I missed your Star Radio interview again Katie. However, I was curious if you talked about the real Patty Montgomery who lived with her bf with Garretson in the Cielo guest house. Patty Montgomery was the girl who did Garretson's laundry. Garretson threw them out for some reason. I was curious if Krenwinkle met the real Patty Montgomery? It seems very unlikely that Krenwinkle just by accident picked that alias out of thin air.
All ZKrenwinkle did was change the first name to Patti.
Interesting notes about WG who everyone assumes suffers from PTSD when actually he has always been borderline retarded which goes a long way explaining his wierd behavior before and after the murders, his polygraph, etc.
Where else has it ever been claimed that Joel Rostau shorted Jay Sebring of $2000 worth of cocaine on that particular night? Or ever in fact?
starship said... Mr. Poirot: where the hell do you get this stuff?
Interesting notes about WG who everyone assumes suffers from PTSD when actually he has always been borderline retarded which goes a long way explaining his wierd behavior before and after the murders, his polygraph, etc.
Where else has it ever been claimed that Joel Rostau shorted Jay Sebring of $2000 worth of cocaine on that particular night? Or ever in fact(end quote)
Poirot replies:
LOL! Garretson takes the cake doesn't he?
Starship I got that link from what appears to be a pro-Manson site.
the police report on the tate homicides. google it and you can find it or go over to HSF and it is there. it lists out the source (Sebring's receptionist and girlfriend of Joel Rosteau).
note, they (Rosteau and the girlfriend) were also the victims of a home invasion about 4 months before. Two masked men, one a tall fellow who was called 'charles' by the other masked fella. there is a police report on that one also.
and the rosteau apartment where he was the victim of a home invasion was a few minutes from our usual suspect 'Charles' aka Tex. drug burn rip off robbery...sound familiar?
Johnny, can you give us a link to the police report regarding this home invasion? I can't find this mentioned in the first and second Tate homocide reports.
Yes, please provide sources for said home invasion.
The story as it has been told, that Sebring was indeed burned on two grand worth of 'bad' cocaine...is absolutely NOT that he was burned by Rostau...that just doesn't make any sense at all.
And it doesn't make sense that one of the masked men would reveal the other man's name as "Charles", or that any of the Manson family would even wear masks. They never did before that I know of.
i sure could see charles watson wanting to burn a drug dealer who may know him or may worry about being recognized --he lived close by-- so using a mask.
screwing up the drug burn does sound like charles watson. he lived close by. the short guy sounds a bit like a bruce.
That is a great question Katie. As many folks haven't read the book, it is a little frustrating for people as they hear claims without having a chance to read the detail offered by Shreck throughout the book.
So yes, he does cite to the police report. He is fairly explicit in this regard and offers details from same. However, he doesn't include a copy of the police report in the book. I would love it if he would put this police report up on his website or the poly interviews of Amos Russell who worked as the butler to Jay Sebring.
The important thing to remember with the Shreck book is he offers a fair amount of support that does make sense. For example, based off the Tate Homicide report you do believe that Rosteau had a live in girl friend who worked for Jay Sebring, right? Shreck names her, Charlene McCffrey. He gives the date of this earlier event, April 13, 1969. He gives the address of the apartment 840 North Larabee. (At the time, Tex lived at 917 North Larabee.) According to Shreck, in the police report Rosteau is finger printed and booked. He is let out on $5,000 bail. Charlene evidently was cooperative in giving details of the robbery and able to convince the cops that she was just the girlfriend who worked as a receptionist at a hair salon -not a drug dealer- so they let her go.
Does it really seem so far out of left field that Tex tried a drug burn of someone who lived close by? And given that they were so close by he put on a mask? And that given Tex's penchant for violence that he shot the dude as he took off?
Just to make clear, I am not accepting everything that Shreck says on faith. And I have areas in which I need to see more.
So while I can make the earlier leap in logic on the Tex drug burn of Rosteau at his apartment, let me give an example of something that I want to see more support from Shreck.
