Monday, September 5, 2022

Once Upon A Time In Cielo Drive

10050 Cielo Drive, Los Angeles. It has been 53 years since the murders there in the summer of 1969, but the story surrounding them has not showed signs of fading away. The house, built in the 1940's for actress Michelle Morgan, also served as home to Lillian Gish, Candice Bergen, Samantha Eggar, and many other Hollywood celebrities. For those interested in the Tate/LaBianca murders, the story of this famous address probably acquires its greatest significance beginning on November 19, 1963. This is the date, according to his trial testimony, that Rudy Altobelli moved in to Cielo. Everyone who lived there contributes to the story of the house in some way, but it is the story of the events of August 1969 that endures.

Little appears to be known about Cielo from the time Altobelli purchased the property, to, say, when Terry Melcher moved in, renting the main house beginning on May 15, 1966, along with Mark Lindsay of Paul Revere and the Raiders. This all changes, of course, with the introduction of Charles Manson and Tex Watson into the story. 

Yet there is certainly a subset of this time, all but forgotten, if it were not for a few passages of witness testimony at the trials. To be sure, many witnesses contributed to this aspect of the story (the backstory), but this post will focus on a select few of these. These are parts of the story which are background, apocryphal.  According to his mother, William Garretson left his hometown of Lancaster Ohio in October 1968, hitching out to Los Angeles. It took Bill and a companion only a couple of rides to make it to California, and with not much more than change in their pockets.

William Garretson enters the story of Cielo in a rather strange way: he all but materializes suddenly into the narrative. Bill early on conveyed to his attorney, Barry Tarlow, that he encountered his future employer, Altobelli, while hitchhiking in Hollywood. Bill later confirms the same to LT. A.H. Burdick of the LAPD at Parker Center, along with everything else he was asked about Cielo.


 William Garretson in guest house at Cielo




W.E. Garretson in conversation with B.G. Tarlow


LT. Burdick interviewed Garretson on Sunday August 10, 1969:

Q How did you come upon that job?
\
A Well, I met Mr. Altobelli on--in Hollywood. And he, you know, he wanted--he's just got back from Europe, and he let some woman stay there before[in the guest house]that he knew for twenty years, and, you know, she partied every night and everything and the place was torn up and he--and just, you know, he told me if I wanted a job, I could come up and clean his house, and I was going to go back to Ohio in March, and I was picked up for Possession of Marijuana, and  it was lowered to Visitation. And so, you know, after that I was going to go back to Ohio, but he was going to Europe and he wanted to--he said the dogs liked me and everything, and he wanted to know if I would stay on while he went to Europe, then he would be back, you know, and he asked me, you know, he'd give me an airplane ticket home and everything.

Q Who was the woman who had your job before?

A Edith Stoltan(phonetic).

From this exchange we learn the most famous caretaker at Cielo had a predecessor, a certain Edith Stoltan. I could find no information on her, but apparently, she was a long-time friend of Altobelli, and equally, it would seem, as trustworthy as young Bill.

Again, Garretson:

Q But she lived in this house on--

A --when he went to Europe before.

Q On Cielo before?

A Yeah.

Q And she partied every night and he didn't like this?

A Well, that's from what I hear, you know, the place was a mess when I got there and everything. 

Q What place was a mess? 

A The guest house.

Q The guest house?

A Yes. She was taking care of the dogs and the bird. The bird died and everything...
(Tape Recorded Polygraph Examination of William Eston Garretson. Tape #32116. August 10, 1969 1625 hours.)




Guest house at Cielo, view of front door towards kitchen and bathroom. Notice the phone with the long extension cord on the table, along with the Budweiser beer cans.


 

During the trial, Rudy Altobelli, on the stand, corroborates Bill's story to LT. Burdick, and adds some detail. One detail that I find most interesting is the following exchange with Ron Hughes:

Q Now, did you know Mr. Garretson prior to your hiring him?

A No.

Q You just met him that day?

A No, I did not.

Q Well, he wasn't a friend, though?

A No.

Q How much previous to hiring him had you met him? 

A He had been hired way before that, when I first came back from Rome. I came back because of the heavy rains and I needed somebody to clean up some things, and Mr. Garretson was hired by me, and he seemed to be very nice and he loved the animals and the animals loved him. He seemed to be ideal to leave my dogs with. He seemed to be trustworthy.
(p. 14,781 Manson, et al trial testimony. Courtesy Cielodrive.com).

Q When you left for Europe in March did you know that Voityck Frykowski and Abigail Folger were going to live in the house in Sharon's and Roman's absence?

A I was told they were going to stay there, yes.

Q Did you know that they were going to entertain while they were there?

A No, that was not a question.

Q Did you know they were going to have large parties?

A No--

Mr. Bugliosi: That is assuming a fact not in evidence, your Honor. 

The Court: Sustained.
(p. 14,795 Manson, et al trial testimony. Courtesy Cielodrive.com).

Apparently the winter of December 1968 into early 1969 produced some very heavy rains and damaging floods in the L.A. area. No doubt this caused some storm damage at Cielo, and Bill Garretson was hired to help clean up the property (or was it just the guest house?), "way before" assuming the official caretaker duties at the guest house on March 24, 1969. It could have conceivably been in late 1968, during the heavy rains, but obviously before Rudy and Sharon Tate made their trip to Europe on March 24. Rudy hired Bill because he was "trustworthy". He had to have known Bill long enough and well enough to come to that conclusion. After all, Rudy had known Edith Stoltan for twenty years.



Rudy Altobelli



Hughes continues:

Q How long to Abigail Folger and Voityck Frykowski moving into the main house had you met them?

A I had met them at the party, I guess I was introduced to them at the house the day before. [March 23, 1969. The day before Altobelli and Sharon Tate left for Europe together]. It was very casual. I never had any conversation except for Abigail once, by telephone from London, when we were waiting for the plane to Rome, I was concerned about the boy in the back, and Sharon said I should call Abigail because she was a social worker and she could keep an eye on him and get him on the right path.
(p. 14,798).


Abigail Folger and Voytek Frykowski. Was Abigail keeping an eye on Bill Garretson?


At the trial, defense attorney Shinn cross examined William Garretson:

Q Have you ever been inside the Tate residence?

A Yes.

Q How many times?

A Twice.

Q What was the occasion?

A Well, before Mrs. Polanski, you know, moved in to, you know, the main house, I was there. I mean, you know, that was before anybody moved in.

Q Was this the first time you entered the house?

A And I was invited over another time.

Q Invited for what? For a party? For a dinner?

A No. That was when Abigail and Frykowski were staying there. They invited me over.

Q And how long did you stay?

A Five to ten minutes.

Q Did you have anything to eat or drink at that time?

A Just a beer.

Q One beer?

A Yes.
(p. 4,635).

Hughes continues:

Q And Christopher could that evening get out from the guest house on to the back patio, the double doors, as you indicated; is that correct?

A He could have gotten out. He could have been gone and I wouldn't have known about it.

Q And there was nothing to keep him, then, once out in the back patio from going around in front of the guest house up to the large residence; is that correct?

A Yes.
(p. 4706).



William Garretson waiting to be called to testify at Manson trial



Backyard of guest house at Cielo. Is this what Garretson referred to as the "little place"?


Bugliosi & Garretson:

Q The three dogs that you took care of for Mr. Altobelli, where were they that night?

A They were staying with me in the living room.

Q Did they leave the house at all during the night or did they stay with you the entire night?

A Yes, I had the back door open on the patio by the stereo.

Q Did they leave during the night or did they stay with you inside the living room?

A Well, the Weimaraner left. The larger dog.
(p. 4,636).



Cielo guest house. View from front door towards stereo


If Edith Stoltan liked to party in the guest house, Bill kept it rather respectable by comparison. But this did not stop Bill from entertaining guests while in residence. To be sure, Bill Garretson became lonely, and did what lonely people do: he reached out for companionship. These companions included, principally, Darrell Kistler and Roy Plank, both of whom were from Bill's native Ohio.

Students of this case will remember Kistler and Plank from Bill's recorded polygraph examination. They both factor significantly, and were of keen interest to LT. Burdick. Bill volunteered that he asked Kistler, who just returned from Vietnam, to live with him in the guest house in late May. He lived with Bill for about a month. This came to an abrupt end in late June when Bill threw Kistler out for stealing bottles of champagne from the main house. How Kistler accomplished this is unknown, but it happened on more than one occasion. Undoubtedly this was champagne that was delivered to Cielo, and perhaps left outside by the front door, or at the service porch area in the rear. It should be remembered that Billy Doyle loved champagne, and Abigail Folger did give champagne as a gift, at least to Witold-K for his birthday, which was in May).



Roy Plank high school yearbook photo, fourth row, last picture


I could find no photos of Kistler anywhere on the internet, and no yearbooks that I was able to locate had a photo of him in them, either. The same can be said for Patricia Montgomery, although her name appears in lists of graduating students of Indio High, at places like Classlists.com. The girls did not live at Cielo, but had occasionally stayed overnight, according to Bill Garretson. When Bill kicked Kistler out, the girls left with him, returning to Indio. LT. Burdick asked Bill if both girls were from Indio, and Bill replied, "[Y]es, both the girls." Apparently it was Debbie Tidwell that Bill favored.



Debbie Tidwell yearbook photo



Another visitor to the Cielo guest house, according to Bill Garretson's interview with LAPD, was Roy Plank. Roy and Bill were classmates in high school back in Lancaster Ohio. Plank was a Marine stationed at Camp Pendleton, who ultimately went A.W.O.L. and wound up being apprehended in Lancaster. Very little is known of the whereabouts of Plank and Kistler immediately following the murders of August 1969, but I was able to locate some newspaper clippings. This from the Indio Desert Sun: 
"Driver Has Repeating Accidents"
"Indio--An accident looking for a place to happen happened twice Wednesday night, in Palm Desert, and between Palm Desert and Indio. Booked at the Indio Sheriff's Sub-Station on a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol after the accidents was Darrell Kistler, 23, of 80-521 Highway 111, Indio, a California Highway Patrolman said. 

The first accident occurred at 9:45p.m. at the Security Pacific National Bank at 74-011 Highway 111 in Palm Desert. According to the CHP officer, Kistler, driving a panel truck, attempted to drive into the bank parking lot, missed the driveway, knocked over an entrance sign, backed up into the bank wall and also broke off a sprinkler...

At 11:30p.m., on Highway 1121, 1300 feet west of Dune Palms Road, the panel truck, driven eastbound by Kistler, crashed into the rear of another eastbound vehicle driven by John Bailey, 48...Taken to Indio Community Hospital and treated for minor injuries and released after the crash were Kistler and two passengers in the Bailey vehicle..."(Desert Sun, Volume 44, Number 229, 29 April 1971).




Darrell Kistler obituary notice from the Lancaster Eagle Gazette in the 1980's. Unfortunately he died a young man.


Roy Plank died in 2014 in Lancaster Ohio while mowing the grass. Apparently he had a heart attack.(Lancaster Eagle Gazette, August 11, 2014). I did manage to locate Debbie Tidwell on social media, and reached out to her, asking if she would care to comment on the summer of '69 at the guest house on Cielo. I have not received a reply from her.

Other regular visitors to the guest house were brothers Tom and Dave Vargas, gardeners employed by Rudy Altobelli since about 1965 at Cielo. The brothers tended to the Cielo property twice a week professionally, and when they were not working there, they used the guest house, shall we say, recreationally. According to Garretson, it was Tom Vargas who visited the guest house Thursday night, August 7, 1969. Accompanying Tom that evening was his girlfriend. Tom bought Bill the now famous Budweiser beers that--along with a couple of joints and a Dexedrine capsule--got poor Bill rather sick, causing him to feel somewhat fragile Friday August 8th.

Tom Vargas, like his brother Dave, were married men. Dave, it appears, brought his girlfriend to Cielo, but parked outside the gate to the property for their fooling--around sessions. This would probably have been in about the same place where Tex Watson would park the car on Friday August 8th when he cut the phone lines to Cielo.

LT. Burdick continued to question Bill Garretson:

Q What have you seen going on there that is different?

A I never seen--well, that night?

Q Any time?

A Oh, maybe one time I seen that--I don't know, I--I was asleep and I woke up, and that was when Darrell was living there and those two girls were staying that night, and they were over in the pool swimming and I went over there and they said that they'd seen Polk (phonetic)--Sharon wasn't there yet, I don't think, on mescaline--that somebody was on mescaline or something.

Q I didn't hear you.

A Somebody was on mescaline or something that lived in the main house. That was what they told me. 

Q How would they know this?

A They said that they told 'em.

Q They told them? What do you mean?

