From time to time I return to certain issues in TLB which remain a bit of a mystery, both to myself and ostensibly to others. There are several of these in the literature, and are often discussed in the various blogs. Some of these are covered in David's excellent series on this blog concerning the evidence ("A Look At The Evidence," in several parts).
For this post I would like to revisit the story of Steven Parent's walk back to the parking area from the guest house at Cielo. My inquiry follows from David's post here on the blog on the same material, which serves as a template to my thoughts and hypothesis of what may have transpired on Steven's walk from the guest house back to the parking area to his car.
To be sure, I recently asked in the comments what Steven Parent might have seen as he returned to the parking area. It was pointed out to me that he certainly saw "them," the killers. Of this I have no doubt. But what about "them"? What might have Steve saw the intruders/killers doing that may have caused him to exclaim, "please don't hurt me. I won't say anything!" And perhaps just as important: just when did Steve see them? How well did he see them? And did they see him/approach him before the official narrative says they did?
GAP THEORY
To myself and others, there exist seeming gaps in the narrative of several aspects of TLB. David does a remarkable job pointing some of these out(Sharon Tate's blood on the front porch, even though none of the killers claimed she was there; the alternating size stab wounds to Voytek Frykowski; the walk that Susan Atkins was said to have taken out of the house when Voytek fell into the bushes, simultaneously encountering Linda Kasabian there--"Sadie's Stroll," and many others).
In many of these cases, the evidence says one thing, while the killers(and the official narrative)say another--or nothing at all. Time, as such, in many of these tellings becomes distorted, allowing for questions to be asked, the answers to which do not appear in the official narrative. In other words: how can some of these things have happened, as one attempts to reconcile time with evidence and the official narrative? These gaps are what I call "gap theory".
For the purposes of this post, the gap I'd like to discuss is how long it may have taken Steven Parent to reach his car, and what theoretically he may have seen on the way there, assuming he took the guest house path and did not take any diversions, say like perhaps trying to catch another glimpse of the girls(Sharon, Abigail)in the main house. (We know from Bill Garretson's police interview that Steve saw Sharon and Abigail in the main house as walked the path to the guest house upon his arrival to Cielo).
Additionally, I would like to hypothesize that the place Steve parked his car is of ultimate importance. This is because of the possibility that both the killer's and Steve saw each other before the official narrative claims that Steve's car's headlights were the first and only element in their meeting near the inside gate button.
STEVEN'S STROLL
After finishing a can of beer at the guest house speaking with Bill Garretson, Steve said goodnight and started down guest house path--clock radio in hand--en route to his car in the parking area. Full Stop. We can only assume Steve took this route, but taken together, he probably did. It may have been that Garretson, who was alerted to Steve's interest in the girls in the main house, admonished Steve to stick to the path and keep away from the main house on his way out.
Steve might have taken an innocent look, however, at the living room windows of the main house from the path. And herein makes for the possibility that maybe Steve caught a glimpse of the murders in progress--a theoretical possibility entertained by many. But of course none of the killers ever admit to seeing Steve on the path. Still, hypothetically this could have happened, as both the killers and Steve would have converged at about the same time at some point on the Cielo property, be it near the gate or at the main house. The official narrative says Steve was leaving when the killers arrived. The alternative hypothesis says the killers would have already been in place before Steve started his stroll back to the parking area.
.jpg)
As Steve continued on towards the parking area, something else may have caught his eye. Theoretically he may have caught a glimpse of a dark-clad figure up the power pole outside of the gate, cutting the lower lines, then watching them fall to the ground. It is here that Steve may have seen Tex Watson, but not the girls. Watson, on the other hand, may not have seen Steve.
LIGHTS IN THE NIGHT
It is here that my hypothesis take greater shape. Suppose that Steve saw the cutting of the lines, and the shadowy figure descend the power pole. The official narrative says the killers drove down the hill, and parked their car at the bottom. They then walked back up the hill, which, according to a previous Manson Blog tour, takes approximately three minutes and some seconds(Matt can provide verification of that point I believe). I further hypothesize that when the phone lines were cut, they fell several feet, and landed atop the gate, but also atop the wire that supplied power to the pole-mounted light at the gate--more on this in a moment.
In the intervening three minutes that it took the killers to walk back up the hill, Steven Parent may have conceivably been faced with a dilemma. He may have reasoned that something sinister was afoot, but what? Being electronically savvy, he deduces that the lower lines on a power pole are typically telephone and TV. The gate control mechanism is electrical, too, but is it still operable? Probably so, but he realizes one more startling thing: the gate pole light, which was on when he arrived, has gone out, its flimsy electrical connection knocked out when the lines Tex Watson cut landed upon it.
The gate light, which I have spoke about in the comments previously, has been a bit of a mystery to me. Put simply, I was unsure just where it was located. Looking at the many available photos of the Cielo gate area, I didn't find anything resembling a light there. That said, the killers never mentioned a gate light in the official narrative. For this to make sense, we need to recall the interview by the TV news on the weekend of the murders, with Cielo neighbor Maureen Serot.
Maureen Serot was the twenty-year-old step daughter of Ray Asin, who's family lived at 10090 Cielo Drive. It was Maureen's brother, fifteen-year-old Jim, that encountered a screaming Winifred Chapman in his driveway about 8:30AM, Saturday August 9, 1969.
In the TV interview, Maureen stated that she arrived home about 1:00AM early that Saturday morning. When asked if she saw anything strange that night, she mentioned that the light at the gate to 10050 was out, and that this was strange, as that light was on every night.
Looking now at photos of the 10050 gate area, I find the only light that could possibly fit the description of "gate light," would be the pole-mounted light inside the property atop the brick wall and next to the inside gate button. As David stated in his post, the wall appears to be about five feet high. I make the pole and light fixture to extend an additional four feet, or about nine feet total. This arguably is what Maureen saw, and it no doubt would have illuminated the area around that gate quite well.
Why does this light matter? I theorize it matters for at least one reason: if it were out when the killers walked back up the hill, they may not have thought it necessary to discuss it in the official narrative. Thus the killers may not have had sufficient light to have seen Steve Parent walking(or running)to his car when they climbed over the fence next to the gate. The official narrative, then, could remain the same: "we saw headlights coming at us."
But what about other lights in the parking area? We know for a fact that at least one was there: the bug light. This is the light that neighbor Seymour Kott saw on Saturday morning when he retrieved his morning paper. This is also the same light that Winifred Chapman switched off when she arrived at Cielo later that morning. Bug light bulbs are typically yellow in color, and this is apparent when we look at the photos of the side of the Cielo garage--that light(s)is next to the second-story door atop the garage, which is reached by the exterior stairs. An architectural drawing of the Cielo main house and garage is available on the internet, and it also lists a light on the right front corner of the garage, but I do not find this light to be visible in any photos of the garage that I have seen.
Again, why would the bug light(s) matter in this hypothesis? Simply because they would have provided at least some illumination to that area. But this brings up one more point: where exactly did Steve Parent park his car that night? David discusses a number of possibilities for the parking location in his post. For my hypothesis, I am going to theorize that Steve parked along side of the garage, next to the exterior garage stairs, and under the glow of the bug light(s).
If he parked at that location, he would not be potentially blocking the left garage door had he parked closer to Abigail Folger's Firebird. This location would also be out of sight of the main house, and much closer to the interior gate button(possibly well illuminated)and possibly visible to the killers before he started his car. Yet there is another thing of interest if he parked at that location: the severed wires (shown clearly in several photos) would have fallen just in front of, or even atop his car. If this is the case, it may have caused Steve fear, which would have made him wonder for three minutes what to do, as the killers drove down the hill then started back up again on foot.
When Steve finally saw all of the killers, he could have started his car and began to back up. It could have been at that exact moment that the official narrative said, "Tex went out of sight." I would question exactly how long Tex "went out of sight". In my hypothesis, there would potentially be at that point sufficient time for Tex to approach and chase down Steve as he threw the car into reverse. Steve may have been watching Tex approaching, knife and/or gun in hand, as the car travelled backwards, thus driving over the concrete swale and curb, breaking the fence. That this was an uninterrupted fluid motion to me is that there are no apparent tire skid marks on the driveway in any photos of this area. It would have been out in the driveway, then, that the initial confrontation between Steve and Tex took place, and not next to the inside gate button. Here Steve could have received the defensive wound to the palm of his hand. From here everything else in the official narrative could have happened. Namely, Steve drives toward the gate button in an attempt to press it and flee, Tex runs to the car and yells, "halt". Steve could have then exclaimed, "please don't hurt me. I won't say anything!" Watson would have known at this point that he had to use the gun, as Steve was getting away. And of course the rest we know.
SUMMING IT UP
The official narrative does not discuss the gate light or where Steve Parent parked his car. It does not discuss any interaction between Steve and Tex further out in the parking area, but of course it does discuss the shooting of Steve, where Linda Kasabian said, "I saw it clearly." But did she? The official narrative also does not tell us if Steve did, in fact, see the killers a few minutes before they claim to have seen his car headlights.