Per Shreck, the Genovese crime family that was running mail fraud/securities that the mafia had been running out of Kennedy Airport. (I believe that) Basically, the mafia was stealing registered mail and other important cargo that were subsequently fenced. (I believe that) Rosteau served as the LA point of contact for the Genovese Crime Family. Many of the proceeds were used to fund fronts like movie productions, banks, real estates, and maybe a certain hair care operation. (I believe that in theory, but would need to see the connection to Rosteau)
I would like to see the support for this from Shreck. He states that Rosteau was under constant surveillance by government agencies (FBI). (I would like to see his support on this, is it police reports, interviews, etc?).
Of course, we can't ask Rosteau about this as he ended up with a bullet in his head and stuffed in the trunk of a car at Kennedy Airport. Which is a pretty traditional way of disposing bodies back in the 60's/70's for the mafia. (I believe that it isn't a stretch to believe that Rosteau was someone involved in crime).
In the Tate Homicide Report (2), in the discussion where Charlene McCaffrey is interviewed there is a reference made to the home invasion by two men of the apartment she shared with Joel Rosteau.
It offers some detail but it is more summation. However, it tends to provide support that they were the victim of a home invasion robbery (drug related)
Okay Johnny, on page 4 of the 2nd Tate Homicide Report, it says that on April 13, 1969, McCaffery & Rosteau were arrested at his apartment after 2 armed men broke in and shot Rosteau in the foot. The cops searched the apartment and found marijuana, cocaine and hashish, so they were both arrested. McCaffery was later let go.
It doesn't mention that the 2 men were wearing masks or that one was called "Charles".
How do we go from that info to the fact that we know the 2 men were Tex & Bruce????
Katie and all, I promise you all those questions will be answered in due time as Nikolas Schreck as agreed to an EXCLUSIVE with us in TLB Radio. Unlike say, Statman, Schreck isnt running and not answering questions.
I've already spoke with Schreck on the phone and believe me he has your answers.
I am about halfway thru the book. I feel very confident in this book thus far and I urge everyone to try and get a copy asap.
Let me add this...I have read more than one article over the years about masked criminals calling out each others names simply out of habit. So I feel it certainly could've been Bruce and Tex or someone and Tex.
Also, imo, of course Rostau will deny ever being at Cielo. Why believe him on that ?
Great to hear from you!!! I'm looking forward to when you and LC make it back. Cudos on the interview with Mr. Schreck.
You should block off 2 hours for this because there will be lots of questions!!
I have no doubt that Joel would lie. After all he was a drug dealer.
I'm just confused about the masks. They're not mentioned in the police report. Just wondering where that came from. Unless it was mentioned somewhere else. But I'll write that down as a question.
I'm all for new theories, as long as they can be backed up at some point with facts instead of hearsay. We all know that hearsay means next to nothing. It's like playing the game "telephone".
I'm so looking forward to your next radio show! :)
Also, Tex wasn't wearing a mask when he ripped off Lottsapoppa, nor was he wearing a mask at Cielo Drive, if that was indeed a drug burn killing, which I don't think it was.
So why would he wear one at Joel's apartment?
No one was wearing a mask at the LaBianca house.
Bobby wasn't wearing a mask at Gary's house (supposed drug burn...NOT).
I think Mr. Schreck must have watched the movie "The Strangers", which was supposedly loosely based on the Manson murders, which was such a bore it was more interesting to watch paint dry. They all had on stupid masks.
Katie all because Tex didn't where a mask at the later ones doesn't preclude him from wearing one at the Rosteau one in April especially if he lived a few doors away.
also, the Tate report only summarizes the earlier police report. in the earlier police report, you would have statements made by the victims (charlene) as to what they were wearing, any names used, etc. doesn't 'Charles' seem a little formal to be referring to someone during a robbery? the shorter man was the height of Bruce and spoke with his accent. At the time the police didn't pull it together. It is not absolute proof, but Charles and Bruce pulling off a half ass drug burn a few doors down from Watson's apartment does not seem a real stretch to me.
Shreck is clear that he is citing to those April police reports and his discussions with police officers.
Anyway, looking forward to Shreck on Brian's show.
>>>Johnny said: Katie all because Tex didn't where a mask at the later ones doesn't preclude him from wearing one at the Rosteau one in April especially if he lived a few doors away. >>>
Why would he?? Doesn't make sense.