A They told them that they were on mescaline or something.

Q Someone that was in the main house told the two girls that were visiting you that?

A Yeah, yeah, and that they were on mescaline or something--I don't know.
***
Q How many times have you been in that big house, the main house?

A I think about twice.

Q When was the last time?

A That's when they asked me over one time. Abigail and the young Polanski. And they asked me--they asked me up. Abigail called me up and asked if I didn't have to go to court the next day for a (*) Possession of Marijuana charge which they lowered to Visitation. They wanted to talk to me, and that was the last time I was there. 

Q They wanted to talk to you?

A Yes.

Q About what?

A About going to court. 

Q What did they tell you?

A Well, it seemed like they were really concerned, you know, because Mr. Altobelli left and she, you know, he left with Mrs. Polanski, and she seemed a little bit concerned, you know, what was going to happen, if I was going to get, you know, a probation or whatever. You know, we discussed it. That was the last time I was there.

Q Did they offer you any narcotics?

A No.

Q Did they ask whether you could get some information for them? Or could you get some from them?

A They offered me a beer when I was there.

Q Offered you a beer?

A Yeah, or a glass of milk.

Q That was how long ago?

A Let's see, that was in March--middle of March.

Rudy Altobelli further contributes to the story of Cielo by filling in more gaps, and by expanding upon the association between Abigail and Bill while occupying the property. To me at least, Rudy placed an enormous amount of trust in both Bill and Abigail while they lived at Cielo. According to Altobelli's testimony, he met Abigail and Voytek for the first time on the day before he and Sharon left for Europe. Within a week Abigail and Voytek would be fully moved into the main house, while they invited friend and artist Witold-K to occupy their rented house at 2774 Woodstock in Laurel Canyon.

Altobelli, however, was concerned about Bill living in the guest house on his own, so Sharon suggested that Abigail keep an eye on him as she was a social worker. The ultimate extent to which she and Bill had contact is unknown, but through testimony we learn that Abigail and Voytek did offer Bill rides down to Sunset, and possibly back up to Cielo. Bill claimed that he was never invited to any gatherings at the main house, probably in an effort by Abigail to distance him from outside influences? Obviously Abigail and Voytek knew about Bill being charged with possession of marijuana, and were at least concerned about it.

Thus far, the story of Cielo, after Rudy Altobelli moved into it, may appear to be idyllic. We may imagine lazy summer days and evenings by the pool; famous and beautiful people coming and going; the gardeners performing their work; housekeepers keeping house; neighbors visiting. Everyone involved with these vignettes could, and in many cases did, contribute to this story: Samantha Eggar, Terry Melcher, Candice Bergen, Mark Lindsay, Witold-K, Billy Doyle, Debra Tate, Maureen Serot, Seymour Kott, Winifred Chapman, Tom and Dave Vargas.

Had this gone on uninterrupted, the world may have never heard about 10050 Cielo Drive. That is, of course, until Susan Atkins took over as a storyteller, and essentially created the official narrative of Cielo Drive for all time.



Susan Atkins, author of the master narrative


Unknown to Bill Garretson during the night of August 8, 1969, was that both his story and duties at Cielo Drive would fade, only to be usurped by the story Atkins would weave, literally while he wrote letters and listened to the music of the Doors and Cass Elliot. On that night, as the crickets chirped, the inflatables nudged each other in the pool, and the wind chime hanging by the front door gently sounded its song, the first word of Atkins' enduring narrative would be scrawled in blood on the front door. And perhaps, just perhaps, Patricia Krenwinkel became the last visitor to the guest house, attempting to gain entrance, but failing. It is in this failure that the transference of the story from Bill Garretson to Susan Atkins is solidified: Bill Garretson indeed lived to tell his part of the story, but the story of Susan Atkins would eclipse it, becoming the story of the "crime of the century".



 Linda Kasabian would confirm and amplify the master narrative


THE INTERSTITIAL PERIOD:

After the murders at Cielo, and with the conclusion of the immediate first week of the investigation, is a part of the story that I call, the interstitial period. It is a time of the continuing story, extending into the early '70s, but with several new storytellers. One of these is actress Olivia Hussey, star of the film, Romeo and Juliet in 1968, and directed by Franco Zeffirelli.

Ms. Hussey enters the pre-murder Cielo story as a footnote. In her autobiography, Olivia details how she factored into Cielo Drive, by meeting with Rudy Altobelli and the actor Christopher Jones.



Olivia Hussey autobiography book cover


It begins with Olivia, who was living in London in 1969, received a call from Rudy Altobelli. Both he and Stuart Cohen were managing young actor Christopher Jones, and Jones prevailed upon Altobelli to call Olivia, inviting her to dinner. Olivia and Christopher apparently got on well together, and before long, she was visiting him on the set of his latest movie, Ryan's Daughter.



Christopher Jones and Olivia Hussey


Olivia developed a relationship with Jones, and became very close to Altobelli as well. Soon enough, Rudy asked Olivia if he could manage her career. Olivia acquiesced, and thus began the professional and personal friendship with Altobelli that would ultimately bring her to 10050 Cielo Drive. Shortly thereafter, Olivia received word that she was to be a recipient of the Donatello award for best actor of the year(rather like the Oscar)in Italy. Before leaving, Rudy made a phone call to California, and spoke to Sharon Tate, who along with Roman Polanski had rented the Cielo main house that spring. The Donatello award ceremony was held on August 2, 1969. Olivia spoke to Sharon the day before, on August 1st, a mere week before Sharon's death.

Rudy then handed the phone to Olivia, and as she described it, Rudy said, "Olivia, I want you to say hello to a lovely woman who's looking forward to meeting you. Her husband is the director Roman Polanski. Her name is Sharon Tate." She went on to say, "Sharon Tate sounded warm and friendly. She told me that she adored me in Romeo & Juliet and that I must come out to LA so I could meet her, Roman, and their new baby, who was expected any day."(Olivia Hussey, The Girl On the Balcony. Kensington Publishing Group, 2018. p. 106).

After the Donatello award ceremony, Rudy introduced Olivia to Roman Polanski, who also received an award. Olivia recalled, [H]e talked about Sharon and moving to Los Angeles, he talked about how beautiful Rudy's home was and how I must come and see it if I ever found myself in LA. As I left that night, I thought how nice it would be to spend time with this couple."(Hussey, p. 107).



Roman Polanski receiving his Donatello award, August 2, 1969


Later, the relationship between Olivia and Christopher Jones began to take a dark turn. Jones was obviously significantly mentally ill, brooding, and sometimes violent. Rudy tried to help, but to no avail. After Jones' film wrapped, Olivia called their relationship a wrap--she had had enough. To be sure, during the filming of Jones' movie, while he spoke to Oliva alone one night, he punched her violently in the abdomen. But while still involved with Jones, Olivia began a friendship with Dino Martin, son of legendary film actor Dean Martin. Dino himself would ultimately enter the story of Cielo, dating and later marrying Olivia Hussey.

Altobelli convinced Olivia to move to L.A. and she agreed. But she had one problem: she had nowhere to live. To Rudy, this was no problem at all, and he offered her the bedroom at Cielo in which Abigail and Voytek had been staying. She would move in during September 1969. But five weeks before moving into the main house, the murders took place. As Olivia claims, "Rudy was still in Italy when he received the call with the news...I didn't know Sharon, having only spoken to her on the phone that one time. I did know Rudy, and I saw how much it affected him: He had known Sharon. The crime was vicious and senseless, and it happened in his home. Which would be my home for the next four years. Let me say simply that the whole time I lived at Cielo Drive there was nothing strange or macabre about it. I was still very young, and by the time I arrived all traces of the crime had been erased. Certainly something awful had happened there--it was sometimes odd to stand in the living room and look out at the front lawn, knowing that those terrible things had happened right there--but it was not the house's fault. As someone once said, evil does exist, but it is always human."(Hussey, p. 113).



Olivia Hussey poolside at Cielo and in the former bedroom of Abigail and Voytek



Olivia Hussey in 1969


However, the interstitial period was not without its problems for Olivia Hussey. When she moved into Cielo, she was informed by Altobelli that, since he still represented him, and because he had nowhere  else to live, Christopher Jones would move into the guest house, just a few weeks after William Garretson vacated it. Jones was instructed by Altobelli to keep his distance from Olivia, and for a while, Jones did just that.

Meantime, Olivia enjoyed her new friendships with the Hollywood elite, including young Dino Martin. She enjoyed Hollywood nightclubs and meeting people who came to Altobelli's parties at Cielo. Olivia said of Altobelli, "Rudy, I was learning, had a malicious streak and a medieval kind of humor: He laughed loudest at others' misfortune or embarrassment. It was not a pleasant quality, but more often than not it was obscured by his flamboyant, circus-act personality."(Hussey, p. 120).

Olivia met Terry Melcher, who according to Tom O'Neill in his book, Chaos, revealed that Terry moved back into Cielo not long after the murders. Terry and Olivia began a "very casual" relationship, but ultimately she found Terry "brooding and moody and always high, and after about a month our relationship fizzled out."(Hussey, p. 121).



Terry Melcher at Manson trial


Olivia lived the good life at Cielo, which included, as she says, smoking weed with Altobelli. And ostensibly, like many in her circle, she was not frightened away because of the murders in August. But evil had not entirely left 10050 Cielo Drive after the murders. One might think that with the rise of the sun on Saturday August 9, 1969, the evil specter of the night before would have vanished, frightened away by the dawn. This was not the case, as Olivia unfortunately soon would learn: 

"There was a standing lamp in the corner of my bedroom[Abigail and Voytek's]at Cielo Drive. When the door was pushed open, say by one of Rudy's two dogs, a shadow would slide slowly, like an eclipse, from the ceiling to the floor...One night, I was almost asleep when the shadow began to move across the room. Out of habit I dropped my hand down off the bed and waited for Lady, Rudy's German Shepherd, to find it and snuggle up. This time, though, it wasn't Lady; it was Christopher. And he closed the door behind him. The next five--and--a--half hours were the worst of my life. Christopher was hearing voices. He was twitching. He was so far gone it was shocking.(Hussey, p. 124).

Olivia goes on to detail the terror of the night, describing how Jones beat and then raped her. Jones left the former bedroom of Abigail and Voytek at 5:30AM. "After a while, I managed to get up and walk gingerly into the kitchen, where Rudy took one look at me and started to scream."(Hussey, p. 125). With that, Rudy Altobelli immediately threw Christopher Jones out of Cielo forever.

Long story short, Dino Martin came to Olivia's rescue, and the two fell in love. The rape resulted in a pregnancy, and Olivia decided upon an abortion, as she did not want a child to link her to Jones. In the end, Martin and Olivia were married, and had a child together.



Olivia Hussey and Dino Martin. At Cielo?


The interstitial period saw many people come and go from Cielo Drive, including a certain Robert Conrad(not the actor), an exchange student from Yugoslavia studying design at UCLA. According to Rudy's testimony at the trials, Conrad was hired as a houseboy(probably to assume the duties of the previous caretaker, William Garretson), from February to August 1970.


Bob Esty and Stuart Cohen in the living room of 10050 Cielo Drive, 1970's



Bedroom of Olivia Hussey at 10050 Cielo Drive, formerly occupied by Abigail Folger and Voytek Frykowski


After the early 1970's what I call the interstitial period comes to a conclusion, ending as ambiguously as it started. Of course, many more years of the story of Cielo Drive would follow, with the addition of many now famous storytellers. Sadly, and for reasons unknown to me, Rudy Altobelli decided to sell his beloved house on the hill, in the late 1980's. He purchased the property in 1963 for $86,000, and sold it for $1.6 million. According to Tom O'Neill, both he and Altobelli--who had became friends--visited Cielo one evening after the original house had been demolished, and replaced with the house that presently stands there. It was a melancholy visit. Says Altobelli, "I lived in that house twenty--five years, four months, and thirty--eight hours[.]" O'Neill went on to say that Altobelli wound up living "in a converted garage in a neighborhood known for its gang activity."(Tom O'Neill, Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties. Little Brown and Company, 2019. p. 106).



Front yard of 10050 Cielo Drive, October 1, 1969



Pool area of Cielo



The house that occupies the former 10050 Cielo Drive property is currently up for sale, for a paltry $85 million, if one felt so inclined. Obliterated are the neat front lawn, manicured hedge and gardens, so treasured by the inhabitants of the original 10050. The utility pole that Tex Watson climbed has been moved to the other side of the road, but one of the original majestic fir trees in the front yard remains, known as the "Abigail Folger Tree," as it stood very near where Abigail died in the front yard of 10050.

