PART 1:THE TATE MURDERS WERE A FALSE FLAG AND THE GREATEST UNKNOWN SUCCESS STORY OF PROJECT CHAOS

The Tate Murders were a False Flag 

and the Greatest Unknown Success 

Story of Project CHAOS

 

by Miles Mathis 

You will best benefit yourself by keeping an open mind and forgetting most of what you have learned in the past. 

 Jay Sebring*

Part 1: 

the Backstory 

Of all the “conspiracy theories” I have run across over the years, amazingly this is not one of them. I searched the internet for anything on this theory and got nothing, even at Above Top Secret and sites like that. But now that we know many recent tragedies have been faked in Hollywood fashion, why not go back to previous decades, to see how long this has been going on? 

Before I start, let me say two things. One, we will have to study the crime scene photographs of Sharon Tate, but I will make it as easy on you as possible. They aren't what you think anyway. I was apprehensive when I clicked on them for the first time, but I was very surprised. They aren't at all what we have been led to believe. Even so, I will lead you in slowly, making a strong case that they are fake before you even take a look [If you want to skip ahead, go to p. 46]. By the time we get there, you will already be pretty sure they aren't what they are supposed to be, and you won't be afraid to look at them. Two, I will also prepare your mind and eyes by making it clear why the murders needed to be faked. It will be much easier for a reader to understand how they were faked once he or she understands why they were faked.

It turns out that with this manufactured tragedy—as with all others—you have been getting disinformation from all sides. Only after thoroughly investigating the Tate murders myself was I able to see that all the “dark theories” were also wrong and probably planted. That is to say, the alternative theories for these major tragedies also seem to be written by the spooks. They either sidetrack you into Satanism and Crowley and LaVey, for instance; or they lead you in with a few pieces of true information and proper speculation before they divert you to the desired belief nonetheless. Mae Brussell was a case of the latter, admitting that the government was up to no good, but then preventing you from seeing what they were really up to. As alternative as Brussell seemed to be, she never got to the truth. She always fingered the CIA, which turns out to be true enough, but beyond that she was always in sea of molasses. This could be because she was a poor researcher or it could be because she was CIA as well. I currently tend to the second conclusion. If she had been onto anything big, she wouldn't have been allowed on the radio. The simple fact she was speaking out under her own name means she was wrong. She was allowed to talk because she was muddying the waters (and still selling the main lines of the standard story). The CIA loves to have the waters muddied, of course. 

For instance, Brussell did an hour-long interview with KLRB in 1971,, and she had time to talk about Greece and the Ohta/Frazier trial and Tex Watson and James Earl Ray and Lee Harvey Oswald, but she doesn't say one word about Sharon's father Paul Tate. She doesn't say one word about Lookout Mountain. She doesn't say one word about the faked photos. She doesn't say one word about Operation Gladio or CHAOS. The link here is Italy, not Greece, as you will see, so her interview looks like more misdirection. Much of what she says is true, and some of its seems sort of semi-revolutionary, I admit; but most of it isn't to the point. In 1976 she was still saying the same thing: she hadn't added anything to it in five years. 

Curiously, Brussell's 1971 interview starts out with a clue, either conscious or subconscious, I don't know. In her opening comments, she says, 

In order to do that [control people] you disguise certain persons and send them into roles of influence; they become actors on a stage and they influence our minds in a way that is not real but that affects a reality that will touch us later. [emphasis mine] 

As I will soon show, that is precisely what happened: certain persons were disguised, others were actors, and all staged an event that was not real but that would be used to control our view of the world for decades. But despite recognizing that, and stating it outloud, Brussell then went on to ignore it, instead suggesting that what we saw was the truth. In the very next paragraph she calls the Tate murders a political massacre. 

In my opinion, it is shocking that belief in this whole manufactured tragedy has lasted this long. It was so poorly constructed, so full of holes, and so absurd, that I can't believe anyone believed it to start with. As you will soon see, the red flags were everywhere. Only the fact that the media was so completely controlled, and that the public was so gullible, could begin to explain how this was passed off as true. I like to think Hollywood and the government couldn't pull off such a hoax today, since—given special effects, the internet, and other advances— people are generally a bit more savvy regarding visuals. We can tell when things look fake, and the new set builders have to be a little more careful than the old set builders, if they want to fool us. Unfortunately, it would appear no one has yet gone back to the files to pull this one apart. Although the Sandy Hook hoax fell apart within a matter of weeks, this Tate hoax has stood for 43 years. 

Before we look at the photographic evidence that still exists on the internet, easily available for any researcher like me (or you), let us look at the history and politics that led up to it. The alleged Tate murders took place on August 9, 1969. Those living through the events of 1969 didn't have any hindsight on the current politics, but those of us looking back from the year 2012 do. We don't just see effects, we see causes. From this distance, we can see patterns they couldn't see back then. To start with, the hippie movement was peaking at that time. The Monterey Pop Festival had been in the summer of 1967, and Woodstock would happen just one week after the alleged Tate murders. Note that. The alleged Tate murders were on August 9 and Woodstock would open August 15. Coincidence? Right now you will say yes, but by the end of this paper you will probably say no. 

It is also worth remembering that People's Park at the University of Berkeley, California, opened in April of 1969. Although the primary use of the park was as a makeshift public garden, it was also used for anti-war speeches and gatherings. Due to the rising success of these speeches, Governor Ronald Reagan in May ordered the park closed and sent in the National Guard. Over 800 police and guards—given permission by chief of staff Ed Meese to use whatever force was necessary—attacked about 6,000 unarmed protesters, firing live rounds at them. One person was killed, one permanently blinded by buckshot, and hundreds injured. Although the University and the city of Berkeley were now on the side of the protesters, Reagan declared a state of emergency and sent in 2,700 more National Guards. Many more anti-war protesters were arrested as the city was under a state of siege by its own government. 

Reagan showed no remorse in defending his actions, and he even passed off the killing of the student on that Bloody Thursday as necessary. On the anniversary of the event in May, 1970, he said, “If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with. No more appeasement.”1 He was also talking about events the week before, since Bloody Thursday was just a precursor to the May 4, 1970, Massacre at Kent State University, where 4 unarmed students were killed and 9 wounded by the Ohio National Guard. Four days later eleven people were bayoneted at the University of New Mexico by the National Guard. And seven days after that 2 students were killed and 12 injured by police at Jackson State College in Mississippi. These deaths and injuries led to a nationwide strike of over 4 million college students, with more than 900 colleges closing. 

