Mae Brussell's Radio Broadcast of October 13, 1971
Transcription of Dialogue: Assassination
Broadcast of October 13, 1971
Time length: 60 min.
GLORIA BARON: This is Dialogue: Assassination, with research specialist Mae Brussell. For KLRB I'm Gloria Baron.
Well, Mae, we promised them last week that you would be doing the Manson trial this week. I guess from the looks of things you're ready.
MAE BRUSSELL: Yes. I'm ready and I'm not ready. I would like lots of hours on this, but it's really big and we'll get right into it. I had ten other subjects I wanted to talk about today, but it would delay the Manson story, so we'll go into it, Gloria, right away.
In this world, in this strange world of covert overthrow of the governments and clandestine armies and secret operations, the problem we're facing is that you are working with two realities: you're working with what we assume is the real way to function and move, and we are working with a system of what we call power: exchange of power, economic power, power over people; controlling their lives. In order to do that you disguise certain persons and send them into roles to influence; they become actors on a stage and they influence our minds in a way that is not real but effect a reality that will touch us later.
A propos of the Manson thing: the Oda trial; the murder of the Oda family goes on trial Monday, with accused murderer, Fazier. It's in the paper today. That was not a hippie murder—I've said it before. They took the trial out of Santa Cruz up to Redwood City.
We'll do a show on the Oda trial, but the Manson trial effects this particular geographic area, it's close to us; it's close to home.
California was where the flower children were. Big Sur was the home of people like Joan Baez, Henry Miller, free souls, artists roaming. California was an important state in terms of conspiracies to kill candidates and presidents, and to effect national policy. It's part of the military-industrial-complex. I'm going to explain why the murder of Sharon Tate and the other persons in her home was a political massacre. Other researchers have done work on John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King. I was the first researcher in the United States to turn the other peoples' minds to the fact that the same lawyers, the same planners, the same teams originated this particular massacre, and what effect it would have on our society.
It had to be planned well in advanced of when it happened. I'm going to give you my conclusions on the Manson—I call it the Manson trial because nobody talks about it being Charles Watson's massacre. That's the boy who killed seven people, but the news media associates the name Charles Manson [with the killings]. He made the picture on the cover of Life; He is the man that you associate with killing Sharon Tate. Many people don't even know the name Charles Watson, because you're not supposed to know it. Right now there's a hung jury in Los Angeles on the decision of whether Charles Watson is guilty of murdering seven people. He was in the home. He did the stabbing forty times. He wrote "death to the pigs" on the door. The jury can't decide if he was guilty.
My conclusions are, number one: that all of these persons involved—the major people—are agent provaceteurs. They come at a time to increase violence, to come down on a segment of our society prior to an election year to make law and order necessary to protect us from the people at large in our society.
Number two: Charles Manson was a patsy. He is identical, historically, to Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, and James Ray. Charles Manson killed nobody in the Sharon Tate home or in the La Bianca home. He was being charged with these murders and he didn't kill any one of those seven people. He was used. He was a person who had been in jail twenty-two of his thirty-two years of life. He was the product of our penal system. He was not a hippie or a part of the youth culture. They bought him a guitar, let his hair grow, put a leather jacket on him, gave him money, gave him a bus and credit cards, and told him to do his thing.
It was like James Ray was a part of our penal system. He was in Missouri in jail, he met with certain persons, and the next day he was out and there was twenty, thirty thousand dollars of money spent. He traveled continents and everywhere. He was to be used at a certain time and place.
Charles Manson was identical to James Ray, as a product of our penal system. He was used by the news media to slam down on the hippies. We could do one hour on the news control of how your brain is shaped to believe that Charles Manson made a robot out of a nice white Christian boy from Texas. Isn't this terrible? This kind of a criminal mind? He was used.
Now I'm going into my background of these opinions because they may be startling. People who think they're knowledgeable on our economy, or on the other assassinations, who never believed the Warren Report, throw up their hands. I spoke to somebody just this morning before I came in the studio and said I was doing a show on Manson, and this particular person, educated, informed, said, "That is something I never—I'm not interested in Manson. I'd never think about that particular human being." People turn off on Manson.
This is the way my mind was going in 1963. I told you how I was studying the death of John Kennedy, starting November 22nd. I was studying the use and the misuse of power, after the president of the United states had been killed. I wanted to know who killed him and what kind of people they were. What was their interest?
What was their philosophy? What was their politics? How many of them believed Adolf Hitler should have won World War Two? How many of the people involved in that assassination worked in our State Department, defense industry, or had important government positions, like in the Cabinet now? Or in the Republican National Committee? This country that is current today, I've been studying since '63. I studied the Cold War, the military-industrial-complex of the United States. What we formally call capitalism verses communism, which now is a disguised fascism—with the electoral process over—verses communism. I studied the economic and philosophical policies of both systems, and the religious revolution that was going on simultaneously.
In April 1967 the Greek government was overthrown by a military Junta. There is a book—I tell you, have your pencil ready for the program. I want you to write down this book. It's pertinent to the Manson-Sharon Tate massacres. It's called Death of a Democracy: Greece and the American Conscience.It's written by Stephen Rousseas. When Greece was overthrown, the excuse for the Junta to take power and end the electoral process was that there was tension and chaos. And they had to prevent that. They had to prevent the May election.