I suppose if the hill on which this famous property sits could speak, it too would have a story to tell. We continue to hear about this famous address by Tex Watson and Patricia Krenwinkle at their various parole hearings, essentially parroting the official master narrative of Susan Atkins. But long after the Tex Watsons and Patricia Krenwinkles of our current world depart, we no doubt will not have heard the end of the stories of Cielo Drive. And we never will.


129 comments:

Doug said...

Hey Torque!

Some interesting stuff in your post. Nice to hear from Olivia Hussey. I've read some of her recollections of Cielo but, you provided some nuggets that I have never seen before. Thanks!

About the mysterious Edith who occupied the guest house prior to Garretson..I seem to recall reading something YEARS ago about this Edith person but, I can't recall where I saw her name mentioned. Could Edith name be Edith Sitwell? I actually think that's the full name of the person mentioned in the article or blog where I saw her mentioned.

Don't have a clue where I saw it but, for some reason I am pretty sure that she was referred to as Edith Sitwell.

Not to worry though...Sir Buntline will likely find her within minutes. The guy is incredible.

Cheers

David Lane said...

I wouldn't consider myself particularly scream-ish, Ive had to deal with physical unpleasantries in my working life and also once considered buying a property where the previous occupant had been murdered. However I'm always stunned by the seemingly nonchalant manner in which new residents of Cielo Drive pass off its fateful history.

Appears to be in stark contrast to the other x million residents of LA who apparently went full on 'battle station' mode.

One piece of information that was missing from the article I found interesting was the rent Altobelli charged. OK, it was a ‘sweet’ looking property with great views , but I understand the rent he charged Polanski was around $1000 per Month. The inside wasn’t anything wonderful and at the time you could buy a house in the UK for 3 months of that rent !

Doug said...

Bwahahaha...Edith Sitwell was stuck in my head because she was a British poet who was probably not even alive in the late 60s.

But, did she party?

Doug said...

A grand in 1969 world be approximately $8,072.92 today. Seems to be a fair amount of rent for 10050 to me...but, I live in Vancouver where housing and rental prices are insane. Market rent in the area that I live in (about a 15 minute drive from the centre of the downtown core) is an average of around $3 grand/month for a studio or, puny 1 bedroom.

You can buy a 425 square foot "condo" for around $700,000 and up

Seriously messed up

Torque said...

David, yes you make an excellent point here in that those who lived and visited Cielo post murders evidenced a rather nonchalant attitude about it all. We know from the LAPD interview with Bill Rinehart, that Altobelli had a party at Cielo just weeks after the murders, and that Rinehart was invited. Naturally he said he did not attend.

To me, Altobelli valued his home and property more than anything. He spoke about it even more than he spoke about his career as a highly successful Hollywood manager. His home, I think, really was his castle, and apparently he was not about to let the murders take that away from him. While L.A. went on alert post murders, Altobelli went on the offensive to reclaim his domain, even if that meant suing Roman and also Sharon's estate.

Torque said...

David, Doug, various sources list the rent at Cielo as $1,200 or $1,500. Paramount Studios was evidently helping to offset some of that as Roman claimed the space above the garage as his office. But yes a thousand dollars in the summer of 1969 was a lot of bread.

Torque said...

Orwhut, many thanks.

Ajerseydevil said...

I wouldn't live there after all that tragedy I remember when they used to give away pieces of the fireplace on the Dearly departed Helter Skelter tours no thanks to many bad vibes

TabOrFresca said...

question for Torque

A few years back on Lynyrd’s blog there was a Garretson article and a poster said she was Darrel Kistler’s daughter and that it wasn’t ‘Patty Montgomery’ it was ‘Patricia Moloney’.

Did you contact her or explore this avenue?

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6001083595175224919&postID=1139204612524120


Outtake from lsb3 article:


Lane Bryant said...
Darrell Kistler was my father and the women who was there named Patty is my mother and it wasn't Patty Montgomery, it was Patricia Maloney. Now after marrying my father it is Patricia Kistler. I have talked to my mother about this and she told me about going there several times with my father. My father died when I was 6 so I never talked to him about it but my mother told me about my Dad being friends with Garretson and that he had stayed there for a bit. She also told me that she went there several times with my Dad and her friend to party.
August 26, 2019 at 10:53 PM


Lane Bryant said...
my name is Rebecca if you have questions about the Patty that visited the guest house with Darrell Kistler beccashappylife@gmail.com
August 26, 2019 at 11:04 PM

David said...

Good stuff, Torque!

Torque said...

TorF, thanks for the detailed information! I was not aware of any of that. So no, I did not explore this. However, now I am inclined to do so, as it appears she has made an email available. Thanks again!

Torque said...

David, thanks.

Torque said...

TorF, also forgot to say that--as I said in the post--I did see the Patti Montgomery name on Classlists.com for Inyo High School, but no photo. It could be that that girl is or was a real person, but somehow got confused with Patty Maloney. In fact, it was Bill Garretson himself, in his LAPD interview, who thought her last name was Montgomery. But I intend to follow up on this, and hopefully learn more. If so I will post it at a later date.

Torque said...

An update: As it happens, I own a hard copy of the Inyo High School 1968 yearbook, the Rajahan, and looked up Patti Maloney. I found her, where I already found Debbi Tidwell, in the junior class that year. So yes, I now have a photo to go with the name.

DebS said...

Nice post Torque. It's amazing what we can learn with a little back and forth conversation! This case continues to dribble out more information even after 53 years.

Torque said...

Deb, thanks. Yes, agreed. This simply highlights the fact that the comments are an important part of every post. Through them I feel we are accomplishing something by furthering the research effort.

Doug said...

Very cool Torque. Did you actually attend Inyo High at the same time?

Some more very interesting information has popped up since our messages earlier too.

You've opened up the hidden door!

Awesomeness

Torque said...

Doug, no I didn't attend Inyo high, and that was before my time. I do like to collect yearbooks though, and I have a growing collection. I purchased the Inyo yearbook through an internet collector. I also collect original newspaper photos and magazines, etc that deal with Tate/LaBianca. Scanned images of many of these items exist, but for me there is no substitute for the hard copy.

Also, want to add that I have today reached out to the daughter of Patti Mahoney(who was thought to be Patti Montgomery, friend of Debbi Tidwell). Hopefully she will contact me with additional recollections, etc on the summer of '69 at the Cielo guest house.

David said...

Torque said: "Doug, no I didn't attend Inyo high, and that was before my time. I do like to collect yearbooks though, and I have a growing collection."

That's ok. That is why I have the Radcliffe yearbooks from the years Abigail Folger was there and know that famous image of her....is not her.

Doug said...

Super interesting Torque. The hard copy yearbooks are so much better to flip through. The textures, etc...

For me it is like the difference between cracking open a new CD vs a new LP...

The full LP experience with the artwork and liner notes and that weird smell, etc

Then you play the vinyl and it just sounds warmer too

Cheers

Torque said...

Oops, I meant Patti Maloney, not Mahoney.

Torque said...

David, I was also able to purchase Abigail's senior yearbook from her time at Radcliffe also. I'm also thankful that I was able to obtain all four of her high school yearbooks, which belonged to a classmate of hers, complete with handwritten and signed notes--priceless.

Torque said...

To all: reread just now my latest comment to David, and in it I used the word "also" three times in one paragraph! Its been a long day, and I think I must be getting tired. Sorry for the redundancy.

David said...

Doug said: "The full LP experience with the artwork and liner notes and that weird smell, etc"

Other than the smell part absolutely. Mott the Hoople Mott comes to mind.

David said...

Torque said: "David, I was also able to purchase Abigail's senior yearbook from her time at Radcliffe also. I'm also thankful that I was able to obtain all four of her high school yearbooks, which belonged to a classmate of hers, complete with handwritten and signed notes--priceless."

I bow to you. Well done, sir.

Torque said...

Mind you, even though I purchased and own these yearbooks associated with Abigail, I basically consider myself a custodian, or guardian of them. That is, because of their previous original ownership and significance, I have decided to donate them to the library of the Santa Catalina School in Monterey, by having them included in my will. For now I enjoy to open them from time to time, reading about those young women from that time when the 60's were just beginning.

brownrice said...

Doug said:
For me it is like the difference between cracking open a new CD vs a new LP...

LP covers were also fantastic for rolling spliffs on and cleaning grass. All you can do with a cd cover is rack up lines of coke.
Says it all really :-)

Doug said...

You've been forced to read my comments...even the best of the best writers lose their ability to string 46 sentences together! Just wait until you begin to go cookoo with the eclipses

Lord help you

Doug said...

Oh yeah! Fer sure

Doug said...

INDEED

orwhut said...

The girl in charge of the albums in a local music sore used to have a handy way of taking out a vinyl LP. She'd slit the clear wrap on them by pressing her thumbnail between the two sides of the jacket and sliding it across. I sometimes wonder if she filed a sharp edge on her thumbnail.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Great post.

Peter said...

The way to open a record with style and panache is to rub the opening edge against your pants five or six times and then just press the sides together lightly. The plastic pops open and presto.

orwhut said...

Peter,
If I ever buy another record, I hope to remember that method.

Dan S said...

How does one say this house number: "ten thousand fifty"?

Doug said...

I've always said it as -

One-double oh-five oh

Eidolon said...

As usual for this blog, another fascinating, detailed part of the backstory. Thanks very much for providing it. I won't link to the new house because it is SO ugly and ostentatious, but it's worth looking up on Google Images, just to see what someone did to that comfortable "country" home on the hillside, if you haven't seen the pictures before. Bill Garretson is so interesting to me because he was the only one at the scene who survived the slaughter, and his story of that night is so very, very strange. I learned here, for the first time, that he indicated the doors had been open in the back of the guesthouse, so the dogs could come and go as they pleased. It explains why he wouldn't have been outside calling for them, I guess (and hence attracting attention to his presence that night), but it seems so mysterious that large dogs would be left to run around loose in that wealthy neighborhood at night. Perhaps the terraces of the hill were sufficiently steep so that the dogs couldn't get into mischief without fencing...I don't know.

Torque said...

Eidolon, thanks. I agree completely about Bill Garretson's story. I appreciate that there exists a vast degree of speculation and disagreement over Bill's story, too. My official take on it is: I don't know.

Anytime I read the transcript of his LAPD interview, I come to a full stop at a few places, taking time to digest what he is saying. There are things there that don't completely make sense to me. As well, LT. Burdick spent an abundance of time asking Bill what he saw, and if and where he looked out of the guest house. To me, this is incomplete questioning. That is to say, why not focus more on what he may have heard.

I'm amazed that Tim Ireland heard a man screaming from the direction of Cielo. This was more than 1,500 feet away. I have always believed that to be the voice of Voytek Frykowski on the front lawn. Bill Garretson may not have seen this, but I find it difficult to believe he did not hear it, even with the stereo on--if it was on at that time.

Indeed, what about that open back door? The poodles may have not gone out, but the larger dog, Christopher, most likely did. And what of Patricia Krenwinkel? Could the back door to the guest house have been open when she claims she paid her visit? If so, she certainly did not try too hard to enter. In a parole hearing, she said she looked into the guest house, and all she could see was a lamp. Would not all three dogs be barking if she approached the guest house? Both Bill and Altobelli admitted that the dogs exhibited a "people bark" whenever anyone approached.

Bill Garretson said he was afraid that night, and that it was not the only time he had been afraid at night when he lived there. On one occasion, he said he heard someone tramping around in the bushes just outside the guest house, and it frightened him. He saw the door handle to the front door turned down on Friday August 8th after Steve Parent left. That may have frightened Bill. I wonder if there was anything else that could have frightened him that night.

Fayez Abedaziz said...

