Monday, November 26, 2018

All about the Drugs at Cielo

You are probably aware that a number of illegal drugs were found at the Tate residence, and that two of the victims tested positive for the use of drugs.  There are, however, a number of inconsistencies and anomalies with the evidence and the conclusions that were drawn from that evidence.

1)  Why didn't they test for THC/Cannibinoids and Cocaine in the bodily fluids of the victims, especially as both drugs had been found at the crime scene?

Here is what was found at the residence in the way of illegal drugs/drugs of abuse, from the 'Property Report Cielo Drive Victims':

http://murdersofaugust69.freeforums.net/thread/542/property-report-cielo-drive-victims?page=2
--Bag of leafy substance(6.9 grams of marijuana, according to Bugliosi) removed from front room cabinet.

--Bag of leafy substance removed from front bedroom night stand

--(Three) - Cigarettes - hand rolled(marijuana joints?), found in kitchen (rear)

--(One) - tube containing white powder, found in blue jacket(Sebring's)

--(One) - Vial containing white powder, found in Sebring's car.



--Roach and debris, found in Sebring's car.

--Brown/gummy substance, possible narcotic, found in Sebring's car.

--Green/leafy substance resembling m.j., found in Sebring's car. (6.3 grams of marijuana, according to Bugliosi)

and from Bugliosi, pg26-27:

--30 grams of hashish, found in the nightstand in the bedroom used by Frykowski and Folger

--marijuana residue in the ashtray on the stand next to Sharon Tate's bed

--another roach(on the desk near the front door) found by Roman Polanski when he went back to the house later on Aug 17, 1969.



Others:

--(Ten) - white capsules removed from front bedroom night stand.
   (later ID'ed as the MDA)
     
--(Four) - brown tablets removed from front bedroom night stand.

--(One) - Container - containing 7 triangular green tablets and 1 - yellow capsule. Found in desk....

(There is no sign that the brown, green, and yellow pills were ever identified.)

--two more roaches in guest house.

--a small quantity of marijuana discovered later at the home on Summit Drive being rented by Folger/Frykowski where Witold K. was living.


The quantity of these illegal drugs found at the scene certainly suggests the residents of the house were using these drugs.  But the coroner wasn't even testing for these substances?  Doesn't make sense.  All the more so as one of the first police theories was that the murders were the result of a 'drug freakout,' and that the use of cocaine, like the amphetamines, has been linked to violence:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC181074/
The symptoms include agitation, paranoia, hallucinations, delusions, violence, as well as suicidal and homicidal thinking.    ....Cocaine-related violent behaviors occur in as many as 55% of patients with cocaine-induced psychiatric symptoms. ...

A couple of possibilities come to mind:

--The people at Cielo were actually only very light users, and hadn't done enough, or done them recently, for the drugs to show up in a tox screen.
(IMO they had too much on hand to be only occasional users.  Plus Sebring wouldn't have risked carrying Cocaine in his possession unless he was doing it every day.)

--Investigators figured the presence of these drugs on scene confirmed they were using these drugs, and hence no extra toxicological tests needed.

--They found some THC in Sharon's urine/blood, and they didn't want to sully her name any further, so they left that out; and then decided they would have to leave it out of the three other autopsy reports as well to cover it up.

--They did indeed do the tests, but toxicological results came back NEGATIVE for any Marijuana/THC or Cocaine use in all four of the people from the main house. 
In other words no drugs were being consumed, and thus there was no reason to have all these drugs there at all.  This raises the possibility that the drug evidence was PLANTED. (OO-ee-OO!)  To mollify the public and to send investigators off on their wild goose chase.


2)  The results for the tox screen for both Folger and Frykowski did not come back until Aug 21 (unlike the tox screen results for the other three Cielo Drive victims, which were completed on Aug 11 and Aug 13):

Voytek Frykowski Autopsy
http://murdersofaugust69.freeforums.net/attachment/download/2712
(Report of Chemical Analysis dated Aug 21, 1969)
"Urine: 0.6 mg. percent Methylene dioxy Amphetamine" (MDA)

Abigail Folger Autopsy
http://murdersofaugust69.freeforums.net/attachment/download/2711
(Report of Chemical Analysis dated Aug 21, 1969)
"Urine: 2.4 mg. % MDA" (Methylene Dioxy Amphetamine)

Presumably the delay was because the toxicologists were trying to identfy an unknown new Amphetamine-like drug, and it took time to get the samples from the source Harrigan, when it was finally identified as MDA.  So how is that they were able to name and test for this very same drug in the body fluids of the other victims 10 days earlier?

Sharon Tate Autopsy
https://www.scribd.com/document/35712097/Sharon-Tate-Autopsy-Report
(Report of Chemical Analysis dated Aug 11, 1968)
"Kidney: Methylene dioxy Amphetamine(aka 'MDA') absent"

Steven Parent Autopsy
https://www.scribd.com/document/35712178/Steven-Parent-Autopsy-Report
(Report of Chemical Analysis dated Aug 13, 1969)
"Blood: Barbituarates, Amphetamine, Methedrine, MDA, Doriden, Meprobamate, Quaalude, Soma and Phenacetin absent"

In other words, they can't use the words "Methylene dioxy Amphetamine" on Aug 11, and at the same time claim ignorance about Methylene dioxy Amphetamine in the urine of Folger/Frykowski until Aug 21.




3)  Were Folger and Frykowski unfairly painted with a 'drug jacket?'

The police reports, the news reports of the time, and Bugliosi in his book all lay it on pretty thick:

First Homicide Investigation Report - Tate
9.
"During April, May, June, and the first part of July, Frykowski and Folger had many impromptu parties.  ...  An open invitation policy existed at the house. Drug use was prevalent. They used hashish, marijuana, mescaline, cocaine and MDA.
(These would be all the drugs they DIDN'T test for in the tox screens (except for the MDA).

26.
Wojiciech Frykowski...  used cocaine, mescaline, LSD, marijuana, hashish and MDA in large amounts. He was an extrovert and gave invitations to almost everyone he met to come visit him at his residence. Narcotic parties were the order of the day...     ... Folger also used these drugs in large quantities.


Helter Skelter, pg44
The police were unable to determine exactly when Folger and Frykowski began to use drugs heavily, on a regular basis,  It was learned that on their cross-country trip they had stopped in Irving, Texas, staying several days with a big dope dealer well known to local and Dallas police.  Dealers were among their regular guests both at the Woodstock house and after they moved to Cielo Drive. William Tennant told police that whenever he visited the latter residence(Cielo Dr.), Abigail "always seemed to be in a stupor from narcotics."

When her mother last talked to her, about ten that Friday night, she said Gibby had sounded lucid but a "a little high."  Mrs. Folger, who was not unaware of her daughter's problems, had contributed large amounts of money and time to the Haight-Ashbury Free Medical Clinic, to help in their pioneer work in treating drug abuse.

                                          William Tennant


Thomas Michael Harrigan
http://www.cielodrive.com/archive/tate-case-victim-%E2%80%98on-a-trip%E2%80%99/
Tate Case Victim ‘on a Trip’  LOS ANGELES, Aug. 22 –
Thomas Michael Harrigan said he saw Frokowsky the day before the macabre murders and the Polish émigré told him he was on the fifth day of an eight day mescaline trip.  ...
Harrigan said Jay Sebring... was sitting in a chair with his head tilted to one side, “as though he were watching a movie only he could see.”   He said Miss Tate was not high and seemed unaware of the condition of Frykowsky and Sebring, “as though there was nothing out of the ordinary.”

It should be remembered, though, that most of the defamatory statements about the drug use seems to come from only two sources--Harrigan and Witold K., both of whom had legal problems and may thus have had good motive to go along with the police version of events. (Harrigan was a drug dealer and smuggler, and Witold K.'s visa had expired and he was not in the U.S. legally at the time.)

                                          Witold K.
 



This is the counter-narrative:

Restless Souls by Alisa Statman and Brie Tate c.2012  pg82
Jim Mitchum: "Things were pretty out of hand up there while Sharon and Roman were in Europe.

pg89
PJ Tate: "Was this crap going on up at Cielo?" I asked.
(Billy) Doyle: "Only when Gibbie and Sharon were out of town, and then only for the five-week period that Woytek had run of the house."