The man who was running to be the president of Greece was Papandreou who captured the imagination of the young people. Now I'm reading a quote from the book Death of a Democracy:
"...Papandreou captured the imagination of young people and many members of the professional and intellectual classes....He was popular in Greece..." and he was linked psychologically "...with the late President Kennedy." He was "...a man of style and intellect."
They thought that for the first time in thirty years they would get a program growing where they'd have a democratic government. The people in power felt that no one should tamper with their existing institutional structure. They kept the power and canceled the elections.
The edicts in Greece, when Greece was overthrown, were the following: If it was an economic problem, or political problem, like We don't want communists. We've got to save you from communists, that's one thing. But the edicts I noticed in April 1967, when Greece was overthrown, [showed me that] the United States had exchanged power. I copied my newspaper right away. I was reading the daily papers because I was studying power and the exchange of power. I was studying Greece; I study every country. These were the edicts:
- No gathering in the open country of more than five persons.
- No gathering in any close space at all.
- No anti-national propaganda, such as anti-war or anything against a public official.
- No marches or dissensions.
And we will now have what Rousseas describes as a puritan orgy: there would be no beards or long hair on the men. No mini-skirts on the girls. Everyone in Greece had to attend a Sunday church, [including tourists]; Sunday church was mandatory. They called it a Christian coup,because the Jews traditionally do not go to church on Sunday. But if you did not go to church on Sunday you could be exiled to an island and arrested. It was similar to the inquisition in Spain. The students were to turn in every old history book they had, and it would be replaced with a new one. Racial purity was proclaimed. And the theories of Darwin and de Vries were thrown out. They were ordered to protect their Christianity, on a public order that was passed in 1942 by the Nazis; It was revived again.
All legitimate theaters were to submit their scripts.
Does this sound—I'll end the quote for one minute—does it sound like our own theater where they're asking Powerplay recently in the theater in town here in Carmel, where the director was removed because they wanted to examine the scripts?
Now let's get back to the other book; back to the quotation:
They wanted the right to delete scripts or rewrite scripts anywhere from the Greek tragedies to the modern. Every play from antiquity to the present was to be censored.
Music would be selected. Bob Dylan, the Beatles wouldn't be allowed at all. No music from Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, any Russian composer, even prior to the Russian Revolution.
And Greece was quickly transformed into the first fascist dictatorship on European soil since Mussolini and Hitler.
Now I looked at those edicts and I knew that the one problem in the United States was going to be a revolution that was coming along in our country. Because, just as I analyzed in 1963, on November 22nd, I said to myself, "Is Jack Ruby in that jail to kill Oswald to silence him?" My brain began to work with what I was reading about the edicts in Greece, because these were not communist edicts, this was a sociological thing.
I knew in the summer of '67—this was the spring when it was happening—that something very big in the United States was coming to ahead. Because I live in the Peninsula here; I'm close to a movement that was growing. Going back and forth from San Francisco to Big Sur, spending my summers at Sur, I could see something really good in a true Judao-Christian tradition of people making it, sharing their housing, sharing their food, rapping. I realized that in this country we had a revolution. There was a revolution of hair-style, clothing, cosmetics, transportation, housing, value system, churches—there was an economic revolution. It effected the cosmetic industry, canned foods, grocery revolution, dietary habits, dwellings, the use of land. No longer needing dwellings; meeting outdoors, no high rent for each separate family; sharing one place. People were delivering their own babies instead of spending $250 for the obstetrician. They were recycling old clothes; going to the Good Will, making their own things, wearing burlap, sharing, doing without, withdrawing from spectator sports or amusements; they weren't sitting and watching people throw a pigskin ball back and forth.
These are revolutions: economic and sociological. They were breaking the boundaries where white and black could rap. They lived together. They slept together. You didn't know somebody's background, if they were rich or poor. You didn't know if they were Jew or Gentile. Those boundaries were thrown out the window in '67. Greece was putting them back, but America was throwing them out the window. And the country club thing was going by the wayside. Zoning laws were ignored; if you have a zoning place in a fancy residential [area], the children are leaving those homes. They are living where there is no zoning. They are up on the land in the communes. They've left their parents in their big homes and they leave the zoning laws behind; they just split. Real estate values are effected because the kids aren't going to buy the house with the picket fence any longer and live two people in that dwelling.
Now this was an economic, sociological necessity in our system as it existed in terms of capitalists, and whether to survive. The Rand Corporation and other think tanks in America decide what to do for the United States of America.
This was the year of the Beatles. It was the summer of Sgt. Pepper, the Monterey Pop, Haight Ashbury, the Renaissance, make your own candle, turn off your electricity, sit and turn on with your friends and rap it over: What is life about? The generation was born with an atomic bomb over their heads. They weren't going to live long anyway, so there wasn't that much time for hate. They were really making it. My car was filled with kids; hitch-hikers everywhere; I picked strangers off the streets. They slept in our home, slept in the yards, too. Monterey Pop came that weekend. We were there everyday and I picked people off the road and our house was filled. It was the most beautiful thing. I still have yard furniture; they all painted chairs and tables and everyone pitched in. It was just—it was human beauty and they were making it together.
But that isn't the way it was meant to be made by U.S. Steel and General Motors and Kaiser Aluminum. They want to sell you your own car, your own house, and your own washing machine and dryer.
