When it comes to the Marilyn Manson criminal investigation by the LASD on behalf of the LADA, we know there have been several questionable elements with unsatisfactory answers, but two stand out as most prominent. The first, as we recall, was when the LASD tried to close the investigation after 19 months and the LADA George Gascon forced them to continue due to the fact that they only handed in "partial case material," whatever that means. Two years would pass, this "partial case material" submitted in September 2022 was never explained or made whole, and the investigation seemed almost forgotten, until October 2024 when George Gascon announced they finally had new evidence in the Marilyn Manson investigation that needed to be explored. Ironically this was said towards the conclusion of the LADA campaign where George Gascon was running for reelection against his opponent Nathan Hochman, who was far in the lead to be the new DA. Which leads us to the second most prom...
When it comes to the Marilyn Manson criminal investigation by the LASD on behalf of the LADA, we know there have been several questionable elements with unsatisfactory answers, but two stand out as most prominent. The first, as we recall, was when the LASD tried to close the investigation after 19 months and the LADA George Gascon forced them to continue due to the fact that they only handed in "partial case material," whatever that means. Two years would pass, this "partial case material" submitted in September 2022 was never explained or made whole, and the investigation seemed almost forgotten, until October 2024 when George Gascon announced they finally had new evidence in the Marilyn Manson investigation that needed to be explored. Ironically this was said towards the conclusion of the LADA campaign where George Gascon was running for reelection against his opponent Nathan Hochman, who was far in the lead to be the new DA. Which leads us to the second most prominent questionable element. A few days after Gascon makes the announcement of new evidence, we learn that he said this because he learned Esme Bianco was publicly endorsing Hochman for election due to the fact that Gascon refuses to close the Manson criminal investigation, even though four years have passed. Bianco publicly endorsing Hochman led to new fears he may now owe her a favor when making a decision in this case.
On January 24th 2025, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office with its new DA Nathan Hochman issued a statement that they were dropping the Manson case due to the fact that the domestic violence element falls outside the statute of limitations and the sexual assault element could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, shortly after the original statement was released it was retracted and replaced with a new statement. The difference between the two statements is they removed a line from the third paragraph which in the original statement said "necessitated by the facts and evidence in this matter." At the time I had no doubt this deletion was done after complaints from either the lawyers of Evan Rachel Wood or Esme Bianco or both. Then Evan made a statement later that day to try to explain her loss that it had nothing to do with lack of evidence, which confirmed that Evan somehow colluded with the LADA to get them to remove the element that talked about the lack of evidence in the first statement (even though when something cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt has an element of lack of sufficient evidence in it). The statement by the LADA was clearly designed to be sensitive towards "survivors," so to downplay "facts and evidence" was surely an easy compromise to make. (Read the two statements here and Evan's statement about the decision below).
On January 24th 2025, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office with its new DA Nathan Hochman issued a statement that they were dropping the Manson case due to the fact that the domestic violence element falls outside the statute of limitations and the sexual assault element could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, shortly after the original statement was released it was retracted and replaced with a new statement. The difference between the two statements is they removed a line from the third paragraph which in the original statement said "necessitated by the facts and evidence in this matter." At the time I had no doubt this deletion was done after complaints from either the lawyers of Evan Rachel Wood or Esme Bianco or both. Then Evan made a statement later that day to try to explain her loss that it had nothing to do with lack of evidence, which confirmed that Evan somehow colluded with the LADA to get them to remove the element that talked about the lack of evidence in the first statement (even though when something cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt has an element of lack of sufficient evidence in it). The statement by the LADA was clearly designed to be sensitive towards "survivors," so to downplay "facts and evidence" was surely an easy compromise to make. (Read the two statements here and Evan's statement about the decision below).
Yesterday, July 7th 2025, Evan out of nowhere decided to make a "correction" in her Instastories of an error she spotted in a recent Daily Mail article, which spoke of Manson's criminal investigation being dropped "due to lack of sufficient evidence." This clearly triggered Evan, and she repeated once more what she had said on the day the criminal investigation ended, that it was not due to lack of sufficient evidence, because there was in fact plenty of evidence.
I was already pretty convinced there was evidence of collusion between Evan and the LADA, but the fact that this one element about evidence is so triggering to Evan leaves me room for even less doubt that it was Evan who had her lawyers complain about the first and original statement issued by the LADA, and probably in their attempt to be sensitive towards a very complex issue and to encourage survivors of the future to come forward without hesitation, they deleted the part about lack of facts and lack of evidence to satisfy Evan. Of course, lack of sufficient evidence is still there in the part where it says it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but clearly the word "evidence" is what triggers Evan, who claims to have a load of evidence against Manson.
But as far as I'm concerned, I stick by the original statement, which spoke about the "facts and evidence" and how these also led the LADA out of "necessity" to drop the case.
But as far as I'm concerned, I stick by the original statement, which spoke about the "facts and evidence" and how these also led the LADA out of "necessity" to drop the case.