Tuesday, April 26, 2022

Master List of Cielo Anomalies

This is the master list of anomalies concerning discrepancies between physical evidence and the more-or-less official narrative.

Thanks for your suggested additions.

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.

7) Purple scarf found near Frykowski. 

There was a  purple scarf found on the front lawn near Frykowski. This scarf had Sebring's blood type on it.


8) Purple ribbons found on front door handle (or inside house).

This will take some digging. I've read about it in the 1st progress report, I think, but not much elsewhere. Blood type is identified simply as "O", no subtype.

9) Odd alignment of Folger's car in Cielo parking area.

Looking at the many available aerial photos of Cielo after the murders, I notice Abigail's Firebird parked considerably further away from the fence than Jay's Porsche. The fence I refer to here is the wood rail fence that separates the parking area from the front lawn. Why?

10) The state of the porch lights on front porch on the night of 8-9 Aug.

Looking at a photo of Roman in Life magazine on the Cielo porch a week after the murders, and I see one of the carriage lights on either side of the front door is burned out. Susan Atkins said that after turning out the lights inside the house, there was enough light coming in the windows from outside to carry out their attack. Makes one wonder if one of those lights was burned out on August 8th. Perhaps those lights were left on for a week post murders, and one of them burned out in that time.

11) The mystery of the dog that did not bark.

Christopher, Rudi Altobelli's Weimaraner, was let out by Bill Garretson, ostensibly unattended. Susan Atkins says she saw a "hunting dog" looking in at her while in the house. I believe this is a true statement, and I believe she saw Christopher. My question is: if Christopher was on the lawn during the attacks, did Tex or Patricia encounter him? How did Christopher make it back to the guesthouse on his own, and unhurt, if he was in the presence of armed killers. It is known that Christopher could sometimes be a mean dog, and at one time even bit Rudi. One would think that he would have barked wildly, and perhaps try to attack at least Tex, Patricia, or even Linda.

I'll try to develop new articles, each of which focuses on one or more of the anomalies. I invite other readers to do the same. As each anomaly is addressed in an article I'll modify the master list to show that it has been covered. 

What I may do is to go back to this list, and modify it, adding a hypertext link to the new article that deals with the anomaly in greater depth. The list could then become a sort of reference work with pointers toward supporting (or at least expanded) details.

175 comments:

tobiasragg said...

Meh, a lot of this stuff will forever remain a mystery (glasses) or in dispute (Tate's face). Other matters can be reasonably accounted for but will never be "solved" definitively.

Blood on the porch? There is plenty of testimony and evidence of potential points-of-transfer. You have Atkins carrying a bloody (Tate) towel out there to do her number on the door, and you have Watson crossing back and forth that porch after having stabbed Sebring, Folger and Tate. He seems to have become covered in an impressive amount of blood, given the thumb or finger print discovered on the gate button. Very easy for blood from the interior victims to have dripped onto the porch - apart and atop of the blood left there by Frykowski. The collection technique was lacking, though, so any real conclusion drawn is conjecture at best. I'll leave the testimony double-check for those more interested than I, but it appears that only representative samples were taken from major areas of blood pooling & spotting, with the assumption that the rest of the blood area was from the same source. Easy to imagine, say, Sebring or Tate blood being dripped onto Frykowski blood and this yielding a deceptive result. LAPD protocol was def not followed at this crime scene and the unresolvable quibbles are the result of this.

Tate back wounds? Watson indicated that he did a return-tour to each of the victims to deliver "insurance stabs" before departing the scene. Tate was discovered curled up on her side, making her back a very logical place for these killing blows to have been delivered.

Tate body handled? This observation was made on the day after. The person offering this observation added that the blood seemed smeared around her body and this is what led to this observation. And then, a few months later, you have Atkins indicating that she had returned to that body with a towel to collect blood for the door - no doubt smearing it around in the process.

The non-barking dog is perfectly understandable from what Atkins shared. The dog was outside, the victims and perps were inside. The attacks had not begun yet - she spotted the dog prior to the stabbings and struggles. She glanced out a moment later and the dog was gone. The dog didn't bark because there was nothing to bark at, there were just people inside the house just as there were people in the house on most nights. There is no mystery here - the dog was on the lawn before the violence began, save for Parent.

As for the trunks, it is quite reasonable to assume that they were knocked over during one of the struggles involving either Voytek or Abigail. No real mystery here, either.

In short, the idea of creating some kind of reference database on this stuff is a bit silly, simply because it has already been explored to death - and in much more detail - by quite a few people in quite a few places. What is known is already known and anything beyond that is simple guesswork and conjecture at this late date.

David said...

Tobias said: "In short, the idea of creating some kind of reference database on this stuff is a bit silly, simply because it has already been explored to death - and in much more detail - by quite a few people in quite a few places. What is known is already known and anything beyond that is simple guesswork and conjecture at this late date."

I am not sure I disagree with this. At the same time it is possible that with ongoing investigation some of these things might be revealed far better than they are today. There is, for example, a photo pf the purple ribbons we have not seen. If, as Ed Sanders said, they are draped over the inner doorknob, that is at least interesting since they did not teleport there.

On a more mundane level the complete blood report might also help. I hoped it might be in the 'boxes'. It was not. It would also help to see Granado's actually testing.

Now, above you suggest 'cast off' for the blood anomaly. An error by Granado is a possibility. Cast off, I am sorry, is not.

tobiasragg said...

"Now, above you suggest 'cast off' for the blood anomaly. An error by Granado is a possibility. Cast off, I am sorry, is not."

I don't think this is far fetched at all - quite the opposite. Watson's hand(s) were obviously rather bathed in blood, the messy smear as far away as the gate button attests to this. Watson also has himself placed out on that porch directly after having stabbed Sebring (and delivering a single stab to Folger) and then again after stabbing Tate. Do you actually think it far-fetched that some of this blood would not have dripped from his hand/lower arm onto the porch?

shoegazer said...

We'll get going with articles that delineate each point in some level of detail, but here's an example of why, in my opinion, we need to look closer...

Tate back wounds? Watson indicated that he did a return-tour to each of the victims to deliver "insurance stabs" before departing the scene. Tate was discovered curled up on her side, making her back a very logical place for these killing blows to have been delivered.

First, let's look at the autopsy report:

Tate autopsy report

See page 11 of 13.

Examine the position of the back wounds in the report: mostly on the left side.

Now the crime scene photo [WARNING - GRAPHIC]:

Tate crime scene

Tate, in the crime scene photo, is lying on her left side, making it impossible to stab her there, without some other manipulation of some kind.

So if Watson came by and delivered "'insurance stabs' before departing the scene" as she was "curled up on her side", he did more than simply come by and stab her, because almost all of the back wounds are on the left side and he couldn't have delivered the stab wounds if she was as pictured. In fact, she's so close to the sofa that she'd have to be on her stomach, much farther from the sofa to even be able to have sufficient room to deliver the wounds.

If he did the "insurance stabs" it couldn't have been when she was "curled up on her side"; he'd either have to roll her over to get a clear shot, or if she was already rolled over, deliver the wounds then roll her back. And if these are insurance wounds as they were getting ready to leave, why all the rolling?

Where was Watson in relation to Tate, ostensibly already lying on the floor ("insurance stabs" as leaving, remember)? Did he attack her from in front of her, near where the zebra skin is? From above, the direction of where Sebring's body is? From below, the direction of her legs/feet? Seated on the sofa?

Now, if she was farther from the sofa when the wounds were delivered, did she encounter the coffee table: did Watson move it, was it displaced in the struggle with Frykowski? In fact, *where* was the coffee table before the intruders came...or was there one, at all?

It's starting to look like a lot more had to happen than to simply deliver a few stabs as leaving, doesn't it? It actually seems more plausible that she was standing, facing away from her attacker, or bent over forward from the waist and was attack from above.

There are lots and lots of unanswered questions--too many to dust one's hand's off in smug dismissal, unless one actually has some compelling evidence, or at least a scenario that doesn't break down on immediate examination.

It's this kind of stuff I'll want to explore. We may never get to the actual reality of the situation, but it's much easier to discover what is very unlikely to have happened and push it to the back of the queue. If we do this, we're left with a smaller subset of more plausible events to work on in detail. We can focus on those, like obsessive anal-retentives, and perhaps get somewhere.

tobiasragg said...

"We can focus on those, like obsessive anal-retentives, and perhaps get somewhere."

I will happily leave the anal retentiveness to you. But as you suggest, there is no clear explanation. Atkins is dead, Tate is still dead, and Watson shows no signs of remembering a whole lot of anything beyond what he said decades ago. As I indicate above, we know what we know about this thing and the fence and the back wounds and the dog and Folger's last parking decision will remain as unexplained next month as they were last month.

It just is what it is, though folks will have their fun guessing and call it "research" for decades to come, I imagine.

shoegazer said...

It just is what it is, though folks will have their fun guessing and call it "research" for decades to come, I imagine.

If it's too boring, you can always ignore my articles and/or my responses. They're easy enough to identify.

tobiasragg said...

It is not boredom, it is simply acknowledging the truth. There are no sources for this stuff. If there were, these questions would have been answered long ago. There are some small matters here and there that may come to light one day, but the remaining "new" areas of interest lay in the social history of those involved.

shoegazer said...

What's relatively easy to do is to see *what is not likely* to be accurate.

E.g., your bland idea that Watson stabbed Tate in the back, apparently in situ. This is patently impossible the way you stated it--anyone can see this is they look at the evidence and then think about it even a little: so it's very, very unlikely that it;s because "Tate was discovered curled up on her side, making her back a very logical place for these killing blows to have been delivered".

Now, you may have meant something else, but it's not what you said with such dismissive assurance.

BTW, "Watson indicated that he did a return-tour to each of the victims to deliver "insurance stabs" before departing the scene. "

Did he? A lot of what you're claiming hinges on this being accurate, and because it's foundational, it needs solid support. Did he say it in any of his books, his hearings?

I mean, simply eliminating flip responses is a big gain on this forum.

And again, I'm not an absolutist: I don't expect perfect closure. I am satisfied eliminating the highly implausible, especially when more plausible possibilities exist that are not yet tested.

tobiasragg said...

Yes lol, Watson did speak of this. Perhaps one day you will read his trial and his book and then you will know this, too.

As for Mrs. Polanski's back, who know? Who is out there that can answer the question? Perhaps Mr. Watson handed Ms. Folger a knife, said "do something" and she delivered the stabs to her friend. Don't think so? Okay, you make a guess and we'll go with that one. We're researching here, lol!

If something like more detailed blood evidence is ever released, that might provide a good excuse to reexamine things. Until then, David did about as good an examination years ago as one could hope for, given what we know. If you can dig up new source material on something like that, go for it, but I'd suggest digesting all of the stuff we've all been reading now for decades first.

cielodrivecom said...

There's a lot more in those boxes David

shoegazer said...

Yes lol, Watson did speak of this. Perhaps one day you will read his trial and his book and then you will know this, too.

Well, gosh, I *did* read them, and there's no mention. So it's put up or shut up time.

Sometimes it's very easy to get the idea that you don't know what you're talking about.

David said...

Tobias,

I am not suggesting blood was not cast off on the porch or other locations. There is an interview with one of the officers assigned to guard the site overnight where he states he had a hard tie finding a place to stand due to the blood being everywhere and being told not to disturb anything.

Granado was dealing with dried blood- hence the M-MN designation and the greater chance he made a mistake.

When blood drips into other blood it does not form a nice bubble or spot of type B in a sea of type A. If the blood types are incompatible, they "clump" and could not be typed. A and B are the dominant types. O really means “nothing”. So, if B dripped into O or visa versa it would type as B, not O.

Blood typing generally looks for the presence of antigens - if the antigen is present, then the blood is that type.

If A antigen is detected, then its A
If B antigen is detected its B
If both A and B antigen are detected then its AB
If no antigens ( A and B) are detected then its O group- "nothing"

This is why during this testimony Bugliosi tried to draw an arrow on the exhibit to a spot versus the larger area where Granado marked the type.


Cielodrive said: "There's a lot more in those boxes David"

I've been through every page. What did I miss? I'm intrigued. Nice to see you are still around.

shoegazer said...

David:

WRT blood typing as done for TLB, the article you wrote about it 2 years ago or so was essentially a class in how the technique works, and how it was employed by the LAPD. Since I cannot hold the details in my held over time, I periodically re-read it.

Now let me ask you to speculate, David. You may have done this already on this forum or elsewhere.

Is DNA analysis possible in this case, as is done to exonerate the wrongfully convicted at present? What sort of evidence would be needed? Does such evidence exist today?

To me, knowing next to nothing about the technique (and being very skeptical by nature, and especially so in the case of news stories reporting on use of these techniques), it seems like if any suitable evidence exists, it is likely badly eroded by time, making any result open to significant question.

But coming onto this general topic (TLB), knowing only a little, I like to kick over every rock to see what's there, or what *might* be there.

Nah...we'll never *know* to any degree of certainty, but I'm convinced that much crap can be cut from the mythos, leaving a much smaller range of possibilities. Ideally, all such possibilities will have been pre-qualified by questioning/testing, and will then approach "probabilities" rather than simple "possibilities".

...and likely that's the best we can do, but for me, that's a sufficient reward for the minor effort I'm expending.

cielodrivecom said...

David, I'm like the band on the Titanic, around for far too long. Good to see you too. What I meant, is there are over 70 boxes of stuff. Only a small portion was disclosed. I keep meaning to email you about all of this, the remaining stuff, plus the Tex tapes, but it's one of those things were I need to compile years worth of records and correspondences to make it make sense and I never get around to it. It's all a long story

David said...

Bo,

I'm game for any forum- email, phone, zoom....let me know.

David said...

Shoe said: "Is DNA analysis possible in this case, as is done to exonerate the wrongfully convicted at present? What sort of evidence would be needed? Does such evidence exist today?"

They took DNA from Reed Jurvetson's cloths so I assume it is possible if the cloths, rope, etc. still exist. Now if you mean extract DNA from Granado's blood samples if they still exist I am not a DNA expert but why not? Seems like the same thing to me.

shoegazer said...

David:

WRT possible DNA, maybe this will happen. I might even suppose that it's possible that it has happened but is in some fashion unreleased.

It would be a nice surprise, but there's still a lot to work with in the existing material. I'll stick to that--I can't exhaust it.

Here's another example of what catches my interest...

Yesterday I found some links to the Cielo crime scene, and I used these to try to support a point. In doing so I raised a question about Tate's body vis-a-vis the coffee table, and speculating if there even was one.

