Jay Sebring's Receptionist - Joel Rostau's Girlfriend
Photo Courtesy of Nikolas Schreck
Schreck Writes:
Putting a Face to the Name of One of the Tate-LaBianca Saga's Most Mysterious Figures
''Readers of my book will recall the name Charlene McCaffrey. On April 13, 1969, McCaffrey, the receptionist at Jay Sebring's celebrity hair salon/drug dealing business was robbed at gunpoint by drug dealer Tex Watson along with her lover Joel Rostau. Rostau was Sebring's drug supplier and connection to the Genovese crime family. Watson tied McCaffrey to Rostau before stealing their drugs. The exact same method of operation he would use on August 8/9 1969 when he robbed drugs from Jay Sebring who was tied to Sharon Tate. Watson even used the same gun to commit both crimes.
''Readers of my book will recall the name Charlene McCaffrey. On April 13, 1969, McCaffrey, the receptionist at Jay Sebring's celebrity hair salon/drug dealing business was robbed at gunpoint by drug dealer Tex Watson along with her lover Joel Rostau. Rostau was Sebring's drug supplier and connection to the Genovese crime family. Watson tied McCaffrey to Rostau before stealing their drugs. The exact same method of operation he would use on August 8/9 1969 when he robbed drugs from Jay Sebring who was tied to Sharon Tate. Watson even used the same gun to commit both crimes.
After the Cielo Drive murders, Charlene McCaffrey reported to the LAPD that her boyfriend Rostau had delivered a large quantity of drugs to Sebring at the Tate residence earlier on the night of the slayings, which my later research confirmed.
I tried but was unable to track down any photo of McCaffrey, including an unsuccessful effort to secure her mug shot from 1969 from the LAPD, who were very uncooperative.
Now my friend and ace researcher Gina Watkins-Judd, who was inspired by reading my book to dig further, has discovered that under another name, Charlene McCaffrey enjoyed a fairly high profile career in the film industry. Gina also tracked down some images of Charlene McCaffrey from various Hollywood productions. So that my readers can place a face to the name of this key player in the Cielo Drive case, here's McCaffrey as she looked in 1975 appearing on the TV crime series The Streets of San Francisco. Is it an in joke or a coincidence that McCaffrey was cast as a receptionist, the real-life role hip Hollywood knew her to play? My appreciation to Gina for sharing her research with us."
In the Shreck Book, the author clearly references the April 1969 LAPD Police Report detailing the botched drug burn robbery of Joel Rosteau and his live in girl friend, Charlene McCaffrey by two masked men. Although I do not have a copy of this particular police report, I am 100 percent confident it did occur as it is clearly referenced in the Tate Police Report (which is available online) when Charlene McCaffrey comes forth to be interviewed by the LAPD. In that report Charlene talks about her boss, Jay Sebring, and his anger at being burned in a recent drug buy just a couple days earlier. That her then live in boyfriend, drug dealer Joel Rastau, knew her boss Jay Sebring is clearly established. As is Drug Dealer Joel Rastau's relationship with the drug dealing Frykowski.
ReplyDeleteAnd for those that don't want to believe that Jay Sebring used/dealt coke to his clients as a way of doing business take a read of Neile McQueen's memoir of her life with then hubby Steve McQueen.
Just keep an open mind.
I have Neile McQueen's book. She never said that Jay dealt coke, she did say that he used it and that's not a big deal to me. Was he the only one who did it? Nope.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what else Miss McCaffrey appeared in?
ReplyDeleteThanks Johnny. I'm a little confused...
ReplyDeleteShreck says this:
On April 13, 1969, McCaffrey, the receptionist at Jay Sebring's celebrity hair salon/drug dealing business was robbed at gunpoint by drug dealer Tex Watson along with her lover Joel Rostau.
The police report says this:
McCaffrey was arrested on 4-13-69, along with Rostau after two armed men had entered Rostau's apartment at approximately 0600 and tied both Rostau and McCaffrey up and subsequently shot Rostau in the foot.
The police report indicates "two armed men". How did we go from two armed men, to Tex Watson?
Hi Venus. I wonder why it's been so hard to locate her???
ReplyDeleteGood point(s), Katie.
ReplyDeletelol Thats my girl... cant get a thing by Katie..
ReplyDeletethis is a great find and post as far as Charlene info and pic Kimchi!! great job...
Shreck book though as far as new FACTS....
nahhh
Venus
ReplyDeletego to page 95 of your book. then go to page 155. it is fairly clear that as part of Jay's service he was bringing in those packets of coke to his celebrity clients.
http://books.google.com/books?id=bRlFEuRv14IC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=Jay+was+the+person+who+introduced+cocaine+into+our+household.'++neile+mcqueen&source=bl&ots=sa4qX4w7VU&sig=TeKRA4nOXuYTe941m6fe7-bXI9o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=T3eFUdrVAu3siwKS_YH4Ag&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Jay%20was%20the%20person%20who%20introduced%20cocaine%20into%20our%20household.'%20%20neile%20mcqueen&f=false
or page 155
http://books.google.com/books?id=bRlFEuRv14IC&pg=PA155&dq=jay+and+his+briefcase+neile+mcqueen&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9neFUb74GtHkiwLI5IDQDQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=jay%20and%20his%20briefcase%20neile%20mcqueen&f=false
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletei don't have a copy of the book anymore, but on google reads if you go to page 95 and 155 you'll see what i am referencing from his wife. i tried to put the link in so you'll have to cut and paste.