So in my cross-filing system—because you see this is the summer of '67 and I've been on the assassinations for four years—I started a file called Greece. I didn't watch Greece at all until the coup. I said: Is this a test case of what the United States could do to its people if it had to? Because those edicts were set up very strangely if it were a communist verses a right-wing coup. I did all of the research right up to the present day; anything that comes about Greece. Marilyn (?) McCurry was on a national television show this morning. I watched her talking about Greece. It's current.
So I watched who overthrew Greece. I watched the Pompus (?) Foundation. We've talked about them on the air. They're the men that siphoned the money—Standard Oil of New Jersey, linked with Richard Nixon, Donald Nixon, Spiro Agnew. Agnew's in Greece today as we talk.
I have a file that started in '67, and every article from all the magazines or books that I could get follows up who overthrew Greece: the Litton Industry, the fascists in this country put those edicts in there. Now if they put them in there and it worked they could put them down on us.
I have another file I started in 1967. I told you before I have 1600 subject categories of current news. And I started a file called Hippies. Because articles in '67 were coming out. It was a sociological phenomenon. And in the envelopes that I have I began articles like:
Who recognizes something good in this movement?
Who was putting it down?
What is their philosophy?
Hippies that were interviewed in magazines like Ramparts or New York Times.
What are they saying about themselves?
What are people saying about them?
I realized that it was going to be stopped in some way, because it was taking hold; It captured the basic good that is in people. I don't believe in the doctrine of original sin, I believe in original goodness. And these children had it; They have it. Somebody was going to have to get them.
Yesterday's paper had an article that the head of the whole Navy of South Vietnam said: You are going to have to rule out sex.They have a Navy of 40,000 men. And he said, You were going to have to rule out sex. It's decadent. If you want to fight the communists you've got to stop that. You're a bunch of filthy worms," he said. The head of the Navy in Vietnam said, "In order to really fight the communists you've got to stop youre sexual activity," the Navy [in Vietnam] was told yesterday.
Now these are the same people: Mr. Key(?) and the fascists, and the same people in Greece, and the people in South Vietnam, who are coming down on the kids. Their sexual fantasies, their fears that their kids could do what they never could do. I'd like to do a whole show on sexual repressions and fascismand coming down.
I had a friend I met who worked at the Diggers, and they were being handed bad acid by disguised agent provaceteurs, to begin to burn their bellies out and rob their minds. [And that's the way] the Diggers were [being treated] up there. This can be documented. I know that the federal government were throwing things out at pop festivals. They allowed people like Melvin Belli—who worked with Jack Ruby—was the man in on the Altamont thing. That brings the pressure. We'll go on to that some other day; on pop festivals and music, and what happened to the music scene, and the musicians at the Monterey Pop Festival.
So I was watching how the hippie scene would be put down and what evidence there was that they had to crack it. I've mentioned on two different programs that in my neighborhood a man moved in from Texas. I think he gets tired of me talking about this, so this is the last time I'll mention him. He was dressed as a hippie, but he wasn't a hippie. He brought his children into this community. He lived a block from my house. He wrote a book for Henry Kaiser called Children of Change. (I'm repeating for somebody who hasn't heard the show.) A non-hippie from Texas, he lived here for about one or two years, walking down the coast, going the music scene. And he wrote, just prior to the Sharon Tate murders, that, "...the hippies would have made it..." —this is what Henry Kaiser published— "...would have made it if, number one: they had a sense of humor. And number two: they weren't so violent.
If anybody had a sense of humor that generation did. Because there wasn't much to be funny about—the way the Cold War was going after Korea and everything like that. I have a button collection. People who've been to my home see it. I started this around those years, and I have a whole wall with thousands of buttons. And it's funny. They did have a sense of humor. The kids were beautiful. And they laughed. There were very funny things.
If you read the button it says sociological things. I have the sense of humor of that generation. And I collected the car bumper stickers for a while, but it got too expensive, so I save the buttons.
They did have a sense of humor and there was no violence at all. This same particular man referred to his wife and hippie-women as witches. And she wasn't a witch. She was a very establishment Texas girl who is the wife of this man that was dressed as a hippie.
He is now at the Navy post-graduate school; He's Navy. He had to be Navy Intelligence. How did he get into the Navy post-graduate school if his undergraduate school was being a hippie on Big Sur road, walking back and forth on the highway?
So this particular man had his gun and his scopes and his knives and things. And I watched, and there was no massacre. And I was watching the phenomena. How was our government going to handle it?
In the summer of 1969 there was a murder in Hollywood, California in which Sharon Tate, Jay Sebring, Mr. Frokowski, Abigail Folger, Steve Parent, and Mr. and Mrs. La Bianca were stabbed forty-four times. The newspaper did not know who did the murders, but it read in my mind like a military ambush. It could be no other way. It was described by people later as a military ambush. And for the reasons as this: These many people were slaughtered; nobody heard a sound; there were dogs on the grounds that didn't say boo; there was a caretaker in a guest cottage who didn't hear one gun go off, and guns went off; they didn't hear any screaming; nobody saw a getaway car; the place was completely destroyed; there was time to put hoods over the people, ropes on their neck, leave signs and symbols that would come down on a particular group of our society—two groups—and split. And no, not a dog was killed or barked. The fellow that lives on the grounds said he slept through it. And they shimmied up the telephone poles, cut the wires, left all this obvious evidence, and split. And the way the wires and the lines were cut I felt that it had to be a military type ambush.
