Friday, June 8, 2018

Whatever Happened to the Youngest Polanski?



Of course we all know that Sharon's unborn baby--named Paul Richard Polanski--was removed during the autopsy and subsequently buried with Sharon in her casket.  We all know this because everybody says so. Like this account:

https://www.quora.com/Was-Sharon-Tate-buried-with-her-baby-Why-or-why-not
Colonel Paul Tate spent the night before the funeral, beside his daughter’s casket. He had had them open the casket so he could have one last look at Sharon, who lay peacefully in her favourite Pucini dress Roman had picked out, and his grandson who was swaddled and tucked under his mother’s arm. Then he closed the lid and said good-bye.

Yet LtCol Tate(aka PJ), the only non-funeral home person who viewed Sharon in the casket, himself doesn't mention the baby  in his only known statement on the subject:

Restless Souls by Brie Tate
PJ:  "Now my eyes scrutinized, searching for more signs of violence, settling on her noticeably smaller belly.  My jaw tightened over Noguchi's pointless decision to separate child from mother."

--Why didn't he even note the presence of his first and only grandchild, who he is now viewing for the first and last time, in the coffin?  I find that odd.  Maybe because the baby wasn't in the coffin?

Another account had the baby being put in it's own casket:

https://www.quora.com/Was-Sharon-Tate-buried-with-her-baby-Why-or-why-not
Roman Polanski insisted that the baby be placed in a separate coffin.


The funeral home--Cunningham and O'Connor--made no statement on the subject.


But that wasn't the only oddity about the least known TLB victim.

--Why did the coroner(Thomas Noguchi) 'separate child from mother?'  All of the stab wounds to Sharon's body were in her neck and upper chest, with none to the belly, and thus could not have wounded the baby.  It would have been no mystery as what killed him (asphyxiation due to the mother's death).

Interestingly, at least one source claims the fetus was autopsied:

 http://www.lamag.com/longform/manson-an-oral-history1/
published in 2009
McGANN The next day, which was Sunday, we started the autopsies. The L.A. County coroner’s office was in the basement of the old Hall of Justice. It was like a dungeon—an awful place to be, like Frankenstein’s lab. But when you have a homicide, you always go to your autopsies. So I was there as Tom Noguchi did Sharon’s autopsy, then her baby’s.


--Why is there is no mention of her pregnancy in the autopsy report?

If the fetus was removed AS PART OF the autopsy, shouldn't that have been noted on the paperwork?


--What happened to the missing sections of the Coroner's statements to the Grand Jury?  Is there something in there they don't want us to see regarding Sharon's pregnancy or the disposition of the fetus?

http://murdersofaugust69.freeforums.net/thread/652/coroner-noguchi-grand-jury-testimony
Thomas T. Noguchi, the Grand Jury
Q. And did you find any significant condition about this woman with respect to pregnancy?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you find in that connection?
A. The examination revealed that decedent was 8 months in pregnancy stage and the male fetus was found. However, there was no injury to abdominal area nor the unborn baby.
Q. Did it appear that the baby was in a normal state of embryo - rather, fetus state at that time?
***Missing Q and A


--Why was no death certificate issued for Paul Richard Polanski, as was required by law?

https://www.scribd.com/document/260188252/Paul-Polanski-Sharon-Tate-s-baby
Gina Watkins Judd:
"When a fetus is born lifeless at 20 weeks or more gestation period, it is governed under the same laws of any death. It is required that the death be registered with the department of health vital statistics in the state it died in. In the state of California when a person dies as a result of homicide the medical examiner fills out the cause of death section on the death certificate and signs it. He then sends it to the funeral director who has the responsibility of confirming that the person who he has the responsibility of processing the remains for burial, cremation or entombment is in fact the person the medical examiner identified and the cause of death stated (homicide) in this case. He then signs it and he has the responsibility of filing it with the Department of Health BEFORE burial.
I noticed while researching vital records on Ancestry.com that there was no records of him being born or dying...."

(Though I can't say for certain if that law was in effect back in '69.)


