Sharon Tate's niece, Brie Tate...
is interviewed on "CBS This Morning".
Submitted by Katie! Thanks Katie!
The subject has been raised (on the blogs) before... regarding Altobelli suing for damages to his property... but, I've never seen the topic discussed on national television, by representatives of the Tate family.
Brie and Lisa discuss Rudy's lawsuit (in this CBS interview) with complete disdain. At one point, Lisa says (paraphrasing):
"That, is the absolute worst thing, that can happen to a victim's family".
"That, is the absolute worst thing, that can happen to a victim's family".
I don't know... I think that's a bit strong...
It's all VERY unfortunate... but (as the interviewer said, herself) someone has to clean the mess... and more importantly... if $250,000 worth of damages are sustained to a property... someone has to absorb the loss. Why should that person be Rudy, any more than the Tate's or Roman?
It's all VERY unfortunate... but (as the interviewer said, herself) someone has to clean the mess... and more importantly... if $250,000 worth of damages are sustained to a property... someone has to absorb the loss. Why should that person be Rudy, any more than the Tate's or Roman?
Put yourself in Rudy's shoes.
Would YOU be willing to write-off $250 grand in damages to your property... just to be a nice guy? Would YOU get down on your knees, and sop-up the blood yourself... out of sheer sensitivity to the situation?
Would YOU be willing to write-off $250 grand in damages to your property... just to be a nice guy? Would YOU get down on your knees, and sop-up the blood yourself... out of sheer sensitivity to the situation?
It's a tough issue... but, I think Rudy is getting an unnecessarily bad rap here. Brie and Lisa's opinion(s) are a bit over-blown.
Rudy never said (or implied) directly... that the victims were personally responsible for their own murders... just because he wanted to be reimbursed for his losses. Brie and Lisa communicate that very message, in this interview. I think that's a slightly extreme and distorted perception, on their part.
Rudy never said (or implied) directly... that the victims were personally responsible for their own murders... just because he wanted to be reimbursed for his losses. Brie and Lisa communicate that very message, in this interview. I think that's a slightly extreme and distorted perception, on their part.
Ask yourself: Is being held responsible for rental property... the same as being held responsible for your own murder? In my mind... it's not a direct correlation.
My personal experience, is that, when you rent property... (whether it be a house or car)... you are... to a very large degree... more responsible for that property, than the owner himself, while it's in your possession. Dilligaf??? I'm assuming a judge agreed with Rudy (and I), if Mr. Tate cleaned the floors?
At any rate... I don't think Rudy had malice in his heart, when he sought damages.
Besides...
How would Rudy have known the true motive for the murders at that time... when, we ourselves, are still inquisitive? Does anyone really believe, that it was Rudy's personal responsibility to investigate the crimes... solve the case... and lay proper blame for the murders... before his house was restored?
Besides...
How would Rudy have known the true motive for the murders at that time... when, we ourselves, are still inquisitive? Does anyone really believe, that it was Rudy's personal responsibility to investigate the crimes... solve the case... and lay proper blame for the murders... before his house was restored?
I give Rudy a pass. If I was the owner of the property... I'd want it returned to it's former state (if possible) as well. As for Mr. Tate cleaning the blood himself... that completely sucks. But, he certainly could have paid someone else to do it. That's what I personally would have done... assuming, I could afford it.
What do you think?
===================================================================
===================================================================
I Laughed my Ass Off! AHahahaha
Every drunk I've ever met, is covered at least once... in one of these three videos. I'm totally #8, in the first video! LOL
Which one are you??!
(I think Saint C, would be #5, in video #2! LOL)
I sincerely hope he's doing well. He's a good egg!
Katie... 8:41, video #3! LOL! ; )
(I think Saint C, would be #5, in video #2! LOL)
I sincerely hope he's doing well. He's a good egg!
Katie... 8:41, video #3! LOL! ; )
Interesting interview. Lots of footage I haven't seen. I'm going to get the book today if I can.
ReplyDeleteBrie resembles Sharon. She's a little heavy, but very pretty.
They mention that the Tate family was sued. I thought it was only Roman Polanski & Life Magazine who were sued. Altobelli was upset that Roman did that layout in the house right after the murders for Life Magazine, and he was also upset that Voytek & Gibby were living there and weren't on the lease.
Also, they mention that Paul Tate was instrumental in solving the murders, which isn't true. He did do a lot of undercover investigation, but it was only when Sadie blabbed that the police were really aware of who was involved.
