Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Debunking the Bunk Part 2: The Timeline

Introduction | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

DEBUNKING THE BUNK PART 2: Nikolas Schreck's timeline for the supposed Rostau drug delivery to Cielo Drive and what Nikolas Schreck calls, "Mutual Frykowski and Sebring {drug} Burn", from The Manson File.

Timelines are used and accepted as evidence during U.S. trials. Sometimes they work and send a defendant to the little room with a big needle and sometimes they fail miserably and free the defendant. Case in point, the OJ Simpson murder trial when prosecutor Marcia Clark used a wailing dog to pinpoint the time of the Nicole Brown, Ronald Goldman murders between 10:15 to 10:20 PM.

As one talking head commented during Simpson's trial, "If the prosecution's timeline crumbles, so might their mountain of physical evidence."

And, according to former Leslie Van Houten defense attorney, Ira Reiner, that's exactly what happened when he commented on prosecutor Clark's strategy:  "Another self-inflicted wound. If they hadn't tried to be so precise, they could have lived with 10:35 or 10:40 as the time of death. But they were reduced to trying to make liars out of the defense's timeline witnesses. The witnesses may have been right or wrong, but Marcia Clark didn't come close to proving they were liars."

In Nikolas Schreck's book, The Manson File, he too has a timeline of a supposed Joel Rostau drug delivery to the Cielo Drive victims that happened on August 8, 1969, just hours before the murders. He places Rostau at the Cielo house between 8-8:30 PM (Schreck fluctuates throughout the book, sometimes writing 8P, other times he puts the delivery at 8:30 PM, and still other times he writes 8-8:30 PM).

Why was Rostau delivering drugs to the Cielo house that night? In a very abbreviated description of what Schreck writes in The Manson File, he claims that Charles Watson & Linda Kasabian had been burned by Jay Sebring and Woytek Frykowski on a previous drug deal and wanted revenge.

Schreck's plot calls for Watson phoning Sebring early on the afternoon of August 8 to set up a $20,000 drug deal for which they had no intention of paying.

After Sebring received the request from Watson, Sebring in turn supposedly called his dealer and friend, Joel Rostau, to deliver the $20,000 worth of acid, mescaline, coke, and MDA before the planned midnight transaction with Kasabian and Watson at Cielo Drive.

But, when Rostau arrived at Cielo for the 8 to 8:30 PM delivery, he didn't have the entire order because a drug supplier Rostau used, Rosemary LaBianca (yes, Rosemary, but that is for another day), was out of town. Rostau left Cielo with the promise of returning later with the rest of the drugs, but he never returned.

Watson and company then arrived at the agreed transaction time to find out the deal was botched, Watson became irate, eventually killing everyone at the residence.

Sounds as feasible as any other motive put out there—that is, until we look at Schreck's timeline.

If Joel Rostau had been brought up on charges for delivering drugs to Cielo Drive that night and the prosecution had presented the 8 to 8:30 PM timeline for said drug deal that Schreck presents in his book, we as defense lawyers would have submitted the following timeline defense in order to exonerate Rostau.

On page 583 of The Manson File, Schreck writes: "Early that afternoon, Watson called Sebring at Cielo Drive to set up an appointment…Watson told Sebring he needed $20,000 worth of acid, mescaline, coke, and a new batch of Frykowski's MDA."

We would submit that this phone call from Watson to Jay Sebring at Cielo never happened because we know for a fact from the police reports what Sebring's activities were during the day of August 8 and those findings show that Sebring didn't arrive at Cielo until early evening.

From Sebring's household employee Amos Russell's interrogation, we know that Sebring slept in until the afternoon with a woman named Suzan (Peterson, not LaBerge).

From Russell's police interview/polygraph, Deemer asked, "When did he {Sebring} leave the house?"

Russell replied: "He left the house Sir, Friday afternoon. Before he left the house there was a lady at the house for a period of that time Friday, she left Friday afternoon and Mr. Woytek he came and picked her up then…. I should say they left pretty close to around 4 o'clock. Mr. Jay Sebring left the house around, about, between 5 or 6 o'clock. Pretty close to 6 o'clock. He came down."

Later in the interview, when Deemer tries to trip Russell up on the time line, Russell does not waver on his times:

D: Friday morning, the girl was still there…

R: She left I'd say Sir ah, pretty close to around 4 o'clock

D: But she left with Woytek.

R: Yes sir.

D: Did Sebring go with them?

R: No Sir.

D: He had gone earlier?

R: No she left first. Mr. Sebring came down around 5:30 or 6. He came down and looked at the house…

D: When did Woytek leave? He took her?

R: Oh, Yes sir, they left together.

D: That's about 4 o'clock?

R: As close as I can recall it, Sir.

During Suzan Peterson's  LAPD interview, she corroborates Russell's version of events, that Frykowski arrived at Sebring's house in the afternoon, around 3:15-3:30 PM (while Sebring was still at home), picked up her up, and then took her (with various stops) to his Woodstock house.

