Beach Boys biographies, I was surprised to learn of my attempt to shower with Mike Love. Ironically, he's the second writer in as many months to allege a soap-and-water sexual advance by one of the "dirty Manson girls." Mike Love's memoir may be, as you say, a better read than Brian's but I couldn't believe anything he says. I've never been within 10 feet of Mike Love.

LYNETTE FROMME
Central New York State

EDITOR'S NOTE: Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme was a member of Charles Manson's "family." In 1975, she tried to assassinate President Gerald Ford. Fromme was released from prison in 2009.


At the time I said it was pretty bad that Mike and his book got fact-checked by Squeaky Fromme herself.  Grin
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Juice Brohnston
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 605



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: August 24, 2021, 09:10:09 PM »

My focus in reading was really on Terry, and it helped me to understand where he stood in all this. And there still is lots of confusion, and I suppose Terry took the real story to his grave.  Overall though I think Terry was really infatuated with the idea of free access to the girls. The few times Terry spoke of the Family, he went out of his way to say how the girls were beneath his standards, he only dated models etc. Outright deflecting, IMO. These girls, on Charlie's command were up for all sorts of 'activities', that I'm sure Terry wasn't getting from Candace Bergen or whomever. Ruth Ann Moorehouse was young, and attractive, and Terry tried to convince Bergen that they should hire her as a maid at Cielo. Terry was lending Dean Moorehouse his car and credit card, allegedly.  He was just way more involved than he let on.
revolving around Terry.

Yeah, that bit in the book wherein Terry brags about having brought later-gf Michelle Phillips to the DA's office with him and telling them, "This is my girlfriend, do you think I’d want to be with any of these…?"  Terry seems to have considered this argument the ultimate checkmate, but it's pretty lame, IMO.  Denny was certainly a much bigger celebrity than Terry, and *he* clearly didn't think he was too good for those girls.  And, besides, there's no accounting for taste.  I mean, look at Arnold Schwarzenegger.  He was a huge international star and a married man with 4 kids, and he was having sex with his not particularly attractive cleaning lady.  Thus, the "these women are beneath my standards" argument is pretty weak.

You know, in another recent thread about LSD, we had some discussion about how odd it was for someone as seemingly straitlaced as Bruce to have been at what Mike Love described as an acid-soaked orgy at Dennis's house.  Now, AFAIK, there's no particular evidence that Terry was at that party too.  But would it have been so odd if he were?  After all, Bruce and Terry were BFFs.

BTW, here's Mike's description of the party as reported by People magazine:

Love himself met the aspiring rock star Manson – who, along with his “girls,” had moved into Dennis Wilson’s home, where they spent Dennis’ money, took his clothes and ate his food – over dinner at the house with fellow performer Bruce Johnston. After the meal, Manson summoned the men to the den, “where he turned on a strobe light and revealed all of his girls lying there, naked,” Love writes.

“He started passing out LSD tabs and was orchestrating sex partners,” Love writes. “I love the female form, but this was too much.”

Love bowed out to take a shower but found himself suddenly joined by Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, who years later tried to assassinate President Gerald Ford. “Before I could tell her to get lost,” Love writes, “Manson himself arrived.”

“He looked up at me with those dark, beady eyes and said, ‘You can’t do that.’ ”

“Excuse me?” Love replied.

“You can’t leave the group.”

Love made an excuse that he and Johnston needed to return to the studio. “We got the hell out of there,” he writes, “and as we pulled out of the driveway, I thought, Denny, you’ve got a real nut case for a roommate now.”

https://people.com/crime/beach-boys-mike-love-remembers-confrontation-with-charles-manson/


Just as a footnote to this: Squeaky Fromme herself refuted Mike's claims above with a letter to the editor published in Vanity Fair, which had published excerpts of Mike's book. From the original post made here by RJM:



Letter to the Editor in the December 2016 issue of Vanity Fair:

In your review of Beach Boys biographies, I was surprised to learn of my attempt to shower with Mike Love. Ironically, he's the second writer in as many months to allege a soap-and-water sexual advance by one of the "dirty Manson girls." Mike Love's memoir may be, as you say, a better read than Brian's but I couldn't believe anything he says. I've never been within 10 feet of Mike Love.