ReplyDeleteclearly steve mcqueen had a tremendous coke habit. as a celebrity he could get any number of people to bring him coke.
one of those that did --per his wife who witnessed it-- was jay sebring. get a haircut and get some blow.
by the way, just to clear up another point.
ReplyDeletethat sebring dealt coke didn't make him a devil nor an angel. just a great way for someone who provided a service such as cutting hair to have an 'in' with big time celebrities.
they were all adults and knew what they were doing regarding the coke use. so like venus, i do not view it as a big deal back in that era.
Johnny I haven't read Neile's book, but I did read the 2 pages you mentioned. She says that Jay gave Steve coke, but she didn't say he sold Steve coke. So how do we know by this that Jay was dealing drugs?
ReplyDeleteYou don't make a whole pile of money by giving drugs away.
Neile also says that if Jay had lived he could have been another Vidal Sassoon. I believe that.
ReplyDeleteI remember when the Sebring haircut first hit the town I lived in. It was very popular. In fact, when these murders occurred in August of 1969, Jay Sebring was the only victim I'd ever heard of.
Katie
ReplyDeleteit's about access to celebrities.
and that can be very lucrative.
plus he wasn't giving those haircuts away.
Johnny, was it the chicken or the egg?
ReplyDeleteDid he get lucrative clients by providing coke? Or did he attract lucrative clients by his hairstyling skills, and then provide coke when needed?
Also, did he give coke to any other clients other than Steve?
The "Second Tate Homicide Report" is available online on several sites, it says in part:
ReplyDeleteOn 9-8-69, investigators received information from Karlene Ann McCaffrey, receptionist for Sebring, Inc., that Joel J. Rostau, residing at 840 North Larabee Street, apartment 119, had delivered narcotics to the Tate residence on the night of the homicide. Rostau informed McCaffrey that he had delivered cocaine and mescaline to the house but that Frykowski and Sebring wanted some additional narcotics and that he had gone back down the hill but was unable to locate the other narcotics they requested and therefore he did not return to the Tate residence. McCaffrey stated that on August 7, 1969, she had talked to Sebring and he had informed her that he had been burnt on $2,000 worth of bad cocaine. McCaffrey stated that in her opinion Sebring would do almost anything to get back at the person who had burnt him.
McCaffrey was arrested on 4-13-69, along with Rostau after two armed men had entered Rostau's apartment at approximately 0600 and tied both Rostau and McCaffrey up and subsequently shot Rostau in the foot. When Sheriff's investigators arrived at Rostau's apartment, they conducted a search and found a quantity of marijuana, cocaine and hashish. The District Attorney refused to file on McCaffrey, but did file Possession of Narcotics for Sale against Rostau. Rostau is presently out on $5,000 bail awaiting trial in Beverly Hills.
On 9-16-69, investigators Bachhelder and Lee interviewed Rostau at which time he stated he had only met Jay Sebring once or twice, but he was on friendly terms with Frykowski. Rostau denied being at the Cielo address prior to the homicide. Investigation is continuing on this subject."
First: Why is there a significant discrepancy in the spelling of the name Charlene/Karlene? Is this the same person?
Second: Apparently, the only person that told this story is Charlene/Karlene McCaffery, it has never been confirmed or verified by anyone else I know of, it's possible she is lying. Rostau claims he WASN'T at the Cielo house prior to the homicides, so apparently, one of them lied.
Third: To the best of my knowledge, no member of the Manson family has ever stated the reason they went to Cielo Drive had anything to do with a drug burn. If Manson, Watson, Krenwinkel, Atkins or Kasabian has said anything about this, I don't know about it.
Fourth: There is a list of evidence seized by police at the Cielo Drive house. Small amounts of narcotics as well as small amounts of money are listed. Apparently, the Manson family did not go there to steal those items, in fact I don't know of any items they stole from that property.
Finally, my personal opinion is it's unlikely either Rostau or McCaffery had anything to do with the murders at Cielo Drive or the reason they were committed. While it's possible they may have, I certainly haven't seen any hard evidence to prove it.
Sunset...ROCK ON!!! Whooo-wah....
ReplyDeleteI concur.
Allright y'all, this cold is coming on again so I'll holler night y'all.
ReplyDeleteJust remember one important thing:
Why do they call it Ovaltine? The mug is round, the jar is round...why don’t they call it Roundtine?
This is fun too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBig6DCgDcs&list=FLqttN9wowY6_z6UdodSmpvQ&index=1
G'night ya'll!!! :)
Sunset
ReplyDeleteI can well imagine that Joel Rosteau would not want to be admitting to the police that he went up to Cielo that night to deliver drugs and bring back additional drugs. I would be surprised if he would admit it.
That his girlfriend, when being interviewed by the cops, told a different story isn't too far a stretch. She wasn't a criminal and was also still shocked that her boss Jay had been murdered.
I also don't think Rosteau or McCaffrey had any part of the murders.