Reagan wasn't the only one crying “no appeasement.” In a televised speech that month, Nixon blamed the deaths and wounding on the students. In private he said the students were pawns of foreign communists, and he set into motion an accelerated infiltration of college campuses, via the Huston Plan. Wikipedia will tell you Hoover vetoed the Huston Plan, but no one believes that. Now declassified documents prove the FBI and CIA were busy countering all anti-war groups, on campus and off, and they still are. Wikipedia even admits that on the Huston Plan page, where it says that although the Plan was “revoked,” many of its provisions were implemented anyway. In hindsight, it looks like the only provision not implemented was the creation of concentration camps for protesters. 

As you study the alleged bloodbath that was the Tate murders, remember that quote of Reagan above. Also remember that the alleged murders took place in Los Angeles, California, not only the home of Hollywood and Reagan, but also one of the hippie capitals of the nation and a center for anti-war sentiment. Also remember that Reagan was an actor. 

The History 

Richard Nixon was President in 1969, having won the election of 1968 over Hubert Humphrey by only a half million votes out of 73 million cast. He won by .7%. But since Humphrey was part of the democratic party platform in support of the Vietnam war, neither party was against it. This is why there were riots against both parties' conventions in 1968. As now, the entire country was against the war, but both parties were nonetheless for it. The press, being run by the CIA, was of course for the war, so what the people thought didn't really matter (then as now). The press wasn't there to follow opinion, but to create it. Nixon and Humphrey had seen what had happened to [Republican contender] George Romney—Mitt Romney's dad—when he came out against the war. The press had crucified him. After that, all of the candidates kept quiet about the war, although it was topic number one in 1968, or should have been. 

Nixon took office in January of 1969. Hoover was head of the FBI then, as he had been since its founding in 1935. Both Nixon and Hoover hated the hippies with a passion and wished to destroy them. This is now part of the public record, and we know it from many declassified documents. Mainly this was due to the anti-war stance of the new generation. War was a big business and the hippies couldn't be allowed to get in the way of it. It is known that the FBI created an entire mission around infiltrating and discrediting the anti-war movement. See COINTELPRO,, which is not a conspiracy theory. It is declassified, is common knowledge, and you can even read about it at Wikipedia by taking that last link. It ran in the 1960's, peaking in the late 60's and ending in 1971 (we are falsely assured). The FBI was not just spying under COINTELPRO. Its stated goal, according to Hoover, was “to expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize” any anti-war group, including hippies, socialists, the civil right movement, the NAACP, AIM, the National Lawyers Guild, and even Albert Einstein (in the lead-up to COINTELPRO). 

The CIA had its own version of COINTELPRO, called CHAOS. Again, this is not a conspiracy theory, it is now admitted by the CIA. It is known that CHAOS was started by Johnson in 1967 and then expanded by Nixon in 1969. It was directed by Richard Helms and run by the notorious James Jesus Angleton. Nixon also linked COINTELPRO and CHAOS. It went into its tightest security mode in July of 1969, the month before the Tate murders. The fake War on Drugs was used for the same purpose at the same time. 20 Seymour Hersh “blew the whistle” on CHAOS in a 1974 New York Times article. Since the NYT is controlled by the CIA, we must assume this was mainly damage control: the admission of lesser crimes to cover larger ones. One of the larger ones remaining hidden until now is the control of the Tate murders. If Hersh really knew anything about CHAOS, he would have known of its premier operation, successful beyond all imagining. But Hersh's articles never once mention the Tate murders. This is why I say his articles were misdirection. They hinted at many things, but gave you nothing concrete. The hints all pushed you toward smaller things, which acted as further cover for the big things like the Tate operation. 

But let us back up. Note the quote from Hoover above: “Misdirect, discredit or otherwise neutralize.” Why have so few ever asked if the alleged Tate murders might have been just another instance of discrediting the hippies, and thereby the anti-war protesters? As we look back, we can see that no other event so discredited and neutralized the hippie movement as the Tate murders. Due to the awful press Charles Manson and his followers gave to the hippies, the movement was dead by early 1970. The entire anti-war movement was dealt a crushing blow by the Tate murders, since the press used it to marginalize not only the hippies, but all protesters and “malcontents.” This was a well-bought success for the government, since they were able to spin the Vietnam war out for five more years, spending countless billions more and enriching the already rich via Pentagon contracts. The Vietnam war didn't end until 8 months after Nixon's resignation in 1974. What day did Nixon resign? August 9, 1974, exactly five years to the day after the alleged Tate murders.7 

Famous author Joan Didion wrote, “Many people I know in Los Angeles believe the 60's ended abruptly on August 9, 1969; ended at the exact moment when word of the murders traveled like brush fire through the community.”1 This would apply not only to Los Angeles, but to the entire United States. Given that the Tate murders did end the 60's and the hippie movement, we should ask if the Tate murders were intended to end the hippie movement. It seems very convenient for Nixon, Reagan, Hoover and the Pentagon that the perfect crime should happen at the perfect time. It seems very convenient that the first so-called “cult killings” known in Modern culture should occur as if on cue from the CIA, just in time to stop the rising peace movement. What a coincidence that the hippies would choose to go insane at just that moment, six days before Woodstock, murdering a beautiful blonde female (the perfect victim in any tragedy—see the fake Jessica Lynch rescue for a later example), still pregnant with a child (the other perfect victim). What a coincidence that they should write anti-government slogans on the wall, like “Death to Pigs”. What a coincidence that their leader should be the perfect patsy—a serial jailbird who had asked to be sent back to jail. That's right. Manson didn't want to be released from jail in 1967. Tom Snyder even admitted that on TV in 1981. How convenient that the government set up someone who wanted to be set up, sending a man back to jail for life who wanted to go back to jail. Let me put it this way: if the FBI were looking for someone to be a patsy, they could not have found someone better than Manson. He had a wild-eyed look, played the guitar and sang like the hippies, wore his hair long, was a lifetime criminal, and wanted to go back to jail. How convenient. What we will see is that Manson was actually working for the FBI and CIA all along. He wasn't set up. He was another actor, a willing patsy, playing the part he had been hired to play. He was actually the most brilliant actor of all of them, and still is. 