You know, I've heard it all before and I do know because some of us have lived in a house that had houses nearby and some that were a block or a cul-de-sac away.
Or is this and that narrative about the freaks that lived in this obviously very nice house, a ranch style, a cul de suckers flimsly tale and tales, lie and project and redirect away? Away I say what's the matter with these weirdos that lived at Cielo and then went their stupid merry way. With their weasel words about the place that was better than them they didn't deserve living in such a nice place.
The beautiful house Sharon Tate lived in.
The only normal people that lived or visited there were Sharon Tate (rest in heaven dear lady with your son) Abigail Folger, Olivia Hussey and Susan Atkins.
The rest were misfits and had hangups and were just like so many that were just negative on their relatives and society and 'friends.'
Yeah, I've heard it all before, that Billy Willy didn't see or hear, you know, gunshots, like oh...2 or more down there down the block...oh...across the hill, never mind, it was freakin' next door! Who are we kidding?
Later, in a radio interview, years later silly Willy says that he heard loud noises
and whatever yeah it was a quiet evening and nice weather whatever...
At the same time, you can hear a car backfire from a long block away. I was in the hills and streets of Chatsworth, I heard people laughing and whooping from a mile away. I was in a car going into Laurel Canyon and I told my friends, as they showed me around that day, "turn around guys, I don't feel good, I'm getting bad vibes and a scary, insecure feeling, I don't wanna see this place again."
Meanwhile, back in the day, say 1968 and 1969 Summer days, along with all that was going on with our old friends The Beatles, one of the simple articles, among so many
about musicians and actors, was one where one of The Beatles was offered the role of Romeo in that nice movie and who was it? Why, my buddy Paul McCartney! How about that? By the way and I know you're having fun, a girlfriend in 1969 said to me one day: "I love The Beatles and Paul McCartney is the best looking guy in the word!"
I said, "Oh...I see, well I don't blame ya he's better looking then me and so, it goes without saying that what you say has to be true." She grinned. Later, years later, one of my two daughters had a baby and I said, "move over brother Paul, there's a new best looking guy..." Yeah, we can lighten up and have a sense of humor
and well, you know, as brother Paul said, "life is very short..there'no time for fussing and fighting my friend." Though I can see it your way I'm happy Olivia Hussey is still feeling good and healthy and still around dealing positively with life smile and say I'll go along

Jenn said...

Fayez, hold on a sec. Did you just name Susan Atkins as a “normal person” who “visited” Cielo Drive? Is that what I just read?

David said...

Yes, Jean, that is what you read thereby insulting the memory of two of the other names he mentioned.

grimtraveller said...

Fayez Abedaziz said:

well, you know, as brother Paul said, "life is very short..there'no time for fussing and fighting my friend."

Interestingly, that line was contributed to the song by John !

Jenn said:

Fayez, hold on a sec. Did you just name Susan Atkins as a “normal person” who “visited” Cielo Drive? Is that what I just read?

When it comes to Susan Atkins, Fayez tends to write from an obscure corner of an alternate universe.....😵

grimtraveller said...

I suppose it is quite normal to want to cut a baby out of its mother's womb after you've freaked the mother out, told her you don't care that she's going to die, helped to murder her, tasted a bit of her blood and then written a message in that blood. 🤔

G. Greene-Whyte said...

The man from across the pond makes a strong point.

Mr. Humphrat said...

There is a marriage record in Riverside county of Aug 8 1970 of Patrica Maloney to Darrell Kistler. Brian of TLB radio had a guest on who was supposed to be her, but she said they lived there until the same week as the murders. He supposedly located her based partly on the marriage record, but there was some skepticism that it was her.

Torque said...

Mr. Humphrat, thanks. I don't know for sure, but it may be that the source of the confusion over Maloney/Montgomery may have originated with Bill Garretson himself.

Here is what he says on page six of his polygraph transcript:

Q What was his name?
A Darrell Kistler.
Q And what were the girls' names?
A Debbie Tidwell and Patti something (*) I'm not sure. I think it's Montgomery or something like that.

Again, I found the photo of Patti Maloney in the 1968 Inyo High School yearbook, but I have not heard the segment about this on TLB Radio.

beauders said...

Bill Nelson got a hold of Garrettson, and Garrettson started changing his story to fit what Nelson thought would sell.

grimtraveller said...

beauders said:

Bill Nelson got a hold of Garrettson, and Garrettson started changing his story to fit what Nelson thought would sell

Can you elaborate ?

Fayez Abedaziz said...

Hello, how ya feeling, you know that not all that's written has real meaning
just take a look at what is still written about Sadie Susan even after all these years
when you put the good girl's name in the DuckMuckGo Bing a ling Google gaggle search engine lyin'
and you gotta think that hmm what were we thinking Fayez here has some eye opening things and now we're seeing more truth and Susan Sadie was truthful and real in the 1976 interview you may and can see on youtube and she's telling it like it was and even all of it about Cielo without lying or blnkin'
you think and then consider that she's actually a nice looking and good women
some of us just don't get enough credit and appreciate Susan's contributions
where do you think she had what her mind was in 1969 in July and August the month of
her delusional and dumbed drugged mind was just as it was wasn't it
yes it is it's true you've seen her you don't even hafta say: Sadie Susan we really feel it and appreciate you and we love you
You have and can see her walking and smiling and singing in the hallways in 1970 to the courtroom and doesn't that tell you she was going with the tide and times and was a child and girl of what had been her life before and then into doing dancing without a girl's shirt on or she was taking acid pot and enjoyning sexin' and some fun stealin' and living she had a something on her inner leg and I said oh and she said that happened when I was...and then I got that when...
that's some experienc and some call it that musta hurt not that much later alligator
do you really think she did all that at the Cielo Tate Ranch House? She didn't
She took the'fall' at the end of the trial for Cielo and the other crimes and later just got tired of it all and said okay I plead guilty to the Topanga crime I'm tired just leave me alone. Jenn and Grim Traveler: I did say Susan is normal just as I say she's done alright and I really have a lot more to say to prove more yet this may be the word limit here per comment see you soon I know you mean well and you know too that you know that there were two major violations of Susan's rights and that was:
1- the violations against her according to the 8th Amendement as to cruel and unusual punishment
2-the major violation of the 2005 California Supreme Court ruling that the so-called 'viciousness' of a crime is not enough to deny parole. There must be a real danger to the community and so don't use the crime as an excuse to prejudice a release.
That was not without some condieration, the Court then said, but be careful how and why you may deny a parole/release of an inmate. Susan was treated unfairly and I am not pleased at all and I think of suing there in California for the violations of her right to freedom and they instead violated morality and the laws they had no right to you see I'm sure as the waves enjoyin kissing the sand at the Laguna and Newport shore California you used to be better than that and so much more

Fayez Abedaziz said...

That California Supreme Court ruling was in 2008.
I think what I wanna say and simply type away
so that one year or day is a swirl in my head
and it's all weird but real as the first day I found myself laying
on the grass at a house just outside of the main part of Boulder in 1968 but so what it was something else taking acid and seeing colors and fading away for I think it was four hours or it was eight hours but it was now a sunny new day then they said you okay have some coffee and rolls
life was funny and like so many people actually very strange
yes friends the California Court said
have a good day

Peter said...

Well I'm all broken up about that girls rights.

Jay said...

Interesting post. I never knew Olivia Hussey had stayed there. I do know that Lillian Gish had spent time there, I believe in the 1940-50s? At any rate, there is likely no way I would personally stay at a place with such a dark history.
Luck was definitely on Garretson's side that night, considering that emerged unnoticed and unscathed, despite the utter mayhem going on yards away from the guest house, both in the house and on the lawn.
Fayez- always love reading your comments. You have a very interesting style. Keep 'em coming

beauders said...

Bill Nelson contacted Garrettson heard Garrettson's story and told him he could sell his story to tabloid tv and newspapers. Once Nelson was involved Garrettson's story changed culminating in the ridiculous idea that Tate's baby survived, Garrettson knew this all along and new the child was a girl, Rosie Tate Polanski.

orwhut said...

Did anyone else have problems getting into this blog on Friday? I was blocked several times. If I remember correctly a message said my information wasn't safe. I thought it might be a phishing scam.

DebS said...

Yes orwhut, there was a problem at the domain provider's end and it has hopefully been fixed. I had the same problems as you. It wasn't a scam. I got different messages at different times trying to get on the site.

orwhut said...

Thank you, Deb. I'm glad it wasn't a scam artist pretending to be a friend.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Thanks Torque, I was able to see yearbook photos of Pattie Maloney at Indio High School in 1966 and 1967 through Ancestry.com. I didn't see the 1968 one. And it seems like Classmates.com is harder to navigate now.
Did you try to get a hold of the person claiming to be her daughter through that email address?

Torque said...

Mr. Humphrat, yes I did. I found her email in a post on another blog. No reply from her at this time.

grimtraveller said...

Fayez Abedaziz said:

She took the'fall' at the end of the trial for Cielo and the other crimes and later just got tired of it all and said okay I plead guilty to the Topanga crime I'm tired just leave me alone

Leslie did exactly the same thing during the TLB trial ~ tried to plead guilty to the Hinman murder. But of course it was never taken seriously, because she had absolutely nothing to do with the crime. That is the difference. Susan did.
Read her books. In every instance of her speaking about the Hinman murder, whether it was in 1969 to Virginia Graham and Ronnie Howard, or her book in '77, or the one in the early 21st century, she involves herself. She states she badgered Gary about handing over money. She badgered him about handing over his cars.
That's involvement. She says quite a lot that places her squarely in that crime. You don't do her memory any favours by saying "she took the fall." Everyone guilty in that crime except Mary got canned. And Mary soon met her Waterloo.

Jenn and Grim Traveler: I did say Susan is normal

The problem in your statement was the use of the word "only," not so much the "normal." In many ways, she was pretty normal, given that normality is a sliding scale, has a lot of scope, and is on a spectrum.
And in other ways, she was tripping the light fantastic, or as a mate of mine would say, "gone clear."

2-the major violation of the 2005 California Supreme Court ruling that the so-called 'viciousness' of a crime is not enough to deny parole

I agree that the viciousness alone of the crime should not be used as the sole reason to deny someone parole 40 years later. There can be other factors. But Susan was constantly denied parole because she did not accept as true the court record. So it always looked like she was denying responsibility for what she had done. She was unstable with all her flip~flopping.
Paradoxically, in her last compos mentis hearing, she stated that she knew in her heart that the death penalty was the right verdict. So you're always going to fall on the sword of her own words however you try to approach it.
Susan mashed up almost anyone significant that got involved with her ! Rather like Bobby and Charlie, Susan rarely did herself any favours.

Susan was treated unfairly and I am not pleased at all and I think of suing there in California for the violations of her right to freedom

When you change your story as frequently as she did, you make it extremely difficult to be believed by those that really matter, even if you tell the truth, because even that truth is at risk of not being the whole truth to someone who has already been lied to. After all, who is to say that this "new" truth won't be changed at some point ?



grimtraveller said...

Peter said:

Well I'm all broken up about that girls rights

Well, if they were violated, even as a convicted murderer, you should be all broken up. Or at least acknowledge her standing as a human being that should still have some rights.
But they weren't violated.

orwhut said:

Did anyone else have problems getting into this blog on Friday?

Yeah. It was better security than when Kenneth Como escaped from the Halls of Justice !

Fayez Abedaziz said:

Susan was treated unfairly

There's a greater likelihood of full stops showing up in your written thoughts [😀 👍🏿 👏🏿] than there is of Susan Atkins having been treated unfairly by the judicial system. If anyone had a fair shake at the system and could have possibly been paroled had they continued to play it straight, it was she.

Fayez Abedaziz said...

Thanks Jay,
and by the way, what you said about Lillian Gish having lived at Cielo among others from the good old days of Hollywood, the ones often described as the Golden Days of Hollywood, well, how I'd love to be able to go back there, in the 40's and 50's, for a month or even to stay.
Perhaps you would get a kick and some laughs, if you search engine 'The Garden of Allah' (Allah being the Arabic word for God and also a take on the actress lady that built that complex, Alla Namizova). Those crazy and lovely E.European women, eh?
Unlike these days,every lady that lived at Cielo was classy and quite civilized. Look around today and see what I mean.
Although we have the few standouts like Taylor Swift and Arianna Grande. And the Country/Western female singers, they always have been lovely and classy.
You remember I'm sure one of Brother Charlie's words about music. He too enjoyed Country music. I laughed and said, to myself, as I do aloud at times, "that's pert good Charlie, saying: 'I keep a close watch on this heart of mine.'" To Diane Sawyer in that interview. From the song 'I Walk The Line.' Johnny Cash.
Another by the way:
I've said it on some sites, humor you know: "I'm glad that my parents decided to add a Z to my name, otherwise Johnny would have titled his other song- 'A Boy Named Faye' heh rather then 'A Boy Named Sue'
Now, Spahn Dude and Duddette fans, I will, I suppose collect a few thoughts about what I know and wrote, so far, about our girl Sadie Susan. First of all, do you all think that The Beatles wrote the letters that spelled 'Sadie' out of the blue? Please. Paul got that from one of his visits to California, when, unbeknowest to Susan, that was Paul she saw with some others, hanging out for a few hours in Laurel and that, my friends and you goofy others, he mentioned the name to John when John thought of writing that song after their trip to India . I'll be back soon (heh a fair warning for ya) yes, on Susan I'll Walk the Line

Fayez Abedaziz said...