Speaking of the official narrative, when exactly was its genesis? Arguably it began to take shape at Spahn Ranch just before the killers left for Cielo Drive, proceeding thru the many vignettes of the night, before returning to Spahn. It is told by Susan Atkins, then confirmed and elaborated upon by Linda Kasabian.
But consider this: when Tex and the girls returned to Spahn Ranch on the Tate night, Charlie asked them about it and Tex briefed Charlie on the particulars. I wonder if after realizing that they just violently killed five adults and an unborn child, discharged several .22 caliber rounds, lost a knife at the scene, possibly left a palm print on the living room desk(Atkins), and were seen just minutes afterward by Rudy Weber, that the official narrative took shape in the saloon at Spahn, retaining some items while omitting others in order to get the "story straight". Or did it materialize in its finished form at the Sybil Brand institute, finally reaching its canonical status with Linda Kasabian's handwritten notes to Bugliosi that she "remembered"?
Taken together, esoteric things like gate lights, parking positions, steamer trunks, eyeglasses, purple scarves, dogs, the towel over Jay Sebring's head, Sharon Tate's blood on the front porch, the possibility that Steven Parent saw the severing of the phone lines some three minutes before encountering the killers, and a possible interaction between Steve and Tex in the parking area several yards away from the inside gate button, don't factor into the official narrative.
None of these things change the ultimate outcome of the story, yet they are rather misunderstood in the official narrative. If they are not truly insignificant, can we be said to heretics if we hypothesize about them outside of the official orthodoxy that Susan Atkins and Linda Kasabian gave us?
I thought that was so well written, thank you. Are 'bug lights' those blue fly-catcher things found in commercial kitchens? In which case, they wouldn't cast much illumination.
ReplyDeleteMilly James, thanks. The bug lights at Cielo were an outdoor residential variety, and these bulbs are yellow in color. The kind found in commercial kitchens and supermarkets are those blue light variety. The ones at Cielo were traditional round light bulbs.
ReplyDeleteYes, this was very well thought-out and written. Thanks for taking all the time to do it!
ReplyDeleteLoegria15, thanks.
ReplyDeleteGreat post!
ReplyDeleteI'm also wondering about the amount of light cast by the bug lights. They are pretty far from the ground and the porch and railing would block some of that light. In that case, Steve would be less visible in the shadows.
None of the four family members have described hearing a car starting or crashing into the fence. I'm guessing Steve was in the car with the engine running by the time they were on the property.
Even so, your timeline makes perfect sense about why Steve had the defensive wound and why he said "I won't say anything." That phrasing doesn't make sense if he had only just seen Tex.
Patty, thanks. Maureen Serot knew the gate light was on every night, but it was out when she arrived home about 1:00AM. The only other light in the area around the gate may well have been the bug lights, and yes they probably would have been rather dim.
ReplyDeleteToo, we don't know exactly what time either Steve Parent or the killers arrived at Cielo. However we do know Steve was on the phone at 11:25PM, thus the phones were still in operation. We also don't know exactly what time Steve left the guest house.
We are simply told in the official narrative that the initial interaction was when Steve's headlights were seen. Susan Atkins was asked if the car was in motion, but she could not say if it was. Too much of the timing of Steve's walk back to his car, and the ultimate unfolding of events near the gate, don't seem to add up.
Torque said:
ReplyDeleteToo much of the timing of Steve's walk back to his car, and the ultimate unfolding of events near the gate, don't seem to add up
The opposite is also true ¬> they absolutely add up. Unless one doesn't want them to. They neither add up or don't add up because we weren't there, Steve was no longer around to confirm or deny, and the killers all seemed to have the same story. I can find nothing mysterious in that aspect of the story.
There is actually nothing evidentially in that bit of the story to cause one to doubt it. Whereas the presence of the blood on the porch that could have belonged to Sharon or Jay throws up sufficient questions for one to ask what actually happened there.
Medium Patty said:
your timeline makes perfect sense about why Steve had the defensive wound and why he said "I won't say anything."
How so ? How does a defensive wound make any more sense in this timeline than the one we are given ? Truth be told, he could have been stabbed pretty much anywhere.
That phrasing doesn't make sense if he had only just seen Tex
One of the things that virtually never gets mentioned about Steven is that he wasn't so innocent. He had passed through the criminal justice system for theft of electronic equipment. So, seeing Watson suddenly appear out of nowhere and having been in similar circumstances himself, it is entirely logical that his suspicions were up and his plea to Watson makes abundant sense. It's not unreasonable to conclude that he thought something untoward was in the process of happening and in the heat of a moment reaction, said what he said. People say the most unpredictable yet, when you think about it later, logical things, under stress and duress.
Grim, precisely. We weren't there. My discussion of the event of Steve's walk back to the parking area, and what exactly he encountered there, is speculation.
ReplyDeleteOn the wound to his hand, it is probably likely that he received it before he was shot. That Watson used the gun, with the noise it no doubt made, indicates to me that it was used as a weapon of last resort.
When I first came to this story I thought about what Steve said to Tex. I agree with the last point of your previous comment, in that Steve may have noticed criminal intent with the intruders, and in an effort to identify with them based on his past, said what he said.
Concerning mystery, I would agree there may be no mystery here, rather a few elements that taken together need to be seen within the totality of the story. I think the official version reads quite well and is at least logical. Still, I find no evidence that Steven Parent did not experience things simply because the killers did not admit to it in their story.
Decent article.
ReplyDeleteIf you use this link and blow the picture up and look under the eave over the garage door; I believe you can see the yellow 100W bulb (lower light).
http://web.archive.org/web/20170819104636/http://www.cielodrive.com/photo-archive/10050-cielo-drive-driveway-05.php
If you use this link and blow the picture up and look to the left of the door to the left of the white “Y” supporting the door dormer; you can see the yellow 150W bulb (upper light).
If you look at Volume 63 - page 8375, you will see that a blue square is drawn around the light on the picture known as exhibit 6. This is the light Chapman turned off.
http://www.cielodrive.com/people-v-manson-atkins-vanhouten-krenwinkel/04-trial/Vol63.pdf
Exhibit 6 with the square around the light is located in BOX-01 - page 22.
http://www.cielodrive.com/manson-case-files/BOX-01.pdf
Another interesting point regarding lights is brought up while Chapman in being questioned (Vol 63 - page 8364). She was asked if she shut off the service entry light after using the hidden key to open the door. She responded that the light was not being used because the bulb was burnt out. Two things, first this light and one of the front door lights were burnt out. How many other light bulbs needed to be replaced? Second, none of the architectural floor plan drawings (that I have seen) show a service entry light but there is at least one photo showing the light.
http://web.archive.org/web/20170819090018/http://www.cielodrive.com/photo-archive/10050-cielo-drive-rear-entrance.php
I have never seen any of the Addendums to the ‘TATE FIRST HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION PROGRESS REPORT’. The first 4 (1, 1A, 1B, 1C) may shed more light or possibly be a letdown.
With that being said, I do believe that it is highly likely that the 120 volt overhead circuit to the light above the interior gate button was strained by the 4 telephone lines (each containing 4 color codes wires) falling upon the circuit; resulting in a broken circuit and the light no longer functioning.
Even if the light above the interior gate button was off, the upper garage light would have reflected off of Parrent’s car making it somewhat visible. If Parrent’s car was dark, like Sebrings, the light would not have reflected off of it in the same way.
I tend to believe that the light above the interior gate button was an afterthought and installed after the gate was installed. Conduit was used for the other front circuits but this circuit was overhead and did not meet the 10 ft minimum requirement (and a couple of other nits).
A few years after the fact the light post was removed and another fixture was mounted directly on the end of the wall using underground conduit.
Photo courtesy of murdersofaugust69.com
https://imageshack.com/i/poqUgK58j
One other interesting photo shows that there was an arrow on the split rail fence that points to the guesthouse path. It is located at the driveway edge near where Sebrings car was parked and close to the (lighted) gate(way) that you passed through to use the front walkway.
Photo courtesy of murdersofaugust69.com
https://imageshack.com/i/pnWqOiv6j
Great post.
ReplyDeleteGrim said: So, seeing Watson suddenly appear out of nowhere and having been in similar circumstances himself, it is entirely logical that his suspicions were up and his plea to Watson makes abundant sense. It's not unreasonable to conclude that he thought something untoward was in the process of happening and in the heat of a moment reaction, said what he said.
__________
Actually, there is a far simpler explanation for Steven's 'odd' comment. While I do not have the crime scene number there is an image taken from inside the gate looking out. It has been used to question the young man/child in the image. The wires are quite clearly draped across the left side of the gate.