In other words, the heavy partying had ended after Sharon came back home in early July of '69.

pg82
PJ: "Was Woytek dealing?" I asked.
Jim Mitchum:  "Nah, man, he was the Robin Hood of dope," Jim said. "He'd get the money from Gibbie, buy the drugs, and then give them away. He only wanted to have fun."

pg89
(Billy) Doyle:  "...the rumor of Woytek being a drug dealer is ridiculous. He barely spoke English. ... he was never strung out the way they're writing about him."

pg90
PJ: Re Gibbie "...was she using?"
Doyle: "No way. This was a girl who thought it was incredibly mischievous to take a toke off someone else's joint. Perhaps she was different around others, but she didn't use drugs in my presence."

Tony Curtis, the Autobiography by Tony Curtis  c.1993  pg228
I think it's important to emphasize that she and Roman were not particularly into any drugs at all. There were no drugs, no orgies, nothing awful.  ... (Joyce)Haber and those other gossip columnists were particularly nasty about the Sharon Tate story. They took it upon themselves to suggest that drugs were the reason for the murder, which may have been true for the murderers, but certainly not for Sharon.

Roman by Roman Polanski c.1984  pg313
The press painted an astonishingly inaccurate picture of Wojtek Frykowski, describing him as "a major drug purveyor." In many ways, Wojtek was one of the squarest people I've ever known. ... The myth of Wojtek the big-time drug dealer stemmed largely from a report that he'd had dealings with known pushers. ... (Re party-crashing incident at the April party at Cielo) All three turned out to be small-time pushers, and it was this incident that gave rise to the drug connections theory

http://www.lamag.com/longform/manson-an-oral-history1/2/
SGT McGANN(in 2009): My initial thought was the drug angle. Sharon didn’t use drugs. Abigail had done a little experimentation but not much. Jay Sebring smoked pot, but everybody in Los Angeles did at that point.


4)  Where did the MDA come from?

It is strongly implied that the MDA came from Canadian drug-dealer Thomas Harrigan

First Homicide Investigation Report - Tate, section 10:
"Harrigan made a trip to Toronto, Canada and brought back a supply of MDA and possibly other drugs via commercial airlines.  It is known that he supplied at least a portion of this MDA to Frykowski."
           
                                Harrigan(r.) and his attorney, Paul Caruso(l.)


But when you read the fine print, they couldn't make the connection:

From the First Homicide Investigation Report - Tate, section 10:
"It is possible that Frykowski was given this drug(MDA) by some other emissary (other than Harrigan) 2 or 3 days prior to the murder."

section 30:
"...  Harrigan and Doyle supplied Frykowski and Folger with some cocaine and mescaline and probably most all of the MDA they used. MDA is a synthetic drug manufactured in Toronto, Canada."

"It is possible..."  "... probably ..."

In other words, the investigators never did find out where that MDA came from.

I suspect that the MDA in fact came from Gibbie's shrink, Dr. Marvin Flicker.  Psychotherapists were at time experimenting with the use of the still-legal MDA for their patients:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine
MDA began to appear on the recreational drug scene around 1963 to 1964. It was then inexpensive and readily available as a research chemical from several scientific supply houses. Several researchers, including Claudio Naranjo and Richard Yensen, have explored MDA in the field of psychotherapy.  Naranjo.. began conducting workshops at Esalen Institute as a visiting associate.

Would Gibbie, who experimented "a little," have taken an unknown hallucinogen in someone else's house, when the hostess didn't take drugs herself?  It makes more sense if the pills were supplied and recommended by her own doctor.


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

"Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour."
          --1 Peter 5:8



85 comments:

Robert C said...

Good exploration of the possible drug scene at Ceilo, starviego.

Starviego quoted: "... as one of the first police theories was that the murders were the result of a 'drug freakout,'"

Shades of the movie, Reefer Madness !!!

Starviego quoted: " … Wojiciech Frykowski... used cocaine, mescaline, LSD, marijuana, hashish and MDA in large amounts."

Back then heroin and cocaine were way too expensive to all but the very wealthy. People were a little scared of LSD (acid) and Mesculine (mesc) so use was limited to certain groups, one-time experimenters and die-hard enthusiasts. Hash & weed were widespread but in the US mostly weed. I never heard of MDA but generic 'speed' was very common.

Starviego quoted: "SGT McGANN(in 2009): My initial thought was the drug angle. Sharon didn’t use drugs. Abigail had done a little experimentation but not much. Jay Sebring smoked pot, but everybody in Los Angeles did at that point."

And that about lines up perfectly with my own assessment. Good on ya Sarge.

Last but not least … quoted: " ... and the Polish émigré told him he was on the fifth day of an eight day mescaline trip."


Uh … based on my … knowledge (yeah, that's it) … I don't think anyone could survive a sustained eight day mesculine trip if that's what is meant.






AstroCreep said...

I’m no cop but my gut instinct would be to suspect drug activity initially too. Drugs are present. 5 people are butchered. What cop would think to themselves “I’ll bet it’s really a bunch of hippies serving up revenge to the pig establishment in order to incite a race war”?

I didn’t remember the amount of narcotics and other recreational drugs present until I read it in the post, but for 4 people who use recreationally that’s really not a lot of drugs. Even if one is a heavy user, that’s not a lot.

I’d think if there was some big drug angle, they’d have found ties to significant amounts- or would have heard from many witnesses about seeing a lot more than what’s present in the house at the time of the murders.

Panamint Patty said...

The mda I've always felt was very important

cielodrivecom said...

LAPD found 76 grams of marijuana in the living room cabinet

AstroCreep said...

Cielodrive- Is your point that it was omitted or that 76 grams is a lot or not that much?

76 grams is about 2 ounces which in 1969 and the quality of grass back then was not a lot. Like not even two sandwich bags full.

cielodrivecom said...

Bugliosi said there was 6.9 grams when there was actually 76. No other point

Torque said...

Interesting analysis here. And thanks for posting the photo of Harrigan, as I've not seen that one before. Do you have a photo of Billy Doyle, as well, or do you know if these available?

We are often lead to believe that it was one big party at Cielo in the absence of Sharon and Roman. But I find it difficult to find evidence for this. Pic Dawson, in his intetview with LAPD said that there was a heavy narcotics scene at Cielo, and it made him uneasy. I feel that's pretty rich coming from him. Perhaps he had an axe to grind against Voytek throwing him out of the house on Woodstock. We also know that Pic gave the police a videotape showing Voytek, Abigail, Witold-K, and another woman smoking weed in the living room at Cielo. Why did he do this?

Even though Tennant says that he always saw Abigail in a narcotic stupor, how often did he actually see her? It's difficult for me to reconcile his statement with the fact that Abigail was in therapy with Dr Flicker every day, Monday thru Friday. Abigail was also tirelessly campaigning for Bradley during--at least-- May, in addition to shopping for fashionable clothes, books, a bicycle, and otherwise acting as the lady of the house in the absence of Sharon.

We also know that permission was actually sought and obtained from Roman to host a party at Cielo for Jay's company, Sebring International. Moreover, if we believe Bill Garretson, in his polygraph exam, we learn that there was only one large party at Cielo the entire summer.

No mention if Abigail was prescribed medication by Dr Flicker, at least not officially. But popular psych meds at the time would undoubtedly been the tricyclic antidepressants, and minor tranquilizers like Miltown and Valium.

Of interest to me, too, is that Susan Atkins said she could tell that the victims at Cielo turned on. She said she determined this simply by looking at them, as well as the decor of the house. What did she see when she was looking at them? Perhaps their eyes revealed that the had been smoking weed?

ColScott said...

Nothing Susan Atkins ever said in her life is reliable.

In the wake of a notorious murder perspective is lost. Assuming they went to El Coyote for real how much tequila was consumed? There is no way 9 mo preggers Sharon was doing drugs. But we KNOW it wasn't some race war shit. So did Charlie know Melcher was gone?

One thing I was thinking lately, just reading the Hussey memoir- was Altobelli the target?

starviego said...

Torque said...
"Do you have a photo of Billy Doyle, as well, or do you know if these available?"

I could not locate any pic of Doyle. Anybody?

David said...

Col Scott said: "Nothing Susan Atkins ever said in her life is reliable."

That may be, perhaps, an understatement.

And: "was Altobelli the target?"

An intriguing idea. The official narrative says Manson knew Melcher had moved, in fact, that leads to Altobelli and his encounter with Manson (or alleged encounter) but since I believe Manson's music had more to do with this than we know (and I don't mean the official revenge motive, scare Melcher) this is at least very interesting.