Good evening how are you doing right now I was squinting gazing and thinking
maybe you can relate and see what has been in my sight on the news though it is not the usual spin and bull from the all the same 'reportibg' by the sheep that makes up the dis-honest media.
And that is, what I'm seeing, is the moving on of her Majesty Queen Elizabeth.
Then, it came to me what a heck of a film it would have been to have the late Brother Charlie have a seat and a conversation with her Royal Highness, Queen Elizabeth.
I continue to think back to Charlie (no relation with the now KIng Charlie the new highest Royal over there, her son and heir) and his interview with Diane Sawyer because that really shows and brings out a more wise and thoughtful Charlie that we all grew to kinda like or to love. Dig?
I mean, when he said to Diane, one of the most relevant, witty, funny and true statements about this society/culture, as it moves on and on:
"there was a time when being crazy meant something...now everybody's crazy!"
So true and insightful, Charlie, you hit it straight on!
Now, anyone with at least something of an open mind and a sense of humor would have been charmed by Charlie.
Charlie would have had a fine conversation with Elizabeth and would surly have had her laughing as they traded bits of humor along with Charlie's wit
can't you see it?
Charming Charlie, if only we coulda known more about you and how it somehow unraveled and I think that you looked back at times and thought, "I shoulda know better."
Nor only a reference to that early Beatle titled song, but you know:
if Charlie had not sent the four, soon to be criminals, to Cielo that evening, there would have been no killing
oh how time and decisions can be so fleeting
you are now seeing what I've been thinking
and you know that, even as it was and even as it happened when the Ford slowed by the house just down that dark and now so lonely and forlorn road, that:
they did not have to attack anybody. Tex did it, Patricia did it. They didn't have to you know. But wait, there's more-drugs, hang-ups in their heads, 'there's no real wrong...it's all for all, whatever you can take and...' and, 'were a different people than these and most of society...' we're screwed up, they're screwed up to heck with everything...'
and so on..?
My dear girl, did you say "it's too late" to thief Linda out there on the front lawn?
okay but at least Susan, you silly easy Sadie you didn't kill anyone ha but yeah you made a fool of one here ten there and a lot of people I'd say by the millions
honey sweet smiles and you kept it all together where did you get that confidence
a lot of us keep wondering

Fayez Abedaziz said...

Jenn, where did you go? There's something about girls' names that gets to me.That I like very much.
We all have certain general thoughts, clear or foggy in our heads. That is, for me:
the names Debbie, Cathy, Jenn (doesn't matter-Jennene or Jennifer and so on) Susan and Katy. What does that have to do with this site...well, we have enough cold reality to deal with when we visit a place like Cielo and the rather rude events that took place there, including the days of August 8 and 9, so you know...
However and at the same time, I'd like to say a thing or a hundred now, as long as I'm here and many of you are still around and near.
Peter, that was a good one, about being "broken up about that (Susan's) rights." I enjoyed a good laugh, humor is good and then, GrimTraveller (two L's?) you're saying that Susan Sadie said that she 'said...' to Sharon Tate and that she 'tasted blood.'
Come now, my dear fellow. You, as well as others, here, in another site or five and in many articles in magazines, papers, videos, etc, have said that she changed her story and analysis of events numerous times.
Well, than, you choose to choose what you want? Others in the media, from 1969 till now, choose to choose what they heard or what they wanna believe?
About Sadie Susan. Leslie was not at the tree, grass and flower adorned house and ground of Cielo and Susan was not at Waverly. So, what's the problem?
Charlie knew Susan didn't wanna get out of the car as he gazed down at her, turned his head and told Patricia and Leslie to go with Tex up to that house.
Leslie Van Houten was, like Susan, growing up and being an all-American girl. Then, they were done wrong. Leslie was a good person. So was Susan.
But, Susan was clever and an adapter. Oh, yes and how, as the saying goes. Cute nose sparkling eyes Leslie was not clever, yet she went along and was truly lost, in that Waverly house. Something and somethings went terribly wrong.
It wasn't long before the Piper said, 'aha, you went along, now you pay me and the society that screwed you and Susan with it's still hypocritical songs and wrong, but what do say now. What?
Susan stood, one day, on a street in San Francisco. She looked toward the camera and then a little to the side. She had a serious and somewhat of a sad look in her eyes. What day is this, what do I do now. It's 1967 and there was the first internationally broadcast program and that was the now famous$$ Fab Four and they sat with Mick Jagger and others as they sang All You Need Is Love and $$ and
lovemaking dear girls and your names girls are cute come here kitty.
I looked around that June day, in 1967 and thought, 'this sure is a grubby old room in a dusty musty old house with posters on the wall and pot and who's doing what'
and 'where do you go from here.' After listening to another album and, well...
Well, I will continue with Susan with her time in San Francisco to 1970 and you will see. See you tomorrow, there's more to stories you know other than the sad and sorrow, some things I'll tell you that are pert funny and mellow.

Milly James said...

Can someone please clarify - I thought Patricia Krenwinkel was Patty Montgomery.

Torque said...

Milly James, no. I think this has been a conspiracy theory for some time. Patricia Krenwinkel did evidently use the name Montgomery as an alias, but Krenwinkle is absolutely not the Patti that was hanging out with William Garretson at the Cielo guest house in the summer of 1969.

Garretson even testified under oath at the trial that he had never seen and did not know Krenwinkel, Atkins, etc.

Fayez Abedaziz said...

Well, that's weird.
I just, minutes ago, pressed publish and my comment isn't here. Written about 20 or so minutes ago.

Milly James said...

Thanks Torque.

Jay said...

Fayez- definitely agree that the ladies of Old Hollywood were much classier. They had that special something.
The book In a Summer Swelter gives a pretty decent argument about how the women did not really receive a fair trial. I don't necessarily agree with some of the points he makes, but there are some interesting conclusions. The book seems like it was primarily
written as a refutation of Goodbye Helter Skelter, but there are few sections that deal with the subpar representation the girls received. The author does seem to feel that Manson orchestrated the defense to his benefit, which does seem likely. The degree to which all of the defense lawyers might have gone along with it is open to debate.

Loegria15 said...

"First of all, do you all think that The Beatles wrote the letters that spelled 'Sadie' out of the blue? Please. Paul got that from one of his visits to California, when, unbeknowest to Susan, that was Paul she saw with some others, hanging out for a few hours in Laurel and that, my friends and you goofy others, he mentioned the name to John when John thought of writing that song after their trip to India .

Um...it's been well-documented that the Ms. Atkins' nickname of "Sadie" came FROM the song "Sexy Sadie written primarily by John Lennon in reference to the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his duplicitous actions at the ashram where the Beatles stayed in Rishkesh, India, during February 1968. He used the term "Sadie" because he was too chicken to use the real name.

https://www.beatlesbible.com/songs/sexy-sadie/

TabOrFresca said...

This discussion doesn’t interest me but the statement

“Um...it's been well-documented that the Ms. Atkins' nickname of "Sadie" came FROM the song "Sexy Sadie written primarily by John Lennon …”
does.

Atkins was arrested under the name “Sadie Mae Glutz” months before the “White Album” was released.

The “White Album” was released on November 22, 1968:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_(album)

Atkins was listed as Sadie on June 24, 1968:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MGBuhUn9DxQ/UIMtI02qDPI/AAAAAAAACjI/VSiSaBKN5Wg/s1600/UDJ+6-24-68+Boonville+Bust.png

https://www.mansonblog.com/2012/10/the-witches-of-mendocino-saga-begins.html?m=1


Loegria15 said...

Atkins was arrested under the name “Sadie Mae Glutz” months before the “White Album” was released.


I thought that Charlie had access to advance copy via Dennis Wilson? And I don't remember where I read that.


Also, good snark!

David said...

Fayez said…..

If I am reading these comments correctly, I am supposed to view Atkins as a victim. I am supposed to be open to the idea she did nothing wrong but was a ‘normal’ young women who was caught up in something she could not control.

Let’s explore that fantasy for just a moment.


But let’s look at what Atkins did after she arrived at Cielo.

Then we enter a home without an invitation and initially based upon her words ask for Voytek Frykowski’s wallet. We ask for Abigail Folger’s purse. We want money. That is felony murder. If, in 1969, a murder occurs during the commission of a (listed) felony and you participated in the felony you go to jail for life. Ask Leslie Van Houten about this one. When the murders start by her own words she does not protest, flee or freeze.

Even if we assume everything she claims she said to Sharon Tate that night was a lie the forensic evidence. The science tells you what Atkins did.

She admits she stabbed Voytek Frykowski several times in the leg because he pulled her hair. With a little research you can actually ‘see’ what happened that night. Follow the wounds.

You see, a larger blade on a knife cannot make a smaller wound absent a tapered tip. A smaller blade can make a larger wound based on the angle of the blow or the recovery. Adkins stabbed Voytek Frykowski several times in the leg those wounds appear on the autopsy report with a length. They are ¾ inch wounds.

And if you look at all the victims you learn that Atkins was correct: she did not stab Sharon Tate. The wounds to Sharon and Abigail and Jay Sebring are larger than ¾ inch. One weapon inflicted wounds on every victim and the wounds from a third weapon appear only on Abigail Folger.

Now let’s have Dr. Nuguchi explain the science.

STAB WOUNDS OF THE BACK

Stab wound #1 ***** This stab wound measures ½ inch and shows one sharp medial edge, one dull lateral edge. The depth of this stab wound is ¾ inch.

Stab wound #2***** The depth of the wound is ¾ inch and it measures ¾ inch by size.*****

Stab wound #3***** This wound measures 3-1/2 inches deep and it measures ¾ inch in length and shows one sharp upper edge and one dull lower edge. The deepest portion of this wound penetrates one inch into the posterior portion of the left lung.

Stab wound #4*****This wound measures 3-1/2 inches in depth and measures one inch in length. It shows two different edges, one sharp lower edge and a dull upper edge, the deepest penetration of this wound goes into the posterior aspect of the right lung.

Stab wound #5 ***** This wound measures 3-1/2 inches in depth and it measures ¾ inch in length. It shows two different edges, one sharp lower edge and one dull upper edge. This wound penetrates as deep as the left kidney.
______

¾ inch is too small for weapon #2 and #3 but is the same as the wounds to the leg.

Naguchi:

There were five stab wounds on the back. These again are labeled 1 through 5.

No. 2 is located in the vicinity of stab wound No.1 but is slightly below the location of stab wound No.1. It measures, I believe three-quarters on an inch in length, penetrating into the right lung. I would say this would be a fatal wound.

No 3 was found on the left side of the mid-back. It measured one inch in length, penetrating deep into the left chest cavity, piercing the left lung. I would consider this also a fatal wound.
______

No, Atkins did not kill Sharon Tate but she did murder Voytek Frykowski. After she inflicted these wounds on him he fought his way outside. But he was already dead.

A victim? A normal young woman? She stabbed him five times in the back and murdered him.

After wound #2 he had ten to thirty minutes to live. If he had been assisted he could possibly have lived, although given all the damage that is unlikely.
.

David said...

She was a victim of Ella, Manson, Wilson...no....she was a narcissist of the worst sort and that allowed her to murder someone and feel nothing. And even after 'finding God' allowed her to never admit what she actually did do that night.

It is what they do, very, very well.

Loegria15 said...

"It is what they do, very, very well."

I heartily concur. No narcissist feels/thinks they've ever done anything wrong.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

She gave the all clear sign at Gary's too. Actions have consequences and Sadie received hers imo.

Tim A. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fayez Abedaziz said...

For the love of love and the true love that lives for people such as Romeo and Juliet.
Come to think of it, it is really a small world after all, isn't it.
Isn't it for all 'you doubting Thomases,' as the old saying goes?
Look at them, from movie to movie, from musical to musical.
Even nice movies such as The Sound of Music and My Bair lady. What? Really now.heh
But now,
yes, I'm serious.
Wouldn't Dino Martin had been a good Romeo? Or Jimmy Page? Sure.
But, you're thinking, the two mentioned in the post we're discussing played Romeo and Juliet quite well, yes indeed they did.
Yet, do you know who would also had made a great Juliet? Susan Sadie Atkins. that's who. Without a doubt, the beautiful eyes, perfect hair and the many faces, from a sad, serious expression, to a cute slight upper lip crinkle of a smile with shiny brown eyes to a look of loving feelings, of that nice emotion coming through.

Olivia is wonderful, yet a remake of Romeo and Juliet with Susan Sadie Atkins Juliet woukld have had the world also fall in love with good hearted Susan.

There was another fella that was in show biz and he was more talented than he got credit for and he would have been a fine Romeo with Sweet Juliet Susan Sadie. That's the late, good guy, David Cassidy. I remember girls saying how good he looked and such, in the sometimes good old 60s and 70s days.
However, continued betrayal and confusion were part of Juliet Susan's life. She proved how attractive she was and how good her mind was and so, good can indeed triumph as time moved on.
Someday, we'll meet again, our love.