--What was the reason for the curious delay by the Morgue in releasing the body of Sharon Tate?  Were there any more medical procedures done on the body after the autopsy was completed?

Restless Souls by Brie Tate
Patti Tate:  "The medical examiner, Thomas Noguchi, had completed Sharon's autopsy days ago; nevertheless, late Tuesday afternoon(Aug 12), his office refused to release Sharon's remains to the mortuary.  Dad spent hours speaking with one county coroner employee after another; none had an explanation for the delay.  When reasoning didn't work he resorted to threats, until finally, at 5:00pm, Noguchi signed the release papers."







Perhaps not coincidentally, there were immediate macabre rumors after the murders became known that the baby had been taken from the womb:

Helter Skelter,  by Vince Bugliosi
 In the days that followed a monumental amount of false information was published. It was widely reported, for example, that Sharon Tate’s unborn child had been ripped from her womb; that one or both of her breasts had been slashed off; that several of the victims had been sexually mutilated.


Susan Atkins even admitted she contemplated cutting the baby out of the womb:

http://www.cielodrive.com/archive/susan-atkins-story-of-2-nights-of-murder/
Susan Atkins’ Story of 2 Nights of Murder
"I wanted to, but I couldn’t bring myself to cut her open and take the baby."


I can't claim that the baby WASN'T in the coffin, but merely that evidence that he WAS, is very scant.


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

 " The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."
    --Ezekial 25:17  (as interpreted by Quentin Tarantino)



36 comments:

David said...

"Q. Did it appear that the baby was in a normal state of embryo - rather, fetus state at that time?
***Missing Q and A"

""What happened to the missing sections of the Coroner's statements to the Grand Jury?

Nothing. Your source is incomplete; not the record.

Q (Stovitz): Did it appear that the baby was in a normal state of embryo—rather fetus state at the time?
A (Noguchi): Yes, sir. I performed an autopsy of the unborn make baby and there was no congenital abnormalities and maturation of the baby was entirely consistent with eight months pregnancy.
Q: And you say there was a total number of stab wounds of 16 to the body; is that right?
A: Well, I haven't said it yet.
Q: How many are there?
A: A total of 16 stab wounds, sir.
Q: Were any of the stab wounds directly into the area where the fetus would be carried?
A: No, sir.

(Grand Jury Testimony of Thomas Noguchi, M.D., Vol. I page 159-160)

starviego said...

Thanks for the correction!

Dan S said...

Rosemary s Baby is a big coincidence. I believe coincidences do exist so maybe that's all it is. I still think if you apply cui bono to the tate murder you gotta look at playboy polanski

Peter said...

No. This isn't ghoulish at all.

John Seger said...

Seriously? Implying that Sharon's baby is alive? Very ghoulish, twisted and unrealistic, to put it nicely. Other words come to mind that I won't post.

Ahmad Wifebeater said...

Who got deleted???

David said...

Ghoulish? Yes, it is, if the point was to suggest Paul Richard lived. Of course, the testimony by Noguchi should put an end to that theory.

I considered not writing this comment. I felt for a while that my name being up there to the right might make it look, well, like I had approved something and then seeing the comments did an about face. In point of fact, there is no editorial board here (maybe there should be) and I don’t read the posts until they are up because I enjoy doing so with my morning latte. So, I sat on what amounted to about 30 minutes of research and then discovered during a search on ‘Paul Richard Polanski’ that this post pops up. So I decided I should write this.

Unfortunately, the evidence actually establishes that Paul Richard perished in the early morning of August 9th as a sixth victim. And, he is buried with his mother.

The absence of a death certificate is meaningless. The statute referenced in the post did not exist in 1969. We know this from its legislative history:

DIVISION 102. VITAL RECORDS AND HEALTH STATISTICS [102100 - 103925]
( Division 102 added by Stats. 1995, Ch. 415, Sec. 4. )
PART 1. VITAL RECORDS [102100 - 103800]
( Part 1 added by Stats. 1995, Ch. 415, Sec. 4. )
CHAPTER 7. Fetal Death Registration [102950 - 103040.1]
( Chapter 7 added by Stats. 1995, Ch. 415, Sec. 4. )

ARTICLE 1. Duty of Registering Fetal Death [102950 - 102960]
( Article 1 added by Stats. 1995, Ch. 415, Sec. 4. )

All you need to take away from this is the year ‘1995’. That is when it became law. Prior to that there was no such law. So, the absence of a death certificate is irrelevant.