The justice she speaks of should be to release Charlie after his 40+ years of the injustice imposed upon him...
ReplyDeleteI just posted my thoughts, on the thread itself...
ReplyDeleteLynyrd I agree with your thinking. If you lease anything, you must return it after the lease is up in the same condition it was in when you leased it.
ReplyDeleteNormally, people pay a deposit on a rent house and if there's damage when they leave, the deposit is not refunded.
I really don't think the Tate family was sued. I think it was just Polanski & Life Magazine.
Paul did scrub the carpets, and I agree, I would have paid to just have them replaced or cleaned by someone else. Can you even get that much blood out of carpet?
>>>Disillusioned said: The justice she speaks of should be to release Charlie after his 40+ years of the injustice imposed upon him...>>>
ReplyDeleteYeah...right. LOL.
Rudi just did what any landlord would do. Let's face it, when you sign a lease, it says you're responsible for any damages. Obviously, who expects murders to be committed but Rudi did have the right to expect the house to be returned to the way it looked when it was rented.
ReplyDeleteNowadays, there are businesses that clean up crime scenes. In those days, I guess the renters and/or their families were responsible. It's not something I could do.
wow, if indignation over the cleaning bill is "the hook" they are using to promote the book, or a hook, then I don't see allot of folk flocking to buy it.
ReplyDeleteIt is an interesting challenge to say the least, finding "hooks" or new and different perspectives on TLB to attract folks to buy yet another Manson book. I know the Col and others rave about this book but I will be really curious to see how it sells.
Hi Venus. Glad to see you're back!
ReplyDeleteRudy should have also sued Charlie, Tex, Susan & Pat. They're the ones who caused the damage. Course that would be a waste of time since they didn't have any money.
Leary, I'm going to go get this book as I've been looking forward to it coming out. But after seeing this interview, I'm hoping that it isn't filled with inaccuracies.
ReplyDeleteHi Katie! It's good to be back, I missed you!!
ReplyDeleteYeah, too bad he didn't know the correct people to sue, huh? But, remember, Susan didn't kill anyone (according to her and Tex) so is it fair to include sweet Sue?? LOL
Ah, we'll just throw Susan in the mix for shits & grins. LOL.
ReplyDeleteLet's just do a shotgun lawsuit and hopefully hit something substantial. HA HA.
that is an interesting contemplation, Katie....folks who shoulduv/coulduv sued Manson or Watson or others, like the Goldman/Browns sued OJ.
ReplyDeleteI wish Shorty's wife could have sued, and Parent's family. And others.
I took my seersucker suit to the cleaners, Katie. And my Red Sox uniform. It's a coin flip which would be more appropriate for the play.
Seriously, can anyone imagine Gypsy, who lives up there in Dallas as far as I know, having enough intellectual curiousity and chutzpah to attend the play? Now her review would be interesting to read.
Hi Leary.
ReplyDeleteThe book may be fabulous... I have no idea.
I haven't read the book yet.. and, truth be told... I may not bother.
I have a couple TLB books, that have been collecting dust on my shelf for the longest time, already.
Katie will probably read it...
I'm not trying to discourage (or, encourage for that matter), people from buying the book.
I'm simply responding to what I'm seeing and hearing here... in this interview clip.
I can summarize my thoughts (on this interview) in a nutshell, for everyone... (not specifically you, Leary)... but, everyone... with the following question:
Does anyone really believe, it was Rudy's responsibility to await the culmination of the entire trial (and the verdicts)... BEFORE seeking damages?
To my knowledge... it was (to date) the longest trial in history.
It makes no sense.
Besides... what if the defendents were found innocent?
THEN, what would Rudy do?
As a Landlord... you roll your dice on the sure bet... the names on the lease... not, penny-less hippie suspects, in jail.
Brie and Alice are personalizing an issue, which is not personal at all...
Who was Rudy supposed to pursue for damages?
...a bunch of hippie kids in the desert, eating from dumpsters?
ANY SANE LANDLORD, would have started their damage/recovery legal pursuit, with the names on the lease.
If Polanski and/or the Tate's were landlords, in this same situation... they would have pursued the names on the lease, themselves!
Who the f#ck are they kidding?
The Tate's want us to believe... they would have waited months for the trial to be completed... all the while, hoping to hell, that the killers were, in fact, convicted... then... they would have attempted to recover their damages from incarcerated bums on death row???
