Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Alisa Statman & Brie Tate - with Connie Martinson

Part 1



Part 2







45 comments:

ST. Circumstance said...

Good interview. These two come across as very good people.

I really loved Alisa's book. I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with this book. We spend so much time reading and trying to understand the thought process' behind a group of people who were half out of there minds from drugs in some cases, and naturally in others. hours debating who was in charge and who knew what when. Trying to understand the motivation behind a bunch of complete losers who didn't care about themselves or life half as much as we care about understanding them.

Then Restless Souls comes along and, literally for the first time since I read H/S about 20 years ago, I am hearing this story from a new perspective and feel like I am getting the news about the crimes for the first time. I stopped feeling about this case for a long time. It was becoming just information and data that we throw back and forth over and over.

Heroes emerged for me in all of this. Who could you cheer for before you thought about this book?

Bugs? Linda- who was the prosecution hero?

But then a few people decided to be more than just victims.

One older woman in particular decided not to be afraid of the most evil man on the planet or the devil and his work.

When Doris Tate says the words " Conjucal visits my ass" and goes and does something about it..

You start to understand what the word Hero is all about

touching book. Puts the emphasis where it belongs. This was a terrible thing which happened to some semi-famous people- but touched many ordinary people. this caused some of them to go to extraordinary lengths for what was right, and for the justice they deserved. They honored there lost loved one until the day they died...

Bravo Alisa and Brie :)

starship said...

Yes, St...you make a very good point about the emotions and the feelings of the families of the victims in this terrible case.

But at times these feelings and emotions have been brought to the forefront at the expense of the truth. And that is something I cannout countenance, especially when the facts of the case are such that it need not be embellished at all, for any reason.

Matt said...

Very well stated, ST. I read the book in two sittings.

PJ Tate was a bad ass and took the investigation into his own hands. His questioning of Billy Doyle was incredibly entertaining reading and his first intro to Roman Polanski made me howl with laughter.

He emerged as my favorite as you correctly state, hero.

starship said...

This show must be the Wayne's World of the literary set. And what's up with the hostess, who apparently has had a show about books since 1979 not being able to pronounce the word conjugal?

And I know it's Hollywood and all, and Alisa Statman is a big time producer or something for Modern Family...which I LOVE, by the way, so I'm a big fan...but really, it is very difficult for me to take seriously a middle aged woman wearing those holy jeans. Please.

Matt said...

Starship, facts were not embellished. Memories were conveyed as they were remembered by the family. It doesn't matter whether it rained on a certain day or not... it was the way that person remembered it.

starship said...

Really, Matt? You bought all that?

starship said...

Matt, I do not object to whether or not it rained on any particular day. That is not a fact of consequence.

starship said...

I do, however, object to the mislabeling of parts 1 and 2...

Just kidding, really.

Matt said...

Well, what exactly do you object to? Spell it out...

starship said...

Matt, my issues with the book are fairly well documented...on your blog Ms. Statman has even engaged me in conversation. I trust you know that I contribute to another blog which I won't name here (this may be a blog-etiquette issue? I am not sure)and you could go there and look up my thoughts specifically if you are so inclined.

ST. Circumstance said...

Thanks Starship. Sort of what I meant is exactly what your questioning. I didn't read the book as a fact finding mission about the case. I don't know if all the facts are accurate. I assume the parts from the family are- as they were taken from their own words. as well- what Doris accomplished in the courts is documented.

It is the spirit of the book and the ability to take you inside the minds of people so close to Sharon which was amazing to me. The idea to even think about if from that perspective - Ashamedly- never occurred to me. and it was heartbreaking when it did. By the time they became stronger and got involved with the cause of justice- I had become a full fledged fan and was cheering them all along the way...

That is what this book did for me. If you say every I was not dotted, nor every t crossed- I cant argue. I dont know the minutiae of the details involving these poeple nearly as well as I do "the family" ( and that sucks frankly)

but the way it made me think, and who it made me think about wouldn't be changed too much if a few insignificant things were done to make a book.

It would be different if it was-say- Bugs book- he was trying to factually re-create the case step by step to solve a puzzle.Getting every detail straight for overall credibility is more important in that case.

this book is primarily concerned with relating the experience to us from the mind and heart of people with an emotional stake.

They are reaching out to two separate areas of our mind.looking for two different responses.

I think Bugs needed you to agree

I think Alisa and Brie want you to understand

If you told me there were never any manuscripts and they made this whole thing up- I would still say some of these things are true, because it still would have made me think about the case from this perspective....

they wanted to make some points about some really strong and brave people, and they did so. The fact that Doris, and Paul's actions back up a-lot of the writing makes it more credible in my estimation, so whatever lies in the middle ground- can stay there as far as I am concerned...

But Starship you know I appreciate your opinions- these are just my own.

Matt said...


ST. Circumstance said...

they wanted to make some points about some really strong and brave people, and they did so. The fact that Doris, and Paul's actions back up a-lot of the writing makes it more credible in my estimation, so whatever lies in the middle ground- can stay there as far as I am concerned...


Again ST, very well stated. The book wasn't about shedding light on the TLB motives or the Manson Family, it was about the sheer heartache that these families went through - where the grief is so deep that you expel every bit of air in your lungs in an aching sob. A grief that never heals, but becomes a gapping wound that they had to learn to live with.

All else is secondary.

Matt said...

ST. Circumstance said...

I think Bugs needed you to agree

I think Alisa and Brie want you to understand


ST, that wasextremely insightful. Thank you for that.

ST. Circumstance said...

:)

starship said...

"The book wasn't about shedding light on the TLB motives or the Manson Family, it was about the sheer heartache that these families went through - where the grief is so deep that you expel every bit of air in your lungs in an aching sob. A grief that never heals, but becomes a gapping wound that they had to learn to live with."

Starship agrees...