Second, sending in a request for a death certificate on “Paul Richard Polanski” (I assume the individual mentioned did not use “Tate”) would reveal nothing even if there was such a law. Paul Richard was not named until Roman Polanski returned to the U.S. which was after Noguchi had completed his work and thus submitted whatever form he might have submitted to California vital statistics, if he submitted anything.

Paul Richard was named after his grandfathers.

Sadly, on the morning of August 9th Paul Richard was exactly where he was supposed to be. He was subsequently buried with his mother, in her arms, exactly where he should be.

John Seger said...

David, thank you for an intelligent, responsible and factual comment instead of weird conspiracy theories that so many keep adding to this horrific tragedy.

Carlos said...

In 1995, California senate bill 1360 reorganized the HSC:

“ This bill would repeal existing provisions of the Health and
Safety Code relating to public health and reenact those provisions
into 7 new divisions in the Health and Safety Code for the purpose of
reorganizing the public health component of the Health and Safety
Code and would make other technical changes.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to reorganize
and clarify portions of the Health and Safety Code and thereby
facilitate its administration. It would further state the
Legislature's intent that the changes made to the Health and Safety
Code, as reorganized by this bill, have only technical and
nonsubstantive effect
.”

Amending the HSC to newly require fetal death certificates would seem to be a substantive change and not a simple, technical reorganization. So, I’m guessing fetal death certificates were likely issued before 1996; the question then becomes, “when did they really begin?” I can’t easily find online versions of the HSC going back to 1969, but I can easily download the official form to request a fetal death certificate. It’s interesting to note that this form states that fetal death records have been maintained since July 1, 1905.

I guess one of us will need to drop $18 and a stamp and see what happens.

Matt said...

Thank you, Carlos and welcome to the conversation.


starviego said...

David said...
"He was subsequently buried with his mother, in her arms, exactly where he should be."

Yes, but where is the evidence?

Peter said...

Let's dig them up. It will be just like in The Omen. Maybe there will be a dog skeleton inside.

Claire Robinson said...

I don’t see the omission of Paul Jr. by Paul Sr. in the coffin in Restless Souls as evidence. Paul Sr. was obviously going to focus on his beloved daughter...AND his memories of seeing his grandson for the first time are going to stay private with him! He doesn’t have to share them and nor should he! But I concur with David...little baby Paul would have been interred with his mummy, wrapped in her arms.

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

but where is the evidence?

Instead of being all "conspiracy theoristic" and mysterious, just come right out and say what you're getting at.
What are you actually saying ? What is your end game ? What do you want us to conclude from the trail of crumbs that you're spreading ? I just want you to come right out and say it. I could do it for you, but then, where's the fun in that ?

starviego said...

I don't have a theory on this one--not any one that's supported by the evidence, at least. My whole point is to show that this aspect of the case is just as mysterious as many others. You hear the hype, but it's not down there in the fine print.

John Seger said...

The child is dead.

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

I don't have a theory on this one--not any one that's supported by the evidence, at least

But you do have a theory, even if there's no evidence for it. That's what I'm asking you to get out into the open !

starviego said...

Coroners' Offices and Funeral Homes are not immune from corruption and scandals. Corpses are subject to being used for parts, or being disposed of in ways not desired by the relatives. I think there is a possibility that little Paul could have ended up as the TLB souvenir par excellance. Shocking? Sure, but that's the way my ghoulish, conspiratorial mind works.

Carlos said...

starviego said...

there is a possibility that little Paul could have ended up as the TLB souvenir par excellance.

