When police officers arrived at the Tate house on the morning of August 9, they noticed damage to the fence bordering the parking lot.
From the Tate Homicide Progress Report:
"Officers noted that the split-rail fence which runs to the north of the garage area was broken, and that scrape marks appeared, on the curb directly in front of the split-rail fence. The scrape marks and the break in the split-rail fence appeared fresh. A search of the undercarriage of Parent's car revealed similar scrape marks and concrete transfer. The rear bumper of the car also showed white paint transfer similar to that as on the split-rail fence."
The picture below shows the parking area of the Tate house. The broken fence is in the background.
http://cielodrive.com/photo-archive/...riveway-03.php
Below is a picture showing damage to the fence.
http://cielodrive.com/photo-archive/...oken-fence.php
Below is a picture showing Parent’s car in front of the garage and next to cut telephone lines.
http://cielodrive.com/photo-archive/...riveway-02.php
The question I have in my mind is how and when did the damage to the fence occur?
Thread submitted by William Weston.
216 comments:
1 – 200 of 216 Newer› Newest»The links in this post don't work for me, it just says "file not found". I had this problem once before in a post when I tried to link to CieloDrive. That site must use some type of anti linking program, probably for copyright protection.
I have seen those photos before though. Exactly what happened in the Parent attack is kind of "sketchy". I think Watson said in his book when he seen the car coming down the driveway he stood in front of it and said "Halt". After that, it's not very clear. I suspect if Parent seen a figure in front of him with a bayonet in one hand, a pistol in the other, and a rope over his shoulder, he may have tried to flee quickly. Or, if Watson stuck the pistol in the drivers side window, Parent might have tried to flee. If I remember correctly, the damage was to the back of Parent's car, indicating he might have been in reverse. It's also possible Parent might have been shot and was dying when he attempted to flee.
I think either Watson or the girls said Watson put the car in neutral and they pushed out from in front of the main gate. I guess so it wouldn't be obvious to any other car that might have came or went while they continued their murder spree.
Atkins testimony:
Q: What did the male voice say?
A: "Please don't hurt me, I won't say anything." And I heard a gunshot and I heard another gunshot and another one and another one.
Q: You heard four gunshots?
A: Yes.
Q: What happened next?
A: Tex came back to us and told us to come on. I saw him go to the car, which was not parked here. At the time, it was over here. [Referring to a diagram.]
Q: It was parked closer to the gate than it is right now on the diagram?
A: Yes, he reached inside, turned off the lights, and then proceeded to push the car to where it is parked here.
Q: On the diagram?
A: Yes.
I don't remember exactly if the damage was to the front or rear of the car and I don't have time to look it up now. However, I expect it was caused by an attempt to flee. I don't know if it occurred before or after Parent was shot. If I remember correctly the car was found the next day with a radio sitting on top. I suspect Watson or one of the girls placed it there.
I notice that there was a discussion of the fence in 2015 on this blog. Gary Stewart posted some pictures of the fence. I have copied and pasted the link.
http://www.lsb3.com/2015/02/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html
Little was said in that discussion about the scrape marks on the undercarriage of Parent’s car caused by the curb or the white paint marks from the fence. So I think it is worth going back over this again.
Considering the amount of damage to the fence, I would think that the rear tires had to jump the curb to hit the fence with sufficient impact. Considering the slope on the other side, the rear wheels might not have had the traction needed to get back on the pavement, leaving the car stuck on the curb.
Another point I had in mind is whether or not the broken fence could be seen from Sharon’s bedroom window. If Parent was scared and trying to flee from Tex by putting his car into reverse, I would think the noise of the car smashing into the fence would have alerted the occupants of the house and they would rush to the windows to see what happened. Instead from what I read in the Manson books, the occupants were apparently unaware of anything amiss in the parking area. Sharon continued to converse with Jay undisturbed and Abigail continued reading her book in her bedroom. Frykowski of course was asleep on the couch.
Are you referring to the RHINO RECORDS Gary Stewart?!
If so - he just passed a few days ago. Wonderful human being! The LA underground music scene is mourning hid death in a BIG way
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/gary-stewart-tribute-rhino-records-david-fricke-822679/amp/
I doubt Steven Parents murder could have been seen from Sharon Tate's bedroom window and maybe not even heard. There were apparently 4 gunshots and even that didn't seem to disturb the occupants in the main house. Plus, the fence was made of wood, so that might not have made a lot of noise when the car hit it. The curb does look high and slope steep. How the car got out of the fence to where it was found, I don't know.
It's my understanding Sharon Tate's bedroom as well as Abigail Folger's bedrooms were at the opposite end of the house from where the Parent murder took place. There were apparently 2 bedrooms at the end of the house with the pool and the guest house, containing Tate, Sebring and Folger, I don't think anyone was in the bedroom at the other end nearest the gate. Apparently, the next morning Winifred Chapman walked right past the car with Parent's body in it and didn't even notice it on the way in.
This link may or may not work, I had to zoom to see it clearly--http://cdn.house-crazy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Cielo-Drive-actual-blueprints-.jpg
sunset77 said
"I think Watson said in his book when he seen the car coming down the driveway he stood in front of it and said "Halt". After that, it's not very clear. I suspect if Parent seen a figure in front of him with a bayonet in one hand, a pistol in the other, and a rope over his shoulder, he may have tried to flee quickly."
Your idea of Parent trying to flee seems to call for him getting shot at the broken fence. This goes against the combined accounts of Tex, Linda, Susan, Katie who said that was he was shot near the gate. That's a major problem, as I see it.
I personally think that everyone reads stuff into everything. That's why nobody can agree with anything on this subject.
Steve Parent parked his car in the parking area near the garage when he came on the property. He walked down the lower walk to the Guest House to see Garrettson to sell the clock radio.
A lot of people say he wasn't there to sell a clock radio, just to hook up for gay sex, but I think he actually went there to sell a clock radio. The clock radio was found in his car.
Steve Parent left the Guest House at approximately 12:15am, walked down the lower path and got into his car, intending to leave. We aren't sure of the exact parking he did. It was a big area. He probably parked somewhat behind Jay's Porsche or in that area, not to block him in, I would assume because he wasn't going to be there long. When he started his car and backed up, he probably saw Tex coming toward him, and saw that he was armed. I would imagine that would throw him off and he backed into the fence. Then put the car in drive, hoping to just drive off the property, but that was when he was stopped by Tex.
He probably stopped to try and reason with the guy, because who would be expecting an armed guy walking up the drive?
And I say he probably parked somewhat behind Jay's Porsche because Jay's car was parked on the left side of the drive, and it would make more sense for him to park on the left side because he was walking down the lower path to the Guest House and that was on the left. When he got ready to leave, he probably put the car in reverse and backed left toward the fence in order to turn right and go out the gate. Which is what anyone would do in that situation. And then he saw Tex approaching him.
katie8753 said...
“When he started his car and backed up, he probably saw Tex coming toward him, and saw that he was armed. I would imagine that would throw him off and he backed into the fence. Then put the car in drive, hoping to just drive off the property, but that was when he was stopped by Tex.”
Well, that makes sense.
However, what still bothers me is that the noise of the breaking of the fence did not alert the people inside the house.
I was re-considering the report of Tim Ireland at the Westlake School for girls located at 700 N. Faring Rd. The police report said: "Between 0100 and 0130 Mr. Ireland was awake, alert and watching the sleeping children. He heard a male voice from what seemed to him a long distance away to the north or northeast shout, 'Oh, God, no. Stop. Stop. Oh, God, no, don't'. Ireland said that the scream persisted for approximately 10 seconds. The male voice was clear and he did not notice an accent."
The timeline of Ireland seems 45 minutes to an hour too late for Steve Parent leaving Garretson’s house at 12:15. Perhaps if we change the official timeline. Parent was on the lower walk to go to his car when he hears the sounds of a murderous rampage just starting. He decides to hide for about 45 minutes until he thought the moment was right to make a getaway. Being nervous he backed into the fence. He put the car into drive and drove toward the gate where he was halted by Tex, and was shot then. So the shooting of Parent would be the final act before Tex, Linda, etc. went to their own car.
katie8753 said...
A lot of people say he wasn't there to sell a clock radio, just to hook up for gay sex, but I think he actually went there to sell a clock radio. The clock radio was found in his car
Not only that, William Garretson, without any prompting, informed the Police that this was why he had come. Now, who knows what may have been in Steve Parent's head ? Whatever the speculation is as to why else he may have been at Cielo, the simple fact will remain until we shed this mortal coil, that we do not know if he had ulterior motives. Even if he was there for a bit of slap and tickle, he brought the clock radio in the hope of selling it. How do we know ? Garretson. He spoke of the radio not knowing whether or not it had been taken by whoever had killed Steve. The time he says Steve arrived and left, why he was there and the mentioning of seeing a couple of women in the house and asking who they were added to the radio being found and the time on its clock tend to strengthen this as evidence that indeed, Parent wanted to sell his clock radio.
he probably saw Tex coming toward him, and saw that he was armed. I would imagine that would throw him off and he backed into the fence. Then put the car in drive, hoping to just drive off the property, but that was when he was stopped by Tex
I think he was young, a little merry from his can[s] of Budweiser and looking forward to where he was heading to. Backing into something from a parked position really isn't an uncommon occurrence. Around the same time "Wacky Races" even used to use it as part of their intro.
He probably stopped to try and reason with the guy, because who would be expecting an armed guy walking up the drive?
By the same token, how many people would try to reason with an armed person walking towards them in the dead of night ?
I personally think that everyone reads stuff into everything. That's why nobody can agree with anything on this subject
Sometimes, it's difficult not to.
But you're right, there's a lot of "reading into" where there doesn't need to be. I think that even though all of the perps have histories of lying at some point, you are left with no choice but to read stuff into every happening if you take the view that whatever they said are lies. For me that's somewhat naive. So on the one hand, you have what the perps say happened. Unless there's evidence that actively contradicts their words I'm inclined to go with what they said about what happened at Cielo.
As an aside, isn't it interesting how the same kind of speculation about each and every happening regarding Cielo hardly applies to Waverly ? Maybe a little Tex and Suzan, maybe a little Charlie and Suzan. Nicholas Shreck turned Waverly into a cottage industry of speculation and alternatives but really, other than closer to the time of his book, most of what he set into motion has petered out pretty quickly.
But going back to Cielo, it isn't so much that the perps said things happened that didn't as much as things that the evidence show {or at least points towards} that not all the events that took place have been told. For example there's the old chestnut of the discrepancy between Susan Atkins' description of Sharon's death and what the evidence shows in terms of how many times she was stabbed and where. Interestingly, Susan's description to Howard & Graham when she claims she stabbed Sharon is more consistent with what the police found.
But the main reason people can't agree on lots is the basis for one's view of the case, namely HS and by extension, the prosecutor, Vincent Bugliosi. Take that out of the equation and one would be surprised just how little there is to fight about and how ordinary this case would be.
William Weston said...
Your idea of Parent trying to flee seems to call for him getting shot at the broken fence. This goes against the combined accounts of Tex, Linda, Susan, Katie who said that was he was shot near the gate. That's a major problem, as I see it
I agree. There's absolutely no reason that has ever arrived in almost 50 years that would explain why the perps insisting on where Parent was shot should be a lie. There's nothing it makes any difference to. I know Susan went on to say that their method at trial was to mix lies with the truth but even that is suspect; it is said purely in regards to trying to scotch HS as one of the motives and somehow try to prove she didn't stab Sharon Tate. As such, it makes little sense because in lying about what happened, they did throw in little, inconsequential bits of truth. Nevertheless, an essential part of the story is how Steven Parent came to die and how it set the chain of events into motion. While I don't recall anything Pat ever said about the shooting of Steven, the other three were unanimous in how the headlights suddenly appeared and Tex's actions and the way the whole Parent shooting happened in a flash, so much so that no one actually saw him wielding a knife.
William, the noise of the fence breaking might have been minimal. That house was built in the 40's. That fence probably hadn't been replaced the whole time. Old wood just splits and cracks. That would probably sound like stepping on old wood.
If gun shots didn't wake the people, why would that wake people?
Your timeline of Ireland is interesting, and of course adds to the mystery of this case, but why would all of the perps say that Parent was shot first if that's not what happened.
In fact, wouldn't it make it harder for them to remember, since they were all freaked out drug addicts?
Wouldn't it be easier to remember that Parent was killed first?
Those people calling in that night could have been confused about something else in that canyon.
The killers admitted they killed Parent. Why lie about when? Does that get them leverage?
Since Parent left Garretson’s house at 12:15, the official time of the shooting of Parent must have been shortly after that, perhaps 12:20 at the earliest. He would have seen one man, Tex, and not the three girls, who at the command of Tex hid in the bushes. Before he was shot, he said (according to the Tex Watson book, p. 69) “Please don’t hurt me. I’m your friend. I won’t tell.”
About 40 minutes later, Rudolf Weber saw Tex and the girls at his house washing themselves off with the garden hose at 1:00. Since Weber’s house is two miles from the Tate house, I would estimate that the killers went back over the gate at 12:50.
So from the killing of Parent to the killing of the four people in the house would be 30 minutes at the most. I ask, could they have done all that they are said to have done in that short amount of time?
That 30 minutes includes crawling through the dining room window, waking up Frykowski on the couch, getting Abigail Folger and Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring into the living room, the words exchanged between the killers and the victims prior to the slayings, tying them up, the actual slayings themselves, the writing of the word Pig on the door, etc.
If on the other hand, the killing of Parent was the final act, then we can solve five problems.
1. The sound of four shots were not heard by the four inside the house.
2. The breaking of the fence was not heard by the four inside.
3. The beginning of the attack could be earlier, say midnight, adding about twenty minutes more to the timeline.
4. The testimony of Tim Ireland was that he heard the words “Oh God, no, don’t please don’t” at 12:45 pm.
5. Mrs. Kott said that she heard three or four shots in close sequence between 12:30 and 1:00.
What do we lose by going with this solution? The combined statements of Tex, Susan, and Linda all say Parent was the first to die. That of course is a major problem. On the other hand, no mention is made by any of them that Parent had first run into the fence and then tried to go out the gate. They should have heard the breaking of the fence, if no one in the house did.
So for the sake of solving five problems at the sacrifice of one, I am willing to go with the solution that the shooting of Parent was the final act.
Why would Parent say, “Please don’t hurt me. I’m your friend. I won’t tell.” If Parent was completely surprised at 12:20, how did he know that Tex had a murderous intent and that he might spare Parent if he kept his mouth shut? It seems to me, if he was completely surprised before the attack began, a more likely statement would be “Hey, what’s going on here?” If Parent was shot at 12:45, then his panicky mistake in putting the car in reverse and slamming into the fence makes more sense.
That would mean that Tex, Susan, and Linda lied about the sequence of the events. Everything else they said about Parent was the truth. Why would they all agree to lie on this particular point? I don’t know, but it must have been for a very good reason.
Source for Tim Ireland’s precise time of 12:45 is from a Los Angeles Times article, August 20, 1970. The police report said 1:00 to 1:30, but testimony under oath is stronger evidence than a report.
Where do Atkins, Krenwinkel or Kasabian say Parent was shot in the driveway where the car was found? I must have missed that. If that's the case, how did the car get into the fence and get back out of the fence? There are photographs of the broken fence and I think corresponding damage on the car. I think it's obvious that the car was in the fence at some point and a dead person can't drive a car.
I haven't looked these details up for years, but I'm thinking Watson stopped the car in the driveway, possibly attacked Parent with the bayonet because he didn't want to fire the gun and alert people, Parent put the car in reverse and backed into the fence in an attempt to flee. That's where he was murdered by Watson shooting him with the gun.
The next morning when the police got there, they seen the car in the fence on that steep slope with a possible body, (or injured person) in it, and the police or rescue people pulled/pushed/towed the car into the driveway where it was "found". They might have thought there was a danger of the car rolling down the hill with Steven Parent's body in it. There's no mention of the police moving the car that I know of, but it might have been done before the photographer got there, I've seen fire/rescue people move vehicles at accident scenes before the police get there with my own eyes.
Nevertheless, at some point the car was almost certainly in the fence, and somehow it got out of the fence, and a dead person can't drive a car. I've never heard any mention of anyone moving the car out of the fence, the Mansons, the police, or anyone else.
I've long thought about the significance of the clock radio, as perhaps something more than an item being offered for sale. To that end, I leave the following for all to ponder:
Entertain the possibility that it is Friday night. Steve met Bill hitchhiking perhaps two weeks prior. Bill tells Steve that he lives on an estate along side actors, directors, a rich heiress, etc, and Steve is more than a little intrigued--perhaps more like dazzled at 18 tender years of age. For two weeks Steve stews thinking about a reason to visit Bill, and possibly make contact with the "Beautiful People."
But Steve has a dilema: he does not know Bill well enough to simply drive up to Cielo unannounced. Moreover, what if Steve encountered the Beautiful People first? Perhaps he'd panic, and not know how to present himself socially.
Perhaps Steve needed a prop--something to get him past the gate and on to the property as a man with a true reason or mission. The clock radio could accomplish this. Steve really did not need to sell the clock radio, it was simply a calling card to gain access. After all, Steve worked part-time as a stereo salesman, so that bit would have played into the reason that he had a clock radio, say, and not a camera.