Post quote: "I suspect that the MDA in fact came from Gibbie's shrink, Dr. Marvin Flicker."

Sorry, Starviego, I have to raise the BS flag on that. Naranjo was at Esalen but most of what he wrote about MDA was later in the 70's. In fact he may not have been at Esalen in the late 68-9 timeframe (From his autobiography on his website)

"At that time [1965-6?- have to decipher it from his earlier comments but it appears to me to be pre-67], I became a close friend of Carlos Castaneda and became Fritz Perls' apprentice, becoming part of the early Esalen Institute community.

*****

In 1969 I had the privilege to become a council member of the Education Policy Research Center, created by Willis Harman at the Stanford Research institute."

Gibbie went to Esalen at some point between the fall of 1968 and her death, perhaps more than once (Esalen is very 'protective' of all of this) and perhaps heard a lecture or participated in a workshop at Esalen where MDA was discussed but I believe that is highly unlikely, given the, above information.

Nothing in Dr. Flicker's background suggests any connection that I found either to Esalen (and I looked) or psychedelic therapy.

This is a stretch and frankly a dangerous stretch given a man's reputation is involved.

AustinAnn74 said...

Well, we know for certain that at least one of the murderers had HS on her mind, because she printed it on the damn fridge at the LaBianca crime scene. What for? Who knows....Maybe she simply enjoyed doodling HS on everything....or maybe Manson knew HS was bullshit and was just pissed off that RA & Hatami gave him the boot off the property, but the morons who followed his every command thought they were truly starting something. Sounds that way when you listen to that old Leslie Van Houten recording....

AstroCreep said...

In regards to Altobelli being the target- I don’t think Charlie gave a rats ass who was at Cielo, the target was 10050 Cielo Drive. It was a remote property that both he and Tex had been to and was familiar- and would be full of establishment pigs.

Col said- “there is no way 9 mo preggers Sharon was doing drugs”

In 1969 many women still smoked and drank thru their pregnancies. Cancer and smoking hadn’t been fully embraced by the medical community until the mid-1960’s and cigarettes weren’t banned from TV ads until 1969. So to say that drugs wouldn’t have been consumed by a pregnant woman in 1969 isn’t necessarily accurate.

starviego said...


I think Sharon was pretty clean:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/may/27/roman-polanski-book-wife-sharon-tate-recollections
Jane Fonda. The last writes: "She(Sharon) was very pregnant the last time* I saw her at that house and turned down a joint that was being passed around."

*Presumably this would have been at the small get-together at Cielo Drive just two days before TLB.

Peter said...

LVHs mother testified at her retrial that when she bailed Leslie out of jail and brought her home a month before the murders, the only conversation they had was Leslie telling her that the blacks were going to rise up and kill everyone. When her mother said she didn't believe that, Leslie said "well, than they will kill you too."

That and Leslie told them that she could speak to cats and dogs. Which is maybe why her mother didn't believe her.

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

Presumably this would have been at the small get-together at Cielo Drive just two days before TLB

According to Mrs Chapman the last occasion any entertaining was done was August 1st, a week before the murders.

AstroCreep said...

I’m no cop but my gut instinct would be to suspect drug activity initially too. Drugs are present. 5 people are butchered. What cop would think to themselves “I’ll bet it’s really a bunch of hippies serving up revenge to the pig establishment in order to incite a race war”?

I had a good laugh when I read that one !
But I think you're right, many cops would probably suspect some kind of drug connection to the murders initially. But not all of them. Whitely and Guenther from LASO were thinking along the lines of hippies and one of the LaBianca cops noticed a Beatle connection to the bloody words at Waverly.

I’d think if there was some big drug angle, they’d have found ties to significant amounts or would have heard from many witnesses about seeing a lot more than what’s present in the house at the time of the murders

I agree. Obviously they liked drugs but the drug angle seems to me to have been wildly overplayed, a bit like creepy crawling.

Torque said...

the photo of Harrigan

Over the years, I'd built up a picture in my mind of Harrigan and the other dealers, based probably on the picture that goes with the interview with Billy Rinehart from Sept '69. I thought Harrigan would look young, hip and dashing. So I was really surprised to see the pic here of the craggy old dude !

Even though Tennant says that he always saw Abigail in a narcotic stupor, how often did he actually see her?

Good point. Sometimes, we zero in on exact words and vest them with meaning when actually, we don't always take into account that the way people talk isn't always exact. I've recently been looking through the books of Deuterononmy and Joshua from the Bible and it's interesting when reading phrases like "the whole nation of Israel did such and such a thing or 'crossed that river'" or whatever, when a closer examination reveals that it's just the fighting men being spoken about. Tennant's observation also reminded me of an observation someone once made about John Lennon and how he was prone to exaggerate. The person said something like "he would talk about 'millions of' whatever it was, when what he really meant was three." It's tempting to do that sometimes, "oh, you always say that !"

grimtraveller said...

Torque said...

Of interest to me, too, is that Susan Atkins said she could tell that the victims at Cielo turned on. She said she determined this simply by looking at them, as well as the decor of the house. What did she see when she was looking at them? Perhaps their eyes revealed that the had been smoking weed?

I've found that statement fascinating from the first time I read it. Maybe it resonated with me because I've long been like that. Many a time I've met people or seen people in interviews and can just see, they are or were into some drug or another. I guess when you move in that world, you just recognize certain moves or signs. Kind of like how little kids can spot McDonalds signs on billboards long before adults that aren't particularly interested can.

ColScott said...

Nothing Susan Atkins ever said in her life is reliable

While she is undoubtedly the girl that cried wolf, played little Red Riding Hood and claimed that she huffed and puffed and blew the house in, that's simply not true. Makes for good, if somewhat ignorant, copy.

In the wake of a notorious murder perspective is lost

Yeah, Col, even when one is given it ~ repeatedly !

But we KNOW it wasn't some race war shit

Correction: you know it wasn't. At some point, each of the killers have pointed to it in cash or in kind and I'm talking about before they ever came to trial {4 of them in the 60s}, before you give me your "they have to go along with it in order to get parole" speech.

So did Charlie know Melcher was gone?

Abso ~ flaming ~ lutely. Altobelli said so. Jakobson said so. Atkins {cough, cough, choke, splutter} said so. Watson said so.
Think telescope and Malibu beach house. Leslie actually told Mike McGann she'd been there, although Terry wasn't in on that day.

was Altobelli the target?

Like David said, intriguing thought and not one I'd instantly dismiss. The one thing that counts against it is that Altobelli told Manson 4½ months previously that he was going to be out of the country for a year, even though he wasn't. However, arguably either Charlie didn't remember such a detail or didn't believe it ~ he was somewhat renowned for having a pretty keen bullshit-o-meter.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if, when instructing Tex to lay waste to whoever was at 10050 Cielo, he kind of hoped that Altobelli might be there {after all, Tex seemed inordinately keen to have the person in the guest house gutted like a trout}. Because, while there's never been any evidence that Charlie is the guy that confronted Hatami, regardless of what Bugliosi said at trial and in his book {I'm surprised he was never picked up on stating that Sharon Tate clapped eyes on Charlie during the trial, but most of us except Cielo missed it too, for decades}, Altobelli was certain and definite about contact with the people in the house {4 of the victims were there that evening} and made no secret that he brushed Charlie off with an impatiently dismissive manner.

grimtraveller said...

Starviego said...

I suspect that the MDA in fact came from Gibbie's shrink, Dr. Marvin Flicker

He was Dr Marvin, not Dr Robert.😀

Logan said...

"He was dr. Marvin, not dr. Robert"

Grim, you rascal.

starviego said...

That last one flew over my head. Can someone explain?

Dan S said...

Tex had been to Cielo before several times...

Doug Smith said...

https://youtu.be/RbgCP1xPa5w

Doug Smith said...

For Starviego

Speculator said...

First time poster but always been an avid reader. I saw the earlier reference to Olivia Hussey’s autobiography and had a look at it. She says that she moved into Cielo shortly after the murders and was there when Bugliosi brought kasabian to do a walk through of the murders a few weeks after the crime. She says that she heard Kasabian say “and that Abigail Folger was laid over there and she’d been stabbed many times”. My point being, I thought that Kasabian fled the property after seeing Frykowski attempting to flee through the front door and before Folger would have appeared outside let alone be lain there dead. She supposedly fled to the car and didn’t return. So how did she see Folger as she described to Bugluosj unless she did I’m fact either return or remain on the property for the duration. And given the darkness outside she would presumably have had to be close to the body to see the multiple stab wounds that she describes?

