that would be Ryan, such a strong family resemblance.

Don't they have enough currently unsolved murders to keep them busy there at the La County prosecutor's office?

and it doesn't matter how many years pass--they still need that closure.

There is a very good reason that there isn't a statute of limitations on murder.

I think this is wonderful and hope that some families will get some answers--even if it took all of these years.

I've yet to hear exactly who it is that is missing and has family still living and wants this badly enough to spend a great deal of money investigating crimes that are more than forty years past. I am unaware of who it is they think that Charlie and co. had also killed back then. Even if by some extreme longshot something comes of this, the ones who did it are either already in prison or dead or they could not prove it in a court they did anything. If there is a person or persons out there who has believed for over four decades that Charlie killed their family member then I feel for them but IMO, the time for justice has passed and probably, literally, gone with the wind.

I've had family members die under suspicious circumstances.

I will likely never know the details surounding their death - and I have talked to detectives, reviewed police reports, viewed photos and spoke with those last known to see/communicate with the deceased.

Forty years from now if some new evidence comes to light then I would want to know.

I think that is probably true of most family survivors who lack information regarding the loss of a loved one.

Who are the supposed victims? I need names. One name at least.

really, why are you so bent out of shape of this. I find that really odd.

They took a whole team of people, diggers, dogs the whole nine yards, out to where Barker Ranch used to be, went over it and didn't find a thing. My understanding is that the tapes have been public since the 1970's so what took so long to listen to them? I'm confused and maybe it's because I missed something, but I don't think so. I want to know who they think were the victims. Has someone called them and said I think Charlie killed my husband/wife/mother/father/son/daughter? Do you have any idea how much it costs to investigate a murder, should the killer not be obvious at the time it is committed? We have plenty of open and RECENT crimes to solve, murderers walking around scott free and first dibs on resources should always go to the crime that occurred last month not back in the day when Vietnam was everyday news. Also, LA county has an huge backlog on SAE kits, living victims still waiting for their justice 3, 4 or more years. I want one of you to tell a living victim her case is less important than this. Actually, I want LAPD or whoever made this public to tell those victims why time is being spent on this and not on getting her (or his as the case may be), attacker in court and off the streets so they won't do it to someone else, asap. Such utter bullshit.

adult kids were murdered and unsolved. They would like to know even 40 yrs later.

I am sure they will release more information when they release more information. Are you hoping or dreading for someone?

who died under suspicious crcumstances was named Greg.

His death was sudden and violent. The elements ravaged his remains and that his body was so decomposed at the time it was found that it yielded little forensic evidence. His unfaithful spouse collected $1 million in life insurance - and was heard speculating about how long to wait to remarry the day his body was found. If the state ever gets evidence - even if it is 40 years from now - that clarify the circumstances of his death then as a survivor - an immediate family member - I should be entitled to such evidence. The information that is currently available is insufficient to enable authorities to even determine whether the manner of death was a homicide or suicide. Survivors need and deserve answers when those answers are available.

Your empathy is noted - and appreciated.

I am as sure as I can be there are no further answers with regard to these people and whatever crimes they committed. I'm a great deal more concerned about the scumbags that are on my streets and with whom I might cross paths tomorrow. A cold case should have something to go on. They have nothing here, not even a name that I'm aware of.

What you consider a cold case utterly unworthy of interest or effort is a personal tragedy for someone else - and it provokes questions which they will spend the rest of their life seeking to answer.

Any evidence that would bring resolution and closure is valuable and welcome. It doesn't matter whether that evidence is brought forth today or in 40 years. You apparently want to deprive traumatized grief stricken survors of information because you fear for your own well-being.

Guess what? Life is inherently risky. You could be killed just as dead by a germ or virus on a doorknob - or a texting driver - as by some suspicious looking hoodie wearing scumbag.

You should be afraid, very afraid, of the scumbags of today. Maybe we'd all be a little safer if we expand the powers of the Patriot Act - and if we allow Homeland Security to operate in and secure all our social and economic institutions and public events. You won't mind that TSA patdown when you go to your daughter's piano recital will you? (Is the sarcasm thingy really necessary here?)

Leslie Van Houten's - and for a time Manson's lawyer.

