Monday, May 8, 2017

Sadie's Stroll

The official narrative tells us that Linda Kasabian returned to the walkway just outside the house at Cielo Drive while the murders were taking place. She stood at the location marked by the "LK" in this picture. When Kasabian reached the "LK" she saw Wojciech Frykowski fall through the bushes at the

north end of the porch  that location is marked too but barely visible to the right in the photograph. When she arrived, Susan Atkins came out of the house and a short conversation ensued between Atkins and Kasabian. This included the emotionally charged plea by Kasabian to ‘make it stop’. Atkins then suddenly remembered her missing knife and went back inside. Sharon Tate was allegedly alive at this time, alone and inside sitting on the couch. Krenwinkel was chasing Abigail Folger across the front lawn and Watson was attacking Frykowski a short distance to her left (also marked on the photograph as "A” and “F 2" respectively).

The only eyewitness to report this event is Linda Kasabian.

Here is what Kasabian said about the event the two times she testified.

At the Tate-LaBianca trial……
_____

Q. (Bugliosi) You say you ran toward the house?
A. I ran toward the house.
Q. The house you ran to is the one that is shown in People's 4 for identification?
A. Yes.
Q. What happened after you ran toward the house?
A. There was a man just entering out of the door and he had blood all over his face and he was standing by a post, and we looked into each other's eyes for a minute, I don't know however long, and I said, "Oh, God, I am so sorry. Please make it stop." And then he just fell to the ground into the bushes.



And then Sadie came running out of the house, and I said, "Sadie, please make it stop." And then I said, "People are coming." And she said, "It's too late." And then she told me that she left her knife and she couldn't find it. And while this was going on, the man had gotten up, and I saw Tex on top of him, hitting him on the head and stabbing him, and the man was struggling, and then I saw Katie in the background with the girl, chasing after her with an upraised knife, and I just turned and ran to the car down at the bottom of the hill.
Q. Now, when you told Sadie that people were coming, was that the truth?
A. No.
Q. Why did you tell her that?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Because I just wanted them to stop.

******
Q. After Sadie told you that she had lost her knife inside the house, what did Sadie do, if you recall?
A. I believe she started to run back into the house. 
_____

And at the Watson Trial…..
_____

Q: What is the next thing that happened when you ran towards the house?
A: A man came out of the front door and he was staggering and he had blood all over his face and he looked at me and I looked at him. He was leaning against the pole and he fell.
Q: To his left or to hit right?
A: Towards me -- to my right.
Q: To your right, which would be to his left?
A: Yeah.
Q: What is the next thing that happened?
A: Sadie came running out and I said to her, I said, "Sadie, please, make him stop"; I said, "People are coming."
Q: Were people, in fact, coming?
A: No, I don't think so.
Q: Why did you tell Sadie that?
A: I don't know. I was afraid; I just wanted her to stop; and she said something about that she left her knife in the house, something like that, and then the next thing I knew, the man was right there that had fallen down and Tex was right there and he was hitting him over- the head and just kept stabbing him and stabbing him and stabbing him to the ground; and Katie was in the background chasing a woman. She had a knife and I just turned and I ran back to the bottom of the hill to the car, and I laid on the ground.
_____

Look at the underlined parts. Notice the change? In Watson’s trial Kasabian is suddenly directing her emotional plea directly at Watson. At the previous trial it is a more general request- a subtle difference that makes me want to ask her why she changed her testimony.

Where's Linda?


In order for Sadie's Stroll to have occurred Kasabian has to return to the area near the front door marked by the “LK” in the picture. If this never happened then the stroll never happened. So stepping into the shoes of Bugliosi does any other evidence corroborate her story?

Watson

Watson, in his book, Will You Die For Me, seems to lend some support to Kasabian's claim.
_____
“He [Frykowski] was enormously powerful, fighting for his life as he dragged the two of us [Tex and Sadie] across the hall toward the front door, knocking over the trunks.
As we staggered out onto the front porch, he kept screaming, “Help me. Oh God, help me!” I
stabbed him over and over, blindly, the whole world spinning and turning as red as the blood that was smearing and spattering everywhere. Finally I shot him twice and he slumped onto the stone porch.

I looked up and realized Linda was standing on the walk, staring at me in horror. She must have been there when we first came out, as well, since I could suddenly remember her screaming to Sadie, “Make it stop!” and Sadie shrieking back that it was too late.”
_____

If we assume Watson 'wrote' his book after reviewing the 'Tex Tapes' (or if Chaplin Ray acted as editor after listening to them) his statement might be reliable as those tapes were recorded before the memories of the eyewitnesses could be influenced by the statements of others (but not his own self interest).

There are some differences between his account and Kasabian's account. Watson claims he and Atkins were carried out the door in combat with Frykowski. He claims he shot Frykowski on the front porch where he then fell. He places Kasabian at the scene when Frykowski is shot and when he first falls onto the porch. Kasabian reports none of these events.

These differences mean Watson’s account doesn’t corroborate Kasabian because when these events occur, according to Kasabian, Kasabian is not even present. Remember she arrives as Frykowski is stumbling out the door, alone. He then staggers and falls through the bushes. She next sees Watson on the lawn although she oddly doesn’t describe how he got there. Why ‘oddly’? Look at the picture. They must have crossed the walkway directly at her feet.

Watson does corroborate the ‘make it stop’ discussion. The problem I have with his report is how he phrases his recall saying that Kasabian 'must have been' present and places that incident chronologically before he remembers seeing Kasabian. He assumes she must have been there before he noticed her. His memory, as written, is strikingly similar, in my opinion, to what I would expect with ‘eyewitness conformity’- what happens after an eyewitness hears another witness describe the events and uses that second witness to fill in the gaps in his own memory of the incident. And, of course, his memory of this incident doesn’t line up chronologically with Kasabians: Atkins isn’t engaged with Frykowski when the statement is made and Watson is over in the yard.

Atkins

Atkins certainly doesn't support Kasabian's testimony. In fact, on the two occasions, once in an interview with her attorneys, Caballero and Caruso and once before the Grand Jury she never mentions the stroll. Instead, Atkins claims both times that Kasabian is 'missing in action' during these events.
____

Atkins: Then he motioned for us to come and stand behind the couch and we left Linda outside to listen for sounds.
***
Atkins: We, Katie and I, went running outside looking for Linda because we didn’t see her and yelling for her but we didn’t want to yell too loud.

Cielodrive.com, Interview of Susan Atkins by Caballero and Caruso, December 1, 1969.
____
Q: Did all of you girls enter at that time?
A: Only two of us entered, one stayed outside.
Q: Who stayed outside?
A: Linda Kasabian.

***
Q: Do you know where she was outside?
A: No, I don't.

***
Q: You saw Tex stab Abigail three or four times?
A: Yes, While he was doing that Katie and I were looking for Linda because she wasn't anywhere around. In fact, we started calling for her. We didn't want to call too loud, and then Tex walked over to Frykowski and kicked him in the head.

***
Q: Were you looking for Linda at that point?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you know where Linda was?
A: No.

***
Q: Is this the electric button?
A: Yes, and we proceeded to walk down the hill to the car. When we got to the car we saw Linda Kasabian in the car.

Cielodrive.com. Susan Atkins Grand Jury Testimony (Kindle Locations: various). Kindle Edition.
____

Atkins goes so far as to suggest no one knew where Kasabian was. She had disappeared. Atkins and Krenwinkel are described wandering about the grounds calling her name. The stroll is never mentioned.

Now, Atkins does make a statement that is at least interesting.
____

Atkins: Linda had evidently heard some noise and went back down and sat in the car so we had no watch for the outside.

Cielodrive.com, Interview of Susan Atkins by Caballero and Caruso, December 1, 1969.
____

This means at some point Kasabian probably did say she heard a noise. Put there is no context for the statement meaning it might have been Kasabian’s excuse for returning to the car. In fact, that seems to be what Leslie Van Houten is alluding to further down.

A few years later Atkins changes her whole story (not a surprise) and Kasabian is suddenly there but in the wrong place and at the wrong time.
_____
“Strangely, right in the middle of the battle for life [with Frykowski, inside the house], Linda came into the house, obviously terrified, horror-stricken. “Do something!” she screamed. “Sadie, can’t you stop it?”

Still struggling, I somehow managed to converse with her. “No, I can’t do anything!” I yelled.”

Slosser, Bob; Atkins, Susan. Child of Satan, Child of God (p. 141). Menelorelin Dorenay’s Publishing. Kindle Edition.
_____

In Atkins’ rewrite of history she actually has Kasabian enter the house twice. In one of the most bizarre twists, Atkins, who spent most of her adult life trying to prove she didn’t kill Sharon Tate, actually uses the second occasion to put a knife back in her hand. A fourth knife, it should be noted, that cannot exist based on her and Kasabian's statements.
____
Just then, Linda came back in. “Give me your knife,” I yelled. “I’ve lost mine.” Apparently Linda did give me her knife, for I soon had another one. My own turned out to have fallen between cushions on the couch and was to be found by the police the next day.