From the Tate/Polanski maid, Winifred Chapman, we know that Sebring wasn't at Cielo in the afternoon because she testified that he called Sharon Tate at around 3:45 PM (roughly the time Jay's bed partner Suzan departed with Frykowski).

From Sharon Tate's lunch guests at Cielo, we know that Sebring was not at Cielo between the time they arrived, 12:30 PM, and the time they departed at 3:30 PM.

From the Cielo gardener, Joe Vargas, we know that when he left Cielo at 4:45 PM, Sharon Tate was alone in the house and napping.

Then, the police report states that Sebring's neighbor placed him driving from his house on Easton Drive between 5:30-6 PM.

Now we're into early evening when, between 6:30-7 PM we have bike deliveryman Dennis Hurst finally placing Sebring at the Cielo house when Sebring signed for Folger's bike.

Under the circumstantial evidence route, one must note that Schreck states earlier in the book that Watson had been to Sebring's house on Easton drive before for drug deals, so why would he call him at the Cielo house? Then we must ask about the $20,000 deal—that's a boatload of money in 1969 for a spur of the moment (one day, 12-hour) drug deal.

Now, let's take a look at the August 8, Rostau Cielo drug delivery timeline.

On page 593 Schreck writes: "…the crucial event of Joel Rostau arriving at Cielo Drive sometime between 8:00-8:30 on August 8th with the large delivery of mescaline, acid, and cocaine Sebring was expecting." (Not only does Schreck fluctuate on the time of the delivery, he also fluctuates on what exactly was being delivered—sometimes it's MDA, other times LSD/acid).

As defense lawyers, we would present that this "crucial event" never took place. As previously noted in Part 1 of our series, we believe that Joel Rostau concocted this whole incident to impress on his friends that he had a brush with death and to gain his fifteen minutes of fame.

Furthermore, for the supposed Rostau 8 PM/8:30 PM drug delivery, we need to look at the timeline of the victims' El Coyote dinner, an event that until otherwise proven, we will assume took place.

The manager of the restaurant said that he saw Sebring's name on the wait list at 9:45 PM. We believe that it's unlikely that they were waiting for a table at 9:45 PM  because we know from the police report that Abigail Folger's mother told them that she phoned Abigail at the Cielo house at 10 PM.

Did the phone call between Abigail and her mother take place at exactly 10 PM? Unlikely, but usually when someone gives a time such as 10 PM it's within 10-15 minutes prior to or after the hour and rounded up to the hour. If it's after 10:15 PM  it's rounded to the next half at 10:30 PM, etc.

Furthermore, Kathy Palmer, a waitress at El Coyote stated that Sebring and his party (she could not positively identify any one of them) waited 15-20 minutes in the bar before being seated and served dinner. She then estimated that they left the restaurant around 9:45 PM-10 PM.

It's roughly a 15-20-minute drive from El Coyote to Cielo (probably more with Friday night traffic). In order for Folger to make the 10 PMish phone call to her mother, they would have needed to leave El Coyote by approximately 9:45 -10 PM.

Lets also remember that it's Friday night and crazy-busy at El Coyote, so, in order to leave the restaurant 9:45-10 PM they would have had to be seated by at least 8:45 PM.

Below is a timeline that we believe needed to take place in order for Folger to be home at Cielo around 10 PM. And, as a note, with this timeline, we feel that we're being extremely generous, playing the devil's advocate of best case scenario times and even throwing out the waitress's claim that they waited 15-20 minutes in the bar; after all, when interviewed, Palmer couldn't even identify the victims, so how good of a witness could she be?

8-8:05 PM: The victims walk out the door, load into the car, and leave Cielo

8:20/25 PM: Arrive at El Coyote, leave car with valet, and walk into the restaurant

8:30 PM: Put Sebring's name on wait list

8:35 PM: (Scrapping the likely 15-20 minute wait) Seated at their table

8:40-8:45 PM: Waitress arrives at their table and they immediately order

9:05 PM: Food arrives

9:30 PM: Eating completed

9:35 PM: Check paid (no time for back and forth of waitress transaction)

9:40-9:45 PM: Retrieve car from the valet and drive off

10P-10:05 PM: Arrive back at Cielo, Abigail races inside in time to receive her mother's phone call at 10-10:15 PM

That timeline is nearly impossible for a Friday night at El Coyote. Circumstantial evidence would lean toward the victims arriving at El Coyote earlier than the warp-speed dinner noted above; especially with Palmer's (realistic) estimate that they waited 15-20 minutes for a table, which in reality is a short wait for a table at El Coyote on a Friday night in an establishment that does not take reservations and would, perhaps, not think of Sebring as a VIP.

Now, let's push this dinner timeline to allow for a drug deal sometime between 8-8:30 PM, but with a more likely timeline scenario at the El Coyote restaurant.

