Saturday, August 31, 2013

Sharon's Set Free



Here's one I've never seen before.
Just curious, at 2:25 is that dog Prudence or Saperstein?

--------------------------

Update from someone in the know:
That's Saperstein - the footage is from the Patty Duke house on Summit Ridge. 
The man without a shirt is Hatami, the woman is his girlfriend.








15 comments:

Panamint Patty said...

at 2:40 it looks like she is saying "Saperstein"

Matt said...

In my book at pages 554-557 I discuss what I and Bugliosi may agree upon. Hatami was "angry" that Manson was "looking at the people he doesn't know." And tells Manson to go to the back (where the guest house is) Get it - Hippie likes are to go to the guest house and the "beautiful people" come to the main house. BUT why is HE "angry"? He's a fucking photographer, unless he had some kind of an obsession with Sharon as many photographers do with their beautiful subjects, especially with a beauty like Sharon was. Bugliosi thought Hatami caused Manson to be "rejected" but I can assure you Manson took it as totally "disrespectful."

According to the way Hatami described the March 69 incident, I could not understand why Manson didn't pop him right there at the time.

I say right there in my book: "this self-proclaimed personal friend of Sharon Tate may well have unwittingly signed her death warrant."

Robert Hendrickson

orwhut said...

I've long suspected the same as Mr. Hendrickson stated in Matt's comment.

Rod Foglio said...

What's she drinking?

Cindy Lee said...

Hendrickson said: I say right there in my book: "this self-proclaimed personal friend of Sharon Tate may well have unwittingly signed her death warrant."

This is such BS, it's hard to decide where to begin.

First, let's look at the humanistic side of this: Hatami, was not a "self-proclaimed friend" of Sharon's, but a confirmed, longtime friend of Sharon's, who has had to live with 43 years of guilt over Bugliosi's half-hazard comment in Helter Skelter (and now Hendrickson's) that somehow Hatami signed Sharon's death warrant because he got angry with Manson.

I'd like to ask what any one of us would do if we were in that situation? Go greet Manson with a glass of wine and welcome him in? I don't live on gated property, but if I found someone making himself at home in my backyard it would not be a pretty confrontation.

Should Rosemary and Leno LaBianca have been more gracious to Manson when he entered their property? Would they now be alive if Leno hadn't initially been concerned or angry to find Manson strolling into his living room as if he owned the place?

We all write our comments of speculation on the true motive for these murders—most believing there was a drug motive involved—so what does that have to do with the fact that Hatami got angry and sent Manson down the "back alley" and therefore signed Sharon's death warrant?

Hendrickson wrote: BUT why is HE "angry"? He's a fucking photographer...

Perhaps Hatami was angry because some scumbag had wondered onto Sharon's gated property where he had no business being, snooping around close to the main house? Gates are put up for a reason and this incident is a perfect example of why.

Admittedly, Hatami loved Sharon and was maybe even infatuated with her and therefore would logically be very protective of her if some dirty looking dude was lurking about as if he owned the place.

It seems to me that if Manson had walked onto the property and then directly (even across the front lawn) toward the guesthouse, Hatami might not have even had the chance or a reason to stop him. But Manson didn't do that and instead stayed close to the main house for a period of time. So when Hatami did go out to see what's going on, it's possible that Hatami sensed Manson's own unpredictability and went into an alerted protection mode. Think about how many times you've met someone and immediately sensed something wrong, negative, or just not right about the person.

Hendrickson wrote: Get it - Hippie likes are to go to the guest house and the "beautiful people" come to the main house.

No, I don't get it. This was a case of, strangers/intruders aren't welcome here, period—especially someone with limited access to a shower and probably smelled like horseshit and body odor.

Hendrickson wrote: According to the way Hatami described the March 69 incident, I could not understand why Manson didn't pop him right there at the time.

Seriously? I wonder why Hatami didn't grab Manson by the scruff of the neck and physically toss him through the gate. How is Hatami the bad guy here? I think Hatami was pretty congenial to this unwanted intruder and even gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was there to visit someone at the guesthouse, and in that generous moment sent him down the path.

This is nothing more than an unnecessary perpetuation of victimization because Hatami is to this day tortured with guilt over Bugliosi's (and now Hendrickson's) speculation, constantly asking himself the question, What if? My personal opinion is that these murders would have occurred even if Hatami had offered Manson a joint and the two had sat on the porch and philosophized for a couple of hours about the upcoming apocalypse.

orwhut said...

I've also long suspected that Rudi Altobelli's shortness with Charlie might have contributed to his sending the killers to that particular property.

beauders said...

No one's to blame but Manson and the killers.

AustinAnn74 said...