Slosser, Bob; Atkins, Susan. Child of Satan, Child of God (p. 141). Menelorelin Dorenay’s Publishing. Kindle Edition.
____

But at about the same time she was telling us Kasabian entered the house twice she told the parole board it was once. 
____


“Board Member DeLeon: Who went into the house with you originally?

Inmate Atkins: Pat Krenwinkel, Tex Watson, myself and Linda Kasabian was told to stay outside and watch. She only came in one time.”

Cielodrive.com, Transcript of Atkins' 1978 Parole Hearing
____

But again, no stroll. 

Krenwinkel

In her 2016 parole hearing Krenwinkel also places Kasabian in the house but in her case she has her leave before the mayhem begins and never sees her until it is over.
____
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Then, when we got inside the house, I think it was -- I'm trying to remember. When we first got in the house there was a man on the sofa and I believe that was Mr. Frykowski. And he was in -- and he was on the sofa. And of course he asked, you know, what are you doing here. And at first, Tex just tried to, was -- said, oh we, something -- we want your money. And he asked -- and he said for any, and he looked down the hall and he told us, Susan to go down the hall and see if anybody was there besides the man there. And he had a, he had a gun on him, Tex had a gun on him. And Susan -- and so Susan went down the hall and I'm -- I think, I'm trying to remember when he told, he told Linda to go out and keep watch. So Linda went out and Susan went down the hall and she came back and said, yes there's, you know, there's some people in a, in a bedroom.
____
But it’s not surprising Krenwinkel is little help because Kasabian never mentions any interaction with her and Krenwinkel removes herself completely from any contact with the rest after she attacks Folger.
____

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay. And what happens?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: I stabbed her. And she pled for her life and I continued to stab her. And then, eventually, I went and I heard Tex on the porch and he was, he was fighting with someone on the porch and I went over and told him that I didn't really know if she was still alive or dead. And he told me to go to the back house and kill anyone that was there.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay.
INMATE KRENWINKEL: And so I went to --
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: And what did you do?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: I went to the back house.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay.
INMATE KRENWINKEL: And I just stood there. I didn't enter.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay. And how come you didn't enter?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: I just didn't. I didn't. I just stopped. I just didn't.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: And you -- but you don't know why you stopped? I mean, you're at a point, right, where you, I mean, you just told us that if you didn't do what was told to you, what was instructed to you, you know, you would be killed or you would be sacrificed.
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Right.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: So what stopped you?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: I just couldn't continue on. So I stopped. I just went in the back and I wait until everything quieted down and I went out when it was all quiet and I left with Tex and Susan.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay.
INMATE KRENWINKEL: And we went down to the car.
____
So under Krenwinkel’s version of events Kasabian is sent off by Watson to stand guard and is never seen again. Notice, however, the timing and location of Watson’s command to go check the guest house. This should have been right about the time Kasabian arrived on the scene. Kasabian is not mentioned.

Leslie Van Houten

And while Leslie Van Houten wasn't present that night her 'mentor', Krenwinkel told her what happened.

Miss Van Houten: *** And then the next morning Sadie was watching the news, I think. Somehow I found out that they had done it. Oh, no. I asked Katie, and she told me.
MR. PART: What did she say?
MISS VAN HOUTEN: She said that — that they had murdered five people; that they didn’t know there were going to be that many at the house; and they didn’t know who the people were; and there were a whole lot of them.
***
MR. PART: Well, was Katie — this Patricia Krenwinkel was she out on — in the Tate murders?
MISS VAN HOUTEN: Um-hmm, yes.
MR. PART: The so-called — the Tate murders?
MISS VAN HOUTEN: Tex and Sadie and Katie were on the inside, and Linda was supposed to be on the outside.
That’s the way the story
And then —
So I was feeling kind of bad, because I didn’t get to go.
I was sure hoping that if we did it again I could go.
MR. PART: Why in the world would you want to go out and kill somebody?
MISS VAN HOUTEN: Because it had to be done. It had to be done just in order for the whole thing to be completed, for the whole world’s karma to be completed we had to do this.

Cielodrive.com, Interview of Leslie Van Houten by Marvin Part, December 29, 1969.
____

Notice how Van Houten describes Kasabian’s role. She was 'supposed to be' outside. In my experience this is usually followed by a 'but' which usually then confirms that she 'wasn't'. This is just the kind of thing that makes me go 'hmmm'. 

One piece of physical evidence corroborates Kasabian's story.  That is the broken bushes on the north end of the porch where she claimed to have seen Frykowski fall. If she wasn’t there how would she know about the bushes unless you subscribe to the theory Bugliosi told her? 

Although the testimony of her co-conspirators provides more questions then answers about her actual presence on that night let's give Kasabian the benefit of the doubt based on that broken bush. Certainly, we know Atkins does tend to leave important parts of the events on these two nights out of her reports whether she is under oath or not. Krenwinkel didn’t interact with Kasabian. Van Houten wasn't there and while Watson places her at the right place at the wrong time he at least places her on the walkway.

The problem I have is the stroll just doesn’t make any sense to me unless Sharon Tate is unable to act.

The Stroll and Sharon Tate


Several people have approached the question this way: why didn't Sharon Tate run? One site even said she tried and Krenwinkel stopped her. I tend to align with those who think Sharon’s lack of action in the face of wanting to protect her unborn child is at least, curious. After all she had been told they were all going to die and she saw everyone else attacked or killed. Why not get up and run, arm yourself, go lock the front door, hide in the bathroom, climb up in the loft and pull the ladder up or just climb up there. But that isn't my point. 

I’d like you to look at this from Atkins' perspective: Why would Atkins leave Sharon Tate sitting alone on the couch and walk outside? I have never been able to satisfactorily answer this question.

I can think of four possible reasons and none of them make sense to me:

1. To help Watson
2. To help Krenwinkel
3. Some other reason
4. She was leaving the scene of the crime- it was over

#1 and #2- helping Watson and Krenwinkel. Atkins doesn’t have a knife. You could say she was going to go hold the victims down, I suppose. Of course, that, then, asks us to understand her motivation. Why would she think going to help was necessary when she was inside when she originally made the decision to take the stroll. Maybe a better way to put it is why did she think that was more important then guarding Sharon Tate.

Then I’m left with this: if Atkins was going outside to help someone why didn't she actually help someone and instead just turn around and go back inside? I guess she might have thought she had her knife tucked in her belt or something (she wasn’t wearing a belt). She then might have realized she didn’t have her knife right then and headed back inside to get it so she could help. But since she didn’t have a place to put the knife that would mean she suddenly realized she didn’t have it in her hand. 

#3 is the catch all. What would be important enough to leave Sharon unattended? I couldn’t come up with anything that made sense to me. I couldn’t think of any other reason Atkins would walk out that door.

Maybe you could argue it was to get another knife? Remember there are three knives. Kasabian doesn’t have one and Atkins, Krenwinkel and Watson clearly do and Atkins knows this. In her book she does ask Kasabian for her knife but that happens inside the house. According to Kasabian, Atkins doesn’t ask for Kasabian’s knife. And Atkins actually says ‘oops I forgot my knife’ and goes back inside, something she wouldn’t say if she wanted one from Kasabian.

To me that event- going back in to get her knife- is the key to #3. Every reason I could think of seemed to fall apart when Atkins goes back inside to get her knife. In other words, something important enough to bring Atkins away from Sharon Tate and outside, would seem to demand that it be completed. Let’s say she was bringing Watson a knife or someone on her end called for help. She doesn’t finish the act that is the motivation for stepping outside. She turns around and goes back inside and doesn't come back out at least as long as Kasabian is present.

To me that leaves #4 as the only possibility: She was leaving or at least there is nothing to take care of inside the house. To me this is the only explanation that makes sense but it means Sharon Tate was already dead or dying. When Atkins confronts Kasabian she is concerned about her missing knife, not Sharon Tate. When Kasabian confronts Atkins she is leaving the house. Absolutely nothing described by Kasabian suggests anything other than Atkins was leaving the scene or had no intention of going back inside until suddenly remembered she had misplaced her knife back inside. If the stroll happened I think Atkins' actions are telling us Sharon Tate was already incapacitated. She didn’t need to be concerned about what Sharon Tate might do.

Did the stroll happen: In my opinion not if Sharon Tate was alive. No one has ever provided a satisfactory explanation to me why Atkins left Sharon Tate alone, walked outside and returned to get her knife. I think this event may have happened but that Sharon Tate was already mortally wounded. In fact, since I don't trust the eyewitnesses, I think the evidence establishes that this is indeed the scenario. 

One Last Jab At Linda


Look at this picture (to the right). It is taken from within a few feet of the Kasabian “LK" in the picture
above, looking in the direction of the pool in broad daylight. Yes, it was taken after the events of that night. You can't see the pool. But Kasabian says, at night, from here, with her line of sight further obscured by looking through light from the porch into darkness in the distance, she saw the pool:
____

Q. Do you recognize the gate here?
A. The gate, yes; and the driveway and the buildings; even the swimming pool. 
Q. You say even the swimming pool. Did you notice the swimming pool that night?
A. Yes. When I went back I got a faint glimpse of it.
____
Look carefully. Can you see the pool? Per Kasabian, this is as close as she ever got to the pool. Forget what others have said. This is what Kasabian said she could see. Can you? Now look at this one (left-top). Can you see her location from here? I can’t. It should be behind that leaning tree. I especially can't see it when that night it probably looked like this (above). 