The Actors 

A few readers will say I am just following Mae Brussell's script so far, and Brussell did touch on some of these points above. But this is where I jet past her. I say that Manson was just one more actor, because all the top parts were played by actors. We already know that. Sharon Tate was an actor. Her career started in 1965 with the movie Eye of the Devil, a movie about devil worship and sacrificial murders, where Sharon plays a witch. More recently she had played a vampire in the Fearless Vampire Killers; then she played a slut in the Valley of the Dolls, one who has an abortion, becomes a soft-core porn actress and then kills herself with downers; then she had a bit part in Rosemary's Baby. Curious how all these films have to do with babies, blood, and death. In the Manson murders, she was just continuing a trend. You might say she was typecast. The same can be said for Roman Polanski.☼ He was the director of Fearless Vampire Killers and Rosemary's Baby, and he was one of the leads in the former, becoming a vampire at the end. If the FBI had been looking for someone to direct a Satanic slasher film, they could not have found a more perfect candidate. Does no one but me find that to be a big red flag? The murder takes place in the home of a director of Satanic murder films 3 , and actors are murdered? No one thought that was suspicious? 

In 1963, Polanski directed an episode for a Dutch movie entitled. . . The Best Swindles in the World. As you will see, the alleged Tate murders rank very high in that category. 

Jay Sebring—one of the other alleged victims—was also an actor. He was better known for his hair salons for men, but in 1969 he was an actor. He had a part in a Batman episode that year. He had been in the underground film Mondo Hollywood. He was also a friend of producer Bill Dozier, and they together started the career of Bruce Lee, who was an actor. Sebring had been in the navy for four years, according to his bio. This fact may be important in what we are about to discover, since Sebring's military contacts were about to come in useful to him. It is also possible he was still working for naval intelligence ONI in 1969† though I don't believe anyone before me has suggested that. Also curious that Sebring's business did not fail with his alleged death, despite the fact that he had not sold it or made any plans for its continuation. There is absolutely no information about this on the internet, with the encyclopedia entries on Sebring International being nothing but stubs (see below for more on this). Among the famous salon clients of Sebring were Frank Sinatra and Jim Morrison. We will see more of Morrison below. 

That is supposed to be Sebring's next of kin, his nephew Anthony DiMaria. Looks a lot like an actor, doesn't he? That's because he is. Look him up at IMDB. He has no age posted on the internet and his acting career didn't start until the 1990's. He also didn't get involved with the parole hearings until the 1990's, which is strange. In a well-known blog at Tatelabianca.blogspot.com we find this 2006 post from “Colonel Scott”: 

I met Jay's nephew one afternoon 18 years ago at the USC special collection library. He did not even know the details of his uncle's murder. I had to turn him on to the HelterSkelter novel, because that was all I knew at the time. Now, he remains the ONLY next of kin on the Sebring side to EVER attend a parole hearing. And even then he only did DECADES after the murder. 

Curious. More actors involved. They don't seem to be trying very hard to create a believable story. But they are continuing to scrub a lot of things, such as the Sebring documentary DiMaria did only a few years ago (2009). Although Dennis Hopper was in it, and DiMaria is listed as the director, it isn't on Hopper's IMDB page or DiMaria's. 

At I.M.D.B that photo is tagged, “Anthony DiMaria and Dennis Hopper while filming 'Sebring'”. But there is no listing for that documentary at I.M.D.B, and no listing on DiMaria's page. I assume the documentary was created as propaganda, but it must have been very unsuccessful propaganda, perhaps even divulging some real information. The spooks had to scrub it as soon as it hit the world. 

Speaking of Hopper, he is the one who spoke out to the Los Angeles Times back in 1969, saying, 

They at the Tate house had fallen into sadism and masochism and bestiality—and they recorded it all on videotape, too. The L.A. police told me this. I know that three days before they were killed twenty-five people were invited to that house for a mass-whipping of a dealer from Sunset Strip who’d given them bad dope. 

That is clearly planted information, or disinformation. Notice that Hopper even admits the information was planted on him by the LA police. Was Hopper the mouthpiece of the LA police, and if so, why? Can't the police do their own press conferences? This is your red flag for Hopper in this paper. That and the fact that Hopper admits his father was in Intelligence. Like father like son. 

But back to the claims of Satanic activity. This is a common ploy used by the CIA and FBI, to lead investigators into dark alleys. Long ago I learned that anytime I am being led into Satanism, Crowley, LaVey, and similar channels, I should know that the CIA is trying to divert me. It isn't Satanists that are running these events, it is most often military intelligence. But the black agencies use Satanism to cover their tracks. For most researchers, Satanism is a sexier road than the road to G-men, and they willingly take it. Rule number one in researching false flag events: ignore all links that lead to Satanism. Those are sucker links, put there on purpose by the CIA writers. As one example, let us dispense with the “Satanic” Process Church without further ado. The only thing you need to know about the Process Church is that in 1966 the leaders of the cult, the DeGrimstons, secured a large property on the Yucatan peninsula. Guess where? Mérida. In 1970, that wasn't the red flag it now is. It is now known that Mérida is the CIA's home away from home, sort of a Mexican Langley. Newer books on Manson or the Process Church now scrub that reference, telling you the hangout of the DeGrimstons was the scarier sounding town of Xtul. But Xtul wasn't and isn't a town. It is just a makeshift CIA ranch on the outskirts of Mérida. 

As proof of that, I send you to documents leaked by Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald, concerning psychology gambits used by secret government agencies to control and steer opinion on the internet. One of the documents they leaked was this one: 

Notice how it says near the top “magic.” It is in the category “anthropology,” and that category also includes “deception.” It is near the categories of “psychology” and “influence.” This is not the magic of the ancient wizards or even of The Golden Bough. This is modern magic of the rabbit-in-a-hat sort. It is deception with no spiritual component. It is like a mystery in which the real perpetrator has been hidden from you permanently. 

We know from Operation Gladio that all the European secret services are linked to the US secret service, and they often work together. The Process Church came out of Mayfair, London, so we may assume it is MI6. The MI6 has been using the Crowley/Satanism cover since the 1890's. The fake DeGrimstons are just actors from the theatrical division of MI6. Whenever the secret services need to create cover, they send in people like this. They work all over the world, and one secret service is happy to borrow actors/agents from another secret service. 

But back to Jay Sebring. There's some more very important information in that post. Jay Sebring, president of a record company. The poster doesn't tell us what paper that is from, so we can't confirm it. He only says it is from 1965. Looks like Terry Melcher wasn't the only one in the recording business. The web of contacts Sebring actually had is beginning to get fleshed out, and we can only ask why this fact has been scrubbed from the web and the rest of the world. A lot of people don't want you to know anything about Jay Sebring, except that he cut hair. If Sebring were just a hairstylist, why would his bio need to be scrubbed? 

