CHAOS: Tom O'Neill's book on the Charles Manson murders

[Navigator]

I wouldn't put O'Neill and McGowan in the same category. As we realized when McGowan went full 'actors theory' after the Boston Bombings in 2013, he imagines a lot of connections that either aren't there, or have no relevant significance. His Laurel Canyon series must therefore be critically interrogated. Many of the 60s musicians and actors McGowan suggested were 'instrumental' in government control/influence programs were 'guilty-by-association' in McGowan's eyes. O'Neill does what McGowan does not: drill down to the facts, and only then propose a tentative theory.

Agreed, now that you mention it, he does go on name-dropping and is tiresome following up the chain of names and events. Though it was the first time I had read about the military/intelligence connections of some of the 60's characters, only to be taken to a real investigative journalism level with O'Neill.

 

[Alejo]

Just watched it tonight, and I have to agree that they simply went "that is inconceivable!!" and tried to aim for the middle when ending the documentary.

I would recommend watching it after reading the book, It was a very nice way to put faces and voices to the events, it helped me understand the traumatic impact those events had.

 

[A Jay]

O'Neil has finally shared his opinion about the Netflix movie on X:

Since folks have been asking...This review summarizes my feelings about the movie.I wish Errol & Netflix the best of luck w their film and encourage anyone who sees it & wants to know more to get the damn book, preferably a print edition w the 60+ pages of endnotes (1)

(2) In addition to source info in the notes (where you dissenters can check my facts), there's also lots of little anecdotal elaborations.Thanks for all your support.PS - the above isn't a crafty ploy to get you to buy the book. Libraries all over the U.S. have loads of copies!

Here's the review he's referring to which concludes with:

Viewers who haven’t read O’Neill’s book will find the film interesting enough. To me, it felt like reading the abstract of a white paper that’s locked behind a paywall, and a lopsided abstract at that. It’s not unwatchable. The archival footage of Manson and his followers is sadly gripping. I’m just not sure what book Morris thought he was adapting.

Just reading through the review now and so far I can see why O'Neil said it summarizes his feelings. It summarizes mine as well!

 

[A Jay]

Finished reading the review and it's definitely worth the read.

The author does a great job of detailing O'Neil's explosive findings and comparing them to what was in the movie so you have a good sense of how distorted the movie was in presenting those findings. The findings the movie didn't just omit entirely, that is.

One example of a detail that was omitted, likely because it negated Morris' seemingly favorite theory:

Even when Morris returns to the part of the chronology he is stuck on for reasons he never explains, he effectively leaves Beausoleil unchallenged. “I don’t know if he knew that I was in jail,” Beausoleil says about Manson at one point. “There’s no evidence of that.” Actually, there is evidence of that—in the book Morris is ostensibly adapting.

There were so many instances of glaring omissions like this that, like the author of the review said, I'm really not sure what book Morris thought he was adapting.