>>> in the earlier police report, you would have statements made by the victims (charlene) as to what they were wearing, any names used, etc. Shreck is clear that he is citing to those reports.>>>
I'm assuming you mean the First Tate Homicide report. I've read that, but will read again.
Johnny, I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Brian.
If these new theories are backed up with facts, I'll hail them like the USS Arizona, which was sunk at Pearl Harbor.
But if not, I'll thumb my nose at them like yesterday's trash.
Johnny, I know you're excited about this guy, and I understand it, but you have to understand something too.
I've been following this case for over 40 years. If this guy Schreck came up with something new, I'm all for it!
But if he's blowing smoke up my ass, then it's thumb's down.
End of Story.
Please know that my opinion of this book has nothing to do with you or Brian.
I just need to know the truth. And I won't buy it just because I like you guys a LOT.
not a problem katie. most of my friends think i am crazy. agree to disagree is fine with me. all we both want is the truth. i just ain't a helter skelter type.
i am refering to the police report that the police did back in april of 1969 as a result of the home invasion drug burn rip off.
in regards to wearing a mask, i can't lay it out any more then i have.
until you read the book, you are at a real disadvantage.
Thanks Brian! I can't wait to get the radio show back to "normal" with you and LC in attendance. LOL. I know everyone in the chat room feels the same way.
I'm definitely down for the Schreck interview. I'm looking forward to it! Do you have a date scheduled?
katie apology accepted. i feel fairly confident on why i am making the leap of faith regarding tex and the drug burns. i have a huge advantage over you, i actually read the book.
second, i also detailed areas in this thread in which i wasn't comfortable making leaps of faith absent additional support.
i just didn't care for the swipe at me and then having the thread shut down. but that is all water under the bridge at this point.
lets move on. looking forward to the shreck interview.
Johnny you're right. You have outlined the parts you really like and other parts you might question.
And I haven't read the book so all I've seen is a blurb here and a quote there, so I really don't have the knowledge to really know much about this book.
I don't even know where Shreck lives. I've been told that the book is not available in the USA, so I'm assuming he lives abroad.
I'm looking forward to the interview too to get a better prospective of what he's talking about.
Also I think I misunderstood what you were saying. Did you say there's a police report dated in April 1969 regarding this break in at Rosteau's house? That report I haven't seen or read so I don't know what it says.
Rostau sounds like the equivilant to the girl with the big floppy hat in the Jeffrey Msdonald murders. (this is the woman who had nothing to do with the murders yet Mcdonald said she did)
Hi Katie yes, there is a separate police report for the April incident. later in the Tate Homicide Report, they summarize the earlier incident but because it is only a summary it doesn't have the info packed into the April report. rather it is only a brief outline.
in the Shreck book, he has this April report and he gives a number of details as to what happened etc based off this police report.
now i haven't seen the April police report. but they did charge Rosteau and he was subsequently released on $5000 bail.
" MrPoirot said... Rostau sounds like the equivilant to the girl with the big floppy hat in the Jeffrey Msdonald murders. (this is the woman who had nothing to do with the murders yet Mcdonald said she did)
katie here is something interesting about joel rosteau. looks like in late 69 he filed some insurance claims that were denied. he subsequently sued but before he could get in court he died. the insurers then got it dismissed as he was deceased. a couple years later, his executrix was able to get the claims reinstated. this was all done in california. the executrix was a pricilla miranda. wonder if she was someone who knew joel rosteau or just someone who was serving this role. if priscilla knew joel personally and is still around. who knows what she might recall about joel rosteau.
Wow that's interesting Johnny. He filed claims for lost jewelry? Something tells me this guy liked to look good.
Was Priscilla successful? I wonder if she did know him. I don't know anything about the legal process. Would the court just appoint someone to be an executrix?
HA HA HA. Johnny, when I think of Lottsapoppa, I think of a tall black guy strutting his stuff with a big afro, silk shirts, polka dot bell bottoms, black shiny boots, and a big Caddy with fuzzy dice hanging from the rear view with curb feelers.