ST. Circumstance said...

I think Bugs needed you to agree

I think Alisa and Brie want you to understand

ST, that wasextremely insightful. Thank you for that.

Again, Starship agrees.

If that's what it was all about and had it remained in that context then we would not have any controversy to discuss.

Where I differ is that while Doris's activities are well-documented and can be re-lived today so to speak with youtube etc...Paul Tate's were not. So we are left an account attributed to him which strains credibility at times, and in other instances are outright denied by the accounts of others still living.

Particularly jarring is the story of Krenwinkle confronting Steven Kay...a scene which is designed to conjure up an emotional response by the reader and one which Kay categorically denies having ever even happened. Kay would have no reason to deny it, so what is the point of this scene being fabricated?



ST. Circumstance said...

I dont know nothing about that lol

seriously- I dont want to argue the specific occasions , or events point by point. Becuase I dont know. If two people say two different things- how can you know for sure who remembers correctly? If anything was outright made up it would be disappointing to an extent, but again, even that wouldn't take away too much from the effect it had on me....

Starship- we are on the same page. This whole thing is too bizarre to being with. The story- from both sides- has enough elements to make it interesting enough on its own merits. No spices need to me added to this stew...

For too long all the attention was paid to one of the two groups here.

Is there any book out there that got it all right?? Do they not all take a few liberties to be more interesting to a wider audience? Do they get in print for us to debate if they dont?? Even Bugs who layed his out like a map slowly walking you from point to point- he added a few things in there to juice it up a bit ( his watch stopping when Charlie stared at him) Everyone has to dress it up for the editors.

I dont know.

But if we have been dealing with this for how many books about the " family" why not give the benefit of the doubt to someone who wants us to hear the voices and thoughts from the other side??

If we could prove a few things here weren't precise or that a few of them didn't happen at all..

would that wipe out the value of the 80% of it that is the first ever personal report of how Sharons immediate family felt and handled what happened??

More importantly- would it not still have caused some of us to start - at least- thinking about these things??

maybe that was the goal




ST. Circumstance said...

But that is as far as I can or will go.

I dont know for sure what her intention was and what exactly she did or didn't take liberties with.

I went into it with the mindset that it was reproduced work coming originally from the sources, with some observations from those close by thrown in, and took it all to be a very good representation of how it went down from Sharons families point of view.

It worked for me.

leary7 said...

Amen. The Saint is on his game big time.
It always baffles me when disagreements on these sites turn into "Tea Party"-like warfare. Personally, I love it when folk have different perspectives and opinions than I do. I thought Alisa's and Marlin's books were both "enjoyable reads", nothing more, nothing less. On the other hand, as I stated several threads ago, I found Paul Watkin's daughter's book most unenjoyable.
Art, of course, is subjective.
Death, unfortunately, is not.

ST. Circumstance said...

Nahhh.. I first really got into this whole scene because of the first conversations I had with Matt and Starship and a few others. Unlike when you came along Leary, and I am partially to blame for what you initially encountered , when I first came onto the blogs- people were having these type of debates and it always stayed respectful...

I read all of your posts about the Watkins book, and what you have had to say is one of the reasons why I haven't rushed to read it...

ST. Circumstance said...

Nahhh meaning you wont see Matt,or Starship and I ever sink to those levels with each other...

you wont see Starship or Matt sink to them with anyone lol

Matt said...

You know guys, I lost a good friend this week. Nothing compares to friends and friendship. I've spent the last few days grieving hard. Friends are one thing but siblings and spouses are another. I can't imagine what the Tates went through. I won't even try. G'nite all...

cielodrivecom said...

So sorry to hear about your loss Matt. I lost one of my best friends a few years ago. I still can't believe it. Life is too short and too fragile.

ST. Circumstance said...

My condolences Matt

starship said...

Yes, very sorry, Matt. I hope you and your friends and family are getting through ok.

AlisaStatman said...

As always, St. C, Matt, Leary, thank you for your comments…Starship? You have a right to your opinion. Most of the time, I respect those who oppose my biased opinion of Restless Souls, however, your issues truly baffle me.

I spent 9 years as Patti Tate’s partner, I spent 16 years on & off living with PJ Tate, I’ve been a part of Patti’s children’s lives for over 20 years, it took me 18 years to complete Restless Souls & yet you (& others of the same mind-set) seem to think that you know better than I do of what was happening in the Tate family’s lives.

You commented that your issues are well documented on other blogs. If you’re referring to your issue on Col Scott’s blog over whether or not there was a vault around Sharon’s coffin & therefore Patti’s memory of Doris’ funeral was embellished, you were proven wrong when you were told specifically by a blogger whose sister worked at Holy Cross cemetery that there was no vault used in 1969 around Sharon’s coffin & yet you persisted that you were correct due to your own experiences on the east coast.

Your issue with the Steve Kay/Krenwinkel confrontation? I’ve made it very clear that I believe Mr. Kay forgot the conversation that we had in the early 90’s about this & I wrote him a letter with a copy of my notes confronting him on his denial to which he has not replied.

Cats over on TOTLB has told me that she remembers an interview that Kay did in the early 90’s in which he stated a very similar story—she’s trying to find the footage. If he embellished his story to me & doesn’t remember it 18 years later, how is that my fault? You act as if Restless Souls was thrown together in a year & I spoke with Kay 2 weeks before publication. I wrote what he told me, end of story.

You commented: Where I differ is that while Doris's activities are well-documented & can be re-lived today so to speak with youtube etc...Paul Tate's were not. So we are left an account attributed to him which strains credibility at times, & in other instances are outright denied by the accounts of others still living.

First, why would I so carefully document Doris’ storyline but make up all of PJ’s? Please explain my motivation. &, I’m curious, who are the ones that outright deny PJ’s account? Debbie Tate who spent little time in her father’s company & has changed her story more times than Susan Atkins? Robin Olsen who I proved was NOT a good friend of Patti’s, never met PJ til 2001, & outright lied about writing a book with Patti & PJ?