Yeah right...
Who's shitting who, here?
It ridiculous...
Better not wear the Red Sox uniform. There might be some Texas Rangers there. LOL.
ReplyDeleteDinner and a play with Gypsy. Hmmmm....
Should the conversation veer back to the good ole days of 1969, or should we just stick to "born again" stuff. HA HA.
I think that to celebrate the occasion, I'll wear my old polka dot micro mini dress with my white plastic Go Go boots. And lots of White Slicker Lipstick. LOL.
Sorry...
ReplyDeleteThat's Brie and Lisa... not, Brie and Alice.
Anyway... the chicks in the interview.
LOLOL
BTW:
ReplyDeleteI hate to sound insensitive.
My sympathies are always with the victims, of course.
But...
This issue with Rudy shouldn't be viewed with such disdain by Brie Tate... in fact... I personally don't see, why it's an issue at all.
It was just business... it was nothing personal on Rudy's part.
I think sometimes, tragedy distorts reality...
I stated in an earlier post that Rudi was just doing what landlords do. I'm sure it wasn't intended with any malice. He just wanted his house cleaned up. Perhaps he could've handled it in a more sensitive way tho.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that Altobelli had any cause of action against the Tate family. They weren't on the lease. The only names on the lease were Roman & Sharon.
ReplyDeleteAnd Sharon was dead. That leaves Roman.
Altobelli was upset with Roman for doing that Life Magazine layout, showing all the bloody carpet, etc. He said that it hurt his chances of selling the house.
He sued Roman and Life Magazine.
I don't believe the Tate Family was ever sued. I don't know where they're getting that.
Speaking of Roman, it's interesting that during the funeral he was so out of it he had to be held up, then a few days later he's doing a spread for Life Magazine looking very alert.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't sound like much of a grieving husband to me.
Yeah, he perked up right away, didn't he?
ReplyDeleteDid this interview say that the Tate's were sued too? I can't hear it right now. If so, that's unfair, but Roman would've been the responsible one. I wonder if he and Sharon both signed the lease?
"Altobelli was upset with Roman for doing that Life Magazine layout, showing all the bloody carpet, etc. He said that it hurt his chances of selling the house." - katie
ReplyDeleteAnd maybe Rudy was upset with other things that went on in that house when Roman and Sharon were away. In any case, Brie and Lisa should re-focus their anger.
Great picture of Sharon and Jay which I had never seen before. Had you, Venus?
Thanks, katie.
L.S.,
ReplyDeleteRudy would have been within his rights to sue the person(s) whose names were on the rental agreement. The lessee is responsible for the condition of any property they lease unless the agreement specifically excludes that. This would include damages incurred as a result of a criminal act.
Now, I have always said that there are two courts in which to live your life. The first, of course, is the court of law. Those laws in which we, as a society function and operate. The second, and many times, more meaningful to society, is the court of public opinion. You can be right in the eyes of the law, but wrong in the eyes of the public.
In this case, Rudy would have been legally in the right to seek damages for repairs. But, as we see here, it does not always set well.
Thanks for your input, Dilligaf.
ReplyDeleteAs always, your information makes perfect sense, and is exceptionally well stated...
Thanks Dill. That's basically what I said. He did what he was entitled to do, but he could've done it in a better way.
ReplyDeleteYes, Carol, that's a cute pic isn't it? They were a nice couple, very photogenic.
ReplyDeleteVenus, the interview said that the Tate family was sued, but I don't believe that. Roman and Sharon signed the lease. Altobelli was upset with Roman that Gibby & Voytek were living there, as he didn't approve that. You'll remember that Altobelli left the country in March of 1969 when Sharon did, so he wouldn't have had any idea that people were living there that weren't on the lease.
ReplyDeleteI bought the book today and have gotten thru about 30 pages or so. I really hope I haven't wasted my money on this. I really don't want to read about a slanted view....so far it's interesting.
I'd really like to know how Patti or Doris or anyone else knew exactly what Sharon was feeling before her death unless Sharon told them herself and it was passed down. Maybe that will be revealed later in the book.
Hi Carol. No I hadn't seen that pic of Sharon & Jay. It was a good one.
ReplyDeleteIn the book there are some photos of Sharon and her parents I've never seen. That's good stuff.
If I had my grubby little mitts on the book (ok, my mitts are always clean as I'm rather fussy!), I'd be flipping back and forth as fast as my fingers could move the pages. LOL I can't wait to read the book!