To be sure, we know Bill did not expect Steve, according to Bill's polygraph testimony, so the clock radio could have helped neutralize any strange suspicions Bill had as to why Steve shows up around midnight unannounced.
Additionally we know that Steve went on at length as to the identity of the two girls in the main house. Could it be that, at some point, Steve hoped he could have met the Beautiful People? Perhaps Steve thought that Bill might have introduced them, and Steve could have been comfortable in his role of stereo salesman to the Benedict Canyon and Hollywood set. Maybe he could have obtained future business at the Tate/Polanski/Altobelli house as a stereo hi-fi consultant. If so, and at that age, Steve must have been giddy with excitement.
Consider that on that Friday night in August 1969, Steve Parent was a 18 year old kid from El Monte. Perhaps he was paid on that Friday, and like so many young guys, felt like going out into the adult world for a bit of a night on the town--even if that meant only seeing some movie stars at Cielo, drinking a can of beer in the guest house, and working a stereo deal for a writer of Star Trek episodes in Hollywood.
If memory serves, Steve's sister claimed that, as Steve still lived at home, he had to be home at a certain time. If so, Steve had to finish work at the stereo store, make the rounds of rubbing elbows with the rich and famous, and still do a stereo deal in Hollywood, while making it home at a respectable time. If he was late, no matter. Steve could have said(legitimately)that he was tending to a customer's stereo in Hollywood, and since he had to take care of it after work, naturally he may be a bit late in returning home. And what if Steve DID sell the clock radio? Just another sale for an enterprising young man.
Taken together, I feel Steve was a young guy who was simply curious about a world that was exciting to him. If he could at least SEE it, he perhaps could feel as though he were a part of it, at least for one summer evening, before going off to college the next month.
About the car backing into the fence: when I first read Bugliosi's book, I felt that when Steve was shot, he may have been trying to reverse away from Tex. In so doing, and after succumbing to the shots, he lost control of the car in reverse, there by striking the fence. It would then be up to Tex to drive and steer the car away from the fence, and back to the gate. Yet of course this is unsubstantiated by the killers.
katie8753 said...
Those people calling in that night could have been confused about something else in that canyon
You've only got to look at the wide disparity of reported happenings that night to see that they did not all belong to the same event, as you correctly allude to. Which leads to the simple conclusion that disparate sounds in the canyons and reports of the nature of that which came through that night were by no means unusual. It is only because some verified murders happened during that particular night that the variety of reports even mattered in the first place. And the reason, the only reason, they mattered was that at the time of that first Tate police report, the police had no idea when what had happened actually did happen. All the times of death had very wide arcs. Bugliosi in his actual case jettisons most of the reports. They play no part in the story other than being part of the initial police gathering of possible clues {which is perfectly understandable ~ and to make for a dramatic opening for the book "Helter Skelter." Note too how in the original book, nothing is said about Carlos Gill, and what he supposedly heard.
The killers admitted they killed Parent. Why lie about when? Does that get them leverage?
None whatsoever. I know William is keen to throw a spanner in the works as many have done for many years, but it simply doesn't go anywhere. In order to make one thing work, you have to start undoing other pieces and overriding all is that no evidence backs up the speculative assertions. Whereas there is corroborating evidence {most of it at the time or close to it} from Susan {when she was "telling the truth" and when she was lying}, Virginia Graham, Ronnie Howard, Linda and Tex that the way the Parent murder happened is exactly the way they have always described it. Even 40 years later when Linda drops the bombshell of getting into the car, the essential story {and how Tex wheeled the car} does not change.
William Weston said...
testimony under oath is stronger evidence than a report
Well, for one thing, a police report is not necessarily evidence.
Secondly, people lie under oath. People can be mistaken or confused under oath. People can be cajoled by a skilled lawyer to say what the lawyer wants the witness to say under oath. 'Under oath' is no magical guarantee of truth. Leslie Van Houten was under oath when she implicated herself in the Hinman murder. Tex was under oath when he initially denied stabbing Sharon Tate. Bobby Beausoleil was under oath when he said Charlie stabbed Gary Hinman to death. Mary Brunner was under oath when she implicated Leslie and took herself out of the Hinman murder. Susan was under oath when she said she killed Gary Hinman and she was under oath when asked what the troupe did after dropping off the killers at the LaBiancas and neglected to mention heading to an apartment block with the intention of committing a murder. Charlie was under oath when he accused the police of wrongfully arresting Bobby when he knew Bobby had killed Gary. Pat was under oath when she attested to the copycat slayings to get Bobby out of jail.
Need I go on ?
Testimony under oath depends on a number of variables, not least who is saying what.
William Weston said...
He would have seen one man, Tex, and not the three girls, who at the command of Tex hid in the bushes
Actually, we don't really know what he would have seen. Tex's command assumes super lightning fast reactions. But Susan and Linda both saw the headlights very suddenly and obviously. We don't know that those headlights did not pick out one or more of them. Susan, when describing the murder to one of her cellmates certainly assumed they'd been seen.
So from the killing of Parent to the killing of the four people in the house would be 30 minutes at the most. I ask, could they have done all that they are said to have done in that short amount of time?
Most certainly.
That 30 minutes includes crawling through the dining room window, waking up Frykowski on the couch, getting Abigail Folger and Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring into the living room, the words exchanged between the killers and the victims prior to the slayings, tying them up, the actual slayings themselves, the writing of the word Pig on the door, etc
One of the most telling indications of this comes from Leslie's private interview with her lawyer Marvin Part on December 29th 1969. She tells him, in a recording that was never meant to be heard by anyone other than Judge Dell, that Pat told her:
" And it happened so quick, and it was a horrible thing. You know, she was shaken up by it. And then somehow we heard the news, and they said, 'Oh, my God, they were rich,' you know, 'they were famous people,' you know.
That’s really all that was said about it.......Oh, but Sadie said she’d left her knife there. They said it was done real messy; and it happened in about twenty minutes, you know."
20 minutes is an exaggeration because they weren't timekeepers but it's obviously a euphemism for speedy action.
If on the other hand, the killing of Parent was the final act, then we can solve five problems
Assume for a moment it was. What you really end up with is a group of perps who, for some reason have chosen to lie about the sequence. The broken fence is indeed an irrelevance because you then have much bigger fish to fry. It means Susan's grand jury testimony is unsafe which then means everyone of the indicted shouldn't have been which means the convictions shouldn't have happened, even Linda's {had it indeed happened}, even though under your theory she has lied. The entire case becomes a travesty of justice, and so many people are discredited. Aaron Stovitz. Evelle Younger. Vince Bugliosi. Steve Kay. Donald Musich. The entire LAPD. All the witnesses.
I could go on, but you get the picture. And all for the sake of what ? A stupid bit of broken fence that there seems to be a need to make somehow significant.
William Weston said...
The sound of four shots were not heard by the four inside the house
Frykowski was asleep, having taken MDA ~ and we also know from one of Atkins' cellmates that the stereo was on. Abigail, also having had MDA was at the far end of the house, reading a book as were Jay and Sharon in the bedroom opposite Abigail's, chatting. With the stereo on and the lesser report of the .22 it makes abundant sense that none of them would hear the gunshots.
So it ceases to be a problem.
The breaking of the fence was not heard by the four inside
Why is this even a problem ?
The beginning of the attack could be earlier, say midnight, adding about twenty minutes more to the timeline
It could well be earlier. I don't have a problem with it either way.
Jerold Friedman testified that he spoke to Steve at 23:30 {Steve corrected him giving the time as 23:25} and they spoke no more than 10 minutes and that Steve said he'd be at Jerold's place in about 40 minutes at 12.30. This testimony was 14 months later. Balanced against that is Garretson saying {he wasn't even asked, he volunteered this} that Steve arrived around 23.45 "something like that" and twice he mentions that Steve left after 12 midnight. Not at midnight but after. And this is the day after the murders. Balanced against this is that Jerold testified that when he was speaking to Steve on the phone at Garretson's, he could hear music and when he asked what it was, Steve specified that it was the "stereo, it is the radio." Now whether that's a reference to the clock radio, no one can say.
So all in all, I'd say that it is impossible to give absolute second by second time definitions of every move. All of the time information in its impeccable neatness say more about Bugliosi's desire for order than anything else. No one was logging the time for sure ~ except Tim Ireland's supervisor, Rich Sparks. With the clock radio stopped at 00:15, Ireland hearing screams at 00:40 and Weber pretty sure of encountering the killers around 1am what we end up with are approximations that arise from estimations, as you'd expect, and none of it makes a single bit of difference to what happened.
The testimony of Tim Ireland was that he heard the words “Oh God, no, don’t please don’t” at 12:45 pm
Actually, it was 00:40. Forget the LA Times, Rich Sparks, Ireland's supervisor logged the time when Ireland came to him. That's how we know. Ireland originally told the police it was 1-1.30am. But that's a secondary issue.
You're trying to connect Tim Ireland with Steven Parent in order to give weight to your theory. But not only is there no record from anyone that Steven Parent ever screamed out “Oh God, no, don’t please don’t,” those words have always been associated with Wojiciech Frykowski. It's interesting that in the summing up of evidence, Paul Fitzgerald tries to pin that statement on Parent and when rebutting Fitzgerald, Bugliosi mentions this as one of his examples of Paul "mis-stating the evidence." Furthermore, Ireland did not hear any gunshots or similar sounds after the scream that he heard which he surely would have done if it was Steven he had heard.
So that one is not going to fly.
William Weston said...
Mrs. Kott said that she heard three or four shots in close sequence between 00:30 and 1:00
Mrs Kott alone kills your theory.
Firstly, she had no idea exactly when her dinner guests left. "About midnight" won't do.
Secondly, she had absolutely no idea what time she heard the sequence of shots. No idea at all. She did not check the time. It was later that she guessed the time as being between 00:30 and 1am. So that's pretty useless.
Most importantly, Mrs Kott was not used as a witness at the trial. It's easy to see why. She heard sounds that sounded like shots, didn't have a clue what time, didn't wake her husband to say "Seymour ! Did you hear that ?" and was so unconcerned that she went back to sleep.
What do we lose by going with this solution? The combined statements of Tex, Susan, and Linda all say Parent was the first to die. That of course is a major problem. On the other hand, no mention is made by any of them that Parent had first run into the fence and then tried to go out the gate. They should have heard the breaking of the fence, if no one in the house did. So for the sake of solving five problems at the sacrifice of one, I am willing to go with the solution that the shooting of Parent was the final act
Any conspiracy theorist worth their salt should be. Conspiracy theorists routinely find solutions where no problems actually exist. It's in the DNA of the CT.
Why would Parent say, “Please don’t hurt me. I’m your friend. I won’t tell.”
Unfortunately, this is a question that can never be answered because Steven is the only person that could tell us this.
However, we only have Tex's word for these actual words being uttered and this recollection came 9 years after the murder. I've said this on many occasions but it is quite clear and obvious {as well as the fact that he tells us} that Tex takes the bulk of what he remembers from Bugliosi's account and not his specific memory. And the passing of the years only serves to emphasize this, to the extent that at his last parole hearing, he was getting caught out with stuff that is written in his own book by the DA. Why ? Because he can't remember. Whereas, Susan, just 4 months after the murder recalls the form of words slightly differently. And Linda a few months after that recalls it the same way. She also pointed out that when they had seen the headlights, Tex was in a low-down or crouching position because he jumped up and moved to the car. That might wig anyone out, seeing that.
If Parent was shot at 12:45, then his panicky mistake in putting the car in reverse and slamming into the fence makes more sense
There is no reason it would make any more sense at 00:45 than at the times the perps say they encountered him.
That would mean that Tex, Susan, and Linda lied about the sequence of the events. Everything else they said about Parent was the truth. Why would they all agree to lie on this particular point? I don’t know, but it must have been for a very good reason
Given that Linda gave evidence that condemned Susan and Tex to death, I'd say your point here is a plane about to crash into an iceberg.
Hands up anyone who hasn't reversed into a fence? Ever.
Or one of those awkward bollards? Unseen hazards from both the back windscreen and rear view mirror.
I got in from work about an hour ago and the first thing my wife said to me was that she'd reversed into someone's car in the Asda car park. I told her about this conversation and laughed.
Grim said,
You're trying to connect Tim Ireland with Steven Parent in order to give weight to your theory. But not only is there no record from anyone that Steven Parent ever screamed out “Oh God, no, don’t please don’t,” those words have always been associated with Wojiciech Frykowski.
The words that Tim Ireland heard were “Oh God, no, don’t please don’t.” These are the words of someone begging for mercy, hoping that such words would avert the menacing intentions of the assailant.
The words of Frykowski were not the words of someone begging for mercy, but a call for someone to rescue him (Garretson, perhaps? To release Altobello’s Weimariner, the big attack dog?). Statements associated with Frykowski invariably contain the word “Help.”
According to Tex, Frykowski said “Help me, O God, help me.”
According to Atkins. He was “yelling for his life, for somebody to come help him.” Bugliosi p. 242
Atkins told her cellmate Shelley Nadell, He got to the lawn and was standing there hollering “Help! Help!” (Sanders, p. 213)
Additionally, Tim Ireland specifically said that the words he heard had no accent, as would be the case if Frykowski spoke them. Therefore, the man who spoke them must have been Steve Parent.
Grim said,
It's interesting that in the summing up of evidence, Paul Fitzgerald tries to pin that statement on Parent and when rebutting Fitzgerald, Bugliosi mentions this as one of his examples of Paul "mis-stating the evidence."
You’re always knocking Paul Fitzgerald, when actually he was the one who was trying to open up new avenues of investigation in the case in the interest of defending his client, Patricia Krenwinkel. He was the one who asked Manson if he entered the Tate house that night and disturbed the crime scene and Manson said yes (Sanders, p. 425). On May 27, 1970 he filed a contempt of court motion against the prosecutors for not allowing him to see the evidence that they had gathered, especially photographs of the bloody boot heel print near the front door outside. (It was believed at the time that Manson’s killers either wore moccasins or were barefoot.). He also wanted to see photographs of the mysterious eyeglasses as they were found next to the steamer trunks. He wanted to know more about the rope used to tie the victims. He said the police were ignoring – and withholding – vital pieces of evidence, particularly the bloody boot heel print and the glasses – that would lead to the true killers. I regard Paul Fitzgerald as a true hero in the case.
Grim said,
The testimony of Tim Ireland was that he heard the words “Oh God, no, don’t please don’t” at 12:45 pm
Actually, it was 00:40. Forget the LA Times, Rich Sparks, Ireland's supervisor logged the time when Ireland came to him. That's how we know.
According to Bugliosi, p.24, “At approximately 12:40” he heard the words mentioned and then a scream.
According to the newspaper article, “Ireland placed the time at around 12:45 am on August 9.”
Since the Bugliosi book is not a primary source, I would say “about 12:45” is more accurate than “approximately 12:40”.
William Weston said...
The words that Tim Ireland heard were “Oh God, no, don’t please don’t.” These are the words of someone begging for mercy, hoping that such words would avert the menacing intentions of the assailant
That is definitely a possibility. And so are a hundred other scenarios. Why wouldn't you beg for mercy if someone was repeatedly stabbing you ?
I remember when I was at school and a friend of mine who had been in hospital having his appendix out was set upon by our homicidal lunatic of a principal and caned within an inch of his life "for being a truant." As he was being whacked with a piece of heavy bamboo, he was crying out very similar words "please Sir, Sir, Please no sir ! Oh sir please, no !"
He never once cried out for help.
The words of Frykowski were not the words of someone begging for mercy, but a call for someone to rescue him
They were both. Different statements screamed at different times looking for different specific outcomes but all adding up to the same thing ¬> "I want this to stop."
Statements associated with Frykowski invariably contain the word “Help.”
According to Tex, Frykowski said “Help me, O God, help me.”
That's interesting. Not that the word "help" is in there, but that the words "oh God" are in there. Tex says absolutely nothing in his description of Steven Parent of the words "Oh God." Come to think of it, he says nothing about Steve saying "help" either. So by trying to prove Tex has the form of words Frykowski did use, you end up demonstrating the words Parent didn't use. Which mauls your own point.
According to Atkins. He was “yelling for his life, for somebody to come help him.” Bugliosi p. 242
And ?
He was yelling for his life. And when Tex caught up with him and started hitting him with the gun having already shot him {something that Susan nor Pat could ever recall and which Linda never recalled hearing from outside} and then started stabbing him, he would conceivably scream “Oh God, no, don’t please don’t.”
Atkins told her cellmate Shelley Nadell, He got to the lawn and was standing there hollering “Help! Help!” (Sanders, p. 213)
So what ? He probably screamed a variety of things, ranging from "help me " to "Oh God, no, don’t please don’t.” If you take both the Dec 1st interview with Richard Caballero and the Dec 5th Grand jury testimony, you can see quite clearly many times that Susan describes things in a very confused way that is not chronological or necessarily literal but is often a précis, a kind of summary. Here's an example of her grand jury style:
SUSAN: and then Tex walked over to Frykowski and kicked him in the head.
BUGLIOSI: Where was Frykowski at that time?
S: On the front lawn away from the front door. Evidently he had moved, was still alive, and was still moving.
B: Was he standing or lying down?
S: Lying with his back to me.
B: He was lying down when Tex kicked him in the head?
S: Yes, and the body didn't move very much. I believe it was dead at that time.