You know darn well, from common sense, after you think about it, that if Brother Paul McCartney, who refused the acting offer, to play Romeo, would have most probably told his Beatle mates, that he wanted to play it because Susan Atkins was gonna be Juliet! After all, he met her in Laurel Canyon and I'm still somewhat amazed at some of the whispers and things, I've been told about that place, God help us all. Read Brother David McGowan's book, or some chapters, go ahead. Weird Scenes In the Valley.
The things I was told in hours long discussions with a lady that worked in studios in L.A. not an actress. I paid for the pie and coffee at that Denny's, so cool it.
In one of those houses, with a nice backyard, with plenty of green, enjoyable trees and shrubs and flowers, some showbiz types hung around and partied. At one house, there were some second rate musicians, some studio sessions band players, some pop stars and a lot of Gin, Vodka, beer and Pot. A couple Beatles were there, so were a few groupie/hanger on girls and some girls from the Santa Susana area, you know, like Spahn horses and girls singing and sewing Town. One of them was Sadie. It was said that a British Rock Star, had a bit of 'fun' with a brunette back there, at that house, in Laurel, behind the bushes.
Sure, everything is so neat for people who don't seem to see that there is at most, 7 degrees of separation between any person in the world and any other person.
Thanks for the music, Beatles and Led Zep and so on, but we know where the Mop Tops got some titles and lyrics. From some America influences and from a brunette in California, with cute, silly smiles and a clever way to do this and that.
Some people seem to know where it's happenin,' 'where's it's at.'
What would the world be without people like 60's music and Susan, The Beatles and other people and things that were so nice to see, to listen to and to think about life and wonder, where in the world is 'it all at.' India, Jerusalem, Laurel Canyon, Malibu, a coffee shop bookstore in Boulder? Chatsworth? Yes, the hills of Chatsworth and the Santa Susan Hills. Meditation and wildflowers. Close your eyes girls and the sun's soft rays will kiss you

grimtraveller said...

Fayez Abedaziz said:

A couple Beatles were there, so were a few groupie/hanger on girls and some girls from the Santa Susana area, you know, like Spahn horses and girls singing and sewing Town. One of them was Sadie. It was said that a British Rock Star, had a bit of 'fun' with a brunette back there, at that house, in Laurel, behind the bushes

Do you honestly think that if Susan 🔪 Atkins, or any of the Family for that matter, had met one of the Beatles, let alone had some fun in the bushes 👩‍❤️‍💋‍👨 with one, that we'd never have heard this from the 🐴 horse's mouth ?
Fayez, don't go all Mario III on us ! 😼

do you all think that The Beatles wrote the letters that spelled 'Sadie' out of the blue? Please. Paul got that from one of his visits to California, when, unbeknowest to Susan, that was Paul she saw with some others, hanging out for a few hours in Laurel and that, my friends and you goofy others, he mentioned the name to John when John thought of writing that song after their trip to India

If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, lack of a little knowledge can be fatal.
Paul McCartney said this in the mid-90s in the nearest thing to an autobiography, "Many years from now":

"Originally, 'Sexy Sdaie' was called 'Maharishi': 'Maharishi, what have you done ? etc. But George persuaded John to change the title and he made the suggestion of 'Sexy Sadie' to protect the innocent. I think George was right. It would have been too hard and it would have actually been, as it turned out, rather untrue, because it was Magic Alex who made the original accusation and I think that it was completely untrue."
He is recalling the Beatles' time in India and the context of the statement is how George, even in the 90s, was still into the Maharishi, and Paul's own contention that it was all a positive experience back in '68.

grimtraveller said...


Loegria15 said:

Atkins was arrested under the name “Sadie Mae Glutz” months before the “White Album” was released........I thought that Charlie had access to an advance copy via Dennis Wilson? And I don't remember where I read that

The Manson saga is chock~full of bollocks and information that, when examined in the cold hard light of day, not only doesn't, but cannot pan out.
It's quite interesting that going through the many books I have on the Beatles or have read in the last 46 years, the name Dennis Wilson doesn't come up once in any significant manner, if he comes up at all. Brian's does because he was the big wheel in the Beach Boys and as a composer and someone with a major interest in production, he's a natural to find himself in the story of the Beatles as they were major competitors and were influencing each other.
But Dennis ? He's not even a footnote.
Even if Dennis Wilson had received an advance copy of the White album, Susan had been given and was using the name Sadie Mae Glutz before the album was even mixed {16th~17th October} ~ and Wilson would not have had any advance copy before this date because it didn't exist. Recording of the song in question began on July 19th and was abandoned before a remake in August, which was concluded on the 21st. As the newspaper article that TabOrFresca linked to shows, she was using that name in June and possibly had been for a while before that.
People often come to this saga with the view "if you're just going to accept the standard narrative, then what is there to discuss ?". Personally, I think there's lots to discuss, but I do see that the standard narrative has gaping holes {which, actually, can be filled with some diligence ~ note David's reply to Fayez above} and leaves a lot of questions that are legit to be asked; these questions were not of vital importance at the time of the trial. The inherent danger of the quest for answers though, is what we have seen for half a century ~ obfuscation. So everything becomes fair game to muddy up and a simple thing like a song title of a relatively obscure song on a double album becomes this huge thing that gets trawled around, in order to prove something, though it's rarely clear what.
No one ever mentions that actually, the appearance of the song "Sexy Sadie" on the White album, of all albums, was one of a number of things taken by Charlie to show that he and the Beatles were tuned into the same wavelength and that the younger impressionable cohorts of his were mightily impressed by this and took his words with much more seriousness as a result. Even Manson himself, at trial, pointed out how kids would listen to songs and pick up on the messages contained within ~ whether there were messages or not !

TabOrFresca said...

Atkins was arrested using the name “Sadie Glutz” in the “Nine Nude Hippies Arrested “ incident. Manson’s mug show the date, 4-22-68, the the newspaper is dated 4-23-68.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Z4ngdbwFApQ/VyYUoSHtZLI/AAAAAAAAAww/EF9ff0nemBEHTrbi_mOQrD7kYkepD_udgCLcB/s1600/Nude%2BHippies.jpg

https://www.mansonblog.com/2016/05/nude-hippies-and-origin-of-icon.html?m=1

Tim A. said...

Great post, Torque,
I also had no idea that Olivia Hussey had lived at the Cielo address. Very interesting fact.
I've thought about William Garretson being in the guest house that night. Picturing with my own mind's eye what it would be like to watch that doorknob turn through his eyes. Terrifying, especially in hindsight the next day and thereafter.
The back patio door was open, but had he closed and locked it once he felt frightened? Was that the doorknob being turned, or would it have been the front door? I've seen the doorknob being turned and reenacted in a documentary a long time ago, and it left an impression of how fortunate William was to survive that night.

grimtraveller said...

Tim A. said:

how fortunate William was to survive that night

Until one stops and thinks about it.
Other than Shorty's murder {and remember, in that instance, there were 6 guys with knives and a pipe wrench to one}, the one thing all of the murders {and I include Lotsapoppa in this} had in common was that the victims were neutralized by a gun. Also, none of the victims fought back with a weapon of their own. If Pat had gone to the guest house on her own and encountered Garretson, given the hassle she had had with Abigail who did fight back {Pat had to call Tex to help her}, the question has to be asked if she would have done any damage to William, the guy that was once on the wrestling team. I'm inclined to think not.
Furthermore, by this point Watson's gun wasn't working. He was never challenged in a fight situation where he had to rely on just his own strength. He either had already shot his victims, or they were tied up or they were hopelessly outnumbered....

grimtraveller said...

TabOrFresca said:

Atkins was arrested using the name “Sadie Glutz” in the “Nine Nude Hippies Arrested “ incident. Manson’s mug show the date, 4-22-68, the the newspaper is dated 4-23-68

At this point, the song was still called "Maharishi" and was only in Lennon's head and on bits of scrap paper. George Harrison said:
"John had a song he had started to write which he was singing: 'Maharishi, what have you done ?' and I said 'you can't say that, it's ridiculous'. I came up with the title of 'Sexy Sadie' and John changed 'Maharishi' to 'Sexy Sadie'."

David said:

if you look at all the victims you learn that Atkins was correct: she did not stab Sharon Tate

Well, we don't know that for a certainty. The evidence gives us knife dimensions and tells us which knives caused fatal damage. But the evidence doesn't tell us who was wielding the knife at the time. The first statements she ever made about the crimes to an outsider, in prison, were to the effect that she did stab Sharon Tate. And it's not the statements she made to Virginia Graham and Ronnie Howard that I'm referring to, but the one she made to Nancy Jordon.
I'd be ready to write off her statements to Howard and Graham as just bragging to big herself up, were it not for the statements she made to Jordon who, unlike the other two, was her friend and someone she had known on the outside, someone who had visited Spahn. That Jordon was in Atkins' orbit before she got in with Ronnie and Virginia has made me wonder, ever since Robert Hendrickson's "Death to pigs" brought this out. The book came out not long ago, but he filmed Nancy saying all this in early May 1971.
It also makes me wonder that the knife it is common knowledge she lost at Cielo, was found in the weirdest place with no blood on it. It leaves open the possibility that there was some knife trading going on that night. By her own admission to the Grand Jury, she says Tex ordered her to kill Sharon. What was she supposed to do this with ? She doesn't say he handed her a knife and told her to kill her. His instruction is the same as it was when he told her to kill Frykowski, when she did have a knife.

Torque said...

Tim A, thanks. Good question on Garretson possibly closing and locking the patio door. I find nothing in the record that he did so, but it stands to reason that he did if he was scared. That way, Krenwinkel would have had a more difficult time gaining entrance. I believe the door knob would have been on the front door, as LT. Burdick asked Bill if he locked that door when speaking about the downturned door handle.

At a parole hearing, Krenwinkle said she looked through a window at the guest house, and could only see a lamp. She did not see Bill Garretson. Where was he? In the bathroom or kitchen maybe at that exact moment? It is unclear.

Grim, indeed. That knife found without prints in the chair has always been an anomaly to me. I am not aware that any of the killers wore gloves at Cielo. People talk about the knife and glasses being planted by someone later that night--a mysterious someone who returned. But must it be that way? What stopped Tex and co from simply planting them themselves, then claim that Susan lost her knife? But who benefits from this?

David said...

Grim said: " His instruction is the same as it was when he told her to kill Frykowski, when she did have a knife."

Yes, we don't know to a certainty.

Atkins is in my opinion the least credible witness. You rely on a source. I rely upon the interview by Caruso and Caballero. There she said she did not stab Sharon Tate but admits quite a bit.

'Yes' consistent with her GJ testimony, she does say Tex said 'kill her' and so did Krenwinkel.

Following your logic that would mean she had a knife at that moment. But Watson and Krenwinkel just reentered the house with two knives so logically it would be a third knife. But we really don't know which knife, only that the one she wielded against Frykowski had a 3/4 inch blade.

Atkins does say, there, that the knives were exchanged- actually Caballero mentions this.

We also know someone collected the knives before they got in the car and put them all on the front seat so what they came to the car holding may not have been what they entered Cielo carrying. The knife found at the scene was Kasabian's personal knife if memory serves. Correct me if I am wrong.

Atkins said she had the knife with the tape and everyone had a knife (four knives?). She also mentions giving that knife to 'the girl outside'.

The wound evidence suggests that three knives inflicted the wounds. What if the discovered knife is a fourth knife that never inflicted a wound? Akins assumed she lost her knife because she didn't have it in the car (logical). Kasabian has her stating 'oops I lost my knife' going back inside to search for it. But Kasabian has the benefit of the GJ testimony to fill in her memories.

What if Atkins dropped her knife to hold Sharon Tate, Watson picks it up when they leave or when he is inside, alone and three knives actually are tossed from the car.

A fourth knife is dropped at the scene by someone who freaks out over the carnage, wants it to stop, throws her knife away and runs away. We no longer need that silly stroll by Atkins.

Just a thought over a cup of coffee, watching the waves.

grimtraveller said...

Torque said:

What stopped Tex and co from simply planting them themselves, then claim that Susan lost her knife? But who benefits from this?

I can't honestly think of any fathomable reason, even with a drug-enhanced mind and illogical, psychedelic thinking, that nets any benefit whatsoever for that knife being planted. Watson was apparently pissed at Susan for losing the knife. Susan was paranoid about having lost the knife. The aim was never to get caught, even if there was some befuddled logic in "doing a crime that would shock the whole world."