ReplyDeleteThanks for filling me in, Katie!
Hi Mr. Dill! Thanks for your legal-eze. LOL.
ReplyDeleteIf I put myself in Altobelli's shoes, I guess I might have been desperate for reparation myself. Disbarring the grief of victims' families, should he be the one stuck with the cost of repairing the damaged house? It certainly wasn't his fault.
Maybe he was thinking at the time that since Roman had been so haphazard as to let Gibby & Voytek live there, that he should somehow be responsible for any damage incurred as a result?
Remember, at the time, tongues were wagging about all the drug-fueled sex orgies that Voytek was instigating, and how that might be the cause of the murders.
Venus, I will reveal one thing that I've read so far. Something I've always suspected.
ReplyDeleteSharon was REALLY tired of Roman's womanizing and when she decided to move into Patty Duke's house, she told Roman he could move there with her or just get lost.
WOW!! Who had she told this to? I'm coming over to read the book with you. Get out the popcorn and Dr. Pepper!
ReplyDelete>>>WOW!! Who had she told this to? I'm coming over to read the book with you. Get out the popcorn and Dr. Pepper!>>>
ReplyDeleteHA HA HA. Venus, Do the secret knock so I'll know it's you.
I just bought a 12 pack of Dr. Pepper. Will chips & queso do? LOL.
Was Patty Duke's house before or after Sharon and Roman were married?
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know why Brie Ford changed her name to Brie Tate?
ReplyDeleteBobby, it didn't specify in the book, but I'm thinking it's sometime in 1968. Sharon had befriended Patty Duke when they made Valley of the Dolls, and Patty knew she was looking for a house and offered Sharon & Roman her house, as Patty and her husband had separated.
ReplyDeleteI do know that she told Sharon later on that she had to sell the house, probably in late 1968, early 1969. That's when Sharon & Roman moved back to a hotel and started looking for a house. She finally found Cielo Drive.
Hi Carol, Patty Duke's house was after Sharon & Ro-man married.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why Brie changed her name, except maybe for the book????
Thanks, katie. I thought Patty Duke's house was before they got married, so I was wrong. It bothers me that Brie changed her last name to Tate. I don't know why.
ReplyDeleteCarol I really don't know why Brie changed her name to Tate. Maybe to keep the family name going? I'm not sure. Col Tate didn't have any sons to carry the name on. Maybe?
ReplyDeleteSharon & Roman were living the lives of nomads, moving from place to place, and Sharon was really getting tired of it. As she said "I want to have a return address".
She wanted to be closer to her family in the states instead of globe trotting. Roman didn't like that at all. He made a comment in the past that "he never considered a residence in the states as permanent". He didn't want to be tied down. Not to an address...nor to a person.
They first rented a house at the beach, and then rented Patty Duke's house. Then Cielo Drive. In between these rentals, they stayed at hotels. And Sharon really got tired of it. I don't blame her. It's not much fun living in a hotel room.
katie, ironically, if they had continued living like nomads in hotels, Sharon's life may have been saved.
ReplyDeleteCarol that maybe true. But it goes back to Roman....did he want her gone for good? And if so, would it have mattered where she lived? I really think she was at the point to be rid of him. She had tried and tried to change him, and I think she was just tired of it all.
ReplyDeleteIn everything I've read about Roman, he was out for himself. I really don't think he's capable of loving anyone, including himself.
Just my opinion.
As for the Drunktionary, she didn't mention my type. The mean drunk. That be me.
ReplyDeleteCheck that...that USED to be me. Now I'm just a plain ole boring drunk. HA HA.
katie, I think someone already asked, but I'll ask again: Does anyone know what Doris and Patti thought of Roman? Does "Restless Souls" reveal what their feelings toward him were?
ReplyDeleteCarol, I've only gotten into the first 30 pages or so of the book, but it does reveal 2 things so far.
ReplyDeletePatti mentions that she was not close to Debra at all, versus her relationship with her idol Sharon. She doesn't explain why, except that they were too close in age and Debra was being a "teenager".
Also, it's mentioned that after the murders, they didn't even see Roman until Sharon's funeral, which I find odd. I haven't gotten far enough into it to find out more about that.
I'm hoping it will be revealed why they waited 10 years after Sharon's birth to have more children. Don't know that either.
Katie...
ReplyDeleteEveryone is on there somewhere.
You're at 8:40... of video #3!