So she says Frykowski is alive, is still moving, is lying down with his back to her and is not moving very much because he's dead.
That makes a whole lot of sense !
Rely on Suzie at your peril.
William Weston said...
Additionally, Tim Ireland specifically said that the words he heard had no accent, as would be the case if Frykowski spoke them. Therefore, the man who spoke them must have been Steve Parent
That really does not follow. If you heard someone screaming out of the blue for a few seconds a great distance away, you would not be able to process whether or not the person was screaming with an accent. On a daily basis as I approach the school I work in, you can hear children screaming all kinds of things in the playground. Now, one of the classes I work in had a class assembly today that was about the countries they come from and in our class of 30 kids alone, there are 14 nationalities. If I were to add the rest in the school it would be more than 25. Many were born here in England, many not. Believe me, you cannot distinguish any accent at a distance. Ireland said he heard just 6 words from a great distance. It took him by surprise. It wasn't something he was expecting or listening out for. So of course he wasn't going to be able to distinguish an accent because he heard a voice. Even if he had a tape recorder and recorded it you wouldn't be able to distinguish an accent ~ but you would at least have the benefit of repeated tries. Tim heard it once.
It also occurs to me that if Steven Parent was begging Tex, he'd hardly be screaming at him, especially if he's trying to convince him he won't tell !
William Weston said...
You’re always knocking Paul Fitzgerald
Funny you should say that. I actually really like Paul's character. He's one of the players in this saga that I really warm to. But that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore when he mis-states evidence {George Bishop even noted that in 1971} which he did throughout his summing up of the guilt phase. And how is it knocking him to point out that one of the areas where he mis-stated the evidence happens to be when he apportioned Frykowski's statement to Parent and was called out on it ? I'm just stating what happened.
when actually he was the one who was trying to open up new avenues of investigation in the case in the interest of defending his client, Patricia Krenwinkel
After which she then got on the witness stand and confessed her part in the murders.
He said the police were ignoring – and withholding – vital pieces of evidence, particularly the bloody boot heel print and the glasses – that would lead to the true killers
Throughout, he and Irving Kanarek did things like that. They wouldn't have been lawyers doing their jobs if they didn't do what they could to get their clients off. And in a case like this, to try to cast the prosecuting team as the bad guys was a good move. Didn't mean it was true though.
I regard Paul Fitzgerald as a true hero in the case
According to Jess Bravin and significantly, Pat herself {in one of her recent parole hearings}, he was screwing Squeaky.
It's quite obvious reading George Bishop's 1971 book "Witness to evil," that Paul spoke a lot to the press despite the gag order. According to Ivor Davis, Paul was "a great source of inside information to the media during the trial" and he also said that Paul admitted to some reporters that he felt Pat and the girls had done what they were accused of doing because they were zonked out on acid that Charlie had doled out regularly.
It doesn't appear he took on the case because he thought Pat was an innocent woman being shafted.
According to Bugliosi, p.24, “At approximately 12:40” he heard the words mentioned and then a scream.
According to the newspaper article, “Ireland placed the time at around 12:45 am on August 9.”
Since the Bugliosi book is not a primary source, I would say “about 12:45” is more accurate than “approximately 12:40”
I wasn't going by Bugliosi's book. I was going by Tim Ireland's actual testimony. As I said before, Rich Sparks, the girls camp supervisor, logged the time that Ireland came to him telling what he had heard and requesting permission to drive around and check to see if there was any trouble about. Sparks logged the time at 00:40. Now, prior to this, Ireland had heard the scream, checked to make sure all the girls were OK then gone to Sparks. So what he heard, he heard before 00:40. Only a few minutes, but hey. Neither the paper, Ireland or Bugliosi were entirely accurate. But accuracy to the exact nanosecond is not important. Bugliosi had a fixation with keeping to an exact timeline but if you read the trial transcript, he never actually gets one. So again I'll say it, what we have are approximations based on, for the most part, estimates and an estimate is a ball park figure. It doesn't matter if there is not an exactitude. It would only matter if one or all of the killers were claiming to have been in another place at that time.
Grim said,
I wasn't going by Bugliosi's book. I was going by Tim Ireland's actual testimony.
Can you cut and paste the relevant testimony regarding Sparks logging the time?
Devil's Advocate - Parent crashed into the fence when he arrived. Perhaps why he was so curious about the people inside the main house when speaking w/Garretson. He drank the beer to calm his nerves.
How do we really know that Parent backed into the fence? If you look at that fence all along the property, it's broken down in several places. Just because the cops said there was some paint evidence on Parent's car doesn't mean that he got that from backing into the fence. Did they do forensics on that or just "eyeball it".
That house was pretty much broken down in 1969. It looked like it hadn't had a new coat of paint or a new roof since it was built in the 40's. Rudy was "getting away with murder" (no pun intended) to rent that dump out for $1200/month back in 1969. That was a King's Ransom!
And I don't think the tenants were doing much to improve that property except they had a maid to come and clean. There were trash cans that were overflowing and piles of junk all around outside on the property.
Katie,
I would have to say that, according to the First Tate Homicide Investigation Progress Report, the fact that Steve's car struck the fence was firmly established. That this inclusion even appeared in the report is undoubtedly important, and no doubt investigating officers gave this evidence very careful consideration before including it in the report.
One thing I have not been able to find about this, however, is a photo of the back of Steve's car or its undercarriage. With that type of information, we could possibly determine the angle the car slid over the concrete curb, thereby possibly telling us from what area the car originated before it made contact with the curb and the fence. Its information like that which could possibly shed light on where Steve parked his car, and the area from which it travelled in reverse from Tex. All of this could be based on the angle of the concrete transfer, and area of impact of the fence on the back of the car.
I have read that Steve's sister said the Parent family did not get the car back from LAPD, until after the trial was over. She said the car had not been cleaned up, and that Steve's dried blood was still inside the vehicle. Certainly the curb/fence damage would have been present as well. However, I don't know whatever happened to the car.
Thanks Torque, but I have to say, the LAPD didn't do a very good job investigating these murders. They messed up fingerprint evidence, blood evidence, lost the gun grip, seemed to miss critical evidence of body placement, and as you noted, misbehaved poorly in the investigation of Steven Parent's car, not only did they not inform Parents' family that Parent was killed at Cielo Drive, even though they had a license plate to go by, they didn't return the car until after the trial.
I don't have a lot of confidence in the LAPD's clue findings.
Not to mention that the LAPD didn't even bother looking for the crap Linda said they threw out the window that night, but a news crew went and found it, AND they had the murder weapon in their possession for months and did nothing with it.
Very poor detective work in my opinion!
William Weston said...
Can you cut and paste the relevant testimony regarding Sparks logging the time?
I have to do it all by hand. I've never been able to get a PDF to cut & paste !
Anyway, here we go:
Bugliosi: What did you hear the male voice scream sir ?
Tim: He said "Oh God no, please don't. Oh God no please don't don't, don't" for approximately 10 to 15 seconds.
B: About what time was this ?
T: Approximately 12.40am.
B: 40 minutes past midnight ?
T: Yes sir.
Then later there's:
Fitzgerald: And did you tell Sgt Henderson in response to a question as to what time you heard the sounds, did you reply "Approximately 1:00 to 1:30am on Saturday morning, August 9th ?"
Tim: Yes sir.
F: Your testimony here today is that you heard these sounds at 12:40am ?
T: Yes sir.
Later still:
Kanarek: Now, directing your attention to the noise that you heard. Did you time it ?
Tim: I felt that it took 15 seconds, 10 to 15 seconds, for the screams to start and stop. I asked the man who I reported the screams to after I first spoke to Sgt Henderson, what time he heard me come up to him and he said it was about 12:30. I then subtracted 5 minutes for the time it took me to run around the camp.
And then even later :
Bugliosi: You say you told Sgt Henderson that it was between 1:00 and 1:30....what has caused you to change your mind about the time ?
Tim: When I talked again to Mr Sparks, who was the man I first contacted about hearing the noise and asked if I could go look around the camp, he said the time was 12:43 because he noticed on his watch.
B: So you deducted 5 minutes from that ?
T: Yes sir.
B: So you spoke to Sparks a 2nd time after you spoke to Henderson ?
T: Yes sir.
Interestingly, Kanarek succeeds in getting the section relating to what Sparks said the time was, stricken on the grounds that it was hearsay.
Also very notable is that nowhere is Ireland questioned about any accent. He says nothing about it.
I'm going to take the moderation off for the night because we have a good convo going here and I don't think it's fair for people who aren't blog members to have to wait until I get up in the morning to post their comments.
But if I see garbage on here in the morning from a CERTAIN SOMEONE, I'm putting it back on!
Night y'all!!!
William Weston said...
Perhaps if we change the official timeline
That's called revising history in order to make something irrelevant important. You pretty much have to change everything we know, just for the sake of that fence. We can never know when Steve hit the fence. Like Katie said, that fence was possibly old and worn and it wouldn't necessarily take a massive whack to break some of it.
In saying that though, the timeline is pretty fluid. The perps don't know what the time was, Garretson & Mrs Kott guestimate it, Ireland had no idea of the time and gets two different times and subtracts from them, Jerold Friedman recalls it 14 months later but is really out of sync with everyone else, Rich Sparks first said it was 00:30 then 00:43, Rudy Weber said the perps were at his house "around" 1:00. Sparks is the most definite but it's still unimportant.
One other interesting thing is that Ireland was asked if it was the voice of a man, woman or child he heard and he adamant that it was not just a male voice {which could include Parent} but a man's voice.
I am willing to go with the solution that the shooting of Parent was the final act
Originally, you weren't the only one:
SUSAN ATKINS: Is this the man that was in the guest house?
PAUL CARUSO: No. That was William Garretson, the man who worked there, and I think Steven Parent was the young boy who was killed in the car.
SA: His death I felt very bad about when I saw it happen.
PC: Really? I was under the impression he was the last person killed.
SA: No, he was the first.
PC: How did that happen?
Doug said...
Devil's Advocate - Parent crashed into the fence when he arrived. Perhaps why he was so curious about the people inside the main house when speaking w/Garretson. He drank the beer to calm his nerves
It's feasible. Counting against it is that he said nothing to William about it and he didn't know that he wasn't going to walk him to his car afterwards and see the damage.
At the time of that first police report, it was necessary to comment on the fence simply because the cops didn't have an idea what had happened and what anything could have meant. By the time it came to court, nothing was even said about the fence.
katie8753 said...
LAPD didn't do a very good job investigating these murders. They messed up fingerprint evidence, blood evidence, lost the gun grip, seemed to miss critical evidence of body placement
Which fingerprint and blood evidence did they mess up ?
I thought they were able to identify the gun within a week or so on the basis of the grip.
I'm not sure what you mean about the critical evidence of body placement.
LAPD may not have been like the detectives we see on telly that solve their cases in 47 minutes excluding adverts {!!} and they seemed to drag their heels at times as well as ignore some pieces of information {come in Jess Buckles, your time is up !} that, if followed up on, would have broken the case sooner than it did.
But on balance, I don't agree that they did not do a good job investigating the case. They followed up so many leads and had amassed a large amount of information by the time Stovitz and Bugliosi were on the case. They had Charlie on the suspect list within 9 weeks and the murderers were all charged and in custody within 4 months of the crimes. Think of all the murders that have been unsolved for decades or have taken a very, very long time to reach some kind of conclusion. I'm not saying they were by any means perfect but in retrospect, I'd say they were pretty damned quick.
Grim, one of the cops messed up Tex's fingerprint on the gate button.
They never really did figure out why there was so much of Sharon's and Jay's blood on the porch and they were found in the living room.
The kid that found the gun in his yard gave it to his Dad, who gave it to the LAPD, and it was promptly filed away and forgotten.
Lastly, the ONLY reason the police solved these murders and identified Charlie and the others is because Susan Atkins couldn't keep her mouth shut in jail. It's very possible that if Susan hadn't blabbed, these murders might NEVER have been solved. Who would have even thought that a bunch of hippies were killing people. Until these murders were committed, hippies were supposed to be loving free-spirits, not blood-thirsty killers.
Well nobody said anything, so I put the moderation back on. I was just trying to be helpful.
katie8753 said...
one of the cops messed up Tex's fingerprint on the gate button
Bugliosi made great sport of that but it is not true. Long before Officer DeRosa pressed the gate button, Mrs Chapman had pressed it on her way out of the premises. So in actual fact, she was the one that obliterated any potential print.
What's interesting is that in his & Gentry's book, Bugliosi tells us that whole clear prints are often rare at crime scenes, then he goes on to emphasize DeRosa touching the gate button and wiping out a potential print. A print that might have yielded nothing anyway, by his admission. A print on which Mrs Chapman had already superimposed her own.
They never really did figure out why there was so much of Sharon's and Jay's blood on the porch and they were found in the living room
They didn't have to. If you think about it, to this day no one has been able to explain it. The more I ponder it, the more it is likely that at some point, they {or at least Sharon} were on that porch unless the police made a mistake, the like of which would be the most incredible thing since creation. But regardless of whatever explanation one comes up with, it didn't and doesn't assist in the capture of the killers.
But the police did postulate the theory that Sharon had been killed outside and dragged back in. And this is a classic of the genre in terms of the blood evidence. Anyone that has an interest in this case should read it.
katie8753 said...
Lastly, the ONLY reason the police solved these murders and identified Charlie and the others is because Susan Atkins couldn't keep her mouth shut in jail. It's very possible that if Susan hadn't blabbed, these murders might NEVER have been solved
We had a conversation on this a few years back and I disagreed with you then and I disagree with you now. It is simply not true and the dates bear this out. Charlie was on the LaBianca detectives' suspect list that came out as part of their 2nd and final report on Oct 15th '69. Susan didn't start blabbing until into November and Ronnie Howard wasn't interviewed by the police until 17th Nov. By that time, both Danny DeCarlo and in particular, Al Springer, had given the police some vital information. On Nov 6, detectives Patchett, Sartuchi and Burdick went up to Independence and asked Charlie point blank if he knew anything about the Tate and LaBianca murders. And later that day, Burdick spoke with Leslie and she said that there were things that caused her to think that members of her group were involved in the Tate killings. Both pre~Susan blabbing. Brooks Poston and Paul Crockett as far back as Oct 3rd had been interviewed by Dep Sheriff Don Ward and provided info about the Family's activities, including "Helter Skelter" {which hadn't been released to the press} ~ this a week before any of the Barker arrests took place. During the August of that year, Linda Kasabian had told Joe Sage, Jeffrey Jacobs and her husband about the murders. The point being that without Atkins, these and other examples were already pointing to the perps. If you throw in the prints that were to be found of Tex & Pat, I can't go along with your assertion that without Susan blabbing, the case wouldn't have been solved.
Some of where the police were lax is in the way they treated the info from Detectives Whiteley & Guenther about Gary Hinman or the way Steve Zabriske was dismissed when he told police that a 'Charlie' and a 'Clem' were responsible for the murders. But this was in Oregon.
Of course Atkins' played a major role in bringing the case to a conclusion. No one should ever doubt that. But to say that that's the only reason the case was solved is to ignore the evidence. To a large extent, that is what the book "Helter Skelter" shows. Bugliosi may have wanted to be viewed as the great investigative hero and to some extent, there's some truth in that ~ but only some. What the book actually shows is how kaleidoscopic everything was and how the different parts of the jigsaw were put in place ~ and who put them there.
Well, it doesn't really matter if Mrs. Chapman pushed that button first. Mrs. Chapman was a maid who stumbled on a horrific crime scene and was just scared to death and trying to get off that property. The Officer was a trained police officer. Of the two, I'm pretty sure he should have known better. That's sloppy police work.
No they didn't have to explain away the blood evidence on the porch, but I would think that people trained in forensics would have a much better chance of being able to piece all the evidence together, including how Sharon's body was found and the amount of blood on the carpet under her body versus the blood on the porch and reach a conclusion, which they didn't.
Do you really think that without Susan's grand jury testimony that they would have pieced this crazy story together and ultimately gotten a conviction of Manson? Or even Susan, Leslie or Bobby? What did they have? Some hearsay from bikers and fingerprints of Tex & Pat at Cielo? Do you think that Linda K. would have agreed to testify if she didn't have to?
I don't know, maybe it would have turned out the same way, but this case was so absurd that it was really hard to believe. A hippie cult leader ordered his minions to just go kill people for no other reason than just because he told them to? Back then, that sounded like something out of sci fi novel.
katie8753 said...
If you look at that fence all along the property, it's broken down in several places. Just because the cops said there was some paint evidence on Parent's car doesn't mean that he got that from backing into the fence. Did they do forensics on that or just "eyeball it".
When I view pictures of the fence, it appears to be in good condition, the lumber used for the rails and posts appears to be good quality wood, solid, sturdy, with a recent coat of paint on it. I see nothing of the kind of advanced deterioration that would cause the fence to come apart from its own weight. The only explanation that seems to explain the damage is that some vehicle had rammed into it.
In addition to the paint on the bumper, the scrape observed by police on the curb corresponded to the scrape seen on the undercarriage of Parent’s car. I believe if we can ever see a picture of the rear of Parent’s car we should see a dent in it. Interesting that in Bugliosi’s 1974 book, he had a picture of the rear end of Sharon Tate’s Camarro and claimed it was the rear end of Parent’s car.
katie8753 said...
the ONLY reason the police solved these murders and identified Charlie and the others is because Susan Atkins couldn't keep her mouth shut in jail. It's very possible that if Susan hadn't blabbed, these murders might NEVER have been solved.
