Author Nikolas Schreck (The Manson File) joins S.T. Patrick for the third time to discuss Charles Manson and the Tate-Labianca murders of August 1969. This year was the 50-year anniversary of the murders and Schreck hosted a sold-out talk in Los Angeles in August. In this episode, Patrick asks Schreck about the history of his communication with author Tom O’Neill, his perspective on O’Neill’s book Chaos (including its breakthroughs and faults), the media and Manson (50 years later), the wide-scale dissection of Vincent Bugliosi and the farce known as the Helter Skelter narrative, Schreck’s thoughts on Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (and what Schreck believes was hidden within), and the continuous public interest in the case. Patrick and Schreck also fielded questions from The Education Forum about Bugliosi’s duping of Susan Atkins, whether Manson or anyone had been to the Cielo Drive house before or after the murders took place, the Patricia Krenwinkel-William Garretson rumor, Rudy Altobelli, Schreck’s thoughts on Nuel Emmons’s Manson In His Own Words, whether Manson ever discussed Reeve Whittson with Schreck, and much more. As usual, Schreck proves why he is one of the foremost experts on Manson the the Tate-Labianca murders. Schreck has been on the Midnight Writer News Show twice before, both times going over three information-packed hours. To hear those, check out episode 026 and episode 089. There is a good Facebook group for the upcoming, updated release of The Manson File. You can find it HERE. To purchase garrison.: The Journal of History & Deep Politics, go to http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/MidnightWriterNews.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
I’m pretty sure that drug dealing and the cocaine import agency (cia) are NOT mutually exclusive.
Jay was the candyman of Hollywood,Voytec had the ambitions of being the big time MDA now coming in to the States.Billy was the boyfriend of herb16 year old girl
My reading of “Chaos” is that O’Neill was driven towards the CIA angle by a combination of two factors. The main one is the proven immunity that Manson and his circle received from police and probation officers, with a particularly dubious role played by Manson’s very personal p.o. cum mentor, Roger Smith.
The second factor is the conspiracy of silence by just about all parties involved (not least by Manson and his circle), still very strong 30 to 50 years after the events. Hollywood scandals are as old as Hollywood itself, from Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle, to Phil Spector and Harvey Weinstein. The protection of the reputation of Melcher, Wilson and a few Hollywood stars doesn’t explain the ongoing intensity of the conspiracy of silence, with Dennis Wilson long diseased and Polanski’s reputation in tatters from other scandals. Why would Bugliosi commit such an elaborate scheme of perjury for something as trivial as Melcher having met Manson more than twice? This is a nagging issue that Shreck’s version, with his tendency to balance mainstream hysteria with his somewhat dogmatic mundaneness, fails to explain.
With respect to Schreck (looking forward to finally reading his book), he misrepresents Chaos by saying that any exploration of the role of the CIA must automatically mean that (O’Neill thinks that) Manson used mind control with success to turn Tex Watson et al into assassins. That is not necessarily the case. It may well be somewhere in the middle: that the CIA did have specific plans for Manson and his followers, but that they turned out not to be as controllable as their handlers / human experimenters hoped. In the end, the circle self-destructed because of their own increasingly reckless behavior – fueled by amphetamine psychosis and the hubris of their immunity – and the CIA may have invented the mind-controlled hippy assassins myth out of the raw elements of what they had previously hoped to achieve for real.
“Chaos” leaves the reader with a lot of questions and very few answers, which is unavoidable given the nature of the case and O’Neill’s caution not to jump to conclusions. It makes for a frustrating read but, in the writer’s defense, it was about time that someone posed these questions with enough thorough research for them to be taken seriously..
Great show, as are all the others with Nikolas!
While I believe he should have given O’Neill more credit for all of the genuine work and sacrifice he put into CHAOS, I can understand his hesitancy because of the direction that book was heading towards.
I personally applaud Tom O’Neill for uncovering enough real truth to discredit both that charlatan Bugliosi, his ‘Helter Skelter’ bullshit and all the media whore groupies that push(ed) that garbage! Too bad his book wasn’t released when ol’ Vince was still alive. I would have loved watching him fester for the travesties of justice that he was guilty of!!
In regards as to why Garretson wasn’t murdered: There is a theory stating that the killers thought that Parent was the house boy and therefore didn’t need to search the house after they had already shot him.
The ‘Patty Montgomery’ theory was started (or at least embellished) by a moron named ‘Katie’ from the LSB3 blog. It’s just more bullshit from people who need to flaunt their phoney ‘in the know’ credentials.
A woman claiming to have been Patty was interviewed on the old Brian Davis/Cats Cradle TLB Radio podcast. It’s bullshit as well.
Regarding which books are worthy reads: George Stimson’s ‘Goodbye Helter Skelter’ is one to consider. He is the husband of Manson loyalist Sandra ‘Blue’ Good and therefore has the necessary insight for providing a good deal of relevant information
Schreck is by far the most bona fide and knowledgeable of all Manson authors. I’ve been waitng for years for the new ‘Manson Files’ release.
Hope to see him again on MWN!!