LYNETTE FROMME
Central New York State

EDITOR'S NOTE: Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme was a member of Charles Manson's "family." In 1975, she tried to assassinate President Gerald Ford. Fromme was released from prison in 2009.


At the time I said it was pretty bad that Mike and his book got fact-checked by Squeaky Fromme herself.  Grin

And I believe Squeaky!

The shower incident undoubtedly happened, but Mike has decided to rewrite history here.

Man, like, 40 years ago I remember leafing through this somewhat trashy book in the local bookstore.  It 's subject matter was loosely, Rock Stars and true crime type stories.  I was (and am) a big Neil Young fan and there was a chapter devoted to the time around Tonights The Night and the drug deaths of Danny Whitten and Bruce Berry. Some stuff about Nash's girlfriend being murdered by her brother....

And there was chapter on Manson and the Beach Boys.  Now in this version, Mike tells a story of 'getting it on with a 'Chiquita' in the shower', when Manson pops in. Chiquita is not a word anyone would use to describe Lynette!  I have no idea what the books title or author was. But I always remembered that story. I guess Mike figured Sqeaky was more of a household name than say a Catherine Share, or whoever it actually was.
Logged
juggler
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 973


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: August 24, 2021, 11:02:28 PM »

I too believe Ms. Fromme.  As you say, it makes for a better story for the shower gal to have been her rather than some semi-anonymous Manson girl of whom ML likely doesn't even remember the name.

One time I saw the late great Tom Wolfe on 'Charlie Rose,' and I don't remember if this was his thinking or he was quoting someone else, but Tom said something along the lines that autobiographies were a waste of time, as most of them were revisionist and made the author the hero of every anecdote.  He said that autobiographies typically contain very little in the way of anecdotes that are humiliating to the author while real life is like 90% humiliation.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2021, 11:02:57 PM by juggler » Logged
Ian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1680


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: August 25, 2021, 04:56:54 AM »

Well…of course if you are interested in total historical accuracy they are a waste of time…..I mean if someone ask me what I did THIS PAST JUNE I really have to think about it but we expect someone like Mike Love to accurately recall what happened at a recording session on February 10 1967 …etc.  But that doesn’t mean that you cannot learn a lot about a person that interests you by reading an autobiography and if the person is a great raconteur who can tell a good story than great! Notable autobiography’s that I really enjoyed include Keith Richard’s Life, David Niven’s The Moon’s a Balloon and Bring on the Empty Horses and Bob Dylan’s Chronicles.  That doesn’t mean that I think every word is true-many stories in all three books have inaccuracies but as long as you accept that you’ll have a good read.
Logged
Juice Brohnston
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 605



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: August 25, 2021, 01:06:39 PM »

Well…of course if you are interested in total historical accuracy they are a waste of time…..I mean if someone ask me what I did THIS PAST JUNE I really have to think about it but we expect someone like Mike Love to accurately recall what happened at a recording session on February 10 1967 …etc.  But that doesn’t mean that you cannot learn a lot about a person that interests you by reading an autobiography and if the person is a great raconteur who can tell a good story than great! Notable autobiography’s that I really enjoyed include Keith Richard’s Life, David Niven’s The Moon’s a Balloon and Bring on the Empty Horses and Bob Dylan’s Chronicles.  That doesn’t mean that I think every word is true-many stories in all three books have inaccuracies but as long as you accept that you’ll have a good read.

This is true!

I think, however you owe it to the reader as an autobiographical author, not to make things up.

This little story about showering with Squeaky, I'm sure Mike didn't think this through enough to meet basic journalistic standards. Yes, of course you want to include a chapter about Manson..that stuff sells! But if your going to get into specifics that are, very, very suspect then you should be called out on it. The whole shower story stinks!! LOL. Even just on Mikes premise here it falls apart. He is saying Manson is a control freak that choreographs everyone's movements, but Squeaky, maybe his most loyal follower is running off to find Mike, who has decided to take a shower in the middle of a party at somebody else's home?

It's just a little blurb in the book. But if it is deliberately false, than what else is false? Did Dennis tell Mike he saw Manson kill a guy and throw him down a well? That's incredible. did Dennis tell anyone else, or did he feel that Mike was his closest confidant, and only divulged this viewing of a crime to Mike. Is that story false? Then what? Are the C50 explanations from Mike suspect? Is everything?