Speculator said...

Interesting to note as well that Hussey claims that she was raped by Christopher Jones (who allegedly had an affair with Sharon Tate) when he turned up at Cielo Drive one night. She said that he was like a madman and she thought that he was going to kill her. Some weird coincidences not just with the Jones connection but also the behaviour that property seemed to bring out in people around that time.

Proteus said...

If Olivia Hussey was raped by Christopher Jones in 1969 in Cielo Drive she was very young. In 1968 she was aged 15, when she made 'Romeo and Juliet'. How would an Anglo-Argentine schoolgirl be living in an LA Mansion? Who with, and under what circumstances?

Speculator said...

She was 18 and was apparently moved in there by Altobelli her manager

David said...

Speculator said: "She says that she heard Kasabian say “and that Abigail Folger was laid over there and she’d been stabbed many times”.

I think the first question is: Is Ms. Hussey a reliable reporter?

If she is this is, indeed, an interesting statement. We know from her testimony that Kasabian's observations of Abigail Folger were limited to seeing PK chase her across the yard with an upraised knife. As noted in the comment that doesn't include seeing wounds or even her final resting place.

If LK actually saw what Ms. Hussey describes then I can't imagine why Bugliosi wouldn't have used that at trial. That suggests the report is not accurate.

But if the report is accurate Bugliosi made a conscious decision not to use it. To me that suggests that Bugliosi knew LK was more involved (at least in being more present) than she would later testify and he made a decision not to go there to protect his star witness.

Speculator said...

I’m tempted to think that it was more likely the latter and Bugliosi was keen to distance her (in every aspect) from the acts of murder. I’ve always thought that her story had lots of holes in it and that Bugliosi carefully managed what she did and didn’t say both at the trials and since. The part that I don’t get though is why the others didn’t and haven’t since sold her out if she was indeed more involved at the scene. I suppose that it could purely be that once you’ve told a version of events you stick to it whether it’s the truth or not.

David said...

Speculator said: "The part that I don’t get though is why the others didn’t and haven’t since sold her out if she was indeed more involved at the scene."

There is another explanation for that, which frequently comes up here (and just as frequently is attacked): responsibility as it relates to parole. Accepting responsibility for your crime means the one you were convicted of complete with the official narrative. There is absolutely no benefit to any of them (now or in the past) to say 'that's not what happened' or 'she did that too'.

At the same time it also is/was probably not in any of their best interests to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The whole truth is likely worse than what we know about the actual crimes.

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

That last one flew over my head. Can someone explain?

It was a reference to the Beatle song "Dr Robert" from the LP "Revolver" in which there is a clever acid fuelled conflation of the personas and actions of John Lennon and some shady doctor. Ian McDonald said of the song "Concerning a New York doctor who habituated his socialite clients to narcotics by mixing methedrine with vitamin shots", while Miles in his authorized biography of Paul McCartney says "On the release of the album, there was considerable speculation about the identity of 'Dr Robert', with many of the London cognoscenti taking it as a reference to Robert Fraser, who was always a walking pharmacy. In fact the name was based on the New York Dr Feelgood character Dr Robert Freymann, whose discreet East 78th St clinic was conveniently located for Jackie Kennedy and other wealthy Upper East Siders from Fifth Avenue and Park to stroll over for their vitamin B12 shots, which also happened to contain a massive dose of amphetamine. Dr Robert's reputation spread and it was not long before visiting Americans told John & Paul about him.
PAUL: 'John & I thought it was a funny idea: the fantasy doctor who would fix you up by giving you drugs, it was a parody on that idea. It's just a piss-take. As far as I know neither of us ever went to a doctor for those kind of things. But there was a fashion for it and there still is. Change your blood and have a vitamin shot and you'll feel better.'"
He had said something similar 19 years earlier: "Well, he's like a joke...this fellow who cured everyone of everything with all these pills and tranquilizers, injections for this & that; he just kept New York high.That's what Dr Robert is all about: just a pill doctor who sees you alright. It was a joke between ourselves....everyone listens and puts their own thing on it which is great. You put your own meaning at your own level to our songs and that's what's great about them."
That last sentence is instructive !
The aforementioned Robert Fraser incidentally, is the guy that turned Keith Richards onto heroin and was the third person busted, arrested and convicted in the infamous 1967 Rolling Stones bust.

grimtraveller said...

2/2
In the same way that one gets all kinds of contradictions and different stories or names in the various authors that have covered TLB {not least from the killers} over the years, so one finds this with the Beatles, maybe even more so. In Mark Lewishon's book about the Beatles' recording sessions, under the heading for "Sunday 17th April 1966" he writes "A reasonably gimmick-free day...recording John's new composition about a certain New York doctor, Charles Roberts, who ~ it was said ~ was in the habit of administering hallucinogenic drugs to friends from his 48th St practice. It was the Beatles' first direct musical reference to drugs." I suspect he got that from John's mate, Pete Shotton, who, 9 years previously had said "With Dr Robert, John paid sardonic tribute to an actual New York ~ his real name was Charles Roberts, with a 's' ~ whose unorthodox prescriptions had made him a great favourite of Andy Warhol's entourage and, indeed, the Beatles themselves, whenever they passed through town." According to a book on Evie Sedgewick {who had hung out with Warhol and Dylan}, there were a number of "Dr Roberts" in New York City that were known as "acid" or "speed" doctors but how tru that is is anyone's guess and everyone's opinion.
As for Lennon himself, a few weeks before he died, when asked about "Dr Robert" he said "It was about myself. I was the one that carried all the pills on tour and always dispensed them in the early days."

David said...

I think the first question is: Is Ms. Hussey a reliable reporter?

As with those Beatle references above, it's an important question and in too many cases one would have to say 'no'. For starters, where would Olivia have to have been to be able to hear such a statement ? Linda didn't have a loud voice. She was constantly {as were a number of witnesses} told to speak louder at the trial and sometimes, it's an effort to hear what she's saying on TV interviews. Was Olivia walking about with them ? Doubtful. Bugliosi never took Linda into the house. In order to point out where Abigail was, she'd have to be in a specific location and for Olivia to hear she'd have to be next to them or the party would need to be at the front door, with it open or next to an open window, like right next to it.

If LK actually saw what Ms. Hussey describes then I can't imagine why Bugliosi wouldn't have used that at trial. That suggests the report is not accurate

I'd agree with that. It would appear that Olivia was yet another of the TLB moths.

Speculator said...

The part that I don’t get though is why the others didn’t and haven’t since sold her out if she was indeed more involved at the scene. I suppose that it could purely be that once you’ve told a version of events you stick to it whether it’s the truth or not

The problem with that is that every one of the perps have told more than one version and Tsunami Suzy a compendium of them. Changing stories is no big deal. Yet only once does she appear as having been murderously involved according to the others ~ and those that put her there have subsequently said it was bull. Pat later tried in Jeff Guinn's book but doesn't even begin to substantiate it {actualy admitting she wdidn't kill anyone} and comes across pretty much the same way Susan does in her final book.

Peter said...

Agreed. Why would they even bring Linda into the house if she said she never went inside.

Speculator said...

I would still argue that Bugluosi had very good reason to keep Kasabian at a distance from the bodies. He wanted to portray her as an innocent frightened girl and her fleeing the scene fitted that narrative. It’s worth noting too that she didn’t flee the scene until she had witnessed four of the five victims beinb murdered in the case of Parent and in the process of being murdered in the case of the others. Thus allowing her to provide the necessary testimony to convict. Convenient some might say! As far as Hussey is concerned , she was definitely living st Cielo and there are photos of her taken there. And I could easily see an inquisitive 18 year old making sure that should could listen in on what was going on with Kadabian given everything that surrounded the case. She might have been making it up but I’d take her word before that of any of the convicted killers or their associates. I just think that there are various little nuggets of information from different sources like Hussey that together suggest that things might’ve played out differently than the established narrative suggests.

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said...