LMFBO!!!!
In answer to your first question, it doesn't reveal any of the feelings that Doris, et al, had for Roman yet. I'm hoping that as the book goes on, it will reveal a lot more about that. :)
ReplyDeleteLynyrd do you mean "crazy drunks" that could eat a blind man's face at 8:59? HA HA HA.
ReplyDeleteYup...
ReplyDeleteTHAT'S the ONE!
AHahahaha
The description, actually starts at 8:40...
ReplyDeleteLynyrd, you're scaring our customers away. Get outta here. HA HA HA.
ReplyDeleteI always hate the freakin' chick at 3:46, of the 2nd video... the "good friend".
ReplyDeleteThere's one of those freaks, at every party!
LOLOL
Sorry Ladies...
ReplyDeleteDon't mind me.
I'm an expert, at de-railing my own threads. LOL
Carry-on!
Then again, Katie...
ReplyDeleteHow do you know, Carol is not watching the videos right now... in order to participate, in the fun?
Eh... probably not, huh?
LOL
Okay, the little hand is on the 10 and the big hand is on the 46. Time for all squares to flake out.
ReplyDeleteNight night!
"Eh... probably not, huh?" - Lynyrd
ReplyDeleteYou're right, I'm not!
LOL
ReplyDeleteOh well...
Slip those drunks a fistful of Xanax..That'll shut em' up...
ReplyDeleteThanks for the tip! LOL
ReplyDeleteDisillusioned...I'm going to call you Dis.
ReplyDelete>>>Slip those drunks a fistful of Xanax..That'll shut em' up...>>>
But then we'd all be drug addicts. LOL.
Okay in reading further in the book, it's stated by Doris that the ESTATE of Sharon Tate was sued by Altobelli. She is describing all the terrible things being said about the victims right after the murders and how their sadistic activities brought on their deaths. Altobelli felt that the destruction wrought upon his investment property was their fault and wanted restitution.
ReplyDeleteSince Sharon didn't leave a will, naming each beneficiary and stating who got what, it all was regarded as "an estate".
Mr. Dill...am I right?
According to Doris, he only ended up getting around $4,000 from Sharon's estate when all was said and done.
I just read a part in the book where Paul Tate is wondering who in the world could have committed these murders, and he thought of Roman hiring an assassin. He says he didn't really know much of anything about Roman and went on to remember the first time he met him. Suffice it to say, the meeting didn't go well.
ReplyDeleteHmmm.....
Katie,
ReplyDeleteIf you die without a will or trust, you die intestate, at which time the distribution of your estate (everything you owned)is handled via intestate succession. Now this will vary from state to state so check your own state's statutes, but survivors will file with the court, seekinng distribution. Spouse, children, other living relatives, et al, and then creditors. Rudy appears to have been at the tail end of the distribution if his claim was for 250K and he only received 4K.
But, what were his actual damages? The clean-up of crime scenes is expensive, but 40 years ago, there were not concerns of bio-contamination anbd the things that go along with it. A couple coats of paint, new carpet, replace a few items and you were considered good to go. It sounds like Rudy was pissed about the magazine reporting and wanted to capitalize on that, add in the balance of the lease if it was not month-to-month, and possible even claim emotional destress from the crime. Speculation on my part there, but I would wager I am not to far off.
Thanks Mr. Dill.
ReplyDeleteYes Rudy was trying to recover punitive damages as well as actual damages.
I'm not sure where the sum of $250,000 that is mentioned in the interview came from. That's not the amount mentioned in the book.
Disillusioned...
ReplyDeleteI just replied to your email.
Check your inbox.
Peace... LS
Thanks Dilligaf!
ReplyDeletekatie, I've always wondered why Doris and Paul Tate and the girls never attended Sharon and Roman's wedding. Their beloved oldest daughter is getting married and they are not there?
ReplyDeleteCarol, I think Sharon & Roman's wedding was a spur of the moment thing. I think they just asked their friends there in England to attend.
ReplyDeleteI find most everything about Sharon & Roman strange.
In reading this book, it's becoming very clear so far how Paul felt about Roman. He didn't like the way he cheated on his daughter, he didn't like the way he treated her and he didn't like the way he was so secretive.
The book goes into detail about how he felt about Roman's lie detector test.
I would recommend this book to people. It really is interesting.