Looking at the pictures on the linked page again, you can see pretty clearly where the coffee table is, and I'll work on the assumption that it was not moved prior to the photos. Its positioning implies quite a struggle in the area between the sofa, and the chair near where Sebring was found.

crime scene photos

This opens up much area for further speculation and attempts to support such speculation. And this is the "fun" part of this forum.

I can remember really delving into the Boeing 737 800 MAX avionics problem that cause the spate of crashes maybe 3-4 years ago. It was on a *tennis* forum, but some people were SW engineers and I feel that we really got somewhere and came to a personal understanding of what was likely to have happened.

Now, you could also read the papers for someone's interpretation, but in doing so, it filters the information through the author of the piece, and this can introduce additional errors/misunderstandings.

But if you lumber thru it, yourself, in the end, you have a much better understanding of what was likely to have happened, and what factors caused it.

I can recall doing something similar in 2009 or so, in trying hard to get a grip on the liquidity freeze 0f 2008--the causes, where it might likely go. Again, the individual can either read someone else's interpretation--and this person is likely to be an unqualified stranger, with capabilities and motivations unknown to you, or you can attempt to take the information, work with it until you understand it to a fair degree, then try to assemble it into a "most likely" scenario.

n my view, complete knowledge is theoretically impossible, but plugging away at it has its own rewards, and that's what I'm trying to do here, for no good reason... :^)

shoegazer said...

OPEN SPECULATION ON THE AMERICAN FLAG ON THE SOFA

One of the really fun things for me on this forum is that after a while, lots of related incidents of the era made for a sort of "critical mass" of personal recollections, and lots of little things, like $10 lids, "Jefferson airplanes", etc., come to the forefront.

Now, some here probably recall the culture war over the flag during the 60s (and beyond in some regions), so that when you see the flag on the sofa, it makes significant implication about those living there. Similarly, those who are much younger will see it as sort of 60s artifact--and fashion statement like bell bottoms.

But at that time in many places there were statues forbidding the display of the American flag except within certain guidelines. The guidelines tended to be reverential--needlessly so--but for the generation that went to war against Germany and Japan and figuratively followed the flag, these regulations were taken seriously.

So as the 60s progressed and more and more generational friction developed over the war, drugs, and life-style choices, the leaders of the youthful generation began to sorta flirt with using the flag as clothing, etc., in order to simply show independence and opposition to The System, or The Man.

It was provocative, a provocative gesture.

So I'd guess that the flag on the sofa at Cielo was simply a gesture by people not really committed to the youth movement beyond its surface appearance. They used the flag to show guests that they were "hip" and "with it".

It's kinda like being woke is today. If you don't do the overt signals, no one will know that you're a right-thinking, socially conscious individual, and hence you'd be out of style.

tobiasragg said...

"Granado was dealing with dried blood- hence the M-MN designation and the greater chance he made a mistake."

A mistake or the relatively limited nature of blood testing back then must be the culprit in this case, one assumes. If that is the most-likely conclusion, turning to what exists of the blood evidence will likely never yield an answer as to how the interior victims' blood ended up on the porch.

Bugliosi said that there are elements of every crime & crime scene that are never satisfactorily solved or explained, and the questions surrounding blood and ribbons and such are likely to remain unexplained.

On the flag matter, someone had gifted this to Gibby or Voytek in the months before the murders and one of them (probably Voytek) placed it on the sofa to "make a statement", Sharon told her mother, who objected to its presence there and who was concerned over her husband's reaction if he were to see this. As the family shared in their book about Sharon, she explained to her mother that she plans to remove it once the pair finally moved out of the home but she was afraid that she might hurt their feelings if she removed it there & then.

David said...

Tobias,

I agree that Occam's razor indicates that a mistake is the answer. I just don't know how he could make that mistake. He adds A and then B to his sample and neither react so he concludes it is O and does that three times (assuming he followed the FBI protocol).

tobiasragg said...

"(assuming he followed the FBI protocol)."

Did the LAPD follow the same protocol as was followed by the FBI? You know much more about that stuff than I. Whatever the protocol though, it always seemed to me that the rulebook wasn't followed to a "T" on this one. It has been a while since I read through all of the testimony, but I seem to recall Granado indicating that (probably on cross) that he had taken a sample or a few samples from the largest of a blood pool in an area of the porch and then assumed that the rest of the pools and splatters in the immediate area were from the same source - something to this effect, anyway. It is interesting to muse over what a field day the OJ team would have had with this blood evidence, lol.

David said...

Tobias said: "Did the LAPD follow the same protocol as was followed by the FBI?"

I was never able tp determine that and that is why I always hope something will show up in the boxes. Once upon a time those records had to be disclosed to the defense. I believe Granado was hired by the FBI between trials if I recall correctly.

grimtraveller said...

There is one very good reason to doubt the "insurance" stabs on Sharon Tate.
None of Sharon's wounds were post mortem.
And one of her wounds {the one labelled "no.1"} would have killed her within some 15 seconds.
That tells me scientifically, that those stab wounds on her back were administered while she was alive.
Ronnie Howard, in Nov '69, said that Susan told her that the reason they had the rope was because they were going to string the victims up and Tex tied the ropes around some necks so that they couldn't move while they stabbed them. I believe that's what happened to Sharon. I think wound no.1 was the last blow administered and it killed her more or less right away. Coroner Noguchi believed she was hung. I think she was, and stabbed while momentarily hanging or at least while vertically roped. Ronnie Howard told the cops in Nov '69 [again !] "a couple of girls held Sharon's legs. I think it was Charlie [Tex] held her arms, but I guess they took turns stabbing her" and this came from Atkins.

Torque said...

Tobias, concerning the flag, it was a gift from Abigail to the artist Witold-K. This was for his birthday in May of 1969.

tobiasragg said...

"None of Sharon's wounds were post mortem."

Yes, this is what confused me, too. I'll have to try and look up where I read him saying that when I have more time. If it was from one of the parole hearings, it may well be one of those weird Tex Watson points of embellishments.

"Tobias, concerning the flag, it was a gift from Abigail to the artist Witold-K. This was for his birthday in May of 1969."

Thank you, Torque. I remembered it being a gift but I could not remember from who to whom. The family shared the story of the disagreement over its placement, but I didn't have time to go digging for more details. That detail just added to the very bizarre nature of that entire crime scene.

David said...

Tobias said: ""None of Sharon's wounds were post mortem."

They were not.

Q (Bugliosi): Did it appear, doctor, that any of the stab wounds on Sharon Polanski’s body were inflicted after death?
A (Noguchi): I did not see any wound I would call as a post-mortem wound as inflicted after death.


What Sharon's wounds do tell us (back, back of the thigh, defensive wounds) is that the official narrative regarding what happened inside that house is at best highly inaccurate and at worst pure fiction.

shoegazer said...

David:

What Sharon's wounds do tell us (back, back of the thigh, defensive wounds) is that the official narrative regarding what happened inside that house is at best highly inaccurate and at worst pure fiction.

The largest area of in accuracy so far as what happened with each of the victims seems to me to be Tate. With the exception of the towel on Sebring, most of the other stuff fits the narrative reasonably well for Sebring, Folger, Frykowski, and Parent.

My opinion---this can change.

There's no real direct mention of Tate being stabbed except in the chest, and at least twice Watson says he cut Tate's face, and i think Graham may have related that Atkins mentioned this to her, as well. But Noguchi says otherwise.

We'll get around to it in a separate article.

tobiasragg said...

"What Sharon's wounds do tell us (back, back of the thigh, defensive wounds) is that the official narrative regarding what happened inside that house is at best highly inaccurate and at worst pure fiction."

Well yes lol, I quoting from grim's post on that point and then agreeing with him - Tate had no post-mortem wounds.

As for the official narrative, I think it more incomplete than inaccurate. The official narrative mainly relies on Atkins & Kasabian, along with details of the crime scene and bits of confessions made along the way. But no one has included all information in their accounts of these crimes, probably because everything happened so fast - and in the dark - and memory for detail can fade quickly.

By and large, I think the official narrative is pretty accurate, but as I said there are omissions. Once she got the "I killed Sharon Tate" thing out of her system, Atkins describes her holding Tate while Watson delivered the damage, and Watson's accounts have tended to agree with this. But it seems obvious that Sharon Tate did struggle as best she could and that there was more rolling/moving around than the perps recall. And/or Tate could have been partially injured while standing and roped alongside Folger. Tate's condition might have prevented a vigorous physical defense, but it is quite easy to imagine her drawing up her legs and perhaps freeing an arm in an attempt to ward off the blows coming from Watson. It is equally easy to imagine her turning away from the damage being done to her front side (just as Mrs. LaBianca was to do the next night) and thus receiving stab wounds on her back.

So yes, I don't think the overall story is fictional at all, but there are things that have been left unmentioned and likely forgotten.

David said...

Grim said: "There is one very good reason to doubt the "insurance" stabs on Sharon Tate.
None of Sharon's wounds were post mortem."

This does not necessarily follow. Wounds 4-13(5) are horizontal to a standing person. Wounds 1-3 are at a 40-45 degree angle. Several of 4-13(5) like wounds to Folger and Frykowski were potentially fatal meaning she would have lingered for 10 to 15 minutes.

Why couldn't 1-3 be the insurance wounds?

shoegazer said...

I, too, think that the narrative is incomplete in describing the entirety, that it is not related consistently in terms of completeness, but in bits and pieces sometimes out of sequence, and that it's a combined tale told from multiple points of view, like Roshomon.

I also think that we (me) might read the narrative as sequential events because it is necessarily related in a sequential order, but that some of the events happened concurrently in different parts of the house, and we (me) tend to forget this.

But in spite of all this, I think it tries to tell the full tale as remembered, tinged somewhat by shame and remorse and desperation.

tobiasragg said...

Related to the notion of insurance wounds, one thing that has always struck me as rather (grimly) humorous about these Manson people is their consistent difficulty when it came time to actually finishing off their victims:

-The killers were on their way out of the house when they heard death rattles coming from Gary Hinman. Had to break back into the home through a window to ensure that death arrived.

-Frykowski was discovered moving after Watson had left him for dead, forcing him to go back and deliver add'l stab wounds to the man. This is what likely motivated his "insurance stab tour" if that's what in fact happened.

-Watson was busy in the LaBianca bedroom, when Krenwinkel cried out "he's still alive!", again causing Watson to have to leave his second victim to reattend to the first.

-According to at least a couple of Manson murderers, Shorty Shea just refused to die - they stabbed and stabbed him and the man would not give up the ghost.

Whichever author it was that suggested that Manson had sent "highly trained killing squads" out to do his bidding was WAY off the mark, methinks.

David said...

Tobias said: "Atkins describes her holding Tate while Watson delivered the damage..."

Question: how did she do that?

shoegazer said...

Another wrinkle or two: was Watson left-handed? Were any of the assailants left-handed?

Whether right or left handed, was Watson holding the gun as he stabbed? If so, did this affect which hand he used for the knife?

Last (for now)...

I can recall Watson on the stand being asked (by Bugliosi?) how he held the knife when he attacked. I would take this to mean did he hold it with the blade extending downward from the heel of his hand, enabling a sort of "hammer" type of stab, or was he holding it for a thrust, like the way a sword would be held? I could not tell from Watson's response how he held it--he seemed to demonstrate it rather than to describe it.

It would be great to know this, but haven't yet found any definitive information on any of these subtopics.

tobiasragg said...

"Tobias said: "Atkins describes her holding Tate while Watson delivered the damage..."
Question: how did she do that?"

How did she do what? Restrain Tate? I have no idea, though it was probably different ways at different times. I believe she described having her arm around Tate's neck/throat at one point, though this may have changed to Atkins (trying to) restrain the arms at some point. Whatever details she shared are out there in the grand jury transcripts and probably in other Atkins-related transcripts, too.

tobiasragg said...

Parent's defensive wound was a slash across the palm/wrist if I am recalling correctly, which would indicate that Watkins held the knife pointing up in his grip rather than down. I've always assumed that, since the watch flew into the backseat area, that the knife was held in the right hand and that the slashing happened more-or-less horizontally from the front of the window toward its rear, but I suppose the opposite could be true, too.

Manson had cautioned Watson to rely mainly on his knife to kill rather than the gun, which could arouse attention, and I think Watson approached the car with this in mind. If he were right handed, he'd have held the knife in that hand as this was his intended weapon for the attack. The gun could have been shoved into his pants or it could have been held in the left hand. Watson said later that he was holding both, but he seems to be quoting from the evidence & courtroom suggestion when he retells this story, so I think either could be true. All of this is just the picture I have formed of the moment from all of the reading, but others may well have different interpretations.

David said...

Tobias said: "If he were right handed, he'd have held the knife in that hand as this was his intended weapon for the attack."

Where did Watson get a knife? According to Kasabian there were three in the car and each of the women had one when they got out of the car. Kasabian says she threw two out the window when they left and identified the one found at Cielo which was also ID'd by DeCarlo.

No one says they handed their knife to Watson.

Doug said...

All this stabbing to Sharon's back just makes me feel like Atkins original "boastful/make yourself look big" statements about how SHE actually DID stab Sharon and, once she "found Christ" and miraculously declared that she did not stab anyone.

Then she conned/manipulated the rather dim country hick Watson (the de facto Redemption King and,super player of the redeeming power and forgiveness of Christ as his Saviour) with her historically shifty gentle doe eyed grift and got him to believe her and, take on all the skaying because he needed/needs to feel important and to be given some kind of mega-salvation because he is an idiot.

Thoughts?

shoegazer said...

David:

Where did Watson get a knife? According to Kasabian there were three in the car and each of the women had one when they got out of the car. Kasabian says she threw two out the window when they left and identified the one found at Cielo which was also ID'd by DeCarlo.

No one says they handed their knife to Watson.


All this may be true, but does this imply that Watson did not use a knife that evening, and that the bulk of Atkins', Kasabian's, and Watson's narratives, including sworn testimony, are fabricated?

If "no", let's work from the assumption that he got a knife somewhere, somehow, and we simply don't know where/how.

David said...

Shoe said: "If "no", let's work from the assumption that he got a knife somewhere...."

Why assume that? The testimony does not need to be fabricated. It simply needs to be inaccurate or as you have said incomplete.

Why do we assume Watson stepped out from behind that wall/bushes about ten feet inside the gate where the gate button was and said "halt!" and Parent obeyed someone armed with a knife? Maybe. Armed with a gun, more likely. No gun. I throw the car in reverse and back it into Folger's Firebird and run for the door. I hope at least.

You can't actually see what went on at Parent's car from where they were hiding (look at the pictures) and two never said they did. They heard gunshots.

But, yes, Kasabian says she saw Watson stick the gun in the window of the car and fire.