Bugliosi carefully managed what she did and didn’t say both at the trials and since

I've read a number of people saying this over the years but no one ever adds a 'but' or a 'however' which suggests to me something of a bias.
It's important to point out that when Linda was the star witness for the prosecution, of course Bugliosi managed what he did and didn't go into. What kind of a rube prosecutor wouldn't manage a druggy, crime leaning, lawless witness ? Why question her on things that may have made spectacular reading but would have distracted from the job at hand ~ securing convictions for murder 1 ? That was the job of the defence. And believe me, they succeeded in getting things introduced that the judge had previously thrown out.
As for since, no one that I've come across that comments on how he was controlling her present narrative ever attempts to explain her telling the world that she got into Steven Parent's car and her realizations once there. Bugliosi didn't control that. I wouldn't mind betting that anyone that sat on that jury would have been surprised to hear that glaring omission. But it doesn't change what happened or who did what or even make anyone worse or not so bad.

David said...

Accepting responsibility for your crime means the one you were convicted of complete with the official narrative. There is absolutely no benefit to any of them (now or in the past) to say 'that's not what happened' or 'she did that too'

And yet, until Atkins' dying day she was saying "that's not what happened." Pat has never agreed with instructing Leslie to wipe prints. She's said for 40 years that she didn't carve WAR on Leno and Tex has backed her on that, admitting he did it. There are aspects of the official narrative that most, if not all, of them have not acquiesced to. The argument that "well, that's why they're still in jail" is something of a non sequitur because they have in various ways gone against the official narrative. Therefore, if Linda was more involved and they've all gone against the 'ON' then there is nothing at all to lose. Even when speaking to Jeff Guinn, Pat could not and did not substantiate her claim that Linda didn't try to stop anything and was a very willing party. And forgive my cynicism here, but I simply do not believe that any of them would be happy to spend half a century in prison, particularly as they disowned Charlie 4 decades ago, knowing that Linda had her hands as bloody as they did and while they languish in jail, she's free to live on the outside, free to have relationships, more kids, go to any shop she likes when she likes, free to take holidays, see her kids grow up, swim in the sea etc, etc, etc. They only knew the woman for a month. Now, maybe possibly, one of them might do that and just cut their losses. But all of them ? The simple reason none of them have sold her out is because there's no sale on. They tried that back in 1971 and it crumbled around them because it was untrue, it was shown to be untrue, the jury clocked it as untrue and in the end they all had to admit it was untrue. Even up until relatively recently, you still had Cathy Gillies saying she was more heavily involved {no substantiation} and Irving Kanarek saying Harold True was her drug dealer and when people clutch at straws like that, it occurs to me that it's because they got nothing. I freely admit there are areas of mystery in this case but one thing I am sure of ~ if Linda had been more involved in those murders than has ever come out, given the self centred nature of each of the perps, we'd have heard about it over the last half century like we have heard about Pat's lack of carvery skills.

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said...

I would still argue that Bugluosi had very good reason to keep Kasabian at a distance from the bodies

If she had been involved in the way you're implying and he had known this, he would have been insane to play that game. He made no attempt to clean up Susan Atkins when she was the star witness. He went with her as she was in all her damaged glory.

He wanted to portray her as an innocent frightened girl and her fleeing the scene fitted that narrative

Yet he's on record {in "Death To Pigs"} as saying that she was guilty and the DA's office would have gone for a 2nd degree murder charge and that's on tape and on film for a documentary he knows is going out worldwide. Even in the trial in his summing up, he said very clearly that she was no angel and deserved no medals.

It’s worth noting too that she didn’t flee the scene until she had witnessed four of the five victims being murdered in the case of Parent and in the process of being murdered in the case of the others

I don't know what you mean. She 'saw' the Parent murder, she didn't 'see' the ones in the house, she didn't 'see' the other two, she 'saw' a small part of the process of the two that died on the lawn. Then she ran away.

Thus allowing her to provide the necessary testimony to convict

You make it sound like she was taking notes for future reference.

Convenient some might say!

I'd say it was fortunate for LA rather than it was convenient. Bear in mind that Susan saw much more than she did and related it freely. Was that convenient ?
I'm curious as to what point you're making here.

As far as Hussey is concerned , she was definitely living at Cielo and there are photos of her taken there

I don't doubt that. It means nothing one way or the other.

And I could easily see an inquisitive 18 year old making sure that she could listen in on what was going on with Kasabian given everything that surrounded the case

In the presence of all those cops ? And they'd allow this stranger to just inveigle her way into a serious investigation to eavesdrop ? And Bugliosi wouldn't say 'go away' or words to that effect ?

She might have been making it up but I’d take her word before that of any of the convicted killers or their associates

Associates that testified against them and sent them to the gas chamber ? I wouldn't not take someone's word just because they were scummy. Nor would I simply take someone's word because they're cute and nice or my sister.

I just think that there are various little nuggets of information from different sources like Hussey that together suggest that things might’ve played out differently than the established narrative suggests

Various little nuggets with nothing to back them up. Bugliosi stated that the first time he spoke to Linda, he learned that their assumption that the only thing she'd seen could be the Parent murder was wrong. Wrong because she'd seen Pat chasing Abigail with a knife.

grimtraveller said...

By the way Speculator, welcome to posting !

grimtraveller said...

David said...

The whole truth is likely worse than what we know about the actual crimes

It's hard to see how, but I don't disagree.

starviego said...

grimtraveller said...
"According to Mrs Chapman the last occasion any entertaining was done was August 1st, a week before the murders."

www.glamourgirlsofthesilverscreen.com/show/520/Sharon+Tate/
August 5 Sharon and Sebring throw a small party at the Cielo Drive house for director Roger Vadim and his wife, actress Jane Fonda

Sanders also has this party happening in the same time frame.

Speaking of Chapman, was she ever asked about all these 'narcotics parties' happening at the house? She would have been in a position to know.

David said...

Grim said: "It's hard to see how, but I don't disagree."

Oh, how about hanging Sharon Tate, Atkins actually inflicting mortal wounds on Frykowski. Why there are odd blood pools is on the front porch. The ribbons, alleged by Sanders to have been draped over the door handle. The towel around Jay Sebring's head and the rope over that.......

I think how that all happened could make it worse.

I'm not disagreeing with you- adding clarity to my previous comment.


Sorry Grim, don't have the energy, right now, to read and to respond to your other comment directed at me (if I have to), long day in court.

David said...

I changed my mind.


Grim said: "There are aspects of the official narrative that most, if not all, of them have not acquiesced to. The argument that "well, that's why they're still in jail" is something of a non sequitur because they have in various ways gone against the official narrative."

Ah, that would be the non sequitur: they are still in jail and those disagreements with the narrative are cited at times for the reason. Why take it further.

And: "And forgive my cynicism here..." You are only a cynic when it involves a challenge to the official narrative. The official narrative is wrong, so wrong it is almost fiction unless you believe the physical evidence is wrong and 'yes' Ms. Kasabian participated in that through her testimony. Again, to avoid the response: I am not saying she lied.

And just to end this: I believe it is highly probable Ms. Hussey is also inaccurate.

And: " Even up until relatively recently, you still had Cathy Gillies saying she was more heavily involved {no substantiation} and Irving Kanarek saying Harold True was her drug dealer and when people clutch at straws like that, it occurs to me that it's because they got nothing."

Oh, you need to prove those one to me.

The Kanarek comment certainly wasn't from me. I don't believe I have ever quoted him except in trial testimony and the Gillis comment I believe I made was arguing with Peter about whether she was 'all in with the Manson schtick' based upon her testimony at the time, not that she was 'more involved' in the murders. I'm certainly willing to acknowledge what I have said and when I am wrong but if you can't show me please retract this.

David said...

Correction:

not 'one' substitute 'two'

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

Re Olivia Hussey: I can't even imagine an 18-year-old willing to live at Cielo AFTER the murders. She must have been one hell of a fearless teenager!

AstroCreep said...

I have a hard time believing that LK was more involved much more than what she claims and the official narrative leads us to believe.

Reason being, 18 days of testimony and no slip ups. I find it impossible that if she’d actually been much more involved that pieces of her story would have been tripped up. Try being interrogated for 1 hour and see how quickly a false story is gleaned from a person trained to shoot holes in things-

Second point- wouldn’t the girls (and Charlie’s) best defense have been to discredit LK during the trial? If she lied, the defendants could have had their lawyers ask questions to shoot holes in her testimony.