Also, on that note, as Col Scott wrote on his blog, I am willing to go head to head in lie detector tests with Debbie Tate & Robin Olsen. Their response/questionnaire/lie detector questions they put out when Restless Souls was released were preposterous & I’d gladly take that test if they too are willing to answer my questions in return because maybe then people like you will see that not only was my true motivation in all this to simply share (& as St C commented, make people understand) the hardship & triumph this family displayed, but to tell it as accurately as I could from each of their perspectives.

Do I have the absolute facts about the crimes, Manson Family, etc correct? I tried really hard, but I’m not perfect & never claimed to be. So on those issues, in 2 instances, I’ve made revisions of those facts (not dealing with any of the Tate family member’s perspectives or memories & certainly not about Kay’s interaction with Krenwinkel) for the mass market paperback. But it wasn’t a book about those facts, it was a book about the Tate Family told through THEIR thoughts & memories.

For the purposes of what’s documented in Restless Souls, anyone else’s opinion, thoughts, or emotions, including my own, are, in my opinion, immaterial because this is their book, not Debbie’s, not Olsen’s, not Kay’s, not yours, not even mine, but theirs.

AlisaStatman said...

Also, for the record, the day we did this interview Brie and I were really sick--Brie had the stomach flu which is why she's so quiet through most of it and why I tried to jump in on the questions asked.

starship said...

Hello again, Ms. Statman,

Congrats on the Modern Family success again at the emmys. Great show which I love and try never to miss.

I'm not sure how or why I get under your skin or why you would be baffled exactly. I mean no disrespect except that I am a stickler for the facts, which I believe to be important. I wrote an actual review of your book which is complimentary about many parts and which appears on another blog, and that may enlighten you further as to some more of my issues.

I questioned your version of the casket/vault thing because of my own experiences. I tried to verify the issue on my own but was unable to do so, so I accept the bloggers assertions that no vault was required in 1969. No sweat.

as to Mr. Kay, again all I can go on is what I am able to hear or see for myself. At last blush it was his absolute denial of your version of events vis a vis PK...it certainly doesn't seem like it's something he has forgotten about...again, what would his motivation be? So in the absence of evidence proving your side of the story, I choose to believe his.

The story of Col Paul Tate following the bikers back to Spahn also strains credibility. The police guarded the crime scene at Cielo for quite a while. Manson and his minions moved to Death Valley soon after the botched raid on the ranch. If it ever happened whomever the Col witnessed waking up at Spahn's was certainly not the Family as we think of them. Also, Debra Tate disputes several instances of your version of Col Tate's, citing notes by Lt. Deemer and Lt Helder as well which are in contradiction to your version of events: Col. Tate confronting Billy Doyle in Toronto for instance. Since I find it highly unprofessional that the police would include Col. Tate as much as you claim, and also because I find your assertions I allude to above to be suspect, I choose believe, again, in the absence of proof to the contrary, Debra Tate's claim that it is not included in the Col's manuscript. Again, not because I am a Debra Tate lover or that I am on her side versus your side. Believe me, if Debra tate were to write a memoir or an account of this case, and I wish she would, I would read her version with as critical an eye as I have read yours.

Your version of the murders at Cielo is sensationalized beyond my ability to ever understand why anyone would have felt it necessary.

And finally, another pet peeve...even in the video post which has spurred this discussion, you and Brie make the claim that Squeaky is living the good life in California...when I have a personally close to me and highlky placed law enforcement source who tells me she is indeed still living in Marcy, NY.

Matt said...

Starship, PJ following the bikers back to Spahn and his interrogation of Doyle would be reaches for me too, if he was PJ Tate the sanitation worker. But he wasn't, he was military intelligence.

AlisaStatman said...

Starship, some responses to your statements:

As to Mr. Kay, again all I can go on is what I am able to hear or see for myself. At last blush it was his absolute denial of your version of events vis a vis PK...it certainly doesn't seem like it's something he has forgotten about...again, what would his motivation be?

It happened but he embellished it? It never happened but it makes for a more interesting interview? I don’t really have the answer to his motivation, but it’s the story he gave me and I stand by it.

The police guarded the crime scene at Cielo for quite a while. Manson and his minions moved to Death Valley soon after the botched raid on the ranch.

PJ’s experience here happened in the last week of November. Altobelli had long taken back possession of Cielo at this point and had guard dogs…Also, PJ never claimed them to be Manson Family members. In fact, he says people on Harleys, insinuating Bikers not family members.

Debra Tate disputes several instances of your version of Col Tate's, citing notes by Lt. Deemer and Lt Helder as well which are in contradiction to your version of events.

Could you please tell me Debbie’s sources for these notes cited from Lt. Deemer and Helder? If by chance she’s using the half-finished, hastily (German distributors were pushing to have it before the end of the trial) put together manuscript collaboration by Helder and PJ Tate written in 1970, I would counter that while she’s only read PJs manuscript after he died, I had years of conversations with PJ in which he expanded on his investigation. We never claimed that we simply used Five Down on Cielo as the basis for what’s in Restless Souls concerning PJ or his investigation, We clearly state that this information was taken from an abundance of sources. In fact, there was so much more information that he had to share that his chapter was over 200 pages before I edited it down to what’s now in Restless Souls.

Since I find it highly unprofessional that the police would include Col. Tate as much as you claim,…

Since you seem bent on believing there was nothing further to add to PJ’s story than what’s written in his manuscript, lets refer back to the Five Down on Cielo that you quote as the gospel by Debbie. In one of Helder’s excerpts, he clearly states that he began sharing information with PJ and PJ with him. A deep respect and friendship was formed during this period, which is why they not only collaborated on a manuscript (because, much like the investigation, they each had different perspectives to offer) but later opened a private investigation agency together.