Okay, maybe I've watched too many episodes of "The Mod Squad". LOLOL.
.gif)
51 comments:
Brian I miss you and LC!!!
I hope you guys come back soon! :)
Miss you volumes.....!
I really do.....!
Katie
You brought to light a little known aspect of the Cielo Drive murders. Looking forward to hearing the show tonight.
PS: Let's hope Brian and LC return soon. It really has become a Sunday night mainstay for the community.
Johnny I hear ya. The radio show is just not the same without Brian & LC! I think when they return the attendance will soar!
I missed your Star Radio interview again Katie. However, I was curious if you talked about the real Patty Montgomery who lived with her bf with Garretson in the Cielo guest house. Patty Montgomery was the girl who did Garretson's laundry. Garretson threw them out for some reason. I was curious if Krenwinkle met the real Patty Montgomery? It seems very unlikely that Krenwinkle just by accident picked that alias out of thin air.
All ZKrenwinkle did was change the first name to Patti.
It is definantly a strange factoid you uncovered.
Poirot...
The content of Katie's interview, is found here:
http://www.lsb3.com/2011/10/could-garretson-have-known-pat-katie.html
(I figured I'd save Katie time, re-explaining)
Thanks Lynyrd. I somehow missed that topic you posted.
BTW I listened to Garretson's tortuous interview twice in the podcasr at Star Radio and Garretson is adamant that he never knew any of the killers.
But it's obvious that somehow Krenwinkle knew of Patty Montgomery's short residency at the Cielo guest house.
http://mansonatwar.tumblr.com/post/15736714787/why-did-william-garretson-change-his-story-he-was
Mr. Poirot: where the hell do you get this stuff?
Interesting notes about WG who everyone assumes suffers from PTSD when actually he has always been borderline retarded which goes a long way explaining his wierd behavior before and after the murders, his polygraph, etc.
Where else has it ever been claimed that Joel Rostau shorted Jay Sebring of $2000 worth of cocaine on that particular night? Or ever in fact?
starship said...
Mr. Poirot: where the hell do you get this stuff?
Interesting notes about WG who everyone assumes suffers from PTSD when actually he has always been borderline retarded which goes a long way explaining his wierd behavior before and after the murders, his polygraph, etc.
Where else has it ever been claimed that Joel Rostau shorted Jay Sebring of $2000 worth of cocaine on that particular night? Or ever in fact(end quote)
Poirot replies:
LOL! Garretson takes the cake doesn't he?
Starship I got that link from what appears to be a pro-Manson site.
the police report on the tate homicides. google it and you can find it or go over to HSF and it is there. it lists out the source (Sebring's receptionist and girlfriend of Joel Rosteau).
note, they (Rosteau and the girlfriend) were also the victims of a home invasion about 4 months before. Two masked men, one a tall fellow who was called 'charles' by the other masked fella.
there is a police report on that one also.
and the rosteau apartment where he was the victim of a home invasion was a few minutes from our usual suspect 'Charles' aka Tex.
drug burn rip off robbery...sound familiar?
Johnny, can you give us a link to the police report regarding this home invasion? I can't find this mentioned in the first and second Tate homocide reports.
Yes, please provide sources for said home invasion.
The story as it has been told, that Sebring was indeed burned on two grand worth of 'bad' cocaine...is absolutely NOT that he was burned by Rostau...that just doesn't make any sense at all.
And it doesn't make sense that one of the masked men would reveal the other man's name as "Charles", or that any of the Manson family would even wear masks. They never did before that I know of.
Sunday August 29th?
Sunday August 29th?
sorry, the rosteau home invasion report is one i have not seen. only referenced in the shreck book.
the sebring being the victim of a rip off is in the second tate homicide report.
sorry mistyped.
sebring's receptionist didn't say rosteau burned sebring from drugs.
she was saying jay had told her he had been burned for 2k of drugs and that he was mad.
as for manson family members wearing masks, this goes more to tex and his free lancing ways vis a vi drug burns. maybe it was another charles.
i sure could see charles watson wanting to burn a drug dealer who may know him or may worry about being recognized --he lived close by-- so using a mask.
screwing up the drug burn does sound like charles watson. he lived close by. the short guy sounds a bit like a bruce.