And for some authors, it probably matters less, this blurring of fact and fiction. But for a guy like Mike with so many haters, and also on a constant mission to try and set his side of the record straight, Facts should matter.
Logged
Ian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1680


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: August 25, 2021, 06:34:19 PM »

Not defending Mike-but I think over the years people embellish their stories to make them more interesting and forget what the truth is...I have seen anecdotes  where some musician talked about meeting Brian at a 1965 session with him wandering around in a bathrobe.....I guarantee that when the guy met Brian in 1965 he was not in a bathrobe but Brian was well known for doing that in the early 70s so he added it to his story to juice it up.....It happens all the time....
Logged
Tom
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 136



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: August 26, 2021, 05:22:01 AM »

Haven't read it yet, but listened to the Rogan podcast.

So the compromised Bugliosi made up the 'Helter Skelter' motive on CIA orders + the trial was rigged in favour of the prosecution. Terry Melcher was in on this and gave false testimony to cover up that he saw Manson after the murders (also benefiting the prosecution by substantiating the idea that Manson was trying to intimidate Terry with the Cielo attack).

I'm not clear on what was in it for Dennis and Gregg Jakobson - like Terry, Gregg lied under oath in support of the Helter Skelter theory. What further involvement did they have than what we already knew about/what did they need covered up? Or was the possibility of minimising the PR damage for the Beach Boys incentive enough?
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9614


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 on: August 26, 2021, 11:34:34 AM »

My frustrations with the reception toward this book are in how some circles immediately yell "conspiracy theory!" and try to paint an author like O'Neill as a stereotypical tinfoil hat wearing, chem-trail obsessed, anti-government conspiracy nut. And I think that's where O'Neill's marketing of the book and the way he tells his own story of how the book was 20 years in the making kind of shoots down those conspiracy charges. This was an author and researcher who accepted an assignment from a magazine to revisit the Manson case, and in the course of his research soon began to notice that things were not adding up, and the "facts" as had been generally accepted after the case was officially closed were not as factual or complete as they had been reported. So for that I respect O'Neill, and when I first heard about his saga, I gave both him and his project my open mind and attention. 20 years of one's life, along with various lawsuits and a project that almost ruined him personally and financially...I'll give it a read, definitely.

The easiest way, it would seem, to shoot down facts that some might not want known or to try to brush aside inconvenient disclosures has been to label someone a conspiracy nut, or attack them in general to try to discredit them. And that, in return, would dismiss and discredit the facts when using that tactic. Only in this case, there are too many connections and hard facts to brush it aside and simply submit and accept that Bugliosi's "Helter Skelter" prosecution tactic was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but...

Just recapping a few points that really jumped off the pages:

- Who was watching over Manson, and why were they watching over him? After his release, in the mid-60's, Manson EASILY could have been sent back to prison for various crimes and parole violations. So why was this basically unexceptional nobody of a grifter, con artist, and thief who had been in jail since his teens more than he had been a free man given so many free passes, and who was looking over him to allow this?

- That leads to "Jolly" West. Just Google his name. Why would an expert, a learned man of science and research who had been deep-diving his research since the 1950's into the effects of LSD and mind-control for the CIA and other government agencies suddenly be there in San Francisco, Haight-Ashbury, involved in a CIA research front at a hippy crash pad and prostitution operation and be connected to both Jack Ruby, and people in and around the newly-paroled Charles Manson? If you were to say - without any documentation - that the CIA was actively studying the "cult" group control scenarios, and how LSD and other psychedelics could be used for mind-control, deep hypnosis and post-hypnotic suggestion, and even group brainwashing overall, then find out where Jolly West was, who he was with, and what he was doing, of course you'd say "Maybe there's a connection there." If you later found documentation and witness statements corroborating these same things, it would be a "holy sh*t" moment. And that's one of the bigger elements of this book to consider overall. Then factor in MK Ultra, and it's a powder keg of deep information and connections.