Helder went so far as to say (and I’m paraphrasing) that he’d share information with PJ but if PJ acted out on that information and took justice into his own hands, he would go after him and arrest him just as he would anyone else. As a side note, IMHO, we showed that PJ shared much more information with Helder than Helder did PJ.

And finally, another pet peeve...even in the video post which has spurred this discussion, you and Brie make the claim that Squeaky is living the good life in California...when I have a personally close to me and highlky placed law enforcement source who tells me she is indeed still living in Marcy, NY.

Brie made no such claim, I did. And as I’ve previously stated, I’m not, nor ever claimed to be, an expert on the Manson Family and what they’re doing today. And when others stated that I made a mistake on Squeaky’s whereabouts, I freely admitted that I was mistaken. I was asked a spur-of-the-moment question and I answered.

If I had researched and written about Squeaky’s whereabouts in Restless Souls, I could understand this argument, but, jeez, it was an honest mistake. In a recent interview on the biography channel, Bugliosi was giving details of the murders and said that Rosemary LaBianca was found in a pool of blood in the living room. We all make mistakes during interviews and Bugliosi’s been at this for 41 years longer than I have been.

starship said...

Thank you for your response, Ms. Statman.

"PJ’s experience here happened in the last week of November. Altobelli had long taken back possession of Cielo at this point and had guard dogs…Also, PJ never claimed them to be Manson Family members. In fact, he says people on Harleys, insinuating Bikers not family members."

So what is the point of including this in the narrative? The last week of November? Hell the arrests were announced on the first day of December which means SA and CM had already been in custody for a while, and warrants are issued for those who are not. But Helder still is in the dark? Clearly this is not a realistic time line. No I don't take anything as gospel from DT and you lose points with me in the credibility game when you try to use her as a blocking mechanism. For better or worse she is indeed a player in this sad and unfortunate drama who cannot be discounted out of hand. I would love to look over her materials, and yours as well. But because you have published a book with some assertions which obviously can be questioned as to the historical facts then her questioning of the same facts seems to bear a reasonable basis for skepticism.

The scene is clearly meant to be titilating...Bikers?...Straight Satans? Spahn's Ranch, the Family? I would love to for this possible connection to bear some fruit especially because of rumors connected to the La Bianca's, etc...but it really ends up being meaningless overall in the long run.

Ok, I understand about Squeaky. I too make mistakes especially when speaking off the cuff.

I notice you didn't argue about my objection regarding your sensationalistic recounting of the murders. I have a theory about this as well, that being that your publishers and editors probably demanded this of you, and perhaps put pressure on you to enhance the accounts of the others as well. Whether you could ad mit tis, or ever would admit this, I have no way of knowing. But if you did then it would certainly put to rest many of my misgivings about the book.

Again , Peace.

Modern Family premieres TONIGHT!


AlisaStatman said...

Debbie wasn’t a blocking mechanism but a question that you didn’t answer--

You commented: Where I differ is … we are left an account attributed to him which strains credibility at times, & in other instances are outright denied by the accounts of others still living.

I commented: &, I’m curious, who are the ones that outright deny PJ’s account? Debbie Tate…? Robin Olsen …?

In essence I’m asking you to tell me who, still living, is denying the account? Debbie? Robin? If so, this is why I believe they’re incorrect. So again, I ask you, who is denying the account?

You commented: I notice you didn't argue about my objection regarding your sensationalistic recounting of the murders. I have a theory about this as well, that being that your publishers and editors probably demanded this of you, and perhaps put pressure on you to enhance the accounts of the others as well…

I didn’t comment because I have many times before. But, to reiterate, the retelling of the crimes was through Patti’s perspective as she discovered and put the pieces together IN HER MIND of how she saw her sister’s murder as she prepared for her first parole hearing. It is not meant to be a factual re-creation, rather, what SHE envisioned.

This section of the book was written by Patti before she passed away. Until she had to attend her first parole hearing she didn’t know the details of what happened that night. It was important to her that the reader discover along with her the tragedy as she had and to experience her horror as she did in preparing for her first parole hearing.

Also, as I’ve stated before, there are only 2 places in the book in which we go from past tense to present tense. The murders and Patti’s sequence of re-discovering her memories of Sharon and this is because it takes us into Patti’s mind.

I stand by her recreation and vision of the murders—Just as you all are allowed to debate ad nausea what happened that night in gruesome detail of (for instance) whether Sharon’s body was moved, as Sharon’s sister, Patti was entitled to see it in any way she wanted.

You commented on PJ’s discovery of Spahn’s Ranch: So what is the point of including this in the narrative? The last week of November? Hell the arrests were announced on the first day of December which means SA and CM had already been in custody for a while, and warrants are issued for those who are not.

My sincere apologies. I misspoke, the timeline. We state in Restless Souls Chapter 7: “November 17th was a big day for LAPD, they were literally handed the solution to the murders from numerous sources. Ronnie Howard…” So, it would have been end of October beginning of November—and no, I don’t have exact dates just rough timelines.

And, the point of including it in the narrative is because it was important to PJ. You as an outsider may like to say it’s “titillating” reading, but for PJ, consumed with guilt for not protecting his daughter, any lead he discovered was monumental. Solving Sharon’s case was all he had left to offer her.

starship said...

"And, the point of including it in the narrative is because it was important to PJ. You as an outsider may like to say it’s “titillating” reading, but for PJ, consumed with guilt for not protecting his daughter, any lead he discovered was monumental. Solving Sharon’s case was all he had left to offer her."

Amen to that.

Yes, Debra Tate claims you have included details which PJ didn't write in his manuscript. She claims Deemer's and Helder's notes don't jibe with your accounts either. Jake and Guy? Who and where are they? Can they go on record?