Wojciech Frykowski—another alleged victim—was “educated exclusively at the film school in Poland.” He had a part in Polanski's early film Mammals, which he also financed and produced. His younger brother Jerzy "Jerry" Frykowski is a movie production manager well-known in Europe. Frykowski's son Bartlomiej also became a cinematographer. Frykowski was hoping Polanski would get him a job in the movie industry in Los Angeles, which we will see he did, in a way. You will learn much more about Frykowski below. 

Abigail Folger—another alleged victim—wasn't an actress, as far as I know, but as an heiress in the Folger's coffee family she was connected to top political people, including the Kennedy's. She had worked on Robert Kennedy's campaign in 1968, and, as you will remember, he was also killed in very mysterious circumstances. His death was filmed, the wounds and gunshots never matched, the photos were faked, the “murderer” was a patsy, and we saw no body. His father Joseph Kennedy owned RKO studios before the war, so he was also in the business. Joseph wasn't just a director or producer, he was a studio owner and manager. These people were always producing some event, and it wasn't always on a stage in Hollywood. Another “coincidence”: Bobby Kennedy had dinner at a Malibu beach house on June 5, 1968, before being driven to the Ambassador Hotel, where he was allegedly shot and killed. Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski were also present at that dinner party in Malibu. Hopefully, you may understand by the end of this paper why and how that wasn't a coincidence. 

When Manson lived in San Francisco, Abigail Folger loaned $10,000 to the Straight Theater at Haight and Cole Streets. Note that: theater. Folger was involved with actors and giving them money. Manson then lived on Cole Street, on the same block as the Process Church. Fast forward to LA, where Manson and Folger met at the house of Cass Elliot.2 Some have said that Folger loaned money to Manson, and if these things are true, Folger looks like one of the private funders of the entire operation. Folger is also said to have given money to Timothy Leary, the underground film-maker Kenneth Anger, and the Himalayan Academy (which was located not far from the Esalen Institute—see below for more on Esalen). 

Paul Tate 

All that is suggestive, but the biggest red flag in this whole charade is that Sharon's father Paul Tate was a colonel in army intelligence.† That rank is just under general. They don't tell us exactly in what capacity he served, of course, but they do admit he served for 23 years, (supposedly) ending in 1969. So he started in 1946. Interestingly, that is when army intelligence was split into various departments, including the CIA. Yes, the CIA started in 1947. 

In 1959, the Tate's moved to Verona, Italy, where Paul Tate was stationed at Passalacqua, the headquarters for SETAF (Southern European Task Force). This links him to Operation Gladio. General Maletti—commander of Italian military intelligence at the time of the Tate murders—later testified in court that the CIA had been involved in many false flag operations in Italy and Europe, including murders and bombings, “for the purpose of creating an Italian nationalism that was capable of halting what it saw as a slide to the left.” Sound familiar? Maletti added, “Don't forget that Nixon was in charge and Nixon was a strange man, a very intelligent politician but a man of rather unorthodox initiatives.” Nixon was in charge in 1969, but Operation Gladio had been instituted by Allen Dulles much earlier, and it was financed in large part by the US, through the CIA, which Dulles led under Eisenhower and Kennedy (1953 to late 1961). The Operation kicked into high gear in the late 50's to counter growing “leftist” movements, especially in Italy. We must assume that is why Paul Tate was in Verona in 1959 with his family. Paul Tate was not just military, he was a colonel in intelligence, which indicates he was probably involved in Gladio. 

One of these Gladio false flags was the Piazza Fontana bombing of 1969, just a few months after the alleged Tate murders. The bombing was initially attributed to anarchists (violent hippies, you know), but it later came out in testimony like that of General Maletti that these bombings were really the work of the CIA, in league with other European intelligence agencies. This indicates that Sharon Tate's own father was capable of organizing false flag events, and knew others who could help with whatever needed to be done, including faking deaths and pinning them on leftists. You may think of the Tate murders as just one more Gladio false flag operation against the left. Yes, the Manson murders were an instance of Gladio moving to the US. 

How did that happen, exactly? Well, it happened in 1962 when Paul Tate was transferred from Italy to Fort MacArthur in San Pedro, just south of Torrance and about 20 miles south of Hollywood. It appears that military intelligence may have seen some use for Paul Tate's pretty daughter, and they sent the family back to Los Angeles to put the plan in motion. We assume he was transferred to MacArthur, since that was the base in San Pedro, but although the Tate family may have lived in San Pedro, Paul Tate was more likely assigned to Lookout Mountain base in Laurel Canyon about 25 miles away, which was still secret at the time (see below). Either that or he transferred over there once the operation solidified a few years later. During an interview with Merv Griffin in 1966, Sharon says that her father was stationed in Vietnam at the time. That is possible, but it is more likely to be a cover story. At any rate, they would need him back in Los Angeles by 1967 or 1968, to work on the great Tate event. As soon as Manson was released in 1967, they must have already begun setting the stage. 

We have more indication of this from online sources, which admit that Paul Tate dressed up like a hippie after his daughter's alleged murder, allegedly to try to discover who murdered her. But that fact is commonly passed over or misread. It should be a huge red flag. We have an admission that military intelligence had a colonel dressed up as a hippie right after the murders, attempting to infiltrate them. That fact is spun to make us think that Paul Tate was there in his own capacity, as a private citizen. But if he was really retired at that point and working as a private citizen, he was breaking the law. Private citizens are not allowed to work in law enforcement, and after the alleged murders, any involvement in the investigation was considered law enforcement. Any private investigators have to be licensed. Of course the truth is much worse than that, since we should make some attempt to read this fact without the spin. Paul Tate wasn't just acting as some sort of vigilante father. He was doing his job. He wasn't retired. He is said to have died in 2005 at age 82,, which would have made him just 46 in 1969. Colonels don't normally retire at 46, since they are only one promotion away from brigadier general.† It is far more likely that he didn't start dressing up as a hippie after the murders. He only got caught dressing up as a hippie after the murders. Someone recognized him, that is, and the CIA had to come up with a cover story to explain it. But he had probably been undercover for months, as part of the operation. It is likely he was the one running the whole thing from the hippie side, wearing a beard and tiedyes. How has everyone managed to miss that for 43 years? Some of the things I discovered for this paper, Mae Brussell could not have been expected to know in the 1970's, but any good researcher at the time should have seen Paul Tate as the biggest red flag in all of California. 