Approaching the gate at 2-5 mph would have taken Steven between 8 and 20 seconds to reach the wall. His path would have illuminated the gate from his left to right. Before reaching that point his headlights would have illuminated the gate assuming they had a distance of at least 100'. [Today that distance is 300'+/- (I believe)]. The distance from the fence damage to the wall after Steven corrects his direction towards the gate is about 64' and to the gate about 85'. He certainly would have seen the wires long before he saw Watson- ok second before.
TorF, thanks for your thoughts and the details you provide here. Yes, I wanted to use that trial testimony on the bug light by Mrs Chapman for this post, but had misplaced it.
ReplyDeleteOn the phone lines falling atop the wire to the gate light: one of the photos in this post clearly shows the electrical feed to the gate light sagging under the weight of the phone lines draped over it.
If this was indeed sufficient to cut off power to the light, no doubt Tex would have seen it immediately. If true, its strange to me that neither he or the girls mention it. However, Susan Atkins does go into significant detail when discussing how she climbed over the barbed wire fence to the right of the gate, knife between her teeth, and ripping her pants there.
David, many thanks. And thanks for your attention to detail and precision here.
ReplyDeleteI am just starting to read this post, looking forward to digesting it all. But anyone who ever visited that place as it originally was would call out the immediate error of assumption here. Given the curve of that narrow drive in, and the low stone wall, there is zero chance Parent saw the intruders, or vice versa. The sight lines simply made that impossible. This might be addressed later in the piece, but I found myself eye rolling within the first couple of paragraphs and I decided to get back to this post later, sometime.
ReplyDeleteGood write up logically presented.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't think there is that much controversy about this little chapter of the events. I believe that the official narrative is not that far removed from what happened, and any very minor anomalies are not significant. If there are some small differences in what the participants described, I think that is understandable, and even expected.
It's not like anyone was thinking "I must remember exactly how these wires looked because I'll be giving evidence about this later". I don't think the killers or Kasabian had any reason to be untruthful about what they recalled they saw prior to entering the main house.
I don't believe at all that Parent saw any murders committed except the commencement of his own. It was just incredibly bad timing for him. I think he saw the killers for the first time after getting in his car and the headlights revealed Tex was armed. He was already driving and too close to get out and make a run for it so vainly tried to talk his way out of the situation. If he had seen the killers BEFORE reaching his vehicle, I don't think he would have gotten into it. But, they were in dark clothing and coming over an unlit gated area, so I don't think he did see them without the aid of the headlights.
As to where Steven was parked, I don't think it ultimately changes the sequence of events, although I do think if he was parked alongside the garage it would be less likely, not more, that he would have reversed into the fence. I wonder if they examined that area for recent oil drips etc and discarded it. I certainly don't think where he parked or what wires were cut or lights were on factored into any Charlie-led plan to 'get a story straight' between the killers. Categorizing speculations with genuine anomalies such as Sharon's blood and the clearly placed hood over Jay's head isn't justified in my opinion.
Tobiasragg, thanks for commenting. Hopefully if after reading all of the post my theories/questions may appear somewhat more possible. In any case, I welcome your further comments.
ReplyDeleteTragical History Tour, many thanks for your logical and fair analysis of my post. Indeed, there is not much controversy in this aspect of the story, only that for me I believe some apocryphal elements of the story simply needed to be discussed, however insignificant they may be.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is most unlikely that Steven saw the murders taking place in the main house or out on the front lawn. I simply mentioned it in the post because the discussion of what Steven might have seen materializes from time to time in posts and comments.
True, where Steven parked his car ultimately does not change the sequence of events. To be sure, regardless where he parked he ultimately was confronted and killed. Concerning oil spots on the driveway alongside the garage, there are several photos which do show oil spots in this area, indicating at least that several cars had been parked there at some point in the past. I have seen no discussion in the available LAPD reports about any oil spots. Of course we do know that paint from the fence and concrete from the curb were identified on Steven's car. This obviously says nothing about where the car was parked.
My theory about where Steven parked his car that night does matter to me in one regard, however: it places Steven that much closer to the killers at their entrance point to the property. And, if the phone lines were cut before Steven reached his car at that point, they would have landed in front of his car or possibly atop the hood. If the killers were not on the property at that exact point, it would have meant that Steven reached his car before they arrived back on foot. This for me creates the possibility, however remote, that one or the other could have been seen before Steven started his car and the killers say they saw headlights. But of course I don't know. Again, it is simply apocryphal.
It is true that I did categorize the speculations in my post with documented anomalies concerning Sharon's blood on the front porch and the towel over Jay's head. In retrospect, it would probably had been better if I had not done so. I was simply trying to add significance to what I perceived to be unreported elements in Steven's instance. But you are quite right, and I stand corrected.
My interest in apparent anomalies here stems from a background in the humanities, textual analysis, and the performing arts. In all of these discourses we are interested in the "story". Included in this analysis of the story, then, is the totality of the elements that literally made up the received story--the official narrative.
I wish to make it abundantly clear that I accept the official story. I also believe that literally every apocryphal element and insignificant detail is not ultimately represented in it. Truly, the best "book" I have read on the Tate/LaBianca murders is the trial transcripts, which interestingly discuss a number of these apocryphal details. In the final analysis they do not necessarily go to the "truth of the matter," but rather remain as addendum in the totality of this fascinating story.
Torque,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the acknowledgement.
You could be correct re where Steven parked. I do admit to a bit of a blind spot in terms of what the property actually looks like in relation to gates, poles, wires etc. I trace this back to my introduction to the case via HS, where no one but Sharon is where I naturally envisaged them to be. Garretson is referred to as a caretaker but is staying in the guest house. Gabbie and Woytek are guests, but staying in the main house. Caretaker to me always invoked someone who would also be the front line to deal with unwanted visitors, and should, geographically, be located somewhere like the upstairs area of the garage, although this would make the 'dog care' duties more problematic. Or would it be good to have the dogs nearer the entrance for security? Anyway, I digress.
The point is I sometimes lose sight of the distance from the entrance gate to the guesthouse and how long of a 'stroll' that is. However, my instinct still tells me that Steven didn't park alongside the garage as you theorize. If, as you speculate, the wires would have fallen across his car, I believe that Steve, even in limited light, would have discerned the dark wires strewn on the white bonnet or roof of his car. If you approached your vehicle and saw that, would you get in? Personally, I would have beaten a hasty retreat at that point back to the guesthouse to let someone know something was amiss. At best, I wouldn't get in the car. We can't speak for Steven, but I believe we can safely surmise that at no point did Tex force Steven into his car, so he got in voluntarily, and unknowing of who he was about to meet. Which indicates to me that he didn't see anything amiss, including the killers, until he had begun moving the car and the headlights lit up the gate area for him.
What I state is speculation too of course, but in the absence of incontrovertible proof of where he parked, the best we can do is add together the most reasonable deductions, including that in my view the fence is more likely to be damaged by a car reversing from in front of the garage doors rather than the side of the garage.
I should be clear that in no way do I want to diminish your sound examination of this episode of the story by stating that I don't find anything significant to dispute in the official narrative. EVERY aspect is worth examining and re-examining from different perspectives - it's how we slowly, by degrees, can often arrive at something closer to resembling the truth. That we are still looking at this some 50 plus years later is really astonishing when you think about it. For a set of murders for which the perpetrators are essentially known, it's unparalleled.
Right or wrong,Torque, it was something to think about that hadn't occurred to me. As before, I like the way you broke the post up with photos. Good job.
ReplyDeleteTorque, this is exactly why I read this blog. Thanks for this well-considered post.
ReplyDeleteOn first coming to this site in the wake of the "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" ad campaign where the address 10050 Cielo Drive appears ("Wow. Wasn't that the address of Polanski's house?..."), I read David's in-depth series on the evidence and investigation, and maybe the very first thing that jumped out was: why did Parent say "I won't tell. Please don't hurt me." That made very little sense *unless* he had seen an obvious wrong-doing.
To stack on top of that, he had broken the fence while backing up. This implies haste, because when backing out of a strange house that is occupied by the famous and glamorous, the last thing you'd want to do is back out in a rush, at enough speed to break their property. It hints at being past any such considerations; it hints at panic.
If you are OK with it, I'd like to raise points without doing to much work just yet. Let me start with this: where on the walkway from the parking area to the guesthouse would the utility pole that Watson climbed first be visible? I'm speculating that there are points on the path, closer to the guesthouse, where the pole would not be visible.
What I think is really interesting is, that as I read your speculations, they could all be accurate and they would not alter the "official narrative" in any substantial way. And of course none of the participants in the crime would have mentioned any of this, because they would not have known anything about what Parent was doing and if/when he saw them before they saw his lights approaching the gate button.
