In
a previous post, a discussion was started regarding the possibility of some
type of relationship between William Garretson and Steve Parent.
Before
I get into that, let me be very clear, I support gays in every way. I support
their equal rights, I support gay marriage, hell, I even support Bruce Jenner
becoming a woman. So this is not about gay-bashing, or even speculation for the
sake of fulfilling my secret dream of being a tabloid reporter. What it is about is uncovering every
rock we can find to make sense of what just doesn't make sense. It is also
about uncovering who was at the house previous to the murders and what their
relationship was to the victims.
Also,
I'm acutely aware of wanting to be sensitive to Steve Parent's surviving family
members. But I can't help but ask
the question that I'm sure they've asked many, many times over the years: Why
didn't Watson stay hidden in the bushes and let Steve pass through the gate
none-the-wiser? Steve was 20 feet from freedom, 20 feet from being a witness
the next morning instead of a victim that night.
So
we have to ask, why did Watson stop him and kill him? As rumored, had the
killers actually been watching the house and seen the car there previously? Had
he assumed that it was Garretson? Let's also remember the police report
notation by Steven Shannen, the Times
newspaper deliveryman, who stated that "…on Wednesday, August 6, at about the
same time of day (4:30-5AM) he had noted a white Dodge Dart or Rambler sedan
parked on the west side of Cielo, just outside the gate. He was not sure of the
make of the vehicle, but stated that it had black-wall tires." Steve Parent
drove a Rambler with black-wall tires.
The
odds of this Dart/Rambler not being Parent's must be very high considering that
the police never found anyone admitting to being at the house with a similar
car. They weren't the best cops, but I'm sure they ruled out the gardeners, the
pool man, and the men working on the nursery and any other frequenters to the
house or the Kott's house as the owners of the suspicious car.
Now,
let's look at Garretson while he's in police custody. I'm sure the detectives
really wanted Garretson to be their man. It was just too good for him not to
be, and how nice to wrap this case up within 48 hours. So, they made the
following observations in the 1st police report: "In the opinion of
the investigating officers and by the S.I.D., it is highly unlikely that
Garretson was not aware of the screams, gunshots or other turmoil…these
findings, however, did not absolutely preclude the fact that Garretson did not
hear or see an events connected with the homicide."
The
report also went on to note: "It is the investigators' opinion that Garretson
was under the residual effects of some type of narcotic during the entire time
he was in police custody. It's possible, but not probable that Garretson had no
real knowledge of the crime."
Then
we have Garretson's polygraph examination. In a previous post someone posted
that Garretson passed his polygraph. But the bottom line is, Garretson didn't
"pass" his polygraph, it was inconclusive in part due to what they thought was
residual drug effect and in part over his evasive answers to certain questions.
Burdick, the officer questioning Garretson even notes this during the exam.
Now
before everyone starts screaming about polygraphs, here's what we know - unless
both parties stipulate otherwise, they are inadmissible as evidence and in
court because they're unreliable. What they are useful for is indicators - if
someone refuses to take a polygraph, like O.J. Simpson, it can indicate guilt
and lead detectives in the right direction. If like Garretson, they're
inconclusive, the detective may think he's lying and dig further, but at the
time, there's not much he can do to prove it unless he can get a confession
from the suspect, which Burdick tried to do.
So,
even if the administrator detects untruthfulness, they can't hold the suspect
for longer than 48 hours on probable cause. Therefore, even if Garretson's polygraph
was inconclusive, without a confession, they still have to release him after 48
hours.
Here
are some excerpts from the polygraph and Garretson's responses on the polygraph
about sexual relations on pages 37 & 38:
Q:
Ever had sex with a man?
A:
Yes.
As
a note, Garretson was also asked at another point if he was gay, and then asked
if he had sex with any of the victims to which he responded, "No." We have no
indication of truthfulness here because he wasn't running the machine and
there's no commentary from polygraph examiner Lieutenant A.H. Burdick except his (I’m sure, universal) doubt that
Garretson could sleep through a blowjob.
Again,
this isn't really about anyone caring if Garretson and Parent fooled around
that night, or any night, it's about the events leading up to and after the
crimes. What is very clear is that Garretson was scared, for unexplainable
reasons, on page 48 Burdick asks, "Is there something right now that's on your
mind that you don't want to disclose?" And Garretson
replies, "All I can say is I was really afraid that night." And that
evasiveness is what gives Burdick pause to later question Garretson's honesty.
Below,
on Pg 66 when Burdick starts questioning Garretson about going outside, Burdick
says, "Well, there is no question here there's something about the
question that is bothering you and I'm not sure it's a truthful answer, or
something is on your mind:
Later, on page 70 Burdick tells Garretson, "I want you to
sit here and think for a minute. Looks like there's something you're holding
back." Whether it's about Steve or looking in that window or what it is, I
don't know.”
And
that brings us back around to the importance of the Garretson/Parent
relationship even if that relationship was just friends. Had Steve been there
previously and parked outside the gate as someone not familiar with the grounds
might do on their initial visits? And on a 2 - 4th trip had he felt
comfortable enough to drive through the gate that Friday night? And if they had
met previously, why was Garretson hiding this fact? Was he hiding something
important to the case or was he simply too embarrassed to admit he'd had an
intimate relationship with Parent? And how the hell does Garretson end up at the house on Cielo to begin with? I mean, he meets Altobelli on the strip in Hollywood and says during the polygraph interrogation that Altobelli asks him to stay there - Garretson comments, "He said the dogs liked me and everything and wanted to know if..." If Altobelli got a sense that his dogs liked Garretson, it seems indicative that he'd been up there on previous occasions. Even in the free-lovin' 60's, I would think most people put more thought into who took care of their precious animals than a one-time-hitchhiker.
We know for a fact that Altobelli was gay and this seems to me like a gay pick up if ever there was one. It's a shame Burdick never asked if he had sex with Altobelli.
Then, later in the polygraph (see Pg 55, below) Burdick asks him:
Q: And he surprised you?
A: Well, he didn't surprise me that he came, just that you know--I mean he came up to visit me and when he left, you know, that's horrible.
Then, later in the polygraph (see Pg 55, below) Burdick asks him:
Q: And he surprised you?
A: Well, he didn't surprise me that he came, just that you know--I mean he came up to visit me and when he left, you know, that's horrible.
At
the end of the day, I think those are the questions that haunts everyone and
the question I’ll present to all of you: What information was Garretson hiding
from Burdick and why?