Following a 8 -8:15 PM drug transaction:

8:20 PM Leave Cielo

8:35 PM Arrive at El Coyote leave car with valet, walk into restaurant.

8:40 PM Sebring leaves his name on a wait list.

8:55 PM The foursome are seated.

9:00 PM Waitress takes drink order and leaves menus for them to look at.

9:10 PM Drinks arrive, they order their meals.

9:30 PM Meal arrives and they eat.

10-10:10 MP Waitress arrives with the check, they pay the check immediately, waitress leaves and comes back with credit card bill or change. OR alternately, they pay the check at the hostess stand with roughly the same timeline

10:15 PM Walk out, retrieve car from the valet, and drive back to Cielo.

10:30-10:35 PM arrive at Cielo and Abigail has missed her mother's phone call.

So, we know even with a 10 minute give or take, that scenario is highly unlikely to have happened because if you back the time up to, say 8:05 PM leave Cielo, it leaves very little wiggle room for an important, $20,000, drug delivery by Rostau and still only gets Folger home by 10:20 PM. Also, let's remember our give or take on the hour—if Schreck had said 8 PM we could go with 7:45-8:15 PM, but he writes that it's 8-8:30P. In other words, the timeline prior to the victims' departure for El Coyote would need to have gone something like this to work for Schreck's case:

8 PM: Rostau arrives with the drugs.

8:01-8:06 PM Sebring or Frykowski or both meet Rostau at the driveway or the front door, take the drugs from him, stash them in the nursery (as Schreck claims), while Rostau explains at hyper-speed what he gave them, what's missing, and that he'll return later with more. Sebring or Frykowski check the inventory of what was delivered, and finally a payment transaction.

Note: We placed the drug transaction in the driveway/front door because Schreck claims (as you'll soon read in a later post) that Sebring is the type of host who would pour drinks for his drug dealing sellers or buyers that he invited inside the house. Since there is no time for drinks or socializing in this timeline, we kept it outside where Sebring would not have the opportunity to implement his hosting skills.

8:07-8:10 PM: Deal finished, drugs stashed, Frykowski and Sebring, tell Folger and Tate it's time to go. The women (one pregnant and slow moving) gather their purses (or whatever) race to the car, load in, and drive through the gate toward El Coyote. Arrive at El Coyote at 8:25-8:30 PM.

We believe this to be a highly unlikely timeline/scenario of an insufficient, $20,000 drug deal.

We would submit that based on the El Coyote dinner timeline, that the victims more likely left Cielo a little earlier than 8 PM. Dennis Hurst said he was there between 6:30-7 PM. Circumstantially, since Hurst testified that Sebring had a bottle of wine in his hand, and appeared to be eating, this would be indicative of him pouring a glass for himself or someone else to drink, along with a snack, before the leave time for the restaurant.

We would also submit that based on the above timeline scenarios that it is highly unlikely (nearly impossible) that this Rostau drug deal could have taken place at the alternate 8:30 PM time that Schreck writes about in The Manson File.

Now, if Schreck had presented a case that had Rostau arriving at 10-10:30 PM for a drug delivery, we'd have a problem because beyond Folger's phone call to her mother, no one can really account for the victims' activities between 10P and 12 AM. But there's no basis for that time and that's not what Schreck presented. Plus, a 10 PM arrival with Rostau hardly gives him time to find more drugs to deliver by the 12 AM Watson/Kasabian deal—if by 10-10:30 PM he couldn't find enough drugs for the order it's highly unlikely that he would find the needed amount in an hour (drive time included for various dealer stops) in order to say he'd return later with more.

There is one other notation in the police report for the time period between 10 PM-12 AM that is worth mentioning. From the LAPD progress report we find that Frykowski may have placed a phone call to Witold Kaczanowski at his art gallery, "At a time estimated about midnight Friday night." According to Kaczanowski, Frykowski called to ask why K was not at the Cielo house. Kaczanowski said he was still working and declined Frykowski's second invitation to join him at Cielo.

It's hard to say if Kaczanowski's story is accurate considering that he went on to tell LAPD that his life was in danger because he knew who the killers were. LAPD believed Kaczanowski for a time and put him under protective custody while they followed his new intel for them. But as Kaczanowski began spending a lot of money partying on LAPD's dime, with a trip to Vegas to boot, LAPD eventually pulled the security detail on K because they believed they'd been hoaxed by the pole and any information he had was bunk.

But, if indeed Witold K is telling the truth about Frykowski's midnight phone call (and previous invitation for Friday night), it would then corroborate the idea that as opposed to waiting for a giant midnight drug deal, that this was just another run of the mill Friday night for Frykowski with him calling a friend to see if he was coming up (as planned) to party.

Since Schreck does emphatically place Rostau at Cielo between 8-8:30 PM, we believe that our timeline evidence would give a jury reasonable doubt and therefore exonerate Joel Rostau of committing a drug deal on August 8, 1969 at 8 PM or even the time in between leading to the alternate 8:30 PM drug delivery time.