Of course there is at least one location where Kasabian could have easily  'caught a glimpse' of the pool regardless of the lighting. That would be right, here (lower left). That would place her inside the Cielo Drive that night and that, of course, would mean that she lied. 

[The defense asked for a jury view of the crime scene, for some reason Bugliosi objected and the court ruled against it.]



84 comments:

St Circumstance said...

Nicely done David. I think this is the first post you have done that I have read and I think it's quite well done :)

David said...

Ill take that as a compliment ;-)

Thanks you

St Circumstance said...

It was lol. Your welcome 😉

Cielodrive.com said...

ouch

St Circumstance said...

Ouch? Did miss something? lol I was trying to be complimentary ??

Oh well

starviego said...

Of course it was in Bugliosi's interest to minimize the culpability of Kasabian, so if he knew she was lying about being in the house, he wouldn't have raised any objections.

cielodrivecom said...

I read it as backhanded

St Circumstance said...

Oh. It wasn't my intention. I always want to encourage new contributors. I know how hard it is to put yourself out there the first few times. I appreciate the nerve. I also appreciate the time and effort it takes to do this ...

So if my comments were misunderstood it was only my intention to say - great job!

If I'm being dissed that's ok too lol

David said...

Cielo,

I choose to pretend the second sentence isn't there ;-)

David said...

Saint,

"David" was formerly known as "Dreath"

Suze said...

At least you didn't forget your wife's name in bed. My ex-husband did that once. Note that I said ex.

St Circumstance said...

Oh. Wondering where you were lol. You know I'm a huge fan. Anyway. I promise I was just trying to be nice :)

grimtraveller said...

I tend to align with those who think Sharon’s lack of action in the face of wanting to protect her unborn child is at least, curious

Given her advanced stage of pregnancy, being informed of her death and having seen the others either die or begun on, I don't find her lack of action at all curious. Atkins managed to subdue a martial arts guy in Sebring holding just a knife. And as was later found out that night, she couldn't kill in cold blood just like that so the odds would have been even more heavily stacked in Sebring's favour. But she managed to subdue him. How ? I'm tempted to finish with a pithy "now, that's curious !" but it isn't really. Fear is a great leveller and Sharon had the fear as Jay had earlier.

The problem I have is the stroll just doesn’t make any sense to me unless Sharon Tate is unable to act

She was unable to act. She was as scared as it is probably possible to be. In extreme circumstances people do not act logically. Frykowski and Folger were both high on MDA yet they are the two that fought for their lives and tried to escape. Logically they would have found movement difficult.

I’d like you to look at this from Atkins' perspective: Why would Atkins leave Sharon Tate sitting alone on the couch and walk outside?

Why not ? She'd had a baby herself and from what Sharon had been saying and the fact that she said that later she wanted to deliver the baby, she knew Sharon was near to giving birth and having already subdued her and Sebring and her horrific comment that Sharon was going out of her mind {said by an acid tripper in this particular context gives one an awfully clear insight into what Sharon could have been going through}, I don't think she anticipated any trouble or escape attempts from her, particularly as she was struggling with the rope. Abigail had escaped the rope ~ Sharon did not. In reality, with that terrain, there wasn't really anywhere Sharon could go on her own in the dark. Her repeated pleas for her baby's life show that she held out some hope in the humanity of the three, humanity that was shamefully lacking.

No one has ever provided a satisfactory explanation to me why Atkins left Sharon Tate alone, walked outside and returned to get her knife

No one has ever provided a satisfactory explanation as to how Tex approached Steve Parent with a gun and a knife ~ but we know he did. No one has ever provided a satisfactory explanation as to how Tex shot Frykowski twice but wasn't heard or seen by either Atkins or Kasabian. I've never heard a satisfactory explanation of how the glasses were left at the scene. Actually, when I think about it, there are questions a~plenty.

In fact, since I don't trust the eyewitnesses

Basically you can more or less discount anything Pat has said because she's at best incoherent and I don't believe her sudden clarity from 2016 when it has been previously anything but. Tex picked up much of his "memory" from "Helter Skelter" so you're left essentially with the duo that testified for the prosecution at their various junctures. Parts of their stories dovetail, parts don't. I think chronology is impossible once the house is entered but one would expect a certain confusion of events ~ something Atkins admits before the Grand Jury and something Kasabian majors on in the Watson trial. I'm still struck by the varying descriptions of 9/11 by those that were there and we even have those on film.....

grimtraveller said...

Cielodrive.com, Transcript of Atkins' 1978 Parole Hearing

David, whereabouts on Cielo's site is this ? I only see her 2005 and 2009 hearings.

grimtraveller said...

And where has ColScott's statement about Linda lying and how it's a retread disappeared to ? Is he being censored ?

Lynn said...

Note to Matt.
.thank you so much for adding the extra pictures of Fort Baker. It looks beautiful. Funny about the SF Bay Bridge...i happened to be in Berkeley last week and enjoyed a gorgeous view of the bridge and Bay from my hotel room.

David said...

Grim,

You will have to ask Cielo about the transcript. I believe he saw what I was writing and helped me out via e-mail on that.

"Fear is a great leveller and Sharon had the fear as Jay had earlier."

You appear to be of the opinion that Sharon Tate was petrified by fear. I think there is evidence to the contrary. Although I can't prove it right now.

" Abigail had escaped the rope ~ Sharon did not."

I am not so sure that is what happened, either. I think the evidence suggests a different scenario.

"And as was later found out that night, she [Atkins] couldn't kill in cold blood just like that so the odds would have been even more heavily stacked in Sebring's favour. "

It is highly probable that Atkins inflicted at least one and more likely two fatal wounds to Frykowski before Watson ever engaged with him.

"No one has ever provided a satisfactory explanation as to how Tex approached Steve Parent with a gun and a knife ~ but we know he did."

No, we don't know he did. We assume he did because he says so. No one else agrees with him.

Our understanding of what occurred that night originates from a book (HS). It is universally the starting place. And the story of that night in that book originates with the Grand Jury testimony of Atkins.

Because we start with Atkins' story there is a tendency to accept as 'true' what the she and her co-defendants (all of them) tell us happened that terrible night and when the objective evidence contradicts the HS version (or the official narrative) the tendency is to reject the objective evidence just like Bugliosi did. I think that is a mistake.



David said...

Col.

If I had any say in it I'd leave your comments up. Sometimes they are helpful although it does appear at times only one opinion counts in your sector of the universe.

Could you point me to the post on your site on this subject?

David said...

Col,

You're welcome.

"All Opinions matter equally, which means not at all.Facts matter only."

I agree with that.

Matt said...

All opinions are welcome. Lies, personal attacks and fake news get deleted.


ColScott said...

The beginning of the end for all fascists begins with the need to block their enemies

Matt said...

You are not anyone's enemy. Just a cranky Col.


ColScott said...

You have deleted 9 posts of mine due to disagreement with the insights there in.


Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale? You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state - Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a collage of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable by-laws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale; it has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that perfect world in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality - one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock - all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused. And I have chosen you, Mr. Beale, to preach this evangel.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Was the pool lit up at night?

On a slightly different subject, I've had a hard time picturing the paths that Tex took going from person to person. Did he ever go out the bedroom door by the pool, such as to get to where Krenwinkle and Folger were? I've read descriptions of how things happened in regard to everyone's movements such that I have a hard time getting a clear picture. Not that the perpetrators ever had a clear picture of how it all happened.

Couldn't Sadie's stroll been the result of her and Tex chasing Frykowski?

Good job David.

David said...

Mr. Humphrat said:

"Was the pool lit up at night?"

Not that I found. Three outside light sources are discussed in the trial- two lights at the door (either side, if I recall), one behind Kasabian's location near the cars and one on the garage. I looked at photos of the pool and didn't see any 'lights'- of course that doesn't mean they weren't there.

"Couldn't Sadie's stroll been the result of her and Tex chasing Frykowski?"

This is what Watson claims. Its in the post somewhere. He says he and Atkins were engaged with Frykowski and exiting the house when the 'statement- make it stop' happened. I have problems with that.

Put aside Atkins' claim she was inside at the time- we know we can't rely on her at all. Other evidence says the attack on Frykowski can't be a 'continual event'- the broken bush, the blood on the north end of the porch- these are inconsistent with one continued action. Then there is the fact Watson claims he shot him on the porch and how he now recollects Kasabian being there several years later.

But if you accept the Watson scenario then Kasabian's version is totally wrong and so wrong, in fact, doesn't it appear to be made up?

"if you [the jury- and that is who we are] decide that a witness deliberately testified untruthfully about something important, you may choose not to believe anything that witness said."

Of course it does say 'may choose'.

lurch said...

