Monday, April 11, 2022

List of Cielo Crime Scene Anomalies: Major and Minor

I have no doubt that many of you who visit this forum find one of the most compelling things about the Cielo murders to be the remaining anomalies--the mismatches between the hard evidence and the testimony or related narrative. I would like to create a list of agreed-upon anomalies that is composed of two parts: major anomalies and minor anomalies. I then invite additions to the list. Once we've settled (more or less) on the items, I'd propose to create an article to deal with each one separately, in some level of depth, or maybe in logical groupings of a few that are closely related. We can then poke at the presented scenario(s) and try to create a hierarchy of the likelihood of each version of the scenario that evolves.

I expect that this will be a collaborative effort to help clear as much of the fog surrounding the events at Cielo as possible. I will not explore personalities other than how they might have directly affected the events.

We are never really going to know what happened, and we all know that, but I think that using a collaborative effort we may tighten things up a bit. 

I'm working from the following assumptions for this exercise: 

  • The "official narrative" that the prosecutors used to convict the Cielo perpetrators is essentially correct in all aspects that it purports to account for; it is likely, however, to be a subset of the complete event. 
  • All physical evidence is correct and reliable.

There are many incompatibilities between the two assumptions, and these create the anomalies I'm addressing. I'm seeking to narrowly define the possibilities, or even to resolve some of the anomalies to within perhaps 90% certainty. In some cases the narrative may have to give; in others, the evidence.

Here goes...

Major Anomalies

The items on this list are fundamental to the events and to the sequence described in the official narrative, but they directly contradict the narrative.

1) Blood evidence at the doorway/porch.

This is at odds with all testimony. 

2) Towel on Sebring's head.

At odds with all testimony.

3) Stab wounds on Tate's back.

No version of the narrative unambiguously describes a situation in which she was attacked from behind.

Minor Anomalies

The items on this list raise questions about variations from the official narrative, but are not in themselves contradictory.

1) Broken guard rail.

Explained as being done by Parent, but without much detail.

2) Marks on Tate's face.

Watson has mentioned at least twice that he inflicted cuts on Tate's face as the first wounds; the Noguchi autopsy report and testimony say they are rope burns.

3) Knife found at the scene with no blood evidence.

The knife found in the chair had no blood on it, but appeared to be coated with some unidentified substance.

4) Moving or rearranging some of the bodies.

Initial investigators state that they believed that Tate's body had been in some sense handled or moved.

5) Glasses near the trunks.

Unexplained in the official narrative.

6) Blood trail on the trunks.

On close inspection the blood trails on the trunks appear to have been made while the trunks were in a different position than in which they were found.

I'll look for replies and compile suggestions for about a week, then publish the resulting master list and get started soon thereafter. I'll construct and propose an initial hypothesis, and we can beat on it to see if we can make it stronger. Other readers, after viewing the list, may want to take one of the items and create a hypothesis to present: that would be great, so far as I'm concerned.

In creating these lists I'll be the final arbiter as to what is included. 

Some years ago, David did an excellent, in depth seven part series that explored the evidence at the Cielo crime scene. I recommend looking at it, or re-reading it. We'll cover some of his points, perhaps coming at them from different angles.

A Look at the Evidence, Part 1

Any suggested additions? If so, please reply.

212 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 212 of 212
grimtraveller said...

shoegazer said:

I think that there are multiple POVs to the events, composed of multiple factors, and one way to look at it--and many here do, seems like--is to search for any anomalous aspect of POV A (for example), and then use that erroneous aspect to disqualify the entire POV.

"Atkins at one point says she stabbed Tate, and at another says she didn't.

Therefore, everything Atkins says should be excluded."

That's a mistake in all general cases


I agree, it is, partly because it isn't taking into account various factors that may have been acting on the speaker at the time of the recollection. Life is rarely black and white at every turn, even for a criminal.
On the other hand, it is equally true that because a person has shown form in lying or changing their stories, it is going to at least taint everything they say, especially if this is a regular trait that is seen to play itself out in a variety of situations.

with Atkins in particular because she, herself, seems to need to embroider ornamentation to many stories concerning her participation, but is also aware of backing herself into a corner of culpability, so you get seeming contradictions, when often what it is more, or less, ornamentation

Grrrrrmmm....
Wonderfully paradoxical. I agree wholeheartedly and I disagree vehemently !

Basically, she's a raconteur doing what raconteurs do

By the strict definition of the word, she was a raconteur, but I think she's in a completely different sphere to the general raconteur. Raconteurs are essentially storytellers, not necessarily people that embroider criminal activity. She wasn't into telling stories because it was part of her character; she never struck me as one of those people that has a story about everything. You might know the kind ¬> you'll be walking past an old Austin Cambridge car on Lime street in Liverpool and they'll have a story about their great uncle Phidippedes who lives in Austin, Texas, went to university in Cambridge, Massachusetts, not the one in England and how they used to steal rotten limes from a market stall on Liverpool Road in North Kent.