I grew up on a gated ranch where people trespassed all the time. Of course, in Texas, my dad would greet them with a shotgun!

orwhut said...

It pays to be polite to everyone. You never know but that the person you insult might be planning to start a race war.

Matt said...

To Cindy:

OK, I'll nibble on your bait - Every girl should have a "photographer" just like Hatami.

BUT why would he feel guilty - HE helped Bugliosi cage the evil dragon - so HE is one of the good guys. In this case, there is a reason Manson picked the Tate house and there is a motive for the murders. Mr. "B" understood that HE had to at least provide the jury with a "reason" for the Tate house. Otherwise CM could walk. Thus, Bugliosi twisted the Hatami incident into a (Manson was consequently "rejected" by the Tate "HOUSE")in order to work Helter Skelter into a prosecutorial theory. You apparently do NOT understand that Hatami was "performing" for a lady friend.

Where was Votchek and Sebring at the time- stoned on the living room floor?

Matt purposely singled-out the two pics of a shirtless Hatami from the Tate video, because HE thinks there is something more to the story.

IF you know Hatami personally PLEASE have him come forward and say something about what really happened that bizarre March day in 1969.

That is what eviliz.com is supposed to be all about.

Robert Hendrickson

Matt said...

Just to be clear folks, I posted the still shots of Hatami because a knowledgeable reader told me who that was. He only appears for a few short seconds & both times, shirtless. :)

Cindy Lee said...

Hendrickson wrote: Where was Votchek and Sebring at the time- stoned on the living room floor?

I expected more from a man of your age and living experience than to make your rebuttal an attack on the victims in this case. There are many scenarios that could explain where Frykowski and Sebring were at the time of Hatami’s encounter with Manson—none of which include the highly improbable stoned on the living room floor. You’ve lost your footing of credibility with me on that one.

Hendrickson commented: you apparently do NOT understand that Hatami was "performing" for a lady friend.

Actually I do understand—it’s called chivalry, perhaps a lost art in our modern times, but not something I would define as a performance, no less than I would define Jay’s actions against Watson the night of the murders when he was shot because he argued with Watson about his treatment of a pregnant woman.

Hendrickson commented: In this case, there is a reason Manson picked the Tate house and there is a motive for the murders. Mr. "B" understood that HE had to at least provide the jury with a "reason" for the Tate house. Otherwise CM could walk.

Are you purposely being cryptic here because I’m missing the point. I’m in perfect understanding of the law and why Bugliosi needed to show Manson’s complicity in this case in order to get a conviction, and therefore, Hatami became a puzzle piece of placing Manson on the Cielo grounds prior to the murders, but what are you saying is the true motive for these murders? Hatami’s sending him down the “back alley”??? Or the more debated drug deal/burn? Manson’s anger at the previous tenant, Melcher? Or Bugliosi’s actual plan to nail Manson with conspiracy with Helter Skelter? Please explain.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too, Mr. Hendrickson. Either you truly believe that Helter Skelter was the motive for these murders and Hatami’s encounter with Manson was one of many nails in the coffin that made him decide on the Cielo house or it wasn’t, in which case the Hatami/Manson encounter has no bearing on this at all.

Again, let me reiterate, Bugliosi could have left it at the fact (to his readers) that Hatami (and Altobelli) placed Manson on the Cielo grounds prior to the murders, hence his conspiracy conviction needs. There was no need or basis of fact for him or you to speculate that this sparked a murderous rage in Manson to send people to Cielo on August 8th. How do you know it wasn’t Altobelli’s encounter? Altobelli testified that he was just as rude and dismissive as Hatami. You don’t. No one does. So why punch a man when he’s down and perpetuate this nonsense.

Hendrickson wrote: Matt purposely singled-out the two pics of a shirtless Hatami from the Tate video, because HE thinks there is something more to the story.

I thought he purposely singled out the 2 shirtless pictures of Hatami so that people could identify him more easily in the video. What am I missing here? Matt, please elaborate.

Hendrickson wrote: IF you know Hatami personally PLEASE have him come forward and say something about what really happened that bizarre March day in 1969.

You already know what happened. What exactly is it that you think he’s hiding?

Matt said...

Cindy Lee said...
I thought he purposely singled out the 2 shirtless pictures of Hatami so that people could identify him more easily in the video. What am I missing here? Matt, please elaborate.


If he appears in the video with a shirt on, I missed it. If you can give me a time frame of another place where he appears, I'll gladly use that still frame instead.


Matt said...

I always wondered about Hatami. This video is the first time I actually saw him.

Matt said...

But yes, I singled out the images so that others could see what Hatami looked like. I'm sure I'm not the only one curious.