I think Tex was already outside stabbing Frykowski when he saw Pat taking down Gibby....not 100% sure though.
The encounter between Sadie and Linda has always bugged me.
Frykowski staggers out the door and Linda sees him. Tells him she's sorry. Sadie comes out. They have their conversation.Sadie goes back in the house.
Where is Tex during all this? At what point does Linda leave? How long was Frykowski down before he got back up?
Unless some form of time travel is invented I guess we'll never really know exactly what happened

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

Didn't kasabian go around the house looking for open windows? Wouldn't this have made her walk past the pool?

David said...

timewarp,

My answer would be 'no'. Kasabian claimed she went behind the house. That is as you approach the house from the driveway she went to the right between the garage and the house. If you look at arial pictures (there are some over on cielodrive.com) she would have had to travel to the south end of the house to see the pool. The layout of the house, position of the pool and the terrain to me at least says she could not see the pool from there, especially at night.

I'm not even sure she ever went 'behind the house'. When asked about open windows she said this:

A. Tex told me to go in back of the house and see if there were open windows and doors, which I did.
Q. Did you find any open doors or windows in the back of the house?
A. No, there was no open windows or doors.
Q. Did you try to open any windows or doors?
A. No.
Q. But you did not see any doors or windows?
A. No.

But there clearly was: http://www.cielodrive.com/photo-archive/10050-cielo-drive-rear.php

The window to the proposed nursery that had been painted that day.


timewarp said...

Ya she probably never did.I've wondered if she actually checked the windows as well

I Love Susan Atkins said...

Hi, when Susan left the house and went outside...The reason Sharon Tate did not run or try to get away is because she was "tied up"....!! Sharon had a Rope around her Neck and was sitting on the Coach, most probably terrified and in shock at what was happening....Remember, after Voytek and Abigail were killed, Tex and Patricia came back into the House where they found Susan sitting with Sharon on the Coach. That is when Sharon went into her final attempt to live saying..."all I want to do it have my baby, etc"....

David said...

ILSA,

Actually, there is no evidence Sharon Tate was tied up. There is evidence the rope was used 'after' she was mortally wounded. Of course the murderers say this happened earlier in the night- frankly, of course they do.

DebS said...

OFF TOPIC

Debra Tate has been diagnosed with breast cancer. She needs financial help to cover the costs of her treatment. Jillian Barberie has set up a Go Fund Me page for Debra. Treatment is expensive and depending on the kind of insurance one has, co-payments can become quite high. If you wish to donate go to-

https://www.gofundme.com/helpdebratate

More later as additional information becomes available.

Mr. Humphrat said...

David, despite doubts about Sharon being able to escape, I don't have any reason to think she was killed any time but last of the five victims. I don't see what the perpetrators would have had to gain by falsely claiming she was killed last, or what the prosecution would have to gain by it.
I do see you could be right about Linda being in the house and seeing the pool through the hallway.
And I do see a case to be made for Linda not doing the things she claimed, such as locking eyes with Voytek and pleading for it to stop, but maybe those things could have happened and the order of things was mixed up in people's minds-the quicksand of time.
I appreciate your work and scholarly approach.

David said...

Mr. Humphrat,

I certainly can't prove anything different. It has simply always nagged at me that the physical evidence does not line up with the story- that's stating the obvious isn't it. I have been trying to find a forensics expert who doesn't want more $$$$ then I am willing to front to put it to rest for me one way or the other. Maybe someday.

ColScott said...

Deb S

As we both know breast cancer is a serious thing. That is very sad for Debra. I hope she recovers.

I also hope she buries her father's cremains as he wished next to his wife. She talks to it every morning at breakfast I believe and does some serious Bette Davis cackling to her dad.

grimtraveller said...

David said...

Our understanding of what occurred that night originates from a book (HS). It is universally the starting place

It certainly was for me although I first read about it in "Infamous murders." I'd say HS was my first conscious interest. It is interesting however, that 6 pre~HS books {"The killing of Sharon Tate," "Five to die," "The Garbage People," "The Family," "Witness to evil" and "Trial by your peers"} lay out what "happened," based obviously on either what Atkins or Kasabian {or in the case of "The Garbage People, Krenwinkel} said. The lay person's interest is nearly always going to originate in what the actual participators have said.

Because we start with Atkins' story there is a tendency to accept as 'true' what she and her co-defendants (all of them) tell us happened that terrible night

I wouldn't agree with that. And the reason I wouldn't agree with that is that you do not have 4 identical accounts, told through the memories of 4 independent and coherent people in their own words, matching up all along the way. Tons of people on various blogs don't accept what any or all of the killers say as true.
But then, what do we mean by 'true' ? If Susan Atkins was flaying a knife behind her during a struggle with Wogiciech and hitting something but wasn't aware what and it turns out that she inflicted 2 or 3 fatal wounds on him but wasn't aware of this and it was never pointed out to her and ∴ doesn't ever mention it in her subsequent accounts, does this lessen the truth of what she does speak of ?
At the same time, we have little choice but to listen to what the killers say they remember although their recollections are not exhaustive. Bits and pieces are left out. Susan for example never tells her lawyers or the grand jury that Tex slit a screen. She says he just popped up a window, climbed in and then let them in. Is her account not true because she misses out this detail ? Or does it point to realities of the way people are when it comes to group recollections and the way that if there are multiple things going on, it's going to be virtually impossible to chronologically have a handle on all the events ?

and when the objective evidence contradicts the HS version (or the official narrative) the tendency is to reject the objective evidence just like Bugliosi did. I think that is a mistake

The tendency is to question the objective evidence as one questions aspects of the verbal accounts, be they from 1969, 1970, 1977 or beyond. Objective evidence doesn't lie, it is true. But it needs interpreting and interpretations are as subject to the biases and foibles of the interpreter as lies and 'convenience' can be to the eyewitness.

There was a man just entering out of the door and he had blood all over his face and he was standing by a post, and we looked into each other's eyes for a minute, I don't know however long, and I said, "Oh, God, I am so sorry. Please make it stop." And then he just fell to the ground into the bushes

How does one enter out of a door ?
Jokes aside, I remember reading this while I was reading Linda's testimony and for the first time since becoming aware of the tale, realizing that she did not actually speak to Frykowski, but rather, this was a prayer to God. It always seemed like she and Wogiciech looked at each other and she apologized to him but during Kanarek's questioning, it transpires that in fact she was apologizing to God and pleading for divine intervention. It also brings into sharp focus her later statement that it was the events of Cielo that brought her to the point where she stopped believing that Charlie was Christ.
Although it is an assumption on my part that that was the case ! ☺ ☺

Robert C said...

One interesting phenomena that debriefing officers noticed with bombing crews returning from their runs during WWII is how different the stories were about what happened, even among those on the same plane. Some guys would say it was a milk run, others a screaming shootout, etc. So it doesn't surprise me at all that there are honest differences in what was remembered plus some expected less self-incriminating tidbits as well. For me the real importance is how ball park close they are when grouped. Then comes the filler of trying to sort out the details which David is doing here.

Locking eyes momentarily between potential assailant and victim is highly believable to me and something one would clearly remember.

I can also easily believe that at any time Sharon was left unattended (by Atkins ?) she could have been paralyzed by confusion and fear. In fact both the assailants and the victims could have been at any time during the whole extreme tragedy. Yet again another noted thing about war, people becoming momentarily paralyzed. I'd think the Cielo victims would have been mentally stunned by what was happening and why in the moment, the whole thing just not making any sense to them at all in the midst of their life-force kicking in big time trying to stay alive. I would not expect the reactions of any of them to be choreographed like in a movie but rather hesitant and contradictory.

Sorry David, I don't have any real insights for you without doing some further research so just throwing out some general perspectives.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Well said Robert C.
It also occurred to me today two possibilities for why Sharon would stay in the living room unguarded, assuming she wasn't bound. One was that Jay was there on the ground and she would be reluctant to leave him even if there was nothing she could do for him except perhaps comfort him. Another possible reason was she felt the best chance for her baby was staying put and appealing to them for the sake of her child. And being paralyzed by fear could have been the main reason with no other reason at all-I don't know.

simon davis said...

David, you call Sadie's movement a stroll. The only evidence I can see about the precise mode of her movement out through the door is Tex's account which suggests she was, sort of, carried outside, in some sort of piggie back fashion presumably (?), in the three way melee between herself, Tex and Frykowski.

You describe her movement elsewhere in other terms, not inconsistent with strolling. I think you use the term she "walked" outside.

Where do we get that she strolled or walked outside, as opposed to some sort of movement which was in the throws of a 3 way melee ? If it is the latter, what is the deal about her leaving Tate behind unguarded? (I'm only going from Tex's account, but is there any other ?) On Tex's version, Sadie was simply carried to the door and outside to some unknown extent. What is the strolling over to Linda? How long do you say the stroll was ?

If, for example, Sadie's movement was only her 3-way carriage over to the door, and perhaps slightly outside, then isn't it conceivable, indeed likely, that it literally took only seconds and far less than one would expect before asking questions about why Tate didn't do anything ?