Why do we assume he was alone when he confronted Parent when we struggle with the evidence on that issue: was he right handed or left? How did he swing the knife? Where was the gun when he did?

Maybe someone else swung the knife and when they were unsuccessful, then he fired.

Or maybe he had a female with him just to throw off Parent.

Torque said...

Agreed that we are not presented with a complete and accurate account of the events in the Cielo living room. Following on from the comments, this would apply especially to Sharon. A couple of things I have always noticed about Sharon's autopsy report: there was indicated in the autopsy drawing that Sharon had a "small indentation pressure mark," on the location of the end of her tail bone. When I first read this, I associated it to possibly mean she fell or was dropped upon something sharp(like the small brass items that were strewn about her on the floor).

Also, if I have not brought it up previously, the autopsy photos show what appear to be slashes across both her upper arms--one on each arm. They do not appear(to me)to be deep stab wounds.

David said...

Torque said: "Also, if I have not brought it up previously, the autopsy photos show what appear to be slashes across both her upper arms--one on each arm. They do not appear(to me)to be deep stab wounds."

She had defensive wounds on her left forearm.

tobiasragg said...

"You can't actually see what went on at Parent's car from where they were hiding"

The absence of a detail does not mean that the detail was absent.

And assumptions can be misleading.

Your comment assumes that the girls were in one spot, when actually there are many spots where they could have been hiding. A robust exploration and discussion was had on this very point on one of the blog sites. Could even have been this one. There were overhead marked photos and theories galore based on what little specific detail had been shared by the participants.

They could have been behind the wall, they could have been beyond it.

In the end, it matters little and there isn't enough real doubt there to motivate that much questioning, as they all told more or less the same story.

shoegazer said...

Parent's defensive wound was a slash across the palm/wrist if I am recalling correctly, which would indicate that Watkins held the knife pointing up in his grip rather than down. I've always assumed that, since the watch flew into the backseat area, that the knife was held in the right hand and that the slashing happened more-or-less horizontally from the front of the window toward its rear, but I suppose the opposite could be true, too.

This is very interesting when examined in detail.

Let's look at the autopsy drawing (p 7) and the wound description (p. 4):

Parent report

It seems to me that for Parent to get the described cut on his left palmar surface, while seated and being approached/attacked from his left, he'd either have to a) grab the knife in his left hand; or b) raise his left hand to shield his head/face.

Since the narrative supports "b", I'd go for that and also add that if he grabbed the knife blade, the cut would perhaps be more jagged and irregular. And it would most likely not be near his ring finger, as it is in the drawing.

So let's assume for now he shielded his head/face.

If Watson was somewhat to the front of Parent and had the knife in his right hand in a sword-type thrust grip, he could have lunged upward, and away, catching the tip of the knife on the watchband, which could conceivably flung the watch into the back seat. But for this kind of thrust, to have cut both the band and Parent's palm (deeply, to the bone) the knife would have to have a sharped edge on both sides, or at least at the tip. Otherwise he'd cut the palm. but get hung up on the watch.

So, was the watchband severed? If "no", this is a plausible scenario so far. It the watch band *was* severed, this is much less likely.

Too, with this attack, there's a significant chance as the knife sweeps upward to have nicked Parent's wrist, because in order to have gotten the blade under the band, the point would need to get in somewhere in the area of the wrist.


Let's change it just a bit. Watson is more-or-less even with Parent, at the open window, with the knife in his right hand in the "hammer thrust grip", blade extending downward from the heel of his hand. Gun in left hand (although as a shooter, I'd have the gun in my "good" hand, knife in the off hand).

Then Watson might sweep downward, contacting Parent's palm first, slicing it fairly cleanly, and just catch the watchband at the end of the sweep, severing it.

The main problem is how did the watch end up in the back seat? Not impossible, but that part is not likely, either.

So does anyone know if the watchband was a leather buckle type, a flex metal band, and if it was cut or intact in the back seat?

Next, we should assume the knife in Watson's left hand, work thru the whole set of permutations again.

Speculator said...

Hi A couple of comments - firstly the discussion about how ST was killed and the lack of a full and/or accurate account of this by any of the perps. One reason given above is that events were chaotic and moved so fast that detail may have been forgotten.however, it’s worth noting that the chaos and frenzied part of the killings was over by the time they got round to poor Sharon. We can assume that an element of calm (clearly not the right word but the best to describe it) has been restored. So, if anything, this is the part of the crimes that they should all remember in the most detail surely. No one was running around and chasing or struggling by that time and by their own accounts there was a short period of inaction before they killed her. So why have they given the least detail surrounding how she died? Possibly shame/embarrassment as she was a pregnant woman? Trying to minimise their own involvement for the same reason? Add to that the fact that she was the most high profile of the victims? Were they each doing damage limitation for themselves? We can only imagine the terror that they inflicted upon her in those final minutes.
The other anomaly I would add is one that I’ve raised before. If the rope was supposedly looped around Folger’s neck initially, along with Sebring and Tate, where is that part of the rope in the crime scene photos? It appears to be that there is only a double loop between ST and JS with the other end thrown up and over and back down from the rafter. So was the rope retied
And rearranged after the killings?

shoegazer said...

David:

The *why* is because for now I want to stick with the assumption that the narrative is for the most part truthful. In thus case, that Watson attacked every person at Cielo with a knife.

We need to completely exhaust the permutations with only one variable swapped out, if we want to say that the narrative was a near-complete fabrication AND Watson did not attack everyone with a knife, we introduce too many variations to deal with them with any sense of order or completeness.

Let's beat the "Watson had a knife, all of the narrative is essentially accurate, to death, then go back and swap out Watson had a knife, everything except that is accurate and see what we can come up with.

David said...

Tobias,

I am not going to argue with you. I have been through this all before. I don't operate off assumptions I use the process of think-know prove and if I can't prove it and I freely admit I can't then really I have nothing. And 'no' I can't prove the girls couldn't see the car during the attack.

That said, thirty-five years in a courtroom once or twice a week sometimes for a week at a time, multiple educational programs on witness memory and research for this blog has definitely led me to one conclusion: the least reliable evidence in any case is eye witness testimony.

I'll now go back to my IPA and the ocean and leave all this to you guys.

tobiasragg said...

I believe the police reports indicate that the watch band was severed and there are evidence photos of the timepiece out there, most likely on Cielo.

For the watch to have been flung to the back, over Parent's head or around it, the force and momentum of the knife slash must align with that direction of travel. Were Watson to have slashed with the left hand, toward the front of the car, one imagines the watch would have been thrown toward the windshield. The opposite COULD be true, though, as Parent's expected jerk of the hand/arm away from the pain might have provided the momentum needed to send the boy's watch to the backseat.

This is why I don't want to care about this shit, lol. It's interesting but ulitmately unknowable.

shoegazer said...

the least reliable evidence in any case is eye witness testimony.

Which is exactly why we should discount the fact that there is no testimony that he was given a knife, and evidence that at least one of the four intruders knifed five people.

Discarding testimony, we have no way of knowing which of he five actually stabbed the victims, which means that it's as likely as not that he did.

Now, if we add back the testimony all we have is three ad possibly four of the attacker, plus Watson himself, saying that he was involved in all five knife attacks, balanced against the fact that no one stated that they gave him a knife, but so far as I know, no one said that he had no knife, either. Maybe they did, but I've not seen it yet.

The choice is up to each person who is evaluating this...you know mine.

tobiasragg said...

"have been through this all before. I don't operate off assumptions I use the process of think-know prove"

I'm not fascinated with arguing either, as I too have been round the block on this one. What I was quibbling with is the statement that the girls were located behind the wall, while Tex walked around it. This could have been the case, but there are two other spots where they are equally likely to have been crouching/laying. The detailed debate I mentioned earlier explored all of this in some depth, along the lines of what shoe is attempting to accomplish here, and the cases for each of the three spots were equally compelling.

shoegazer said...

Well, we're never going to get it in an absolute sense, but I feel we can get it *closer* than it is now...

But who knows?

shoegazer said...

The watch...this is interesting.

I pulled down a copy some time back and just now took it up to 600% and a bunch of different magnifications. It *looks like it's lying, face to the back of the seat (we're seeing the back of the watch, which to my recollection is a Lucerne (I'll have to check). The band appears perhaps woven metallic, but has a fastener.

It appears to be severed, and here's a major speculation on top of these minor speculations: it appears that a piece of the fastener may be about 6 inches to the left of the watch.

We're not likely to know much more.

shoegazer said...

David, did you know any of the Washington County prosecutors?

A friend recently retired. Our daughters went to OES together.

tobiasragg said...

"We're not likely to know much more"

Yes, and I suppose that is the source of my churlishness, when it happens. I have observed four different types of people when it comes to this thing, though each has their subgroups.

There are those eager to latch onto conspiracy theories.

There are those who believe that they have arrived at "the" answers, such as David above.

There are those like me, who believe this thing to largely be the stuff of history books and that what is knowable is already known.

And there are those still new and/or curious enough to go exploring for answers, such as yourself.

What seems clear, given the drop off in participation here, is that a majority seem to fall into one of the first three buckets. But what seems equally clear is that the thing remains fascinating and freaky enough that people do still drop in on drive-by visits, and apparently there remains a goodly number of lurker-readers, too.

Good luck on your quest. It's a fun ride, if nothing else.

Torque said...

David, yes Sharon most certainly had those defensive wounds to her arm. I'm referring to wounds on both of her upper arms, possibly in the biceps. This looks like one wound to each upper arm. I don't have the autopsy info with me as I'm mobile at the moment--my apologies. If memory serves, these wounds did not appear in the diagram, but were called out in the report narrative. I will revisit the autopsy report when I can. If anyone else has it readily available, perhaps you can comment on it.

shoegazer said...

Understood.

Thanks, Tobias.

shoegazer said...

Torque:

Yes, they do not appear to be labeled on the drawing, or at least not unambiguously so, they are called out on the "wound inventory" as one stab wound right upper arm, one left upper arm, and a notation says that stab wounds 5-16 are "described in a subsequent report".

I've never seen that second report, have you?

Tate report

David said...

Shoe asked: "David, did you know any of the Washington County prosecutors?"

My criminal defense experience is limited to some DUII's and motions to suppress, pleas for a general practice firm in the late 80's. Then I did some PI work and insurance defense and civil litigation and then Domestic Relations Law (Divorce). I quit doing child support hearings by the end of the 90's that's when I would have left the DA realm, although there is one rather big exception to that.

I'd rather not name names here so e-mail me if you want on this.

David said...

Torque said: "David, yes Sharon most certainly had those defensive wounds to her arm. I'm referring to wounds on both of her upper arms, possibly in the biceps."

Sorry, yes, she had two stab wounds (versus incise wounds). One to each upper arm.

David said...

I'm guessing she was protecting her stomach.

David said...

And that is very sad.

shoegazer said...

David, still at the beach?

(thinking..."lucky guy...")

David said...

Shoe said; "David, still at the beach?"

No, actually, had to come back to P town. Well be on the third.

I have lost track but someone is here. If you want to spend a weekend grilling some fish, drinking some IPAs and bull shitting on this let me know. We will set something up.

PS: If you want to drive down to Salem I'll show you the Atkins Road Trip locations. Not much to see.

shoegazer said...

David:

Some of this sounds eminently do-able, plus relaxing and fun.

We've been in PDX since 87, when we moved up from LA. Are you a native?

Torque said...

Shoe, I've not seen that subsequent report. Moreover, the available autopsy report on Sharon appears to be missing some pages, compared to othrrs available on the internet.

shoegazer said...

Torque:

I've getting the disquieting feeling that most/many of the reports are incomplete. This began to occur to me when I was looking for either the blood type on the report (you can find this for the females, I believe) or a notation to test for blood type, and found that not all of them have this info.

This is not sign of some form of conspiracy. What I'm beginning to believe is that at some point the families involved may have put pressure to pull the gruesome details for privacy/dignity's sake, and the files were repeatedly sorted thru and otherwise pawed over by authorities or family reps.

To, it's been many years of many different people rifling thru these files, so they're kinda disordered, I suspect.

I don't hold much hope that it'll improve. I just need to work with what's there.

I mean, this isn't much different, methology-wise, to working thru the 737-800 MAX problem. Info is much more stale, and there's a lot more conspiracy theorists and distractions over motivation and personality of those involved, but... :^)

Nah...the 737 was a lot more straightforward and simpler. The constituent info was clearer, too.

Torque said...

Shoe, yes. I don't know the genesis of the reports online. I have traditionally thought that someone made a request for these, and they have thus subsequently filtered onto the internet thru time, albeit rather incomplete. Surely there were more autopsy photos taken, too. I have no doubt these items exist, and may be in the possession of the LADA.

Speaking of, there is at least one item in the posession of the LADA that I would be interested in filing a FOIA request for. I'd be intetested in learning how to go about that. Any attorneys care to discuss?

shoegazer said...

Torque:

Speaking of, there is at least one item in the posession of the LADA that I would be interested in filing a FOIA request for. I'd be intetested in learning how to go about that. Any attorneys care to discuss?

I have a deeply seated fear and dread of bureaucracies, so I'm not going there--my interest in the case is not to the threshold that I'd have to cross so as to interact with a bureaucracy. Normally, if money is involved, or back in draft days, my freedom, that would do it, but this is at best a side gig, so to speak.

If you proceed, I wish you speedy success and a minimum of friction!! Your work in personally interacting with people/agencies who may actually have some useful information is, to me, admirable.

:^)

shoegazer said...

MAJOR DEPARTURE...

I've read thru the versions of the Howard and Graham testimonies and this has affected my default view of the character of Atkins.

Prior to this I hadn't thought too much about her personality. What I could see of it was a person who seemed to seek a certain kind of public validation, and I kinda thought of her as something like the image of Bonnie Parker. This is to say, less manipulative than impulsive and reactive. Living in an overly romanticized ideal of what glamour is, and the very high value she seemed to place on it.

I now am beginning to see Atkins as similar in these regards, as I had first guessed, but more importantly, I see not much evidence of planned and purposeful manipulation. I think that she knew how she could use sex, but this seemed much less for strategic positioning in life than it does in simply "mining" for greater admiration and recognition.

She appears to have been very influenced by drug use, 60s sensibilities and belief systems, and Manson's personal enunciation of these belief systems.

I'd say that to a certain degree, she wore her heart on her sleeve.

None of this means that I have any more sympathy for (or empathy with) her, but merely that for all those who seemed to see her as a conniving opportunist and manipulator, I'm not getting that impression, at all. I don't particularly see Kasabian as such a manipulator, but I'd sooner hang that label on her than on Atkins, at this point.

