Monday, August 3, 2020

Cutting to the Truth Jay Sebring

A documentary made by Jay Sebring's nephew, Anthony DeMaria, is scheduled to debut on September 22 2020.  The film will be available on demand and digitally.

A couple of links for your perusal....

Media Play News

Las Vegas Review-Journal

The trailer

25 comments:

Doug said...

Might be good! Seeing that Shout Factory is on board lends a bit of credibility/promise to the finished product.

The trailer is okay too!

Here's hoping that it IS better than most have been.

Thanks for the information and upload

orwhut said...

It wasn't many years after the murders that the old, bald, barber who had a one chair shop near where I worked went to the big city and took a course in men's hair styling. He came back wearing, a hair piece and mustache, and no doubt with dreams of getting rich.
It wasn't long before the hair piece and mustache were gone and the old man was dead. I'd never thought that Jay might have influenced his attempt to upscale but now I wonder.

ColScott said...

"visiting his friend"

"an artist"

" lost to history"

Sounds like it is off to a poor start

ColScott said...

"I couldn't find anyone who had BDSM sex with him so I am concluding that is a lie. It was perfectly normal that he was at his ex lover's house at midnight with her all but nude. If he had lived he would have been the Vidal Sassoon of his generation. I never once met my uncle but I know him better than anyone watch my film"


Future interviews channeled by the Col for you

Dan S said...

It's going to be a revelation....just to get the last word

Matthew said...

So, I was trying to find where the rumor about BDSM came from. I remember reading that somewhere but can't find it. I think that Jay was just your typical 60's privileged party boy. Nothing creepy or out of the ordinary.

CarolMR said...

I remember reading years ago that Roman said that Sharon told him Jay was into BDSM. She participated while she and Jay were together but she said it made her feel sorry for him.

steve said...

A straight hairdresser. imagine that.

ColScott said...

Matthew

It comes from The Bugliosi Novel. The O'Neill travesty also supports it

grimtraveller said...

Matthew said:

So, I was trying to find where the rumor about BDSM came from. I remember reading that somewhere but can't find it

ColScott said:

It comes from The Bugliosi Novel. The O'Neill travesty also supports it

Actually, it comes from the first "Tate" homicide investigation report in August '69. In it are two references to Jay's "proclivities":

"At this point, it is conjecture as to whether they were
tied with the rope before being murdered or after the murder. The rope was undoubtedly brought there by the killers as no one can place this rope at the Polanski home prior to the murder, nor has this type of rope been seen at either Sebring's home or in his car. Although he has been known to tie women up by the arms at his home and then whip them prior to some type of sex act, he has always used small sash rope."


and a bit further on in the report:

"He was considered a lady's man and took numerous women to his residence in the Hollywood Hills. He would tie the women up with a small sash cord and if they agreed, would whip them, after which he would undress them and have sexual relations."
What price research, Col ? 🔥

Vidal Sassoon

I saw that written down as a teenager some years before I ever heard the name said, in fact, before I knew it was a name. I thought the Vidal was pronounced "Vye - dal" {hey, I'm English !} and I think I thought it was the name of a pop or rock band from the 60s. I've long thought it would be a great name for a band. I was quite disappointed when I found it was the name of a real bloke and that I'd been pronouncing it wrongly all those years !

CarolMR said:

I remember reading years ago that Roman said that Sharon told him Jay was into BDSM. She participated while she and Jay were together but she said it made her feel sorry for him

That came from his 16th August '69 police interview with Earl Deemer {if indeed the Deemer polygraph is the same event mentioned in "Helter Skelter" as Roman talking for hours with LAPD}:

"He was a very sweet person, you know, although I know all his hang ups you know, he liked to, you know, whip girls. Sharon told me about it, that he tied her once to the bed and asked her...she was talking about it, making fun of him."

So both references are part of official police investigations, not just rumours for the rumour mill. Unless of course Roman was just being spiteful and sparking off rumours.

ColScott said...

Grim you ignorant slut

Thank you for going deeper. I should have said I first saw it in the novel but yes, in the novel he cites the report. Great work.

The original point was that Nephew sounds like he is going to attempt to walk this back

HellzBellz said...

August 9 here ..... So be peacefull..respect..

HA HA HA Blogger ColScott said...

Grim you ignorant slut

HellzBellz said...


"He was considered a lady's man and took numerous women to his residence in the Hollywood Hills. He would tie the women up with a small sash cord and if they agreed, would whip them, after which he would undress them and have sexual relations."

Nice Guy to keep an ,Eye, on my Wife, while I am away...

Dan S said...

Damn i waited too long and it's the 10th now. It's still murder weekend anno 51. Here's my question...why Isn't Sadie considered a snitch?

starviego said...