I ask these questions out of deference to how highly I consider the importance of your post.

Robert C said...

**Another possible reason was she felt the best chance for her baby was staying put and appealing to them for the sake of her child**

Good point, Mr. Humphrat. Also, the victims had no idea how many assailants there are, where they are, what their plan is and why. Sharon's in no position to run the marathon somewhere. She's just seen her good friend Jay snuffed and Fry viciously attacked among other possible things. She simply doesn't know where to go, fear being a limiter, hoping her best option is sympathy for her condition.

David said...

Simon,

The term ‘stroll’ is me being flippant because I don’t believe Kasabian’s account makes sense or even happened. I hope that was obvious.

The 'evidence' is there in her testimony. Kasabian says Atkins came ‘running’ out of the house.

This event, in my opinion, is perhaps critically important to Kasabian’s credibility, not because her description is inaccurate and not even if she lied about all this. It effects how we see her. This is one of two times she allegedly attempted to stop the events that night and the next and the only time any of the participants showed any remorse. Both bolster her credibility and separate her from her co-conspirators.

Simon asked: “If it is the latter, what is the deal about her leaving Tate behind unguarded? ****”

From her testimony at this moment in time Kasabian also sees Watson stabbing Frykowski on the lawn and Krenwinkel chasing Folger with the upraised knife. That means Sharon is alone.

Simon asked: “If, for example, Sadie's movement was only her 3-way carriage over to the door, and perhaps slightly outside, then isn't it conceivable, indeed likely, that it literally took only seconds and far less than one would expect before asking questions about why Tate didn't do anything ?” 

Sure. It probably took seconds under any scenario. Sharon could have been frozen by fear. She might have thought her best option was a plea for her unborn child. But I, personally, don’t think that is why. Clearly I’m in the minority. They are all valid and frankly more valid then my belief at this time.

Yes, if Watson’s version is accurate it too could have taken seconds or put another way once Frykowski went down on the porch (or while he was falling) Atkins could have had the exchange and gone back inside.

Perhaps I am missing your point because I come back to: Watson’s version and Kasabian’s version both can’t be accurate and the only way to make them consistent is to come up with theories and excuses for why, among other things, Kasabian didn’t see two people engaged with Frykowski coming out the door but to the contrary specifically has Frykowski exit the house alone and fall into the bushes.

Then Atkins comes running out of the house. This moment in ‘Kasabian time’ is where I have the problem, this is the point where I can’t conceive of a reason for Atkins’ actions. I don’t think it matters if Atkins runs, walks or skips out the door singing ‘Garbage Dump’. If she is not engaged with Frykowski someone give me a reason she consciously decided to leave Sharon alone, even for a few seconds, and more to the point if Atkins’ comment had been ‘Shit! There’s another one inside!’ I’d likely come closer to believing her instead of 'Oops, I forgot my knife' (flippant)

Apparently, teleportation is also a travel option since Watson suddenly appeared on the lawn to Kasabian’s left.

Didn't see how they got there (crossing the walkway right at her feet) but she caught a glimpse of the pool. (flippant)


simon davis said...

David, you say you're not sure what point I'm trying to make. I have no idea yet what point I'm trying to make LOL ! I'm just trying to understand better what you're saying and where it all heads.

I think I understood the flippancy of the "stroll", and I certainly missed LK's "running". Are we agreed that if it is a tumbling melee ending at or around the door (Tex) or if it is running (LK) then it is reasonably quick and there is less time for us to really worry too much about why Tate stayed frozen ? (It is not strolling or walking on any view of it, is it ?).

I haven't yet had time to digest the rest of it and other people's comments which seem at a glance to be very helpful too.

I should say when I first read the accounts of the killers, I was surprised at just how much they did corroborate LK. My experience has been that the opposing camps in litigation tend to dispute most things, if not everything.

Cheers beers - oh and here's a new Australianism I learned the other day: "Beauty is in teh eye of the beerholder". Boom boom.

simon davis said...

Whoa there Rinnie !! (now what old TV show does that come from??).

David, I'm not really with you on the transcript discrepancy of Kasabian's evidence (the "it/him" thing). I'm old enough to recall the good old fashioned court stenographers (as in the funny guy in Flying High whose typewriter keeps shooting off). I'm in Australia of course but I can't imagine it was different in USA in 1970/71. Transcription errors were commonplace, and one of them was the old chestnut of "him" and "it" which regularly confused the ears of even the best stenographers. I fairly vividly recall the care I took when enunciating these words in court precisely because of this problem. Maybe my experience was unique, I don't know. Anyway, I suspect you need to at least rule this out before drawing much from the discrepancy.

David said...

All I said was I'd like to ask her why her testimony changed.

simon davis said...

OK, what I'm saying is it is a good chance it actually didn't change. But assume for argument's sake I'm wrong and she did change her evidence from "it" to "him", what are you saying is the significance of that? Is it just some coincidental thing you'd like to ask her out of interest ? Or is it an inconsistency which suggests she was not reliable (which is fair enough to suggest - i'm not making any veiling criticism or being sarcastic or whatever)? Or is it something integral to the whole point of your article ? I'm honestly lost as to what it goes to. If it's purely something to want to ask her, and isn't integral to the whole article, well, can't we just ignore it and not spend any more time on it ? (again i'm purely trying to understand the thread of the article or post or whatever these things are called, no hidden agenda, no veiled criticism).

Now to take the tedium just a bit further, you say the second emotional plea is directed at him, or something to that effect. What does this mean? In each instance of LK testifying, her plea is directed at Sadie. I get the impression this is a loose expression on your part (not being critical - promise!), but let me know if I'm wrong.

Quite separately, can we confirm that on the evidence of Tex and LK, Sadie was only very briefly outside the house, and likely not long enough on anyone's version to make it significant that Tate "froze" ? Are we agreed on that? Or am I missing something? I'm just trying to narrow the issues between us.

Please let me try to digest the rest of your article and please be patient with me. Your terseness suggests I am annoying you. I know I give everyone the s....s. I only started this "blogging" thing and at times the unbridled vitriol is very unpleasant. I know I respond sometimes in equally vitriolic terms to people for which I apologise.

Ah, actually forget about all of the above, don't worry about it. I can't reduce these things to "bloggable" exchanges. Cheers beers.

Mr. Humphrat said...

In the Sharon Tate biography by Ed Sanders he said Sharon ran toward the front door during the time in question and Atkins got her in a headlock and, at Tex's order, brought her back to sit on the couch. Sanders said his information on the Cielo murders was based partly on statements from two of the killers during the trial.

David said...

Simon, any terseness was because I was out with my wife. And because it's an 'aside'. And not directly related to the post. You're a lawyer. I'm a lawyer. What do you do when a witness changes their testimony? It could be a reporting glitch it could be a memory fart because Watson wasn't present and then was right there. It could also be because she did it on purpose.

What I mean by directing ( an inarticulate word use) was it is a general statement changed to Watson, specifically.

grimtraveller said...

Mr. Humphrat said...

despite doubts about Sharon being able to escape, I don't have any reason to think she was killed any time but last of the five victims. I don't see what the perpetrators would have had to gain by falsely claiming she was killed last, or what the prosecution would have to gain by it

If one thinks about it, the killers actually make their case a lot worse by leaving the killing of Sharon till last. Hers is the only one of the murders that is not a response to some action of one of the victims. Parent speaks and makes it known he's seen Tex {"I won't say anything"}, Sebring advances on Tex and gets shot, Frykowski and Folger both attempt to escape and are caught in the process. It does not minimize what happened to any of them but one can see that the exact time of the murders the killers committed were, to some extent, taken out of their hands. Not so with Sharon. If Atkins' and Watson's descriptions are true, you have the devastating spectacle of a pregnant woman being surrounded by 3 people that have already participated in murder, pretty much before her eyes. And not only that, it's one of the women that says "kill her !" and one of the women to whom the order is given to do the killing.
I think it is partly this that many opponents to parole cannot get past and why so many people don't believe someone who could do this could possibly change. The killers have everything to gain by Sharon already being dead or close to it while all the action is happening. There is something particularly cold about her being the last to die and I think that is why Bugliosi made sure that Atkins' statement of Sharon being "the last to die because she had to watch the others die" was included in his book. He already had Barbara Hoyt, Virginia Graham and Ronnie Howard's corroboration of Atkins' participation.

I do see you could be right about Linda being in the house and seeing the pool through the hallway

On the other hand, if you look at the aerial shots of the house, if you take the route between the garage and the house and followed parallel to the windows along the back of the house, if you go down far enough, you could possibly see the pool. Kasabian must have been gone for a sufficient time to be able to walk down towards the pool because it would have looked a bit odd if she returned after only a few seconds.

I do see a case to be made for Linda not doing the things she claimed, such as locking eyes with Voytek and pleading for it to stop

Well, she says she looked into his eyes for a minute and we know that this cannot possibly be true if he was being pursued. A minute is actually a long time to look into someone's eyes. So sometimes, one has to beware of taking absolutely literally, someone's words.
What I find interesting is Susan's reaction to Linda telling her that someone was coming.
She totally ignored it !
Yet, Linda was supposed to be the lookout and it was her job to warn them if someone was coming.