- We can pretty much say that Vincent Bugliosi did what he did in order to win convictions in the various Manson cases. But now, again with facts and eyewitness commentary, we can see that what Bugliosi presented in court and what he later wrote in "Helter Skelter" was not the full story, in fact there are too many cases of witnesses being coached to change testimony to fit the narrative, which amounts to perjury approved by a prosecutor's office, and other details which simply didn't add up or were swept under the rug. Leave Manson himself out of it as a personality, and ask: Is or was that the way the justice system should work? People praise Vincent for doing whatever it takes to secure a conviction on Manson because Manson is evil...OK, so where does that "whatever it takes" mentality in the legal system start and end? It's no different from planting evidence or bringing fake, paid eyewitnesses into a trial. If people read the book and get a better sense of what happened, perhaps it could make a difference somewhere.

- The background of Bugliosi before the Manson trial. Fascinating and disturbing. I'd say this alone makes the book a must-read just for the background. And as O'Neill himself said, you know you've hit on something big when the person you've been talking to suddenly flips out, threatens lawsuits, rants like a madman, and sends a 50+ page threatening letter to your publisher.

- Terry Melcher. Why would Bugliosi and his office authorize him to basically commit perjury and not be 100% factual during his testimony? He either met with Manson after the murders, or he didn't...He testified that he didn't, but it's been shown that he did. And, Manson knew where Terry and Candace Bergen had been living after Ceilo Drive. He knew how to get in touch with Terry. If he wanted to "scare" Terry, he could have gone right to where the man was living. Yet, according to the Bugliosi prosecution, somehow Charlie picked the wrong houses, or didn't know where Terry was and that he wasn't there when Manson came calling, etc. It just doesn't make sense, other than there was a narrative in place to win a conviction and the facts surrounding Terry Melcher may not have lined up with that narrative.

As far as Hollywood connections to Manson, and I guess that would include the Beach Boys to some degree, "celebrities" are ultimately a commodity that makes money for investors. You could play actors like the stock market: Whoever is "hot" and in demand at the moment has a high asking price, and makes more money for the people who have money at stake in the entertainment industry. Someone whose phone isn't ringing for parts in films or offers for big tours is just like a stock that took a hit on Wall Street any given day due to bad company projections, and it's not making money for the investors.

Consider if, as Manson himself suggested, he was involved with some pretty unsavory activity involving big names in the entertainment business...some people could lose a ton of money if that ever got out. There was a letter Manson wrote roughly 35-40 years ago or so where he named names, and described activities that would have been damaging if not career-ending for some bigger names had it come out at the time all of this was happening. Whether you believe him or not, some of what Manson said lines up with what Bugliosi himself told O'Neill after being asked for some information that the public never heard about the case. And Bugliosi did give O'Neill a tidbit which involved Roman Polanski, Sharon Tate, the LAPD, and a Sony PortaPak home video camera and recorder and reels of tape. Connect that to what Manson said in that letter, and there is a straight line between point A and point B.

Is it worth revisiting all this stuff 50+ years later when many if not most of the players have passed away? That's up to each reader to judge. But the untold facts and evidence, as in what O'Neill uncovered, would outweigh what we've been told since the trials and the Helter Skelter book many times over.

And some of those points above are literally just scratching the surface of the information O'Neill uncovered.
 
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9614


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 26, 2021, 12:37:19 PM »

For those interested in digging deeper, with more facts akin to those O'Neill uncovered in his book, these two pieces of evidence helped change my views on the whole Manson saga and "Helter Skelter" well before this book we're discussing was released.

The Manson letter I referenced in my previous post, transcribed here:

https://crystalsphere1.blogspot.com/2010/05/charles-manson-letter-to-william-dakota.html

An interview with Bobby Beausoleil from 1981, where he describes the Hinman crime as it actually happened and his time spent with Manson:

https://www.bardachreports.com/death-trips-new-yorks-unwanted-dead-1?rq=bobby

Those are just there for the consideration of anyone interested in more facts behind the Manson case. And part of the Manson letter does tie in with what O'Neill said Bugliosi told him about what the police found at Polanski's house, which wasn't made public.

Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Tom
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 136



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: August 26, 2021, 05:02:11 PM »

Yeah, it seems entirely likely to me that Manson was unconsciously operating as a CIA honeypot, with the goal being to compromise prominent liberal Hollywood figures.

I guess my main question was really just - what more do we know about Dennis' involvement than we did before.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2021, 06:59:50 PM by Tom » Logged
gfx
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.121 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!