The total effect was to appear, or wanted to appear, that if they didn't catch the murderers of these people they would come down on the blacks—that was their hope.
It's very interesting in my research on the assassinations that the very first man to publish an article on the Sharon Tate murder in my collection of the murders, before they had a suspect—the murders were in August, and they found the suspects in December—was a man named Ed Butler. In October '69 he wrote an article. The man who publishes the newspaper that he writes for is Patrick Frawley of Schick Razor and Technicolor, who is one of the third largest supporters of Richard Nixon—a far right-wing person. And he hires Ed Butler to write articles for him. Ed is an agent provaceteur who worked with Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans. When Oswald had the cover story that he was a communist, Ed Butler made a record for him. [This was] when Oswald said he was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba [Committee]. And he was the only member of the New Orleans area, and Ed Butler knew it. Ed Butler worked with Lee Harvey Oswald, so it's interesting that in 1969 the first person who has an opinion on who murdered these seven people would be Ed Butler; In my collection of articles we have Ed Butler. Now, what is this article called? It says Did Hate Kill Tate? And he goes into the fact that the Black Panthers are tied into the communists, and the evidence is that the Panthers killed these people; [they came] into middle class America and spread terror.
This is what we call provaceteurs, agent provaceteurs, clandestine governments: where somebody is the first one in, and he's tied with all these other people and links. And he is taking your brain now and your gray matter. In the event they don't have a suspect, he is saying here are the clues:
Number one: the hood over the draped bodies—was it a turn about for the Ku Klux Klan?
Number two: the rope found around their bodies, strung body to body is an ironic reminder to lynchings.
Number three: the words "death to pigs" that were scrawled with the human blood over the front door—was that a challenge to Blue Meanies?
Remember the Beatles made a movie about Blue Meanies. He's throwing the whole thing in.
And number four: Time magazine quoted an article that Jay Sebring was supposed to be anti-black.
So you see, Ed Butler has you in the palm of his hand. If they don't have a suspect, you're going to think that the blacks come into fancy residential homes and massacre these lovely white people.
To make that even worse, when the people were arrested they admitted on their own volition that they took the credit cards from Mr. and Mrs. La Bianca after they cut their bellies open and stuck—they went to the ice box to eat, and then took their forks and stuck the forks in their stomachs. They took out their credit cards and left them in the black part of town in Los Angeles so the people would think the blacks killed the La Biancas.
To back up my own feelings, every word from what these people said afterward confirms what I knew they were doing. They could come down on two groups, one for sure. And if they're caught they'll come down on the second. So the first group was to press fear that the blacks are now in our part of town, that they're communists, and they hate the rich.
Ed Butler goes into their motives, and he says, "Well, one of the things is that Mr. Polanski is an ex-patriot from communist Poland, and we know the Panthers are communists." And he said the hate and propaganda they have will make other people want to continue these murders. He said that the Panthers were doing this kind of murdering to test the stomach of America for future violence. Ed Butler: the authority on riots. He comes out all the time in the news. He said that they want to see how many of these massacres people will take. He's convinced that the blacks did this murder. But he is covered because when the actual facts came out it turns out that it wasn't the blacks at all. So what are you left with now? You're left with a hippie group; You're left with this great hippie clan. This is where the real problem comes in, because, as I said before, and I'll say it over and over today, Charles Manson was not a hippie.
When they arrested Charles Manson, Sue Atkins was in jail for stealing some parts to an automobile, and the chicks squealed. The police department didn't even have any clue in this murder at all; They didn't even want it; I know the Los Angeles Police Department didn't want to find them. But this particular girl broke down in jail and told another woman, and that's how they were found; The police department did not find them; Just like the FBI did not find James Earl Ray; Scotland Yard did it; when Ray just had just one foot on the plane and one foot to Rhodesia where he would never be extradited, Scotland Yard did it; the FBI didn't do it.
What happened was that the police had to go to where the Manson Family lived. And what did they find there? They found what the newspaper described as a ritualistic killing done by self-confessed hippies, in what they called a military-style commune.
First, the news media should define the word hippie. Because the hippies that I knew from '67 to '69 didn't mean a military operation in any sense of the word, nor in anybody else's mind in the world. Nor did it to the Rand Corporation, or the President of the United States, or John Mitchell. Hippie did not mean military; it was anti-military; it was anti-war; it was the let's get it together generation.
So when they found the real killer and he has this beard and guitar, we just can't call him an ex-convict. They have to call it a military-style commune. We must have military-style communes in Vietnam if a commune is where people all live together and you are military; it's a military commune. It certainly isn't a hippie commune, but they have to make it a hippie thing.
Now what did they have in the commune? They had shacks with lookout points; they had telescopes; they had walkie-talkies; they had military field telephones; they had collections of knives and shotguns; they had four-wheel drive [dune buggies]. The neighbors turned them in for threatening them. They drove all night and made so much noise that the neighbors said, "You know, you keep us awake." And they said, "Oh, we'll kill you if you don't shut up." They threatened their lives.
Then the news media picked up right away that evidently the crime had all the marks of premeditation. They mentioned then that the telephone wires were cut at the Tate home. I remember that in August, but in December when they were discovered, they went into the shears and the problem of the weapons.