Johnny, if Schrek doesn't offer proof of the home invasion, how do you know it even happened?
That is a great question Katie.
As many folks haven't read the book, it is a little frustrating for people as they hear claims without having a chance to read the detail offered by Shreck throughout the book.
So yes, he does cite to the police report. He is fairly explicit in this regard and offers details from same. However, he doesn't include a copy of the police report in the book. I would love it if he would put this police report up on his website or the poly interviews of Amos Russell who worked as the butler to Jay Sebring.
The important thing to remember with the Shreck book is he offers a fair amount of support that does make sense. For example, based off the Tate Homicide report you do believe that Rosteau had a live in girl friend who worked for Jay Sebring, right?
Shreck names her, Charlene McCffrey. He gives the date of this earlier event, April 13, 1969. He gives the address of the apartment 840 North Larabee. (At the time, Tex lived at 917 North Larabee.)
According to Shreck, in the police report Rosteau is finger printed and booked. He is let out on $5,000 bail. Charlene evidently was cooperative in giving details of the robbery and able to convince the cops that she was just the girlfriend who worked as a receptionist at a hair salon -not a drug dealer- so they let her go.
Does it really seem so far out of left field that Tex tried a drug burn of someone who lived close by? And given that they were so close by he put on a mask? And that given Tex's penchant for violence that he shot the dude as he took off?
Just to make clear, I am not accepting everything that Shreck says on faith. And I have areas in which I need to see more.
So while I can make the earlier leap in logic on the Tex drug burn of Rosteau at his apartment, let me give an example of something that I want to see more support from Shreck.
Per Shreck, the Genovese crime family that was running mail fraud/securities that the mafia had been running out of Kennedy Airport. (I believe that) Basically, the mafia was stealing registered mail and other important cargo that were subsequently fenced. (I believe that) Rosteau served as the LA point of contact for the Genovese Crime Family. Many of the proceeds were used to fund fronts like movie productions, banks, real estates, and maybe a certain hair care operation. (I believe that in theory, but would need to see the connection to Rosteau)
I would like to see the support for this from Shreck. He states that Rosteau was under constant surveillance by government agencies (FBI).
(I would like to see his support on this, is it police reports, interviews, etc?).
Of course, we can't ask Rosteau about this as he ended up with a bullet in his head and stuffed in the trunk of a car at Kennedy Airport. Which is a pretty traditional way of disposing bodies back in the 60's/70's for the mafia. (I believe that it isn't a stretch to believe that Rosteau was someone involved in crime).
In the Tate Homicide Report (2), in the discussion where Charlene McCaffrey is interviewed there is a reference made to the home invasion by two men of the apartment she shared with Joel Rosteau.
It offers some detail but it is more summation. However, it tends to provide support that they were the victim of a home invasion robbery (drug related)
Okay Johnny, on page 4 of the 2nd Tate Homicide Report, it says that on April 13, 1969, McCaffery & Rosteau were arrested at his apartment after 2 armed men broke in and shot Rosteau in the foot. The cops searched the apartment and found marijuana, cocaine and hashish, so they were both arrested. McCaffery was later let go.
It doesn't mention that the 2 men were wearing masks or that one was called "Charles".
How do we go from that info to the fact that we know the 2 men were Tex & Bruce????
It goes on to say that Rosteau denied ever being at Cielo Drive prior to the murders.
So where does the story come from about him delivering drugs on August 8th to Jay?
Katie and all, I promise you all those questions will be answered in due time as Nikolas Schreck as agreed to an EXCLUSIVE with us in TLB Radio. Unlike say, Statman, Schreck isnt running and not answering questions.
I've already spoke with Schreck on the phone and believe me he has your answers.
I am about halfway thru the book. I feel very confident in this book thus far and I urge everyone to try and get a copy asap.
Let me add this...I have read more than one article over the years about masked criminals calling out each others names simply out of habit. So I feel it certainly could've been Bruce and Tex or someone and Tex.
Also, imo, of course Rostau will deny ever being at Cielo. Why believe him on that ?