Sebring had lost $2000 in 1969 dollars drug burn a few days prior. That would be like $12000 if converted in 2013 dollars. I ain't a Pablo Escobar but it doesn't take much to figure that $12000 of coke today would be an amount that would exceed personal use. I am willing to bet that back in the day $2000 worth would also exceed personal use.
If Sebring had been recently ripped off he would still need that to get that large amount of coke somewhere. Given that, does it really stretch anyone's imagination that he may have made arrangements with a drug dealer like Rosteau for drugs?
Sunset, I'll be with you tomorrow. You are right on. This gilflirt with Rostau and his girlfriend is a divergent devised by newcomers trying to find a new motive.
ReplyDeleteIt has happened numerous times since 1969. We'll talk tomorrow.
Night.
But Johnny, you said Jay was "giving coke away". Which is it? Selling...or giving?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry I deleted my comment becaue it was posted twice. LOL.
ReplyDeleteJohnny, if Charlene wasn't a criminal why was she arrested?
ReplyDeletecharlene made the big mistake of being at the apartment when her boyfriend was the victim of a robbery/shooting.
ReplyDeletethat the two robbers took off after shooting rosteau in the foot --and the sounds of the gunshot had neighbors calling the cops-- was her bad luck. as it was also her bad luck that when the cops arrived they spotted the drugs.
so it isn't hard to see that she was arrested at the time.
she wasn't convicted -to my knowledge. but if she had charges pending it may explain why a few months later she wasn't willing to lie to the cops.
just making some logical inferences. i definitely could be wrong.
Thanks for your honesty Johnny. :)
ReplyDeleteSWEET!!! We'll talk tomorrow!!
It's hard to figure out this headache. LOL.
I'm going to hit the hay, but listen to this:
I think it's funny. I want a good juicy burger with a grocery bag:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcJFdCmN98s
Well Orb won the Kentucky Derby as expected. Sweet.
ReplyDeleteSunset- that is a damn good post!!
ReplyDeleteSaint, you really think Rosteau is going to tell the cops that he was up at Cielo earlier that night to deliver drugs and was intending to go back after he scored more?
ReplyDeleteIt was his then girlfriend Charlene who spilled that story and implicated him. By the time the cops got to Rosteau he likely figured that already being busted once for possession of a large amount of drugs back in April was enough. Why in the world would he cop to dealing?
The police report indicates "two armed men". How did we go from two armed men, to Tex Watson?
ReplyDeleteMay 4, 2013 at 4:54 PM
Katie
Based off of the April Police Report, the fact that at the time Tex lived or had lived in the neighborhood, Tex's history of drug burns, and that in the Police Report Charlene describes one of the masked robbers as Tall and the other as Short. Moreover, during the course of the robbery the shorter one with the southern accent referred to the taller one as 'Charles' all of which is consistent with Tex and Bruce.
Of course, it could be another pair. Maybe Lenny and Squiggy fresh off the bus from Milwaukee.
Anyway, that's Nicholas Shreck's supposition.
The book has more detail (I have loaned out my copy so don't have access to all of it.).
I personally think Sunset has some great points here, but I here what your saying Johnny..
ReplyDeleteI think it is worth looking into further- I think there are some questions here to be asked...
Thanks Johnny.
ReplyDeleteBased off of the April Police Report,
Is this April police report available anywhere to read?
the fact that at the time Tex lived or had lived in the neighborhood, Tex's history of drug burns,
Do we know of any drug burns other than Crowe, which was after April.
and that in the Police Report Charlene describes one of the masked robbers as Tall and the other as Short.
I'm wondering why Tex would wear a mask in this instance, but not at Cielo Drive if his purpose was the same.
Moreover, during the course of the robbery the shorter one with the southern accent referred to the taller one as 'Charles' all of which is consistent with Tex and Bruce.
I'm pretty sure the family always called him "Tex". Could be wrong about that one, but Susan did indicate at one point that she didn't really even know some of the family's real names, just their aliases or nicknames.
You know Johnny, if we only had some concrete evidence of any of these theories it would be great!
Holy crap, if Charlene doesn't have a face for porn I don't know who does. Not that I would know of course.
ReplyDeleteBut she is an interesting character. We know how Shreck feels about her but is there any documentation if Bugliosi had any thoughts on her or better yet, has Tex ever mentioned her in his book or any interview. Hey, maybe that's something that is on those damn elusive tapes.
Any way one of the blog's super sleuths can get a present day update on Charlene? I'll bet that woman has tales to tell well beyond Jay and TLB.
So they were both tall.
ReplyDeleteI am not prepared to make this leap.
I keep an open mind and have ruled nothing out, but I'm not willing to make ANY leap - It's not necessary.
I know all threads are good because they lead to discussions - but Schreck's book is a snake oil that some people were unfortunate enough to buy.
I agree 100% Revatron - no leaps. But still, a woman who was Jay's secretary, Joel's girlfriend and Tex's victim (maybe)....that's a helluva trifecta.
ReplyDeleteIt sure would be interesting to hear what she had to say about those days - did she testify anywhere???
As Sunset said...
ReplyDeleteEither McCaffrey or Rostau is lying.
With two conflicting stories... that's an absolute.