Thanks, katie. I heard, maybe here, that Col. Tate figured out the connection between the Hinman murders and TLB, but the police couldn't be convinced. I've NEVER heard this. I know Col. Tate was investigating the murders and went underground posing as a hippie, but I never heard he actually uncovered anything useful. So far, do you think the book is giving him too much credit?
ReplyDeleteWell Carol, as I'm reading the book, I have to wonder if it's all the complete truth. I really have no idea. These are supposedly writings that Col Tate made that Brie incorporated into this book.
ReplyDeleteI've never heard of there being a connection with anything that he did and solving this case.
Also, Doris made a strange statement, and I hate to be a "doubting Thomas" but I guess I just don't believe everything I read or hear.
She says in the book that she had a dream before the murders, the she and Sharon were sitting in the living room at Cielo Drive and a cowboy came in and stood in front of the fireplace and was really friendly at first, then he pulled out some guns and yelled "you're gonna die". She says she jumped behind the couch when he started shooting, and when she looked around the other side, Sharon was gone and she figured Sharon didn't move fast enough to escape this guy.
She says she dreamed this, but it seems so "out there".
I don't know. Scratching my head on parts of this book.
But...it is interesting reading.
Interesting dream. I've never heard that before. I guess we haven't heard a lot of stuff about the Tate family before. BTW, I meant no disrespect toward Col. Tate.
ReplyDeleteOh I know. I don't mean any disrespect to any of the family. It's just that I don't know if everything that's in this book is the complete truth or an exaggeration of some kind.
ReplyDeleteDoris mentions in the book that when they were living in Italy and Sharon wanted to go back to the states and be an actress, and they finally agreed to let her go, that she had what she thought was a nervous breakdown.
ReplyDeleteShe went to a psychiatrist and told him that she was afraid that her daughter was going to be murdered. He tried to tell her that was very unlikely statistically, but she still wasn't able to function normally until she & Paul returned to the states and she was near Sharon again.
I find that very strange. I worry every time my kids leave until they get back...that's just what mothers do. But I never consider the fact that they will be murdered. I always just worry about traffic accidents.
Why would she worry about Sharon being murdered way back then?
"Why would she worry about Sharon being murdered way back then?" - katie
ReplyDeleteI think it depends on the mother. If I had been as young as Sharon and lived in another country, my mom would be worried that I'd somehow be a victim of foul play. She was just a worrier and I can't imagine how she would have handled it if I had lived in another country! So I guess I don't find Doris' worries so unusual.
Well I guess if Sharon had been Doris' only child, it would be more understandable.
ReplyDeleteBut she had two more minor children to care for, and in her words, she went to a psychiatrist and got sleeping pills and became "unfunctionable".
That's not normal in my opinion. When you have other children that depend on you, to "veg out" because the eldest moved away is not healthy.
The younger children have to become "the parent". And it's just not a healthy outlook for a mother to disregard her younger children because of feelings of fear for the eldest child.
I will say this.
ReplyDeleteIf all this is true, it's understandable to me why Debra went haywire and did that nude spread.
Her parents were both so engrossed with Sharon that they ignored and forgot about her.
She wanted her parents' attention. She wanted to be Sharon because that's the only way to get their attention.
I don't know how Patti fared.
It's like they all died on August 9th, 1969.
Which makes the case against the Manson family even stronger. More deaths tacked to their slate. They should never get out.
Sad....
"That's not normal in my opinion. When you have other children that depend on you, to "veg out" because the eldest moved away is not healthy." - katie
ReplyDeleteWell, like I said, my own mom was a worrier to the nth degree. And maybe part of Doris' concern was due to the fact that Sharon went back to the US to become an actress, not be become a nun!
>>>Carol said: Well, like I said, my own mom was a worrier to the nth degree. And maybe part of Doris' concern was due to the fact that Sharon went back to the US to become an actress, not be become a nun!>>>
ReplyDeleteWell like I said.
If you have younger children to care for, you don't have the luxury of falling apart with pills.
Whether your eldest returned to the states to become a slut or a nun!!!
Carol did your mother have other children?
ReplyDeleteBecause if she did...what became of them?
When you have 3 children, you don't go dig a hole and bury yourself if the first one leaves the nest.
ReplyDeleteYou worry about the eldest and take care of the younger ones.
That's what people do.
But that's not what Doris did.
She buried herself when Sharon left.
THAT'S NOT NORMAL!!!
That leaves the other 2 to wonder what the fuck they did wrong.
Leaves them to wonder why she didn't care about them like she cared about Sharon.