Anyone willing to do that would be more than willing to play fast and loose with the paper work. In fact, I would argue that anyone willing to go there would be more likely to cover their tracks properly with a simple piece of paper. To take it to its logical conclusion, no legal paperwork would be sufficient, as one could too easily argue it’s either a forgery or insufficient proof of what happened to the remains. We end up talking disinterment, which is not likely to ever happen.

I raised the point about the HSC in the interest of accuracy. I checked with my local librarian yesterday and confirmed that the closest place to me that for sure has the legal book I think I need is the Santa Clata County Law Library. I plan to make a trip there over the next few weeks and get the whole history of this bit of the HSC as well as look up another nagging bit of California law history that’s been discussed before.

But for the record, I fully agree that the poor little guy’s fate is as described in the official narrative.

David said...

Starviego said: "Yes, but where is the evidence?"

The headstone where I left flowers (ok, technically Deb and Monica left the flowers) about two months ago. Yours?


grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

Coroners' Offices and Funeral Homes are not immune from corruption and scandals

I suppose......

Corpses are subject to being used for parts, or being disposed of in ways not desired by the relatives

Just out of interest, do you know of or have read of many cases where this has happened ?

I think there is a possibility that little Paul could have ended up as the TLB souvenir par excellance

Don't you think big Paul would have noticed the absence of the baby ?

Shocking? Sure, but that's the way my ghoulish, conspiratorial mind works

You said it ! ��

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

If that was the case wed have seen the fetus by now

It's not even that, it's more a case of does anyone honestly imagine that in a case that was dubbed as the crime of the century at the time, with all of the attendant publicity that came its way, that the baby's corpse could be swiped away and no one said a thing, not Paul, not Doris ? This is the case where very few people kept their mouths closed !
There does kind of come a point where even a conspiracy junkie will see that if everything in a case could be made to be part of some diabolical plot, probably none of it is.

starviego said...

grimtraveller said...
Corpses are subject to being used for parts, or being disposed of in ways not desired by the relatives
"Just out of interest, do you know of or have read of many cases where this has happened ?"

A couple decades back, the LA County Coroner's Office got caught up in a huge scandal where they were caught basically selling body parts to medicals schools, hospitals, etc.(Corneas were a hot item, for some reason) They apologized sincerely, claimed it would never, ever happen again, and... got caught doing the same thing six months later. There have been other scandals where cemetaries have been caught putting multiple people in the same grave (or even in the same coffin), putting the wrong person in the grave, etc. This kind of stuff isn't exactly rare. So I am not putting it past either the Coroner's Office or the Funeral Home, though of course I just have suspicions.


David said...

Well, at least we have gotten away from the notion Paul Richard survived.

starviego said...

grimtraveller said...
I think there is a possibility that little Paul could have ended up as the TLB souvenir par excellance
"Don't you think big Paul would have noticed the absence of the baby?"

Don't you think big Paul would have noticed the PRESENCE of the baby?

starviego said...

David said...
Starviego said: "Yes, but where is the evidence?"
"The headstone where I left flowers (ok, technically Deb and Monica left the flowers) about two months ago. Yours?"

A headstone is evidence of a headstone, not what's underneath. My evidence is such as I have mentioned in the original thread.

David said...

Starviego said: "My evidence is such as I have mentioned in the original thread."

Ah...which is there is no evidence?

Wasn't the original point of this post that Paul Richard survived?

We all speculate when we write these posts. When we run into dead ends and can't prove a point we throw out theories or ideas or options in the form of questions. Or just questions. I do. Sometimes someone chimes in and says 'it was not Col. Mustard in the library with the wrench'.

But aren't you just saying there is no proof Paul Richard is in the grave with his mum so therefore he is not?

starviego said...

David said...
"Wasn't the original point of this post that Paul Richard survived?"

No, I've never believed that.


"But aren't you just saying there is no proof Paul Richard is in the grave with his mum so therefore he is not?"

I say "...therefore he MAY not be."

Carlos said...

starviego said...

I say "...therefore he MAY not be."

True, but as the thread has pointed out, highly doubtful.