I appreciate your work and scholarly approach

I think it's really neat. I do wonder what the conclusion we're supposed to draw from it all is though. I remember when Robert was around, he often came up with things that he said were designed to make us all think but he rarely provided conclusions from which things could be drawn, agreed or disagreed with.

grimtraveller said...

Mr. Humphrat said...

In the Sharon Tate biography by Ed Sanders he said Sharon ran toward the front door during the time in question and Atkins got her in a headlock and, at Tex's order, brought her back to sit on the couch. Sanders said his information on the Cielo murders was based partly on statements from two of the killers during the trial

What does he mean by "statements from 2 of the killers during the trial" ? Does he mean he spoke to them or their lawyers or what they said during the penalty phase ? Leslie and Charlie were irrelevant to the Cielo murders as neither was there so it would appear that he was talking about Pat and Susan which, given Pat's incoherence down the years and Susan's changing story proclivities up until the day she died, doesn't fill one with much confidence.

David said...

Kasabian claimed she went behind the house.....I'm not even sure she ever went 'behind the house'. When asked about open windows she said this:

A. Tex told me to go in back of the house and see if there were open windows and doors, which I did.
Q. Did you find any open doors or windows in the back of the house?
A. No, there was no open windows or doors.
Q. Did you try to open any windows or doors?
A. No.
Q. But you did not see any doors or windows?
A. No.

But there clearly was: http://www.cielodrive.com/photo-archive/10050-cielo-drive-rear.php

The window to the proposed nursery that had been painted that day


In the book HS, Bugliosi says that she never actually checked any windows or doors to see if they were open which explained why they ignored the open nursery window.
The defence went to great lengths to try to prove that Linda had been inside the house. They flew June Emmers down to testify that Linda had boasted to her of being inside $250,000 houses while in California. But she ended up having her testimony thrown out by the Judge.

This is one of two times she allegedly attempted to stop the events that night

Did she actually try to stop events ? It comes across as showing her helplessness rather than a conscious attempt to get Tex, Pat and Susan to stop what they were doing and come on home.
On the other hand it's not inconsistent with her if what she said to Charlie outside the LaBiancas is true or if what happened at the apartment block of Saladin Nader is true.
I'm also interested in why it should be suspect if someone's testimony bolsters their credibility. Linda had no credibility as regards life. She was presented as low life scum by both prosecution and defence. But this was about murder and in that regard she was different. Pat likes to say now that Linda was a willing participant but even she has to preface that with the fact that she did not kill nor participate in murder. Why ?

simon davis said...

Whoa there Rinnie !! (now what old TV show does that come from??

Please don't say it's "Rin Tin Tin" !

David said...

Then Atkins comes running out of the house. This moment in ‘Kasabian time’ is where I have the problem, this is the point where I can’t conceive of a reason for Atkins’ actions

Back in Dec 69 Atkins made the point that much of what happened from when she began struggling with Frykowski comprises a very confusing time for her. So if it confused her then, so close to the events, what chance do we stand ? There could be a whole slew of reasons why she came out of the house. Maybe she was afraid of being left alone with a corpse. It could be something as frivolous as that. She had been snorting that evening and therefore logic and sensible chronology are likely to play a lot less of a part in both the actions and the recollection of them.
I can conceive of reasons why Atkins came out of the house at that time but they're all irrelevant because we're never given a reason.

grimtraveller said...

David said...

I don't trust the eyewitnesses

Linda and Susan are in a different class from Tex and Pat when it comes to this though. They're both articulate and speak in a way that shows they recall from memory unlike Tex and Pat. Tex seems to recall from previously seen testimony and Pat seems to remember what didn't take place as opposed to what did.

No, we don't know he did. We assume he did because he says so. No one else agrees with him

No one disagrees with him. His 3 accomplices simply have no memory of him approaching Steven with a knife. Doesn't mean he never had one. And given that he admits it and there's nothing to gain in doing so, how can you conclude we don't know he had one ? His accomplices all tell the same story of how Steven was killed, the man that did it tallies with what they say and adds he had a knife.
Do you apply the same standard to the shooting of Frykowski, something that no one has any recollection of either ? How do we know Atkins didn't do it ? Because she never says she handled the gun ?
The evidence does not refute Watson having a knife.

All I said was I'd like to ask her why her testimony changed

I noticed when I read her testimony in the Watson trial that it was markedly different from where I'd gotten up to in her TLB testimony. A lot more concise. A lot more "I don't knows" and "I'm not sures" and less filling in and wandering.

David said...

Mr. Humphrat,

Thank you for the kind comment- it means a lot and for the Sanders connection. I will have to go reread the penalty phase.

David said...

Grim said:

"In the book HS, Bugliosi says that she never actually checked any windows or doors to see if they were open which explained why they ignored the open nursery window."

Why believe the book and not what she testified to? Bugliosi is God? Or maybe you are saying she lied in here testimony there. Of course VB wants her not checking windows. There is one open ten feet away.

"I'm also interested in why it should be suspect if someone's testimony bolsters their credibility."

I don't think I said it was 'suspect' I said it- this event- is important to bolstering her credibility to us and to the jury at the time. To me that is why it is important. Its like all that crap about 'I would have testified anyway'.

"I can conceive of reasons why Atkins came out of the house at that time but they're all irrelevant because we're never given a reason."

You are not convincing me, not that you have to. Atkins was confused? Yes, especially about fatally stabbing Frykowski. Seems she forgot about that in all the confusion of stabbing him repeatedly in the back.

"Linda and Susan are in a different class from Tex and Pat when it comes to this though."

Sorry, Grim- While I respect you a lot- bullshit!

"His accomplices all tell the same story of how Steven was killed, the man that did it tallies with what they say and adds he had a knife **** The evidence does not refute Watson having a knife."

Sorry, Grim- they don't and it does- except Watson. Two of them tell us what they heard not what they saw and one says she was a 'few feet' away and didn't see a knife. And unless he wanted a souvenir only two knives went out the window and only three were in the car. Is it possible Watson borrowed Kenwinkel's knife- certainly- but there is zero, non-inferential evidence that happened. If you are saying 'Watson had a fourth knife' that is refuted.

"Do you apply the same standard to the shooting of Frykowski, something that no one has any recollection of either ?"

Yes, they are liars, every one of them whether it was by omission, by design, exaggerating their involvement or minimizing it. To place one's faith in the word of these four and then use their stories (yes, 'stories') as evidence to contradict the objective evidence and non-eyewitness, witnesses is approaching the evidence, backwards.......IMO.

"I noticed when I read her testimony in the Watson trial that it was markedly different ****"

Yes, and there are some newspaper articles saying her entire demeanor was different and she appeared to just want to get it over with, if I recall correctly. So much for "I want to testify'.

"I think it's really neat**** [etc.]."

I do this to share my research and my thoughts. If it causes people to think- wonderful! Responses like Mr. Humphrat's above follow and cause me to think. I am into the evidence and start with what is not from an eyewitness because that is the way I was trained and because my experience over 32 years in a court room tells me the least reliable evidence in a courtroom is the eyewitnesses for a host of reasons. I am also an amateur historian- actually I have an educational background and degrees in that too- almost went the route of a history professor. To me that means historical accuracy is important- why? Because it leads to the truth.

Now, If that comment is a jab my response is: then don't read my posts or send an e-mail to Matt saying 'no more of David's long winded, irrelevant posts, please' and get me 86'd.

If I offend- I'm in trial mode.


Zelda Formaldehyde said...

The biggest oddity in this thread is that David is actually willing to pay money to have some forensic questions in a 48-year-old solved murder case cleared up. Sorry David, but that is strange. At this point, the disparate testimony and recollections is part of the allure .... and barring a left-field deathbed confession on someone's part, it isn't going to change. I've opined before that I think it would be much more unusual if Tex, Susan, Pat and Linda all sang a one-size-fits-all song.

David said...

That is pretty strange isn't it?

grimtraveller said...

David said...

Now, If that comment is a jab my response is: then don't read my posts or send an e-mail to Matt saying 'no more of David's long winded, irrelevant posts, please' and get me 86'd

Blimey !
None of what I said was a jab. Like you, I ask questions. When you say something like Why believe the book and not what she testified to? Bugliosi is God? I didn't say I believed it. I was pointing out that for what you pointed out, there was an answer and answers ought not to be summarily dismissed. Like Mr Humphrat did with his Sanders answer, I tried to provide the other side of the mountain. I wasn't aware that your points were unquestionable and had to be taken without qualms. I thought this was a discussion.

grimtraveller said...

Bugliosi is God?

Considering he prosecuted Charles Manson and authored "Divinity of Doubt", the irony is par excellence.

David said...