I call BS on her being involved much more than what she claims- I’m also 100% convinced that Bugs “sanitized” her narrative to paint her in a better light but I think the bulk of her claim is that she saw some things and at some point ran to the car- which I fully believe. At what exact point, and what other things she saw, nobody knows.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Carol IMR I agree, and I never knew about Olivia Hussey living at Cielo house! I just saw her on You Tube full movie of Black Christmas from 1974, which was an excellent precursor to the Halloween movie, or at least that's how someone described it in a horror documentary I saw recently-I think it was Eli Roth's show on horror. I guess by the time she lived there people were breathing easier as the killers were in jail, never-the-less, not in a million years would I spend one night there.

Matt said...

CarolMR said...
Re Olivia Hussey: I can't even imagine an 18-year-old willing to live at Cielo AFTER the murders. She must have been one hell of a fearless teenager!


Perhaps no one told her. She finds out later and now that Altobelli is dead she tells a good story...


Robert C said...

CarolMR said: "Re Olivia Hussey: I can't even imagine an 18-year-old willing to live at Cielo AFTER the murders. She must have been one hell of a fearless teenager!"

https://pagesix.com/2018/07/25/romeo-and-juliet-star-olivia-hussey-i-was-raped-at-charles-manson-murder-home/

About 2/3 down she says: "People would say, ‘How could you live there?’” she said. “I’d say, ‘In England, most of the houses have horrible memories. It’s not that big of a deal.’”

ColScott said...

The Hussey /Jones connection was news to me. Max Frost knew Altobelli and Jones well. Jones was a seriously mentally ill cat. The rape does not surprise me. During The Last Knight Hopkins told me a few Chris Jones The Looking Glass War stories that were yuck. And he never fucked Sharon no matter what anyone says. In the book Hussey says she got pregnant from the rape and aborted the fetus. Altobelli was her manager and she was at the time a big name. Of course she lived in the house.

grimtraveller said...

David said...

I changed my mind.....Oh, you need to prove those one to me......The Kanarek comment certainly wasn't from me. I don't believe I have ever quoted him except in trial testimony and the Gillis comment I believe I made was arguing with Peter about whether she was 'all in with the Manson schtick' based upon her testimony at the time, not that she was 'more involved' in the murders. I'm certainly willing to acknowledge what I have said and when I am wrong but if you can't show me please retract this

Other than the opening line about Atkins, none of that post was directed to you. They were general thoughts.
What I was saying about Cathy Gillies was Cathy Gillies saying, in that "Manson, The Final Words" documentary last year about Linda being more involved in murder, almost 50 years on. The Kanarek quote comes from this interview that Cats77 did with him. I do try from time to time to get out of the habit of saying 'you' but it's so much part of the way we speak here. It's a general term that means no one in particular. You know, if I was, for example, explaining to someone how language has changed and how it's no longer acceptable to refer to a woman as a bird or a Black person as a wog, I'd say something like "you just can't say these things anymore like you could in the 70s" but the 'you' wouldn't mean the person I was explaining to. So when I said "Even up until relatively recently, you still had Cathy Gillies saying she was more heavily involved {no substantiation} and Irving Kanarek saying Harold True was her drug dealer and when people clutch at straws like that, it occurs to me that it's because they got nothing" I was actually referring to Gillies and Kanarek being the ones that had nothing and were clutching at straws, not you having them as examples of something or other.
With you at least, I hope I'm never that crass.

Robert C said...

About 2/3 down she says: "People would say, ‘How could you live there?’” she said. “I’d say, ‘In England, most of the houses have horrible memories. It’s not that big of a deal.’”

She has a point. There are many houses here in which awful things happened but I think you'll find that all over the world. That said, back in 1994 when a whole load of corpses were found in various locations in the house Fred and Rosemary West lived in, they knocked the place down !

grimtraveller said...

Cathy Gillies saying she was more heavily involved {no substantiation}

By the way, the 'she' being referred to is Linda Kasabian.

CarolMR said...

Christopher Jones was married to Susan Strasberg from 1965-1968. IMDb says that Jones suffered a nervous breakdown after the murder of his friend Sharon Tate.

AustinAnn74 said...

Cathy Gillies was loyal to Manson and whatever their "cause" was until the bitter end. She hated LK with a passion for testifying against Manson & the killers. I don't believe anything any of the still-loyal ex-Manson family members have said or say. Remember, Cathy Gillies was disappointed that she didn't get chosen to go along and murder back on the nights of the Tate & LaBianca killings. That's absolutely sick. If anyone knows about more murders they committed, it would've been her, Nancy Pitman and for sure, Gypsy!

Torque said...

AustinAnn,

Yes, agreed. It does not cease to amaze me, after viewing all the available video interviews with many of these people, their level of hubris. Their spirit of saccharine aarogance is breathtaking. People were murdered, and it was like nothing happened.

Even though the members of the Family have aged, and perhaps toned down their outrageous rhetoric, at what magical point in time did they decide to do so, and for what reason?

starviego said...

"Why didn't they test for THC/Cannibinoids and Cocaine in the bodily fluids of the victims"

I don't mean to pull this thread back on topic, but does anybody have any theories as to the above question? If they didn't test for those drugs, why not? If they did test and they are covering up, why?

David said...

Starviego said: "Why didn't they test for THC/Cannibinoids and Cocaine in the bodily fluids of the victims"

My question would actually be 'why would they?'

Remember what LAPD is trying to solve- a murder. They found cocaine, found pot. What does this add to their ultimate goal. The detectives repeatedly said to this and that witness 'we don't care about the drugs [use of or sale of]. Yes, drugs were a motive 'at start' but why would the victims being stoned, frankly, be relevant (versus where they got them).

My 2 cents

David said...

I'd also add that the reason the MDA (VF and AF) blood tests were 'late' had to do with Witold-K and the allegation 'someone' had given/sold Frykowski the drug and that person was a suspect (or maybe was setting him up to sell MDA). Witold-K was THE witness for about three (?) weeks, protective custody, said he knew who the murderers were, etc.

Likely, a test was done at the same time as the other victims and at the same time and results were delayed due to that information and the tests, redone.

That evidence would be relevant if the dealer killed them.

grimtraveller said...

David said...

Starviego said: "Why didn't they test for THC/Cannibinoids and Cocaine in the bodily fluids of the victims"
My question would actually be 'why would they?'


That would be my question too. What possible difference would it make to the identification of the murderers ? What if they had all smoked a joint from a friend passing by two days previously and sniffed a bit of coke 3 days before that on a short trek to Arizona ?

Starviego said...

one of the first police theories was that the murders were the result of a 'drug freakout,'

And that has never left the radar. Will Cavanaugh, a probation officer who wrote a book in 2012 about his life as a probation officer and claimed to be Charlie's officer in 1969 thought it was a drug murder. But he had a novel twist, saying that Steven Parent was on probation on a drug charge and that he thought he was selling drugs to the folk at Cielo and that the murders were an elimination of the competition {Parent} and that the victims happened to come out to see what the commotion was about and got caught in situation in which they too had to be eliminated.
David, if you think the official narrative is a fiction, you ought to have a look at the five pages of this guys book that he dedicates to the case !



Speculator said...

Apologies if I’m showing my ignorance of the facts, but the reason for killing Parent has intrigued me. Not because I think he was a drug dealer! But because Watson presumably had a choice to either stop him or let him pass without it necessarily compromising the rest of the operation??As far as I can remember, they saw the headlights well in advance of the car’s approach and hid in the bushes, so Parent could have left without even realising they were there? Plus there was the risk factor of tackling someone out in the open - noise alerting neighbours or occupants of the house, lack of control of the environment, added risk of escape, not even knowing how many people were in the car???! If indeed they hadn’t been seen, I assume that Watson chose to act because Parent wouldve seen the fallen phone wire and by that time would’ve been heading out the gate and difficult to stop - was the wire laid across the road and visible?? The alternative that I’ve often wondered is that Watson had a specific target(s) in mind at the house and couldn’t risk he/she leaving in the car. Once he stopped the car he had to act regardless of who was in it. I don’t believe his line that “we were just robots and were going to kill all and everyone on that property”. I appreciate too that in his state of mind at that time logic might not have been at the forefront of his reasoning. But at other stages of the crime he did act in a calculated and considered manner- albeit an amateurish one ie cutting the phone line, moving the car back down the road after cutting the wire, avoiding climbing the gate, flicking lights off in the house etc.

starviego said...