I first visited the property back in the summer of 1977 or 78 and the view then was very much the same as it is in this old news video footage, starting at around the 18 second mark. In short, there was no direct sightline between the property and the front gate. This includes the parking area. The bend in that narrow drive in and the low-slung wall prevents anyone at the gate seeing another in the car park, or vice-versa. Light or no light, the first view Parent would have had of Tex Watson would have been as he rounded that corner toward the exit button. I think what the killers have all said remains the sum total of their experience: they saw lights approaching and ducked down to the ground. Here's the vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4fo9CjIWVY&ab_channel=HelterSkelterForum
ReplyDeleteTobias:
ReplyDeleteLight or no light, the first view Parent would have had of Tex Watson would have been as he rounded that corner toward the exit button.
I could be mistaken in how I read Torque's scenario, but I read it as Parent seeing Watson *while he was up on the utility pole, engaged in cutting the wires*, not at the gate. So the question for me is: where, if anywhere, is the utility pole visible from the property, coming from the direction of the guesthouse?
So the very first test is visibility. The less places from which the pole is visible, the less likely the scenario is. It does not make it impossible, but less likely.
Torque's present sequence (and I see this as a work in progress, published here to get people to help test it and refine it (or falsify it) is this:
1) Parent leaves the guest house and heads toward his car (where ever it's parked).
2) At some point Parent sees someone up on the utility pole and sees/hears the wires drop. If indeed the falling wires caused the light near the gate's operation button, near the low wall, to go out, this would have drawn Parent's further attention. He'd conclude that something was not right.
3) He waits before proceeding, since he'd not know what the man on the pole was going to do, or where he was once he came down. He *may* have heard them drive back down the hill, but this is of secondary importance.
4) While waiting briefly he sees at least two diverging paths: stay and tell Garretson (get involved), or leave and remain uninvolved. This is a toss-up and would depend a lot on the kind of person Parent was, but in the event that the clock radio he was carrying was stolen at some point, it might encourage him to simply leave; police would do him no good, personally. He had also had a beer while underage, and believeit or not, at that time, even in places like LA, it would essentially put you at the mercy of the police: hassle you or not hassle you?
5) Whatever the reason(s), he decided to leave; perhaps he saw nothing at all. But if he had seen the man on the pole, the wires being cut, heard them fall, seen the light go out, then waited a bit to see if the coast was clear, I think he'd want to leave in some degree of haste. He'd get to his car, where ever it was parked, start up and leave ASAP, more likely than he'd otherwise be to back into the fence. The light illuminating the gate button by the wall would have been out (maybe) and this would add further to his stress level.
At that point Watson confronts him and the "official narrative" commences.
Anyway, this is what I got from Torque's post.
What do others think?
LINE OF SIGHT - from path to utility pole
ReplyDeleteThis will give a decent starting point.
I'd guess that it was not possible anywhere right of the diagonal along the path or front yard, and maybe possible to the left of the diagonal, depending on elevation/vegetation, cars, etc.
https://i.imgur.com/BGABjg7.jpg
Shoe, thanks for your comments. I appreciate your thoughts, and yes this is for me a "working post," which I hoped would play out in the comments. For me it is strictly theoretical.
ReplyDeleteAbout Tex on the power pole, I would think the best(only)place Steve may had possibly been able to see him would be when he had reached the parking area. For me this may have been possible as he walked past Jay's car and began to head towards his own car. Here Steve would have been in an open area with no tree canopy to detract from his sight.The idea here is that Tex would have been several feet off the ground, and would arguably have been more visible.
Additionally, when I think of Steve seeing Tex or the girls when they enter the property on foot, it would have been up close, if you will. That is to say, if Steve parked where I theorize he did, the encounter between both parties would have been in the immediate area of the low wall next to the gate light.
Tragical History Tour: forgive the intrusion. Are you Scott? If so, I’ve always enjoyed your work very much.
ReplyDeleteJenn said...
ReplyDeleteTragical History Tour: forgive the intrusion. Are you Scott? If so, I’ve always enjoyed your work very much.
--------------------
Alas for me, I am not Scott. Or, luckily for Scott, he is not I.
Thanks for the backhand compliment though...
ReplyDeleteA few things.
The guesthouse walkway declines from the driveway towards the guesthouse. A set of stairs led up to another walkway leading to the guesthouse. You can see the stairway in part 2 of the 1993 walkthrough.
The telephone pole was visible during daylight hours from the driveway parking area; near Sebring’s car, in front of the garage doors, and the side of the garage (stairs, back where McGann is standing).
Refer to picture titled “Back end of Steven Parent's car where”.
Also from George E Smith’s Facebook page (Roman and Sharon):
https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/171775028_1863389980477815_756817277355649654_n.jpg?stp=cp0_dst-jpg_e15_fr_q65&_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=7aed08&_nc_ohc=k2_zw-Alb-QAX-kA9Zv&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.xx&oh=00_AfBl3e-41vncRaELv2ZZOqzEzJBP-BxO69n4UikKDB2dKg&oe=6465F4C6
Notice where the visitor parked his car.
The telephone lines were connected to the pole at about 17-18 feet high. Watson’s feet were probably 10-12 feet above ground level. He would have been visible during daylight hours but might have been just a shadow at night. There was enough light for him to find the lines, but where that light came from is uncertain to me.
Also note that in part 2 of the 1993 video, the telephone pole was visible from the front walk (even though the pole was on the opposite side of the street). The trees may have been pruned differently or maybe you could see it in 1969 at a certain angle.
TorF, yes, thanks for these observations. Concerning the nighttime lighting at Cielo, we should probably also factor in what is known as "light pollution". This is typically seen in large metropolitan areas, and is a combination of street lights, building lights, advertising lighting, and all other forms of lighting in the area combined.
ReplyDeleteIf you take a look at the nighttime photo of the Cielo front yard in my recent post, I believe the phenomenon of light pollution may be demonstrated there. The thinking here is that this too may have contributed to Tex being seen by Steven while Tex was on the power pole. Since the exact conditions of August 1969 no longer exist at that location, it would be very difficult to test this.
This theory is mildly interesting to think about, but for me it's not much more. A WHOLE lot of assumptions would have to come together for something like this to have been true. Even if the killers had sprinted back up that hill, you still have to factor in the time it took to back (!!!) the car down Cielo's narrow curves, to collect themselves for the trip back up the hill, the turn-taking of scaling the hill and making it over the fence - with at least one (Atkins) catching herself on the fencing and having to react to this. At the very least, we're looking at maybe ten minutes there, and more than likely we're more into the 15+ minute time period between the time Watson was up on the pole to the time they all were collected on the house side of the fence.
ReplyDeleteEven an indecisive 18 year old is not going to stand and contemplate his options for 10-15 minutes if Steve had spotted the freak on the pole. Even if he HAD contemplated his options for a full 10++ minutes, there is nothing inherent in that situation to cause him to back out suddenly and wildly and hit the fence, as if he were scrambling to get away in a hurry. The killers all say the same thing, they'd just gotten over the fence and they saw lights coming toward them over the hill, which makes complete sense given the contours of that area at the time. Nothing about lights speeding toward them or wood cracking or anything of the sort. There is also no evidence at all to suggest that his clock radio was stolen or any of the other assumptions that are fueling this speculation.
Because this case is so old and the known facts so established, I find that those overly fascinated tend to dwell on and ascribe "extra" meaning to the tiniest of details. I think Steve's panicked declaration of "I won't tell anyone!" as Watson approached was nothing more than that - panicked last words from a lad about to be attacked. Also worth noting that one almost never travels TOWARD perceived danger, rather the natural instinct is to travel the other way. If Parent had spotted something amiss on the pole and watched wires fall across his only way off the property, I think the last thing he would decide would be to hop into the car and drive in that direction, anyway. Especially if he had remained in place for several minutes contemplating his options.
Tobias, the theory is not much more than mildly interesting to me, either. Again, I only speculate here about what Steven might have seen. Most of what I am theorizing here could only have happened if Steven parked his car where I suspect that he did.
ReplyDeleteThe backing into the fence to me would have happened only as a result of seeing(at least)Tex close up, walking towards him with weapon(s) in hand, and not as a reaction to merely seeing Tex on the power pole several minutes earlier.
Again, it has been established on video that a walk back up the Cielo hill takes just over three minutes. How long it took to drive from the wire cutting to the bottom of the hill and assemble their gear, I simply don't know.
Also agreed, the first reaction when confronted with danger is to run from it. Yet I cannot say what young Steven might have thought--perhaps for a few fractions of a second--when contemplating a way out. Does he think to floor the accelerator and crash through the gate? Perhaps not. Being a proper young man, he may have thought he could have drove up to the gate button very quickly and activate it before Tex could catch him(that is, if Tex confronted Steven further out in the parking area). In this way he does not destroy private property or damage his own car.
Details like this are interesting to me but at present cannot be much more. I make no formal arguments here, as I don't have enough data and corroborating proof to lend any more weight to the issues. Elements such as these, then, remain firmly entrenched in the realm of theory.