Why don't you love me like you loved Sharon?
You hate me. I hate you too.
If you want to mix in the Jay shit with this, it becomes even more bizarre.
Those girls loved Jay. And he loved them.
But if you want to keep on with Doris' flagellation you are condemning them.
Just stop it.
ReplyDeleteHow would you feel if you're eldest sibling left and your mother took to her bed crying and unable to get up again.
ReplyDeleteWould that make you feel good.
Or would it make you feel inferior?
Carol, answer that question!
Just like Hank Hill says:
ReplyDeleteI'll tell you wut.
There's a lot more to reveal than y'all know. HA HA.
my mother still thinks i'm going to get murdered. of course we lost my brother fourteen years ago- from natural cause-so she has learned that bad things can happen to your kids.
ReplyDeletei think mrs. tate got a lot more emotional support from sharon than she did from her husband or younger daughters. remember sharon was significantly older then her sisters. the colonel seemed like the no nonsense type including emotions, and he was in the military and gone a lot. it was probably sharon and mrs. tate against the world for a long time. mrs. tate most likely would have had a break down when patty and debra moved out as well, but didn't because she was so damaged by sharon's murder.
ReplyDeleteHi Beauders.
ReplyDeleteGreat to see you on the blog, as always.
I'm sorry to hear of your brother's passing.
It's always tough, when a parent loses a child.
Hi Beauders. Thanks for your input.
ReplyDelete>>>mrs. tate most likely would have had a break down when patty and debra moved out as well, but didn't because she was so damaged by sharon's murder.>>>
I would imagine it would be just the opposite. That when a child HAD actually been murdered, THEN you would worry about your other children being murdered. That would make perfect sense to me.
If Sharon had announced "okay I'm moving out and I'm joining a gang and we're going to do drive-bys, drug deals & armed robbery", THEN I could see why Doris would fear for her safety.
But how does moving to Hollywood = being murdered??
Question. If Doris was so "tied to the hip" with Sharon, then why didn't Doris insist that Sharon stay with them upon her return from Europe in July until Roman returned?
ReplyDeleteDoris & Paul both knew that Sharon wasn't happy with Gibby & Voytek living there. They both knew that she was feeling uneasy about it. To me, THAT would signal danger more than anything. Why not act on it THEN?
"Carol did your mother have other children?
ReplyDeleteBecause if she did...what became of them?" - katie
That's an interesting question, katie, because I have two younger siblings and they are fine, as am I. Like I said, my mom was a worrier, but I don't think she worried about my younger siblings as much as she did about me. I have no idea why and she's deceased, so I can't ask her. I think my brother and sister were GLAD she didn't fuss over them or keep tabs on them as much as she did with me. Maybe she knew I would be most "receptive" to her fears - I obeyed her to the nth degree. My brother and sister - not so much.
katie, I never understood why Gibby and Voytek were living with Sharon in the first place. Does the book say if Sharon was afraid to be left alone? Maybe Sharon did't want to live with her parents until Roman came back because she would have felt stifled - living under her parents' roof, having two young sisters still at home, etc. At Cielo she could do what she wanted and invite whom she wanted to her home. I just don't get why Gibby and Voytek had to be with her.
ReplyDeleteCarol, Gibby & Voytek were living there because Roman asked them to stay with Sharon until he returned.
ReplyDeleteSharon felt uneasy with them living there because of the bad company she felt that Voytek kept. Sharon asked Roman to get rid of them. Evidently, he didn't do it.
Paul mentions in the book that he felt guilty after Sharon's murder because she had already voiced her concerns about Voytek & Gibby living there and he felt like he should have forced the issue and made them leave.
Of course, this was before he found out who killed everyone and the press and lots of other people were playing the blame game, blaming Voytek, Gibby & Jay mostly.
I'm just surprised at Doris, if she was that concerned for Sharon's safety, that she didn't just INSIST that Sharon move in with them whether she liked it or not. At least until Roman returned.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I've been wondering about that for years.
"Carol, Gibby & Voytek were living there because Roman asked them to stay with Sharon until he returned." - katie
ReplyDeleteI've read that many times, but I don't understand it. Do you know if Sharon was afraid to live alone in that house? Is that why Roman wanted his friends to live there until he returned? It seems like Sharon was just intimidated by Roman. Sharon had moved away from her parents in Italy and obviously was an independent person in that way. I'm surprised she didn't say to Roman, Get these people out of my house or I will have my father come and throw them out!