Sheriff Tom Montgomery of Colin County in Texas was taking care of his cousin at the time that the police came into this little commune that Sue Atkins was talking about. Cousin Charles 'Tex' Watson was safe in Texas. He was watched by this first cousin of his. He was described as clean-cut with short hair. He was living a happy life. His girlfriend testified they were having pleasant sexual relationships. He was normal in every sense of the word.
Those seven massacres that he did didn't seem to bother him at all. He didn't even mention them to her. He was not mentally sick. He was not depressed. He had a good job. And when Charles Manson and the others were arrested in Los Angeles they put this young boy, Charles Watson, in the jail with his cousin to take care of him.
Now we're going into 'Who was Charles Manson?'
GLORIA: All right, we'll do that in just a moment. You're listening to Dialogue: Assassination, with Mae Brussell. This is KLRB, stereo FM, Carmel by the Sea.
(END OF SIDE ONE)
MAE: Now we're going to talk briefly about Charles Manson and Charles Watson, the implications in this particular case, how I follow it, and why it's of interest to me. Because every case beyond what the news media tells you, you're looking for facts.
Like in the Oswald case, they tell you that Oswald was a communist, or he was a misfit in society. But then when I see my documents, that he had cameras, walkie-talkies, electronic devices, and security clearances—then I want to know more about Lee Harvey Oswald. And I want to know more about Charles Manson, because he was thirty-two and he did spend twenty-two years of his life in jail.
A prominent attorney by the name of George Shibley who works with groups in the Middle East—in Beverly Hills he has powerful connections—met with Charles Manson just before he got out of jail in Treasure Island. No one will know what conversation transpired between Mr. Shibley [and Manson], or why he was up there. Or why Charles Manson is unknown. This illegitimate child of a sixteen year-old girl, no family or kin. No one would know how Charles Manson would get such a famous Beverly Hills attorney to visit him before he was paroled. No one will ever know the conversation that transpired between those men. But what we do know is that when Charles Manson got out of Treasure Island in 1967, at the height of the Haight Ashbury scene, he got a large bus. And he did not buy it. He did not have a job, and he had credit cards for gasoline. In the trial some subject was made up that one of the girls stole a credit card from her family to buy Charlie gasoline. I am sure the parents would have had him arrested before long; you can't go for two years on a stolen credit card. Charlie was never arrested. And one of the questions in one of the articles I have is, it simply said: He had a credit card. In order to do a study of a covert operation, or a murder, or a simple murder: Who paid for the gasoline for Charlie Manson?
I know being locked up for twenty-two years you may have a strong sexual drive. It may be fun to have twenty or thirty chicks around you, but they still have to eat; they still have to have housing. Who was buying the machine guns, the walkie-talkies, and the dune buggies? He was on the edge of the Mohave Desert. They didn't steal all of it; none of them were hardly ever arrested for anything. They have parts of expensive cars. They had material things that are warfare things, and they never got arrested. And the gasoline.
Once in a while as punishment the girls would have to go out and take food out of garbagecans—that was their punishment for maybe not sleeping with Charlie or a guest or something like that. But for the most part none of them suffered any malnutrition; they had healthy babies; they seemed to be doing very well. They had guests at the ranch.
Where was this money coming from, from the day he left that jail until the Sharon Tate murders? Just like I follow the money from the James Ray case: from the day he left the Missouri jail he went right to a trailer the first night it was open. There was wine there; there was everything but the welcome sign, and maybe that was there. And within a day he had a car. Pretty soon he was on his way up to Canada and a resort motel and fancy place.
Where did the money come from the time Charlie Manson was in jail until the Sharon Tate murder?
Now we go to Charles Watson: This was a clean-cut boy who did these murders. He came from Texas. And the questions are: Where was he approached? How did he get into this case? Was it of his own volition?
Last week on the Monterey Peninsula there was an article in the paper that a boy was picked up as a hitch-hiker in Santa Cruz. He was thrown out of the car near the highlands, and we talked about that a littler bit on this show. He was almost killed. And the subject of the conversation was that one of the four men who just about killed him said, "I'm from the Manson Family in Texas."
That caught my interest because something very big in the planning stage of this particular massacre took place in the state of Texas.
So I went to Community Hospital to discuss with this boy. This boy attended five years of College and the American system of education. He was about to go into the Peace Corp and go to the Philippines the next week. He was almost dead out at Community Hospital after just going down our beautiful coast and being picked up and roughed up by somebody who claimed to be from the Manson Family in Texas.
We don't know much—because it's never brought out at these trials—about the background of Charles Watson, except that he did appear with a beard and became part of the Manson Family.
When Charles Manson was arrested, a law firm sent two lawyers who went to Texas to see this particular boy, Charles Watson. Judge David Brown said to the lawyers from Beverly Hills, California, "You take the next plane back to California. I will put you in jail for seventy-two hours or fine you if you don't get back to California." And the lawyers said, "Well, wait a minute, that's our client. We want to see him." The lawyer that wanted to see Charles Watson was named Mr. DeLoach. He called a press conference at a Dallas Hotel, and DeLoach said this at the press conference: "I came to see my client." Charles Watson had been in his office in Los Angeles, California thirty or forty times prior to the killing of Sharon Tate and the other six people in Los Angeles. DeLoach said his own background was that he was a Republican candidate for the State Assembly in 1964, and he was chairman for the Young Republicans. He belonged to a law firm on Santa Monica Boulevard in Los Angeles. At the jail to keep Mr. DeLoach from seeing Charles Watson were twenty Texas highway patrolmen and sheriff's deputies guarding him. And they fought the extradition for eight months.