ToF:
ReplyDeleteThe telephone lines were connected to the pole at about 17-18 feet high. Watson’s feet were probably 10-12 feet above ground level. He would have been visible during daylight hours but might have been just a shadow at night. There was enough light for him to find the lines, but where that light came from is uncertain to me.
The idea that Torque raised about the possibility that Parent had some idea that something abnormal was in progress is very intriguing. The Parent episode of the reconstructed scenario of what happened that night, as indicated by the testimony and the fact he backed into the fence hard enough to break it, in combination, create an ambiguous situation that stands out and begs for attention. So Torque's notion that maybe Parent saw/heard the initial activity, thought about it a little (as anyone might) and decided to leave as quickly as possible, fits pretty well as a plausible possibility.
So as to visibility, the night of 09 Aug 1969, the moon was in the extreme waning crescent, with the dark of the moon on 12 Aug, and moon rise on 09 Aug was 1:39 AM. Aside from ambient light from light pollution, on a clear night, it would have been quite dark. However, if Parent was outside, near Sebring's car, even if he had not at first seen Watson, he would likely have heard the wires fall.
It's an interesting wrinkle.
"he could have drove up to the gate button very quickly and activate it before Tex could catch him(that is, if Tex confronted Steven further out in the parking area)"
ReplyDeleteBut then, we're again at odds with every known statement coming from the murderers on the general area where the death occurred. Not to mention the positioning of Parent's vehicle, which was only slightly back behind that button area.
I hear ya, though. It's just a random theory. Not without some kind of value, I suppose, though it's kind of a dead-end road of inquiry to me.
Shoegazer said:
ReplyDelete“The idea that Torque raised about the possibility that Parent had some idea that something abnormal was in progress is very intriguing.
….
So Torque's notion that maybe Parent saw/heard the initial activity, thought about it a little (as anyone might) and decided to leave as quickly as possible, fits pretty well as a plausible possibility.”
I agree. Parent could have been spooked, floored it too hard in reverse ( hitting the fence), noticed the wires on the gate and decided to hide for ten minutes to determine if it was a finished prank or just the beginning of something more. After not noticing any other activity he decides to leave and encounters Watson at the interior gate button.
Occasionally there are new spins to solutions to mysteries and this is one of them. One of the better ones.
However I have never been totally convinced that:
1. Parent hit the fence that night. Parent could have gone to visit Garretson a few days before the incident and Bill wasn’t home; he hits the fence. The “My Cousin Vinny version” of this is that a similar color car hit the fence and Parent backed into something elsewhere before the night in question.
2. Parent hit the fence after visiting Garretson that night. Some people like to turn around as they arrive and park. Parent may have hit the fence before visiting Bill.
3. That Parent hit the fence after the telephone lines were cut. Parent may have hit the fence after visiting Bill but before the lines were cut. He may have sat or stood there brooding or driven through the gate and had second thoughts about leaving and reentered the property and was assessing the damage.
In the first two cases Parent just walks from the Guesthouse and drives to the gate button and encounters Watson. In the third case he is in or near his car or near the fence as the lines are cut. He is spooked and hides but doesn’t hit the fence again because he already hit it.
In these situations there is no spooking that resulted in him hitting the fence; just human error. Most people have at least tapped something backing up.
The fence had some wear to it and I would guess it was hit a number if times. The NBC video on 8/9 shows the fence near the mailbox and you can see that it has been hit and part of it is down. I presume that at least part of this vacant space was part of the 10050 property. The photo with Sharon on a bike shows part of the inside fence (near the gate) either being damaged or angled downward by design (which could have been the design, but I doubt it). I also believe that the (years) earlier picture of Lindsey and Melcher near the Jaguar may show fence damage.
Does anyone know what the white spots are on the driveway? I suppose it could be paint but the spots are a bit away from the fence.
TorF, I believe many of the white spots on the driveway are concrete patch to cover small potholes. The entire parking area appears to be rather old. An additional example of this may be seen near the concrete swale which conveys runoff water down the hillside(in front of the damaged fence). It appears to be in rather rugged shape.
ReplyDeleteOne other partly related point I find interesting is whose voice was heard by the guy in the park - Ireland? I think he was asked in interview whether the voice had an accent and I think he said that he couldn’t discern one. Could the voice have been Parent or would him being in the car have muffled any cries he made too much? I’ve always doubted whether it could be Frukowski as he was presumably already very much weakened from his wounds by the time he made it outside so his voice probably may not have carried very far? As with most of these little unknowns it doesn’t really matter much other than to add detail to what happens to who and what and where etc
ReplyDeleteSpeculator, I think the voice heard by Ireland was indeed Voytek. The distance the voice had to travel to reach Ireland's location at the Harvard Westlake School was considerable--at least 1,500 feet per Google Maps by my reckoning. The thinking here is that any accent would have not been necessarily discernable at that distance. Moreover, this voice was heard at 12:40am, as confirmed by Ireland's supervisor, Mr Sparks. This would no doubt been some time after the killing of Steven Parent.
ReplyDeleteSpeculator said:
ReplyDeleteIreland? I think he was asked in interview whether the voice had an accent and I think he said that he couldn’t discern one
I defy anyone to hear a voice, any voice, crying out from hundreds of yards away and for them to discern an accent.
It's like listening to a crowd in an international football match. You hear singing, shouting and chanting ~ you don't hear accents.
Could the voice have been Parent
No !
I’ve always doubted whether it could be Frukowski as he was presumably already very much weakened from his wounds by the time he made it outside so his voice probably may not have carried very far?
Two things; firstly, the reason Frykowski's voice carried far was not to do with its volume necessarily, but the construction of the land. And secondly, when one is fighting for one's life, the normal rules of what, how and why go out of the window. Yes, Wojiciech was weakened and there came a point when the full brunt of the weakened state overwhelmed him and he died. But before that, he was giving it as good as he could, even though he'd been shot twice and hit so many times over his head and stabbed ~ and was about to be stabbed more. His voice would have been his best bet and actually, that shouting may have been what hastened his demise.
Torque:
ReplyDeleteI think the voice heard by Ireland was indeed Voytek. The distance the voice had to travel to reach Ireland's location at the Harvard Westlake School was considerable--at least 1,500 feet per Google Maps by my reckoning. The thinking here is that any accent would have not been necessarily discernable at that distance.
FWIW, I've felt it was probably Frykowsi. I've never really felt that asking Ireland about a perceived accent amounted to much.
First, do we know how much of an accent Frykowski had? How would a Polish accent, to whatever degree he may have had one, affect the words Ireland testified to hearing?
Shoe, good question here. I've often pondered what Voytek's voice sounded like. I have not heard a recording of his voice anywhere, but I do know that Billy Doyle, when interviewed by LAPD in Toronto, said Voytek vould barely speak English. I suspect Doyle was referring to Voytek still learning the language(Abigail was tutoring him), but this does not necessarily indicate how much of an accent Voytek may have had.
ReplyDeleteGood info, Torque.
ReplyDeleteWell here’s just a thought for you, if Frykowski had such a poor grasp of English, and even if he had a decent grasp of English, In the sheer terror of that moment would he not have reverted to his maiden tongue? And if you went with that
ReplyDeleteIdea then who was actually heard by Ireland? I’m not saying I doubt the presumption that it was Frykowski, I’m just throwing the thought out there!
Speculator, good point. It may be that Voytek(if it was really his voice that was heard)had the presence of mind to cry out in English, no matter how broken, as it would no doubt be the only language that may be understood by most people in that place. Additionally, I recall that Roman Polanski said he was able to master the English language himself in four years. Voytek arrived in America in 1967, but it is unknown when exactly he began to learn English in any regimented way.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSpeculator said:
ReplyDeleteWell here’s just a thought for you, if Frykowski had such a poor grasp of English, and even if he had a decent grasp of English, In the sheer terror of that moment would he not have reverted to his maiden tongue?
No, for one simple reason ~ he was talking to Watson. "Please, no, don't..."
Besides which, all of the dialogue between the perps and the victims up to that point had been in English. Frykowski knew enough English to know exactly what was going on when Watson told them they were all going to die.
Makes no sense that the voice heard would have been Steve. I guess we're going off Watson's shaky memory here, but this is the very first suggestion that it might have been Parent I've ever run across. As Sebring was apparently never outside in a wounded/dying state and Watson was never in a position that night to be begging anyone for anything, that leaves only Voytek.
ReplyDeleteTorque:
ReplyDeleteI suspect Doyle was referring to Voytek still learning the language(Abigail was tutoring him), but this does not necessarily indicate how much of an accent Voytek may have had.
Does anyone know if Folger spoke Polish at all? If not, this would mean that Frykowski and Folger, living together, were communicating in something other than Polish. A default might be to assume English, until shown otherwise.
Let's see...I'm thinking that that Polish artist lived with them in the other house, and so they'd likely converse in Polish. Maybe Frykowski socialized regularly with other Hollywood Poles?
Both Voytek and Abigail spoke fluent French.