David said:

Atkins does say, there, that the knives were exchanged- actually Caballero mentions this

That's part of the reason why we can't say with any certainty that she didn't stab Sharon.

She also mentions giving that knife to 'the girl outside'

Well, she said she thought she had given it to her. Then she concludes that evidently, she didn't give it to her, which led her to the conclusion that she must have left it in the house which got her kind of paranoid. Then she says she thought she must have given it to Linda because she asked both Tex and Pat if they had her life and they said no.
What is abundantly clear is that Susan didn't have a clue what had happened to her knife. She didn't know if she'd given it to Linda or if Pat had it or Tex, otherwise she wouldn't have asked them. And it's her knife that was eventually found in the house. What's also clear from what she says to Caballero and his point about the exchange of knives is that there was a degree of knife exchange going on that night, just like there was the following night. So it can be determined which knives made which wounds but not who was wielding them at that moment. Atkins speaks to Caballero and Caruso about the confusion of certain points on the night. She was right. Basically, at times she doesn't know if she was coming or going, came or went !
It is interesting that whenever she told this story, when it comes to the point where Watson {or even Pat} tells her to kill Sharon, she never ever says "Oh, I've lost my knife...." Not even to the GJ.
Not that it means much, but when Watson tells the story in his 1978 book, he makes a point of saying that Susan had lost her knife long before the point at which he was telling her to kill Sharon. So if he expected her to kill {and in his book he states that he told her to do so}, the question has to be asked, what did he expect her to kill Sharon with ?

Kasabian has her stating 'oops I lost my knife' going back inside to search for it. But Kasabian has the benefit of the GJ testimony to fill in her memories

But Susan doesn't mention any conversation with Linda outside about losing her knife, either to her lawyer or to the GJ.

You rely on a source. I rely upon the interview by Caruso and Caballero

I take into account both, in conjunction with a whole lot of other stuff. For example, Nancy Jordon's words only really have any relevance, if true, aligned to Virginia Graham and Ronnie Howard's words. Jordon could be a total bullshitter. Equally, even though they are only 4 days apart, there are some bizarre and maybe worrying differences between what Susan says to Caballero & Caruso and what she says to the GJ.

grimtraveller said...

So if he expected her to kill {and in his book he states that he told her to do so}, the question has to be asked, what did he expect her to kill Sharon with ?

The logic being, that it is likely that he would be expecting her to use his knife, given the knife exchanges that we know were being discussed in '69.

David said:

she was a narcissist of the worst sort and that allowed her to murder someone and feel nothing. And even after 'finding God' allowed her to never admit what she actually did do that night....she did murder Voytek Frykowski. After she inflicted these wounds on him he fought his way outside. But he was already dead....She stabbed him five times in the back and murdered him....After wound #2 he had ten to thirty minutes to live. If he had been assisted he could possibly have lived, although given all the damage that is unlikely

Funnily enough, I can sort of understand why she wouldn't have thought of herself as being the actual murderer of Wojciech. In a way, it's part of the problem with a conspiracy charge ~ everyone in the conspiracy is guilty of whatever takes place ~ even if they weren't there. Hence, she's legally guilty of the murders of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca, even though she never set foot in their house on the night or even knew what they looked like.

Ever since I read the trial transcripts, I've wondered why Bugliosi and Gentry don't mention in "Helter Skelter" {even if it doesn't play a large part during the trial}, Susan jumping on Wojciech's back {it was discussed in chambers, I think, when the lawyers were talking about the testimonies of Howard & Graham} and stabbing him. All that comes over in the book is her stabbing his legs, none of which wounds were fatal. Or that any wounds she perpetrated had the effect of rendering him with only 10~30 minutes to live. It doesn't really come over at trial.

So there's never really been any big deal made about the connection between her telling Graham that she jumped on his back and stabbed him repeatedly and any fatal wounds. The clear impression given for decades is of Watson raining the gunshots, skull blows, and probably 46 of the knife wounds on him, so he's seen as "the one who actually killed him."

With conspiracy charges, the exact "who did what" almost becomes moot because all the perps "did everything," to all intents and purposes.
So sometimes, a person might not know exactly what they did or the damage they caused, which just makes it easier for them to deny real responsibility. Charlie was a good example of this. Susan was too. In Atkins' case, it's easy to understand why this is.

This isn't designed to absolve her in any way ~ she said back in '69 that she felt bad about the murder of Steven Parent, which, to me, makes her subsequent actions all the worse. But I can see why she might not see things with some of the clarity that we {or LE} would.

But again, in answer to Fayez, sometimes, the parole board people saw things clearer than she did and I think he's only looking at things from his own biased point of view rather than the point of view of the people whose conclusions he is critical of.

AndyTaylor said...

Great post, Torque! Your attention to detail and good writing are appreciated.

Doug Said: The full LP experience with the artwork and liner notes and that weird smell, etc
While I’ve been a CD fan since I first heard one (having been raised on vinyl), one thing I DO miss about the viny experience is the little messages sometimes engraved by the cutting engineer on the music-less band closest to the label.

Even though I rarely contribute here, I have to say the attention to legitimate research and curiosity about these unfortunate events is greatly appreciated and is demonstrated so clearly in Torque’s research and post. There are many who pretend to present research but are merely defenders of Manson at all costs as displayed on internet "radio" shows and their unstable hosts and abuse-seeking hostesses. Thanks to all here who continue with intellectual honesty and evidence-based research. Many of my opinions about this case have been changed by the excellent work done here.

Torque said...

Andy Taylor, many thanks for your kind words. I'm thankful to be able to make some kind of contribution. Yes, agreed, its a privilege to have this blog and to learn from all who contribute here.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Has anyone else ever wondered which Doors record Garretson might have listened to that night? I know it's a triviality but it seems fitting to me in a melancholy way that he said he listened to Mama Cass and the Doors. It's probably not right, but I picture him listening to The Soft Parade, the album and the song that night. "Can you give me sanctuary I must find a place to hide" "The man is at the door" "The radio is moaning Calling to the dogs There are still a few animals Left out in the yard." Or "The End" makes even more sense.

shoegazer said...

The content in the last few threads by DebS and Torque are what I hope to find when I come here. This is the process of researching and recording for posterity a moment in time that was notorious and infamous. It freezes an image of the culture of that time, and which is likely to be otherwise lost and/or distorted.

It's the work of historians. As such it stimulates intelligent and thoughtful responses, which serve to test the propositions contained in the initial articles. Coincidentally, it to pleasantly stimulates the intellect of all who read these exchanges.

Well done; very well done!

Loegria15 said...

Shoegazer, very, very well-put. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

I personally feel privileged that I can read and contribute, in my tiny way, to this blog. History is something I enjoy, and especially stuff that's happened when I was too young to know about and/or understand.

Torque said...

Shoe, Loegria15, thanks. Because this story involves so many people, discourses, etc, it truly encompasses a very complex, detailed, and rich history.

In my own way, I'm reaching out to as many people and institutions as I can who were involved with this case, in the hopes of preserving as much of the history as possible--and that includes the periphery and the back story.

Its a difficult gig, though, as its often hard to find people who are willing to talk. I find that it requires patience and delicacy when reaching out to people who were a part of this story 53 years ago. But I must say that its worth it. I have no doubt that we can all agree on that.

shoegazer said...

"...its often hard to find people who are willing to talk."

I think that few really wanted to talk about it at the time, and many who might have something of value have passed away. While contrariwise, there are plenty now who really want to talk, but have nothing to say, really. They seem to be after some sort of reflected notoriety.

In a sense, this amounts to historical revisionism.

Anyway, keep up the good work! It's appreciated!

Torque said...

Mr. Humphrat, great question about the albums, and I've often thought about it myself. Personally I've not seen anything in any available literature that would answer this. We know who Bill was listening to, but not exactly which albums/songs.

I would say that the albums may well have belonged to Rudy Altobelli, as it was his hi-fi, and Bill may not have had enough cash to purchase his own records?

Speaking of music that night, I believe it was Linda Kasabian who said that music was playing on the stereo in the living room in the main house at Cielo when the killers gained entrance. Although I cannot presently cite it, there is obscure reference that a Mamas and Papas song was on when they entered the front door.

shoegazer said...

Question re Krenwinkle's purported attempt to enter the guest house...

Sequentially, when is the mostly likely time she would have gone back and tried? How long did she spend trying? She says she looked thru a window and saw only a lamp. Which wind, which lamp seem mostly likely?

I understand that this is speculative.

Torque said...

Shoe, Krenwinkel most likely checked out the guest house after the death of Abigail in the front yard. Reading into the story, Bill Garretson said he had the shutters closed. But were all the windows shuttered?

Indeed, what window did Patricia look in, if she looked in at all? From the two photos of the guest house interior in my post, we can see a lamp by the stereo and another lamp between the kitchen and bathroom. I have not seen photos of any other rooms in the guest house.

Yet the guest house did contain a few rooms other than the living room, so perhaps she looked into one of these. She said at one point that she hid out for some time before going back to the main house, where she encountered Sharon with Tex and Susan.

It would be good to revisit all of Krenwinkel's parole hearing comments on this, in order to obtain a better understanding of this element of the story.

shoegazer said...

Thanks, Torque!

I am all of a sudden filled with questions about the guesthouse, and I will post them here, if you do not mind.

First though, there is an odd similarity that I've seen in two of the crime scene photos: a small circular copper-colored object that may/may not be the lid of a small tabletop container.

This was in the main house, near Tate's body:

https://imgur.com/EQny4Wz


Now note the similar item on Garretson's writing table. It's near the upper center of the photo:

https://imgur.com/LUZ0NiF

They are almost a matched set.

Does anyone know what they are?

Loegria15 said...

The first one looks as though the hole is of a larger diameter than the latter. And see how the one in the guest house appears (to me at least) to be used as a lid with a different metal used for the knob. Looking more closely, it appears to be a lid of a sugar bowl, part of a condiment set (note the matching salt and pepper shakers).

The one in the main house looks to me more like a candle charger base or something like that. It looks like it was knocked on the floor from wherever it was originally. Or maybe it was for burning incense?

I don't think they are a matched set of anything. Just a coincidence of design.

shoegazer said...

I think so too, Loegria.

It doesn't matter to the scenario, but I'm interested in physical details.

Loegria15 said...

Shoe, so am I. I was raised on a diet of Nancy Drew books from the 1930s and Encyclopedia Brown stories leftover from an older sibling, with some Sherlock Holmes read to my by said sibling, lol.

grimtraveller said...

Susan Atkins...If anyone had a fair shake at the system and could have possibly been paroled had they continued to play it straight, it was she

She could qualify as the poster child for "the one that threw the chance of freedom away....." Recanting was really not wise.
There again, the same could be said of Leslie. Offered immunity even if she had been involved in the murders, she later said she felt she would have felt like Judas.
53 years later, I doubt it !
And had Pat complied with a request for a written sample, she too might have lessened her eventual fate. But she wasn't playing ball.
And Charlie claimed {this can be found in George Stimson's "Goodbye Helter Skelter"} that the lawyer Charles Hollopeter said he could have him out in 18 months if he took the diminished capacity route. And he refused too.
I'm sensing a pattern here.... 🤮

shoegazer said...

Hah!

Before I start asking the group about the guesthouse, I have one more thing that occurred to me and I wanted to ask everyone before I forgot...

We've all seen the crime scene photo with the open buck knife wedged in the chair cushion: (thanks to cielo.com photo archives for the three below images)

https://imgur.com/WOrWMYu

There were two such chairs in the main house LR. One to the left of the fireplace.

https://imgur.com/0mUitTk

and one to the right.

https://imgur.com/c0sBDzg

I have always assumed that the knife was found in the chair on the right, based on Atkin's repeated narrative, the way she described the struggle with Frykowski. But do we actually know in any definitive way in which chair the knife was found?

So my default understanding is that it was a) Atkin's knife; and b) it was found in the right-hand chair.

But really, there are a lot of dotted lines there unless we know of some definitive information.

What do others here think? Where was the knife found and why do you think that?

starviego said...

Re the knife:

Death to Pigs, by Robert Hendrickson, c.2011

pg388
Howard: " "Sadie told me she had lost her knife there, so it's gotta be there." So after two an half months of that, the police go back and find the knife stuck down the cushions of the couch..."

pg389
Hendrickson: " ...even more disturbing is the Prosecution's claim that the knife was found sticking up from a cushion in a chair.... because the knife wasn't even discovered until months later where Ronnie Howard told the detectives to look for it. Thus, the official crime scene photo must have been staged.

Loegria15 said...

This may be apropos of nothing, but I've been watching "Columbo" from the very beginning after never, ever watching it before, and I wonder - what if he'd been an investigating officer?