When you're talking about conspiracies, Watson's defense has to go into every avenue to develop his claim that Charlie Manson masterminded him and programmed the group; that the hippie-youth-magic, Satan kind of thing, controlled him to use his knife to kill these people. Prior to meeting Manson, he was not involved in any kind of violence or altercation.
I have seen no record, publicly, that Mr. Watson had a traffic violation or any kind of problem. This twenty year-old boy needed an attorney from the Young Republican Committee forty times. I know what the expenses are to meet with any attorney, even for one hour. People use attorneys or public defenders if they have small altercations. But to go to a prominent law office of a man named Mr. DeLoach thirty to forty times prior to the time that you're going to kill seven people is worth investigating.
And it's particularly worth investigating because the boy isn't even really considered a criminal or a murderer. When the trial for Charlie Manson took place this boy was in Texas, and they fought the extradition, and he later wouldn't be associated as part of that clan but as the robot or the product of that society.
The psychiatrist claims that when the decision was made to remove Charles Watson to California he became a catatonic, schizophrenic vegetable in a fetal position. Eight months in Texas he was doing just fine; he didn't lose a pound; he didn't lose a night's sleep; he was just having a good time. And when the decision came to bring him to California he became very sick.
The prosecution claims that he was faking this; that when the psychiatrist looked the other way he would take a different posture and he would talk to people. The jury has been out for two days trying to decide if Charles Watson was guilty of those murders. They have to deliberate two days when it is common knowledge that he was in the homes and he did the murders. And Manson was never in the homes where those seven people were killed.
If that isn't a topsy-turvy, crazy world I don't know what it is.
How does your mind get effected to only associate the murder with one man, and let the other man get off the hook like this? I'm going to read headlines from this particular case, from just a few days in December, the way they were reading, coming off the press.
The first article I told you about was in October '69: Did Hate Kill Tate? That was the first opinion about who did it by Ed Butler.
In November there was a very objective article saying: The Grand Jury is to End the Probe of these 7 Deaths. That they don't know what to do.
Now, in December they began to describe Watson as a, in quotes, "man". They called him a man. And that Manson was the "hippie", that "guru Satan"that influenced the man. The man did the killings, and that hippie guru Satan influenced him.
They have on December 2nd: Nomadic hippies in the Tate murders.
December the 3rd: 3 Suspects in Tate Case Tied to Guru.
December the 4th: Accused Killers Live Nomad Life with Magnetic Guru.
December the 4th another paper said: Hypnotic Killers - Hippie Bands, They're Controlled by an Evil Genius.
Another headline: Father Became a Hippie, Looking for Sharon Tate Clues. Sharon Tate's father, dressed as a hippie looked around with drug addicts and vagabonds for four months.
He was in Army Intelligence, and he was looking for the hippies who killed his daughter.
Another headline—These are headlines, not sentences from the articles: A Move to Indict God.
Another headline: The D.A. Asks Hippie-cult Indictment.
Another one: Inside the Desert-cult Hideout - Family Members Talk of Black Magic, Sex, Murder.
You see, the headline is putting all of these things in your heads, but it's not telling you, like the early articles, about the military type of killing that it was.
Another headline: Charles Manson - Nomadic Guru, Flirted with Crime.
Another one: Hippie Family Member Describes the Murder.
Another describes the murders as bizarre, twisted.
Cult Leader Plotted the War Between the Races – The cult leader.
"Mystic Hippie"... in quotes...Used Dune Buggies Mounted with Machine Guns to Trigger a Negro vs. White War.
Another headline: Hippie Satan Clan is Indicted.
Talk of Cult Leader Arraigned in Slayings.
Another headline: Leader of a Hippie Cult Held in Isolated Cell.
Hippie Leader in Tate Case in Maximum Security. If they want to say the alleged murderer is in maximum security, he's the hippie leaderin security; He's the hippie leader in an isolated cell.
Another article: The Hippie Mystique
Another one: The Love and Terror Cult, The Dark Edge of Hippie Life
Life magazine published a cover of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a gun. The shadows—the discrepancies of the murder are horrendous. They implant in your mind: This is the boy, This is the gun. None of it was true. Life magazine had a cover of James Earl Ray—This poverty-ridden, depressed prisoner who killed Martin Luther King. They said he was an orphan. None of that was true; Remember, his father was living; All of that was untrue.
Life magazine, December the 19th, has a large cover of Charlie Manson's eyes all blown up. Not in Texas. Not wanting to understand the American phenomena of hostility behind a blue suit and a white shirt and a neck tie and short hair—the killer. Not wanting to know how the Whitman boy is killed; how the college people kill. The brain children, one of the brightest children in this town—Charles Watson. Nobody's doing psychological, sociological studies on the actual killers.
No. Life magazine has a cover of Manson. Nobody would sleep at night or give a kid on the road a ride if and when you saw Manson's eyes. Not a chance. They call it Love and Terror Cult.
Then Richard Nixon comes into the act. Headline: Here a man is guilty or indirectly of 8 months without reason. They hadn't even come to a verdict in the trial. Richard Nixon was in on the act. And John Mitchell got into the act.