ReplyDeleteRe Steven hitting the fence - did they not find corresponding dents/scrapes on the rear of his vehicle that matched the fence damage? Fence damage from his previous (daytime) visit would have been noticed and discussed by someone, so I think it occurred that night under the added difficulty of no or low lighting.
ReplyDeleteI've previously wondered how Sharon, Jay etc reversed out of their parking spots - turning left toward the fence, or right, making the turn alongside the garage stairs. The latter would probably be easier (if no one was parked there) with a less acute angle. This makes me think Steven wasn't parked parallel to those outside stairs. I think he was just getting out (badly) from a difficult, unfamiliar parking spot. I think he didn't see the killers until it was too late, based on the fact of something he didn't do - avoid proceeding toward the gate.
Also, some of these shots clearly DON'T show severed wires where Steven's car was theorised to be parked at the side of the garage, and some (vaguely) do. What's up with that?
Shoe, it is unlikely that Abigail spoke any Polish. I say this for one reason: in Bugliosi's book, he describes a scene in the living room at Cielo where Abigail, Voytek, artist Witold-K(Polish), and Witold-k's girlfriend are lounging. This scene is captured on Ronan Polanski's video camera, which one of the four had switched on and left running.
ReplyDeleteThe video captured all of the conversation of the four in the living room, and this included a bit of a verbal spat between Abigail and Voytek, with Voytek becoming increasingly drunk and referring to Abigail as "Lady F." Abigail did her best to deflect this verbal abuse, but Voytek then began to speak to Witold-K only in Polish, effectively leaving the women out of the conversation.
Additionally Voytek socialized regularly with other Poles in LA. I touched on that briefly in my post on Abigail's time in LA. And of course as Tobias said, Abigail and Voytek spoke fluent French.
Tragical History Tour, correct, there are some photos which show the lines down in the area of the trash cans(where I theorize Steven parked), and some photos which do not.
ReplyDeleteI believe this is because the telephone repair man was called to the scene to assist police and to also repair the lines and reestablish phone service, which he did. The various photos that we see of this area are indicative of the area at different time intervals on Saturday August 9th, and probably Sunday the 10th.
A similar effect can be seen in some of the rooms of the Cielo main house. Namely, some photos are obviously taken early on in the police investigation(probably morning), while others are obviously taken many hours later, with seat cushions and furniture moved, etc.
On the topic of Parent's death, and the circumstances surrounding it, at one point I became interested in the nature of Watson's attack on Parent, while Parent was seated in the car. I'm going to simply work off the top of my head (for now) to try to see if anyone is interested trying to create a likely scenario that fits the physical evidence.
ReplyDeleteAgain, without going back and examining the material I had collected at one point, maybe 18 months ago, as I recall, Parent appears to have been attacked while seated in his car. It appears the the driver's side window was down. I don't know about any of the other windows.
He was shot multiple times. Once through the left cheek, apparently while his mouth was open, with the bullet exiting from his open mouth, striking no other part of his body. I don't recall how many shots in total, or how many struck Parent, and where they struck him.
His left hand/arm had a slashing type of wound, and his Lucerne watch's metal band (probably worn on the same arm as the wound) was broken and the watch was found on the back seat, directly behind Parent (I think).
The following particular items have fascinated me:
1) For Watson to have both slashed and shot Parent in quick succession, he seems to have had the gun in one hand and the knife in the other. If accurate, which hand held the knife, which the gun? What do you think the chances are that he did not have one weapon in each hand, such that he had to manipulate in any fashion the weapons to bring them into play?
2) In what position was Parent's left arm to receive such a wound, and what was the likely arc of the slash to have hooked the watch band (breaking it and flinging it into the back seat), and yet not have deeply slashed Parent's left forearm along much of the length of it?
3) What distance from Parent's body/face was the muzzle of the revolver when fired? Is it possible that the muzzle was far enough inside the car, with all other windows rolled up, that the much of the discharge would have been contained within the car, acting as a sort of muffling chamber?
4) Were the other windows open of closed, and if closed, were any of the bullets retrieved from inside the car? It was a very warm evening, and much would depend on whether Parent's car had A/C.
That's all for now.
Shoe, as to your points:
ReplyDelete1) I don't know that there is any explanation in the available literature, including Watson's own book. My thinking is that Tex would have had the knife in hand and ready, keeping the gun perhaps tucked away to be used if needed. I would think the gun would be a weapon of last resort, as it would have made noise, especially so close to the gate and the Kott residence. That Tex used the gun indicates to me that he felt it was eminent that Steven was about to get away.
2) Indeed, a mystery to me. I don't recall the autopsy report stating that Steven's forearm was wounded with a knife, but of course the palm of his hand was. That wound was three inches in length and was bone-deep. Steven was, in my opinion, probably holding up his arm as a defense reaction when Tex struck. How these motions took shape I don't know, but apparently they were such that the wristband of the watch was severed and hurled into the back seat.
3) The wound Steven received to his cheek showed evidence of powder burns, according to the autopsy report, while the other gunshot wounds were not accompanied by powder residue. This may mean that at least one of the gunshot wounds was inflicted from a closer range. Noguchi discussed in court the approximate distances where gunshots would leave a trace of burnt or unburnt powder.
4) It is apparent to me, from available photos, that only the driver's window was open on Steven's car. Bullet fragments were recovered from inside the car. Also, according to Steven's sister, his blood was still present in the interior of the car when the family collected it after it was finally released by police.
Hi, Torque. I have some comments/questions and I hope you'll take them in the spirit I intend, which is just honest fact-seeking, to the degree it's available, in order to create a *likely*--and hopefully the most likely--description of the events of 8-9 Aug 1969. In that sense, it's like the "stroll".
ReplyDeleteThe "stroll" and the attack on Parent are not in conflict with the official narrative, which I accept as being an accurate general account of what happened. The stroll happened *prior* to the time period covered by the narrative, or if there's an over-lap, happened in comparative isolation. The attack is merely a filling in of the functional details of the events that caused Parent's death.
So I'll include parts of your response and comment on them.
1)...My thinking is that Tex would have had the knife in hand and ready, keeping the gun perhaps tucked away to be used if needed.
I thought about that, but the gun has a 9" barrel. This makes it almost impossible to carry thru the belt or in the waistband. Me, having several pistols/revolvers, I don't see this as very likely, although not impossible. So I tend to reject that and this leaves him having a weapon in each hand, or having someone hand him one of the two. I reject that because I feel that it would have come out in the narrative at some point. E.g, if Atkins had handled the gun/knife to Watson during the attack, this seems like the kind of info she'd have been pleased to tell her jail-mates.
[NOTE: The same issue about how Watson's hands were occupied also applies to his attacks inside.]
I would think the gun would be a weapon of last resort, as it would have made noise, especially so close to the gate and the Kott residence. That Tex used the gun indicates to me that he felt it was eminent that Steven was about to get away.
Yes, agreed. But there's weirdness in Parent's wounds. If I'm reading the autopsy report correctly, there was a wound to the left cheek and four other wounds: two to the left forearm, and two to the torso. This means 2, 3, or four more shots. There is a strong possibility that the shots to the arm also caused the torso wounds, penetrating arm and entering the torso; if so this is two shots.
If true, Parent's arm was curled down, attempting to protect his torso. So we have to figure if he sequence was:
1) Initial shot to the face, followed by two more shots to the lowered arm/torso.
2) Two shots to the lowered arm/torso followed by one to the face.
3) Some combination of three shots that resulted in the placement of the wounds.
Then, when did the knife come into play?
I have some ideas but would like to hear others.
2)...Steven was, in my opinion, probably holding up his arm as a defense reaction when Tex struck...
Agreed, and I'm very interested in the sequence that was consistent with the wounds.
Think about where Watson must have been standing to deliver a single, hard slash that had enough energy to go bone deep *and* severe the metallic band and sling the watch onto the back seat.
We'd need to consider which hand held the knife, and whether the grip was a hammer grip or a thrust grip.
To me, very interesting.
Does anyone know if Watson was left or right handed?
3)...This may mean that at least one of the gunshot wounds was inflicted from a closer range. Noguchi discussed in court the approximate distances where gunshots would leave a trace of burnt or unburnt powder.
Agreed. These might play into the sequence of the attack.
4) It is apparent to me, from available photos, that only the driver's window was open on Steven's car....
If indeed the other windows were closed, I'd maintain that the interior of the car might well have muffled the sound of the discharge, especially out over the LA basin. The hillside would also tend to cut off/muffle the sound toward the north and west.
I'm speaking only of the shots fired at Parent, from a location near the gate button.
The moving knives have always been an anomaly of this crime for me. I have had a personal debate about them for some time starting with their magical teleportation at Spahn to the odd, untimed, stroll by Krenwinkel. That said Watson says he approached the car wielding a knife in one hand and a gun in the other. The other three witnesses do not verify this statement. The first time we see Watson with a knife is after Kasabian returns from walking to the vicinity of the open window to the soon to be nursery to report there is no way in the house. Watson is slitting the screen.