I don't think Sharon was afraid to live alone in the house.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking that Roman had asked Voytek & Gibby to stay in the Cielo Drive home to look after things while he and Sharon were in Europe. Then when Sharon returned home she decided she wanted them out.
The book goes into more description about her feelings. She told her parents that strangers were constantly coming in and out and she didn't like it. She wanted them (mostly Voytek) gone.
I think that Roman had told her he'd take care of it but I guess he didn't follow thru. Maybe he didn't want to hurt Voytek's feelings...who knows.
Thanks, katie. I don't know how Sharon put up with everything.
ReplyDeleteI think it can be summed up like this: Roman had no respect for Sharon and didn't really care what her feelings were. She'd made it clear that she wanted them gone and he didn't tell them to leave even though they had a house of their own. So--why didn't they want to live in their own house? I don't get that either.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Sharon being alone--she had lots of people who loved and cared about her. If she wanted or needed company, she could've gotten it easily. Jay was only a few minutes away and she had lots of friends.
I think it can be summed up like this: Roman had no respect for Sharon and didn't really care what her feelings were. She'd made it clear that she wanted them gone and he didn't tell them to leave even though they had a house of their own. So--why didn't they want to live in their own house? I don't get that either.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Sharon being alone--she had lots of people who loved and cared about her. If she wanted or needed company, she could've gotten it easily. Jay was only a few minutes away and she had lots of friends.
I have no idea why that posted twice.
ReplyDeleteVenus I agree. Roman cared more about himself than he did Sharon. He didn't care what she was feeling. I think that at that time, she was just baggage.
ReplyDeleteRoman didn't need Gibby & Voytek looking after the house. There was a full time caretaker on the property and full time gardeners, what were Gibby & Voytek accomplishing there except having parties.
Big deal if he asked them to leave. It's just a matter of packing their bags and moving back to their Woodstock home. It wasn't a big deal.
Yeah, you'd think that their attitude would've been, "She's back home, we can move to our own house now." But, no, they still stayed. Too weird. I don't get it.
ReplyDeleteVenus, check your e-mail.
ReplyDeleteI will say that I am very PRO-victim. I'm sure everyone in blogland knows that.
ReplyDeleteBut...in reading this book, I'm not going to just swallow it whole like the whale swallowed Jonah.
In questioning parts of the book, I hope that no one thinks I'm trying to put any of the Tate family down.
That's far from my purpose. I'm just trying to sort things out and see if maybe some things were exaggerated.
I don't accept ANY book on this subject without question, including Sanders & Bugliosi. And this is no exception. :)
In reading further in the book, I was reminded of how Sadie decided to squat and take a piss when she was arrested.
ReplyDeleteThe stench of these mongrels rose to heaven to God's nostrils and made even God want to puke.
These misfits of Charles Manson thought they were free...yeah they were free.... of bathing and cleanliness.
I don't know how any man would want to have lain with any of these nasty she-males but I guess it was just like a coy-ote call to nature. Except coyotes smell better.
They were all DISGUSTING!!!
Katie the funk you speak of might kinda be a turn on.. Oh so natural. Well, maybe not so much. Even I'm not that disgusting.. ;)
ReplyDeleteWell Dis, without going into detail, when a woman squats to pee it tends to spray on her feet, and I don't think the scent of Eau De Urine in the desert heat would be particularly enticing. LOL.
ReplyDeleteHopefully when they got these people to Inyo County, they hosed them down with the "Silkwood Shower". HA HA.
ReplyDeleteKaren would be soo proud!..
ReplyDeletekatie, one of the manson women later said that the inyo county officials sprayed them ddt when they arrived at the jail.
ReplyDeleteHi Beauders!
ReplyDelete>>>katie, one of the manson women later said that the inyo county officials sprayed them ddt when they arrived at the jail.>>>
They should have hosed them down and then thrown lye on them. HA HA!
To the majority of you well meaning "buisness minded" commenters, I submit the following: THE POINT is not whether Altobelli had a right to sue or not: BEING AN ASSHOLE had more to do with WHY I'd kick his switch ass for talking out his funky fake ass mouth about how on one hand-loved sharon, but with a letter (official correspondence) SHIT ON THE ONE COUPLE THAT MADE HIS SUGARY ASS FAMOUS FOR THAT SHITBOX. You're all stuffed like he was if you say otherwise.
ReplyDelete