If we throw out the Rostau drug deal that Schreck claims happened on August 8, between 8-8:30 PM, then we blow a hole into Schreck's premise that there was to be a drug burn by Watson and Kasabian (more on this coming in a later post). If we blow a hole in that fact, then we've added another link to our chain to prove that there was no conspiracy involving Joel Rostau, Jay Sebring, the Genovese/Boiardo crime families, the FBI or the CIA and Schreck's entire narrative for the motive for the Cielo Drive murders crumbles just a little bit more.


45 comments:

Dooger said...

One of the many errors of the book.

candy and nuts said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
starship said...

and if they were expecting Tex and LK at midnight, wouldn't they have been more aware of their surroundings? And perhaps perked up a bit when four shots killed Steven Parent?

Jeffrey Prosser said...

I believe Schreck contends that Parent was killed after Tex originally entered the house.

rick john said...

I think people should look at www.Mansondirect.com

Cielodrive.Com said...

Is there something in particular that we should be looking for on there, Rick?

starship said...

well, Schreck is a loon. It would all fit in nicely and close the deal if only there was a shred of evidence that Rosemary LaBianca was a drug dealer and that somehow she was tied into the MDA deal Voytek had going with the Canadians.

But, alas, there is not.

Brian Davis said...

"and if they were expecting Tex and LK at midnight, wouldn't they have been more aware of their surroundings? And perhaps perked up a bit when four shots killed Steven Parent?"

Obviously Voy wasn't expecting Tex and Kasabian. It was a robbery. Not a planned visit.

well, Schreck is a loon. It would all fit in nicely and close the deal if only there was a shred of evidence that Rosemary LaBianca was a drug dealer and that somehow she was tied into the MDA deal Voytek had going with the Canadians.But, alas, there is not.

Schreck is hardly a loon. But I tell what is lunacy...calling the Rosemary LaBianca estate a simple "typo". Schreck spoke with Deemer, have you Starship ? Schreck spoke with LaBianca family memebers..did you ? Have any of you ever spoken with anyone directly connected ? Ever ? I'm guessing you haven't even read the book. Starship.
A lot of you like to "pile on" without knowing what your piling onto.
You can try and pick holes into the book but it doesn't tear down the book.

You really think Sebring's butler was shadowing him every minute ? What ? No other way to make a phone call ?

You talk about dis-proving the El Coyote, how about actually PROVING they were there. Funny people of such high profile but no one can positively put them at El Coyote that night. Keep trying but it isn't going anywhere..Schreck's book sales have been rising.

Hey, speaking of "loons and lies", how is the Statman book doing these days?

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

I'll take what Charlene or Karlene McCaffrey said about her live in boyfriend Joel Rostau's activity that night. Whether it was 8 pm or 830 pm etc. The key is that he was there that night to bring drugs. Moreover, since she worked for Sebring and he had told her that he'd been burned for $2000 worth of drugs he would sure seem a likely candidate to be ordering more drugs.

DG Lane said...

Why ya gotta attack Brian? Let’s address your responses:

Davis: Obviously Voy wasn't expecting Tex and Kasabian. It was a robbery. Not a planned visit.

WeR7: Your comment begs the question: while reading Schreck's book were you tokin on the pipe? Because on numerous occasions, Schreck states that the August 8/9 murders resulted from a planned drug transaction. Here’s just one reference: Page 231, “Watson was specifically informed by Sebring that the actress wouldn’t be there that night when the two dealers arranged their midnight appointment.” You do understand the definition of appointment don’t you, Brian? “A fixed, mutual agreement for a meeting.”

Davis: Schreck is hardly a loon. But I tell what is lunacy...calling the Rosemary LaBianca estate a simple "typo". Schreck spoke with Deemer, have you Starship ? Schreck spoke with LaBianca family memebers..did you ? Have any of you ever spoken with anyone directly connected ? Ever ? I'm guessing you haven't even read the book. Starship. A lot of you like to "pile on" without knowing what your piling onto.You can try and pick holes into the book but it doesn't tear down the book.

WeR7: So many things to address here, not the least of which is that you should at least use spell-checker if you’re going to attack people, otherwise you come off a bit incompetent. Moving on, who in any of these posts even brought up Rosemary LaBianca’s estate, or that it had a typo—a word you even quoted as if it had been used here. And, in fact, we and others posting here have spoken with people directly connected with the case. But that’s not what’s up for discussion here. What IS up for discussion is the motive presented by Schreck—and quite frankly, we don’t care if Scrheck called up a local medium and had a direct conversation with Joel Rostau, his information is incorrect, we are poking holes in it ,and we will tear it down.

Davis: You really think Sebring's butler was shadowing him every minute ? What ? No other way to make a phone call ?