David said...
"Starviego said: "Why didn't they test for THC/Cannibinoids and Cocaine in the bodily fluids of the victims"
My question would actually be 'why would they?' "

Why test for any drugs at all then? The point is they tested for all those other drugs but NOT for the ones found in quantity on scene. And I want to know why, and if that has any relevance to understanding the crime.

If they tested a very large quantity of cocaine in the bodily fluids of Sebring or Frykowski, for example, the detectives might think "there is a good possibility the killer was also flying high on coke, and this probably greatly fed the level of violence we see here at this crime scene. And thus they may have investigated where the coke came from, assuming the killer came out of that milieu.

starviego said...


Before this thread is closed out I want to add some other possible references to the drug angle:


The Playboy Interviews: the Directors pg298
PLAYBOY: There were stories that Sebring and Frykowski were into a drug-dealing scene.
POLANSKI: Those stories were nonsense. The most they would do was buy pot from someone for their own use.

pg308
Roman: It was like the press suddenly had a new dictionary, with wordes like masochism, sadism, sodomy, suicide, witchcraft, rituals, drug abuse, and necrophilia. ....
What people read about us after the murders would make them ask one question: When did they have the time to work, between their orgies and rituals and drug taking? How did I have time to make four films in three and a half years? How did Sharon have the time to make even more? How did Jay Sebring run a business? Abigail Folger was a social worker who got up at six in the morning to go to Watts to work, then to a speed-reading class after work, and she would come back at 11 at night, utterly exhausted and hardly able to perform rituals and orgies before getting up at six again the next morning. And Voytek was desperately trying to get something together in films. ... Time magazine said he had "sinister connections to which even the tolerant Polanski objected." Where do they get this stuff? I ask you. Where do they get it?

David said...

Speculator said: "was the wire laid across the road and visible??"

More than just visible, draped over the gate. If the murder occurred where it likely occurred, approaching the gate button, it is likely Parent saw the wires, which may explain his alleged last words.

http://www.cielodrive.com/photo-archive/newsmen-at-cielo-gate.php

There are IMO a number of questions that surround the death of Steven Parent- the knocked down fence, the defensive knife wound when Watson may not have had a knife.....but I believe he was killed because they saw him, they thought he saw them and the need/plan to kill everyone there.

Speculator said...

Yes, clearly visible then - but how well lit was that car park and gate area I wonder? Also It’s pointless to speculate but you can’t help wondering what Watson and the rest would’ve done had they met Parent a few minutes earlier coming down the road as they were still driving up to the property. Even less control of the situation, more likely to alert other neighbours if they attack him and knowing that they had been eye balled by him. Would the attack have been aborted maybe until the following night? Timing was everything I guess - whether purely by chance or bad luck - or by prior knowledge on Watson’s part.

AstroCreep said...

Speculator said- “But because Watson presumably had a choice to either stop him or let him pass without it necessarily compromising the rest of the operation??As far as I can remember, they saw the headlights well in advance of the car’s approach and hid in the bushes, so Parent could have left without even realising they were there?”

Because they were there for a killfest as described by Susan to Virginia and Ronnie- they went there because some of the family members had been there before and to kill everyone on the property whether that be one or ten.

In terms of the defensive knife wound on Parent’s wrist- I’ve always felt Tex left Spahn with his game face on and likely had the pistol in his waistband to deal with the bolt cutters. After slashing Parent, he recognized it was virtually impossible to stab someone to death thru a car window, pulled the pistol and shot him. Most cars of that era had no center console and Parent could easily slide away from Tex.

Speculator said...

I have to say that I don’t buy the kill everyone whether it be one or ten kill-fest. In so far as them not knowing the numbers they faced I mean. The girls might’ve thought that It was all unknown but I think Watson was better informed . Had they come across a house party of say a dozen or more people do you seriously think they would’ve come out on top - with a dodgy old gun that had limited ammo and a couple of knives. At the very least if they’d been faced with any more numbers than they were then someone would likely have escaped and alerted neighbours/police. That’s why I think Watson knew with reasonable certainty who/how many were there that night. He might’ve been crazy but I don’t think he was so stupid as to walk into numbers that he couldn’t subdue.

David said...

AstroCreep said: " After slashing Parent, he recognized it was virtually impossible to stab someone to death thru a car window, pulled the pistol and shot him."

Except Kasabian consistently said there were only three knives in the car; that she gave one to PK and one to SA and had one until PK came and got hers. She also consistently said that she threw two knives out the window of the car. So where did Watson get the knife.

Torque said...

David,

I've traditionally entertained the possibility that Tex may have had his knife(or bayonet)housed in a sheath, that could have been fit inside his cowboy boots.

This would have been a heavy blade, and perhaps a weapon that Tex treated with pride. That said, it may have been the case that he alone wanted to keep control over that weapon, and keep it on his person at all times, thus not giving it to LK.

AstroCreep said...

Charlie breathed on it and it flew away...

grimtraveller said...

David said...

Kasabian consistently said there were only three knives in the car; that she gave one to PK and one to SA and had one until PK came and got hers. She also consistently said that she threw two knives out the window of the car. So where did Watson get the knife

I think he got it from Patricia Krenwinkel if he didn't have one stashed about his person. It makes sense because of three things which, when put together may = a logical equation. Tex slashed Steven with a knife though no one saw him do it or remembers him with a knife at that point. Tex cut a screen and was seen doing that. Once the threesome were in the house, Linda says Pat came out and asked her for her knife. If she had already given Pat and Susan one, why would Pat come and ask her for her knife ? Linda says that this occurred before she started hearing screams so it seems to me that Tex had Pat's knife.
There appears to have been some knife swapping that night. Whose knife did Watson have when he started stabbing Wojiciech ? Whose knife did he stab Sharon with ? Did he have the original 'Pat' knife from when they climbed the fence ?

Speculator said...

I have to say that I don’t buy the kill everyone whether it be one or ten kill-fest. In so far as them not knowing the numbers they faced I mean

I'm inclined to agree with you there. If there had been a party going on or dinner with 9 people, I think the killers would have turned around and gone back from whence they came. When it came to killing, the Family generally went with good odds....and deadly weapons.

Torque said...

I've traditionally entertained the possibility that Tex may have had his knife(or bayonet)housed in a sheath, that could have been fit inside his cowboy boots

While I don't discount Tex already being armed, having a knife in his boots sounds really, chafingly, uncomfortable !

Even though the members of the Family have aged, and perhaps toned down their outrageous rhetoric, at what magical point in time did they decide to do so, and for what reason?

I think a variety of reasons and times. It depends on which characters you have in mind. Certainly for the 3 TLB women, some of the prison authorities were determined to clean their minds, as were some of their family members. Others in jail pretty quickly recognized that first death and then life imprisonment wasn't what they'd had in mind for their lives of freewheeling leisure and some on the outside had to look hard at Charlie and what he was about. Once it was clear he wasn't going anywhere outside of any prison gates, the cement that had sustained the Family for a few years showed itself to be what it was ~ stuff you wouldn't put up a building with. And, although not a popular stance to take, I think that in spite of the arrogance and bravado that pervaded their milieu, some of them {Poston, Watkins, Flynn, TJ, Ella~Jo, even Mary and Gypsy, Hawthorne notwithstanding} just were not into murder and for them that was the beginning of the end.

starviego said...

Before this thread is closed out I want to add some other possible references to the drug angle

I'm somewhat confused as to your general thrust in the thread. As the kids in 'Hey, Arnold' would say, "what's your point ?"

starviego said...

"what's your point?"

I am just pointing out inconsistencies in the evidence:

--They found all those drugs at the scene but not in the victims.

--They said Folger and Frykowski were heavy into the drugs but apparently they weren't.


The whole 'drug jacket' seems to be forced onto the victims. Thus my gut suspicion says most or all of the drugs were planted between the time of the murders and when they were 'found' by the detectives. They even planted the MDA in the urine of Folger/Frykowski.


starviego said...

Come to think of it, why were Folger/Frykowski even at Cielo Dr to begin with? Why did they have to housesit a rental where the landlord is living in the back less than a hundred feet away? It's not like the house was filled with a priceless art collection or valuable antiques. Why didn't they tell Roman that they had their own residence to live in, but if it made him happy, they would check the place on the weekends.

And if Sharon needed company, why not have one of her own girlfriends live with her, or one of her sisters, instead of relative strangers, friends of her husband who Sharon barely knew?

And why would blue blood Abigail Folger spend any time at all with a aimless bum like Frykowski? What did the guy even do for a living?