Grim. Nowhere have I ever suggested I can't be wrong or can't be called out, debated, etc. I have been wrong and will continue to be wrong. And when I am I hope I admit it. I responded to you- up above.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Grim said:

What does he mean by "statements from 2 of the killers during the trial" ?


sorry Grim, I will try to present this in a clearer way. I wasn't sure about his statement either:

from "Sharon Tate: A Life" by Ed Sanders:
pg. 188 How I Learned The Details of the Murders
...First of all, I sent questions to two defendants during the subsequent murder trial through an attorney for one of the defendants, and I received very useful responses. I also sent detailed question lists to Manson, which is how I learned that he went to the murder scene, "to see what my children had done." In addition, I obtained a copy of a large blueprint of the house, six feet wide by forty inches high, that listed each blood spot on the floor, the doorway, the door, the walkway, and so on. I got ahold of the official police reports listing the locations of all the blood found, plus both the lengthy first and second homicide investigation progress reports. I obtained a photocopy of Linda Kasabian's handwritten description of the murders. Plus I watched the trial as it unfolded for a number of months, taking notes--all of which enabled me to re-create, with fair accuracy, what happened on that horrible, hot night in Benedict Canyon.


pg. 192: The young mother Linda Kasabian was kneeling in the dark by the electric gate. She heard screams, and ran up the walkway onto the grass. As she later wrote, "The I saw Frykowski staggering out the door-drenched in blood- I looked in his eyes-he looked in mine-I saw the image of Christ in him, I cried and I prayed with all my heart..."
Sadie left the house upset that she had lost her knife. She spoke with Linda Kasabian, and then when Wojtek got to his feet and began to scream into the hot night, Tex sprinted out the front door and rode poor Frykowski to the ground, while stabbing.
At that moment, all the killers were out of the house, leaving Sharon as yet unharmed. Sharon started toward the front door just as Krenwinkel reentered the back door by the pool and entered the living room.
Sharon was crying for her unborn child's life. Sadie caught her in a headlock. Tex said it looked like Sharon wanted to sit down, so, as Sadie later reported, "I took her over and sat her down on the couch."


So Sanders' narrative is from a variety of sources, including written answers from two defendants who he doesn't identify, but whom I'm guessing are Atkins and Krenwinkel.

grimtraveller said...

Mr Humphrat, Wow !

grimtraveller said...

David said...

Of course VB wants her not checking windows. There is one open ten feet away

I don't understand what difference it makes if there was an open window she saw but didn't tell Tex. If she doesn't check windows or if she sees an open one or even if she actually checks them all, if she tells Tex none are open I'm not sure how that is duplicitous to anyone but Tex.

You are not convincing me, not that you have to

I wasn't trying to convince you. I see nothing unusual about such events happening in a blur or not recalling all details and chronology or why it becomes the mystery of the universe that Atkins leaves the house with Sharon in it.

"Linda and Susan are in a different class from Tex and Pat when it comes to this though."

Sorry, Grim- bullshit!


It's only my opinion. Reading the words of Kasabian and Atkins {and I say this being well aware of Susan's lifelong penchant for changing stories} and even hearing them speak, I find a coherency, smoothness and flow about the way they speak or recall events that almost never exists in the other two. Reading transcripts of Pat and Tex is an infuriating exercise with so many stammers and half sentences and incomplete phrases. It's the same comparing Bobby with Bruce. Bobby may be a bullshitter but he's an articulate one. Bruce may have more of substance to say but you have to dig hard to unearth his pearls.

Sorry, Grim- they don't and it does- except Watson. Two of them tell us what they heard not what they saw and one says she was a 'few feet' away and didn't see a knife

Yes, but this does not mean he did not have one. You seem to be saying "yes it does." No one recalls him shooting Frykowski ~ does this mean he didn't ? Evidence is not some infallible tool that will settle every question. It has to be interpreted and where it can't settle a question, one has to look elsewhere, even to the words of someone that lies their arse off if appropriate.
When I say that the other stories tally with Watson's I'm meaning that in a general sense ~ lights are seen, they're told to get down, they hear some brief dialogue and then 4 shots. One could say that circumstantially, Watson had Pat's knife {hence her later asking Linda for hers} or one could say that he had kept it which is how he had a knife to slit the screen but we don't know how he got that knife either. No one mentions it. Yet he had it.
Evidential interpretation can be wrong ~ as the first Tate report shows.

If you are saying 'Watson had a fourth knife' that is refuted

In his trial he claims he had a knife. He and his lawyer talk quite a lot about it. I'm actually surprised how much he's asked about it. He reckons he even had it at Rudy Weber's place. Of course, it's clear he lied to the gills there {although he supports your observation about Susan and Frykowski}.


Mr. Humphrat said...

So Sanders' narrative is from a variety of sources, including written answers from two defendants who he doesn't identify

I wonder if this all happened during the penalty phase. It surely couldn't have happened during the guilt phase with them all having pleaded not guilty.
It's hard to know what to make of the claim that Charlie told him he'd been to the murder scene when in every other instance for 2 years he'd been denying all connection with the murders.






Mr. Humphrat said...

Good points Grim. I wouldn't know.
David may be interested to know Sanders came to the same conclusion as he did in his previous post that Sadie not only stabbed Frykowski in the leg, but also in the back, first hitting bone, then a lung.
I find Sanders' descriptions of the sequence of events confusing on pp 191-192, because he has him first in the front hall shooting and clubbing Wojtek, then back to Sebring, kicking and stabbing him, then racing to Folger, also clubbing and stabbing her, then to Wojtek who he hears screaming (so from one victim to the other on the front lawn). But a couple paragraphs later he says Tex sprinted out the front door to get Frykowski, which would suggest in my mind that he was on Folger went back through the bedroom, then out the front door to Frykowski.

starviego said...

"grimtraveller said...
It's hard to know what to make of the claim that Charlie told him he'd been to the murder scene when in every other instance for 2 years he'd been denying all connection with the murders."

And if he knew that back then, why did it take him four decades to tell this story?

And why would all these defendants start blabbing with some reporter they didn't know, and with the full consent of their lawyers? Something ain't right.

I think Sanders was some kind of controlled media asset. He got most of his info from his private investigator, a guy named Larry Larsen. And Larsen was apparently "ex"-LASO, who probably had an inside cop source who was feeding him tidbits that Larsen then passed to Sanders. But the tidbits were only those that backed up the official version of events. Sanders never asked any real questions in his book.


/



Mr. Humphrat said...

you could be right Starviego.

DebS said...

I think that Sanders style of chronicling the events consists of him learning about various things that had not necessarily been vetted by law enforcement and throwing it at the wall to see what sticks. Larsen may have had inside sources but it doesn't mean that everything he learned was proven to be true. He simply could have learned of leads that LE was working on and Sanders has insinuated those leads as being fact in his books.

starviego said...


Perhaps, but Sanders' book has withstood the test of time. How much in it has been proven to have been wrong?

DebS said...

Well, no one in the Family has ever been convicted of any other murders beyond the nine we all know about. No "snuff" films have ever surfaced. The stuff about The Process was deleted from subsequent editions of his book for lack of proof that any of it was true. The 4 Pi stuff, grand chignon etc. has never been proven either, only picked up by conspiracy theorists like Mae Brussels and Maury Terry.

starviego said...

You have made your point.

grimtraveller said...

Zelda Formaldehyde said...

The biggest oddity in this thread is that David is actually willing to pay money to have some forensic questions in a 48-year-old solved murder case cleared up. Sorry David, but that is strange

I don't think it's particularly strange. We all come to this case from a variety of angles and the last few posts have demonstrated that if handled well, there are still a number of good talking points to be had. The lawyers that have been around in the last few months have brought a fresh approach and caused some of us to pause and think a little more seriously of some of the legalities.....and some of their drawbacks.
We all have our interests and biases and the pot they all swim about together in makes this a particularly vibrant blog at times.

David said...

To place one's faith in the word of these four and then use their stories (yes, 'stories') as evidence to contradict the objective evidence and non-eyewitness, witnesses is approaching the evidence, backwards

In a sense though, we have little choice because they provided a certain clarity that the objective evidence couldn't. For example, if they had all kept their mouths shut, we'd know that Tex was at Cielo because his fingerprint was there. The evidence does not tell us anything about what he did there. Though the cops thought the 'Charles' of the Ronnie Howard/Virginia Graham statements was Manson, it is Atkins that first puts Watson in the frame for murder. There's no proof that he handled the gun, shot Parent, shot Sebring and Frykowski. There's evidence that someone did. Atkins puts the bones on the tale. Bit by bit between her and Van Houten, they eventually fill in certain blanks that evidence alone couldn't have.
It's not a matter of trying to contradict evidence. Neither is it a matter of trying to prove true everything the killers say.

Yes, and there are some newspaper articles saying her entire demeanor was different and she appeared to just want to get it over with, if I recall correctly. So much for "I want to testify'

TLB was the big one. The entire event took a number of years of her life. By the time of the Watson trial, I'm not surprised she'd want to get it all over with as quickly as possible, regardless of whether she had wanted to testify or not. And there was to be more to come with Leslie's trials some years later, that few saw coming in 1971.
It happens. Atkins later said she couldn't face another trial with Manson so she just plead out the Hinman trial rather than fight it. I'm not saying she was right to do so {after all, she was guilty ! Mind you, she was guilty in TLB} just that even to a murderer things can take their toll.