((((((((((((BRIAN)))))))))))))!!!
Great to hear from you!!! I'm looking forward to when you and LC make it back. Cudos on the interview with Mr. Schreck.
You should block off 2 hours for this because there will be lots of questions!!
I have no doubt that Joel would lie. After all he was a drug dealer.
I'm just confused about the masks. They're not mentioned in the police report. Just wondering where that came from. Unless it was mentioned somewhere else. But I'll write that down as a question.
I'm all for new theories, as long as they can be backed up at some point with facts instead of hearsay. We all know that hearsay means next to nothing. It's like playing the game "telephone".
I'm so looking forward to your next radio show! :)
Also, Tex wasn't wearing a mask when he ripped off Lottsapoppa, nor was he wearing a mask at Cielo Drive, if that was indeed a drug burn killing, which I don't think it was.
So why would he wear one at Joel's apartment?
No one was wearing a mask at the LaBianca house.
Bobby wasn't wearing a mask at Gary's house (supposed drug burn...NOT).
I think Mr. Schreck must have watched the movie "The Strangers", which was supposedly loosely based on the Manson murders, which was such a bore it was more interesting to watch paint dry. They all had on stupid masks.
Inquiring minds want to know. LOL.
(I removed the last one due to operator error)
Katie
all because Tex didn't where a mask at the later ones doesn't preclude him from wearing one at the Rosteau one in April especially if he lived a few doors away.
also, the Tate report only summarizes the earlier police report. in the earlier police report, you would have statements made by the victims (charlene) as to what they were wearing, any names used, etc. doesn't 'Charles' seem a little formal to be referring to someone during a robbery? the shorter man was the height of Bruce and spoke with his accent. At the time the police didn't pull it together. It is not absolute proof, but Charles and Bruce pulling off a half ass drug burn a few doors down from Watson's apartment does not seem a real stretch to me.
Shreck is clear that he is citing to those April police reports and his discussions with police officers.
Anyway, looking forward to Shreck on Brian's show.
>>>Johnny said: Katie
all because Tex didn't where a mask at the later ones doesn't preclude him from wearing one at the Rosteau one in April especially if he lived a few doors away. >>>
Why would he?? Doesn't make sense.
>>> in the earlier police report, you would have statements made by the victims (charlene) as to what they were wearing, any names used, etc. Shreck is clear that he is citing to those reports.>>>
I'm assuming you mean the First Tate Homicide report. I've read that, but will read again.
Johnny, I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Brian.
If these new theories are backed up with facts, I'll hail them like the USS Arizona, which was sunk at Pearl Harbor.
But if not, I'll thumb my nose at them like yesterday's trash.
Johnny, I know you're excited about this guy, and I understand it, but you have to understand something too.
I've been following this case for over 40 years. If this guy Schreck came up with something new, I'm all for it!
But if he's blowing smoke up my ass, then it's thumb's down.
End of Story.
Please know that my opinion of this book has nothing to do with you or Brian.
I just need to know the truth. And I won't buy it just because I like you guys a LOT.
"A picture is worth more than 1000 words."
:)
Johnny the police report didn't mention any masks about the 2 gunmen in April 1969.
Why are we even discussing masks?
There were no masks!
not a problem katie.
most of my friends think i am crazy. agree to disagree is fine with me. all we both want is the truth. i just ain't a helter skelter type.
i am refering to the police report that the police did back in april of 1969 as a result of the home invasion drug burn rip off.
in regards to wearing a mask, i can't lay it out any more then i have.
until you read the book, you are at a real disadvantage.
Baby-doll, unless the police report says they were wearing masks, I disregard it.
I've only got a few more seconds until the comments are gone.
You're a young guy and easily fooled.
Please don't buy into anything that's not proven. That's all I'm asking.
I've been following this case for over 40 years. I know whereof I speak.
Night Johnny! We'll take this up anon.
Katie !!!! , lol ! Thank you for all those nice comments. I went and backread and you are just too kind :)
LC and I miss you and everyone as well !
And I understand the skeptism. We will want those questions you have.
I had basically the same questions and Schreck didnt mind answering anything I had during our phoner.