You're entitled to stick to your version of the Steven Kay story even though he seems certain in his claim it never happened. The next good question to ask him if he ever comes back on Star City Radio or if he ever speaks anywhere near any of us is to ask why he is ignoring your correspondence?

I have no real idea who Robin Olsen is and what her part in all this is. Apparently I am still a newcomer to this part of the blogosphere. I don't know any of you obviously. I only know that somewhere along the line you've all become enemies. Again, an unfortunate consequence of this evil case perhaps. My opinions and questions are surely based in part on the doubts put forth by Debra and others but all of that is only within the context of my knowledge of the facts of the case.

I couldn't ever say that I am not emotionally involved in this case, but I am obviously not in your league, Ms. Statman. My sympathies lie with the victims in this case and the aftermath of what the Tates went through is what I 'enjoyed' most about your book. Enjoyed sounds so wrong in this context. I take no joy in the pain of others.

I don't get, however, how some people can say, " 'Restless Souls' was such a beautiful book, I can't understand anyone criticizing any part of it". For me, when I think of it, I don't think of it as absolute truth. I think of it as being based on a true story.

Again, peace.

AlisaStatman said...

You commented: Yes, Debra Tate claims you have included details which PJ didn't write in his manuscript.

Absolutely true. First of all, PJ & Helder’s manuscript was incomplete. And, as I alluded to in my previous post, PJ’s story wasn’t taken from his manuscript, rather it was taken from 16 years of talking to him. Five Down on Cielo deals strictly with the investigation and ends with the apprehension of the Manson Family. In the manuscript there is no discussion of him going to Cielo to stake it out, there is nothing about him going to Sharon’s to clean the mess up, and there is certainly no inner feelings of his grief as a father—but does this mean that he didn’t have any grief? Does it mean that he didn’t clean the mess up at Sharon’s house? Does it mean that he didn’t stake it out? No. It just means that as he wrote the manuscript with Helder they concentrated on what the publisher wanted. There are many, many stories of PJ’s investigation that were not included in Restless Souls (nor in Five Down on Cielo)—I could write an entire book on his investigation alone.

You commented: She claims Deemer's and Helder's notes don't jibe with your accounts either.

What notes? Where did she obtain these supposed notes?

Both Helder and Deemer are long since gone. To my knowledge, Deemer had nothing to do with PJ ( he didn’t like dirty cops), so I’m not sure where he comes into play or what commentary he could have ever had about PJ’s story—he certainly couldn’t have countered it from the grave. That would leave Helder’s wife Ann, who, at last contact had never spoken a word to Debbie Tate.

You commented: Jake and Guy? Who and where are they? Can they go on record?

Both are aliases and both are deceased. Same with the third “Frankie”.

You commented: I don't get, however, how some people can say, " 'Restless Souls' was such a beautiful book, I can't understand anyone criticizing any part of it"…

Because those people see Restless Souls for what it was always meant to be: A loving tribute to the Tate family.

They see beyond what you do—that it was written from my heart as a gift to a family that I loved very much. PJ, Doris, and Patti had tried separately to publish their story, starting with PJ’s in 1970, three attempts by Doris, and one attempt by Patti.

With all of them gone, Restless Souls was my way of honoring their wishes and accomplishing their long sought after goal. It took me 18 years to get Restless Souls to publication, but I never gave up because I knew how important it was to them. To knowingly embellish or lie about anything in Restless Souls would be a grievous dishonor to them and their memory.

Restless Souls is not a book about why Debbie Tate’s not in it and it’s not a fact-finding mission about the crimes. It’s about a family trying to hold it together after a horrible tragedy. People like to see good conquering evil and love conquering hatred, And in Restless Souls they see that Doris, PJ, and Patti did just that.

In a society in which we so easily implement the blame game for our negative actions, the Tate family proved that even under the most adverse circumstances there can be a positive outcome.

And, that’s why people find it to be a beautiful book.

starship said...

This is all well and good, appealing to people's feelings and emotions. Alot of that and alot of the book hits me that way too, just like you said.

But I retain my right to remain extremely skeptical about some of what you've written, especially since it appears that confirmation from other principals which would put my misgivings at ease shall not be forthcoming until perhaps I have met my own unfortunate demise (not soon enough for you, I reckon).

I do not doubt that you had many conversations with PJ Tate over those sixteen years. But if I am only to take your word alone on faith, and I cannot reconcile your word to facts as they're known, and even some reasonable speculation which when studied appears plausible, then I just will not.

It's nothing personal, please understand. Just the rules of good journalism.

AlisaStatman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AlisaStatman said...

Starship, that's all fine. This wasn't about trying to change your mind. It was about standing up for myself and the integrity of Restless Souls.

But, again, you didn't answer my question. What are these supposed countering notes that Debbie Tate acquired from Deemer and Helder and how has she confirmed that they exist?

starship said...

Debra Tate disputes some of your version of events because she claims she has the finished manuscript of Helder and Tate's book, and makes note of what Helder has said. This is on her website, of course. No notes from Deemer, but she claims that Helder sent Deemer to Toronto to interview Doyle, not Guy and PJ.

You wrote that Deemer didn't like dirty cops? Who was dirty? helder, PJ? Please explain.

AlisaStatman said...

Starship you commented: Debra Tate disputes some of your version of events because she claims she has the finished manuscript of Helder and Tate's book, and makes note of what Helder has said. This is on her website, of course.

Like so many other things Debbie has claimed, she is absolutely, flat out lying if she claims that she has a completed manuscript by PJ and Helder…

And, as a side note—I base this on other comments since I’ve never visited the site, so perhaps I’m wrong—it’s too bad that in recent years it’s been inactive up until the release date of Restless Souls. I could think of so many (other) worthwhile things to do with that website.

You commented: No notes from Deemer, but she claims that Helder sent Deemer to Toronto to interview Doyle...