I agree with you. It is interesting that the Zodiac Killer wrote a letter to a television station, KHJ-TV in Los Angeles (the Channel Nine letter), postmarked May 2, 1978 in which he said he wanted to kill five people among whom was “Susan Atkins – the Judas of the Manson family. Shes gone get hers now.” (The other four were Darryl Gates, Ed Davis, Pat Boone, and Eldridge Cleaver) To see the letter go to
http://www.zodiackillerthemansonconnection.com/ch9_letter.html
Grim said,
I have to do it all by hand. I've never been able to get a PDF to cut & paste !
Thanks a lot, Grim, great information!
Tim Ireland said:
When I talked again to Mr Sparks, who was the man I first contacted about hearing the noise and asked if I could go look around the camp, he said the time was 12:43 because he noticed on his watch.
Well, that settles that – 12:40, not 12:45. The five minute difference is not trivial, considering the tight allotment of time given by the official version to the perpetrators to do all the things that they supposedly did after the death of Frykowski.
The killing of Sharon was after Frykowski. According to Sanders, Sharon, still unharmed, sat on the couch for a few minutes, facing Tex, Katie and Sadie. (p. 215). Then they all stabbed her. Tex went back outside to deliver more stab wounds to Abigail and Frykowski. As a last gesture, Sadie wrote the “pig” on the front door, before the three ran back over the driveway, opened the gate, and ran down the hill to rejoin Linda at the car. While driving along Benedict Canyon, they moved slowly in order to change their clothes inside the car. After throwing the bloody clothes out the window, they searched for a house with a garden hose and found one about two miles from the Tate house and proceeded to wash themselves off with it. This disturbed the owner of the house Rudolph Weber, who went out to see what was going on at 1:00 am.
I don’t think Tex and the girls could get to Weber’s house and use the garden hose in five minutes. So I am assuming they had ten minutes, leaving the Tate house at about 12:50. If as Grim says that the scream that Tim Ireland heard at 12:40 was Frykowski’s, then from the time of his death to the killers’ departure from the Tate house would be ten minutes. That may be plausible if they moved quickly.
Since according to Grim, there was no second entry into the house (by Manson and his mysterious partner), we should now add the so-called discrepancies to that same ten-minute period. Sharon’s blood spilled in the front hall, on the door sill, and on the porch. From the police report: “From the amount of blood there [on the porch] it would appear that she remained there for at least minutes prior to movement.” Sebring’s blood had to drip on the steamer trunks and make a pool on the porch. Tex and the girls had to affix the rope looped around the necks of Jay and Sharon. They also had to busy themselves moving the two steamer trunks to block the entrance to the front hall and to place the mysterious eyeglasses in its odd upright position next to the trunks.
These additional factors stretch the official version to the point of absurdity. That is why I continue to maintain that Parent was the last to die and that his unaccented voice was heard by Ireland at 12:40, for that gives us an extra twenty minutes, or so, to account for the many things that Tex and the girls allegedly did.
The fingerprint....the electrically operated gate at the foot of the drive was the only entry to the property. The gate could only be operated by pushing the button which opened the gate for only a brief period before automatically closing. The button had to be pushed agin to open the gate. If I had been the single police officer first on the scene,who had been informed by the hysterical Mrs Chapman that she saw a body ( at a distance) and blood everywhere and that there were two young women staying in the house and one man, I would have preferred to wait until the boffins turned up an took fingerprints before entering a potentially dangerous scenario . I think when the boffins turned up and I said "After you gentlemen, I don't want to mess up the trace evidence", I might have been greeted with the reply,"After you officer, you're the one with the gun". I think there is a motto- Protect & Serve. Emergency services,with or without forensic training, frequently mess up crime scenes. This is because the priority is to provide help and protection to any live humans. Mrs Chapman didn't notice any blood on the gate button when she pressed it. It is entirely possible that she herself left it having touched the trunks in the hallway. It is also a good possibility that one of three officers first on the scene who discovered the victims,may have picked up the blood ,perhaps when checking for signs of life.
GrimTraveller..I studied Forensics in the 1970s and was surprised to learn how rarely useful fingerprint evidence was retrieved then.
katie8753 said...
Well, it doesn't really matter if Mrs. Chapman pushed that button first
It does if that gate was the only way into and off the premises. And it was.
I would think that people trained in forensics would have a much better chance of being able to piece all the evidence together, including how Sharon's body was found and the amount of blood on the carpet under her body versus the blood on the porch and reach a conclusion, which they didn't.
In a sense you're right. However, it should be noted that the police did try to piece things together in order to reach a conclusion. That's how they ended up with 5 distinct theories. It's also how the press began the wild speculation that dogged the case almost from the start....and still does.
I still find it a worthwhile excercise comparing the 4 police reports with what we know happened in the end. Most of it is way off. But why wouldn't it be ? Almost any one item could have several explanations.
Do you really think that without Susan's grand jury testimony that they would have pieced this crazy story together and ultimately gotten a conviction of Manson?
Yes. I was going to say "I don't know" but then I remembered Linda Kasabian. All the pointers in the Family's direction, especially after Kitty Lutesinger, Brooks Poston and Al Springer would have led to them. The police would have done what they did which was to try to identify various Family members. That's actually how they identified Linda. She had blabbed to 3 people and one guy she picked up as a hitchhiker {James Breckenridge} who went on to write an article about their encounter. I make no predictions as to how it all would have panned out but there is so much of consequence that would have put pressure on the Family and let's face it, they couldn't keep their mouths closed....and they didn't. Susan may have been a chatterbox but she was by no means the only one.
What did they have? Some hearsay from bikers and fingerprints of Tex & Pat at Cielo?
Although what they had from the bikers was often hearsay, the fact remains that Manson had been on the suspect list for a month before Springer spoke to the cops. Think about that for a minute. These people and their associates keep turning up suspiciously in this murder investigation.........then out of the blue this guy says one of them confessed to him and not only that, talks about a guy called "Henland" that had his ear cut off by a "Bausley" when they've got Beausoleil in custody on the murder of Hinman.....and then just like that starts asking if a fridge got written on.....Honestly, the amount of connections in the case that pointed to the Family is phenomenal.
And don't underestimate the effect of those fingerprints. For while it's true that a good lawyer could have their presence diminished, once Tex was known to be the bearer of one of them, he caved. Pat was already freaking out, long before they were caught and as we know all too well, coping under pressure is not and was not back then, her forté.
Do you think that Linda K. would have agreed to testify if she didn't have to?
Bugliosi was always of the opinion that Linda didn't have to testify because the case against her was so weak. But at the time, she didn't know this. From the moment she was arrested her lawyer was trying to get her some kind of deal.
I can't remember did Mrs. Chapman press the button to get onto the property as well? Was there a Mr. Chapman, was she a widow?
What I said to Grim is this:
Well, it doesn't really matter if Mrs. Chapman pushed that button first. Mrs. Chapman was a maid who stumbled on a horrific crime scene and was just scared to death and trying to get off that property. The Officer was a trained police officer. Of the two, I'm pretty sure he should have known better. That's sloppy police work.
He replied:
It does if that gate was the only way into and off the premises. And it was.
That's phoney baloney! So if it's the only way in and out it's okay to mess up evidence? Did any of them hear about plastic gloves? Was there no way to disengage that gate and open it manually? Is that what they teach in that fancy police school in California????????????????
Hi Beauders! I think she was a widow or something. I've never heard about a Mr. Chapman. At least he didn't surface while she was losing her mind over this nonsense.
I don't remember if she pushed the button to get in, but that wouldn't matter because Tex didn't push the button to get in.
Grim said:
Bugliosi was always of the opinion that Linda didn't have to testify because the case against her was so weak. But at the time, she didn't know this. From the moment she was arrested her lawyer was trying to get her some kind of deal.
Bugliosi always referred to Linda as "Sweet Linda". There was nothing sweet about her. If she thought for one minute that she could have ditched this albatross and gone her own way, she would have. There was nothing SWEET about her!
I can guarantee you that if Susan Atkins hadn't shot her mouth off in jail and at the grand jury, Linda's lips would have been sealed like the Sphynx!
There's not enough time to tell you how much I can't STAND Linda Kasabian!
Grim, you base your case on Linda's testimony, but I know it was biased in her favor, always making her look like a victim, even though she wasn't a victim. I think she wanted to be close to Charlie and do his bidding, but when it all fell apart, she suddenly claimed victim!
William Weston said...
It is interesting that the Zodiac Killer wrote a letter to a television station, KHJ-TV in Los Angeles (the Channel Nine letter), postmarked May 2, 1978 in which he said he wanted to kill five people among whom was “Susan Atkins – the Judas of the Manson family. Shes gone get hers now.”
Well, some biker called George recently tweeted that one of the reasons the Straight Satans motorbike gang had to fold was because Danny DeCarlo was a Judas in the Manson case. And Bugliosi wrote in "Helter Skelter," when comparing Charlie's and Jesus' trials and tribulations that Charlie had "not one Judas but two ~ Susan and Linda." Ronnie Howard had bullets fired through her window and was referred to as "the Manson case snitch." The Family regarded Paul Watkins as a Judas. Susan regarded Kitty Lutesinger a Judas. Charlie regarded Bobby as one.
So the Zodiac having that opinion is no great shakes. Join the queue, mate !
William Weston said...
Since according to Grim, there was no second entry into the house (by Manson and his mysterious partner)
I've never said that.
What I have said is that Manson denied it to both Rolling Stone and George Stimson.
I've also said that if he did go to the house to upset the crime scene, he did a shitty job. And I've also pointed out that he has told two completely different stories about the glasses and that one of them proceeds with information that is scientifically not true which casts doubt on the veracity of the whole story.
These additional factors stretch the official version to the point of absurdity. That is why I continue to maintain that Parent was the last to die and that his unaccented voice was heard by Ireland at 12:40, for that gives us an extra twenty minutes, or so, to account for the many things that Tex and the girls allegedly did
When the murderers went on the rampage, it wasn't like school where every part of the day runs smoothly according to a pre-defined time and lessons don't run overtime. Time meant nothing to the Family so they have no idea of the times that things happened. In fact, just about every person that gives some kind of timing can be shown to be suspect. To Pat, it was over "quickly." To Susan it happened fast. Ireland heard one scream and estimated it lasted 10-15 seconds, almost a mile away. But thought it was 1am. And so on and so forth. Simple fact of the matter is that if you go strictly by the times provided, pretty much nothing matches up. But that's normal. Few people involved kept a "to the second" track of the time.
Vincent Bugliosi in a way is really responsible for the time obsession. Now, I understand why some of the time was important to him. For example, there needed to be some logical correlation between the time on Steve's clock radio, Garretson's "Steve left after midnight," the screaming man's voice and Rudy Weber.
There is often this unstated assumption that the events at Cielo took a long time. I know I carried that around for decades. Some of it is to do with how long it takes to read the account in Bugliosi' & Gentry's book. But it really is signficant that according to all of the killers, it was all over pretty quickly, Pat telling this to Leslie {privately}, Susan relaying to the grand jury Tex telling Charlie that it happened very fast. Manson asked them why they were home so early.
It's also interesting that the following night, nothing has been related about how long it took. That would indicate that Cielo was noticeable for its speediness.
Now, it is certainly possible that Steve could have been the last to die. But as was stated earlier, if that were so, the entire case falls apart, regardless of fingerprints and corroboration because it means that Susan and Linda both knowingly lied. If they knowingly lied about the the sequence of killings, then it throws out of sync everything else they said and makes them beyond reliable. And the rafter of things I pointed out earlier comes into play. You've only got to look at Susan Atkins and how almost everything she ever said, whether it be to the GJ, the trial, her books or her parole hearings is tainted because of her many story changes to see what happens when one starts getting into unreliability.
Interestingly enough, she always maintained Steve was killed first !
I've not had much time for the TLB saga for the last couple of years. I've been too busy on my blog busting butts for President Trump!
Just dabbling here and there. But I think I need to come back and clear some things up! LOL.
Did you miss me? Check one square. yes, no, maybe. HA HA!
katie8753 said...
That's phoney baloney!
There's nothing false in what I said.
Where Tex left his print for sure, the police found it.
So if it's the only way in and out it's okay to mess up evidence?
Susan specifically said to her lawyer that Tex didn't use his fingers, that he used his arm or elbow. I thought that was interesting. Tex thought he was being careful.
Is that what they teach in that fancy police school in California?
As a neutral, that just reads as a comment from someone that has nothing but disdain for liberals and who views California as a liberal state.
I'm just thinking to myself that whatever mistakes the police made {and all police forces everywhere on the planet make them}, they had the ringleader on a suspects list 9 weeks after the killings and rounded all the perps up a few weeks after that. By the end of the year they were going nowhere and 50 years later, they've gone nowhere {except the sweet by and by}.
Bugliosi always referred to Linda as "Sweet Linda"
"Always" ? You'll have to refresh my memory there and show me specifically where he does refer to her that way. I find that many people that comment on Linda have an already entrenched bias against her and it tends to colour much of what they say. Rarely does anyone ever approach Vince & Linda in a neutral fashion. If they did, they might note that he is on record as saying she was guilty or that she was repugnantly frank or that she was docile and easily led or that she didn't deserve medals etc. Yes, she was useful to his case, yes, he hoped she would pull out of the aimless, drug oriented life she was stuck in.
Whooo !
There was nothing SWEET about her!
Well, if she were my Mum, I wouldn't be making a YouTube video about it !
I can guarantee you that if
I think I'll pass on guarantees that are really just biased speculations when you undress them.
There's not enough time to tell you how much I can't STAND Linda Kasabian!
But you'll doubtless find it.
you base your case on Linda's testimony
I most certainly do not. I base it on a whole range of involved persons and happenings, of whom and which Linda happens to be one.
There again, I'm not even sure which case you're talking about.
I think she wanted to be close to Charlie and do his bidding, but when it all fell apart, she suddenly claimed victim!
Sometimes, you come across as the classic case of the person that doesn't see the wood for the trees. The night of the LaBianca murders, she had the perfect chance to do his bidding at Ocean Front Walk and she thwarted his murder plan. Nothing had fallen apart at that point. Two days later, she fled. Nothing had fallen apart at that point either.
As far as Linda "thwarting" anything, I have my doubts. She could have made all that up.
And I don't know about you, but I think the "family wagon" was falling off the wheels when they spent 2 nights brutally murdering a bunch of people for no reason at all.
Hi, everyone. Please allow me to indulge a bit here too: There's no question the LAPD did a terrible job investigating Tate, for all of the many reasons as outlined above. And let us not forget to give some of the police credit where it's due, that while the Tate autopsies were being conducted, AND before the LaBianca's bodies had even been discovered a LA Sheriff investigating Hinman called a lead Tate detective to discuss whether or not the two cases could be connected, only to be rebuffed because the LAPD had decided that the Canadians and the Pic Dawson lot had done the deed. As for the gun, according to the NY Times, Steven Weiss and his dad tunred it over to the Van Nuys LAPD officer after Steve found it on Sept 1st which was the exact day the LAPD sent out a nationwide bulletin asking police to be on the lookout for a longhorn revolver as it may be the murder weapon...perhaps the LAPD didn't send themselves the bulletin? Perhaps it crossed in the mail? Perhaps Van Nuys is so far out in the sticks that the detectives didn't even bother?
Hi Starship! Good to see you!!
katie8753 said...
As far as Linda "thwarting" anything, I have my doubts. She could have made all that up
Somebody that is objective and neutral will find that they have to give credit where credit is due. Doing so doesn't mean they like or admire the person to whom they are giving credit in that moment, nor is it showing some weakness to do so.
There is some degree of corroboration from Leslie {to Marvin Part in '69} about the two teams of killers, some degree of corroboration from Clem during the trial though his modus operandi is to protect Charlie and dump Linda and corroboration from Susan at 3 points of history {trial and two books}, interestingly all of which are anti-Linda in nature and tone.
I think it's fair to say she thwarted Charlie. I think Susan would have come out with guns blazing had that not been the case.
And I don't know about you, but I think the "family wagon" was falling off the wheels when they spent 2 nights brutally murdering a bunch of people for no reason at all
That may or may not be true but either way, that statement seems to render your original point meaningless.
"I think she wanted to be close to Charlie and do his bidding, but when it all fell apart, she suddenly claimed victim!"
If it is at the point of the murders that, in your view, everything was falling apart, I can't work out what your criticism of Linda is. Please enlighten me.
starship said...
Hi, everyone
Did you ever go by the name of Pristash ?
LAPD did a terrible job investigating Tate.....let us not forget to give some of the police credit where it's due
I think that would sum up the police job, some good work, some lousy work and ultimately, perps caught, convicted and clapped in irons.
Grim said:
I think it's fair to say she thwarted Charlie. I think Susan would have come out with guns blazing had that not been the case.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Fair? Is that the same as "correct"?
What do we really know about Linda Kasabian? She was found by Gypsy while she was living with her husband and some other guy. Gypsy took her to the "ranch" along with her daughter, supposedly because Linda's husband told her to "get lost". Linda bragged about her husband having $5,000. She agreed to go back to her husband's pad and steal the $5,000. Which she did.
Linda is not loyal to anyone and she's not above stealing money.