Colonel Tate’s description of his viewing is very brief and very focused. His focus is on how under all the makeup the massive, senseless violence was still there. And it is on the special cruelty of a mother-to-be murdered only weeks before the birth of her first baby. Not mentioning the presence of the baby does not indicate he didn’t see the baby. It seems likely to me there was simply no reason to mention anything about it at all.

Your post mentioned the fetal death certificate and links to a source who made a request for one and was told that no record was found. If we accept the overwhelming evidence that the baby did not survive, then at most this piece of paper would confirm what we already know, and it would be of no value at all regarding the burial. The fact that this person’s request didn’t find a record is certainly interesting in its own way, but is, again, not terribly relevant to the burial arrangements.

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

A couple decades back

Anything documented like this as happening in 1969 ?

the LA County Coroner's Office got caught up in a huge scandal where they were caught basically selling body parts to medicals schools, hospitals, etc.(Corneas were a hot item, for some reason)

Any body parts from babies yet to be born ?

This kind of stuff isn't exactly rare. So I am not putting it past either the Coroner's Office or the Funeral Home, though of course I just have suspicions

Do you genuinely suspect that the body of the baby was or even could have been swiped ? And that being the case, none of the relatives that looked in the coffin happened to notice ?

Don't you think big Paul would have noticed the PRESENCE of the baby?

Yes. But he'd never seen the baby, had no relationship with the baby and as much as he grieved for the baby, the bulk of his grief would be for the woman that was once his baby. While it is a tragic thing when a baby dies before birth, I don't think it is unreasonable to say that it is not felt in the same way that it is when someone you actually know has died. I've known people that have lost their unborn children and not once have I ever heard them talk about seeing them in the coffin. Now, that doesn't prove anything, but Paul not mentioning the unborn baby in the coffin doesn't strike me as unusual, odd, suspicious or bizarre at all.

Carlos said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

the LA Coroners office is caught selling bodyparts off of corpses and are excused ...

The cornea mill scandal really happened, but, as grim suggested with his questions, it was much later than 1969 and to my knowledge never involved an unborn baby. The coroners office took advantage of a quirk in a 1983 law intended to help with the limited supply of donors for transplants. Many courts agreed with them. I believe the law was eventually changed.

But this scandal is nowhere near sufficient to suggest any mishandling of baby Paul’s remains by the coroner in 1969.

starviego said...

My junior high science class had a five-months-or-so-old fetus on display in a jar. I doubt the little guy gave his permission to be used in this way. That was back in '71.

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

My junior high science class had a five-months-or-so-old fetus on display in a jar. I doubt the little guy gave his permission to be used in this way. That was back in '71

The doubts of a conspiracy theorist are simply the seed bed for their latest attempt at demonstrating a conspiracy, not credible evidence that one has taken place.
Of course the fetus didn't give permission. There's no argument in the galaxy in which that could be possible.
But it's not impossible that it was all legit, particularly ending up in a school.

Zdena Gaarova said...

try to imagine Manson having drugs like flakka something

starship said...

Starviego, the book Restless Souls, while based on a true story, is actually fiction.

starviego said...


In the interests of journalistic fairness and giving equal time to an alternative viewpoint, I post this statement from a Family spokesperson regarding the issue:

Sandra Goode(sometime in the early '90s?): "Even child-murderers get to point the finger at Charlie, accuse us of killing unborn children. Peck, peck, peck, peck, peck down the order. Sharon Tate's baby dying? A baby that would grow up to be a fat fucking hamburger-eating, earth destroying soul-searching piece of shit? What we did was necessary to start a revolution against pollution. We made a statement and we wrote it in blood in the Tate house and in the LaBianca house... "
[From "Sympathy for the Devil, the Greening of Charles Manson," the title of a chapter in a book called No Success Like Failure, by Ivan Solotaroff, c.1994 pg159]

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...


In the interests of journalistic fairness and giving equal time to an alternative viewpoint

What she says thereb is hardly an "alternative viewpoint" regarding the substance of the thread, ie what happened to the never born child.