I forgot about that one.

They won't solve it now.

Pick up a book and invest a tiny bit of effort.

that might be referenced on the tapes.

if evidence arises, then so what's it to you?

murder is murder, regardless of who committed the crime.

Last edited Fri May 25, 2012, 01:35 AM - Edit history (1)

We are taxpayers and residents so when they misuse resources of the police department because someone has delusions of grandeur it's definitely my business.

Everyone has gone off track here, bringing up examples of cold cases they know of personally or otherwise. I'm confining myself to this case, not all cold cases. Cold cases have a victim, a family, some remains, at least a missing person, some reason to investigate. This, all they have are some really old tape recordings. Who is it that is still missing all these years later and also had contact with these people? How is this not a waste of time for any investigator who's time might be better spent working on a case not so famous, or infamous, and perhaps more recent, with actual evidence? I'm hostile? Don't think so.

because it will make no difference either way.

as I said above, capital crimes have no statute of limitations.

have fun screaming into the void.

everyone needs a hobby, I guess.

don't you think your weird anger over this would be better served by writting an editorial to the L.A. Times, instead of ranting on a website?

But hey, that's just me.

Of all the hobbies available, complaining about police investigating unsolved murders seems a bit odd.

What unsolved murder are they investigating? I know as much about this case as almost anyone who is not associated with it directly or investigated it then or over the years and I know of no death associated with these people that is considered unsolved or a murder. Who's murder are they looking to solve? Jesus, this is not a difficult question.

first time that you've asked me. I will answer any sincere question that another DUer asks me, without hesitation.

I have no idea how much you do know about the case(s). It appears that many DUers know more than you, and I rather doubt that can be attributted to their being "associated with it directly it then or investigated over the years" ..... by which I suspect you mean "investigated" in an official manner ..... as to mean investigated by reading about it, the obvious response would be to read more if you want to know more.

In my case, I have read quite a bit on the case, despite feeling repulsed by many of the characters who participated in it. Also, I had an uncle involved in intelligence not far from where most of the murders took place; although he did not have a direct association with the Family or have an official investigative role, he was extremely well-informed about things that investigators learned, but could not introduce into court. Some of these things have been hinted at in a few good books on the case .... such as Manson visiting the scene that night, well after the murders. And there is a lot more.

The easiest thing that you could do is get a copy of Bugliosi's book, after the 1994 edition. It is longer, and has plenty of information on "what others?" that you may find interesting. And there are several other good books which I'd be happy to suggest, with information on the pre-murder spree days, and the retaliation murders. Read more about other groups that little Charlie was involved with, including in the "drug trade." Go beyond "Helter Skelter," and you might change your opinion about further investigation -- especially in the context of what Tex told his lawyer.

I've listened to Bugliosi in numerous interviews over the past 20 or so years and I have no recollection of him saying that more investigation is warranted with regard to Tex Watson, Charles Manson or anyone who associated with or called themselves members of the "family". I keep reading these news articles saying that these tapes could contain clues to "unsolved homicides". What unsolved homicides? Which ones? I can't get anything pertaining to a situation or place much less an actual victim. It's extraordinarily vague.

clears time and energy for the cops to go after cases where the murderers aren't in jail.

Among other benefits, of course.

And perhaps having this information will assist the police in learning about the workings of criminals and help the police to solve future such murders more quickly.

I think it is important that the police have this information.

Or do you think the police, or anyone else for that matter, can't do more than one tiny little thing at a time?

one (and probably more) bodies that were never found. One is for certain (through testimony), who was cut into pieces and buried. His remains were never found (Shorty? Can't remember his name without looking it up.)
There are some other missing person cases, which may be linked to the Manson family, but it hasn't been proven, since there is no physical evidence, and primarily speculation from the surviving relatives.
Maybe something useful can be gleaned from these tapes.

Was found with his head under a big rock, IIRC.

Sometime around August 28, 1969, family members Charles "Tex" Watson, Steve Grogan, Bill Vance, Larry Bailey, and Charles Manson took Donald Shea for a ride. From the backseat, Grogan struck Shea with a pipe wrench while Tex Watson began stabbing; the group took Shorty out of the car, brought him down a hill behind Spahn's Movie Ranch, and stabbed him to death. Donald Jerome Shea's body wasn't found until December of 1977. From prison, Steve Grogan drew a map leading authorities to Shortys remains; in an effort to prove to them that Shea hadn't been, as previously rumored, cut into nine pieces.