ReplyDeleteBut there is also no evidence to contradict Watson’s account. Kasabian said saw him stick the gun into the car and fire. She did not see him attack with a knife and the other two only heard the encounter. If all three were behind the gate button wall, as I believe they were, this means they were likely lined up with Kasabian nearest to the gate button. I doubt she was tall enough to see over the wall and they were told to get down.
I believe, assuming he had two weapons (ah, that debate just won’t go away), that Watson attacks Parent with the knife with his right hand. He had been told to use the gun as a last resort. It was there for intimidation, not violence.
Parent raises his hand to block the blow in a position similar to saying “stop”. The thrusting attack strikes his hand and severs the watch band. Parent pulls his injured hand away from the attack. The force of the blow and his movement send the watch to the backseat. He then is leaning away from Watson attempting to get away from the attack. I believe the position of his feet supports this conclusion. He has also pulled his wounded hand towards his chest.
Watson was blocked in his first attack and maybe senses he can't reach Parent as he leans away gaining some protection from the car limited opening. He fires striking his left arm, perhaps while it is still moving and is away from Parent’s body. Watson fires again. The GSW passes through Parent’s arm and into his chest. [Noguchi testified that it was his opinion GSW 2 and 4 were inflicted by the same bullet.] Watson fires again striking Parent in the chest.
Watson reaches into the car (this is what Kasabian saw) and fires a final shot at Parent’s head that strikes him in the cheek leaving gunshot residue.
The order could be different except that GSWs two and four have to occur before Parent has collapsed to his right given the final resting place of his left arm.
My two cents.
Unrelated, we have, what I believe is a glimpse of what the plan was from night number two: tie up the victims and use the knives. Likely the women were chosen to be the assassins. Since Manson believed you couldn’t be convicted of murder if you didn’t kill anyone, in his mind this would protect himself and Watson. He might even have told Watson that. They expected two people. Two people had always lived at the home in Manson’s memory and the plan was to tie up two people with one rope of that length, four is possible but rather complicated.
This is good. I'm in basic agreement, and my intent here is to refine, not refute your version, David.
ReplyDeleteI believe, assuming he had two weapons (ah, that debate just won’t go away), that Watson attacks Parent with the knife with his right hand.
Sounds fine to me. For this iteration I'll assume a thrusting grip (as opposed to hammer grip).
Watson might be standing somewhat in front of the open window looking back into the car from somewhere near the side view mirror. I postulate this from body mechanics as I perceive them. To strike out at Parent with enough force to deeply cut his hand and severe the watchband, with a thrust grip it seems like he'd probably be striking from somewhat forward of Parent, sweeping upward. If he were directly to the left of him it would be very difficult to make that sort of forceful contact, and as Watson's putative position drifts farther toward the rear of car, nearer the door post, it gets increasingly harder.
With a hammer grip (which I doubt he had at that time because it would limit access to Parent thru the open window) Watson might have been a bit further back, toward the door post.
I also like the idea of being somewhat to the front of Parent because of the location of Parent's hand wound. If the attack have been more from the side, Parent would have had to twist his arm/hand in a very unnatural position to expose the palm/heel of his left hand.
Parent raises his hand to block the blow in a position similar to saying “stop”. The thrusting attack strikes his hand and severs the watch band. Parent pulls his injured hand away from the attack. The force of the blow and his movement send the watch to the backseat. He then is leaning away from Watson attempting to get away from the attack. I believe the position of his feet supports this conclusion. He has also pulled his wounded hand towards his chest.
This all sounds fine to me--very likely and consistent with the wounds. Especially with Parent reflexively leaning away from Watson. (Does anyone know if Parent had fastened his seatbelt? Not important, but...)
Watson reaches into the car (this is what Kasabian saw) and fires a final shot at Parent’s head that strikes him in the cheek leaving gunshot residue.
Yep. Here's a nuance, too: for the bullet to pass thru his left check and exit his mouth, grazing his upper lip, Parent's head would need to be averted somewhat from Watson. This would be consistent with the cheek wound being the last shot, and this is further supported by the powder residue, showing that Watson had shoved the muzzle inside the the car, in a sort of haphazard coup de grace.
Now an additional question is: if Watson used the knife first, from his right hand (assuming right-handed), did he switch hands (or even drop the knife beside the car) to shoot from his right hand?
Having handled handguns somewhat, and being right-handed, my instinct would be to shoot from the dominant hand. It is awkward to use the off-hand. Intuitively you have no confidence in the shot.
David:
ReplyDeleteYes, the idea that Manson by default anticipated 2 people at Cielo (especially very late at night) certainly provides a workable answer for the single length of rope.
Given that there were four people, the execution of the plan then became a clumsy improvisation, and that sure does characterize Ceilo as opposed to Waverley.
These questions of "how", rather than "why" or in what frame of mind or with what level of moral culpability are all that have ever interested me. That, and the detailed history of 10050 and 10048 Cielo. Why this is I could not say: I haven't a clue.
David, thanks. Excellent analysis here.
ReplyDeleteThank you,
ReplyDeleteYour welcome.
Shoegazer said: "Having handled handguns somewhat, and being right-handed, my instinct would be to shoot from the dominant hand. It is awkward to use the off-hand. Intuitively you have no confidence in the shot."
ReplyDeleteLike I said since Watson had been told not to use the gun I believe it started in his left hand. I think the car and Parent's ability to defend the blow and trying to move away triggered the use of the gun.
Dropping the knife and switching hands could very well explain Kasabian not seeing a knife. It might also explain Parent's last words if he had been struck by the knife before he uttered them. Then that line becomes more of a plea. In fight or flight terms it becomes 'negotiate' much like Sharon Tate.
My recollection was that Kasabian testified that the gunshots immediately followed the statement and that Atkins heard the gunshots immediately after the statement which doesn't leave room for the knife attack. Since she didn't see that attack but heard and saw the shots without it. I believe it happened before the statement.
David:
ReplyDeleteThis all sounds good.
Did anyone ever determine what happened to the car when Parent died at the wheel? I.e., did it creep forward (an automatic transmission) or lurch and stall out (manual transmission)?
I can recall thinking about it, looking at the evidence photos, maybe even doing some checking on what options were available on Parent's car, but I don't know if I ever got around to posting. From looking at the photos of the interior of the car I believed it likely that the car was a floor selector mounted automatic. The car's trim was an attempt to be sporty.
So if it was an automatic, if the car was in Drive, it likely would have crept forward, unless the weight of Parent's foot on the brake pedal was enough to hold it in place. If in Park or Neutral, it would have tended to remain in place.
There's the outside chance that he had shifted to Reverse, anticipating an chance to quickly back up, but I doubt this due to the way the car seems to have behaved, which was not erratic enough to impress anyone relating the narrative.
So far as I know, no one ever testified or made a statement about how the car behaved after Watson completed his attack.
Parent car
Blowing the image up, the brake pedal, what we see of it, looks like the characteristic wide pedal of an automatic, and what's visible of the console suggests the relatively narrow shift gate and chrome shaft of a floor-mounted selector.
Shoe, this was a bit of a mystery to me when I first read this story. Also, my first impression was that Steven may have been going in reverse when attacked, thereby crashing into the fence. But of course I cannot prove this, and none of the killers admit to it.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt the car was an automatic transmission, with floor mounted shifter.
Torque:
ReplyDeletePart 1:
The Parent scenario is interesting to me, and especially his departure and subsequent murder, because the event has anomalies (broken fence/scraped curb; Parent's "I won't tell" plea; etc.). I'm not the type to look for hidden meaning or conspiracies, so I like to work from what's "known" (or at least well and reasonably deduced from the "known"). I use the standard Atkins/Kasabian narrative, and because it's a human narrative it's often imprecise. It's evident that they saw parts of the events of 8/9 Aug, but from different physical locations, and each narrator has their own biases and recollections.
But on the whole I'm pretty content with it, and largely I'm just looking for greater precision of the narrative as it exists, and I'm not looking to upset or supplant the narrative.
So that said, some of these loose ends are interesting to me:
1) Number of gunshots. The medical examiner who did the autopsy (Hererra?) noted that he thought that both arm wounds may have been the source of the two torso wounds. This would mean 3 shots rather than the 4 shots that Naguchi testified to.
I kinda like the idea of three shots because according to Naguchi's testimony, only two bullets were recovered, meaning that if four shots, into the car, which ostensibly had closed windows, the LAPD could not find two of them. This is difficult to square with a thorough investigation of the interior of the car, and of course if there were 3 shots, losing only one is a bit easier to believe.
But in no sense do I think that this precludes 4 shots. It's just an open question on which to speculate.