E.g, I see Graham as a fairly sophisticated conniving opportunist, but Howard much less so. In some sense, Howard and Atkins really are somewhat alike in personality, although Atkins appears to have more native intellect. But I don't see where she valued intellect nearly as much as immediacy and emotional response, and so she never developed it much.

She is an enthusiastic and vociferous follower, but not a leader. She'd assume the title of "leader" if this gave her more recognition, but she'd do it for the recognition, and not for the power that accrues to true leadership. So she'd never be a true leader, but more like someone who acted like the way they thought a leader should act. Play-acting at being a leader.

Still, I have a lot to learn about her, so...

David said...

Torque asked "Speaking of, there is at least one item in the posession of the LADA that I would be interested in filing a FOIA request for. I'd be intetested in learning how to go about that. Any attorneys care to discuss?"

You don't need to speak with a lawyer.

You need a request like this: https://www.nfoic.org/california-sample-foia-request/

I added this to mine:

"I would be happy to accept the documents in an electronic format and I can also accept the records or recordings on a CD or portable thumb drive. I also can provide a cloud link for a file upload."


Then you can e-mail or mail it here:


https://lacounty.gov/government/public-information-records/public-records-policy/

Click the first PDF and scroll to the top of the second page there is the contact info for the DA. Or if you prefer here is the address:

Public Information Office
Los Angeles District Attorney’s office
211 West Temple Street
Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90012


In the request be as specific as possible as to what you are after: dates, who created it, If another document mentions it attach it the document. If you have part of a document and want the rest, attach it.

Remember there are many exceptions under the CPRA and they will use them.

Good luck.

grimtraveller said...

David said:

This does not necessarily follow. Wounds 4-13(5) are horizontal to a standing person. Wounds 1-3 are at a 40-45 degree angle. Several of 4-13(5) like wounds to Folger and Frykowski were potentially fatal meaning she would have lingered for 10 to 15 minutes.
Why couldn't 1-3 be the insurance wounds?


When Tobias spoke of "insurance stabs," I took him to mean that these are stab wounds Watson inflicted when the victims were already immobile and on whatever ground they were on, kind of to make sure they were so badly done in that they weren't going to get up. It may have been motivated by seeing Frykowski and Folger both moving after they'd ben brutalized in a way that caused the perps to think they were already dead. It's noticeable that the next night, this happened at Waverly. It later happened with Shorty.
Although Susan stated that when she came back into the room, Sharon seemed a lot more cut up than before, we know that wound no.1 would have killed Sharon almost instantly. That she had a number of fatal wounds doesn't mean she would have hung on for 15 or so minutes, just that if they were the only wound {singular} that may have been the case. It may even have been the case if the other fatal wounds were there together. But that wound no.1 takes precedence over all the others because that would have finished her off almost straight away. So unless Watson administered the other stabs while on his insurance rampage and wound no.1 was the final stab wound that killed her almost instantly, there is reason to doubt the notion of insurance stabbing on Sharon. It would be a lot more likely if some had been post-mortem.
That's what I was really getting at ~ that those wounds on her back were not inflicted after she died, but while she was alive. Before wound no.1 finished her life.
Two interesting things emerge from Sharon's death, for me. One is that apart from Atkins to Howard/Graham in '69, we don't hear from the perps on the multitude of stabs meted out to Sharon. Tex uses a vague "over and over" but he's applying that to her face {where there is no stab wound}. The other thing is that Pat's supposedly verbal role in Sharon's death has never been examined with them, yet both Atkins in '69 and Watson in '78 made a point of stating that she was the one that pushed for her killing at the time it happened.

shoegazer said...

GT:

That's what I was really getting at ~ that those wounds on her back were not inflicted after she died, but while she was alive. Before wound no.1 finished her life.

This is my current default position, too.

So when did these wounds to the back happen? Right now I'm playing around with the idea that they may have happened in close connection to two anomalous pieces of evidence: the copious blood spatters just outside the front door, to the left as you face it, identified as O-MN (Tate), and the vaguely described lavender ribbons, with "O" blood. The description of where they were found specifically (on door handle or on the floor near the side that has the handle on it is not completely clear to me at this time. But what's important is that it's relatively close to the spatter evidence.

Taken together, this could indicate an attempt to flee out the front door, perhaps during, or just after, the melee with Frykowski. The back wounds could have been delivered just outside the door, and in the struggle, the ribbon could have come off of her hair. I'll note--and I'll bet everyone here knows this well--that the description of the color, lavender, matches the color of Tate's bra/panties, as can be seen in the crime scene photo I recently linked to, and can link again if called upon.

Too lazy right now; a beer will help... :^)

Now consider in what possible bodily position(s) Tate would have to have been to receive--fairly directly, there appears no mis-fires, shallow, misdirected stabs--the cluster of three chest wounds to the left heart area. It almost seems like these wounds were "hammer-type" strokes, driving downward, and the angle of blade alignment seems to favor being attacked while she was down on her back, by someone kneeling over her from above her left shoulder or upper arm.

Her arms were possibly restrained, since the wounds are direct, strong, undeflected, and certain.

There are a number of permutations of body positioning, for both Tate and her assailant, and we can work thru these in detail, but it seems fairly certain that her arms as a line of defense were not in play during that part of the attack. The defensive wounds therefore occurred before the final fatal cluster of three wounds.

Torque said...

David, many thanks for the information.

shoegazer said...

WRT to the frontal knife wounds of Tate...

If i recall correctly, at least one of the attackers noted that Tate was wearing a sort of bikini bra/panties and what was described as a "negligee" which I take to be a sort of filmy robe.

If true about the robe, this is not present in the crime scene photo in front of the sofa.

Does anyone have any information or recollection about this detail? Was it found elsewhere in the house?

Torque said...

Shoe, agreed that the wounds to Sharon basically involved no mis-fires. Compare this to Abigail and Voytek, who were certainly on the move, and it is a very different story indeed. The autopsy report on them calls out several wounds that were shallow, superficial, and not fatal. Abigail had some terrible wounds to her neck, and was even stabbed in the back of the head. I suspect all of this was from Patricia, and was inflicted as Abigail ran toward the door to the pool area.

Indeed, the hair ribbons have always been perplexing. Also, authorities felt that the blood identified as Sharon's on the front porch was left there by someone who had stood there several minutes. My gut reaction to this has always been that those blood drops came from the slice type wounds to each of her upper arms. Susan Atkins said Sharon was the last to die, "because she had to watch". Was Sharon watching Voytek and Abigail being attacked as she stood on the front porch?

shoegazer said...

Torque:

One of the interesting datapoints is that the shape and quality (if that's the word) of the stabbing object (knife) and be inferred from the wound descriptions on the autopsy report. The direct of the stab can also be inferred, but I'll leave that to the side for now.

The wounds are roughly an elongated triangle, with a sharp apex and a dull base. This fits the description of a one-sided knife.

The three clustered chest wounds have the dull base *downwards* toward her right hip, with the apex (sharp edge) toward her left shoulder. Two of the three (#1 and 2) are upward, left to right, #3 is right to left, upward. If accurate, this means two attacks from slightly different positions. I'd say that it was the same assailant, same knife, and that they shifted position (or Tate did) between wounds 2 and 3.

Complexity enters in the horizontal description: 1 and 2 are right to left; 3 is left to right. Again, this suggests a significant change in the direction of the attack.

I also at this time think that it would be comparatively hard to have made these stabs using a sword thrust grip: less muscular power is available than for a comparative hammer stab, I suspect. But it's still possible.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Shoe, I see your next post in the queue. Absolutely cannot wait to see the discussion on it. Definitely one of my top wtf's in all of this.

shoegazer said...

SIGNIFICANT SOURCE OF "NEW" EVIDENCE ON-LINE

This is new to me: many of you may already know this...

This evening after dinner I got to thinking about various exchanges I've had over the last couple of months, and one such exchange we talked about the marks on Tate's face: are they cuts or are they rope abrasions?

My interlocutor recalled a color photo of Tate's face, post-mortem, in color, that may have been in the morgue. My interlocutor said that he'd seen it, but could no longer find it, and I, myself, had seen one low-quality color photo, with way too much red tinting, and another B&W version of this.

Since then I searched and searched, but I could never find these. I used Google search, from a Chrome browser.

Tonight I got the bright idea to try the same thing using the Pale Moon browser and Duck-Duck Go. I used this search string:

"Tate autopsy photos"

I then specificed an images only search.

I got not only the picture we discussed, but it was very high quality in realistic color...and even to me it was very sad.

I also found morgue photos of Tate's back wounds, as she is arranged on her left side. Very high quality B&W. I had never before seen these.

Then I had something else to do.

I will send the links to the two photos--again, the facial photo is very, very sad. It's not that it's gory or obscene, it's that it's sad to see someone as beautiful as Tate reduced to abrupt death.

Face:

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.documentingreality.com%2Fforum%2Fuploadedimages%2F3%2F7%2F7%2F5%2F3%2F591694.thumb%3Fd%3D1418040840&f=1&nofb=1

Back:

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi3.wp.com%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F49%2Feb%2Fb9%2F49ebb91bd5d65c7a9e4b02c2e9a8935d.jpg&f=1&nofb=1


I now think that Google (and possibly Chrome, their browser) tends to filter search results according to some level of internal sensibilities. These have gotten between me and information I've wanted, so I'm going to use Pale Moon/DuckDuck Go a lot more.

One other idea...

If it's true that there is indeed quite a bit more out there on the web, but is not easily accessible from the Google search engine, one wonders--GULP!!!--what might be out there on the dark web, searching with the Tor browser and an appropriately arcane search engine.

Now is truly the time for oo-eee-oo!

shoegazer said...

Search engines for the dark web...

https://www.hackread.com/8-best-dark-web-search-engines-for-2020/

Me, I don't think there's a lot of potential--there's more to be had from Pale Moon/DuckDuckGo, I suspect.

There seemed to me to be a lot more TBL photos that I had not seen before, or very often.

David said...

Ok, I'm not sure I should go here but here you go.

The three significant wounds to Sharon's chest are at an upward angle with the sharp edge at the top towards her head and upward at a 45 degree angle. This suggests the top of her head was aligned towards her assailant, her feet away from him/her and the blow was then overhand.

The rest of the wounds are consistent and not at an angle. This suggests the three were delivered at a different moment either temporally or physically than the rest. Sharon was at least in a different position when the there were inflicted.


What is interesting on reflection is wound #1. Thank you Grim for making me look at this, again.

The stab wound measures one inch in length.

The upper portion shows sharp cutting (per the above).

The lower end of the wound is dull (like the above).

A probe inserted in the wound places the angle at 45 degrees upward and to the left if one is facing Sharon.

While the depth is not stated it reached her heart (three inches???).

The interesting issue here is the length of the wound- one inch at and upward angle of 45 degrees. The angle of the blow suggests that the blade was less than an inch in width.

There is only one knife that fits that description. That would be Atkins' weapon.

shoegazer said...

WRT the lavender ribbon...

Again, to me this has been sort of vague and mysterious, but many here probably have already seen this...

There's a vague mention of this being on the door knob, or possibly on the floor near the side of the door that has the doorknob (right side, looking from inside out). It's lavender, and had type O (no sub-type) blood on it.

So this is very mysterious. Looking at a photo of Tate in front of the sofa, magnifying the image, if necessary, you can see that she is wearing a bra/panties that are a pale lavender. From this one may surmise that she may have had a matching ribbon in her hair, or that the ribbon may have been a part of her attire.

But today, just idly looking at at the cielodrive.com photo collection I noticed this picture, which I'd looked at many times before.

Cielo front door from DR

I wanted to get a look at the interior door handle/knob to see how it *might* have had a ribbon hanging from it. I reached no definitive conclusion, but did note that hanging in the entry hall there's a lavender robe of some type. To my eye, the color seems very close to Tate's attire.

I'm going to start with the working assumption that the photo (apparently numbered as an evidence photo) was taken on 09 Aug, and you can see what looks to be fingerprint dust along the edge of the door.

You can also see one inexplicable men's slip-on shoe in the entry hall. One wonders if Frykowski still had both shoes on, there on the front lawn, or this is simply someone else's shoe.

Now note that the door, if swung all the way open, it's conceivable that the inside knob may well have contacted this robe, and if there was a ribbon on it, it could have dislodged it and either it stayed hooked on the knob, or it was pulled to the floor near the side of the door with the knob.

Further, if the doorknob was gripped by someone with O-type blood and they were sufficiently bloody to leave some on the knob, this could transfer a small, but detectable, amount to the ribbon.

Just more food for thought...

grimtraveller said...

shoegazer said:

My interlocutor recalled a color photo of Tate's face, post-mortem, in color, that may have been in the morgue. My interlocutor said that he'd seen it, but could no longer find it, and I, myself, had seen one low-quality color photo, with way too much red tinting

There is often too much red tinting.
Anyway, on some site called "jeuxvideo.com" I found a similar photo to the one I'd seen back in 2018 or 19. Taking a screenshot and then blowing it up on my computer, one gets a very clear view and sure enough, like the autopsy records, there are no knife wounds to the face. There are marks and congealed blood due to lividity. Interestingly, Susan Atkins told Ronnie Howard that Sharon's face was cut. There again, she also told her that she stabbed Gary Hinman.

I also found morgue photos of Tate's back wounds, as she is arranged on her left side. Very high quality B&W. I had never before seen these

I'd seen them once before, but didn't remember them.

David said:

There is only one knife that fits that description. That would be Atkins' weapon

That doesn't surprise me.

Torque said...

Shoe, speaking of the shoe in the provided photo: I've seen this before, and to me it looks like a loafer, and I always thought it to be a woman's shoe. To me the shoe was probably one of two, but the second one was out of sight.

Voytek was wearing low brown boots on August 8th, and still had these on when he was found dead on the lawn. Jay was wearing black boots, and of course these were still on him. Roman was out of the country, so it's doubtful he had a pair if his shoes laying about.

That said, I suspect this shoe(s) belonged to either Sharon or Abigail, and either one of them could have slipped them off when they walked in the house that evening.

Interestingly, if one looks at the series of photos taken of Roman when he visited Cielo after the murders, a pair of shoes is clearly visible on the floor of Abigail and Voytek's bedroom behind him. Are these the same shoes as the one(s) at the front entrance? To me they look like low heels or pumps.

The shoe in the photo inside the front door was probably moved by police as they processed the crime scene. We need to be careful when looking at the crime scene photos--some of them are taken before investigation, and some are taken during the investigation.

shoegazer said...

Torque:

...some of them are taken before investigation, and some are taken during the investigation.

Judging by the print dust on the door, a significant amount of work had been done already.