Linda keeps claiming in all of her "memoirs" that her daughter was her only concern. But yet she left her daughter to leave Spahn's Ranch, knowing they were killers and her daughter's life was in danger.
Linda left California, don't remember where all she went, I think New Mexico and somewhere else, and I don't have the will or desire to read up on it, but she only "surrendered" to the LAPD because SUSAN revealed her identity in her Grand Jury testimony.
If Susan had never given that testimony, would Linda have ever been identified in that killing bunch?
"I think she wanted to be close to Charlie and do his bidding, but when it all fell apart, she suddenly claimed victim!"
If it is at the point of the murders that, in your view, everything was falling apart, I can't work out what your criticism of Linda is. Please enlighten me.
What I'm talking about is that Linda joined that group and she wasn't better than anybody, as spelled out above. But I think she thought she was better than the others. And I think she was hoping that Charlie thought so too.
But when it all went south and she was supposed to kill, she decided to claim victim.
In other words...she was all for this Manson bullshit when he was the running hog boss and just making the girls turn tricks and she was the star "fav", but when the tables turned and he expected her to do everything he said, including murder, she suddenly didn't like being the "most popular hag" and claimed victim.
And when that "noose came around her neck", she decided to be the State's Star Witness against the very people she used to call "friends".
With friends like that, who needs enemies?
katie8753 said...
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Fair? Is that the same as "correct"?
Kind of. It's a way of saying that given all we know, it wouldn't be unfair. That given the balance of probability, nothing has come forward to show that what she says about that incident is not true.
Linda bragged about her husband having $5,000
I think it's more accurate to say she mentioned it, which makes sense. While talking with Tex, she mentioned why she was at the ranch and it would have come up what she was leaving behind, a sailing to South America and the $5000 set aside for it. It's fairly well established that wolfing the money wasn't her idea, neither did she benefit from the money. Tex was on a roll ~ in 3 days, he netted the Family $7770 {Crowe & Linda}.
Linda is not loyal to anyone and she's not above stealing money
Is or was ?
Linda certainly looked out for no.1. But that's where she was actually smart. Metaphysical musings and theories about death not being the end didn't go very far with her when it came to her own mortality !
Linda keeps claiming in all of her "memoirs" that her daughter was her only concern. But yet she left her daughter to leave Spahn's Ranch, knowing they were killers and her daughter's life was in danger
I've long felt that actually, her reasoning in leaving Tanya at Spahn was sound. Firstly, she did try to take her but it wasn't possible. Secondly, no one knew what happened to Linda until Joe Sage rang Charlie and asked him if these murder tales were true. There was no way with the info Linda had that harm was going to come to Tanya. They knew by then that she'd been blabbing. After the Spahn raid when Tanya was taken into care, they tried to get her from social services ~ security for Linda's silence. It didn't work. But I wonder how many times in the coming months they thought about her.
Something that stood out to me was Linda's husband wanted to go straight to Spahn after Linda told him what was going on but she was adamant that this was not the way to play it. She stuck with her instincts and eventually got her daughter back which had always been her intention. Regardless of what one thinks, she says she was always confident Tanya would be OK and I believe her on that one. The time she was justifiably scared was on the night of the Cielo murders. After that, she was confident Tanya would not be harmed by the Family. And she wasn't.
katie8753 said...
If Susan had never given that testimony, would Linda have ever been identified in that killing bunch?
Ronnie, Virginia and Leslie might have, later, Juan Flynn might have. We don't know of course because things turned out otherwise. But your question opens the door to speculation, so speculating, yes. Pat and Tex would possibly have given her up.
What I'm talking about is that Linda joined that group and she wasn't better than anybody, as spelled out above. But I think she thought she was better than the others
I'm curious as where you get that from. She'd just been rejected by her husband and seen a 2nd marriage go down the pans....at 20 !
And I think she was hoping that Charlie thought so too
As were all the girls and some of the guys. Isn't it Bruce who gets himself into trouble with the Guv'nor by saying he wanted to be Charlie's favourite guy ?
But when it all went south and she was supposed to kill, she decided to claim victim.
In other words...she was all for this Manson bullshit when he was the running hog boss and just making the girls turn tricks and she was the star "fav", but when the tables turned and he expected her to do everything he said, including murder, she suddenly didn't like being the "most popular hag" and claimed victim
It seems you're lambasting her because....she didn't want to murder.
Mahogany Rush were right ~ tis indeed a strange universe.
And when that "noose came around her neck", she decided to be the State's Star Witness against the very people she used to call "friends"
I'm often curious when people criticize her for "turning against her friends." St used to do that a lot. You guys are funny; on the one hand, you lambast Charlie and others for not telling us everything you suspect they know, but then you lambast the person whose evidence was instrumental in getting a group of murderers into a jail they have never been able to get out of.
With friends like that, who needs enemies?
Consider the alternattive. Without her, only Susan {because of what she told her cellmates} and Leslie {because of what she told Dianne Lake} are sure bankers. And numerically, they did the least in terms of killing. If Ronnie and Virginia had followed the prison code so they wouldn't be identified as snitches and not testified, no Susan. If Dianne had kept schtuum, no Leslie.
I'll take Kasabian's selfish looking out for no.1 mixed with "I want to tell the truth" any day. To put it another way, she was by far the lesser of the evils available.
Geez Katie I love reading your and Grim's interactions you two are oil and water. My opinion about Kasabian is that she was a follower and did what people told her to do, she was not a strong person. Some of that may have been from the substances she took but not all. Tex told her to steal money and she did. That was a lot of money and that was a shitty thing to. If Tex had told her to kill would she have, I think it is a possibility she would have. We will never know, she lucked out. Without Kasabian would have Manson been convicted again I don't know. Manson could have walked without her testimony. She certainly was the lesser of two evils when comparing her to Atkins. Kasabian has had a terrible life full of addiction and bad behavior. I think Krenwinkel, Atkins, and Van Houten have actually had better lives in prison than Kasabian had outside of prison. She'll also will die an addicts death which is usually not pleasant.
Beauders LOL.
I guess I should explain that my dislike for Linda extends to ALL of them. I think they're all pathetic. But I also think it's pathetic to join a group of people and participate in all their activities, including "love ins" and using all their "free drugs", and then when push comes to shove, turning your back on those very same people to save your worthless hide.
I always thought Linda ratted everyone out and got away with something when she was just as guilty as they were. But as Beauders points out, the others probably had a better life in prison that she ever had as a free person, so I guess it all worked out in the end.
I found the following comment on the Manson Family Blog which I think is pertinent to our discussion of when Parent was killed.
“Zelda Formaldehyde said...
Now, I've mentioned something before elsewhere and I'll do it again here. There is no 'ravine' or 'mountain' on Benedict Canyon Road between Cielo and Portola Drive where Weber lived, at least as I can see on Google Earth. And since there is no indication that the bloody clothing or weapons were in the car when they stopped to use Weber's hose, I have to believe the clothing and weapons were dumped by then. Therefore, the killers drove past Portola going north on BCR, past the first switchback, past the second switchback, and then dumped the clothing just past there. You can see it on an old original video clip of Al Wiman talking about where the clothing was found. This would mean that the killers drove past Portola, continued on for about 5 minutes or so, dumped the clothing (and presumably the knives), then turned around and drove back on BCR toward the Tate house, stopping at Portola to use the hose. Why they would do this is anyone's guess. But my mental timeline, as measured against the testimony of those in the car, always said the clothing was gone before the Portola stop, and as mentioned, there is no hillside between Cielo and Portola. So add another 10 minutes of mystery time.”
My understanding of Zelda’s comment is that it puts an additional squeeze on the four killer’s ability to move speedily from point A (the 12:40 time when Tim Irleand heard the scream) to point B (the 1:00 time at Rudolf Weber’s house).
If as I contend that Parent was shot at 12:40 instead of 12:20, then the killers should have had ample time to get to Weber’s house by 1:00.
Note: The words “ample time” are not meant to assume they were on some kind of schedule. They probably had no awareness of time at all. I am just using the expression as a convenient way of putting their actions into some kind of timeline.
William Weston said...
If as I contend that Parent was shot at 12:40 instead of 12:20, then the killers should have had ample time to get to Weber’s house by 1:00.
Note: The words “ample time” are not meant to assume they were on some kind of schedule. They probably had no awareness of time at all. I am just using the expression as a convenient way of putting their actions into some kind of timeline
Ah, William, that is precisely the problem you are faced with when you use a phrase like "ample time." You can't escape the notion of trying to fit all the events into a pre-packaged timeline and for me, that's the wrong way to go about it because you then become a sun in search of an earth as opposed to an earth affected by a sun.
As we've seen by all of the time discrepancies and estimations and the simple fact that hardly anyone involved was keeping time, you simply cannot rely on the time evidence other than, at best, to sketch out some sort of very rough guidline. And one also has to put together a host of accounts from perps and witnesses alike which leads to the ballpark figures rather than exactitudes.
Unless of course, one happens to be looking to upset the applecart.
Again I'll point out, it is rather interesting that no one ever comes out and says that the LaBiancas were killed at 5.30am or even 8am. There's absolutely nothing there that gives any indication of when they were killed other than the newspaper guy that sold them a paper. They could have died 9 hours after that. We seem to be willing to take the killers' words for those murders.
katie8753 said...
I also think it's pathetic to join a group of people and participate in all their activities, including "love ins" and using all their "free drugs", and then when push comes to shove, turning your back on those very same people to save your worthless hide
Not when you are talking about the murder of 7 people and a close to being born baby. What you seem to be advocating is that people with criminal activity under their belts remain that way, never see the error of their ways and if they give evidence pertaining to murders, they're shitbags for doing the right thing.
I bet if 3 people murdered any of your loved ones and one of them that hadn't actually killed, in order to save themselves, turned state's evidence, you wouldn't be criticizing them for doing so.
Do you also think Paul Watkins, Brooks Poston, Juan Flynn, Danny DeCarlo, TJ, Babs Hoyt, Steph Schram and Dianne were pathetic ? And do you ∴ logically admire Sandy, Squeaky, Ouisch, Clem, Gypsy, Mary and Cathy for not turning on the group and trying to keep murderers from escaping justice ?
katie8753 said...
I always thought Linda ratted everyone out and got away with something when she was just as guilty as they were
Legally, yes. And on tape and in Robert Hendrickson's book, "Death to pigs" Vincent Bugliosi, in terms of Linda's guilt, twice, states exactly that.
But whether we like it or not, intent plays a really important part here and on that level, Linda was never and will never be on the same bank of the river as the other killers.
the others probably had a better life in prison that she ever had as a free person
That's one of the major ironies of the case. Linda carried on the same trajectory that she had been on long before she ever got to Spahn. LE and society in general did not see her as a problem precisely because she turned her back on all things Mansonian and testified and seemed so impressive in doing so. But it was a false dawn.
I wouldn't be surprised if 40 years of parole board members hadn't had one eye on Linda and how she was turning out and used this to fuel their parole decisions regarding the others. In a way, she's hardly been a great ad for not being something of a dangerous influence in society. At least the others have improved themselves under the strictures of jail.
I'm well aware that Steve Grogan rather scotches that theory, however.
William Weston said...
I notice that there was a discussion of the fence in 2015 on this blog. Gary Stewart posted some pictures of the fence. Little was said in that discussion about the scrape marks on the undercarriage of Parent’s car caused by the curb or the white paint marks from the fence. So I think it is worth going back over this again
I think the glasses and the broken fence represent the last throws of the dice to try to show that the forces of law and order got it wrong.
And that's just what Charles Manson was looking for back in 1969. This was the guy that was telling the courts and world's press that if he were allowed to represent himself, everyone would see that he wasn't the kind of person that would perpetrate such acts. All the while he was saying this, he was of the thought that he had shot and killed Lotsapoppa; he didn't know he was alive so he said these things knowingly lying. All along the line there have been people trying to show that something major was up, whether it was the wrong motive or whether the wrong perps were involved or whatever.
beauders said...
If Tex had told her to kill would she have, I think it is a possibility she would have. We will never know, she lucked out
I don't know.....there are 3 or 4 times when she disobeyed Tex that night. She didn't get Steve's wallet. She didn't report the open window. She didn't stay keeping watch at the car. She started the car when the killers arrived, much to Tex's chagrin. And the next night, she didn't kill Nader, despite Charlie's explicit instructions. And she was afraid of Charlie and in her mind, he was the heavy dude.
Manson could have walked without her testimony
I have no doubt that without Linda {and with Susan having recanted} Manson would have walked. {It's interesting that he was never even arrested for shooting Crowe even though everyone knows it and Crowe said it in court}. The other evidence against Charlie was pretty useless without a Susan or a Linda. With Linda, it was dynamite double plus.
What though would have happened if Watson pulled a Leslie Van Houten on Kasabian. That is put a knife in her hand and then yelled at her to do something? Would Kasabian have risked her own life to not participate? I just don't know and remember that she really liked Watson. William I want to know why it is so important to you to have Steve Parent die at the end the murders than at the beginning. I believe the testified circumstances of Parents murder because no one benefited by lying. I also think that if there was some secret benefit someone would have said so in a parole hearing by now.
Grim said:
I bet if 3 people murdered any of your loved ones and one of them that hadn't actually killed, in order to save themselves, turned state's evidence, you wouldn't be criticizing them for doing so.
Go back and read what I said. How do you know how I would feel?
You are getting on my last nerve! Linda was just as guilty of murder as the others, it's called CON-SPIR-ACY!!! She was there, and she did NOTHING to prevent it. And she did NOTHING to prevent the 2nd night. Yeah, I would love for the 4th killer to get off to get the other 3 convicted, so I could hate that spineless rat fink blood thirsty killer that got away! Sounds like a nice life!!!
William, how do you know there were no bloody clothing or weapons in the car when they stopped at the Weber's house? Maybe they were on the floor of the car covered up.
katie8753 said...
William, how do you know there were no bloody clothing or weapons in the car when they stopped at the Weber's house? Maybe they were on the floor of the car covered up.
There are inconsistencies in the statements of Tex, Linda, and Susan.
Susan said in her grand jury testimony that (1) they tossed the bloody clothes and weapons over the side of the hill and then (2) went to a house to wash the blood off with a hose. Susan also gave this same sequence of events to cellmates Virginia Graham and Ronnie Howard.
Tex and Linda give a different sequence of events.
P. 72 of the Watson book says that they went to the Portola house and afterwards tossed both the bloody clothes and the weapons over an embankment off Mulholland Drive. Beverly Glen Blvd. is near Mulholland Drive and where the revolver was found was at 3627 Longview Valley Road (discovered by Steven Weiss). According to google maps it is 13 miles from 10050 Cielo Drive.
Linda said in her testimony they went to the house on Portola Drive and then tossed out the clothing. No mention was made of weapons.
P. 266-267 of the Bugliosi book says that a TV camera crew from KACB-TV doing a re-enactment drove from the gate at 10050 Cielo Drive and proceeded down Benedict Canyon Drive, with all of them changing clothes but the driver. It took them six minutes and twenty seconds. There they found themselves at a wide shoulder opposite 2901 Benedict Canyon Drive. After some looking around they found the clothes.
Since the statements of Susan, Tex, and Linda all seem to be a muddle of inconsistencies, the truth was found by the TV camera crew. Thus the true sequence of events is that,
first, they tossed out the clothes at 2901 Benedict Canyon Drive
second, they went to the Weber house
third, they went to Beverly Glen Road and tossed out the revolver.
beauders said...
What though would have happened if Watson pulled a Leslie Van Houten on Kasabian. That is put a knife in her hand and then yelled at her to do something? Would Kasabian have risked her own life to not participate? I just don't know
Well, we can never know because that never happened. Also, Leslie's case is somewhat different insofar as she wanted to kill in order to be seen as a good soldier in the revolution although she didn't particularly harbour desires of killing. So she was in the LaBianca house with the intent to kill. She got cold feet when it actually came to the moment to do the deed but when Tex told her to "get to it" it wasn't against the backdrop of her not wanting to be there to further their mission. So although she didn't have the stomach to get to it before Tex came into the room, in a way, he fortified her. She tends to tell that part of the story as though she was forced to stab Rosemary and in a way, paradoxically, she was. Paradoxically, because it wasn't against her will. In much the same way that a child on an outward bound course may be reluctant to climb a mountain and is more or less forced to, or let's say, leaned on into doing so and they do it, get over their reluctance and in the end are kind of glad that the person[s] that made them do the climb did so. Remember, in the aftermath of the murders Leslie wasn't regretful and once she started stabbing, she was anything but hesitant. She told Marvin Part that she would do the whole thing again if the same circumstances presented themselves.
None of the above applies to Linda.
and remember that she really liked Watson
Well, she liked Watson.
But according to Bugliosi, she said she was in love with Charlie. And he directly ordered her to murder Saladin Nader. And she didn't. She even refused to his face.
katie8753 said...
Go back and read what I said
You usually have to be married to someone to speak to them like that !
I politely decline.
How do you know how I would feel?
The logic of your words. It's a simple mathematical equation.
Besides, I said "I bet" which is a gambler's statement not a surefire banker. There is room for movement.
You are getting on my last nerve!
You should be paying me for that. I usually charge for that service but you're getting it for free and it's still not good enough for you !