If you don't believe an Intelligence colonel would dress up as a hippie and try to infiltrate the movement, try reading the book Acid Dreams, where we find this: 

It was a typical sixties scene: a group of scruffy, long-haired students stood in a circle passing joints and hash pipes. The setting could have been Berkeley, Ann Arbor or any other hip campus. But these students were actually FBI agents, and the school they attended was known as “Hoover University.” Located at Quantico Marine Base in Virginia, this elite academy specialized in training G-men to penetrate left-wing organizations. To cultivate the proper counterculture image, they were told not to wash or bathe for several days before infiltrating a group of radicals. Refresher courses were also held for FBI agents who had successfully immersed themselves in the drug culture of their respective locales.19 

And it wasn't just FBI, it was also CIA. It wasn't in Virginia for no reason. Langley was just up the road. Nor is the book Acid Dreams some fringe publication. Look it up on Wikipedia, where you will see it is a respected book widely referenced by the mainstream. The government has long admitted it did these things. 

Actually, we know Paul Tate wasn't retired on August 9. We are told he resigned two weeks before his scheduled retirement, but both the resignation and scheduled retirement were after the murders. He resigned because of the murder of his daughter, we are told. This by itself is a red flag, since the odds of Paul Tate's retirement being scheduled two weeks after August 9 are extremely low. In fact, they are zero, since colonels are not scheduled to retire at age 46. They may take early retirement, but it isn't “scheduled.” This wording is suspicious, and we must assume it used only to make a reader think his retirement had already been planned. But if it had been planned, why would he need to resign two weeks early? There is no need to “resign” in such a circumstance, since, given the murder of his daughter, his superiors would no doubt give him leave for those two remaining weeks. Again, we are being told he resigned two weeks early to give the impression he was not military intelligence when he was dressed up as a hippie. They are trying to divert you from the realization that in any case we have a military intelligence colonel dressed up as a hippie roaming the streets of LA. Whether he is on leave or resigned or soon to retire is not to the point: he is the same person no matter what. He is a gigantic red flag no matter what. 

You may want to search Wikipedia for Paul Tate. He isn't there, although Sharon's mother Doris is there. On Doris' page, there is no mention of Paul in the text. Bios normally mention spouses. Sharon's page mentions him, but of course there is no link to him, since he has no page. 

For more strange links, take a look at this: This young man Wayne Mall, who dated Sharon's sister Debra, had a motorcycle accident in November, 1970, just one year after the murders. But what is interesting is what we learn about Paul Tate. In 1971, Tate was opening Tate Gallery for Men's Hair Design in Rolling Hills. What? Rolling Hills is just west of San Pedro, near Long Beach. It is also just north of the old military base Fort MacArthur. So we have a clear link between Paul Tate and Jay Sebring. How long had Paul Tate been interested in hair design? Or, more to the point, how long had the CIA been involved in hair design for men? Was Tate's new salon going to be a cover for intelligence, and if so, had Sebring's salon been a cover for intelligence all along? This gives us more indication that Sebring was involved in naval intelligence. In this paper, you will see that Sebring, Paul Tate, Susan Atkins, and Charles Watson all had ties to hair salons.

Here's some more interesting photo evidence: pictures of Paul Tate. 

Paul Tate, master of disguise. See how he shaved his head and beard for the funeral, in pic 6? Remember, he had been disguised with long hair and a beard after the murders, looking for the killers. But at the funeral, all that is gone. He wants to look as different as possible: not to fool the non-existent killers, but to fool you, any real hippies he may be framing, and any future clients of his hair salon. I included pic 4 just for fun. What's going on there, exactly? Is there anything these guys don't film? 

Take note of the fifth picture, of Paul Tate in navy uniform. So he would originally have been navy intelligence, not army intelligence. Why does that matter? Because Jay Sebring was also navy. This gives us another link between Paul Tate and Jay Sebring. They may have both come into intelligence from navy. 

There is another thing linking Paul Tate, Jay Sebring, Roman Polanski, and Charles Manson. They were all very short men. While watching the NBC film of the funeral, I noticed that Paul Tate was only about 5'5”. Jay Sebring was also around 5'5”. Roman Polanski is even shorter, being about 5'3”. Charles Manson is also about 5'3”. Why would this matter, and what could it indicate? Well, if Paul Tate was in control of this operation, he may have recruited people that were also short. No one likes to give orders to someone towering over him. I suspect one of the qualities they liked best about Manson when they were scouring the local jails in 1967 for a patsy is that he was extremely short. 

This made it slightly more difficult to build him up into a scary monster, but they easily got around it. I asked some people recently how tall they thought Manson was, and they all said about six feet. It is amazing what you can do with the press. 

Paul Tate used the press to promote Sharon from early on as well. She appeared on the cover of Stars and Stripes magazine in the early 60's, astride a US Army missile. Do you imagine her father didn't know anything about it? Stars and Stripes is the military's own magazine, and it operates from inside the Pentagon. We are told he disapproved, but this is unlikely. 

The Set For more proof this was all a movie, we can ask, Where did the “Manson family” live? The SPAHN'S MOVIE RANCH! Wikipedia tells us it was “used for filming generally Western-themed movies and television programs. With mountainous terrain, boulder-strewn scenery, and an 'old Western town' set, Spahn Ranch was a versatile filming site for many scripts.” Hmmm. That's curious, wouldn't you say? The perpetrators were living on a movie set. We are told that Mr. Spahn allowed the Manson family to move in rent-free in 1968. So nice of him. Then as now, old ranchers just love young hippies to hang around, smoking dope, shagging each other, and creating big piles of trash. Also convenient for the government is that all the buildings and sets were destroyed by a fire in 1970, preventing anyone from doing any forensic work there. I would say the best guess is the CIA was paying Spahn to set up their patsies there. 

As evidence for that, we find that in April of 1969, one of the lesser and younger (age 15) Manson girls, RuthAnn Morehouse, was arrested and placed in juvenile hall. She was released into the custody of George Spahn, who acted as a foster parent in the eyes of the court. What? RuthAnn's father Dean was not dead, and Spahn was no relation. Nor was he fit to be a foster parent, being in his 80's and legally blind. He was not fit to be a foster parent, but he was fit (we suppose) to be her handler. Someone simply arranged for her to be returned to the set, since she was one of the props. Ed Sanders implies that this was a measure of the power Manson had, but Manson had no power in juvenile courts. The only bodies that have any power over juvenile courts are federal agencies—either FBI or CIA or DIA. Everything to do with the Spahn Ranch stinks of a big federal operation. 