The question becomes... who do we believe?
Who should we believe?
Given some of the things I know about Rostau's criminal history (which, I may reveal later)... I'm not convinced of his honesty.
He wasn't the most upstanding guy, in the world.
I'll leave it, at that.
He was found murdered in a trunk "mafia-style" (at an airport).
In short... the man was a criminal... "done-in" by criminals.
As I said... I question his credibilty.
And... as Johnny pointed out:
Why would Rostau admit to the police, that he was delivering drugs?
I believe it's possible, that Rostau was delivering drugs to Sebring and/or Frykowski.
I have an open mind about that concept.
As for the part about Tex and Bruce robbing/shooting Rostau... that's a bit more of a leap, than I'm willing to take without more evidence.
('Course... in fairness to Schreck, I've never read his book. He's got 900+ pages of something that I've never read. Who knows what's in there? Maybe he offers more evidence. I really have no idea.)
Revatron said...
ReplyDeleteSo they were both tall.
I am not prepared to make this leap.
I keep an open mind and have ruled nothing out, but I'm not willing to make ANY leap - It's not necessary.
I know all threads are good because they lead to discussions - but Schreck's book is a snake oil that some people were unfortunate enough to buy.
May 5, 2013 at 1:50 PM"
Rev,
Now there was a bit more than they were just tall.
They shared the same name,
They shared the same MO.
They shared the same neighborhood.
And yes, as you point out They were both Tall.
LOL.
The interesting point about Shreck's book is that you don't have to believe that point about Tex and Bruce being involved in the Rastau Robbery.
ReplyDeleteHe lays out why HE thinks it happened but it isn't necessary to believe it yourself.
He tells you what he relied on.
Not sure about the 'snake oil' comment.
I don't know, I think "MO" is being thrown around pretty loosely. None of these people had an MO - they had BO. No masterminds here.
ReplyDeleteRevatron & Johnny. You both ROCK!
ReplyDeleteJohnny, I'm like an old-time prospector, sifting the dirt thru a strainer, looking for gold.
Everyone once in a while, I find a nugget worth keeping. But mostly I find garbage to throw out.
I really appreciate you bringing this information to the table to sift through, because at some point, it might come to light as truth!
So far I'm still sifting, but I don't know what the outcome is.
I like the way you handled that stalker in the chatroom. I laid off because you did. Bravo! I wish I had your control. Oh well.....
Love ya bro!!! I'll give you AND Revatron a smooch!!!
And Bobby, you deserve a smooch too! :)
Rev
ReplyDeleteokay, but put all the elements together.
Are you saying he didn't use the name Charles -his given name- interchangeably with Tex? What was the name lotsa poppa used when he called out to the ranch during that drug burn? wasn't it Charles?--that's why Charlie got the phone call and not Tex. And in April he wasn't as tied in with the Spahn Ranch life as he was by August. He was known as much by Charles at that point.
Are you saying a drug burn with a weapon is something that is beyond what Tex would do?
Is that too far beyond the pale for him?
Are you saying that the physical description -albeit with a mask isn't consistent?
Are you saying that being that Charles/Tex lived so frickin close he may have heard about someone with 'drugs' in the neighborhood and wanted to rip him off?
You have to put all the elements together and stand back to take a look. Maybe it will turn out to be someone else, but it is not a wild ass guess and is certainly worthy of a little rumination?
Right? Maybe it isn't anything. But is sure is consistent.
no problem Katie, I actually felt sorry for him when Cats folk found out he was in Brian's chat room. I hope he isn't in too much trouble. Oh well, he is welcome to come on and chat with LC.
ReplyDeleteWell Johnny, I don't feel sorry for him. I don't like that attack on you, I thought it unwarranted. But I'm not the moderator of that room. LC is. I hope I didn't overstep my bounds. I just instantly hate when someone I care about is attacked.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I digress.
Someone in the chatroom brought up the fact the the phone call to Spahn's after Tex burned Crowe was addressed to "Charles" or "Charlie". I had forgotten that. That's why I like these chats. It brings to life some things that I've read a billion times but maybe have transferred to the back burner.
But I want to address another thing with you, and that being that Schreck denoted that in April of 1969, when Charlene and Joel were robbed, tied up and he was shot by a "tall & short man" wearing masks, he also denoted that the tall man (Tex) was pointing the Buntline, the same gun used at the Crowe shooting, and also the Cielo Drive murders.
Danny DeCarlo stated that the Buntline gun didn't show up at Cielo Drive until June or July of 1969. If that's the case, how could Tex have had access to it in April of 1969?
Johnny, think about it, and we'll talk tomorrow. I don't present these facts to be obstinate, but to try and find the truth. And that's what we're all after.
I'm sorry Johnny, I said that wrong. The Buntline didn't show up at Spahn's Ranch until June or July 1969.
ReplyDeleteThis information is on page 149 of Helter Skelter, and it might be on Cielodrive.com's website.
ReplyDeletekatie
ReplyDeletethere are parts where i don't agree with Shreck and since i don't have the book -i loaned out my copy- i can't readily look it up.
so if he said it was the same buntline then he could be in error. if i had the april police report i could see what joel rastau said in terms of type of weapon that the tall robber had.
in fact, one thing about the Shreck book that bothers me is the provenance of the Buntline weapon.
catch you all later.