Using DuckDuckGo, I found a suite of four case-labeled photos(69-059-593) and some of them are taken before investigation, and some are taken during the investigation. two of which I'd never seen before. These two are of the front door, but taken from two angles that shows where the interior doorknob would be in relation to the lavender robe hanging in the entry. It lines up pretty well.

Torque said...

Shoe and all, as I contemplate the front entry area of Cielo where the aforementioned shoe(s) was photographed, I want to call attention to another item in that area. I have seen a color photo of the entry area, but from a reverse angle(from the living room looking towards the dining room), and hanging on a hook on the wall is what appears to be a purple coat. This coat appears to be fancy dress, resembling something the guys from Paul Revere and the Raiders wore in so many photo shoots at Cielo. I'm not sure, but I believe I saw this at the Pinterest page for 10050 Cielo Drive, or perhaps at cielodrive instagram.

I don't think this coat(or the shoes)are any kind of anomaly. They are likely articles of clothing innocently left where the wearer left them. In the case of the coat, though, it looks to be rather heavy, and strangely out of place in a hot LA summer.

Torque said...

Shoe, I just now saw your comment on the suite of four photos in the entry area. This may be what I'm referring to concerning the purple coat, but I'd have to see what you are seeing to make sure. I may be wrong about the description of the garment, as I'm commenting on this from memory. My apologies.

shoegazer said...

Torque:

Not a problem.

I added the suite of four to the Anomaly List article at:

4 photos

Scroll down until you see them.

The two bottom pix are the ones. Not good, but blowing them up gives us something.

Looks like no ribbons would be on it, however.

Doug said...

That coat DOES resemble the type of garments worn by PR&tR!

Torque said...

Shoe, yes. Thanks. That would be the coat in question next to the purple robe or cape. The photo I saw of this was more detailed, and clearly provided a view into the dining room, along with its wall furnishings, one of which appeared to be an antique clock. I will try to find that photo.

tobiasragg said...

I belong to a small social media group where someone has very meticulously reproduced 1000's of items associated with these cases, front and back. Out of curiosity, I poked around a little and I think I've found the photo Torque is speaking of, just above. I posted this and a couple of other items associated with points of discussion on this thread - there is way too much to go thru there and things are not particularly well organized, but I did run into a pic of the Parent watch and various police documents associated with their interview(s) with Ronnie Howard. If I discover more items of note, given these conversations, I will share again.

https://flic.kr/ps/3YLDyQ

Torque said...

Tobias, thank you. Yes, that is the exact photo I'm referring to. Excellent work finding this. So here I must correct myself and say the coat appears to be blue and not purple. Also maybe a leash is hanging on the hook next to it. Probably for walking the dogs Tom or Prudence?

Although I cannot cite the source presently, I have read there was a theme-related party at Cielo, where people dressed up in costume. Perhaps the garnents in this photo pertain to that.



grimtraveller said...

tobiasragg said:

I belong to a small social media group where someone has very meticulously reproduced 1000's of items associated with these cases, front and back....https://flic.kr/ps/3YLDyQ

That's some pretty fascinating stuff there.

David said:

What is interesting on reflection is wound #1.....There is only one knife that fits that description. That would be Atkins' weapon

That's actually consistent with what Susan said to Ronnie Howard, about how she kept stabbing until she stopped screaming. Sudden silence, had she been screaming, would accompany wound no.1.
Watson describes the same kind of sudden silence in his book ~ but this came 9 years after what Atkins told Howard. I'd not be surprised if they were both going at Sharon at the same time, unless the evidence is that there was only one knife used on her.

I'm not sure I should go here but here you go

This intrigued me David. Can I ask why ?

Dan S said...

Lol.... Waaaay off

shoegazer said...

Torque:

Yes, thanks if you are able!!!

OT:

I keep looking at the features of 10050 and lots of stuff is just plain screwy. Like the BBQ grill in the LR. A completely worthless loft (hyperbole--could use it for storage in some fashion). The ladder would always be an impediment.

I've never seen past the kitchen, and no clear complete view of the DR, but having been a parent, their decision to set up that far BR as a nursery showed how they viewed parenting. They'd certainly end up with a nanny or nurse.

They saw it as similar to having another Yorkie, I suspect. This is not as uncommon as one might think.

shoegazer said...

Thanks, Tobias! Much appreciated!

Dan S said...

Don't recall tex saying he did the insurance Stab round. If Sharon's heart was still beating the wounds wouldn't be post mortem even if she seemed dead

shoegazer said...

This was really some very high quality stuff, Tobias. Thanks, again.

E.g., the watch. The photo resolution is good enough to see that the band was a metal expansion type, and therefore was just as likely to be broken rather than cut. What that means is that the broken watch and the defensive cut may not have been from the same action--instead of one sweep, it might have been a bit more than that--but not sure.

Very, very interesting and significant aspects of Atkins' personality are revealed in the interview. Most here probably already know this.

It's plain to see that she solicited the exchange between herself and Howard, and it was to get her (Atkins) a chance to show how sophisticated and worldly she was. She did not want recognition, like Watson did, she wanted distinction.

Now see how she describes the car as stolen. She must know that's not true, but it makes a far better tale to say it was hot, and then throw in other details implying expertise and experience that comes from stealing many cars, albeit older ones.

You can postulate that what she's doing is that she's aware that the Family has stolen cars in the past, and that there are old cars at Spahn. She must know, one would think, that some, and probably most, of these old cars are legitimate, but she conflates the old legitimate cars to old stolen cars, so as to emphasize her "badness".

So what she does as a pattern, when talking to Howard, is to try to emphasize, exaggerate, or even fabricate parts of the tale that make her look experienced, sophisticated, and worldly. She is sticking fairly close to the actual facts, to use them as a sort of narrative backbone, but she gussies up the story, on-the-fly.

Now, when she's before other audiences, she basically is likely to play to that perceived audience, following the same pattern: emphasize, exaggerate, or fabricate the actual aspects of the story--it's ornamental embroidery rather that wholesale weaving, figuratively--to whatever may impress this new audience. And if she's aware that his new audience has access to factual evidence that might blow holes in her embroidery, I suspect that she's very careful in this situations.

But I do think that her narratives are anchored around the facts as she knew them. They are at worst "grounded" flights of adolescent fantasy.

As always, my opinion, only.

David said...

Shoe said: "[Atkins] implying expertise and experience that comes from stealing many cars, albeit older ones."

She did. Burglary and stealing cars was what the Oregon road trip in 1966 was all about.

shoegazer said...

As to the "Revere coat", it kinda dawns on me that ever since St Pepper came out, those with enough money (or time to find something like that cheap at Western Costume) might on occasion want to be seen in it, instantly labeling them as hip and with it.

The same sort of folks who liked to dick around with the American flag as a sort of personal statement.

shoegazer said...

She did. Burglary and stealing cars was what the Oregon road trip in 1966 was all about.

Right, but she brought that (car theft) in gratuitously in the conversation. She must have known damned well that it was Schwartz's car, but it wasn't flashy to tell Howard that they borrowed a car to kill 5 people.

Doesn't really have the same snap to it, does it? ;^)

The only worse thing would have been to tell Howard that they rented it, and had to return it by 9 AM the next morning to avoid paying for a whole other day.

...or that they had used travel points to get a reduced rental rate...

shoegazer said...

WRT search engines...

This has to do with that stuff I shared about DuckDuckGo & maybe using the Tor browser.

This has only to do with search engines. I found out about a search engine/browser phenomenon called a "filter bubble". What this means is that many search engines, and especially Google, tend to record what you are selecting after a search and then feed more of what it determines to be the same or related to what you are selecting.

They think they are doing you a favor, and in many cases they are, but what it also means is that it artificially narrows what it shows you on the first few pages.

At this point I'm not sure if DDG does, or how you might override it if it does. The Tor browser, itself, which used DDG as its default search engine, assiduously avoids creation of filter bubbles--which implies that DDG does not create them.

I'm thinking about installing Tor on my Linux box in the office, see what it does. If it seems useful, I'll share this info, with caveats.

I really doubt there's anything on the dark web re TLB. It's pretty small and used by people who are fairly computer savvy in the sense that that they know about transport protocols, packetizing, etc.

shoegazer said...

OPEN QUESTION RE GRAHAM AND HOWARD

I'd like the opinion of the forum members: how do we feel about the claim by both Howard and Graham that they both had looked at 10050 Cielo as a possible rental?

I'll tip my hand here a bit.

I've done small scale real estate investment since ~1983; all were residential rentals, single family homes and small apartment buildings. In looking for prime properties I became aware that unique and desirable properties often never hit the open market. They are not publicly listed, either for sale or for rental. Cielo strikes me as such a property, and I can easily imagine that as a rental, it would be word of mouth within one's social circle, and this would include business associates, clients, and private clubs to which one might belong.

Properties like this become a sort of lever to gain added personal influence for the owner/landlord.

Given this, I'm not real sure how either Howard or Graham would have ever had a showing of he property as potential tenants in the early/mid 60s.

Not impossible, but not very likely either, and the fact that *both* of them claim to have considered it, well...

Your thoughts?

tobiasragg said...

For those interested, I uploaded more pics and files from the social media group I belong to. Funnily enough, as I type this a doc on Death Valley has just begun on one of my local PBS stations, giving this afternoon a bit of a theme I guess.

These uploads are less vital than other items, but I found them interesting and thought you might too. Most of these come from boxes 7 & 8 of the 60+ LADA Manson-related boxes. 7/8 contain mostly Cielo-related material, but lots of other things are thrown into the mix - mug shots, LaBianca stuff, etc. Whoever recorded all of this seems to have had access to these boxes and they were careful to document both the front and the back sides of everything. This can be particularly instructive, as many of these items were entered into evidence during the various trials and, if this mess were better organized, one could cross-reference these visuals with the numbered exhibits mentioned in the various trail transcripts. Anyway, highlights include:

-Misc views of the Cielo property, mostly taken on 9 August. A few of these rooms I cannot identify and I have marked them as "unknown", thinking that someone here may recognize these. They do seem to be from the Cielo house (dining room?) and they were in with the rest of the Cielo stuff, so I am assuming they are interior pics from that location. Could be wrong on this, though.

-Random pic of the Cielo front yard from the late 70's - early 80's. Not directly related, but it is weird to see a lovely picnic setting near the spot where a dying Voytek once laid.

-Evidence photos of the mysterious glasses; polaroid pix of the toppled trunks.

-One of several hundred media pieces the LAPD collected, marked and filed away. This one is a bit humorous and only vaguely related to the Manson matter - but it was duly added to the collection of 100's of others. Also found in this collection is the entire teleplay from the Helter Skelter made-for-tv film, contracts & agreements associated with Hendrickson, documentation of Manson's attempts to release an LP.

-A very curious Manson family group photo that was labeled as being in Death Valley during the autumn of '69. I shared this one with Green a while back, trying to ID some of the people in this group pic (taken by someone in their group, this wasn't a police photo). This photo seems to have been taken at Meyers in the weeks between the murders and the time that Watson fled, so not very long after the murders. Manson can be seen in the rear, wearing a funny hat. Watson is 2nd from the left, this is about how he would have looked August 8/9. Brunner & Cappy are identifiable, as is Paul Watkins - this was during that period when he was on again/off again with the group. Not sure who the gal in the red top & some of these others might be, perhaps someone here has an idea.

I'll share more if I find items of potential interest. The stuff is a LOT to wade through but it does provide for a fun little deep-dive on a rainy afternoon.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/195514861@N02/?

Doug said...

I has to think about it a bit but I *think* that I have seen a photo of Roman in a jacket like the "Raiders Coat" hanging in the hallway/entrance. Worn with a frilly shirt w/ a long sleeve and, long frilly cuffs.

Not the get up he'd worn photo of he and Sharon's wedding...a different get up/photo

Anybody recall this? I can't seem to locate it bow that I an searching for it though...

Doug said...

Scott Michaels (Dearly Departed) was a fairly close acquaintance of Barbara Graham...he might be aware of things about her that have been withheld with regard to her connections to Cielo and the Hollywood movers/shakers. He's posted interesting video interviews of he and Graham on YouTube.

He seems to also be very well informed on the lide and times of Howard...

tobiasragg said...

"I has to think about it a bit but I *think* that I have seen a photo of Roman in a jacket like the "Raiders Coat" hanging in the hallway/entrance. Worn with a frilly shirt w/ a long sleeve and, long frilly cuffs."

Yes - I was recalling this very photo earlier today. I did a (very) cursory search online and came up empty, but I didn't try very hard. I imagine it shouldn't be TOO hard to locate if one were in the mood for some sleuthing. It might have been from one of those party videos that exist of Roman & Sharon out there, e.g. the Hefner party video.

Doug said...

Really awesome photos etc Tobiasrag

Thanks for sharing!!

Doug said...

Yes!

I'm gonna look for the Playboy After Dark footage now

Doug said...

Not from the TV show Playboy After Dark

https://youtu.be/3lPaeEPNCFY

shoegazer said...

TERRIFIC STUFF, TOBIAS!

Absolutely terrific!

Thanks!!!

David said...

Tobias said: "Misc views of the Cielo property, mostly taken on 9 August. A few of these rooms I cannot identify and I have marked them as "unknown", thinking that someone here may recognize these."

I believe they are of the guest house.

tobiasragg said...

David, thank you. That makes perfect sense.

David said...

You're welcome. You can see the stereo in the background of #23.

Buntline said...

Here is a slight variation on the Myers pic. Looks like maybe Ouisch has appeared behind the red girl?

https://ibb.co/DpqLGD8

Dan S said...

They look like such a clean happy group with lovely hair

Dan S said...

Looks like a big old knife wound to the face to me. Or maybe two:

https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f237/560289d1406988592-actress-sharon-tate-death-pictures-5f57a40cd1621872663704654ce8d20a.jpg

tobiasragg said...

"Looks like a big old knife wound to the face to me. Or maybe two:"

Yes, but that's Abigail. I think the people above are speaking of Sharon. Tex has always said he slashed Tate's face and Atkins says the same. Sharon's father says that he discovered a slash wound under her funerial makeup. But the autopsy report does not detail a facial knife wound, only rope burns, so there are those here who believe that her face was not cut.

One interesting little factoid about Tate-Labianca was that on Tate, each victims' face was attacked or damaged in some way (Parent/shot, Voytek & Sebring/kicked, Tate & Folger/slashed) and at LaBianca each had their face & head obscured. Says something, perhaps, about the deeply damaged psychology of one Charles Watson, methinks.

starviego said...

shoegazer said...

...the claim by both Howard and Graham that they both had looked at 10050 Cielo as a possible rental?