Absolutely true. And, in fact we not only imply that very fact in Restless Souls, but we show that Helder actually gave PJ a tip on where to find him in Toronto.

You commented: You wrote that Deemer didn't like dirty cops? Who was dirty? helder, PJ? Please explain.

Actually what I wrote was: Both Helder and Deemer are long since gone. To my knowledge, Deemer had nothing to do with PJ ( he didn’t like dirty cops).

I’ve always sucked at grammar so possibly the sentence structure is incorrect, but, the parentheses come after PJ, it was PJ who didn’t like dirty cops—and that dirty cop would be Deemer.

starship said...

Hi, again,

Can you elaborate on Deemer? Is this something I should know already?

You say Debra's lying about having a finished manuscript. Ok, but I wouldn't know for sure what she has or doesn't have, just like with you.

But you've never seen her website? I think you should really. If I was the writer of a book and it was challenged as RS has been by another of the surviving victims then I certainly would.

Her veracity in disputing some of your accounts in the book is pretty daunting.

AlisaStatman said...

Deemer = Any cop that steals mementos from a crime scene for personal gain would be considered a dirty cop—& the infamous photos I “stole” from Deemer were just the tip of the iceberg.

You commented: You say Debra's lying about having a finished manuscript. Ok, but I wouldn't know for sure what she has or doesn't have, just like with you.

Yet you believe Debbie over me because she is Sharon’s sister? This gives her diplomatic immunity from you?

Here’s just a few lies off the top of my head that would cause me to question anything Debbie has said:

Telling everyone—including CMG—that she is the rightful owner of Sharon’s estate.

Interviews claiming she was the victim of a mail bomb while working as a postal worker—I’ll pay you $100 to find me a police or FBI report on that one.

The Inside Edition fiasco of making up & dressing a model in Sharon’s clothing & then Debbie pulling out her most “prized possession”, Sharon’s wedding dress, which wasn’t even close to being Sharon’s wedding dress.

Stating that she met with Manson alone in lock up during the trial.

Sending Patti on a wild goose chase to Duke University for a new cancer treatment with a doctor friend who didn’t exist so that she could ransack our house looking for her mother’s diamonds.

Her claim that Sharon’s possessions were stolen from her house—again, I’ll pay you a $100 to find the police report on that one.

A talk show host that I met while doing promo for Restless Souls told me that Debbie scammed a large amount of money from them for her daughter’s college education—the host later found that Debbie’s daughter never went to college.

Oh, & let’s not forget perjury on the witness stand during Roman’s Vanity Fair trial—I have 2 of Sharon’s closest friends on record stating that Debbie lied about he & Sharon’s relationship—1 went so far as to call her a lying snake.

You commented: But you've never seen her website? I think you should really. If I was the writer of a book and it was challenged as RS has been by another of the surviving victims then I certainly would.

Why would I put myself through that emotional upheaval? If there was any validity to ANY of Debbie’s claims, don’t you think she should have gone to HC’s legal department to thwart publication? At least hired a lawyer to take us all to court in the aftermath? ANY legal avenue that people with true claims should go through? Do you not find this suspect at all?

Throwing a bunch of false claims up on a website and claiming them as the gospel doesn’t make them true, it makes them detraction and distraction.

You commented: Her veracity in disputing some of your accounts in the book is pretty daunting.

She can be as voracious as she wants and it still doesn’t make it true. Through bloggers, I know most of what she/Robin Olsen posted there because I’ve taken the time to answer ALL of the questions they’ve asked on the false claims. I’ve not dodged a single question thrown at me—&, actually, I have been found at fault for standing up for myself by answering/commenting on these blogs.

But let’s consider that I had chosen silence instead. The bottom line, as with any court of law, the burden of proof to Debbie’s claims does not fall on me to prove that what she’s said is false, the burden of proof falls to her to prove that what she’s said is true.

I did my part through the 9-month legal vetting with HC. What’s her part? Simply being Sharon’s sister is not good enough for me, & with her past history of lying it shouldn’t be good enough for you.

And, as I first commented on this post I will gladly go head to head with both Debbie & Olsen in lie detector rounds because I guarantee it would finally put all their false claims to rest. Until they are willing to hook themselves up to that little truth machine, I’ll not waste my time looking at their website.

starship said...

OK, ALL CAPS, NOT SHOUTING BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO DIFFERNTIATE MY COMMENTS FROM YOURS. THANKS FOR YOUR WILLINGNESS TO FURTHER DISCUSS.

Deemer = Any cop that steals mementos from a crime scene for personal gain would be considered a dirty cop—& the infamous photos I “stole” from Deemer were just the tip of the iceberg.

OK, I THOUGHT THAT WAS HIM. IF THAT'S THE 'TIP' THEN WHAT'S THE REST?

You commented: You say Debra's lying about having a finished manuscript. Ok, but I wouldn't know for sure what she has or doesn't have, just like with you.

Yet you believe Debbie over me because she is Sharon’s sister? This gives her diplomatic immunity from you?

NO, JUST BECAUSE SHE SAYS IT DOESN'T MAKE IT SO. I KNOW THAT. IF SHE DID PUBLISH ANY MANUSCRIPT, EITHER HERS OR ANYONE ELSE'S I WOULD SCRUTINIZE IT AS WELL. YOU, MS. STATMAN, TO YOUR CREDIT HAVE ENGAGED IN THIS DIALOGUE, DEBRA HAS NOT.

Here’s just a few lies off the top of my head that would cause me to question anything Debbie has said:

Telling everyone—including CMG—that she is the rightful owner of Sharon’s estate.

I WOULDN'T KNOW ABOUT THAT.

Interviews claiming she was the victim of a mail bomb while working as a postal worker—I’ll pay you $100 to find me a police or FBI report on that one.

YOU MAY VERY WELL BE CORRECT.