Peace out Johnny! Later Gator! :)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI haven't said any of those things...
ReplyDeleteHis name was Charles, I'm sure he used it. If the tall burglar was named Charles too then forgive me for not jumping with joy.
An armed drug burn is not beyond Tex, but was it an MO? How many armed drug burns do you know of? I can't think of one.
It really doesn't matter to me where Tex lived. People want to put him in connection with Rosemary's daughter, you want to put him in connection with Joel - Just because they lived near each other? That's not going to hold up in court.
How about saying your buddies name in the middle of a crime? What a dumb thing to do! Maybe it was Tex and the family - because if the family had an MO it was for being a bunch of bumbling fools.
ReplyDeleteOn a serious note, any mention of Tex's accent in the April police report?
Revatron, your information is extremely important in this case.
ReplyDeleteI for one have never said that anyone else's evidence is more important than yours.
I'll examine both. Your input is SOO appreciated!!! Believe you me!!!
BTW Tex didn't have an accent. I've heard his voice. He was an imbecile.
Til tomorrow! :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRev
ReplyDeleteI definitely did NOT put words in your mouth, but I did point out that there was more than just being tall as a factor.
Same thing with MO. It's not one thing ie a back history of drug burns it is all of the elements being tied together.
Same thing with location, it isn't just that they lived close by. It's that being so close would make it easier for Tex to know that he had a neighbor who had lots of drugs/dealt drugs. And would be a good reason for someone like Tex to use a Mask.
In terms of accent, the police report -per Shreck- makes a point of saying the smaller man, who called the big man Charles, had an accent from the south.
Do all these factors mean it is 100 percent Tex and Bruce? Nope. But it sure means a lot more than just one of the robbers being 'Tall.'
I was reading Sanders' book The Family yesterday, and Sanders states that the drug burn perpetrated on Crowe by Tex was Charlie's plan. He says that Charlie had a beef with Crowe and also that Gregg Jakobson claims that he heard Charlie say he was going to shoot Crowe days before the shooting.
ReplyDeleteFrom The Family, page 147: Sometime in the evening of June 30, 1969, Manson arranged for Tex Watson to burn Bernard Crowe. Watson never made a move without Manson's "programming." All the dope dealers in the Family, except Manson, have stated that it was totally Manson's idea to burn Crowe.
So if Crowe called the Ranch and asked for Charles or Charlie, was he actually calling for Manson???
This is the only drug burn that Tex was involved in that I know of. Are there others that are documented??
Interesting excerpt Katie.
ReplyDeleteThanks...
Tex has been depicted as the sole catalyst and perpetrator of the Crowe drug burn for years.
According to Sanders... Manson planned and coordinated the event??
That's a new twist...
Is there anything in Sander's book, about Tex and Susan hiding (and taking) amphetamines behind Manson's back?
That's another widely accepted notion...
'Course... Starship always calls Sanders a "Fug". LOL
In general, Sanders' doesn't carry a lot of weight, with many folks.
Personally, I give Sanders a bit more credence than most bloggers.
He's a bit eccentric, but he was physically "there".
According to Sanders, he attended every single day of the trial.
I don't know many authors, who can make that claim.
Then of course, there's the several literary awards he achieved...
Hi Revatron,
ReplyDeleteI stand by my use of the term "MO".
It's true... "the Family" was comprised of complete baffoons (no argument there).
But, baffoons or not... they did in fact, commit their crimes against Crowe, Shea, and Hinman for real (or at least, perceived to be real) reasons... such as drug, money and/or self-preservation issues.
There are serial killers (such as Ted Bundy) who attack complete strangers.
Bundy was a "serial killer" in the truest sense.
I don't view "the Family" in that light.
"The family" did not attack randomly-chosen strangers off the street (as serial killers do).
"The Family" was a crime group (comprised of idiots), who didn't mind killing, as a means, to an end.
There's a big difference.
"Serial killer" and/or "spree killer" was not "the family's" MO.
Enter Vincent T Bugliosi...
According to Bugliosi... "the Family" chose Cielo and Waverly randomly.
According to Bugliosi... the victims (at Cielo and Waverly) were complete strangers.
That's "Helter Skelter" for ya.
I'm not buying it.
"The Family"... (stupid as they were)... were not "random killers".
That was not (as I said, and still maintain) their "MO".
In the case of Crowe, Shea and Hinman... they clearly knew their victims.
Bottom line:
I believe the Cielo and Waverly addresses were not randomly chosen.
I believe, "The family" visited those locations, for a reason.
What that reason was... I can only speculate.
But, there was a reason... and it wasn't "Helter Skelter".
Revatron:
If you adhere to the notion that Cielo and Waverly were chosen randomly (and the murderers had no perceived purpose)... you're back to square one... you're back to Bugliosi's proposition of "Helter Skelter".
If that's where you're at ("Helter Skelter")... then you are peddling more snake oil, than Schreck.
There's no way, that these folks were completely convinced that an apocolypse was eminent... that everyone on earth would die (except them and the blacks)... and then... they just gave-up their quest in two days. LOL
Are we to assume, that on August 11th, they simply decided to take-up a different hobby? LOL
It makes no sense.