Where did Ronni Howard claim she had been up at Cielo before?

shoegazer said...

Dan S:

That's Folger, not Tate. See page 17 for the drawing, page 6 (stab wound #1) for a description.

Folgery autopsty report

shoegazer said...

Where did Ronni Howard claim she had been up at Cielo before?

Howard interview


'After that she went on to tell me, the fact is, she said, "You remember this Tate deal?" And I said, "Yeah." I said, because I was going to rent the house one time, you know.'

TBL vol 126, p 13823 13824:

Howard testimony

shoegazer said...

Corrected link to Howard testimony:


https://www.cielodrive.com/people-v-manson-atkins-vanhouten-krenwinkel/04-trial/Vol126.pdf

p 13823-13824

starviego said...

Thanks, Shoe! I knew Virginia Graham had claimed she had been on the property years before, but Ronni too? WOW! What are the chances...

Schreck says Graham was a police plant in the jail to get Sadie's confession. Maybe Ronni too?

John Patrick said...

Potential further anomalies

Concrete transfer from kerb to underside of Parent's car. Is it a coincidence that Parent collided with the kerb just before being shot? Or was he aware of danger before he got to his car.

Lantern found in flower bed close to the front door by Polanski upon his return visit to Cielo with Life magazine. Lantern had been hanging on front door but perpetrators accounts make no mention of it.

Communication device found discarded at back door of Cielo drive house and photographed being held by Detective Mike McGann. Again not mentioned by perps, but likely disabled by them in a similar vein to wires on telephone pole.

Box of steak knives from Cielo Drive house found in bushes near houses directly below Cielo close to path that leads from guest house to Angelo Drive.

Official version suggests Pat Krenwinkel did not know the purpose of the home invasion at Cielo until Watson starts killing people, at which stage she doesn't run away or try to stop Tex. She transforms instantly from a meek and self conscious women to a killing machine able to overpower and slaughter a similar sized if not more powerful woman. That doesn't ring true.

Dan S said...

A woman not being totally subservient to a man? Not in this family

Jay said...

Great photos and lots of food for thought. The most frustrating thing about this one is that, even though we have the perpetrators, we will still never know for sure what exactly went on. There are other cases (Zodiac, Jack the Ripper cone to mind) where a big part of the puzzle is the ‘who,’ not the ‘why’, or in this case the ‘what the hell happened.’

grimtraveller said...

starviego said:

Schreck says Graham was a police plant in the jail to get Sadie's confession

Schreck says Denis Wilson went to India in 1967 with the Beatles {they went in '68 and it was Mike Love}. Shreck says Bruce was part of the Tex~Bruce robbery team that robbed and shot Joel Rostau ~ even though Bruce was out of the country at the time.
Schreck said Rosemary LaBianca was a big time acid dealer. Schreck quoted Charlie as saying he knew Sharon Tate.
Schreck said a lot of things {as did Hans Christian Andersen and the Brothers Grimm} ! 🤔


John Patrick said:

Is it a coincidence that Parent collided with the kerb just before being shot?

Yes.
And define "just before being shot." Do you mean on the day or literally just moments before ? If the latter, how do you know ?

Lantern found in flower bed close to the front door by Polanski upon his return visit to Cielo with Life magazine. Lantern had been hanging on front door but perpetrators accounts make no mention of it

It was over a week later that Polanski went to Cielo. A lantern in the flower bed and the fact that the perps never said anything about a lantern is hardly an anomaly of murder evidence.

Box of steak knives from Cielo Drive house found in bushes near houses directly below Cielo close to path that leads from guest house to Angelo Drive

Had these been used ? Were they bloody ? Is it verified that they came from 10050 ?

Official version suggests Pat Krenwinkel did not know the purpose of the home invasion at Cielo until Watson starts killing people

Although she may have said that recently, it is of course, rubbish. It's rubbish because she is on record as saying that Tex told them what was going to happen before they climbed the fence. She may not have known what was on the agenda before they left Spahn. She may not have known what was on the agenda while driving to Cielo. But she definitely knew what was on the agenda when she was climbing over the fence.
I'll give her this; she may not have known that she would be expected to do any killing, even after Steve was shot. The Family way up until then was that the men did the killing as Charlie {as it was supposed at the time}, Bobby and Tex had done. Given that Pat is a nervy character who says things out of nervousness at times, maybe that's what she actually meant, a bit like her statement some years ago about the two women in the house to be killed.

She transforms instantly from a meek and self conscious women to a killing machine able to overpower and slaughter a similar sized if not more powerful woman

Interestingly, on both occasions, Pat had to call on Watson to come and assist her because she couldn't do the job on her lonesome. After all, Abigail escaped from her. And she couldn't kill Rosemary.

John Patrick said...

Is it a coincidence that Parent collided with the kerb just before being shot?

Yes.
And define "just before being shot." Do you mean on the day or literally just moments before ? If the latter, how do you know ?

Moments before being shot, at what other time was he likely to have reversed at haste into a fence and kerb? Remember officially he'd never been inside the compound before. From the homicide report.

"Officers noted that the split-rail fence which runs to the north of the garage area was broken, and that scrape marks appeared, on the curb directly in front of the split-rail fence. The scrape marks and the break in the split-rail fence appeared fresh. A search of the undercarriage of Parent's car revealed similar scrape marks and concrete transfer. The rear bumper of the car also showed white paint transfer similar to that as on the split-rail fence."


Lantern found in flower bed close to the front door by Polanski upon his return visit to Cielo with Life magazine. Lantern had been hanging on front door but perpetrators accounts make no mention of it

It was over a week later that Polanski went to Cielo. A lantern in the flower bed and the fact that the perps never said anything about a lantern is hardly an anomaly of murder evidence.

You'd think they might have noticed the breaking glass in the melee


Box of steak knives from Cielo Drive house found in bushes near houses directly below Cielo close to path that leads from guest house to Angelo Drive

Had these been used ? Were they bloody ? Is it verified that they came from 10050 ?

Not used, not bloody, from Cielo Drive house and thought to be significant enough to make it onto the property report. Many think these had been stolen and stashed for later collection

Official version suggests Pat Krenwinkel did not know the purpose of the home invasion at Cielo until Watson starts killing people

Although she may have said that recently, it is of course, rubbish. It's rubbish because she is on record as saying that Tex told them what was going to happen before they climbed the fence. She may not have known what was on the agenda before they left Spahn. She may not have known what was on the agenda while driving to Cielo. But she definitely knew what was on the agenda when she was climbing over the fence.
I'll give her this; she may not have known that she would be expected to do any killing, even after Steve was shot. The Family way up until then was that the men did the killing as Charlie {as it was supposed at the time}, Bobby and Tex had done. Given that Pat is a nervy character who says things out of nervousness at times, maybe that's what she actually meant, a bit like her statement some years ago about the two women in the house to be killed.

She transforms instantly from a meek and self conscious women to a killing machine able to overpower and slaughter a similar sized if not more powerful woman

Interestingly, on both occasions, Pat had to call on Watson to come and assist her because she couldn't do the job on her lonesome. After all, Abigail escaped from her. And she couldn't kill Rosemary.

unless I'm mistaken fatal stabs to both Folger and Rosemary came from Krenwinkel in the first instance with Tex delivering a few of his won to make sure.

No thoughts on the intercom found in the bushes at the back door

shoegazer said...

John:

Lantern found in flower bed close to the front door by Polanski upon his return visit to Cielo with Life magazine. Lantern had been hanging on front door but perpetrators accounts make no mention of it

It was over a week later that Polanski went to Cielo. A lantern in the flower bed and the fact that the perps never said anything about a lantern is hardly an anomaly of murder evidence.

You'd think they might have noticed the breaking glass in the melee


This is interesting. I've never read/heard anything about this. Can you link to a source?

Box of steak knives from Cielo Drive house found in bushes near houses directly below Cielo close to path that leads from guest house to Angelo Drive

Had these been used ? Were they bloody ? Is it verified that they came from 10050 ?

Not used, not bloody, from Cielo Drive house and thought to be significant enough to make it onto the property report. Many think these had been stolen and stashed for later collection


Again, this is the first I've heard of it. Perhaps a link to the "property report" would be in order.

No thoughts on the intercom found in the bushes at the back door

There's Altobelli's testimony on the intercom device. It doesn't tell us about the line laying on the ground very specifically, but speaks to the system, itself. It's interesting...

intercom

P. 14771, lines 3-14

So what we can reasonably infer is that at some time in the past, Lindsay put up an intercom that had a speaker outside, and this speaker was connected by a communication line to a terminus in the house, somewhere unspecified.

According to Altobelli (and also to Garretson, I think) the system didn't work and he's saying that the the speaker was laying on the ground. He seems to be saying this about the one outside, but, it's unclear.

But a further implication is that if it wasn't working, a reason for this might be that the line was disconnected somewhere, maybe at the back of the house, where the inspectors found the end.

What additional information do you have about the system?

grimtraveller said...

John Patrick said:

at what other time was he likely to have reversed at haste into a fence and kerb?

We don't know it was at haste.
He could have done it on arrival.
He could have done it as he was getting ready to leave, well before he encountered the perps.

officially he'd never been inside the compound before

Which could account for him reversing into the fence and kerb ~ unfamiliarity and in the dark.

Many think these had been stolen and stashed for later collection

I would respectfully suggest that these "many" are way off beam and wrong.
A first obvious question would be ¬> why not just take them ? It would be the height of idiocy to return to a murder scene to collect a load of steak knives you could have taken as you left.

You'd think they might have noticed the breaking glass in the melee

On the other hand, as you're murdering people, glass lanterns might not occupy your attention.
I'm at a loss as to what significance you are trying to attach to the steak knives and the lantern.

unless I'm mistaken fatal stabs to both Folger and Rosemary came from Krenwinkel in the first instance with Tex delivering a few of his own to make sure

We don't know about the ones to Rosemary. Pat's thing was that the knives she got from the kitchen weren't doing the biz, which is why Watson had to be called in.
Going back to Pat and Abigail for a moment. Earlier, you questioned how a meek mouse like Pat could overpower Abigail, but remember, Abigail had already received a horrible wound from Tex, one that caused her to grab her torso because of the pain.

John Patrick said...

What I'm trying to do is show how the official version in many ways does not ring true.

Yes the damage due to hitting the kerb could have happened earlier but it's more likely considering the fact that Parent was murdered while leaving in his car.

If Parent has never been in the compound before why does he feel comfortable opening a security barrier and parking close to the main house near midnight in an upscale neighbourhood?

If the knives are found near a back path leading from the murder scene it seems likely they have been stashed. I have no idea what other reason there could be?

Still don't get what's motivating Pat, she was all too effective. Even Tex's actions seem hard to believe given the official version. Wasn't he told to sort out the Bernard Crowe situation himself but couldn't do it, how come 1 month later he's no qualms about killing 7 people at close range. Doesn't add up.

grimtraveller said...

John Patrick said:

What I'm trying to do is show how the official version in many ways does not ring true

Fair enough. That is kind of the nature of the post. But as much as some things don't seem right, equally, there are some things for which there are plausible explanations and don't point to anything bizarre ~ unless that is what one is looking to do. I think that's what Shoe is trying to do ~ to separate genuine anomalies from the kind of stuff that, ultimately, is fluff that doesn't really do much other than fuel never-ending speculation that, when closely and robustly examined, often has its own motives.

Yes the damage due to hitting the kerb could have happened earlier but it's more likely considering the fact that Parent was murdered while leaving in his car

Why is it more likely ? Why is it not of equal likelihood ?

If Parent has never been in the compound before why does he feel comfortable opening a security barrier and parking close to the main house near midnight in an upscale neighbourhood?

Well, we can never know this because he's no longer here to tell us. However, I'll hazard a guess ~ William told him to drop by anytime, after he had given him a lift home. It clearly wasn't unusual for William to receive guests.

If the knives are found near a back path leading from the murder scene it seems likely they have been stashed. I have no idea what other reason there could be?

The property report doesn't clearly establish that the box of steak knives came from the house at Cielo. In fact, on the 8 page property report, it is the only item that does not come from the actual house, cars, driveway or anywhere on the grounds. Everything else does. And when you look on a map at where Angelo Drive is, where the knives were found, it's not exactly next door.
It was found on the 10th Aug by the Bel Air patrol. Now, at the time, one can understand why it would appear on either a property report or almost any kind of report. Frankly, once Atkins appeared on the scene, it became as relevant as the bush it was found beside. And now, it's even less relevant.

Still don't get what's motivating Pat, she was all too effective

Dark and dangerous love motivated Pat. Yes, she was effective ~ or was she ? She's the only person I've ever heard of, complain about having a sore hand from hitting bones when she stabbed. That tells you that she wasn't schooled in the art of striking with a knife.

Even Tex's actions seem hard to believe given the official version. Wasn't he told to sort out the Bernard Crowe situation himself but couldn't do it, how come 1 month later he's no qualms about killing 7 people at close range

I've never heard of him being told to go and sort out Lotsapoppa. In fact, in his book, he says the opposite, that Charlie sent him away into the hills, once Crowe threatened to come to Spahn.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Love indeed motivated Pat. Dark and dangerous like you say but I'll never believe otherwise.

David said...

Grim said: "Well, we can never know this because he's no longer here to tell us. However, I'll hazard a guess ~ William told him to drop by anytime, after he had given him a lift home. It clearly wasn't unusual for William to receive guests."

Remember this post: https://www.mansonblog.com/2016/12/a-look-at-evidence-3-death-of-steven.html

I'm not sure what timeframe we are calling "earlier". Before he went to the guest house or on the way in if you will? or before he was confronted by the killers but on the way out?

I have always believed he parked to the right of Folger. I arrive at that conclusion because of the presence of the other two cars when he arrived, which I think would suggest to him this was "the place to park". Given the layout, Grim, how would he hit the fence driving into Cielo?

Then you sort of have to add "why didn't he mention it to Garretson"? Now, a teenager deciding to split after backing into the fence in an oh shit moment. I buy that.

shoegazer said...

GT:

Reading the property report (thanks!), what do you make of page 7 of 8? It is a poor copy, obscuring parts of the page.

Torque said...

Grim. Concerning items possibly missing from Cielo, Rudi Altobelli, when asked on the stand if anything of his was missing, said there was, but it was none of the court's business. This I believe was during Kanarek's cross examination. Of course Rudi could have been mistaken.

shoegazer said...

David:

I have always believed he parked to the right of Folger. I arrive at that conclusion because of the presence of the other two cars when he arrived, which I think would suggest to him this was "the place to park".

I looked a lot at the various possible parking places and likely routes he might have used in backing out.