WeR7: Please put the pipe down and read the post carefully. We responded to the case presented by Schreck who emphatically wrote that Watson called Sebring at the Cielo house the day of August 8, 1969 to set up the drug transaction. We then presented evidence (yes, some through Sebring’s butler) that this was impossible since Sebring was at his residence all day until approximately 5:30-6PM

Davis: You talk about dis-proving the El Coyote, how about actually PROVING they were there. Funny people of such high profile but no one can positively put them at El Coyote that night. Keep trying but it isn't going anywhere..

DG Lane said...

WeR7: Again, your careless reading is getting tiresome, but we’ll respond anyway. We state in the post about the El Coyote dinner “that until proven otherwise”. Did Schreck at any point give evidence or a reference that the victims did not go to El Coyote? Did Schreck give evidence that they did go there? No. So, we must ask, what’s your point in reference to this post and the responses?

Davis: Schreck's book sales have been rising. Hey, speaking of "loons and lies", how is the Statman book doing these days?

WeR7: We don’t usually keep up on book sales, but just for you, we checked the Amazon sales rank for both Restless Souls and The Manson File. Statman’s book ranked 3,841, while Schreck’s book was buried at 1,529,441. Their stats are below.



Statman’s book:

· File Size: 72134 KB

· Print Length: 627 pages

· Page Numbers Source ISBN: 0062107291

· Publisher: It Books (February 21, 2012)

· Sold by: HarperCollins Publishers

· Language: English

· ASIN: B0078XH5FU

· Text-to-Speech: Enabled Description:

· X-Ray: Not Enabled

· Lending: Not Enabled

· Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,841 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)

DG Lane said...

Schreck’s book:

· Paperback

· Publisher: Amok Pr (March 1988)

· Language: English

· ISBN-10: 094169304X

· ISBN-13: 978-0941693042

· Product Dimensions: 8.4 x 5.3 x 0.5 inches

· Shipping Weight: 9.6 ounces

· Average Customer Review: 4.5 out of 5 stars See all reviews (15 customer reviews)

· Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,529,441 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Max Frost said...

C'mon be nice everybody.

We'll get a lot more accomplished that way.

Keep it civil - no need for little jabs back and forth.

aa11ct9 said...

One of those tiny details that never cease to amaze me is that all of this happened in a place literally called "Heaven" (Cielo is spanish for that).


Awesome job, as always. Sometimes I wish you guys could write a book on the Manson saga. It would be, probably, the first serious book on this.

Brian Davis said...

Nice book stats DG except they are wrong. But that's par for your blog.

Max Frost said...

Brian, I honestly wish you would comment here in the form of a rebuttal/response to DG's rebuttal/response to you.

I mean, seriously, have a real dialogue here. I've seen (and heard) you make a lot of great points about many things TLB. So...put 'em forward, por favor.

Start with the stats - why are they wrong?

Krissy Deen said...

"Restless Souls" is actually rated at #241,784 in Amazon Books-the stats posted here were for the kindle store.

I'm not trying to butt in on the conversation and hope it doesn't appear that way I was just curious about it. I had thought about reading the Schreck book but it's too much $$ for my taste- especially since it also seems to have it's share of controversy.

Brian Davis said...

Max, I wish you or your friends would comment on my comments the same in form of rebuttal/response but there they personally attacking me and accusing me of attacking in my initial post but as you can read there was no attack.

I based my opinion on material your blog and Starship wrote.

But of course your reply was a personal attack on me and not really on what I posted, which is fine really because it continues to prove what a lot already think of this blog. But I digress.

The stats that your mental giant, DG Lane, posted were wrong because they were using stats from Schreck's 1988 Manson File NOT the current book.

And now I see Krissy Deen even further backs my point up. You couldn't even get the Statman book stats right. So now your mental giants were really wrong...yet, again.

Makes some people wonder...if you can mess up something so simple as book stats, wonder what else is on this blog that is wrong ?

Next time don't be so picky over a couple typos and worry more on the facts.

Brian Davis said...

"WeR7: So many things to address here, not the least of which is that you should at least use spell-checker if you’re going to attack people, otherwise you come off a bit incompetent. Moving on, who in any of these posts even brought up Rosemary LaBianca’s estate, or that it had a typo—a word you even quoted as if it had been used here. And, in fact, we and others posting here have spoken with people directly connected with the case. But that’s not what’s up for discussion here. What IS up for discussion is the motive presented by Schreck—and quite frankly, we don’t care if Scrheck called up a local medium and had a direct conversation with Joel Rostau, his information is incorrect, we are poking holes in it ,and we will tear it down.

Actually, I never said or insinuated the word "typo" was used here. My post was directed at Starship and he knows what they "typo" reference it to. But thanks for sticking your nose into a comment that wasn't addressed to you. You look like a fool for doing so.

You have spoken to people directly connected to this case ? HAHAHAHA Yeah ok right. "Cutter" doesn't count.

Actually, you aren't even poking holes much less tearing anything it down. In fact, I doubt you could tear down a sand castle.