The Inside Edition fiasco of making up & dressing a model in Sharon’s clothing & then Debbie pulling out her most “prized possession”, Sharon’s wedding dress, which wasn’t even close to being Sharon’s wedding dress.

YES, THAT WAS VERY CREEPY.

Stating that she met with Manson alone in lock up during the trial.

AGAIN, IDK ABOUT THIS.

Sending Patti on a wild goose chase to Duke University for a new cancer treatment with a doctor friend who didn’t exist so that she could ransack our house looking for her mother’s diamonds.

Her claim that Sharon’s possessions were stolen from her house—again, I’ll pay you a $100 to find the police report on that one.

A talk show host that I met while doing promo for Restless Souls told me that Debbie scammed a large amount of money from them for her daughter’s college education—the host later found that Debbie’s daughter never went to college.

Oh, & let’s not forget perjury on the witness stand during Roman’s Vanity Fair trial—I have 2 of Sharon’s closest friends on record stating that Debbie lied about he & Sharon’s relationship—1 went so far as to call her a lying snake.

ALL OF THAT SOUNDS LIKE A INTER-FAMILY TRAGEDY...

You commented: But you've never seen her website? I think you should really. If I was the writer of a book and it was challenged as RS has been by another of the surviving victims then I certainly would.

Why would I put myself through that emotional upheaval? If there was any validity to ANY of Debbie’s claims, don’t you think she should have gone to HC’s legal department to thwart publication? At least hired a lawyer to take us all to court in the aftermath? ANY legal avenue that people with true claims should go through? Do you not find this suspect at all?

IDK, PERHAPS SHE MAY WELL STILL.

Throwing a bunch of false claims up on a website and claiming them as the gospel doesn’t make them true, it makes them detraction and distraction.

I AGREE WITH THIS COMPLETELY. IN DEBRA TATE'S CASE I JUST CAN'T SAY FOR SURE WHAT IS TRUE AND WHAT ISN'T.

starship said...

You commented: Her veracity in disputing some of your accounts in the book is pretty daunting.

She can be as voracious as she wants and it still doesn’t make it true. Through bloggers, I know most of what she/Robin Olsen posted there because I’ve taken the time to answer ALL of the questions they’ve asked on the false claims. I’ve not dodged a single question thrown at me—&, actually, I have been found at fault for standing up for myself by answering/commenting on these blogs.

But let’s consider that I had chosen silence instead. The bottom line, as with any court of law, the burden of proof to Debbie’s claims does not fall on me to prove that what she’s said is false, the burden of proof falls to her to prove that what she’s said is true.

YOU HAVE THAT BURDEN AS WELL. WHICH IS EXACTLY HOW THIS CONVERSATION STARTED. IF THE FACT THAT YOU KNEW PJ TATE FOR 16 YEARS AND HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH HIM, BUT HE LEFT YOU NO NOTES OF HIS OWN, IS COULD ENOUGH FOR HARPER COLLINS, THAT'S GOOD FOR YOU. YOU GOT YOUR BOOK PUBLISHED. IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME HOWEVER.

I did my part through the 9-month legal vetting with HC. What’s her part? Simply being Sharon’s sister is not good enough for me, & with her past history of lying it shouldn’t be good enough for you.

AGAIN, I NEVER SAID IT WAS. I DO BELIEVE IN SOME INSTANCES THAT HER VERSION OF SOME EVENTS MAY IN FACT BE MORE LIKELY THAN YOURS HOWEVER. THIS IS BASED ON MY OWN INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS AS I UNDERSTAND THEM, NOT BECASUE OF ANYTHING DEBRA HAS STATED.

And, as I first commented on this post I will gladly go head to head with both Debbie & Olsen in lie detector rounds because I guarantee it would finally put all their false claims to rest. Until they are willing to hook themselves up to that little truth machine, I’ll not waste my time looking at their website.

OK, I REALLY HAVE NO IDEA WHO ROBIN OLSEN IS...

FINALLY, MY KINDLE VERSION OF YOUR BOOK WHICH I PURCHASED STATES IT IS PUBLISHED BY IT BOOKS, AN IMPRINT OF HARPERS COLLINS PUBLISHERS. IT BOOKS IS SORT OF THE NEW MEDIA FOR PUBLISHING, FROM 2009 NY TIMES: "Just a month after announcing a restructuring that led to layoffs and the shuttering of an entire division, HarperCollins Publishers hopes to jazz up its book lists by opening a new imprint.

This fall the company will publish 21 new hardcover and paperback original titles under the It Books imprint, focusing on pop culture, sports, style and content derived from the Internet, like a planned collection of Twitter posts called “Twitter Wit.” "

MORE HAVING THEIR CAKE AND EATING IT TOO, HARPER COLLINS. TWITTER WIT. FREAKING GREAT. IF THE LAWYERS AND FACT CHECKERS OF THIS TWITTER WIT ARE AS KNOWLEDGABLE ABOUT THIS CASE AS THE ONES WHO WORK AT THE HISTORY CHANNEL AND THE E TRUE HOLLYWOOD STORY THEN NO WONDER YOU HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUCH LATTITUDE IN YOUR PRESENTATION.

BUT YOU WIN THE RACE AS I SEE IN FEBRUARY A PAPERBACK EDITION OF THE BOOK IS SCHEDULED TO BE RELEASED AS WELL, MUCH TO MY CHAGRIN. CONGRATULATIONS.

AlisaStatman said...

I’m sorry, Starship, but your comments about HarperCollins come off as just plain pettiness. My publishing contract is with HarperCollins. The legal team that vetted Restless Souls are from HarperCollins. And, the company ultimately responsible in any legal matters that may arise from RS is HarperCollins.