Linda was just as guilty of murder as the others
Legally, yes. And that leaves you with a choice. She shuts up and 5 murderers possibly go free. And every one of those killers has actually, intentionally wielded a knife or gun that has resulted in the death of someone else. But Linda, though guilty of murder in the conspiritorial sense has not. So that leaves you with another choice. To get her to talk, do you offer her immunity ? That was what her lawyer Gary Fleischmann went for, that is what the DA agreed to.
It is interesting comparing the agreements that the DA struck with the Susan camp and the Linda camp. One had the result that they would not seek the death penalty but would seek life imprisonment. The other was that they seek to petition the Judge for immunity from prosecution.
There is a reason for such a disparity of outcome.
it's called CON-SPIR-ACY!!!
By the time Linda was through testifying, she was calling it something else.
She was there, and she did NOTHING to prevent it
I'm torn between amusement and a hearty triple Pink Floyd facepalm when people come up with that one. One of my rules for life is not to put unreal expectations on the actions of another when I cannot know whether I would have done the same in the same circumstances.
And she did NOTHING to prevent the 2nd night
Ditto.
But she did at Ocean Front Walk. And because of this, Richard Roundtree and Chuck Connors got to act with Saladin Nader in the film "Embassy."
Sometimes, the facts are not convenient to suit the prejudice.
Yeah, I would love for the 4th killer to get off to get the other 3 convicted, so I could hate that spineless rat fink blood thirsty killer that got away! Sounds like a nice life!!!
Well, it's your blood pressure, not theirs.
William Weston said...
There are inconsistencies in the statements of Tex, Linda, and Susan......the statements of Susan, Tex, and Linda all seem to be a muddle of inconsistencies
I think you can rule Tex out of the equation because by 1978 he was relying on a mish mash of statements for his book. Or rather, Chaplain Ray was. I keep coming back to this but Tex has consistently shown that he has little memory of the finer details.
But yes, Susan and Linda's statements of the immediate 20 or so minutes after the killers left Cielo don't match up.
I'm sorry if it seems like I'm always shooting your highlighting of the discrepancies down, but I'll say it anyway ~ so ? That they might have different memories of the exact sequence is not at all unusual or significant. If we cast our minds back to 911, many, many people that were there, actually watching events as well as on TV have different recollections of the sequence and actuality of some of what happened. But none of them are lying. And actually, Linda does talk about getting rid of the weapons. She couldn't remember if she threw away the gun. The thing is, Susan and Linda relate exactly the same events, just placed differently. That's why I ask why does it matter ? Like at the gas station, Susan says all the women went into the restroom, Linda says she didn't. Is that important ? No. It's not like the example of Bruce and Clem in later years relating the murder of Shorty where Clem says only he and Tex were in the car with Shorty and that Shorty got stabbed but he didn't see Tex do it whereas Bruce says he was in the car with Clem, Tex and Shorty and saw Shorty had been stabbed but he didn't see Tex do it. There you have a major inconsistency that renders the stories of both men unreliable. That's not something one can dismiss. But the Susan, Tex and Linda sequences of those few minutes as the killers drove away from Cielo, they do not add nor subtract from the Cielo murders and none of them denies that all of those events {Hose, clothes, Weber} took place. Weber confirms it so I frankly can't see the big deal surrounding it.
And Susan says that she was slumped down in the back of the car and wasn't paying attention to where they were going and the perps were talking about what had just happened and how one had their hair pulled and one kept hitting bone when they stabbed so their hand hurt and how one of the victims had cried for her Mum and God. Susan also said a lot of that period was very foggy to her. Either Susan or Linda could be exactly correct or either could be slightly inaccurate but it's hardly a deal breaker.
Why would you have to be married to someone to go back and read what they said?
You know Grim, I thought with my last comment you would just "get the hint" and lay off. But the reality is, you're an internet bully. I have a feeling there are a lot of people who would like to comment on this subject, but they decline because of your "cut & paste" dissection of every comment that anyone makes, in which you try and ridicule anyone with any opinion that you don't agree with.
That's why we have this blog! So people can entertain their own thoughts on why this or that happened and discuss it with others. And as such, NO ONE should be made to be ridiculed for their thoughts or opinions.
You can think what you want to think, and I will think what I want to think. If there is no discussion without disparagement and ridicule, then there is no discussion between me and thee. PERIOD!
So William, we can gather from the news crew finding the clothing that Susan Atkins' version of when the clothing was tossed out and when they went to the Weber house was the truth.
Versus Linda's & Tex's versions, which were lies. Which speaks volumes. I wonder if Tex & Linda got their stories straight.
I love it when we can discuss something that hasn't been kicked around before! At least I haven't seen this.
katie8753 said...
Why would you have to be married to someone to go back and read what they said?
Katie, it's called a sense of humour. You were jumping about in your oft dismissive style, I was merely bringing some levity.
You know Grim, I thought with my last comment you would just "get the hint" and lay off
Nah. If I disagree with you, I will tell you.
But the reality is, you're an internet bully
Coming from you in particular, that actually is amusing. I say that because even in the 4 years I've contributed to the board, if that description has fitted anyone, it would be you. But you know what ? I accept that that is a part of your style and sometimes, I engage with you on that level. Sometimes you'll rant in your capitalized way and I'll use humour. It may be somewhat arcane humour, but humour nonetheless.
I have a feeling there are a lot of people who would like to comment on this subject, but they decline because of your "cut & paste" dissection of every comment that anyone makes
You may well be right. But that is neither my fault....nor my problem. I notice that you've not said a bean to William even though he utilizes that style.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. When people, especially multiple people, are engaged in a conversation, between the lot of them, they will bring up a number of points that someone else may want to comment on. It may be because the comment contains errors, it may be because one may want to build on the comment[s], it may be because one has the answer to a question posed in the comment, it may be because one utterly disagrees with the comment {for a number of reasons}. In an internet conversation, highlighting the part of the conversation you are replying to is just simple common sense. There's really not much I can do if someone does not like it. If all you want is a place where everyone just says what they want with absolutely no comeback or questioning of the points they have made, then you're in the wrong game.
in which you try and ridicule anyone with any opinion that you don't agree with
Actually, I do not ridicule anyone. If I disagree with someone's opinion, I'll say so and I'll say why and I'll try to back it up. It is then for that person to proceed from there.
That's why we have this blog! So people can entertain their own thoughts on why this or that happened and discuss it with others
You contradict yourself here because that is exactly what I do. That is what a discussion comprises of ~ various points of view that may overlap in places and not in others. But by the very nature of the beast if one does not agree with someone else's summation or thought or viewpoint, part of a discussion is stating that. I don't have an issue with someone disagreeing with me. It seems that the vice is not versa. Or would you rather that I just didn't say anything ?
If there is no discussion without disparagement and ridicule, then there is no discussion between me and thee
What do you view as me disparaging and ridiculing you ? Because I can tell you from my end, there has been none in this thread. Jesting, yes. Ridicule and disparaging, not a bit of it. But I'm prepared to hear you on what you have taken as being that.
katie8753 said...
So William, we can gather from the news crew finding the clothing that Susan Atkins' version of when the clothing was tossed out and when they went to the Weber house was the truth.
Versus Linda's & Tex's versions, which were lies. Which speaks volumes. I wonder if Tex & Linda got their stories straight.
.I love it when we can discuss something that hasn't been kicked around before! At least I haven't seen this.
I am glad we can still have an intelligent discussion in spite of the extraneous noise. Thank you for all your efforts as moderator. I can see it must be difficult.
I am not surprised that Susan's account lines up with the TV camera crew re-enactment. She had no reason to lie to her cellmates or to the grand jury.
I think Linda committed perjury at this point in her testimony. Not for her own sake, but because she was coached that way. She was Bugliosi's darling, and she went the extra mile to help him. Bugliosi had a particular timeline to establish. This makes discussion of timelines important. Bugliosi needed the tossing of bloody clothes after the Weber house because he was under a time crunch between 12:40 and 1:00. What the ultimate purpose is of all this timeline finagling is something I am still trying to figure out. Perhaps it will emerge as we continue to discuss this matter.
Thanks William. It's interesting that you think that Linda committed perjury on this point of tossing the clothing out because of Bugliosi.
I'm not a big fan of Bugliosi, but do you really think he would encourage her to lie? The reason I mention that is because I personally think Linda was just a liar.
She was painted by Bugliosi to be a sweet little hippy gal who was hood-winked by the big bad Manson guy to commit unspeakable acts, but if you look at her history, she was hardly an "innocent sweet little girl".
I don't know if I should touch on this, but a lot of people make a lot of to-do about Linda's comments about Tex after she had sex with him. That they were just a "super star couple" because of the "magical experience" of sex.
I guess I'm one of those skeptics when a woman says something like that. I always think of "ulterior motives". Don't know what hers was and I hope I not getting into too much "magical mystery tour" that the 2 supposedly had, but it's interesting that they both lied about throwing the clothing out.
Getting back to your theory that Parent was killed last, we have no way of knowing what really happened that night at Cielo Drive. All we have is the killers' testimony (which is not much to go on) and the physical evidence at the scene. The pathologist stated in his report that all of the victims died around the same time, but it's not possible to determine order of death.
So, I can't say whether Parent died first or last. Because I just don't know.
Sorry it took me so long to comment, but I've been swamped. And I'm going to be swamped thru next week. I'm going to take off the moderation so people can comment without waiting for hours to have their comments posted. I know that's just a drag. Again, if anyone abuses that, it will be right back on.
Grim, you're welcome to post here. Just take it easy with that bullshit. And I know you're a smart guy. Don't pretend to not understand what I'm talking about. Because I know you do.
I'll leave it at that.
Katie the prof that Parent was killed last was the broken gun grip, it supposedly wouldn't work after it was broken and we can prove through autopsy reports that Frykowski was the only one with evidence of being struck on the head with a hard blunt object, that means Parent had to have been shot first
Im sorry i mean that Parent was killed FIRST was because of the gun grip
Try not to let Grim Twink bother you, he gets off on believing hes right and like most people who are unsure of themselves they copy and paste loads of bullshit that fit their narrative
Im a big fan of William Weston and the way he questions things and does his homework but on this one youre easily proven wrong, THAT BEING SAID even though Parent was killed first DOESNT MEAN he was killed the way the official narrative states, my belief is he witnessed the beginning of the killings from the window of the main house and when he got up to run he ran into Linda who possibly slashed his hand and called for Tex who chased him down after Steve had backed into the fence, after shooting Steve with his bloodlust partially satisfied it made it easier for Tex to wipe everyone out
Katie i agree that Bugs didnt directly tell Linda to lie, hes ego wouldnt let him take that big of a shortcut, Vince was a master at gently coaching witnesses into believing either what they saw was something different than what they really saw or that something a witness thought happened "definitely at this time" could have happened 10, 15, 30 minutes before or after it really did and we all know he wasnt beyond threatening people with incarceration or having their children taken
Thanks Lou! Interesting points! William what do you have to say about the gun grip theory of Parent being killed first and Lou's theory of Parent seeing the killings in the main house first?
I love that we're talking about this. New stuff!
No offense but he has nothing to say on it, theres no way Parent was killed last unless Tex shot him and then beat him about the head with the gun butt which the autopsy report didnt show
Well, let's see what William has to say. Then we'll discuss.
Please please please lets not let William Weston get discouraged from posting here, we need him and anyone who either questions Helter Skelter
Okay he's welcome to discuss anything he wants.
Night y'all!
Vince was not unlike Manson in this respect. Both could see weakness and, systematically maneuver to exploit weakness to his advantage. He knew Linda's background inside out. He knew she was an adept and capable liar and, he meticulously set up witness schedules, witness testimony etc, to stitch together his motive and conspiracy arguments.
Linda had low self-esteem and, knew how to play her cards to her advantage...to raise her profile within whatever group she was involved with at any given time. She knew Tex was someone who had status/currency at the Ranch and, even though her "ultimate conquest" rafar was attuned to Manson, she sprinkled her sexual abracadabra onto the "other Charles" and built up the sex to endear herself to him.
She gave Bug a lot of clay to mold as he wished.
Maybe only my take, but I do draw quite a few similarities between Vince & Charlie...
Not trying to mess with anyone's feelings or moral/personal beliefs/boundaries BUT...although I don't always agree with Grim (or, anyone for that matter) I don't see Grim's presentation and qualifications as "get(ting) off on believing hes(sic) right and like most people who are unsure of themselves they copy and paste loads 9f bullshit that fits their narrative." I just think he executes as if he would if he was rebutting in a scholarly manner. It's his way. Sure, he likes to pull some strings but, to be honest, as a longtime reader who didn't post until 2016, I've seen some pretty horrific things come from a lot of folks...LouGehrig, "Grim Twink" for real? So you can be a dick but Grim can't poke at people?
We are ALL capable of being shitty to others and, we all have our unique quirks. We also take in and give out things and use terms and language that may offend/not offend some but not others.
Let's just be the freaks we are and, continue to have meaningful and interesting discussion.
Cheers
Doug
PS - LouGehrig - no offense intended
katie8753 said...
William what do you have to say about the gun grip theory of Parent being killed first and Lou's theory of Parent seeing the killings in the main house first?
If the shooting of Parent was at 12:20 then he would not have seen the killings in the main house. If he was shot at 12:40 he would have been cognizant of them. If he pulled the plug on the radio at Garretson's house at 12:15 (or 12:19 as the photo of the radio indicates) there would have been a 15 to 20 minute delay of getting to his car, when it should have taken him less than 5 minutes. That is an indication that he knew what was going on and that he was waiting for a moment when he could take a chance in getting away.
As for the gun grip, that is a a great question, Lou. Unfortunately I don't have an answer.
Can anyone tell me how damage to the grip would render a revolver useless as a firearm?
katie8753 said...
It's interesting that you think that Linda committed perjury on this point of tossing the clothing out because of Bugliosi.
I'm not a big fan of Bugliosi, but do you really think he would encourage her to lie? The reason I mention that is because I personally think Linda was just a liar.
Thanks to the TV camera crew, we know that Linda made some kind of misstatement. It was either perjury or a lapse of memory. The faulty memory argument is not convincing to me because she had a clear and detailed memory of the conversations in the car as they were leaving the Tate house and she had a clear and detailed memory of what happened at the Weber house. That her memory would fail her at the exact point (the time when the bloody clothes were thrown down the hill) where Bugliosi needed it most is entirely too coincidental.
So it must be perjury. Since I see no benefit to Linda for lying on her own initiative, but I do see a benefit for Bugliosi, then she would have been coached.
Bugliosi likes to present himself as the incorruptible prosecutor, but I think his conduct is reprehensible in refusing to allow Paul Fitzgerald to see vital pieces of evidence, the photos of the bloody boot heel print and the mysterious glasses. He also engaged in some kind of trickery when he introduced into evidence a photo of the back end of Sharon's Camaro and pretended it was the back end of Steve Parent's car.
I had never heard about that photo being falsely entered into evidence. Anyone who doesn't know the difference between a Camaro and an Ambassador doesn't need to be in charge of much of anything. LOL.
What did the back end of Sharon's car have to do with anything?
William I'm no expert on guns, but supposedly, when Tex broke the gun grip, his weapon wouldn't fire anymore.
I'll bet Sunset can answer that question. I think he's pretty knowledgable about guns.
The problem is that youre doing the exact thing Bugs did in trying to create to tight a timeline, nobody except Vince mentioned anything about exact times, i dont even think the alarm clock radio time of 12:15 is reliable because so many hands touched that thing after the murders were discovered, if anything i tend to go with the murders happening later than 12:20 due to all the witness accounts of screams and noise after 1 am like Tim Ireland and the Bel Air Patrol guys
Your guess is as good as mine as to WHY the gun wouldnt fire after the grip broke, all we know is the killers said it wouldnt fire afterwards and im assuming Steve Weiss or his dad or the cops tried firing it and it wouldnt
"Horrific"? In the words of Sgt. Hulka, Lighten up Frances lol
William i thought the place Susan said the clothes were dropped and where they were actually found differed, i could be wrong but i thought Susan said they dumped them off Mulholland somewhere but the TV crew found them off Benedict Canyon Dr
I never heard that either but even if it did happen im sure it would have been an honest mistake of pictures getting mixed up, like you said a Camaro and Rambler look nothing alike and the Camaro was in the garage and Steves car was in the driveway
Actually the Camaro was a rented car that Sharon had. It was parked in the driveway, or as I call it the "parking lot".
I've always wondered by Sharon would rent a Camaro, being that she was 8-1/2 months pregnant. It's so small. Seems like she would rent a 1969 Charger or something. Or maybe a hippie van.
No Katie the rented Camaro was in the garage, youre probably thinking of Abigails Firebird which was parked in the driveway near the house, matter of fact theres been some speculation from Doris Tate that since Garretson didnt see Sharons Ferrari that she thinks he tipped off Tex that Sharon wasnt home, thats doubtful BUT Garretson did make a statement once that when the cops arrested him he remembers being horrified at the thought that Sharon may have been the killer since he didnt see her car anywhere on the property when he was dragged out to the patrol car
Wow, that's news to me. The 1969 Camaro and the 1969 Firebird were almost exactly the same, except for the tail lights. That is a Firebird.
I doubt if Garrettson was tipping off Tex and he thought Sharon was the killer. That's another wacky theory. If Sharon was the killer, how come she got killed?