"I think it's really neat**** [etc]"

In England, when we use the word 'neat,' it's complimentary.

starviego said...

Sanders' book has withstood the test of time

Whereas books such as "Five to die," "Witness to evil," "Trial by your peers" & even "The Garbage People" haven't, yet in my opinion are better books that we lay aside to our disadvantage.

CrisPOA said...

Did the police found any blood on the bushes that Linda said VF had fallen on to? They should have looked for it, or if the bushes were kind of broken or any sign that a person had fallen on them. That kind of expertise could corroborate or not with LK testimony no?

David said...

Cris,

There is a photo of the north end of the porch that shows the broken bushes. Granado did not take blood samples from the north end of the porch or the bushes.

MelchersPromises said...

Couple of quick points amongst the thoughts here:

- If Linda was tasked with checking around the back of the house for any unlocked or open doors or windows, then if she gets around past the living room to bedroom edge of the house - she'd see the pool. She wouldn't have to see it from the front yard. If the pool was lit, that would add illumination and make it easier to spot as well.

- If Linda was ever inside the house - then Sharon would have watched 3 killers chasing their prey (Susan/Tex to Voytek, Katie to Abigail).....so that would mean there is one intruder still lurking and unoccupied and could have discouraged Sharon's escape.

On the 2nd point, (Linda inside)....Tex well could have told her (in front of everyone) to get out and fulfill her lookout duties. In which case, Sharon KNOWS she still has to get past LInda even if the other 3 are distracted.

IMO, once Jay was shot, all hell broke loose and the victims were convinced there was no reasoning with their attackers. Voy escaping out front, Gibby running out the back probably happened near simultaneously. Once Tex was on top of Voy, Susan could go back inside. VERY little time for Sharon to make a break. Her options were a) living room back door or b) kitchen/service exit. Again, with Linda posted somewhere outside the house.

Keep in mind she had just witnessed what happened when you challenged them (Jay) or made a break (Voy, Gibby). With precious few seconds to decide, I think she (sadly) chose to try to reason with the subhumans.

MelchersPromises said...

But the "Sharon was already dead" theory is an interesting one, for sure. And plausible.

Once they realized they had murdered a "movie star" and the press attention that came along with it, they could well have come up with the yarn about Sharon (a complete stranger) having to die last. They were all liars and braggarts, but Sadie seemed especially so.

justice_4_all2010 said...

Why would you say Kasabian was deliberately lying regarding seeing the pool? I would think it had more to do with a false memory regarding what was said to each-other afterwards by the quartet, as I'm sure they talked about it amongst themselves. and Krenwinkel no doubt mentioned the pool.

Or... she seen the reflective water against the trees, or heard the pool filter running and heard the water lapping against the sides. I grew up in a home with a pool and can smell the chlorine from a pool long before ever seeing it...know the sound of a pool in the darkest of nights.

If she grew up with a swimming pool, or near one as many did during this time she would know a pool was there without seeing it, and prob created a false memory about seeing it, not intentionally lying.

David said...

Justice,

Kasabian grew up in Milford, New Hampshire. In 1966 it had a population of 5,000. I believe it is unlikely she had a pool in her backyard.

Yes, memory conformity likely did play a role in the stories told by each of the participants. However, in my opinion, her comment 'I caught a glimpse of the pool' is not consistent with that. It is a memory with an independent basis, unlike Watson's assumption Kasabian must have been there watching.

I did not say Kasabian lied about seeing the pool. I would never say that because I believe she did see the pool. What I said was there is (at least) one location at the crime scene where she could have seen the pool- from the living room looking down the hall towards the pool (the image). If she was in the living room looking down the hall towards the pool then she lied. She lied about whether she was in the house, not whether she saw the pool.

justice_4_all2010 said...

Ok David...But from the photo perspective from the pool one can clearly see the entry of the house and where the walkway is...meaning, reversed from the entry perspective one can see the pool. Or, part of it.
And as for reflection...the lights from inside the house were for sure on, Folger was reading a book in one of the bedrooms = lights on. Jay and Sharon were up talking in her master bedroom= lights on. Look at the floor-plan of the house, both bedrooms have windows looking out to the pool= reflective light upon the pool water.

Linda never had to enter the house to see the pool water's reflective light upon the backyard environment of trees and buildings...or a small portion of the pool itself. She never had to enter the house to know the pool was there, and most likely seen part of it.

justice_4_all2010 said...

Also David, as a young man i drove a concrete ready mix truck and the people i hated the most to deliver to were what we called "homeowners". I'd be trying to back-up this big-ass truck into their back yard and they would be screaming, "over here", or "this way"...waving their arms in disbelief. I'd jump out of the truck and say, "listen mother f*cker, if you cannot see my face in the mirror of the truck I cannot see you!" Something concrete contractors knew and stayed in my field of vision in that mirror.

People underestimate ones field of vision. I took one look at that photo from the pool to the entry way and knew I could back a concrete truck right up to it, as it was a mirror reflection of what i would see in my truck mirror.
And BTW...that is how they poured the concrete for that pool...the trucks backed up through the front yard area, by the entryway where Linda stood.

justice_4_all2010 said...

Also...do not take my comments as derogatory as voice reflections and facial expressions cannot be revealed in type over the net...I consider this a good debate. Your post is excellent and well thought-out, I just have another perspective to add

David said...

Please, add away! That is why I write these things.

I think we have a tendency to defend Kasabian's story. I think we want a 'good guy'. We want her to be the innocent hippy chick. I did at least. When I wrote my first post here I started it in response to what someone had said about her(negatively). As I've gone from there I have discovered she is not. At least in my opinion. Part to be fair is issues with eye witness memory- conformity, stress, Bugliosi's interview style, leading questions but part is more then that- consciously if you will. It may be she didn't want to remember some of what she saw. It may be to minimize her involvement.

Well, that's how I see it. Remember, in December 1969 one of the killers said she never came back but ran away and a second may have heard that from a third.

grimtraveller said...

David said...

I think we have a tendency to defend Kasabian's story. I think we want a 'good guy'. We want her to be the innocent hippy chick

I find that an interesting view because almost uniformly across many different blogs, going back over 10 years, I find the opposite to be true. There may well have been more cynicism and conspiracy theories levelled at Linda Kasabian than any other one of the killing band. The feeding frenzy that raged across the waters when she revealed that she had entered Steven Parent's car in that 2009 documentary was actually quite revealing in itself. It told me as nothing else could that the general consensus regarding that woman was that she was dodgy and should have done time and was culpable for far more than has ever been revealed.
I genuinely find that the number of people that want an innocent hippy chick in Linda can virtually be counted on one hand. In fact, you may not even need a hand !
The reason her story tends to be defended if it does get defended is quite simple really. No one was able to break it down. None of the defence lawyers could. None of the Family could. One pregnant uneducated druggie hippy {and yes, she was a hippy} got past the police, defence and prosecution, the Family on trial, the Family still out on the street, Charlie Manson, murderous Charlie Watson, the judge, the media, Gary Fleischmann, 4 trials......and to cap it all, her story was difficult. There was so much in there that could have been so bloody awkward to her, in addition to being of loose morals and dealing with an unstable marriage situation. Even more surprisingly, subsequently there has been nothing from any of the killers about her supposed further involvement which tends to support much of what she said at the time.
I don't see her as an innocent hippy chick but her flaws were exposed for all to see. I don't honestly see there were many good guys in the story but there are people that did some things that were 'good.'

Notice how Van Houten describes Kasabian’s role. She was 'supposed to be' outside. In my experience this is usually followed by a 'but' which usually then confirms that she 'wasn't'. This is just the kind of thing that makes me go 'hmmm'

Well, it depends how one reads it. Leslie says Linda was supposed to be outside and it is quite obvious that it is followed by a 'but' even if she doesn't actually state a but. The question is, is it 'but actually, she came into the house. Some look out !' or is it 'but she ran off and left them. Some look out !'

David said...

Grim,

Were you in the Thompson Twins?

justice_4_all2010 said...

"Notice how Van Houten describes Kasabian’s role. She was 'supposed to be' outside. In my experience this is usually followed by a 'but' which usually then confirms that she 'wasn't'. This is just the kind of thing that makes me go 'hmmm' "

Or..."She was supposed to be outside (that's what I heard)"...Stopping mid-sentence not wanting to further incriminate her friends.

justice_4_all2010 said...

Thompson Twins...? Who are they??

justice_4_all2010 said...

"The feeding frenzy that raged across the waters when she revealed that she had entered Steven Parent's car in that 2009 documentary was actually quite revealing in itself."

How many time have people been all fired up about a high stressed event only to have a change of heart once into it, weather it be a crime or climbing a cliff.

All from the Tate killing say she was in the car when they returned to it, she seen enough and ran like the wind.
What concerns me about Linda is that she went along the following night knowing there would be murder...the WHY of this is what needs to be considered more in-depth. Did she feel threatened? Fear for her child as she claimed, and as Atkins later said about her reason for following Charlie's orders.