By this time, the ranch had turned into a huge magnet for runaways and juvenile delinquents from all over the state, and the mainstream story admits that the LA police were well aware of it. And yet we are supposed to believe nothing was done? Reagan sends in the National Guard to bust up college students making speeches and planting trees, but he and the LA police and the state police leave a huge hippie commune in the LA suburbs alone, even while it is allegedly making porn films, acting as a nudist retreat, harboring underage girls, selling drugs, kidnapping schoolgirls, stealing cars, running motorcycle and dune buggy races, threatening neighbors, storing weapons, giving loud all-night parties, fraternizing with biker gangs and Satanists, and so on? We are expected to believe that all these local agencies are going to not only turn a blind eye to the Spahn Ranch, but return an arrested 15-year-old girl to the premises, in the care of Mr. Magoo, I mean George Spahn? 

Another curious thing about the Spahn Ranch is that the Transcontinental Development Corporation was buying up property all around the Ranch and wanted the Spahn Ranch as well. But rather than sell the otherwise worthless property—which we are led to believe was subsisting on pony rides—Spahn preferred to keep the place as-is, a rent-free haven for ex-cons, junkies, and titty dancers. Spahn's refusal to sell can only be explained once we realize he was getting extremely well paid by the feds to keep the place as a movie set, actors and agents haunt, and center of operations for Project CHAOS. 

At any rate, we have already seen that the Manson family is known to have lived on a movie set. The crime scene was the home of a movie director famous for Satanic slasher movies. The prime victim was an actress. At least two secondary victims were actors. The lead victim's father was a colonel in military intelligence. But no one ever thought to ask if this was a movie paid for by the government? How difficult is that question to ask? Why did Mae Brussell never get to it? Why is it not to be found in 43 years and millions of pages of research by tens of thousands of people? 

Part 2: 

The Trial 

Before we get to other explosive evidence, let's take a quick look at the trial of Manson. I can't get into in detail here—that would take a book. But everyone who has studied the trial knows it was a sham. In the UCLA video archives, you can find footage where Vincent Bugliosi bragged  in history, and that record probably still stands. He also tells us it received more publicity than any other trial in American history, and even when competing with trials like the Scopes Monkey trial and the O.J. Simpson trial, we assume he is correct. As for the publicity, you should ask yourself why the trial was such a media circus. No other trial even comes close as a matter of theatrics. All the major parts seemed to have been filled by a casting director seeking the most beautiful, expressive, or otherwise memorable faces and personalities. You should ask yourself what the odds are that all these people in the same trial would be so photogenic. Don't ugly girls in California get arrested for “cult” murders? No? Only the beautiful ones? 

Some will say, “Well, Kasabian and Van Houten, maybe. But Susan Atkins beautiful? She was a crazy dog!” Oh really? 

That was Atkins at 27. They made her look bad in some old photos, but you can make anyone look bad. You could make Nicole Kidman look bad. You can't make just anyone look that good. I would say she cleaned up pretty well. So again, I ask you what are the odds of bringing together a random group of runaway kids, and a majority of them look like movie stars? Some will say, “Well, this was Hollywood. Hollywood draws gorgeous people.” Yes, but these kids weren't auditioning for a movie—at least not in the standard story. And a lot of them were supposedly picked up in San Francisco. They should be just an average bunch of kids, on the basis of looks. I shouldn't have to remind you, but your average person just isn't that good looking. In an average group of twenty people, you are lucky to find one person this attractive, male or female. That is just the way it is. And we have more: 

That's Nancy Pitman, Rachel Morse, and Sandra Good, three more beauties arrested or profiled as Manson's girls. Nancy Pitman looks like Helen Slater (Supergirl, 1984). And Morse looks like Mariel Hemingway. These girls look less like Charlie's girls and more like Charlie's Angels. 

The same could be said on the male side. Bobby Beausoleil looked a lot like Robert Downey, Jr. 

Charles Watson was tall, dark and handsome:

 

How about Paul Watkins? 

A very pretty boy, in the mold of a Johnny Depp or Davy Jones. Even Barbara Hoyt was attractive in 1969: 

Take away the granny glasses and she is nearly as pretty as her very pretty friends. That is supposed to be her mugshot. But we have a lot of problems. Why did they scratch out the bottom inch of the photo? Because she is wearing a different blouse in the side photo than in the first photo. Look how the collar comes further up her neck in the second photo, and how the blouse is dark beneath the collar. Even without the difference in the blouse and collar, we can tell the photos weren't taken at the same time. The hair doesn't match. Look at the loose hair on the sides. In the first photo, her hair is quite loose around the ears, with many large strands hanging down. In the second photo, her hair is tighter, with only two small strands on her visible side. But the biggest difference is in the overall size of her head. Does turning to the side make your head 10% larger? Get out your ruler and your calculator. 

But it gets stranger. Check out this suppressed photo of the famous three: 

Tell me that doesn't look like a scene from a play. What actors' trunk did they pull those dresses from? They don't look like witches, hippies, or anything else. They look like a CIA director's idea of “mod young girls.” Van Houten looks like she was dressed from the wardrobe of Star Trek. Even the police woman's wig looks like it came from an actors' trunk. Does that look like a real police woman's uniform? Look at the waist! Do you think police women had coats with cinched waists in the 1960's? Her waist not only looks like it is about 24”, the coat is cut to match it. Show me one real police woman who was ever dressed in a coat like that and I will give you a commendation. That isn't city issue. That is Hollywood issue. 

But can you tell me why that photo above has been suppressed? More continuity problems:

 

Same day, same dresses, same hallway. That's where they're singing, remember? But before I show you the continuity problem, look at that police woman. Wow. She's even better looking than Van Houten (who is in blue-green). Actually, they look almost like sisters, with those long, gorgeous necks. Do you really think they were hiring police women right off the set of Bewitched? Is that Serena? C'mon. Who would believe this? But the continuity problem is with the badge. This police woman is wearing her badge on the right breast. The police woman above, with the blonde wig, is wearing her badge on the left breast. If you think one of the photos is reversed, you are wrong. We can see the second police woman in the first picture as well, and we can see the badge on her right breast. This is a major problem, because the position of the badge is set by policy. They don't let you just slap the badge on anywhere you like. Police badges are worn above the left chest pocket. 

The Script 

Bugliosi admitted that “the six killers turned out to be so incredibly far-out and unusual in their lifestyles and philosophies, that when their identities became known they actually upstaged the victims.” Considering that the victims in the Tate house were jet-setting actresses and stylists, this must be seen as fairly incredible. Looking back, we can say with little fear of contradiction that the Manson family actors overplayed their parts by a wide margin, and that the stage direction became more and more fantastical as the play progressed. By the end, all semblance of reality had been left far behind, and only the fact that the television audience in the 1960's was still in its infancy, and thereby utterly credulous and naïve, can explain the success of the script. 