I agree with you, i dont think Bill knew what was going to happen, the part about Bill thinking it was Sharon being the killer although absolutely ridiculous you have to remember Bill didnt find out about Sharon and Jay being killed until he got the the police station, he only knew about Voytek and Abigail from being lead past their bodies on the lawn
As a matter of fact he thought Frykowski was "the younger Polanski" and although he thought the woman on the lawn could have been Folger there was so much blood that he couldnt tell, his recollections of being led past the carnage was "it looked like a battlefield"
I could be wrong but i think the Camaro was the only car the repair shop had to use as a loaner while they repaired the Ferrari
I'm not sure what to think about Bill Garrettson. I think what happened that night made him go mental. Or maybe there were other reasons.
I think he was scared out of his wits when the cops took him away. He was probably afraid of (1) being charged for murder and (2) wondering why he wasn't killed.
I also think he saw more than he admitted to the police. I think he saw a lot of things but was afraid to say anything for fear they would come back to get him.
I posted a thread years ago that said I thought maybe Garrettson knew Krenwinkle and that she had visited his guest house prior to the murders.
I'm not saying that's true. I'm just saying it's a possibility. It seems strange that she went to the guest house to "kill everyone there" and then just backed off, saying no one was there.
Totally agree on Vince, Doug, i think if the whole milkman stalking/wife beating thing on Vince hadnt come out his political aspirations would have brought him to eventually run for state Attorney General and eventually Governer both of which jobs he was more than capable of, instead he became a book huckster, if you think his self righteousness was out of control on Helter Skelter you should hear him on the JFK assassination
I think his main fear was the second, why wasnt he killed? I have a theory, in the Tate homicide report theres a statement from a teenager named Carlos Gill who lived directly across the canyon about 1/4 mile away, he was up (dont laugh) "writing letters" at 4 am and heard a loud heated argument coming directly from the Cielo property, he said it lasted over a minute, my theory is that the argument is between Charlie and whoever he brought back to Cielo with him and its about whether or not to kill Garretson or let him live thinking maybe the cops will blame the whole thing on him
Yeah Lou I've always thought that "letter writer" was hearing something Charlie was yelling. Course I have no proof. Just a theory.
Didn't Charlie tell Diane Sawyer "I went back to see what my children had done"?
Oh well, bedtime for Bozo here. Night y'all.
katie8753 said...
I had never heard about that photo being falsely entered into evidence. Anyone who doesn't know the difference between a Camaro and an Ambassador doesn't need to be in charge of much of anything. LOL.
Katie, I made a mistake saying that the wrong photo was introduced into evidence.by Bugliosi. During Susan Atkins grand jury testimony the following exchange occurred:
A: Toward the residence, and we saw lights coming from, apparently, this car.
Q: You say "this car." Are you referring to a little rectangle here that has "Parent's two-door Rambler, MPX 308"?
A: Right.
MPX 308 is the correct number for the plate of Parent’s Rambler. However a photo appeared in the 1974 edition of Bugliosi’s book Helter Skelter showing Sharon’s Camaro with ZLR 694 and claimed it was Paren’t car. The picture does not appear in the 2001 edition of his book, but the error in the text is not fixed. On page 49,
“From outside the gate of 10050 Cielo it was possible to make out the license number on the white Rambler: ZLR 694. A reporter wrote it down, then ran his own check through the Department of Motor Vehicles, learning that the registered owner was Wilfred E. or Juanita Parent …”
So on this point at least Bugliosi might still retain his reputation as a good prosecutor, but his reputation as a fact-checker for his best-selling book is certainly questionable.
I believe that what is of concern to Bugliosi is that a picture of the rear end of Parent's Rambler would show the dent and scratches made by his backing into the fence, which might indicate whether Parent merely bumped into the fence and hit it on his right passenger side rear bumper as he was backing out, or whether he floored it backing up, not only hitting the rear end but causing scratches to the right side of his car as he careened along the fence railing.
LouGehrig said...
William i thought the place Susan said the clothes were dropped and where they were actually found differed, i could be wrong but i thought Susan said they dumped them off Mulholland somewhere but the TV crew found them off Benedict Canyon Dr.
Susan remembers three or four different places where they threw out the clothes and weapons, but she seems to be confused on whether they were on Mulholland or Benedict Canyon Drive when they threw out the weapons and clothes.
Bugliosi’s leading questions tries to put the tossing of the clothes and weapons on Mulholland Drive, which of course would be after the Weber house. So Susan’s testimony is not as solid in fixing the sequence of events as we would like it to be.
From the grand jury tesimony
A: There was a possibility they could have. I'm pretty sure Tex had a lot of blood on him.
Then we got in the car and as we were driving we changed our clothes inside the car.
Q: While the car was in motion you were changing your clothing; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Where did you drive?
A: We started to drive all over and we drove up to a house in some residential area -- strike that.
We drove somewhere along Mulholland Drive, somewhere up in the canyon, I can't say for sure where.
Q: What canyon are you referring to?
A: Benedict Canyon, Mulholland Canyon, I don't know.
Q: What happened when you reached Mulholland Drive?
A: All we did was drive along and all of the weapons except for one weapon, I believe it was my knife, was handed to Linda who was sitting up in the front seat along with the gun and we drove along the road until we came to what looked like an embankment going down like a cliff with a mountain on one side and a cliff on the other.
Tex asked for something white, some sort of a piece of cloth. In other words, if there happened to be a car behind he could throw out the white rag as a diversionary.
We stopped two or three times. Linda threw away all the bloody clothes over the side of the hill along with the weapons at different intervals.
Q: Three different intervals?
A: Three or four different places, I don't remember how many.
Q: Did Linda get out of the car on all of these occasions?
A: I think only on two of the occasions she got out of the car.
Q: To your knowledge, then, she threw the bloody clothing --
A: Yes.
Q: -- away?
A: Yes.
Q: And what else, again?
A: All of the weapons except for one knife.
Q: The gun and the knives?
A: Yes, I knew on the way down the hill that I had lost a knife.
Q: Now, what is the next thing that happened after Linda threw the clothing and the weapons over the side of the highway?
A: We went to a house -- or, to a street that looked like a dark street, it didn't have any street lights on it.
Q: Why did you go there?
A: To wash.
Q: Wash what?
Q: Wash what?
A: Ourselves.
Q: To wash the blood off of you?
A: Yes, only I didn't know that until we actually got to the house.
One thing thats always bugged me about that night is why head back down Benedict Canyon to Sunset after hosing off and tossing the clothes, going that way is the opposite direction they should have been going to get back to Spahn
What bugs me is why even stop to "hose down and throw away clothes and weapons"? They were heading back to Spahn's Ranch. Which was "hippy killing central" in California. They laughed about it the next day and they all blabbed at times about the killings.
Plus they didn't stop to "hose down and throw away clothes and weapons" after the LiBianca killings or after Gary Hinman was killed. And they didn't cut the phone lines at Gary's or the LaBiancas.
What was different about Cielo Drive?
I think i remember either Pat or Leslie saying they had a change of clothes at Labianca that they put in a neighbors trash can that were never found and also remember that they supposedly showered at the Labiancas as for cutting the phone lines at Cielo but not Waverly just going on how I would think is that the chance of being seen cutting the lines at Waverly would be high since the house was close to the street as opposed to Cielo being all the way up that canyon hill, at midnight the only cars coming up there would have to be residents who at that time surely had to all be home
Also Hinman being the first killing im sure Bobby, Susan and Mary were freaked out and just wanted to get the hell out of there, what i cant figure out is why Bobbys dumb ass went back to try to wipe down the wall, then he drives the victims car up the coast with the bloody knife in the wheel well, hes definitely a contender for Stupid Criminal of the Century lol
Well Leslie said that Tex wanted to put on Leslie's jeans.
CAN YOU IMAGINE THAT? Tex wearing Leslie's jeans? What a joke!
What about cutting the phone lines at Gary's house? That was as remote as you get! And we know they didn't because Susan answered the phone with an English accent.
Bottom line is they are a bunch of liars! Someone ran all those murders, and I think we can all guess who that was!
Yeah Bobby was dumb. But it was Manson's first try at killing. He got better at it.
p.s. I don't think Susan was ever freaked out. I think she liked it. I think she liked being on the next run and the next.
I think Susan liked being the center of attention. Even when it was Bugliosi's attention.
That's a good point Katie they should have gone directly to Spahn from the Tate house, no cleaning up at the Weber's and they should have burned the bloody clothes instead of tossing them.
Right Beauders! Why stop and "hose down" and get caught. Why not just go back to Spahn's and burn things. In fact, that's what they did after LaBianca. They burned things. Who is gonna know?
Tex Watson was present at Cielo Drive and LaBianca, and he did things differently at both houses. He claims that Charlie directed him, but I think he was thinking on his own.
Which opens up a whole new can of worms.
The difference between the Manson killings and other killings is that there were different men in charge of those killings beneath the "master mind".
Which mean, of course, we have to weigh what the "master mind" wanted, and the "killers" wanted.
Something odd to me regarding the Weber house is that after throwing the bloody clothes down the hill at 2901 Benedict Canyon Drive is that they would make a U-turn to go back to Portola Drive instead of continuing north to Mulholland Drive. Perhaps as they past Portola Drive and seeing houses on it they thought they might find a house with a garden hose there. Yet they past four more streets with houses on them in order to get to the place where they would be dropping the clothes. If it was essential for them to turn around and go back the way they came, it seems to me that Hutton Drive is better than Portola Drive. Hutton Drive is wider than Portola Drive, which is more like an alley than a street, hard to get back out once you go in.
Hello again Ms Katie.
I read your blog everyday. Great information.....
I could of replied on April 29th to grimtraveller regarding his biker "George" words, but I didn't want to dereail this great blog-post by William Weston. I will say this:
I did find out why "George" and others
"shut down the Straight Satan's" pertaining to Charles Manson.
Anyway, I do have a question:
Is there something significant about when Steven Parent was killed? (First or Last)
Thanks
Mario George Nitrini 111
--------
The OJ Simpson Case
Hi Mario! Thanks!!
William if youve ever read Nikolas Schrecks book his theory is the reason is that the reason they made a left onto Benedict Canyon from Cielo after the murders is that they were looking for Sebrings place on Easton which would be in that direction along with Portola which i believe is the next street up on the right, i think thats a possibility but i think its more likely that Tex knew getting back to Spahn hed have to have gone that way anyway to get to Mulholland and the Valley and back to Spahn, thats why i can't understand is why once theyd dumped the clothes did they turn around and head in the opposite direction back down Benedict Canyon to Sunset Blvd and the west side of LA, we know thats where the gas station was where they filled up on gas with the money they got from Folger, Paul Caruso asked Susan during their interview if it was near the restaurant Stefaninas on Sunset and she said yes
The other thing thats odd about that spot at 2901 Benedict Canyon is that even with no traffic its very hard to turn a car around to go the other way especially that big 59 Fairlane, the houses through that stretch are EXTREMELY close to the road so theyd have had to back into someones driveway to turn around, arent there any cops patrolling Beverly Hills late at night? Strange
Katie one thing ive always thought was crazy was how Charlie had everybody supposedly programmed and brainwashed during his and the girls trials but when it came time for Vince to prosecute Tex, Tex is all of a sudden his own man doing what he wanted to do
Problem is its a long drive back to Chatsworth when youre covered in blood and they could have been pulled over at anytime
Lou, Tex makes me sick. I've read his book, and even though he says over and over that he is responsible for his own actions, he still blames Manson for all of this. He knows (or has learned) how to sound pious but he's not really.
Bottom line is this: if you know something is wrong, and someone asks you to do it, and you do it anyway knowing it's wrong, then you are just as much to blame as the person who asked you.
Agree 100 percent
What i meant was that if im Bubrick, Texs attorney, im arguing that either Tex was under Mansons hypnosis or spell or whatever you want to call it or hes acting under his own thought and control, it cant be both
When Tex was in prison in Texas, he pulled out all the stops. He stopped eating, he had to have medical attention, and he needed his "mama" to bring him ham sandwiches to live.
That guy really learned how to "act" in California. His Texas attorney was trying everything he could to make it look like he as just a "puppet" and Manson was pulling the strings.
I'm sure Tex was well aware of the Manson trial in CA before his. His attorney coached him on how to act, what to say and what to do to extricate himself from that circus, and he remained calm and respectful at his trial, which was just a con.
It was a joke, he denied everything except killing everyone, he denied driving, knowing what was supposed to be done, bringing the rope, bringing the wire cutters, climbing the pole and cutting tbe wires and basically said he did everything the girls to him to do
Yeah he presented himself as a tired dead fish who was incapable of putting 2 + 2 together. That was all an act. But it didn't work. The jury gave him the death penalty.
Of course, California took care of that and now he has a chance at parole.
He'll be gone in a few years just like the rest
Lou, I have not read Nicholas Schreck’s book, but the close proximity of Sebring’s house to Weber’s house is very interesting.
That gives me an idea that might explain the odd back and forth movements of Tex, Linda, Katie, and Sadie.
I assume for my theory that that they were meeting someone somewhere within the vicinity of the Sebring house (someone in another house surveilling the Sebring house?). If this person lived in an area where neighbors could see the driveway, then it would arouse suspicion if they got out of the car in bloody clothes. So it was essential for them to change their clothes in the car (to conceal this activity) and dump them in an obscure place by a hill, where no one would see them. Then they turned around to meet with the person near the Sebring house. Although they were now wearing fresh clothes, their hair, hands and faces would still be soiled and blood-stained. So it was necessary to wash themselves. Another possible reason for changing clothes and cleaning up is to look presentable to the person they were meeting. They probably picked Portola Drive, because it was a darkened narrow street, where the possibility of being seen would be minimal. Of course they picked the wrong house. Perhaps after meeting the person near the Sebring house, they went to Sunset Boulevard to meet with still another person. Then they headed back north on Benedict Canyon Drive to toss the weapons on Beverly Glen Drive. Then they went to Spahn Ranch.
Interesting point, Lou, regarding the difficulty of making a U-turn in front of 2901 Benedict canyon Drive.
Hi Mario,
It is great to hear from you.
The significance of Parent being killed last resolves some difficulties concerning the Tate case, for instance why Sharon and her friends did not hear the gunshots that killed Parent, why they did not hear Parent's car breaking down the fence, why Mrs. Kott heard three or four gunshots between 12:30 and 1:00.
Since you are interested in the OJ case, I am currently reading a book called Blood Oath about the OJ Simpson case. I think there are parallels to the Tate case, namely, that Nicole and Ron were killed not by OJ but by white supremacists trying to instigate a Helter Skelter-like clash between blacks and whites.
Hi William Weston.
That REALLY makes sense.
(why Sharon and her friends did not hear the gunshots that killed Parent) Steven Parent killed first or last.
Wow, never thought of that.
GREAT INFORMATION.......
William, there are many theories about who killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. MANY.
I have literally lived, every day,
The OJ Simpson Case for almost a quarter of a century.
The bottom line is this William:
NOBODY, not even me, has a rebuttal for my former ex-nephew-in-law, OJ Simpson's regular Limousine Driver, ROCKY BATEMAN. I know A LOT....
I will say this also:
There are MANY unanswered questions in this case.
William, again, GREAT blog-post.
Mario George Nitrini 111
--------
The OJ Simpson Case
All very good points, one thing that Tex said at Webers now kind of has new meaning to me after reading your post, he told Weber when Rudy asked him if they were driving and Tex said "no we're walking and just wanted a drink of water", Portola and Easton ran sort of parallel and were neighboring streets and very similar in that they're VERY narrow, very dimly lit with barely any space between most of the houses, it could be that Tex got the streets mixed up somehow, its VERY hard for me to believe that Webers place was just a random place to pull over and wash off because just like 2901 Benedict Canyon its nearly impossible to make a U turn on Portola which is probably why he parked further down Portola than right in front of Webers, my guess is that Tex possibly parked on Portola thinking it was Easton and when they walked up and down the street and didnt find Jays house they walked through the woods over to Easton and either possibly got scared off by Amos who was Jays butler or still couldnt find Jays place, if you remember Jays place it was easy to miss, the outside front was pretty small and if im not mistaken the color was a dark green or brown
If you get on youtube theres a few clips of people driving the length of Benedict Canyon Dr, its basically a fairly curvy 10-12 minute stretch that connects Sunset Blvd to Mulholland and the San Fernando Valley and the stretch where Easton and Portola has oddly not changed at all since 69 give or take a few new homes here and there
Lou, thanks for recommending that youtube of Benedict canyon Drive. I watched it and particularly took note of the signs for Portola and Easton. As I continued to watch, I did not see any good places to dump clothes except as you come around the curve toward 2901 Benedict Canyon, which was opposite the place where the clothes were found by the KABC crew.
I was looking at google maps of 9870 Portola Drive, where Rudy Weber lived and 9860 Easton Drive where Jay Sebring lived. If you walk down from Rudy's house on Portola, turn left at Benedict Canyon and then turn left to walk up Easton Drive toward Jay’s house, the total walking time is only five minutes. However, I notice that you can take a short-cut, walking down the hill from Portola Drive to Easton Drive by taking some stairs that appear to be made out of wood. Surveillance of Jay’s house might been feasible from the tree-covered hillside between the two streets.