"The Family" committed crimes with a purpose... and it was never random "Helter Skelter", before or after Tate/LaBianca.
That wasn't their MO.
MO, MO, MO... LOLOL
Peace...
Johhny said...
ReplyDelete"okay, but put all the elements together."
No.
"All the elements", I just told you what i think about "all the elements".
1. There is no MO for armed robbery
2. I don't care if Tex lived next door.
The ONE thing you have going for you is they were both tall and named Charles (I sure hope the Charles tidbit is in the April police report - The actual police report, not the police report according to Schreck.)
I refuse to speculate based on the information you have provided. This isn't fiction. We aren't writing it as we go. Certain things happened and others didn't. I'm just trying to help keep them separate...Until of course there is some hard evidence that proves otherwise.
That's what is lacking here and every other Schreck thread.
Helter Skelter IS THE BOOK for this case. Not Schreck, not Sanders, not any of those yahoos.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, Helter Skelter IS NOT the motive for these crimes. It is simply the motive used to convict the killers. That is easy to see.
MO doesn't imply masterminds, but it does imply premeditation. These were fly by the seat of their pants kind of people.
Do you imagine them in their rags, sitting around their garbage dinner planning heists? I do not.
Revatron said:
ReplyDelete"Helter Skelter IS THE BOOK for this case. Not Schreck, not Sanders, not any of those yahoos. That being said, Helter Skelter IS NOT the motive for these crimes. It is simply the motive used to convict the killers. That is easy to see".
"Helter Skelter" is great resource for names, dates, locations, timelines, legalities, etc.
It's a great book.
However...
Reading "Helter Skelter" over and over again, will bring you no closer to the truth.
As Albert Einstein said, it best:
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results."
At some point, a researcher must expand beyond the pages of Bugliosi's book and consider other viewpoints.
Folks (such as yourself) always say:
"I agree Lynyrd... Helter Skelter was not the motive".
BUT THEN... when you offer these people other alternatives... more practical alternatives... such as drugs or gambling debts... their asses pucker-up like they stuffed 12 lemons up there.
Does that make any sense?
We're looking for an alternative motive... but, bloggers (such as yourself) are not willing to consider anything outside the pages of "Helter Skelter".
It's ridiculous.
There's definitely value in other authors, and alternative viewpoints.
My outlook is this:
If Sanders wrote 300 pages... and just 20 of those pages contain valuable content, then we've succeeded in uncovering valuable information.
If Schreck wrote 900 pages, and his book includes 18 pages of original ideas, worthy of inspection... then, we've gained 18 pages of information.
If nothing else... alternative research spawns discussion and further research... which, is always a plus.
For the record… Here’s a few of Ed Sanders' achievements:
-- 1967 cover of "Life Magazine"
-- 1983, Received a Guggenheim
-- 1987, National Endowment for the Arts Fellowship in poetry
-- 1988, "Thirsting for Peace in a Raging Century", won an American Book Award
-- 1997, Awarded a grant from the Foundation for Contemporary Arts
-- Writer-in-Residence at the New York State Writers Institute in Albany, New York.
The list goes on...
He was a little more than a “Yahoo”.
-----------------------------------
Revatron said:
"These were fly by the seat of their pants kind of people.
Do you imagine them in their rags, sitting around their garbage dinner planning heists? I do not".
Most of these folks were morons... and moreover, just kids.
As for Manson... I believe many of his moves were calculated... yes.
Calculated by the mind of a self-serving criminal self-absorbed opportunist... but, calculated none-the-less.
"I wonder what else Miss McCaffrey appeared in?" - Venus
ReplyDeleteShe is not listed anywhere in IMDb, which is unusual if she guested in an episode of a television series.
Lynard said...
ReplyDelete"If nothing else... alternative research spawns discussion and further research... which, is always a plus."
I agree to an extent.
I disagree in this instance and that's why I chimed in. I don't believe this thread is worthy of discussion because it is PURLEY speculative.
I have an open mind about the case, more than you think; Shoot, I'll let you put all 12 lemons up my ass if you or anyone else has something interesting rooted in facts. The reason I'm "puckering up" is because your "more practical alternatives" are farts in the wind.
On the surface it's SO exciting to think Tex robbed these people, that Tex knew Rosemary's daughter, that Tex took Leno to open up a safe, but really it's dreadfully boring.
Speculation that has it's roots in fact is a good thing.
But this kind of wild speculating without fact is a bad thing. I might even say that it's an incredible discredit to your website to have such a matter of fact quote from Schreck on the front page stating that Tex was involved in Joel's robbery.
This is your page, but I like it very much.
Excuse me, the discredit is not to your website, but to the new comers of the case and your site.
ReplyDeleteHey Revatron. What did you think of Restless Souls?
ReplyDeleteRevatron said:
ReplyDelete"MO doesn't imply masterminds, but it does imply premeditation".
That's bullshit.
I completely disagree.
Premeditation is not a required element regarding modus operandi.
Any pattern of behavior (premeditated or not) can become an "MO".
If a criminal is witnessed leaving inner-city theft scenes on a bicycle regularly... that pattern of behavior could become an "MO".