Thanks for the update.

Steve Grogan -- formerly "Clem" -- provided the evidence for finding the remains.

the attornies who wouldn't follow Charlie's directions that was found in that way -- Ronald Hughes was the first victim of the "retaliation murders."

I would be interested in the tapes for the above reason alone. The only physical evidence in the Tate murders scene came from a smudged finger print belonging to Tex. He was not at the trials and did not make any public statements about the murders. If there is anything on the tapes describing what really happened and who was there it could be a real eye opener. The only evidence came in from an acid riddled brain belonging to a woman who conveniently claimed to be there after Susan dropped the defense council's offer. Any time the defense would try to cross examine the woman about specifics and her "version of events", she would break down in hysterics and fail to answer anything posed to her.

That would be more appropriate, taking a historical look at something new to do with the case, not having busy investigators doing this research.

Susan Atkins had said that Linda Kasabian was there on the night of the murders. More, there was not a single instance when Kasabian "would break down in hysterics and fail to answer anything posed to her." Quite the opposite: she was able to answer all questions, including those which showed her in a bad light, remarkable well. More, not a single person charged with the murders ever denied that she was there; the only question was the extent of her participation.

More, claiming that the only physical evidence at the Tate house was the finger print suggests a lack of familiarity with the case.

If ever the term 'star witness' applied it applied to her as she was there, she saw what happened but didn't participate and never intended to harm anyone, even if Charlie told her to. She did great on the stand. Bugliosi said she was a fantastic witness, then and today.

She didn't conveniently claim to be there, she was at the Tate home. She also was perfectly fine on both direct and cross, and initially testified against the defendants with no plea bargain in place, and knowing it would anger The Family very much. She also dropped a large amount of acid, and admitted to it, but didn't have an "acid-riddled brain." Her version of events matches up with both evidence and also with what some of the murderers and accessories admitted later, including Krenwrinkel. I have no idea why you are slamming Kasabian so much.


There was also quite a large amount of physical evidence at the Tate home, even though Manson went back that night after the murders to screw around and clean up the crime scene.

Charlie was never at the Cielo Drive house at all that night. I'm sure you are thinking of the other murders, the LaBiancas. Charlie chose the house, tied them both up and then sent the others in to do the murders.

Bugliosi and others have stated that other (now ex) Family members have said Manson and Tex went back that night, and Manson screwed around with the crime scene, including placing the glasses that didn't match anyone. I know I've read that in several sources.

I've never heard or read this anywhere. Please cite your source.

Read the book "The Family," etc. That's well-known.

And heard in interviews, including with Bugliosi.

All the cites I have seen/heard state Manson was with Nancy Pitman for sure. The killers didn't wipe their prints, and Atkins lost her knife, plus they didn't get a chance to hang Sharon and Jay. Parents' Rambler was clean as was the living room, but there were prints in other parts of the house Manson missed, including (as Bugliosi puts it), Krenwrinkel's death penalty fingerprint on a bedroom exterior door as she chased Folger and Folger tried to (and almost) escape.

There's also evidence Sharon's body was moved onto the front porch and stayed there for a bit: her blood pooled there, and the blood on her body was smeared, yet the killers said they never moved Sharon's body, nor did they tell Kasabian this.

It has also been stated that the Manhattan Frame glasses found in plain sight were a "joke" by Manson to confuse the "Pigs." Someone -- I THINK Tex or Clem, said they were used as a "magnifying glass" to start fires at Spahn's.

Back in the 1960's a lot of kids went to California to join the hippie scene. Some of those kids never came back home. And since these were often young adults, there was little real effort to find these guys-and how many crossed Manson's path and died from either murder or overdoses? If the parents can at least find out what happened to their kids, that would be a relief even if there was no real way to get a prosecution.

Also, solving these cold cases also may finally put someone behind bars who should have been all along. Should someone get away with murder or have another chance to kill because it's been 40 years ago?