Suze said...

Way to go folks. Don't respond to his angry insults. Just give him all the rope he wants. LOL.

He never responded to the FIRST post on this subject which was backed up with copious documentation. This was obviously just a timeline clarification based on that one.

This foo has blindly backed the earless wonder for years. He never responds with facts, just childish anger.

Robert Hendrickson said...

When reading any non-fiction book it's probably a good idea to pay more attention to the "direct quotes" that can be verified. An author's opinion (re: Helter Skelter) not so much. Then, WHO is the person being quoted and what is his / her REAL connection to the relevant subject AND what is the quotee's AGENDA. Of course, the latest forensics play a very important part in solving any crime.

BUT, then you come across a case where a killer claims to have CUT OFF A VICTIM'S HEAD and years later while in prison claims that he did not cut off the head. So what is the REAL truth ?

AND how do the significant world events of the time play a relevant part (if any) in finding the truth in a crime ?

A cop kills another human being WHEN he believes HIS life is threatened,

So what would cause YOU to kill another of God's children ? Therein may lie the best CLUE !

starship said...

I would actually like to read the Schrek book, and will once some one sends me a copy, either digitally or in hard copy. But I certainly won't be paying that price for it.

I have watched his youtube interviews and listened to the Brian Davis podcast from Star City Radio (which I really enjoy and wish would come back...I think Brian Davis does an excellent job). That said I think I know enough about Schreck to know he is a loon, sorry. The theories are interesting, and I like to ponder them as much as anybody, but again if there is no proof or even evidence then it's just an exercise in futility.

So, a couple of things: El Coyote. Abigail Folger's stomach contents clearly show she had recently consumed a meal which contained both corn and beans. Conclusive? Of course not, but it makes their dining there (or at least her, but doubt she would go alone) a distinct possibility. (Can anyone find the stomach contents from Sharon Tate's autopsy?) Frykowski's stomach content was inclusive and Sebring's indicates it was all liquid. Mostly Heineken I would guess.

Proof that Rosemary LaBianca was a drug dealer? Doesn't exist so we may as well all shut up about that one.

As for the typo and Rosemary LaBianca's estate? It's just a theory of course, but it would explain away why except for one single newspaper article there is no further mention of her having a $2 million and no evidence whatsoever to confirm that she ever did. So that's what passes for lunacy these days? I think not.

I apologize, if any of you are confused as these points were already discussed on the blog I contribute to, so check it out there. And if anyone out there, and this includes you too, Brian Davis, can prove or even can point to evidence other than what has already been discussed which would make my conclusion invalid, THEN FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PUT IT UP. Until then, if I mdo say so myself, I believe I have presented the best case so far.

starship said...

Oh, and Brian Davis, I believe you and I have some common ground on where we stand on Restless Souls too.

DG Lane said...

Brian, the tone of your entire original comment was completely confrontational in questioning whether people (specifically Starship) had directly spoken with those involved in the case, accusing that people like to "pile on", etc., and therefore, insinuating that (due to their lack of personal contact) they had no right to respond with an opinion.

Instead of attacking Starship, you could have simply countered with, "Hey, Starship, why do you call Schreck a loon?" And then gone on to comment on why you don't think Schreck is a loon. That is how civilized people communicate and what we expect on this blog. And, Max, we countered with an attacking response just to give Brian a taste of his own medicine.

You see, Brian on this blog, we welcome everyone's (civilized, non-confrontational) opinion if respectfully worded and that includes those who are "novices" to the case, because sometimes, even those who have had zero contact with anyone about anything with the Manson case may come up with a really brilliant idea that none of us has previously thought of. Sometimes, it takes that outsider looking in to think outside the box of what we all think is the truth.

What you did with your initial comment on this section was shuck and jive with your response. And with both your posts, instead of countering what we've presented to you, with oh, something like, "Well, Shreck actually has proof that Sebring was at the Cielo house on the afternoon of August 8." You counter with another shuck and jive about poor, pitiful Brian being attacked, AND of all things, Statman's book. Who gives a flying fuck about Statman's book? HOW is Statman's book even relevant to this post? It's not, but it's part of your smoke and mirrors game to detract attention away from the original post and derail onto a bullshit sideshow of what I believe ColScott wrote over on his blog: butt-hurt over Statman not doing an interview for your show.

Here's a lesson in civility:

This is your confrontational, attacking response to my book stats: "Makes some people wonder...if you can mess up something so simple as book stats, wonder what else is on this blog that is wrong ?"

A civil, informed response would have been something like: "Hey, DG, I think your wrong about your book statistics information and here's a link to prove it: Fill in the link.

I've just read up on Amazon's policy on these statistics and they change hourly. The stats posted yesterday were the stats of the hour that we cut & pasted directly to the post. Since you're so interested in Statman's book sales, here is a link to Restless Souls and you can now check them hourly (and, no, we do NOT wanted to be updated). At the moment, the stats show #47,716.