Then—headline: Manson's Race Theory Rested on the Beatles. Then began a long attack on the Beatles.
Now those are the headlines of one month in December. That went on for one year. The consequence is in Carmel Valley or down to Big Sur: How many people would you pick up today?
How many people do you put in your car? Or give a lift to? Or take into your home? Who would you trust? Who is disguised as a hippie with a knife that is going to come down on you?
I was in my neighbor's home across the street from me one day and we were talking about something, and a man from the police force in Seaside—a black man—had come there, and he didn't know who I was. We were rapping. He had been down at Lime Kiln Creek and he had lived with hippies for two weeks, and smoked their grass, and probably enjoyed the sex and the relationships and the vibe. And he was going home; he was on his way home to Seaside to clean and shave, and then go back down and make a bust on those people. He was going to take his beard off. I have seen it. I've lived with it. You can't give a lift because the agent provaceteurs, the covert government, is working. It's working in our city. And I can say it works on a national scale.
You read in the paper yesterday, maybe, how much of the Pentagon Papers is not being published and why it's being withheld. The large part of it is the covert relationship to Vietnam, the agents in disguise in Laos, or in Vietnam; our hidden war. The Manson thing is a hidden war. It's a hidden war against the youth, and it worked. If you take enough agents and give [kids] blades, or give them money, or give them the assurance that if they're arrested they'll get off, these kids will mess up.
Somebody came to my home a few weeks ago who had hitch-hiked across the country, and it was really scary. He went to some town in Idaho and a sheriff said, "Oh, did we have fun last night. We took this nigger-hippie and tied him up and dumped him in the river and got rid of him forever." And this is what I am hearing because I am talking about these things. When I talk I get feedback. People come to me and say, "Right on. This is what's happening."
So, I'm just showing you if you multiply one month of headlines and you sat with my collection you can see how the news media comes down on you.
Now, who were the lawyers involved in these cases? How do they overlap? Joseph Ball, from the Warren Commission, was in with Sue Atkins, the girl who's to turn state evidence.
A man named Lawrence Schiller made a record with Jack Ruby on January the 2nd, 1967, in which Ruby said there was no conspiracy to kill Oswald, and he was not a part of a conspiracy.
It was made for Capital Records. I knew that Ruby would be dead within days because it was now recorded for history that there was no conspiracy. No one could see Jack Ruby except Capital Records. The only person who could see him was Lawrence Schiller.
January the 4th, two days later, Ruby was dead. The morning I read in my paper that Capital Records got into that hospital room and got this recording of Ruby's voice, I knew then that now Ruby could leave this earth. You see, it's all down for posterity.
This same Lawrence Schiller is the man who gave Sue Atkins $150,000 to turn the state's evidence to say that Manson masterminded the murders. She made $150,000. It was described as an unusual legal trick. Joseph Ball, who worked with the Warren Commission, was with parties involved in the Sharon Tate massacre. George Shibley, who worked with Sirhan—and McKissick was in his office—they worked with the Sirhan case. They were in on the Sharon Tate case. The lawyers overlap.
Lawrence Schiller wrote a book about the Sharon Tate massacres, and this is the way his book starts. He paid a huge amount to Sue Atkins to turn state's evidence. I'm going to read you what he had to say. I read you what Ed Butler, who worked with Oswald, said. Here is Schiller, he said:
Where did it all start?...we can see them going to San Francisco with flowers in their hair...the "flower children"... The Haight-Ashbury hippie... linked together in the history of America's 1960's.
I'm going to stop the quote now to say this is where we started this hour. I began in '67 with those flower children and started a file in my filing system on the flower children, knowing that within two to three years everything would break down on their heads. Now, it's interesting that Lawrence Schiller begins his book:
Where did it all start?...We see them on the road.
He said:
...a movement which sprang from multiple revolutions of the sixties, the new morality, the revolt of the youth. The middle-class watched, relieved, happy to be spectators.
When the Sharon Tate murders happened, he says it was because two out-groups fell upon the other. The people that were making it with their loose sex (he implies) and the drugs. It was two out-groups hitting at each other.
Now he goes into:
Young people had always followed pretty much the precepts of their forbearers until the 1960's came...But mass communication changed our youth. They could travel, they had experiences, information, money...How could young people thus inundated with the facts of life believe the puritan ethic.
I'm going to digress again; stop the quote. We talked about Greece. I was watching Greece for two years. I was watching the hippies. Here is Lawrence Schiller in on the thick of everything, telling you just where I was two years earlier watching how it was going to come down. Now we're getting back to his quotations:
The young people, having rejected the ethics, rejected the laws which were based upon them. They were ripe for new liberation...
And then he perverts the whole thing and says when Charlie Manson came along, he was the chemical messiah. And the essence of their lives were anti-establishment. They had thrown down the puritan ethics and the laws.
He implies they could become lawless and amoral and throw around their sex and their bodies, and they latched on to what he calls the "chemical messiah."
Now who bought the LSD and the chemicals? Did our government pay Charlie's way? His bus? His gas? Was he a chemical messiah, or was he designed out of Texas? Or Mussel Sholes, Alabama, where everything else is designed, and the lawyers are sent? Who designed Charlie Manson? Lawrence Schiller is telling you he's a chemical messiah. I'm saying somebody bought his chemistry; he didn't; It wasn't all handed to him. The government brought it to him and put on his costume; his leather coat and his guitar, and said, "Charlie, get on the road."