Now go to minute 23:00 (TCR 1:00:00) of the linked video. Bugliosi is telling the reporter that the Tate murders are the “most bizarre, savage, nightmarish murders in the recorded annals of time,” and that Linda Kasabian, while testifying, “was filled with emotion describing the first night of horror.” Unfortunately, we see film of Kasabian walking the hall afterwards in her Little House on the Prairie dress, and she is smiling and grinning. The cameraman is grinning back at her. Is that the emotion Bugliosi is talking about? Watch Bugliosi, too: he is obviously reading from a script. This was before Teleprompters, you know. Bugliosi is looking down at a script posted low and in front of him, out of shot. Not only do we get the “bizarre, savage, nightmarish murders,” we get the “horrible, horrendous screams.” So poetic. The questions are also planted as well, since Bugliosi doesn't even have to scan down the script to find an answer. The question is also on the script, and the journalists hit their cues like the pros they are. 

I also send you to minute 1:21 of the the linked video, where Barbara Hoyt is giving testimony to reporters in the hallway outside of the courtroom. Hoyt is not the smartest person in the world, but even she knows better than that. She says, “I don't know if I should,” and looks around. Apparently her handlers assure her, and she tells her story about overhearing Atkins. The tape is cut, so some will say she didn't tell anything, but after the cut, the reporter admits that she just told one minute's worth of story. We know because he tells Hoyt that there are known to be five minutes' worth of conversation in Atkins' dialogue, but Hoyt has only told the reporters one minute's worth. The reporter wants the full five minutes. In the real world, Hoyt's blabbing for a full minute would cause a mistrial, but not here. I'm just surprised they didn't bring the girls into the newsroom and have them give their testimony direct to the public on air. That would have simplified the process considerably. The reporter here is really funny. He says, “We just want you to tell us what happened for the record.” For what record? Last time I checked, the “record” was kept in the courtroom, not out in the hall. 

We have looked at the fake publicity, now let's look at the cost. This was the most expensive trial in history, but it was only half a trial. There was a prosecution but no defense, so all the cost was on the side of the prosecution. The defense rested without calling a single witness. Manson's lawyers declined to cross examine most witnesses for the prosecution, and Manson was prevented by the judge from cross examining them himself —although he had asked to represent himself. Compare that to the O.J. Simpson trial, where most of the cost was on the side of the defense. Simpson hired several of the most expensive defense attorneys in the country, including Alan Dershowitz, F. Lee Bailey, and Robert Shapiro. Simpson spent something like 6 million on his team of eight lawyers. But Manson wasn't allowed to make any defense, either through his inept lawyers or by his own testimony. Manson's first attorney was Ronald Hughes, and the Manson trial was Hughes' very first time in a courtroom. He had been an attorney for less than a year. Hughes disappeared during the trial and was later “found dead,” and we can assume that is because he wanted to actually do his job, or because he stumbled upon the evidence I will give you below. Either that or it was just one more fake death in the script, put there to further demonize the hippies. The mainstream floated the idea that the Manson family got him, but why would the Manson family get Hughes, one of the only people on their side? We know Hughes complained loudly to the judge when Van Houten wasn't allowed to give testimony that Manson had nothing to do with the murders. If Hughes was really killed, the prosecution had much more motive. 

Although this was the most publicized event in the history of the US legal system, no change of venue outside of Los Angeles was granted. No continuance was granted. Despite that, the prosecuting attorney was allowed to enter exhibits into evidence consisting of magazine and newspaper articles, including LIFE magazine. These articles had titles such as “The Manson Family Murders.” Notice that is not the alleged Manson family murders. The judge was allowing exhibits that had already decided the guilt of the accused! 

There was no real evidence against Manson, and the prosecution even admitted he wasn't at the murder scene and didn't take part in it. He was convicted of masterminding it, not committing it. He was convicted solely on the basis of testimony of his fellow alleged perpetrators, who turned on him under duress from the State. This testimony came from a group of young girls who had done so many drugs they could barely speak. It was admitted that the main witnesses for the prosecution had taken as many as 300 acid trips in their short lives, so their brains were basically fried. The lead witness was Linda Kasabian, who also didn't take part in the actual murders, but was nonetheless charged with seven counts of murder in order to scare her. She was given immunity for her testimony. Another main witness was Susan Atkins, who was given immunity from the death penalty for testimony against Manson, which she initially gave. However, Atkins sobered up for a moment later on and repudiated all that testimony. Kasabian revealed clear signs of coaching during the trial, and was obviously just repeating a story given to her by the State. 

Then there is the matter of the 25 unidentified fingerprints at the Tate house. In any real investigation, that would be impossible. Given the length of the investigation and all the people that were questioned (all those who had been at parties at the house in the past couple of years, for instance), it is inconceivable that that many fingerprints would go unassigned. It is unfortunate for the controllers of this story that they let the police admit to all those fingerprints, since they are a clear sign that the scene was not closed to the people we are told were in it. It is a clear sign of the presence of the invisible CIA or FBI crew that was there setting up and filming these fake murders. Some of the Manson family attorneys touch on this point, but of course they don't go where I go. They point out the very high number of fingerprints and the fact that this must leave the matter of perpetrators wide open (especially in the trial of Krenwinkel), but they appear to have never stumbled on the correct reading of the scene—which would have allowed them to point to the likely owners of those fingerprints. 

To top it all off, President Nixon declared Manson guilty while the trial was still in session. 

The jury saw that headline when Manson held up that paper in court. Still, no mistrial. The judge only asked the jurors if they had been influenced by the headline. They said they hadn't been influenced. I guess Jesus Christ could have appeared in court in a burning bush, saying Manson was guilty, and still no mistrial. Each and every juror could have appeared on the Merv Griffin show and recited testimony, telling Merv how they felt about it. But as long as they swore to the judge that they felt pure afterwards, no mistrial. 

With that headline in mind, remember what I told you before: the judge allowed magazine articles from LIFE and other places to be entered as evidence, even though those articles had pre-judged Manson and the other defendants based on hearsay. So why was this Nixon headline such a big deal? To be consistent, the judge should have just taken the newspaper out of Manson's hand and entered it as “evidence.” 

To see other ways the trials of Atkins and Manson were a joke, you may read an article from September 7. 1970, which admits that two attorneys for the defense had spent many nights in jail for contempt during the trials, and that a third (Hughes) was so poor he couldn't afford a suit for the trial. He had to borrow a coat from a reporter. The article admits that the trials, which should have been somber at best, were actually filled with laughter. Those in the audience could see what a farce the whole thing was. 