To note, you are correct about the link we showed for The Manson File, it was for the first edition. I was trying to save him some grace with the 1,000,000 stats. The only other place I could find a sales ranking of the current edition (beyond his personal website) was in the UK where it ranks (even worse) 4,092,692.

Now, can we please, for the love of God, get back to what this post is all about? It's not about Brian Davis, it's not about who is more educated on the subject of all things Manson, it's not about who has interviewed who, it's not about Statman, and it sure as hell is not about book statistics.

Sun King said...

Just curious as to who was the first person to float the drug burn theory in a book?

While I have around a dozen Manson related books there are several I don't have and the only place I recall reading about the drug burn theory was in the White Rabbitt manuscript.

Brian Davis said...

DG Lane, you wouldn't have what it takes to give me a "taste of my own medicine".

Take your own advice on civility because I don't care. You talk about your blog civility yet I can go through this blog and find too many to count contradictions to that "civility policy" you claim here.

You don't like my "tone" ? I got two words for you about that. I'm sure you can guess what they are.

I don't have to shuck and jive that's something you seem familiar with apparently.

You are the one DG that out the attention on me in this thread because you tried to make yourself look good at my expense, another fail.

My counter to your ridiculous thread here is simply Charlene McCaffery..but I won't bore you with facts and logical assumption because that's not something you seem to understand as you said so yourself...but any college journalist would've included the McCaffery part just to be fair and let the reader make up their own mind. *A-hack-cough-cough*

"Who gives a flying fuck about Statmans book?" We agree there. But funny you say that after flubbing the book stats, LOL

Suze - Yes, because you're just oozing with facts in your posts.

LOL I don't think I've ever read anything from you Suze anywhere that has contributed to anything with TLB. Please someone direct me ?

And talk about following blindly, I guess you're good for your usual daily backslapping of the lacking DG Lane's of the world.

Btw, Suze, I'm sure you heard this before but the 80's called and wants there hairstyle back.

Starship, thank you for your reply and your honesty in not yet reading the book.

I feel you will have a different outlook afterwards.

I do feel you are one of the logical TLB'ers out there. No hard feelings here, Starship.

And that's the last I'm addressing on this ridiculous thread. Anymore comments I have will be made in my own yard.

You're welcome !

Brian Davis said...

Opps "Btw, Suze, I'm sure you heard this before but the 80's called and wants THEIR hairstyle back." - For you DG !

sbuch113 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sbuch113 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Dude, Suze looks amazing in that photo. Plus, I think that photo actually IS from the 80s. Either way, Suze is a Fine Lady and you crossed a line there. :/

Not cool.

johnnyseattle said...

Starship sez
"As for the typo and Rosemary LaBianca's estate? It's just a theory of course, but it would explain away why except for one single newspaper article there is no further mention of her having a $2 million and no evidence whatsoever to confirm that she ever did. So that's what passes for lunacy these days? I think not."

Vince in his book and every subsequent reprinting of Helter Skelter says she two plus million in her estate. He then tries to give an explanation of 'she was a wise investor' to explain it. It is a statement that is along the lines of 'raise and dismiss' that every first year law school student learns and given that Rosemary having such a fabulous sum of money is counter to the image painted in Helter Skelter it certainly would be something that Bugliosi would knock down if he could. Instead he went with the 'wise investor' line.

The typo theory is interesting in that no one has ever set that story straight. Despite the fact that numerous stories have been written that cite same.

And maybe it was cash, maybe it was real estate, or maybe it was negotiable securities...which is something to ponder, eh?

Robert Hendrickson said...

GREAT question, then I remembered (when filming MANSON) Sandy Good telling me about a letter or phone call they got from someone telling them the Tate house killings were related to a "drug burn."
I'll bet that's how the story started, but WHO wrote about it FIRST ?

In "Death to Pigs" I think Sandy mentions the same story. Her exact words were taken from audio recordings made in 1970, but I never published it until a couple of years ago.

DG Lane said...

Davis wrote: DG Lane, you wouldn't have what it takes to give me a "taste of my own medicine".

You are correct. But that's only because we prefer to not have a rap sheet for harassment.

Davis wrote: My counter to your ridiculous thread here is simply Charlene McCaffery..but I won't bore you with facts and logical assumption because that's not something you seem to understand as you said so yourself...but any college journalist would've included the McCaffery part just to be fair and let the reader make up their own mind. *A-hack-cough-cough*

Actually, in our first post on the subject of The Manson File we included McCaffery in depth. Unlike you, we don't like to bore people with repetition.

Davis wrote: "Who gives a flying fuck about Statmans book?" We agree there. But funny you say that after flubbing the book stats, LOL.

Then why do you keep bringing it up...And, we did not flub the book sale statistics. As we responded (yawn), we directly cut and pasted what was online at that hour.