Torque said...

Loegria15, if Columbo had been on the scene, I think he'd have to immediately cross paths with the Family, and then pester them constantly until, an hour later, they give up due to his incessant questioning. I can imagine LT. Columbo asking Charlie, "oh, just one more thing".

Seriously though, the great actor who played Columbo, Peter Falk, was photographed in the LA Hall of Justice during the trial.

Loegria15 said...

Torque, I think he'd reduce at least one of them, male or female, to tears. And if he had Dog with him, I bet they wouldn't get violent with him.

grimtraveller said...

starviego said:

Re the knife: Death to Pigs, by Robert Hendrickson, pg388
Howard: "Sadie told me she had lost her knife there, so it's gotta be there." So after two an half months of that, the police go back and find the knife stuck down the cushions of the couch..."
pg389
Hendrickson: "...even more disturbing is the Prosecution's claim that the knife was found sticking up from a cushion in a chair.... because the knife wasn't even discovered until months later where Ronnie Howard told the detectives to look for it. Thus, the official crime scene photo must have been staged"


What Robert says here has never made any kind of sense. How would Ronnie Howard know where the knife was if Susan was telling her it was lost ?
And are we to believe that the knife wasn't found until after November 25th? The first Tate progress report came out at the end of August and the knife is mentioned there.
And in his testimony, Joe Granado, the blood guy, describes finding the knife and giving it to the prints guys. The way he's being questioned, they are moving systematically through his blood analysis, of the trunks, the porch, etc, and it looks like the knife was located on 9th August or thereabouts. It isn't specified, but that's the way Granado seems to describe it.
In his book, much of Robert's trip was to discredit the prosecution wherever he could, whether it was Bugliosi or the police. And he wasn't averse to doing likewise with Laurence Merrick and Daye Shinn.

shoegazer said...

Now, questions about the guesthouse, and Krenwinkle's supposed visit.

I, for one, can accept that Krenwinkle may well have gone back to the guesthouse and made an attempt to enter, or at least to look.

From what I've been able to tell, there were at least 3 exterior doors in the guest house. In the aerial image, below, I have labeled them 1, 2, and 3.

https://imgur.com/fFxH2kW

#1 corresponds to the door shown in this photo:

https://imgur.com/tazDYrh

#2 corresponds to the door in this photo (at the far end of the walkway):

https://imgur.com/kLKsw1D

and #3 corresponds to the door in this photo (appears to be wide open):

https://imgur.com/h39AV20

First, does this seem like an accurate accounting of the three doors?

Are there any more doors, and how do we know?

Now, which door(s) do you think that Krenwinkle tried, and what is your reason for supposing so?

Do we know if any of the exterior lights at the guesthouse were on?

These are the sorts of details that are interesting to me because they can help form a concrete image of the events of the evening.

Thanks for any help you can give!

Loegria15 said...

I think she tried the door that had the most direct path to it from the main house and/or the first door one would see looking from the main house; would that be #1?

shoegazer said...

I think she tried the door that had the most direct path to it from the main house and/or the first door one would see looking from the main house; would that be #1?

This makes sense to me, too. And there are reasons for this, I believe.

I've read where Garretson seems to say that he either saw a door lever (on the inside, it would seem) either moved to a different position as he watched it, or he noticed that it had been moved to a different position than he had left it.

For her part, Krenwinkle mentions somewhere (a parole hearing?) that she went back, looked thru a window and saw a lamp, and perhaps tested the doorknob. She did not see Garretson, apparently.

Now, from #1, which is a glass-paned dutch door, she could have seen the lamp on the writing desk and not much else (BTW, the writing desk seems to be a drop-leaf pembroke table). That it was turned on makes some sense if Garretson was, or had been, writing there.

There was at least one other lamp but it would not have been visible from door #1.

She might also have looked in the square window at the front, with louvers inside (shown in the image for #1), but I think this may have been the bathroom, and she'd have see very little. Plus it was harder to look thru than the glass-paned door in #1.

If she had also turned the knob, if the inside latch was a lever, as is fairly common in some houses, that would be seen to move, or have been moved.

There is also a light beside #1, and it may have been lit because it would not have disturbed the tenants of the main house, as would the light at the pergola as you approach the guest house from the main house. I think maybe this would be left OFF in deference to the tenants of the main house.

But if she had gone to the left, and down towards #2, she could have seen everything in the main LR, including dogs, Garretson, and maybe another lamp. This would all be easily visible as she passed the four fixed glass-paned doors, as she approached #2. But she made no mention of all this, so...

I'd eliminate #3 entirely. You'd almost have to know beforehand that it was there, it would probably be unlighted, and to get there she'd have to bumble around the side of the house in the dark, and the moon, what little there was of it, had not yet risen, so it would be quite dark.

In addition to the glassed-in room that #2 leads to (and apparently #3 leads out of, in back), there *may* have been another room I've never yet seen in any photo. I say this because some exterior photos I've seen of the guesthouse clearly show a stonework chimney on the right side of the guest house,as viewed from the pool area, similar in design to the two fireplace chimneys of the main house. And yet I've seen no indication in any photo of a firepace, unless the writing table is shoved in front of it, hiding it.

So for now, I'd accept that if she came to the guesthouse, it was at #1 door. If new info comes in that is convincing, I'll reset my default.

Do any of you have any thoughts/infromation, fellow TLBers?

Loegria15 said...

Shoe, I keep seeing clickbait ads saying one should put aluminum foil on the inside doorknob if they're staying anywhere alone. I think of Garretson every time I see it.

TabOrFresca said...

Shoegazer:

I believe there was a chimney on the right side (behind what you mark as door #1) that may have been for a barbecue (the plans you pointed to months ago). Part of that area may have been a covered patio (back) and I believe it had a door that connected to maybe the dogs room(front) I will send you an email.

shoegazer said...

ToF:

Appreciated!

This is the part I *really* like!

sawfish666@gmail.com

Thanks!

Mr. Humphrat said...

Yet again, I am surprised at how inaccurate my perception was of the layout of things at Cielo. This time with the size of the guest house. I thought it was puny and then I see the photo of the interior and then I read on another sight that it was 2000 square feet!

shoegazer said...

I think the guesthouse was added to, piecemeal, over the years, with no real guarantee that all of it was properly permitted.

There are certain assumptions that are relatively safe to make. E.g., the bathroom and the kitchen would likely be close together, to optimize plumbing design or later extension.

David said...

Shoegazer said: "I think the guesthouse was added to, piecemeal, over the years, with no real guarantee that all of it was properly permitted."

Actually....it was built at one time under permit starting in October 1944. It was built on the foundation of a large patio and barbecue shelter constructed in 1941 (notice there is no patio out there in 1969. the table and chairs is in the yard). It was designed by an architect(s) who would became rather famous after the war and decorated by Louise Dewey. The Deweys' plan, which they put into action after two of their sons went off to war, was to move into the guest house and rent the main house.

If I thought it would not be rather dry and somewhat redundant, now, I would write a couple long posts about the house. Many of the 'stories' about the house are much like the number of cowboy stunt men who beat up Manson and the number of people who were invited there that night for dinner or a party.

David said...

"are"

shoegazer said...

David, if you are interested and have the time, we could compare notes as to construction history. I had written and posted an article here about 10050 and the "twin house" at 10048. I had pulled images of the permits, those that I could find at the LA Planning dept. I still have these. If you have others, maybe we could put them together. In any event, you can have access to what I had pulled, and my evaluation of the development history of the lot and the property up until 1969.

If you are able and want to, email at sawfish666.gmail.com.

We had exchanged for a while in the summer of 2019 over issues of blood evidence, etc. I'm the guy from PDX.

David said...

Shoe,

I have a the same permits. I remember. And sure. I will put together a list of my stuff generally and send it over if that's a good place to start.

By the way I'll throw in what a forensic guy said to me when I wrote those old posts there about the blood, knives, etc.

shoegazer said...

Much appreciated, David!

This is the stuff that interests me the most.

Expect some permit docs as attachments to your email address, as listed on this site.

I'll do it now.

Thanks again!

Torque said...

Shoe, David, and all: you may want to check out this link to a video. It is from a walk-thru of 10050 Cielo Drive, along with excellent views of the guest house, in December of 1993:

https://youtu.be/n1LfynKLIUw

David, I believe Mrs Dewey's husband was a doctor. Interesting that the Dewey's sought to rent out the main house, much like Altobelli. I find many homes of that era and the 50's had patios with elaborate outdoor brick barbecues. Yet its ironic that in all the photos I've seen of Cielo, not one of them shows a barbecue grill, even though outdoor grilling was very popular then.

And speaking of patio, Garretson refers to the "patio" at the guest house as being outside the door by the stereo. What he calls the "porch" was the main enclosed entrance with its many windows. It is the back door by the stereo where the Weimaraner, Christopher, came and went from the guest house on the night of Friday August 8, 1969. This door can clearly be seen in the video link above.

And David, I for one would very much like to see a post or two by you on the main house and guest house.

David said...

Torque,

I have quite a bit on the Deweys- Hartley and Louise. He happens to be the cousin of the one who ran for president, Thomas Dewey- you know "Dewey Wins!", and looks a good deal like him.

Yes, he was a doctor and before LA was the director of the new (1929) Yosemite Government Hospital.

shoegazer said...

Torque:

I find many homes of that era and the 50's had patios with elaborate outdoor brick barbecues. Yet its ironic that in all the photos I've seen of Cielo, not one of them shows a barbecue grill, even though outdoor grilling was very popular then.

I found the building permit for the "BBQ shelter". It includes the rough rendering of the structure, including dimensions, materials, and estimated cost.

page 1

page 2

You can see that there is no evidence of a patio, but that the BBQ was built into a stonework 3' wall, in a manner similar to the main house, and that there were at least two later additions to the original footprint: one to the north side (bathroom?) and to the east side (dog room/porch?).

Torque said...

David, Shoe, thanks!

Doug said...

Sexy Sadie?¿?

Reuters - 1968 February 20 & 21
Raw Newsreel Film of The Beatles (just arriving) in Risikesh

Just uploaded to YT in the last few days. I'm pretty certain this has been available previously. Perhaps in different reports of the time.

https://youtu.be/dMoIfOOI2-k

https://youtu.be/5Ds8nuB_uFw

https://youtu.be/jbdKRABr53A

**This YT channel has just begun to upload a few videos a day covering the group members and their companions/enterage in various stages of preparation and travel to Risikesh during the last few days and, I expect to see numerous related and, raw newsreel footage from their trek over the next few days.

Enjoy (or, not)

An extra big "ENJOY" to Mr Fayez Mae Glutz (lookwhatchyoudunnn)

Fayez Abedaziz said...

Hello, Fayez Mae Glutz here
And lemme say Hello again to you this evening or is it a new day
well who cares and what the hey just take it a way
and I gotta tell ya that really made me laugh like 'all get out' as my friends say out in the country what you said Doug
that was really witty so take it away kid
okay that's coolhere's something I've long considered
but never acted on
and that is:
to change my last name!
Yes! Thanks Doug!
Now, I gotta say here too that my real last name is actually the one all my relatives/family members have/use but when I came as a kid to our fine nation (USA in the Western Hemisphere, a really goofy place to live) in the late 50's-Detroit
Someone at immigration put my last name that you see, which is actually my grandfather's first name and they misspelled that! Should have been that same spelling as the Saudi Royal family. So, I should have gone to a court sometime and changed that name on the citizenship papers to the simple 5 letter real last name of my family. Interesting, huh? Okay, no snide remarks, but this is in answer to what I consider a great suggestion Doug! Now, give me some advice, if you will. When I go to change it, shall I have/insert the word 'Sadie' too, in between my first name and my true last name? Or simply, "your honor, I would like to have 'Sadie Glutz' as as part of my full name, in between my first name, Fayez and the new true family name?
I'm thinking it was a matter of importance that you gave me this great idea, as I was gonna do the name change.
Also, as to the films of The Beatles in India you have, that was good to see, but why is Ringo wearing a white turtleneck and a sport coat? What the hey
And, of course, to Paul, that was just anothetr girl, here and there, heh and now, he's conveniently with a steady girfriend/fiance. The always cute Jane Asher. But anyway, Aha no mention of Laurel Canyon and don't let's mention one of the 'young' gir; old Mick Jagger 'scored' in Laurel. 'A hey hey hey, that's what I say.' Okay, Mick. As Brother Charlie, with one of his charming and pleasant grins would day: Dig..?

Fayez Abedaziz said...

That should be "...charming and pleasant grins would say: Dig..?
Not the word 'day.'
The last sentence. Thanks

Doug said...

Dug..?

Dig Dug!