We see part of this joke when Bugliosi is interviewed at minute 39 of the above video. Bugliosi tells us that Manson has been denied his writ of habeas corpus because he was not pro per (or pro se) at the time. What that means is that Manson wasn't allowed to petition the court because he was not representing himself. Bugliosi tells us that Manson's attorney needed to petition the court, since Manson had no standing. But that is all false, since anyone can petition a judge for habeas corpus. Every prisoner automatically has standing to file habeas corpus, and it has nothing to do with whether you are representing yourself or whether you have an attorney. In English common law, habeas corpus is known as the “great writ,” and it has the force of a court order. It cannot be overridden or ignored by a judge based on a technicality like pro per. To see Bugliosi standing there telling us a judge ruled against habeas corpus based on pro per is beyond corrupt. In any other trial, it would be the most extraordinary sign of corruption one could imagine, but in the Manson trial, it was just one of many. 

Remember, a person accused of murder is assigned a public defender if he cannot afford his own attorney. So if a judge could refuse habeas corpus to everyone who already had an attorney, no one could ever file habeas corpus. The state could just say, “Hey, we already assigned you an attorney, so you aren't pro se and can't file habeas corpus. You will say, “Well, in that case you could just get your attorney to file, couldn't you?” Didn't work for Manson, did it? When his personal writ failed, did they then allow his attorney to file for him? Apparently not. You get only once chance, according to the great Bugliosi. Once they get you on a technicality, your attorney is permanently muzzled. 

At the end of the trial, Manson was allowed to make a statement, but the jury was removed from the courtroom. The reason given was to prevent Manson from implicating his co-defendants, and they cited People v. Aranda to justify this. But this was nonsense of the first order, since Manson's co-defendants had been implicating him for weeks. His entire conviction was based on testimony by his co-defendants. The trial was a mockery of justice from the first day. Bugliosi was allowed not only to railroad Manson and the other defendants, but also to concoct the story for the press. His book Helter Skelter 10 has defined the story ever since, although it is nothing but fiction. We may assume he was fed the entire story by the CIA. 

Amazingly, Bugliosi—in an interview right after the verdict—himself outlines some of the problems in the trial that could lead to appeals. He mentions the incredible pre-trial publicity—which anyone can see must have prejudiced all jurors (as it was meant to). He mentions the disappearance of Manson's attorney Hughes. He mentions Nixon's statement on the front pages. And those are just the tip of the iceberg. But the interesting question in this context is why a chief prosecuting attorney would publicly give tips to the defense in what to appeal. Clearly, those in control of these events wished for them to remain in the papers as long as possible. The prosecution wanted to see appeals, as many as possible. This is unprecedented, but it helps explain Nixon's remarks. Remember, the remarks of Nixon were not off-the-cuff. Nixon was reading from cue cards at the time. It was a prepared statement. No one has ever been able to make sense of that. Why would the President wish to undermine Manson's prosecution, and do so in such an extraordinary manner? Nixon was a lawyer himself. He knew exactly what he was doing. He knew such a statement showed extraordinary prejudice, that it would be reported in bold headlines, and that it would impact the trial. Why would he do that? Because he knew the outcome was predetermined. There was no chance Manson would ultimately win. But Nixon, like Bugliosi, wished to see as many appeals as possible, in order that the story be kept in the papers and on TV as long as possible. As it turns out, the case is still on TV and in the papers 43 years later. 

The appeals were equally absurd. No trial in history was so monumentally compromised from the first day as were the original Manson trials. Literally thousands of points of appeal were available to the defense, and everyone who followed the trials expected the appellate court to either overturn the convictions or return them to the lower court for a retrial. To confirm the proceedings of the lower court would be to admit on paper that the US legal system was finished. I think even Bugliosi expected that from the appellate court, and he no doubt looked forward to grandstanding for another year. But that isn't what happened. I suppose the government decided it had gotten all the mileage it was going to get out of the story. By that time (1975-76) Nixon was gone, Hoover was gone, and the Vietnam War was over. The entire appellate decision is at law.justia.com, and I recommend you study it if you have any interest in the law. That decision may be even more corrupt than the original decision, since it is a decision not by a jury, but by judges who are supposed to know the law. We expect lawyers to flout logic and we expect jurors to be ignorant, but seeing such blatant and overt corruption from appellate judges is more disconcerting than either. As long as judges are honest, lawyers and juries can be kept in line. But if judges are corrupt, the whole system is finished. And it is, in fact, finished. This appellate decision reads like the deathknell of English jurisprudence. From then on, the courts—like everything else— would be controlled by military intelligence. 

I will mention only the gravest instance of this corruption. The appellate court admits that chief prosecutor Bugliosi met in private with Manson several times, without the consent of Manson's counsel Kanarek. The appellate court admits this is a “grave” violation of Manson's Miranda rights. It admits that it is a violation by Bugliosi of the Rules of Professional Conduct, even citing the relevant clause: Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6076. But the appellate court chooses—completely mysteriously and without explanation—to do nothing about either. It neither overturns the conviction, nor sends it back to the lower court, nor brings Bugliosi up for disciplinary action. 

I mention this instance of corruption in the appellate decision over hundreds of others since it is pertinent in another way. As you see, it proves my thesis as well, since it gives Bugliosi the opportunity to discuss the script with Manson. If the entire trial is scripted and controlled, then we would need a way for the two sides to compare notes and make plans. No play is completely self-propelled: the actors need guidance all along the way, to prevent mistakes and miscommunication. But during the trial, an actor like Manson might get so isolated by circumstance that he could not keep up with the important script updates. This is why he needed private meetings with Bugliosi.......

to be continued
PART 2...http://stillchillinonhistory.blogspot.com/2016/11/part-2the-tate-murders-were-false-flag.html
http://mileswmathis.com/index.html

FAIR USE NOTICE

THIS SITE CONTAINS COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL THE USE OF WHICH HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE COPYRIGHT OWNER. AS A JOURNALIST, I AM MAKING SUCH MATERIAL AVAILABLE IN MY EFFORTS TO ADVANCE UNDERSTANDING OF ARTISTIC, CULTURAL, HISTORIC, RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL ISSUES. I BELIEVE THIS CONSTITUTES A 'FAIR USE' OF ANY SUCH COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 107 OF THE US COPYRIGHT LAW.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THE MATERIAL ON THIS SITE IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL CAN BE REMOVED ON THE REQUEST OF THE OWNER.