Schiller says Manson drifted into the hippie scene. And he admits he's another ex-con seeking protective coloration from the hippies. I claim he was an ex-con who went into the hippie scene to pick up the jargon, to do a job like the mafia does a job like we do in Vietnam, like a soldier goes out to kill. We send boys out to Fort Ord for six weeks training, chanting: "Kill the commies!"
They pick up the jargon of the jungle because they're gonna be in the jungle. They didn't arrive that way, we teach them the jargon. Charlie Manson was taught because he was going to pretend to be a hippie. He hated being called a hippie—the book mentions it; He disliked being called a hippie.
So they put him in a beat up school bus and they called it the Manson Family and they headed south. Manson learned to play the guitar, to sing, and write music. That was his last occupation. This is what he was trained for in the federal prison.
Lawrence Schiller tells you in a federal prison they rehabilitate you to go out on the street. They bought Charlie a guitar. He had an inkling for music, and he was a natural. He's probably horny as hell and wanting to get on the road anyway. He had all this hostility. He said, "I did it because I wanted to make it look like the blacks were doing it. I want to speed up a race war." He's violently anti-black. And he could sing a song and carry a tune. He had the natural hatred. And he loved the chicks. He was just perfect for the role; he was just ripe for it.
Schiller went on that his livelihood, when they let him out of prison, was that he was going to be a musician. Lawrence Schiller says:
...here was Charles Manson, a year out of prison, mingling with Hollywood stars in 1968... The Manson Family was, somehow, making it with the Establishment...And Manson was going to some of Hollywood's plushest parties.
Lawrence Schiller is telling you that a year later Charlie is right in there with the biggest people of all. That's pretty interesting considering the lawyer that he saw before he got out of Treasure Island, and the lawyer that Tex Watson is seeing before these crimes are committed. These boys were wined and dined in the music scene, in the art scene, by certain people before the massacres took place.
Lawrence Schiller says:
...in the true sense of the word, the Manson Family weren't hippies... Manson didn't like being called a hippie. The hippies don't like it either.
Well, I guarantee Lawrence Schiller that the hippies didn't like it either. He knows they didn't. He said the hippies didn't like it. I know they didn't. It ended everything that was really good that was coming down. And then he concludes the introduction to his book on Sharon Tate saying:
It was a strange Satanic whim that sent those people into Benedict Canyon.
And I claim it was more that a satanic whim, that the book Mr. Kaiser puts out in Oakland, and advertises in Esquire magazine, and the use of this word Satan and witchcraft is a conceived program that disguises the covert government to come down on this generation. And it has succeeded. Nobody really feels safe in the area or around the country. The effect that they wanted has happened, you see.
I gave just a sentence from an article last week. I'm going back to conclude with a few remarks of Marshal Singer. It was an article that was printed in April, 1970:
Observations on the Sharon Tate massacre and Charlie Manson
He says:
Charlie Manson is certainly an enigmatic. Is he a victim or a monster? He's equal parts of Charlie Chaplan and Jack the Ripper. He had been arrested thirty-seven times in his thirty-five years.
And Manson said:
I'll tell you I'm not from your society. I've spent most of my life in a world of bars and solitary confinement. And my philosophy comes from underneath the boots and the sticks and the clubs that they beat people with, who come from the wrong side of the tracks. People like me are society's scapegoats.
And this is James Ray, the same thing: society's scapegoats.
Jack Ruby is society's scapegoat. He can be used. He's Jewish. He's poor. He's kicked around by the anti-Semetics, the rich oil people. He's used when they want. He's stepped on when they want. He is just a pushed-around kid who wanted to make it in this world and be recognized as just what he is. And always carrying this heavy load of anti-Semitism, an underdog, playing a game with the military and the mafia and the oil people for approval and affection: "If I do your work will you love me now?" The minute he shot Oswald, Jack Ruby said, "I wanted to prove to them that I had guts." And he took the challenge.
And Manson is saying: "People like me are society's scapegoats."
The article by Marshall Singer goes on to say that Lawrence Schiller got the confession of this Atkins girl. She was twenty-one, pretty, and she would say that she was victimized by Manson. She had to hold Sharon Tate in her arms so Charles 'Tex' Watson could stab this particular female who was pregnant, and all the other people.
Manson had a lot of hostility. He tells you he was kicked around. His plans were to assemble these dune buggies and have an armada against the pigs, against the black people, against the cops; he would kill cops. He'd been arrested all these times. He'd been in isolation. He would kill them, but he would make it look like blacks did it. He would be getting even with blacks and cops at the same time. He hoped to wipe out both groups that he hated so much.
The article does say that in the early sixties we had our own magical potions, and we had a handsome young president who held out promises. And when he was killed a lot of the dreams went away. When people like Manson break in with us it is a reality too complex and to banal to understand.
In one hour it's hard for me to really rap up the complexity of this because each week we talk about the covert government, the overthrow, change in the economic system. This is what the Sharon Tate massacre is about. I hope that in this one brief hour you can understand how minds all over the world can be effected by killing just seven people, and perverting the news media everyday and every hour to keep this image going. The truth of the murders is different than what the news is saying.
GLORIA: Thank you, Mae. I don't see how you got it in one hour, but you seem to do it. Thank you.
MAE: Okay.