The next time a theft is perpetrated locally by a bicyclist, additional attention would likely be called to that criminal (as a suspect).
It's really not a complicated concept.
-----------------------------------
Revatron said:
"I disagree in this instance and that's why I chimed in. I don't believe this thread is worthy of discussion because it is PURLEY speculative.
I have an open mind about the case, more than you think; Shoot, I'll let you put all 12 lemons up my ass if you or anyone else has something interesting rooted in facts. The reason I'm "puckering up" is because your "more practical alternatives" are farts in the wind.
On the surface it's SO exciting to think Tex robbed these people, that Tex knew Rosemary's daughter, that Tex took Leno to open up a safe, but really it's dreadfully boring"
Speculation that has it's roots in fact is a good thing.
But this kind of wild speculating without fact is a bad thing. I might even say that it's an incredible discredit to your website to have such a matter of fact quote from Schreck on the front page stating that Tex was involved in Joel's robbery".
LOL
Allow me to explain this entire situation, so even YOU will understand.
The essence of this thread, is the photo of Mccaffrey.
The Mccaffrey photo is 100% the point of it.
That's why this thread was posted, in the first place... period.
McCaffrey has been an elusive figure (related to this case) for a very long time.
There are folks in TLB-land, who have been trying to uncover a photo of McCaffrey, for years (literally).
McCaffrey was INDEED Sebring's receptionist AND Rostau's girlfriend.
Her name and testimony, ARE in fact, on the Second Tate Homicide report.
Whether you like it or not Revatron, McCaffrey is related to this case... and Rostau (again, whether you like it or not) is discussed often.
I repeat...
The photo of McCaffrey is the reason this thread was posted.
The reason for the rest of the thread, you ask?
Common courtesy... plain and simple.
Schreck posted this photo, and I'm not going to use it, without giving him credit.
Yes...
I could have easily cropped Schreck's book out of the photo... and posted McCaffrey alone.
But that kinda bullshit, would be underhanded.
That's not how, I operate.
In addition to listing Schreck as the source of this photo (which, he was)... I figured I'd ALSO extend to him, the courtesy of posting his accompanying caption.
The photo was presented with the attached caption, when I received it... SO, I figured it was only right, to leave things completely intact.
Bottom line:
I'm wasn't going to remove Nick's book advertisement and caption, and "hork" the photo, as my own.
That's NOT to say, that I agree with EVERY word Schreck communicates in his caption!
I've already said several times on this blog, that I've never even read Schreck's book!
Some of Schreck's caption is 100% accurate.
Other portions of his caption... I'm open to considering.
Still other parts, I feel are somewhat far-fetched.
I put faith in my bloggers, that they will be able to use their own head... decipher information... and separate fact from speculation.
My expectation, is that participants here, have a basic understanding of the case, and a mind of their own.
I'm not going to hork someone else's photo... and cut off their advertisement and caption intentionally... to service a couple morons.
The photo came with a caption.
Deal with it.
"Take what you like, and leave the rest".
ReplyDeleteIt's a simple creedo.
Well said Lynyrd! :)
ReplyDeleteHi Rev
ReplyDeleteNo need to get upset as I have no ill will towards you.
But it is all the elements put together that forms a picture. You can't just isolate one and then say it means nothing by itself. That's the point, it is all the elements put together that form an interesting picture worthy of discussion.
You make a great point in that we would both like to see the April Police Report. As such, we are relying on what Shreck says is in that report. Of course, if the police report appears later and that additional info isn't in it then he will suffer a major credibility gap. I also want to get that Amos Russell interview/polygraph that Shreck relies upon for telling us what happened at Sebring's place the morning of the murders.
For those folks that think the Bugliosi Book has tied up the case and that's what they rely upon for 'the truth' then I wonder why the heck anyone would have an interest in the case as it is 'solved.' Right? Unless you are into Manson things. But that would seem to be ATWA more so than a website that discusses the case.
I'm confused, as usual. Who's Charlene Caffritz?
ReplyDeletethank you Lynryd for keeping an open mind.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting side component to this post has been the discussion of the merits of the major books written about the TLB case.
ReplyDeleteAs Lynyrd pointed out, Helter Skelter is the source for the investigation and prosecution of the crimes. When delving into the activities, daily life and history of the Manson Family, Helter Skelter relies too much on info from Paul Watkins, Brooks Poston and Linda Kasabian. In my opinion this is the area where The Family is superior. Sanders spent more time with various members of the Manson Family and was trusted by them to some extent. Of course, Sanders has been vilified for some of his wild speculation but I don't discredit the whole book because of it. The intelligent reader can separate the wheat from the chaff.
I have not read Schreck's book yet although I am very interested in his ideas. At some point I will take the plunge. I find it interesting that many people who discredit Schreck's book probably have not read it and do so because of his offbeat history, lifestyle and close association with Manson.
Carol, here you go! From the LSB3 blog:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lsb3.com/search/label/Charlene%20Cafritz
Well said Jeff.
ReplyDeleteI agree whole-heartedly. In fact I was going to say that earlier but I got distracted by "work". LOL.
Sanders is a great writer. He's entertaining, light hearted, intelligent and informative. But he does throw a few "goobers" into the mix that you have to sift out. LOL.
