Tom O'Neill (4)

Just realised I forgot to write a review of this, read in late June, so will try to recall my impressions. On the one hand it was informative - being based in the UK I hadn't even realised that another couple had been murdered by Manson's followers, having only heard about Sharon Tate and the other people at her house. The author certainly throws a lot of questions up in the air, uncovering inconsistencies, even lies, in various people's accounts, and also flagging up that certain people knew key facts, but were never called as witnesses at the trials. There certainly are big questions raised around the operation of law enforcement in the area and why Manson was repeatedly allowed out of jail after committing various offences that should have had his federal parole revoked.

The trouble is the book is disjointed and disorganised because it is also to a large extent a narrative of the history of the author's investigation and the various setbacks and difficulties experienced. He is never able to come to a definite conclusion from interviewing those who agreed to talk to him - some of whom turned hostile subsequently. Multiple theories are presented regarding the causes and motives behind the murders, with various people being shown as connected to the Tate house and its previous owner, several of whom also had connections to Manson. There is a disquieting suggestion that Sharon Tate could have been abused by her husband. Intriguing possibilities are raised regarding the creation of Manson's cult during his stay in San Francisco and the involvement of various people in the medical profession who had CIA links and were researching the effects of LSD as part of a programme on brainwashing and alteration of memories. But none of this is definitively bottomed out.

Ultimately it was a bit of a frustrating read and for that reason I have awarded it 3 stars.… (mais)

A frustrating read. The author in many chapters sets up an interesting story, and talks about his research and evidence as to what got him there, and fully admits when he's hit a dead end, which is refreshing, but in so many cases, he only has enough evidence to get so far with his theories, and often he fills in the remaining blanks with speculation and conjecture, which, while an interesting story, might or might not be a totally true one. It reminded me of reading the Once Upon a Time in Shaolin book, in which that author felt (to me) like he wrote the book to show how cool he was being part of the Wu Tang Clan's inner circle. This feels like the author wrote this book to show how cool he was to do a ton of research on the Manson Family, and find some bits and pieces of Manson Family police work that he had uncovered that showed that the narrative we were given before wasn't the truth. But in the end, while he turned up some interesting discrepancies and cause for us to doubt the established story, but he couldn't come up with enough answers to give us the actual truth of what really happened, and gave us a book full of tangents and claims that relied heavily on speculation.… (mais)