Speculator said...

Unknown - yes the Kotts party guests leaving has always intrigued me. The game would’ve been up before it even started for the killers had they crossed paths with departing guests on the side road up to Cielo. And then we have the girl from the next door down returning home after 1am. And also had the killers not got lost on the way up they may even have bumped into the guests whilst attempting to leave Cielo.

shoegazer said...

Spec:

And then we have the girl from the next door down returning home after 1am. And also had the killers not got lost on the way up they may even have bumped into the guests whilst attempting to leave Cielo.

And according to some theories, Manson cheerfully inserted himself into this timeline when he returned to check out his "children's work".

Boy, I just don't know about that...

grimtraveller said...

What does that mean, Shoe ?

shoegazer said...

GT:

What does that mean, Shoe ?

I take it your question is in response to my musings about Manson going back when considering all the ways a return could have imperiled him.

It means nothing definitive at all, merely speculating that if the risks seemed quite real, and increasing with the passage of time and this is apparent to me, I wonder if it wold have occurred also to Manson, who'd be the one to put himself at risk, for no really good reason.

grimtraveller said...

Oh, I thought you were referring to the 1am thing.
I don't believe he went to Cielo. But I wouldn't be surprised if he had.

shoegazer said...

Here's an interesting wrinkle about the extra set of clothing that the Cielo killers took with them. It is a speculation about state of mind immediately after the killings.

According to all testimony I've read and can recall, they all agree that they took their changes of clothing over the gate with them. Now, why would they do that?

The answer would imply that before they went over the fence, they--and likely this is from Watson--would change there on the grounds, before they went back to the car, so that if they encountered anyone en route, even walking down the long driveway back to the car, they'd not be obviously dripping blood.

But the didn't do this. They picked up their clothes and left, changing awkwardly in the car.

What does this imply about both the plan, and their actual state of mind after the killings? What may have prompted this change in plans?

G. Greene-Whyte said...

And then drove over to Rudy's house to use the garden hose.

shoegazer said...

And then drove over to Rudy's house to use the garden hose.

Things were falling apart, everything was on-the-fly.

Running, chasing screaming people on the front lawn, shooting 7 times, failure to get the rope set up for a proper hanging.

They were probably pretty agitated.

Speculator said...

Shoe/Greene - yes the change of clothes is a funny one. Going by what happened the second night, you’d assume that the plan was to wash/shower and change at Cielo. One would suspect that after all of the noise and mayhem that spread outside, Watson was acutely aware that they might have been heard by neighbours, police called etc and they wanted away from the property as soon as possible. It’s a strange one really as night tea they were in a much more built up area but didn’t have the same urgency to leave. Although I guess the murders there were much more controlled and less noise.

shoegazer said...

Spec:

Oddly, another "state-of-mind" oddity at Cielo occurred to me this AM.

General testimony is that Watson drove from Spahn to Cielo, and back from Cielo to the wash-off place, and on down to the gas station.

This means that he had the keys at the start of the mission, when he drove.

Testimony generally agrees that Kasabian had the car running when the other three came down the hill to leave.

This means that either a) Watson left the keys in the car--ignition, even; or b) he gave the keys over to Kasabian after they exited the car at the bottom of the hill; or c) Kasabian drove down after Watson cut the cables, with Watson riding in the front seat where Kasabian had been. She would then have been most likely to have kept the keys.

Can anyone recall testimony that has Kasabian driving down from the pole where Watson cut the cables? This would make the most sense, because the two other options are very poor choices. He'd be capable of making them, but...

grimtraveller said...

shoegazer said:

Can anyone recall testimony that has Kasabian driving down from the pole where Watson cut the cables? This would make the most sense, because the two other options are very poor choices

We had a debate about this in a recent thread. I think it was in 2021 that we first have any inkling from Tex that Linda drove the car down the hill. he'd previously said that it was him.
To be fair to him, back in 2016, when asked about how he heard about the Hinman murder, he said:

I put more in my book about it than I even remember now. I'd have to read my book to find out what was there, what was really going on like with a lot of this. But I don't remember any details
and later on:
I may not have all the facts right exactly because I don't remember them exactly.

I think that applies in general to him and much of what he says nowadays.
Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if he'd left the keys in the ignition because it was late at night in a posh area. I doubt anyone would be expecting someone to spot the keys, jump in, start up and drive off ! Later on, the impression given, on Rudy Weber's street, is that the keys were in the ignition when they were hosing off blood. Come to think of it, they had just taken the car from Spahn without permission that night, so it's possible that leaving the keys in the ignition was just a thing of theirs.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 212 of 212   Newer› Newest»