And he answered them all more than satisfactory.
And I'd like to say, I, for one, am not trying to persuade or not.
I am only going to put it out there with Mr. Schreck for all to decide on yourselves.
One thing I feel for sure, agree or disgree, this book is going to be the next book of TLB, that is why I do urge people to get it somehow.
I think we can all agree that anyone interested in TLB should certainly get Bugliosi's HS.
Thats the caliber of Schrecks book, The Manson File: Myth And Reality Of An Outlaw Shaman.
So great to "see" you again ! And thank you Katie for all.
Thanks Brian! I can't wait to get the radio show back to "normal" with you and LC in attendance. LOL. I know everyone in the chat room feels the same way.
I'm definitely down for the Schreck interview. I'm looking forward to it! Do you have a date scheduled?
Sorry Johnny, I certainly didn't mean to insult you. All I meant was that young people sometimes take things at face value.
I think you're a really smart guy.
katie
apology accepted.
i feel fairly confident on why i am making the leap of faith regarding tex and the drug burns. i have a huge advantage over you, i actually read the book.
second, i also detailed areas in this thread in which i wasn't comfortable making leaps of faith absent additional support.
i just didn't care for the swipe at me and then having the thread shut down. but that is all water under the bridge at this point.
lets move on. looking forward to the shreck interview.
Johnny you're right. You have outlined the parts you really like and other parts you might question.
And I haven't read the book so all I've seen is a blurb here and a quote there, so I really don't have the knowledge to really know much about this book.
I don't even know where Shreck lives. I've been told that the book is not available in the USA, so I'm assuming he lives abroad.
I'm looking forward to the interview too to get a better prospective of what he's talking about.
Also I think I misunderstood what you were saying. Did you say there's a police report dated in April 1969 regarding this break in at Rosteau's house? That report I haven't seen or read so I don't know what it says.
Rostau sounds like the equivilant to the girl with the big floppy hat in the Jeffrey Msdonald murders. (this is the woman who had nothing to do with the murders yet Mcdonald said she did)
Hi Katie
yes, there is a separate police report for the April incident. later in the Tate Homicide Report, they summarize the earlier incident but because it is only a summary it doesn't have the info packed into the April report. rather it is only a brief outline.
in the Shreck book, he has this April report and he gives a number of details as to what happened etc based off this police report.
now i haven't seen the April police report. but they did charge Rosteau and he was subsequently released on $5000 bail.
" MrPoirot said...
Rostau sounds like the equivilant to the girl with the big floppy hat in the Jeffrey Msdonald murders. (this is the woman who had nothing to do with the murders yet Mcdonald said she did)
August 29, 2012 4:18 PM"
good luck on that jeffrey mcdonald angle, sir.
katie
here is something interesting about joel rosteau. looks like in late 69 he filed some insurance claims that were denied. he subsequently sued but before he could get in court he died. the insurers then got it dismissed as he was deceased. a couple years later, his executrix was able to get the claims reinstated. this was all done in california.
the executrix was a pricilla miranda. wonder if she was someone who knew joel rosteau or just someone who was serving this role. if priscilla knew joel personally and is still around. who knows what she might recall about joel rosteau.
http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp3d/50/492.html
Wow that's interesting Johnny. He filed claims for lost jewelry? Something tells me this guy liked to look good.
Was Priscilla successful? I wonder if she did know him. I don't know anything about the legal process. Would the court just appoint someone to be an executrix?
Dill...what do you think?
I wonder if Joel walked around with lots of gold chains around his neck, lots of gold rings and a big hat with a feather. LOL.
lmao
it WAS the 60's and what self respecting drug dealer didn't have those kind of 'cool threads' ...
HA HA HA. Johnny, when I think of Lottsapoppa, I think of a tall black guy strutting his stuff with a big afro, silk shirts, polka dot bell bottoms, black shiny boots, and a big Caddy with fuzzy dice hanging from the rear view with curb feelers.
Okay, maybe I've watched too many episodes of "The Mod Squad". LOLOL.
here is Lotsa Poppa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98IksW5zFLs
Thanks Johnny!!! :)
Post a Comment