The more I think about it, the less sense the whole thing makes.

John Seger said...

And forgive my cynicism here..." You are only a cynic when it involves a challenge to the official narrative...
Lots of people want this case to be what they want, and disprove the official version. Like pulp fiction

AstroCreep said...

Starviego said- “Come to think of it, why were Folger/Frykowski even at Cielo Dr to begin with? Why did they have to housesit a rental where the landlord is living in the back less than a hundred feet away? It's not like the house was filled with a priceless art collection or valuable antiques. Why didn't they tell Roman that they had their own residence to live in, but if it made him happy, they would check the place on the weekends”

My take on this is that it was AF who wanted it- she’s in a relationship she seeks to end and staying with her very pregnant friend doesn’t put her in a one on one situation with the person she seeks to disengage from-

In terms of the likelihood of killing 9-10 people had they been in the residence- I agree. I was simply stating what SA told Ronnie and Virginia- it also paints a picture of their mind frame and why Parent was immediately engaged versus giving him a pass.

David said...

Grim said: "I think he got it from Patricia Krenwinkel if he didn't have one stashed about his person. It makes sense because of three things which, when put together may = a logical equation."

Yes, it is logical to assume the knife Watson had came from PK, if you assume steps one and three of your equation. And it is logical to assume he obtained the knife at some point around the time they climbed the fence if you assume step one of your equation.

Now, point out to me either a fourth knife being mentioned or anyone saying PK gave her knife to Watson.

If you remember that a smaller blade can make a bigger would but that a larger blade Cann't make a smaller wound it is actually fairly easy (if a somewhat unpleasant process) to see precisely who had which knife, when, from the autopsy reports.

grimtraveller said...

David said...

Now, point out to me either a fourth knife being mentioned or anyone saying PK gave her knife to Watson

Well, a 4th knife is never mentioned and no one that I'm aware of ever states that Pat gave her knife to Tex. That doesn't mean that neither are true. Atkins at one point thought that Tex could have had a knife independent of the others although in fairness, she couldn't confirm it. Which brings me to the point that in a joint enterprise, not everyone involved sees every part of what happened. Now, I'm not going to argue that Tex had a knife all along, only that by his own admission he had one as he approached Steven parent.
That no one recalls Tex ending up with Pat's knife is nothing unusual. Why would anyone particularly notice that ? You've got 4 people climbing over a fence in the dead of night, one of them already having fallen from the fence and hit the ground with a bump and just the general kerfuffle of that move twinned with the sudden appearance of headlights. I personally find it a whole lot stranger that none of the women could recall Wojiciech being shot twice. If Linda could, from outside the house, hear people screaming in the house, you'd think she would have heard 2 gunshots, even if she missed the one that felled Jay. And neither Pat nor Susan recalls it. Now, maybe they're all just a bunch of liars that had their own "Helter Skelter Charlie style mess with everyone's head" reasons for saying they didn't hear or see the Frykowski shots or Tex receive a knife from Pat but then again, maybe they just did not recall these events.

You are only a cynic when it involves a challenge to the official narrative

I guess some of it depends on exactly what is seen as the ON.
I pointed out 3 challenges to the ON myself earlier and the things you pointed out that you felt would make for a worse story {hanging Sharon Tate, Atkins inflicting mortal wounds on Frykowski, odd blood pools on the front porch, the towel around Jay Sebring's head and the rope over that}, I don't dispute, even though none of the killers speak of any of those things, deny them, even. For me, the ON goes way beyond simply what the killers have said or what Bugliosi said or even what dear Linda said. They help to fill in some of the gaps, but not totally or satisfactorily.
I'm cynical about many sides and aspects of this case.

starviego said...

my gut suspicion says most or all of the drugs were planted between the time of the murders and when they were 'found' by the detectives. They even planted the MDA in the urine of Folger/Frykowski

Oh well, I did ask.
Just out of interest, if I dispute that, is that me being cynical about a challenge to the official narrative ? 😀











Just joking !

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

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

Come to think of it, why were Folger/Frykowski even at Cielo Dr to begin with? Why did they have to housesit a rental where the landlord is living in the back less than a hundred feet away? It's not like the house was filled with a priceless art collection or valuable antiques. Why didn't they tell Roman that they had their own residence to live in

That's a question that contains its own reply ~ Roman asked them. And it worked out quite well for Witold K. Besides, how many landlords look after a house on behalf of the renters while they're away ? Rudi just didn't seem the type ! And he was away for a lot of the time too. Garretson was in that guest house from the time Sharon left for Rome.

starviego said...


Well if you credit the drug evidence, does that mean that Sharon was smoking marijuana, or had smoked marijuana recently?

"and from Bugliosi, pg26-27:
--marijuana residue in the ashtray on the stand next to Sharon Tate's bed"

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...


Well if you credit the drug evidence, does that mean that Sharon was smoking marijuana, or had smoked marijuana recently?

"and from Bugliosi, pg26-27:marijuana residue in the ashtray on the stand next to Sharon Tate's bed"


I don't know. But it could have belonged to someone else couldn't it ? Because it was found in Sharon's room, does it mean without any question that it was hers ? On the night of the murder, Jay and her were talking in her room which kind of suggests that people went in there. Mrs Chapman said that it was the room used as a kind of changing room when people used the pool.
Despite my closed minded reputation ☺ I do try to look for possible explanations of why things were as they were. It makes no difference to my existence or what went on to happen at Cielo if Sharon had had a small toke {or even a big one} on a spliff. Babies born healthily all over the world have had Mums that liked their ganja during pregnancy and as Robert pointed out, back in '69, the pressure not to smoke while expecting can't be compared with today. Even until fairly recently {the last 12 or so years} I knew pregnant women that smoked.
But I'm not going to assume Sharon Tate smoked because ganja dust was found in an ashtray in her room of what was a fairly open house.

why were Folger/Frykowski even at Cielo Dr to begin with

Whatever the answer to that, Sharon apparently asked them to stay on until Roman got back from London.

I am just pointing out inconsistencies in the evidence: They found all those drugs at the scene but not in the victims

Well, what your thread demonstrates is that we don't know that because they didn't check.

They said Folger and Frykowski were heavy into the drugs but apparently they weren't

According to Sheilah Wells back in 1969, Sharon told her in July of that year that Abigail and Wojiciech were always stoned and that she didn't understand them.

starviego said...

They spent a lot of time and money chasing those drug dealers around the globe, but they didn't bother to find out which victims was doing what drugs?

"we don't know that because they didn't check"

WHY? WHY? WHY? If they are going to check for Phenacetin, why not cocaine? Come on, Grim, you know that is hinky.

starviego said...

grimtraveller said...
(re residue in the ashtray on the stand next to Sharon Tate's bed)
"I don't know. But it could have belonged to someone else couldn't it ? Because it was found in Sharon's room, does it mean without any question that it was hers ? On the night of the murder, Jay and her were talking in her room which kind of suggests that people went in there. Mrs Chapman said that it was the room used as a kind of changing room when people used the pool."

Presumably Mrs. Chapman would have cleaned the ashtray on Friday, the day before; so I doubt it was company that left it. Why does Sharon have an ashtray in her room anyway? For her Tareytons? (defunct American cigarette brand) No, it was because she was a doper!

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

Presumably Mrs. Chapman would have cleaned the ashtray on Friday

Tuesday was her day to do the master bedroom.

I doubt it was company that left it

Sharon had company that day. Mrs Chapman said she served a late lunch and her guests used the pool and ∴ the room. Maybe one of them had a joint that they'd brought along. Maybe it was Wojiciech.

Why does Sharon have an ashtray in her room anyway? For her Tareytons? (defunct American cigarette brand)

Maybe she had an ashtray for the people that did smoke Tareytons !

No, it was because she was a doper!

That's your assumption. It could be bang on the money or it could be a bankrupter.

starviego said...

I don't see Sharon sleeping with a dirty ashtray by her head. Maybe the evidence says what it seems to say.

Anyway, as you may have guessed by my comments, I have a lot of doubts about this 'drug' evidence. I don't really believe Sharon was smoking dope.

David said...

Star,

I personally think the probable scenario for the ashtray was Sebring smoked a joint while talking to Sharon that night.

beauders said...

I agree and if Sharon or Jay didn’t dump it that night Mrs Chapman would the next. I think a woman as pregnant as Tate would have been sickened by the smell and sight of a stubbed out cigarette but probably not a joint.