I read Weber’s interview on December 29, 1969 more carefully. It appears that Portola Drive was not a quiet neighborhood after all, but it was rather wild with sex and marijuana smoking going on. So if Portola Drive had that kind of reputation, and if Tex and the girls’s had been there previously, then their idea of using a neighbor’s garden hose in the middle of night might not be so crazy after all.
9863 Portola Drive might have been the safe house for Tex and the girls to meet someone before they continued to their other destinations. It might be something like the Harold True house near the LaBianca's house.
Here’s two excerpts from Weber’s interview
RUDOLF WEBER: Well, yes we’ve had. Uh, because uh, quite a few houses are for rent. As a matter of fact there’s not too many people that actually own their house – most of them are rentals.
Well, a bunch of hippies would come in, perhaps one person would rent the house. And – any house were awful high rental, rent was high. And the first thing, three or four or five or more would move in. And then they stayed for awhile and then they move out again and others come in. Uh, I mean we’ve – other unsavory types of, like this. Like – I don’t know – you might say, marijuana smokers, stuff like this. And so the neighborhood has been plagued by these uh, (inaudible) . Uh, we have some vacant houses across the street that haven’t been lived in for a year. And somehow, it seems to have an attraction to all these hippie type people. They come along and they can sense that this house is not occupied. So they park and they snoop around, and go behind the house, and uh, in other words, they do something they’re not supposed to do.
………..
RUDOLF WEBER: (inaudible) I said well, they’re a bunch of teenagers out on a Friday night and they’re (inaudible) around. And I thought, if I do call the police, and tell them about that, I’m afraid possibly I wouldn’t get much response because they say uh, “well, it’s a bunch of teenagers using your water, so what?”
SGT. ROBERT CALKINS: But this was part of the fact that you have an unoccupied house across the street and that it is a fairly lonesome area up there. This is, this is one of things that was in your mind when you went out and saw these people.
RUDOLF WEBER: It is, yeah. Just (inaudible) the street to see if anything had happened?
SGT. ROBERT CALKINS: Right.
RUDOLF WEBER: And as I pointed out before, when this story broke, uh, it never occurred to me to connect the two of them together.
SGT. ROBERT CALKINS: What’s the address of the unoccupied house across the street from you?
RUDOLF WEBER: 9863 Portola.
SGT. ROBERT CALKINS: Alright, thank you.
Were you actually in the limo that night in October of 93 when Nicole was overheard saying "i think i have a way to get OJs money" or was it just Rocky?
Hi LouGehrig
No, I was not in the Limo when ROCKY BATEMAN overheard Nicole Simpson & some of her girlfriends plotting to steal as much as OJ Simpson's💰money as they could.
This will explain it more:
At a family wedding in Mid-November, 1993, my Ex-in-Law, Rocky Bateman and I, were in THE LIMOUSINE. Rocky told me that he had overheard Nicole Simpson and some of her girlfriends the month before, talking, while Rocky Was driving them to LAX in THE LIMO, having a Discussion (Plotting) about Stealing as much as OJ Simpson's money as they could. Rocky relayed the info to OJ, and OJ asked Rocky if he Knew of anyone who would/could follow Nicole and, according to Rocky, OJ Simpson said: "Find Out who these people were, and, something had to be done about it." So, in THE LIMO in Mid-November, 1993, Rocky asks me to follow Nicole. I Declined. Rocky again asked me at the end of December, 1993, at a Place called Ico-Plex in The San Fernando Valley, to follow Nicole. Again, I Declined. When I found out about The Murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, and that was on June 14th, 1994, I started my own investigation into their murders, on the premise of OJ Simpson being not guilty.
What-a-Ride it's been for me, and it's not over by a LONG-Shot.
Mario George Nitrini 111
------
The OJ Simpson Case
Thanks guys! I watched a video of some realtor driving down Benedict Canyon Drive. It was crazy. People were running stop signs (including the Realtor) and pulling out in front of each other.
I have no idea what that street was like in 1969, but now it's very busy with lots of traffic.
Mario I'm assuming you don't think O. J. killed Nicole & Ron. I always thought he was guilty but I have no idea.
Well Ms Katie,
I stay neutral in who killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman for my legal reasons. But I have said this many times before:
"No one has a rebuttal for
ROCKY BATEMAN in
The OJ Simpson Case & Saga.
NO ONE...... Not even me.
Mario George Nitrini 111
-------
The OJ Simpson Case
Okey doke! Good enough for me! Thanks Mario!
Yeah William i always just assumed there were woods between Portola and Easton where if you were walking to them you wouldnt have to actually walk out to Benedict Canyon to get there which brings me back to why Tex and the girls possibly might have been thirsty and needed a drink from the hose
Youre of the belief that there was a secret compartment that OJ stashed the infamous bag in which Rocky disposed of?
Like the realtor said Benedict Canyon basically connects Sunset Blvd and the west side of LA in the south to Mulholland and the southern edge of the San Fernando Valley to the north, its a fairly well traveled road
Yeah who would live on that street? You can't even back out!
Oh id live there in a heartbeat if i had the money and just deal with the inconvenience but if i had enough money id just head out to Malibu or Topanga
Yeah California is beautiful. There's no arguing about that. I've been there many times. But if you have to deal with the political lib-tards and expense it's not worth it. You might as well head to Hawaii.
I thought it was interesting that Rudy was talking about the rent houses around the area and how expensive it was to rent.
Well, the Cielo Drive house was $1200/month. Which was outrageous in 1969. I wonder how much those "lesser" rent houses went for back in 1969.
Yep.
Mario George Nitrini 111
-------
The OJ Simpson Case
But I've gotta say, Los Angeles isn't very pretty at all. There's a lot of smog. I went there back in the 80's and sometimes the smog was so bad, you couldn't even see the Hollywood sign. Lots of smog. Lots of traffic. Lots of crime.
Gotta get goin'. The weather's turning bad. Shuttin' down. Night y'all!
Susan Atkins said that they went to a gas station that happened to be near Stefanino’s restaurant at 9229 Sunset Blvd on the Sunset Strip. I was interested to find out more about the restaurant. The restaurant served gourmet Italian food, featured a place for dancing, and was the place to go to see celebrities such as Steve McQueen, Don Rickles, Van Heflin, the Sinatras, Robert Michum, etc.
Yeah im sure if a high roller attorney like Caruso was frequenting it it wasnt exactly El Coyote lol
FYI On IDHD they're showing a special about Jane Doe 59. Starts at 10:00am Central time today.
Wow that was an interesting show. They talked about Reet Jurvetson, Marina Habe, Zero and the "Tex tapes". One theory is that Zero was killed by Bruce Davis because he knew too much about TLB, and that Reet might have been seeing Zero and killed for the same reason.
And the Tex tapes have never been released??? The LAPD says there's nothing on there, so why not release them?
Of course, Bruce is never going to admit to that.
I missed that show for an episide of Bonanza with Carrol O Conner guest starring lol
Aaahhhh-Chiiii! HA HA!
Those Tex Watson tapes could really be interesting to listen to. They could prove Tex is a liar in his parole hearings, which isn't hard to believe.
I think theyd at least show that he was more in control of what went on around the ranch and with the murders and theyre worried it will make Manson look like a martyr which he always tried to do
Katie I saw that program Jane Doe #59 and thought it was one the best documentaries on Manson, etc. that I'd seen. I think those tapes show that Manson was a lot less involved in the first night planning and it was more Watson's deal.
Thanks Beauders, I thought that was an excellent documentary. I think those Tex Tapes probably reveal a lot of things, otherwise they would release them.
I really think that Reet was killed because of her knowledge of TLB. And I really think that Bruce probably did it.
Does anyone know anything about Davis's health? I really don't have an opinion on Reet but lets say I would not be shocked if Davis killed her as well as Marina Habe, James Sharp, Doreen Gaul, and lastly but not leastly John Haught. The thing is we're never gonna know unless they kept DNA from the victims that shows up as Davis's. If he did kill all these people though others have been very quiet about it, which is something the Family was not good at. I hear Davis may have Alzheimer's and if that's true there will be no death bed confessions. I don't think he will be released on parole or compassionate release because he would not help on the Gaul/Sharp murders even though they were going to give him immunity. He must have been a real cold guy to not help especially when he became a Christian. Everyone hates Watson but Davis was just as evil and not many of our conversations revolve around him. Of course Watson's murders have been solved and Davis was just a functionary in the two murders he was convicted of. If someone could prove anything regarding Davis and these victims it would open up a whole knew avenue in Manson studies.
I wish I could have majored in Manson studies during my years in college.
Beauders I think Davis was guilty of several murders that he has never confessed to, including Joel Pugh. I watched one of his parole hearings a while back (don't remember which one) but he seemed not only uncooperative, but even hostile to the questioning.
I think Bruce "turning Christian" was just, and still is, a ruse.
Doris Day died.
97, God bless her she led a nice long life
Jurvetson i think was the mysterious "Jean" that she went to LA to meet up with from Montreal, she was stabbed like 150 times around the neck region, to me thats a passion killing, the ones i question are Sharp and Gaul since the rumor was he had a relationship with the girl, for some reason Bruce comes off as this mysterious scary type of guy but the guy in reality is kind of meek, hes not much taller than Charlie and has this kind of Aw Shucks Appalachian accent and high pitched voice
Typo there, i meant Jurvetson was killed by the "Jean" guy, i heard some speculation that he may have been involved in Marina Habe as well
I read that the hardest thing that ever happened to Doris Day was losing her son, so now she is with him. It was the same with my mother, my brother died midlife at 44, and it was the worst that ever happened to her, I know she is with my brother and does not Alzheimer's any longer and that makes the loss of her so much easier.
Lou, I feel sure that Bruce killed John Haught (Zero) if he knew too much about TLB. He was right there!!!
And if Zero was the "Jean" that Reet was seeing in Canada and went to see in LA, that could mean that Reet knew too much too.
And I find it very odd that the London police would rule Pugh's death a "suicide". Who cuts their own throat???
Beauders you are so right! I believe that Doris never got over her son's death. She only had one son.
And you're right, your mom is running free now, without alzheimer's.
I wonder how Doris felt about Manson, knowing that he targeted her son's house.
I think I'll put up that Bruce Davis parole hearing for a thread. When I get a chance.
Yeah the Pugh thing is really weird but i thought Bruce had proof he wasnt in England at the time, frkm the footage ive seen of Bruce he just seems like to meek of a character to stab someone 150 times
My brother died at 41 in 2015 and even though my dad had to live through it in a way im glad my mom didn't, she died in 1994
Katie have you ever seen that clip of when Bruce turned himself in tripping on acid? Its one of the funniest things ive even seen, the guy is so bombed that he literally cant stop smiling and laughing, also whats with him and other family people walking around barefoot outside? Whenever i see someone do that i cringe, my mom was the same way, with the exception of a pool or the beach it is just plain nasty lol
Problem is Tex literally killed everyone except Hinman and yes i think he killed Shorty,so hes the one who can give the most information, sometimes i think that whats on the tapes is nothing drastically new but show that Tex was more in control of how things went down both nights and its very different than the "official narrative", i think Vince knew what was on the tapes as well and didnt want it to come out and prove that both the trials and his book were at least partially bullshit so he maybe went to Bubrick and made a deal with Tex that he wouldnt go after him on Shorty if he kept his mouth shut
Lou get a copy of Hendrickson's dvd's if you don't have them and watch Davis. He is down right creepy. You'll get to see him angry, happy, quiet, and talking nonsense. People say he imitated and acted like Manson when Manson was not around but became himself when Manson was there. I don't think he was the Zodiac killer but people who think he is are seeing something in him. Maybe it was the drugs or being raised with an abusive father but there was something really wrong with him. Tex wasn't second in charge of the Family, Bruce Davis was. Manson saw something in him to trust him with second place. Maybe Davis healed some in prison and I think he thinks he is a Christian, he certainly has the degrees to show he at least studied Christianity. The thing I can't get past is he wouldn't help with the Gaul/Sharp investigation. I have a set of the crime scene/autopsy photo's of Gaul/Sharp. They were just kids, the overkill on Gaul/Sharp makes Tate/LaBianca look like a walk in the park. Whoever killed those kids also raped Gaul. It was one of the worst crime scenes I've seen. They told Davis he would get immunity even if he committed this rape and murders and he said no, he would not help. Davis has a daughter, I wonder what he would feel if that happened to her. Like I said before it sounds like Davis has Alzheimer's so all his knowledge of any other murders is lost which is just awful for his victims family, that is if he has victims. I personally think he did have victims but again no one in the Family could keep their mouth's shut so how then did he luck out with no one really saying anything he did. I think he was responsible for Haught's death, that is he either shot the young man or told someone else to do it. Someone should have a conversation with Sue Bartell about Haught's death as she was in bed with him at the time and gleefully told Susan Atkins about the blood gurgling out of him the next day. People also should not forget it was Davis who started the Christianity bag with the Family. He converted both Atkins and Watson to the faith. Atkins though went her own way because she said Davis's interpretation of the faith was too dark, imagine that too dark. I helped Brett write his section on Davis and I wish we could have dug deeper but of course Brett died. I think he committed suicide because of the ramifications of outing Steve Grogan, but I also have heard he died from an accidental overdose, which I guess is possible too.
“The auto store that has all the far-out cars” near Stefanino’s restaurant, the area where Susan Atkins said they got gas, was Hornburg Motor Cars, 9176 Sunset Boulevard. Charles Hornburg was a Jaguar distributor, who also sold Aston Martins, and Rolls Royces. In 1969 he was selling Jaguar XKE’s for $6000.
It’s about four and half miles from the Weber house, and took about 12 minutes to get there.
The gas station where they fueled up may have been Sunset Oil, at 8906 W Sunset Blvd at San Vicente Blvd. That is, if it was in business at that location in 1969.
The question isnt the distance but the DIRECTION they headed in, theyre essentially going back into the city and west LA as opposed to the northwest San Fernando Valley where Spahn was right near Topanga Canyon Blvd and the 118 Freeway
Beauders I didn't know you helped Brett write that biography on Davis. It was good.
I hope that Brett didn't commit suicide because of outing Clem. I know he felt that it was his duty as a journalist to report the news. And it was. He did the right thing. Clem should never have been released. PERIOD!
Bruce Davis is a dangerous guy. He's not the flibberdegibit he pretends to be.
Lou, when Davis gave himself up he had been hiding for a year and was so strung out on drugs that it was ridiculous.
As I said the parole hearing I watched shows Davis at his personal best. A grumpy, drug-addled asshole who was angry at being questioned to get out on parole.
That guy has been underestimated at being a killing machine. He has a LOT more anger than Tex has ever shown in parole hearings.
Which in my opinion makes Tex a million times more dangerous, hes so good at playing the nice southern boy role but as was proven there is a gargoyle under the surface
Davis is good at playing a "nice southern boy" too. But he stays under the radar. Doesn't make him less dangerous.
Think about it. Tex admitted he killed folks. Bruce never has. Who is more dangerous?
He jack-knifes at his parole hearings about Shorty Shea. Sometimes he says "yeah he made some stab wounds" and sometimes he denies it.
Im not gonna argue and debate this bullshit with you, if you need proof that Tex Watson is 5 billion times the actual killer than little midget weirdo Bruce Davis is i dont know what to say.....lets see....one man plunges a fucking bayonet into tbe heart of a woman with a full term baby in her stomach and one guy MIGHT have killed one or two people, comparing Tex Watson to Bruce Davis is like comparing the Plague to the flu
So we have the TLB drama. Tex has admitted to his killings in TLB. More or less.
Bruce Davis has NEVER admitted to any crime. Even though he was "smack dab" in TLB.
He kind of intimated that he may have stabbed Shorty "quietly" on his "shoulder" but he never did any lethal stabs.
Bruce is a killer. And a LIAR!
Well Lou, if you want to protect Bruce Davis, have at it. I think he's a dangerous killer. You can think what you want. Just because he didn't admit to killing, doesn't mean he's not a killer.
If you want to get parole, you don't admit to killings.
Tex will never get out. But Bruce might. I hope not, because I THINK that Bruce is more dangerous than Tex.
My opinion!
If Bruce Davis ACTUALLY killed someone hed have been convicted of it instead of whatever shady shit he was convicted of on Shorty or Hinman, Tex KILLED Tate, Tex KILLED Folger, Tex KILLED Frykowski, Tex KILLED Sebring, Tex KILLED Parent, Tex KILLED Leno, Tex KILLED Rosemary, Bruce wasnt proven to have killed anyone, taken part in Shorty....ok ill give you that one
Lets put it this way, if the bayonet was in Davis hand to stab Sharon hed have turned tail and ran down the side of that clif, if Watson showed up on my front porch id empty a Mossberg Shockwave 12 gauge into him without even thinking twice
Well it's too bad you didn't invite thin-lipped Bruce into your home to be a clown at your child's birthday party since you think he SO INNOCENT!!!
Guess what? Too late! HE'S IN FUCKING PRISON FOR MURDER!!!!!!!!!!!! WHICH HE DID!
He participated in Shorty's murder. No doubt about that. And he most likely killed a lot more people!
That wasnt the point.....is he more dangerous than Texaco Denton Watson?
Well whoever killed Juretson & Habe was a lot more blood thirsty than Tex. And if that was Bruce, there's your answer.
I think Bruce was responsible for a LOT more than he's admitted to. Tex didn't really have much choice than to admit to what he did. There were too many people that saw him do it. So we can assume that Bruce is smarter than Tex.
Post a Comment