You commented: … IF THE LAWYERS AND FACT CHECKERS OF THIS TWITTER WIT ARE AS KNOWLEDGABLE ABOUT THIS CASE AS THE ONES WHO WORK AT THE HISTORY CHANNEL AND THE E TRUE HOLLYWOOD STORY THEN NO WONDER YOU HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUCH LATTITUDE IN YOUR PRESENTATION.

Once again, Restless Souls is not about “this case”, it’s about the Tate family.

You Commented: … I DO BELIEVE IN SOME INSTANCES THAT HER VERSION OF SOME EVENTS MAY IN FACT BE MORE LIKELY THAN YOURS HOWEVER
Considering Debbie literally changes her story with each and every interview, I’m really baffled as to why you would think that her version of events may be more likely than Restless Souls.

This is just one example: In one interview Debbie says she heard of Sharon's death while unpacking cartons in her bedroom. In the next she says she heard the news from her mother while in the shower. In yet another she claims she was helping little Patti get her room together when Doris told them both the news. In another she’s helping Doris unpack boxes when her boyfriend Wayne called to give them the news. And in still yet another she and Patti are playing in the backyard when Doris told them the news.

To further discredit her credibility, she’s claimed that she was the “lady of the house” at Cielo in Sharon’s absence. That she wanted to visit Sharon the night of the murders to get a saddle that was in one of the blue steamer trunks—no way a saddle fit in one of those trunks, nor is it on the manifest that I have for the trunks. I could go on and on, but even I’m getting bored with discrediting Debbie.

You commented: . …THIS IS BASED ON MY OWN INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS AS I UNDERSTAND THEM, NOT BECASUE OF ANYTHING DEBRA HAS STATED.
You’re contradicting yourself a bit here, but what is it that makes you a qualified expert on the Tate family’s lives? And, where are you getting your facts on the Tate family?

You Commented: … IF THE FACT THAT YOU KNEW PJ TATE FOR 16 YEARS AND HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH HIM, BUT HE LEFT YOU NO NOTES OF HIS OWN, IS COULD ENOUGH FOR HARPER COLLINS, THAT'S GOOD FOR YOU. YOU GOT YOUR BOOK PUBLISHED. IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME HOWEVER.

You’re making an assumption that PJ didn’t leave any notes. Contrary to that assumption, along with all the conversations with PJ, I have notebooks full of PJ’s notes that I assembled from two trunk-filled files of his notes, documents, and photographs. And, we even state this fact in Restless Souls when Patti gathers facts for her first parole hearing for Susan Atkins.

You commented: YOU HAVE THAT BURDEN AS WELL. WHICH IS EXACTLY HOW THIS CONVERSATION STARTED. Actually, I have no burden of proof to the individual reader, such as yourself, questioning the truth of Restless Souls. I may chose to engage in conversations such as this, but again, as an author, I fulfilled my burden of proof with the HarperCollins legal vetting. For instance, when a suspect is found not guilty by a judge and jury, they are not then legally obligated to re-prove their non-guilt time after time to any individual who questions it. It’s considered fact in evidence.

You commented: BUT YOU WIN THE RACE AS I SEE IN FEBRUARY A PAPERBACK EDITION OF THE BOOK IS SCHEDULED TO BE RELEASED AS WELL, MUCH TO MY CHAGRIN. CONGRATULATIONS.

This wasn’t about winning anything. The only triumph here is that I was able to finally help get the Tate’s memoire published and fulfill a family’s 42-year wish to share their thoughts and feelings.

starship said...

Very well, Ms. Statman. You're in deep, obviously emotionally invested in this as you knew the members of the family, had a relationship with Patti, still have one with her children. You are an insider. I understand.

I am well outside your sphere. An outsider everyman not directly affected by any of these tragic events. I don't know any of you. That doesn't mean however that I cannot sympathize with your plights and the struggles you describe in your book.

So boiling down my point comes to this: if someone who has never heard of this case, perhaps a future reader yet unborn, found Restless Souls and read it cover to cover, what would they have learned? I can agree with you that, as you stated: 'Restless Souls is not a book about why Debbie Tate’s not in it and it’s not a fact-finding mission about the crimes. It’s about a family trying to hold it together after a horrible tragedy. People like to see good conquering evil and love conquering hatred, And in Restless Souls they see that Doris, PJ, and Patti did just that.

In a society in which we so easily implement the blame game for our negative actions, the Tate family proved that even under the most adverse circumstances there can be a positive outcome.

And, that’s why people find it to be a beautiful book.'

In that statement you acknowledge that it is not a "fact finding mission" So while this reader may well be served by the sentiments in your regard, that same reader is not served well with the sentiments in my regard.

To me the facts are important...they are EVERYTHING. But again, I am an outsider who has not been scarred by these tragic events (unless you count my blogging obsession.)

You, as an insider, obviously feel differently. And you are entitled.

Let me just say this, not to insult you or your book, and I will finish as I don't want to burden either of us any longer: Harper Collins, IT BOOKS, whomever. I fear that whatever standards their probably 20 something year old recent college graduate vetters abide by just wouldn't live up to my own.

I really like some of the stories in your book in which I have taken issue with. And I would like to believe them, and even WANT to believe them, yet I remain unconvinced. Again, not about ALL of it, but some of it for sure.

Peace, Ms. Statman. I wish you the best.

AlisaStatman said...

Starship, thank you for the well wishes and please don’t take this as me having the last word, but you’ve once again twisted my words a bit and I feel the need to address it.

You commented: In that statement you acknowledge that it is not a "fact finding mission" So while this reader may well be served by the sentiments in your regard, that same reader is not served well with the sentiments in my regard.

To me the facts are important...they are EVERYTHING. But again, I am an outsider who has not been scarred by these tragic events (unless you count my blogging obsession.)

Actually, what I wrote was that it was not a fact-finding mission about the crimes. That in no way implicates that what IS in Restless Souls is not factual.