Davis wrote: Opps "Btw, Suze, I'm sure you heard this before but the 80's called and wants THEIR hairstyle back." - For you DG !

Your 10-year-old mentality really shines through with that one.

Davis wrote: And that's the last I'm addressing on this ridiculous thread. Anymore comments I have will be made in my own yard.

Thank God because we're all extremely bored with you commenting on everything but what this thread is about. Now, go have fun in your yard and try not to get arrested for knocking one of your friends from the jungle gym.

Suze said...

Vermouth, you are proof that gentlemen still exist. Thank you!

biglittlepatty said...

I haven't posted here in so long but now I am. Fuck you Brian Davis. Your statement about Suze speaks volumes about how boring of a person you are. It may be fair to assume a miserable one too, as most boring people are, and your comments would benefit from leaving out the attitude since you want TLB to be taken seriously. That goes for anyone. DG, I really appreciate your efforts but you were perpetuating THEE Brian and thus the thread got off topic. Again, Yay Suze!

biglittlepatty said...

I haven't posted here in so long but now I am. Fuck you Brian Davis. Your statement about Suze speaks volumes about how boring of a person you are. It may be fair to assume a miserable one too, as most boring people are, and your comments would benefit from leaving out the attitude since you want TLB to be taken seriously. That goes for anyone. DG, I really appreciate your efforts but you were perpetuating THEE Brian and thus the thread got off topic. Again, Yay Suze!

sbuch113 said...

First I remember reading of a drug burn as possible motive was in Sanders The Family '71 edition talked of a burn, $20,000 LSD rip-off....ect. I read the book in the mid-70's.
Maury Terry's 1985 investigation revealed much the same info....drug burn, Rosemary as a LSD dealer....

Burn written about prior to Sanders 1971?
Don't know.
The cops seemed to have believed this theory from the get go.
Or variations of it.

Sun King said...

sbuch: I was thinking more along the lines of actually stating that Tex was there because of a drug burn.

I located the passage in The Family and it merely states:, "At the end of forty days’ intensive investigation, the chief pos-
sible motives for the Cielo Drive homicides were considered to
be a drug burn or a drug freak-out."

The 20,000 drug burn reference that was written about was about the Hinman murder.

sbuch113 said...

Check out 1971 edition

Sun King said...

sbuch: You're right. I dug further and found this:

"One former family associate stated that he was told by Gypsy
that the burn involved =63 keys [kilos] of grass, something like fifty
dollars’ worth of smack and some speed.” One of Manson’s closest
friends outside the family told this writer on 12-1-70 that an $11,000
LSD burn was involved and that involved also was a “real million-
aire” friend of Manson whose car Manson wrecked around the time
of the murders. Vern Plumlee also claimed that the motive involved
LSD. Plumlee, certainly a trusted family member during the time
of the murders, worked closely with Bill Vance in committing var-
ious robberies and forgeries during those days of murder. Plumlee,
in a taped interview, said that Bill Vance told him that the Tate and
LaBianca murders were both committed as a result of an acid burn.
This is what Plumlee said about Vance’s explanation of the mo-
tive: “You see, I worked with him for quite a while, you know,
burglaries and things like that. . . . And during the time I was do-
ing it I was, you know, we got to be pretty able to talk with each
other.
“I heard things about something to the effect the LaBiancas were
supposed to have sold to ‘the Tates,’ the Tates were supposed to
have sold to the family, and some people got uptight about it, ’cause
it was a burn. , . . Like, I was told by him, he says, ‘. . . don’t
worry about it though because they’ll never find out who did it.’ So
I just let it slide.”
On another occasion Plumlee told a reporter that the family went
there to get Frykowski and anyone else present, According to Plum-
lee, the family had received information that Sharon Tate was not going to be at Cielo Drive."

Been awhile since I read The Family and in skimming through it I realized I sure forgot a lot of what was in it lol!

Matt said...

sbuch, it very well could have been a drug burn. We aren't saying it wasn't.

What we've proven in these two posts it that Schreck's theory is garbage. He was not a major broker of any kind, nor was he part of the Genovese crime family. He wasn't even extensively tied to New Jersey the was Schreck portrays it. Without those three things, his hypothesis is complete fabrication.

We didn't just say it. We backed it up with documentation.


malcontentx said...

Why would Joel be delivering drugs that night? Well lets see, there were a bunch of unhappy drug addicts at the house and he was a drug dealer. Seems like a marriage made in heaven to me.

malcontentx said...

If the cops had been doing their jobs like they should have Joel Rostau should have been there #1 suspect. They new he sold drugs, they were aware he had mob connections and what do they do when McCaffrey tells them he was supposedly there? They ask him he denies it and apparently they took his word for it. Joel Rostau was no angel and neither were the people he associated with.

Matt said...

malcontentx, you might want to read the first post on the subject located HERE.

In it, the Rostau angle is disproved. I once entertained the idea that he was involved somehow. I no longer do.