I came to believe that it was fairly likely that he parked next to Folger, to the right, as you suggest. He then likely walked across the front lawn and then to the guesthouse. I'm influenced to think this because so far as I know, he had never actually seen the lower walkway. It's possible that he had come thru the gate that day he gave Garretson a ride back, pressed the button, drove to the same area where Folger and Sebring parked, dropped Garretson off, and stayed long enough to see him head down to the walkway, but I've never read any support for this.

Also, there's no testimony that the lights down to the walkway were on at that time.

So this means that Parent may have had to explore to find the guesthouse entrance a bit, and in the process, seen Folger and/or Tate inside the house, and possibly the two others.

Now it's interesting to speculate on Parent's motivation for going up there. Not weird stuff, but based on the testimony of the guy he called from the guesthouse before he left. The testimony indicates that Parent was quite impressed with having gone up into that neighborhood, and having trod the same hallowed ground as the Beautiful People.

He was kinda star-struck-Lite. He was up there for bragging rights, basically.

Just peripheral speculation...

Then you sort of have to add "why didn't he mention it to Garretson"? Now, a teenager deciding to split after backing into the fence in an oh shit moment. I buy that.

Yep. I see it that way, too. He probably would never have told Garretson--too klutzy.

Torque said...

David, yes agreed about Steve Parent's car striking the curb after leaving the guest house. I recall your excellent post on this very subject and area of the property.

Personally I believe Steve, when he pulled into the property, saw Abigail and Jay's cars and decided to park alongside the garage, next to the exterior staircase leading to the room above the garage. This would be in the area of the bug light. (I say this because to me photos would indicate that Steve's car may have blocked the garage door to the left of Sharon's rental Camaro). From this location Steve could have very likely seen the killers climbing over the fence. Reversing the car in fear and haste could have plausibly resulted in the damage to the fence. But of course I cannot presently prove this. The killers have teaditionally said that they saw headlights coming at them, but they do not elaborate on where exactly the headlights were coming from.

David said...

Shoe: "the guy he called from the guesthouse before he left"

You, of course, mean Jerrold Freidman aka David Gerrold aka the writer of the Trouble With Tribbles and When HARLIE Was One.

David said...

Torque: "and decided to park alongside the garage, next to the exterior staircase leading to the room above the garage"

Can't argue with that location, either. However, he has further to back up to hit the fence and more room to turn before he does IMO.

shoegazer said...

David:

You, of course, mean Jerrold Freidman aka David Gerrold aka the writer of the Trouble With Tribbles and When HARLIE Was One.

Yes, but would any of that matter?

Unless, of course...

oo-ee-oo...

David said...

When HARLIE Was One is dedicated to Steven Parent:

For Steven Earl Parent, with love.
Sleep well, old friend.
You got the job done.

Gerrold, David. When HARLIE Was One: Release 2.0 . BenBella Books, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Oh why did you remind my brain about that dedication? Have you no empathy? Fudge.

David said...

GW said: "Oh why....."

I find it to be one of the few very touching ancillary moments to this horrid mess.

shoegazer said...

Can't argue with that location, either. However, he has further to back up to hit the fence and more room to turn before he does IMO.

I thought that too for a while, and of course it may be what actually happened.

But looking at your diagram, I gradually came to the same conclusion--that it was actually less likely to hit the fence if Parent was parked in position 6 (your diagram). This brings into play a lot of personal driving experience, and is hence very speculative and subjective.

If I had parked next to the garage, as in #6, then walked past the front of the garage on my way back, I'd tend to note the clear area there, in front of the garage. Then, when leaving, I'd index the car as it backed up against the wall of the garage, where the staircase up was, where he had parked.

I'd immediately crank the wheel left as soon as I knew I was clear of the corner, because I'd already know there was a lot of clear space available.

That's probably how I'd do it, but who knows?

Separately, if you examine the was broken, with the main contact very close to the rightmost post of the damaged area, it might suggest that he car had almost completed a leftward curving path. That he was very close to having gotten done with the maneuver before hitting the curb and fence.

Again, LOTS of speculation here, and not to much purpose...but that's part of what make this fun.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Good point, David. I hadn't looked at it that way. But what job got done?

shoegazer said...

Yes, one wonders...

Gerrold is openly gay. I realize that there was a lot of of pointless discussion about Altobelli being gay, and by innuendo Garretson might be, and hence Parent.

Now we have it coming back from another direction.

But this is truly an example of being immaterial to the TLB case. Even if entirely true, so what?

Speculator said...

Hand job or bj?!! Pardon my childish humour. More seriously,it could've simply been a reflection on Steven as a person ie someone who got the job done.

Speculator said...

Grim - regarding your reply to John, surely you accept the point that a collision was far more likely to have occurred when Parent was under some sort of duress and/or fear/panic than when he entered the premises (presumably relaxed)earlier in the evening? I also don't see why he'd do a reversing manoeuvre on his way in. On the other hand, if there was some sort of an attempt at an evasive manoeuvre when Parent spotted the intruders on his way out, why would the killers conceal such a relatively minor point in their accounts. I've often wondered why Parent didn't slam the car into reverse or simply smash forwards as soon as Watson started his knife assault. I guess the fear and panic froze him - poor guy.

grimtraveller said...

David said:

I'm not sure what timeframe we are calling "earlier". Before he went to the guest house or on the way in if you will? or before he was confronted by the killers but on the way out?

That's what I was trying to ascertain from John.

Given the layout, Grim, how would he hit the fence driving into Cielo?

We don't know anything about his driving habits or style so anything is possible. I'm not saying that he hit the kerb coming in, just that he could have. I regularly observe people doing things in a car that confound me !

Then you sort of have to add "why didn't he mention it to Garretson"?

I wouldn't argue with that.
On the other hand, one could just as easily say that there could be a few reasons why he didn't tell Garretson. He forgot, he was distracted by the hot women/movie star abode, he wanted to try and sell his clock radio, he was thinking about going to David's after, he didn't know William well enough to start that kind of chat, he didn't realize the damage or didn't consider it as anything serious or worthy of commenting on. There is also the possibility that he did tell Garretson.

shoegazer said:

Reading the property report (thanks!), what do you make of page 7 of 8? It is a poor copy, obscuring parts of the page

It's rather annoying. But it seems to be mentioning things that were in the living room and on the table. I think some glasses are mentioned. And on the third line, one can make out the word "TATE."

Speculator said:

surely you accept the point that a collision was far more likely to have occurred when Parent was under some sort of duress and/or fear/panic than when he entered the premises (presumably relaxed)earlier in the evening?

No, not really. I don't accept that. I'm not saying it didn't happen the way it's been described. But I don't see people as utterly predictable in everything they do. And while sometimes, putting myself in the situation is useful, it doesn't necessarily get me closer to the truth.

Speculator said...

Regarding the box of steak knives - a couple of points. Surely the Police would have asked some questions maybe of Altobelli and/or Chapman before including them on the property list? They wouldn't just add what appears to be random lost property for no reason whatsoever? And secondly, if a follow-up visit to Cielo was made shortly after the murders by person(s) unknown, could they have entered the property from the Angelo Drive end of the property - maybe to enable a more concealed approach in case anyone had discovered the murders or Police were on scene? Did they take the knives and stash them. We all know they liked knives. Pure speculation of course but in an educated fashion I hope!

Speculator said...

Grim - if we were to lay odds on it they would be on the side of exiting under duress rather than entering under no duress. And yes I do mean the car!

shoegazer said...

GT:

It's rather annoying. But it seems to be mentioning things that were in the living room and on the table. I think some glasses are mentioned. And on the third line, one can make out the word "TATE."

This is what I THINK I see...

"... ow listed article #72 was found"
"...Cielo. RP?. Ofcr(?) received article"
"...Tate (father of victim). He stated"
"...were on a table located"
"...??nce to the living room"
"...b?d c??t prop. mk down for"


72 1 ...cription. tortoise shell, clear"
g..."

Further speculation invited, of course...

shoegazer said...

Surely the Police would have asked some questions maybe of Altobelli and/or Chapman before including them on the property list?

Time and date of the report is on the 1st page. 8/10 800 (8 AM). If true, I doubt that they had talked to anyone much at that point.

Not that it's significant, but note that all pages of the report are entered under Parent's name. This would have been the first victim they found. I don't think this means much, other than that we don't know their procedures, nor how closely they followed them.

could they have entered the property from the Angelo Drive end of the property...

They'd have to know there is/was such a path, and I've seen no evidence that they did. The clsoest I've come, so far, to finding evidence of any entrance/egress at the Guesthouse end of the property was by Altobelli, on the stand, I think. I will try to find it, if requested. All he does is mention in passing that it's steep on that side and that he felt that his dogs would tend to stay on his property, possibly because of the inaccessibility.

Poor memory, I fear...

OTHER INTERESTING NOTE

From prop report, page 3 of 8, "y/m ring" found "in area of Folger's body". There was also a "rubber glove tip" found there, as well.
Also, note the date and time the steak knives were found: 8/10, 2300 (11PM) under some bushes at Angelo and Sunbrook (not "Sunnyvale", I'll betcha...). AT 11PM!!! AT NIGHT!!! Wow, the Bel Aire patrol has good eyes, huh? :^)

There are a lot of other houses closer by, and still, so far as I know, no one has unambiguously identified these as coming from Cielo.

shoegazer said...

Spec:

exiting under duress rather than entering under no duress.

Yes, but there are more choices than just those two, one of which is "backing out of a poorly lit parking area that you had never been in before".

But you do have a point that if Parent saw something threatening, it would add to my description of "poorly lit, unfamiliar" "scared shitless and in a big hurry".

This point is interesting but essentially changes nothing. It just speaks to what did Parent know about the invasion before he was killed. It does't change the order in which he was killed, or anything in the narrative or that can be derived from the evidence I know about at this point.

David said...

GW said “What job got done?”

Parent built Garrold a very complex state of the art stereo system at his house which was what the shop was famous for. It took weeks and that is how they became close.

David said...

The report is in Parent’s name because his was the first victim found and that was LAPD SOP.

Torque said...

Shoe, exactly. What did Steve know about the invasion by the killers as they entered the property? My gut feeling has always been that Steve, in his way back to his car, paused for a few moments to see if he could again see the girls in the house, albeit while on the guest house path.

He probably did not see them, as both were probably in their respective bedrooms. He then probably continued on, taking in the view of the city from his vantage point, before continuing on to the parking area. He had to move right along if he was to make his appointed meeting with Freeman.

At this point I feel Steve saw the killers enter the property. The girls would later say that Tex went out of sight, but they heard him say, "stop, hault" to Steve. Steve's reply was, "please don't hurt me. I won't say anything. I'm your friend." What did Steve Parent see that he promised not to say anything about? Tex Watson surely must know the answer to this question.

TabOrFresca said...

Shoegazer said:
Glasses/tortoise shell.

“Horn rimmed glasses” were also known by the name “tortoise shell glasses” and “mock tortoise shell glasses”.

The partial note may be referring to one of the small tables located in the “entrance” to the living room.

Items 64-67 may be from 2774 Woodstock Road.

There is no mention of (Tates) negligee, lingerie, nightie, or nightgown; but her bra and panties are listed (as they are in Finken’s coroner’s report (see autopsy)). There was a cloth material, with a fancy crocheted/ embroidered edge that was found at her feet. It may be a table runner but maybe it isn’t.

shoegazer said...

Torque:

" "please don't hurt me. I won't say anything. I'm your friend." What did Steve Parent see that he promised not to say anything about? Tex Watson surely must know the answer to this question.

This is one of the earliest "anomalies"--or maybe "ambiguities" is a better word--that really got the hook in, back when I first participated here in 2019.

It seems like all versions of the narrative include Parent saying something like that, and deeply implicit, in a sort of common sense way, is that, yep, he saw them before Watson stopped him, took them for intruders, and tried ineffectively, in desperation, to get them to let him go.

Working forward on a scenario from that, it's not hard to imagine that Watson, too, knew that Parent has probably seen them, and went a bit out of his way (it might have been easier to simply lay low until the car left, if he thought they had not been seen) to make sure that Watson would not be in the position to interfere or to identify them later.

That last part is pretty speculative, though, and it doesn't bear on the outcome of the event very much, because for whatever reason, Watson did kill him, then and there.

Slightly related to this general sub-topic (Parent's death near the gate) is a small thing verified by the property report: Parent's watchband was a metal expanding type (you can see it better in the link Tobias supplied) and the report notes it as being "w/m broken stretch band".

This, in turn, can affect the part of the scenario where Watson attacked Parent in the car. I had always assumed (bad idea!) that the band had been a buckle type, maybe leather, from which it followed that it almost had to have been cut, and it therefore almost required that Watson's knife caught the band with the same cut that delivered the defensive hand wound (which would have been very narrowly fortuitous, given the characteristics of the wound).

However, if the band was broken it may not have been cut, and it opens up the range of possibilities a bit as to what happened to get the watch off and onto the back seat. We no longer require a near impossible trajectory and initial contact point of the knife first with Parent's watchband--but ***without*** nicking Parent's wrist in the process--very, very narrow window of probability--slicing only the band, before carrying onward to slice the palm upwards to near the juncture of the middle and ring fingers. Indeed, it now allows that the slice might have been first near the fingers and then down to the palm, rather than the opposite, which would have been almost required to have caught the band.

shoegazer said...

TorF:

The partial note may be referring to one of the small tables located in the “entrance” to the living room.

Yes, and it might be the table visible in:

table?

(BTW, in the same photo, there's a large rectangular cardboard box, like one might use to ship a painting in. Do you ever wonder about what was in the box? Is it ever described anywhere?

Too, there's that paperwork hanging from the leftmost trunk, wedged between the lid and the bottom part. Could be a delivery slip, but hard to wedge in there...

None of this matters, really...)

Items 64-67 may be from 2774 Woodstock Road

Yes, looking for a while, that sure culd be it. Was that Frykowski/Folger's actual residence--the nice midcentury modern?

Note too something I'd missed (page 5 of 8): in handwriting it looks like "Witold Kasinski"--an understandable misspelling of Kaczanowski's name. He was staying with them, right?

Boy, lots of papers and rollers, huh?

David said...

Shoe said:

"Was that Frykowski/Folger's actual residence-"

Yes

"He was staying with them, right?"

Yes, while they were at Cielo he stayed at Woodstock.

TabOrFresca said...

Shoegazer said:

(BTW, in the same photo, there's a large rectangular cardboard box, like one might use to ship a painting in. Do you ever wonder about what was in the box? Is it ever described anywhere?

I have never found anything (, or I overlooked it ,) describing the picture sized rectangular box. Maybe a progress report addendum mentions it, but I have never knowingly seen them.

