Jay and his black book

Cats, do you know which newspaper this was from?

Oops, I did that wrong! :-

anyhoo....do you know which newspaper this article came from? :thinkn:

Georgia it look like the LA Times...originally and then could have been reprinted elsewhere

Thanks, Jean!

Cats--no particular reason, just curious. Since it said "Los Angeles" at the beginiing of the article, I figured it probably was from the LA area, but then the "Reuters" thing threw me off. Sometimes it's just interesting to see where the stories originated!

Jean, I thought Bruce Russell was a famous political cartoonist or something similar - but I just looked his name up and I found a Bruce Russell who is a realtor that lives in (guess where) Chatsworth!

I wonder if he was a fledgling Jimmy Olsen type at the time.

By the way any private possessions go to next of kin - (watches etc.) so if this book is not still hidden in an evidence file somewhere then his parents would have gotten it - (didn't he die interstate?)

Oh yeah, I'd love for us to see that little black book if it still in the LA evidence rooms. Any chance, my feline genius detective?

Bit of a creepy coincidence that the adjoining article mentions a "slaying of Lennon." Of course, a different Lennon. But shot 4 times, 3 in the back in a parking lot with a .30 caliber rifle. Our beloved John Lennon would be shot 11 years later, 4 times in the back in a driveway with a .38, outside the Dakota where Roman Polanski's "Rosemary's Baby" was set.

Happenings seem to always have a connection just like our 'six degrees of separation'. I love the phrase you used 'beloved', how apropos.

As Carl Jung said "There are no coincidences, only significations".

I've been away for awhile. Courtney's back?! Hooray!

Hmmm, that makes TWO black books in this case now.

Also, I love how the police continue to say there is no connection between the two murder scenes.

I have often thought about that. How incredibly stupid of the police not to even think to connect those two given so many similarities.

My take of this was the 'quien es mas macho' thing. The turf war between the Sheriff's Office and the LAPD. JMHO, though.

the LAPD investigated both the tate and LaBianca murders, the sheriff's department was not involved

Actually, the LASO was involved in the Hinman investigation, the LaBianca investigation, and the subsequent Spahn Ranch raid.

While some LE idividuals are certainly "macho", the lack of sharing information is more a "territorial" thing rather than a macho thing. You will often see it in high profile cases (Zodiac, Night Stalker, Green River, Son of Sam, et al) in which the evidence may seem obvious to an "outsider" but to those close to an investigation, they can remain blind to anything other than what they wish to see. This can certainly hamper the ivestigation, as well as the subsequent prosecution. It is something that we fear often, and must overcome asit can open a door to alternative theories proffered by a defense attorney. Prosecutors, while more likely to look at the larger picture, are not immune from this. If someone has a political career in mind, or is following certain "backroom" guidance, their willingness to share information can become somewhat limited. The David Berkowitz prosecution showed differing opinions, which is why part of that case is still open.

:spank: Thank you for correcting me and for the stuff that goes on behind the scenes. I knew it was there, its just weird to hear it straight from someone who'd know.I sort of remember VC telling in HS how the different LE were so territorial, and saw it re-enacted in the first HS movie.

BB,

No corrections were needed on your part, you were simply looking at it from a different perspective. No spankings (unless asked for) are needed. :smile:

LOL ! I love this place !

I'd be guessing that it means Charley was a fair bit better connected than the popular image of him as a small-time pimp would suggest. After all, he did do time with Alvin Karpis & Frank Costello (Karpis by his own admission knew him quite well... Costello probably not so much). Once on the outside, gaol connections like that often translate to "better job opportunities". By the late 60s, a whole new branch of the drug trade (pot & psychedelics) had sprung up. Largely it was a semi-amateur business run by hippies who were quite idealistic and not excessively profit-driven. I'd imagine the "mob" would've been looking at this growing market as a potentially very lucrative trade. I'd also imagine that they would have been having as much trouble as any member of the "older generation" trying to wrap their heads around it. Someone like Manson could've seemed like a very useful go-between... one foot in either camp.

I know this idea is often dismissed 'cause "traditional organised crime would surely not entrust anything of importance to a bunch of crazies like the Family" but Manson has always claimed that he reflects people back at themselves. Somehow I don't feel that he would have wasted his breath talking about "coming to now" or saying "Helter Skelter's comin' down fast, man!" to any of his old criminal cronies. When hanging with them, I'd imagine he woulda played the seasoned, cynical crim.

At any rate, all I'm saying is I don't think it's impossible that at a time when organised crime was trying to take over a "business" that they didn't really understand and were having troubles finding inroads into, Manson could've easily seemed like a godsend (at least for a short time).

DeLoach & Walshin trying to see Tex reinforces this in my mind.

As for how this relates to the LAPD and their alleged "hand-off policy" on the Manson Family... well I don't even wanna go there, this tin foil hat's fitting far too nicely...