She was. She was kind of frozen out by Van Houten and Krenwinkle when they were incarcerated together.

grimtraveller said...

Sadie considered herself a snitch back in December '69 when it dawned on her that in telling Ronnie Howard and Virginia Graham she had disobeyed Charlie and Tex's dictum to keep quiet or she'd be killed.
What I've long marvelled at is that after talking to Mike McGann in November '69, Leslie wasn't viewed as a snitch after some of her revelations or after being interviewed by Claude Brown in Mobile, Pat wasn't either or that Kitty, who Sadie knew had implicated her, wasn't widely viewed as one by the Family.

Simple justice said...

Someone's personal sex life should have nothing to do with the fact they were murdered. To even discuss it is disrespectful to the deceased. The same with drug usage, it has no place in discussing the victims.

This is too often used against women that were raped. The defense attorneys always dig into the victims life style as if that makes it alright that she was raped. It doesn't. It's sad any family member feels the need to defend their loved ones personal life style.

The fact is, they were murdered for No reason of their own. They were victims period. If any one of us was murdered and our personal life was directed, none of us would come out looking like a saint. The only reason this is done to Sharon and Jay was because they were famous. People want to hear the dirty gossip and say the victims were Hollywood weirdos. That was said a lot in 1969 about the Tate victims. Strange no one directed the LaBiancas personal life style or sexual choices. They were considered boring compared to Sharon and Jay.

Why are we still repeating this the same as it was in '69?

Dan S said...

I think you need a word like exposed or investigated, not directed. Victimology is important as per motive

grimtraveller said...

Simple justice said:

Someone's personal sex life should have nothing to do with the fact they were murdered. To even discuss it is disrespectful to the deceased. The same with drug usage, it has no place in discussing the victims

I would broadly agree with this but it kind of depends when you are talking about. Drugs were found at the scene of the murders so to not look at a drug angle and try to ascertain if the victims had any kind of drugs connections would be irresponsible. Equally, who could tell that Sharon and Jay being roped together and as former flames had no bearing on the murders ? The cops had to look at every angle.

This is too often used against women that were raped. The defense attorneys always dig into the victims life style as if that makes it alright that she was raped

Of course it doesn't. But the reality of human nature is that someone that defends an alleged rapist in a trial has one job and one job only ~ to get a 'not guilty' for their client. And if it was your brother or husband or partner or close friend or relative accused, you might want them off too.


Strange no one directed the LaBiancas personal life style or sexual choices. They were considered boring compared to Sharon and Jay

If you read the police reports on them, you'd never say that. Rosemary led a sexually colourful life long before there were any Hippies, long before Charlie Manson did, long before the sexual revolution, way before the 1960s even began and that's not counting the rumours and gossip put about by ex husbands, jilted lovers etc. They weren't of as much interest to the media at the time because they weren't Hollyweird, they weren't famed celebs of their day. But believe me, Rosemary left all of the victims of Cielo trailing in her wake when it came to a spicy life.
Again, the police had to look deeply into this and in doing so, encountered a number of people that might have had reasons for 'offing' her. And you're absolutely right, if any one of us died tonight, whatever was discovered about our lives could be spun one way or another 📯 in ways we wouldn't want while still alive.

LastGirlOnTheLeft said...

And if it was your brother or husband or partner or close friend or relative accused, you might want them off too.


Nope...not if they were guilty.

Panamint Patty said...

Simple Justice said "The same with drug usage, it has no place in discussing the victims." You're joking I hope because the whole thing was a bad drug deal. To understand what happened, tge drug use must be explored.

Unknown said...

You're not a police detective.

Dan S said...

We"enjoy" true crime. This kind of information is titillating to our peurient minds

grimtraveller said...

Dan S said:

We"enjoy" true crime. This kind of information is titillating to our prurient minds

While there may be some truth in that, the case would be equally fascinating without it. I find the mid 70s case of the Black Panther in England to be a compelling study. There's no sex there or in a number of other interesting cases. I find the psychology of crime interesting, and whatever the ingredients are, they just happen to be what's there.

LastGirlOnTheLeft said:

Nope...not if they were guilty

Granted Claire, but not everyone feels that way and some that do might find themselves feeling otherwise if it actually happened.
My point is merely that things we sometimes baulk at when applied to someone else might bring about a different response when it hits closer to home and pinches a raw nerve.

Panamint Patty said:

the whole thing was a bad drug deal

Do you mean that in an overall sense {ie, there were drugs all over the place on the sides of both murderers, victims and their respective worlds} or do you mean that the Cielo crime happened as a result of a bad drug deal involving the murderers and the victims {or at least some of them} ?

Dan S said...

The lotsapoppa incident was a major catalyst and that was def a bad drug deal.... And who was responsible for that one ..?..the stabby llama himself