As far as Schreck goes, I haven't read his book. I do know generally what his book is about, and I have questions about the validity of his assertions. From what I've heard, it's based on hearsay, "veiled sources" and Manson-speak, which is basically worthless.
However, I'm willing to hear about it in a arbitrarious debate between 2 or more peers and anticipate the outcome.
ReplyDeleteThat's the problem with not reading the book. You are hearing parts of it without getting the foundational portions of the book. Shreck lays out when he is making inferences and tells you where he is getting his facts. Much like JJ points out about the Sanders book, the intelligent reader can separate the wheat from the chaff.
Are their mistakes in the 900 plus pages?
Yep.
Is Shrek a very talented writer?
Yep.
I just never understand folks that can pass such authoritative judgment on something they haven't read. Oh well, it's your loss. Stick to Sanders and Bugliosi. Both books are important to understanding facets of the case.
Revatron I was going to say one more thing before throwing myself face down on my comforter. LOL.
ReplyDeleteIf you disagree with new theories being presented, then why not bring proven fact to the table to avert them, rather than stomping your feet and claiming "foul".
I've started doing that. In fact, I've done so recently with the Buntline gun that Schreck claims Tex used in the April 1969 robbery/shooting of Charlene/Joel. They didn't have that Buntline in April 1969 according to DeCarlo.
Or did they? That's the question.
Okay everyone, have a nice evening. And play nice. LOL :)
The caption eclipses the picture.
ReplyDeleteI just don't know where it ends. I mean, Tex could have been a juggler in a past life, but should there be a thread about it?
Katie said...
"If you disagree with new theories being presented, then why not bring proven fact to the table to avert them, rather than stomping your feet and claiming "foul".
I'm with you. That's how I like to handle the more thought out theories that are worthy of discussion.
I am wrong, I've seen the error of my ways.
ReplyDeleteAll thread are good and worthy because while they may begin lackluster - or in this case, please allow me to say respectfully, slightly misleading(?) - chances are good someone will say something interesting.
Glory Hallelujah!
Hi, Katie! Thanks for the link to the other Charlene.
ReplyDeleteOnce upon a time, there was light in my life
ReplyDeleteBut now there's only love in the dark
Nothing I can say
A total eclipse of the heart
Bonnie Tyler
Revatron said:
ReplyDelete"The caption eclipses the picture".
You'll survive.
Take a few deep breaths and a Zanax (Xanax).
Revatron said:
"I just don't know where it ends. I mean, Tex could have been a juggler in a past life, but should there be a thread about it?"
In the future, I'll consult you (for approval), before posting threads.
That's all that I ask.
ReplyDeleteJohnny said: I also want to get that Amos Russell interview/polygraph that Shreck relies upon for telling us what happened at Sebring's place the morning of the murders.
ReplyDeleteJohnny, I know you probably don't wanna go there, but the Amos Russell polygraph is available on Truth on TLB Forum.
Amos Russell says that Jay spent the night before the murders with a blonde. The blonde left with Frykowski the afternoon of the 8th.
On the morning of the 9th Russell was notified of Sebring's death.
RUSSELL: "And then after then a young lady come to the house. She used the phone. She made a long distance call; she called the long distance operator. I fixed her a cup of coffee and went back to the kitchen. When I came out, she was upstairs in Mr. Jay Sebring's bathroom....And then a girl named Charlene from the office, she came up. As this young lady was coming out of the house going up the stairway to the right, the right stairway leads up to the garage and she came up to the house and and told me not to let nobody else into the house unless an officer of the law comes to the house. I fixed her a cup of coffee and she was nervous and panicky like. Not too nervous; she was very panicked. And then after she left."
So a young woman and Charlene McCaffrey both showed up at Sebring's house after news of the murder surfaced. Although Russell knew McCaffrey from the office, he said that he had never seen her at Sebring's house before. Russell doesn't mention Steve McQueen stopping by to "clean up".
But perhaps Steve McQueen "arranged" to have Sebring's pad cleaned up.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Charlene was there to dispose of something that might incriminate her in some way. Who knows?
ReplyDeleteWhat does a Butler do besides fix a cup of coffee? LOL.
If Sebring had purchased a large quantity of drugs from Rosteau the day of the murders, maybe he sent Charlene to Easton Dr to see if she could retrieve them. Although he delivered the drugs to Cielo, he might have thought it probable that Sebring took them back to Easton (Easton Dr and Cielo Dr being in such close proximity).
ReplyDeleteJust more wild speculation.....
Johnny, do you remember what Shreck say about Amos Russell's polygraph??
Yes, Steve McQueen had the house "cleaned," he didn't do it himself.
ReplyDeleteHey Jeffrey Jeff
ReplyDeleteThat's good to know the Amos Russell Interview is out there.
Shreck covers it in detail as you outlined although -and darn I wish I had my copy with me...(: - he goes into a little more detail.
Interesting that Charlene was there that early, was it before the news broke? Another reason why it would be good to talk with her.
I totally agree with you LSB, I don't buy for a second these homes or people were chosen at random or the theory of Helter Skelter.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you LSB, I don't buy for a second these homes or people were chosen at random or the theory of Helter Skelter.
ReplyDelete