Cats had posted the shipping slips for the trunks. The total weight was 56 kg, it was mailed on July 18, TWA handled it (with local delivery services on both ends), and it was said to contain personal effects. You can use your “murdersofaugust69” login and see a copy (search for “TWA Statman”).

grimtraveller said...

David said...

When HARLIE Was One is dedicated to Steven Parent:

For Steven Earl Parent, with love.
Sleep well, old friend.
You got the job done.


And at the end of 2016, he said a whole lot more than that.

Parent built Garrold a very complex state of the art stereo system at his house which was what the shop was famous for. It took weeks and that is how they became close

That's both interesting and plausible. Is that speculation on your part or is that known and verified ?

Speculator said:

Did they take the knives and stash them. We all know they liked knives

Yeah, but why steal steak knives and leave them where they were easily found ?

could they have entered the property from the Angelo Drive end of the property...

In the dark ? Just for some steak knives ?

Torque said:

The girls would later say that Tex went out of sight, but they heard him say, "stop, halt" to Steve. Steve's reply was, "please don't hurt me. I won't say anything. I'm your friend." What did Steve Parent see that he promised not to say anything about?

The "I'm your friend" bit was an addition, 8 years later by Watson.
I could be wrong but I think it's rather obvious what Steve saw ¬> the perps. He doesn't have to have seen them doing anything other than appearing in his headlights. Susan told Virginia Graham that he was shot because they thought he had seen them, and given the tension of the moment, and Watson not acting entirely rationally, or perhaps just not wanting to take the chance, him jumping in front of the car makes sense. I don't personally attach any significance to what Steve said. Who knows what any of us would say if some guy appeared out of the dark in a place you're locked into. Steve doesn't even have to have seen the gun before uttering those words. They are the fearful words of a shocked reaction.

David said...

Grim said: "That's both interesting and plausible. Is that speculation on your part or is that known and verified ?"

I had a source for this and even mentioned it in a post some time back. I couldn't find it for you this morning so I went online to see if I could find it again. I didn't get far and discovered my information is wrong, at least, according to David Gerrold responding to a blogger on another blog.

"Yes, did know Steven Earl Parent. (I never shopped at Jonas Miller Stereo on Wilshire Blvd. I knew him from elsewhere.) No, Steve was not a juvenile delinquent. He was planning to attend college in the fall of 69. He was a remarkably generous person, loved by his parents and his siblings. Yes, we were close. He was one of the best friends I ever had, he made a big difference in my life.

No, Steven Parent did not spend hours installing stereo equipment in my home. I never got any stereo equipment from him.

No, I did not call Steven Parent the night of the murders. He called me. Yes, I asked him to come to my apartment so we could hang out together. No, I did not ask him to meet me at a notorious pickup spot. (I did not even know that was a notorious pickup spot. How does Thomas know?)

Thomas' information is woefully wrong and I can only assume his intention was malicious.

In 1970, I testified in the Manson trial and my testimony is a matter of public record. Anyone wanting to know what actually happened that night can look up my testimony.

— David Gerrold"

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/381514-david-gerrold-creepy-spoiler

It is a ways down 2021.

I stand completely corrected.

shoegazer said...

Thanks, David. I followed this up and read the Thomas information, and the response by Gerrold.

In your opinion, were Thomas's false claims legally actionable? I think we've exchanged here long enough for you to see that I get diverted and interested in details. I've always been interested in slander and libel, how it works. This *looks* to a person liken me to be libelous, possibly.

So there'd have to be demonstrable damages of some sort, and this would be up to the injured party to prove. Does there need to be intent? I suspect not, although proven intent might make the award higher.

One of the few areas where I get almost morally outraged--and gosh, I really *hate* the term "outrage" and don't want to be considered that type of person who feels outrage for every slight, especially when something did not involve me, personally --it's people getting things wrong, either purposefully or thru negligence, then energetically portraying it as a demonstrable fact.

That's the lowest of the low--incompetent or malicious, plus egotistical enough to want some form of recognition for this kind of allegation. Admitted speculation is one thing, or an honest error, but that's not what this Thomas guy was doing, in my opinion. He went far beyond that.

In worst case scenarios here, you see something related to that in these sorts of forums. It's no crime to make an error, but to stick with it resolutely when it's demonstrably false, simply because it's your own version and you like it, is inexcusable. This "Thomas" guy is a poster child.

grimtraveller said...

David said:

I stand completely corrected

Yet, it was a good example of how something plausible can be so far off beam. I think a lot of speculations are like that and some of them aren't nearly as plausible as this one.

shoegazer said:

were Thomas's false claims legally actionable?

Not on the internet !
It's unlikely anyone knows who "Thomas" is and even if he was known, on a public forum, all David Gerrold had to do was what he did and "Thomas" is immediately discredited, which is better than any li[e]bel suit.

David said...

Shoe said: “In your opinion, were Thomas's false claims legally actionable?”

Possibly. We don’t know enough.

The legal elements (what must be proven) of a defamation claim are:


1. The defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff.

So, first we have to identify what Thomas said that was not true.


2. The defendant made the defamatory statement to a third party knowing it was false (or they should have known it was false).

Did Thomas know what he was saying was false or had he read it somewhere else?

For example, was Steven Parent in fact, arrested as a teenager? I stated this in 2016.
So did Cielodrive.com: http://www.cielodrive.com/steven-parent.php. So has Janet, his sister, if I recall correctly.

Was he a juvenile delinquent? By definition ‘yes’. Unless we are all wrong about the arrests.

The statement that bothered David Garrold were the comments about “picking up a friend” and suggesting David was hiring a gay prostitute.

While the stereo information is wrong on aspect of what Thomas said, that they were at least falling in love has been admitted by David.

So, this prostitution comment is the key.

We all know Steven called David not the other way around. And there is zero evidence this was the conversation. In fact, we know both ends of the conversation from two witnesses. If Thomas knew this statement was false, or should have known it was false, it is clearly defamatory. He is accusing David of engaging the services of a prostitute.


3. The defendant made the defamatory statement disseminated through a publication or communication and the plaintiff's reputation suffered damage or harm.

It was disseminated. We just helped do that. Damages would be very hard to prove.

The truth is an absolute defense, of course, and opinions cannot form the basis of a claim.

Now the rules are also a little different regarding defamation of a public figure (celebrity, politician, athlete). David is likely a public figure. These plaintiffs have to show actual malice by Thomas and that is hard to do.

Now, notice David’s comment: “Thomas' information is woefully wrong and I can only assume his intention was malicious.”

That is designed to shut Thomas up.

Pax Vobiscum

Dreath

David said...

By the way, this is where the stereo issue originates:

Q: Kanarek: “Q. 'Could you give us as best you can, Mr. Friedman, the exact words, that were uttered by you and him?

******

A: Jerrold Freidman: And I said, "Sure," because there were some things. I wanted to talk to him about, and he had sole things he wanted to talk to me about, a stereo we were going to build.

Transcript Vol. 116 page 13,060

shoegazer said...

Thanks, David.

tobiasragg said...

It seems highly unlikely that Parent would have seen the murderers as they scaled the fence. The layout of the property at that time makes this notion rather far-fetched. There was a pretty severe curve involved with the drive in from the exterior gate, and this was further blocked sightline-wise by the presence of the half wall that was located there. It was dark, the exterior security light was apparently out, and the intruders were dressed in dark clothing. This, plus the viewing angles involved, strongly suggest that Parent had no idea what was coming his way as he got into his car and backed out.

I do think that sometimes these questions can be somewhat answerable when taking basic human behavior and instinct into consideration. Random thoughts:

-Had Parent noticed people scaling the fence and somehow sensed danger, would the instinct be to proceed toward the danger? That is not how we usually react to such things.

-I think it unlikely that Parent would have parked in a way that blocked one of the garage doors. This was unknown territory to him and I can't see a kid his age risk pissing off what must have seemed like rich and possibly important people.

-It does seem very unlikely that the fence impact would have occurred as Parent was arriving at the property. First off, the need to back out (thus hitting the fence) is hard to imagine as one is pulling into the parking area. But also - if you've just "crept" into a rich person's home and damaged their property, would the natural response to this be to carry on, as if nothing happened? Park the car, stroll across the lawn & stay a while in the back house? This is technically possible, but it just seems improbable.

I dunno, it just seems entirely likely that the kid overshot the back-out as he was leaving and, having bumped into *something*, he sought to scram.

Gorodish said...

tobiasragg typed:

A very curious Manson family group photo that was labeled as being in Death Valley during the autumn of '69. I shared this one with Green a while back, trying to ID some of the people in this group pic (taken by someone in their group, this wasn't a police photo). This photo seems to have been taken at Meyers in the weeks between the murders and the time that Watson fled, so not very long after the murders. Manson can be seen in the rear, wearing a funny hat. Watson is 2nd from the left, this is about how he would have looked August 8/9. Brunner & Cappy are identifiable, as is Paul Watkins - this was during that period when he was on again/off again with the group. Not sure who the gal in the red top & some of these others might be, perhaps someone here has an idea.

The photo is from November 1968 at Barker Ranch. Back row, L-R- Juan Flynn, Charles Watson, Steve Grogan, Charles Manson, Barbara "Bo" Rosenburg, Stephanie Rowe, TJ Walleman, Juanita Wildebush, Cathy Gillies. Front row, L-R- Gypsy Share, Pat Krenwinkel, "Ballarat Bob" Dunlap, Ella Jo Bailey, Paul Watkins, Mary Brunner and Pooh Bear.

shoegazer said...

It seems highly unlikely that Parent would have seen the murderers as they scaled the fence. The layout of the property at that time makes this notion rather far-fetched. There was a pretty severe curve involved with the drive in from the exterior gate, and this was further blocked sightline-wise by the presence of the half wall that was located there.

Yes, this makes a lot of sense to me.

the exterior security light was apparently out,

For clarity's sake, which light was this? I've looked over the available photos, read testimony, but I come away with the idea that there *may* have been a light on a pole near the half-wall, and a light described as a "bug light" that was testified as "on" that seemed to be near the north end of the garage, but whether it was om the lower corner, or up above the small landing for the upstairs door, I've never been sure.

THat's not many lights for the area, and there may have been more. Are you aware of others? And if so, which one(s) were out?

Had Parent noticed people scaling the fence and somehow sensed danger, would the instinct be to proceed toward the danger?

I agree. It seems more likely that he would have laid low in the dark.

The most reasonable way I could believe that he'd seen them and still tried to leave was that he didn't see them until he was in the car, had it started, and was already in motion toward the gate. In short, he saw them at the last moment, in the headlights.

Nothing about any of the narrative versions does much to support it, though. The way they tell it, there was very little opportunity for him to have seen them.

I think it unlikely that Parent would have parked in a way that blocked one of the garage doors. This was unknown territory to him and I can't see a kid his age risk pissing off what must have seemed like rich and possibly important people.

To me, this is a toss-up.

I can see your reasoning, and it's what I would have done, likely.

However, if he was parked under the "bug light", there's be a greater chance that he saw the intruders at some point.

Plus, from the POV of the intruders, the headlights would be on them very quickly, and much closer.

This requires more thought and exploration...

Park the car, stroll across the lawn & stay a while in the back house? This is technically possible, but it just seems improbable.

I agree: very improbable. There are also many less scenarios when the *opportunity* to drive one's car into the fence, backwards, can be imagined.

I dunno, it just seems entirely likely that the kid overshot the back-out as he was leaving and, having bumped into *something*, he sought to scram.

This seems the most plausible to me, as well.

For a working default, I'd be uncertain whee he parked, but would feel reasonably assure that he broke the fence backing out to leave, and would have not bothered to say anything about it later.

tobiasragg said...

Gorodish: "The photo is from November 1968 at Barker Ranch. Back row, L-R- Juan Flynn, Charles Watson"

Thank you for this. A while back Green & I were exchanging messages on another thread here, I think it had to do with the last Watson parole hearing. Anyway, during that hearing or the one before it, Watson spoke of having been shown a photo with him in it. He described himself as beaming and happy-looking, while all of "the kids" in the picture looked beat down and defeated. Green & I were trying to figure out what photo Watson might have been speaking of, and I think this might be it - here he appears every inch the Joe College douchebag I suspect he was in his early life, while most of the others do appear rather scuzzy in comparison.

I do wonder a bit about the story behind these two pics. They just kind of appeared randomly online back in 2019 or 2020. Somone using an anon user name had posted the two on one of the pic sharing sites, and these were the only two photos shared under that ID. They popped up for me as part of a Manson-related search I'd been doing, and they were labeled as being from autumn 1969. I'm impressed that you were able to ID all of these peeps (I'd never have guessed Krenny in the first row), wondering if perhaps know anything more about these pics?

Shoe: "THat's not many lights for the area, and there may have been more. Are you aware of others? And if so, which one(s) were out?"

I believe the bug light that Chapman and others speak of was the one mounted on the side of the garage, above the 2nd floor entry there. There might have been another bug light located between the house & the garage, I can't recall, but whichever one it was was usually turned off by morning when Chapman arrived for work - the fact that it was still on was noted by the maid with police later.

The light being out matter referred back to a conversation that was had here on these boards in the last month or two - it might have been a part of one of your earlier posts. I can't remember the poster who shared this, but I seem to recall it being one of the more seemingly knowledgeable peeps in these parts. Someone had cited the neighbor girl from down Cielo, the one who said that she'd returned from a date around 1am and that she'd noticed that the light that was usually on up at 10050 was not on when she got home. There was some back-and-forth over which light that might have been and I believe the knowledgeable person said there was a kind of street light or security light mounted out in the gate area (perhaps on or near the utility pole?) and that's what the neighbor girl was referring to. Some had suggested it might be the bug light, but that light wouldn't have been visible from her vantage point down the hill, and that one was illuminated throughout the night of the 8th/9th.

I can't recall the detail shared in that exchange and I'm too lazy to go back looking for it, but that was what I was referring to in my post just above.

John Patrick said...

I can't upload an image here, but check out this link to google maps street view. It shows the Angelo Drive end of the path that leads up the hill to Cielo. So there is a path that could be used to access Cielo from Angelo/Sunbrooke where the box of knives were found. Unsubstantiated claims on other site state the box of knives were a wedding present from Harrods for Sharon and Roman.


https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0926613,-118.4342248,3a,75y,48.39h,83.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spjf-6-TvMQepYHCP74oP0w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Doug said...

Another super narrow canyon road

John Patrick said...

Link to Life magazine article courtesy of Bo at CieloDrive.com

http://www.cielodrive.com/archive/a-tragic-trip-to-the-house-on-the-hill/