2) I'm still unable to come up with a scenario in which Parent's car, immediately after he was killed, was moved to where it was found the next morning. I accept that Watson pushed it back there, but assuming that the car was an automatic (and I'm becoming increasingly convinced that it was), the car would have crept forward (or backward) unless it was in Neutral or Park. And to me it's entirely possible that it was in Park, but my own intuition says that if one is stopped by a man with weapons in his hands, in the middle of the night, one does not take the car out of gear. One prepares to accelerate, given any opportunity. Still, it's possible he did put it in Park, and I say this because he apparently had the window all the way down when he spoke with Watson.
End Part 1
Torque:
ReplyDeletePart 2:
Now it appears that Parent's car was an upscale AMC (Ambassador?). Blowing up the interior photos, one can get the idea that the car had power windows, and I can speak from experience that that was really fairly uncommon in the late 60s, except for cars that included up-scale options.
Empty car seat
Parent in car
I'm at a loss to identify what appears to be a checkered or plaid piece of cloth immediately to the right of the steering wheel, and to the left of what looks like Parent's extended right arm/hand. Note that the right hand looks blood covered (if indeed that it's his hand), and from morgue photos taken from the left side it *appears* that the palm side of his right hand may have been blood covered.
Morgue photo
After the exchange with David, and subsequent examinations of Parent's body in his car and Parent's autopsy report and his full face morgue photo, I'm pretty content that a) Parent was not wearing a seatbeat (in fact I can't see any certain evidence that the car even had seatbelts--oh! the horror!); and b) he was trying hard to pull away from the driver's side door when he was killed.
Two rambling, tangentially related observations: from the photos of his car, Parent had monkeyed around with the car's electrical system a bit, pulling off the steering wheel axis cover (where the horn wiring is located) and in the driver's side, there are loose wires below the dash; and I am again surprised and impressed with how deadly a simple .22 LR round is. It seems to have quickly incapacitated both Parent and Sebring. Frykowski would have succumbed, but was likely very full of adrenaline when shot by Watson.
Thinking/writing about the "gap theory" opens up a lot of small details that, individually do not conflict with or refute the official narrative, but taken in the aggregate, may lead to a somewhat different sequence of events than what one might carry in his/her mind as the actual scenario.
ReplyDeleteOne issue is Parent's right hand as he is photoed lying in his car.
Parent in car
Blow up the image and inspect what appears to be his right hand. It looks covered in blood. (I still would like to know what the checkered/plaid object is just to the left of his hand.)
Now look at his morgue photo, taken from the right side, and blow up the area of his right hand. There seems to be blood visible having seeped out between his fingers:
Parent morgue photo
According to the autopsy report there was no wound to the right arm, or to the right side of the body, so one wonders: where did the fairly copious amount of blood on the palm of his right hand come from, and how did it get there?
Parent autopsy report
My working conclusion, taken from David's earlier hypothetical scenario in this thread in which Watson first thrust into the car, Parent blocked the knife and suffered the left palm wound (losing his watch), and may then have recoiled away from the open window, pulling his wounded hand back against his chest. I think this is very likely and I would posit that he may have also clutched his wounded left hand with his right, picking up the blood on his right hand later seen in the photos.
I especially favor David's sequence as an explanation for *why* Watson chose to shoot Parent, rather than finish him with the knife: Parent instinctively leaned so far to his right, away from the window, that Watson saw that he could not stab Parent in any vital area due to his limited access thru the open window of Parent's car.
There are some additional areas of inquiry re Parent & his car that have occurred to me and I will lay these out later.
In all honesty, this is the kind of stuff that interests me, and I hope to god that this is not deadly boring to the other readers here.
The Bullets
ReplyDeleteActually, I believe all four Parent bullets are accounted for in the evidence.
Two are located in Steven’s chest. These are referenced in the autopsy report under Evidence of Trauma, GSW 1 and 2.
The third appears at line 7 of the Cielo Drive Property report (where the contents of the car are inventoried) and was found on the rear seat of the car.
The fourth appears at line 30 of the same report and was removed from the right door of parent’s vehicle. This entry is out of order with the surrounding entries.
Both line 7 and line 30 are bullet fragments but given their locations I think it is reasonable to conclude they are not from the same bullet.
David, Thanks for the additional evidence.
ReplyDeleteThis makes much more sense.
I spent a good portion of yesterday PM looking for images of 65-66 Ambassador 990s, interior shots. This is useful in comparing against the photos I linked over the last few days.
66 4-speed. Useful for location of door handle, window crank, and width of brake and clutch pedals for a manual transmission.
66 4-speed
66 4-speed. Window crank, doorhandle, dashboard layout, horn activator.
66 4-speed
65 column-mounted automatic. Useful for brake pedal & accelerator (note chrome trim on both), doorhandle, manual window crank locations.
65 column auto
65 floor mount auto. Location of shift selector, dashboard layout, pedals.
65 floor auto
I want to try to determine the shift selector setting in the photo with Parent in the car. I've not found a definitive view, but it seems that the selections were (from closest the dash to farthest from the dash) Park, Reverse, Neutral, 2 (Drive), 1 (Drive), L. This is derived from the column selector display of a 65-66 Ambassador Marlin Rebel. I have about 85% confidence that this is indeed the gear order.
65-66 column shift gate
From the image of Parent in his car, which I think was largely the way the police found it, the gear selector may be in L. We might reasonably infer that Watson set the selection to L after he had pushed the car, because it would not be possible for one person to push the car, either forward or backward, except in N.
Here are two close-up of the selector lever of Parent's car. Note the yellow arrows.
knob
lever
In the first, you can see the knob of the lever, and in the second, after Parent had been removed you can see the bottom third of the lever. In the second shot it's clear the lever is all the way back (L), and in the first, it *appears* that it may have been all the way back, but this is uncertain.
Gosh, if you think about it, his prints should have been all over the car: steering wheel, shift selector, window/door frame, etc.
The Car
ReplyDeleteThe car certainly would have had idle creep if Parent's foot came off the brake and it did from the photos.
We are told Watson reached into the car and turned it and the lights off after shooting Parent. Since the car could reach 5mph pretty quickly Watson had to do this pretty quickly after the shooting.
They (or Watson) then pushed the car back according to the testimony.
It was found in second gear. So in my opinion either a couple steps are missing, where Watson put the car in neutral and then in second afterwards or they pushed it in second gear.
If you assume the car was in reverse and that is when it hit the fence and curb then they have to push the car quite a distance to its final resting point and frankly, why bother. You can't see the location where the cars are parked from the gate. You can see it if it is sitting near or in the approach to the gate button.
It was found in second gear. So in my opinion either a couple steps are missing, where Watson put the car in neutral and then in second afterwards or they pushed it in second gear.
ReplyDeleteI have had to push cars a lot when young. Various types, in various circumstances. There was no circumstance in which you could push any car in a low gear, at all, and only rarely could you push, with great effort, a car in the top gear.
And in all these cases you could only push the car in the direction in which the gear was designed to go: if in a forward gear (top manual gear, like 3rd/4th; in Drive for an automatic) you could push the car *forward*, but not backward. Reverse is a very low gear, and again it would not be reasonably possible for a single person (or even 2-3 people) to push a car backward in reverse.
Watson was car-savvy: he'd know this stuff. My best guess is that he put it into N to roll it back, then pushed the selector to another gear to keep it from rolling in any direction. Park would be best, but not essential.
It was found in second gear. So in my opinion either a couple steps are missing, where Watson put the car in neutral and then in second afterwards or they pushed it in second gear.
Agreed so far as the location, and again, they could not push the car forward or backward in D2 (second), for the reasons above.
WRT where the car was located when Watson attacked/killed Parent, I've thought about this a bit. I think at one point in your long evidence series you postulated that Parent's car could not have been close enough to the gate button to open the gate when Watson attacked. There'd be no room for Watson to attack thru the open window. I agree with this.
Then I noticed several of the photos of Parent's car during the investigation. For now I will assume that in many of the photos the car had not been disturbed much other than to remove Parent's body. Assuming this (for a working assumption, not proved), looking at the angle of the front wheels, and the car's actual location, if both were essentially where Watson left them, my mind's eye envisions the car much closer to the *right side* of the drive, closer to the fence than to the gate button and low wall.
I've got to work with this a lot more, look at more photos.
Also, according to both your (and Torque's) speculation as to where the car may have been parked,looking at the location of the broken fence (and to a lesser degree *where and how* it was broken) it seems to me that if parked somewhere near the stairs up to the room above the garage, nose of the car pointed west--into the hillside--it may well have been further from the stairs and closer to the low wall than many may envision it.
Here's Torque's photo (something like your from years ago). I'll mark where the car *may* have been parked in order to have cause the damage to the fence, as we see it in photos. Much, much speculation--many variables here, for sure...
The area of the red dot seems like a possible parking spot, with many other possibilities. I'd just like to introduce this location so as to think about how this might fit it.
Possible parking location
Shoe,
ReplyDeleteI hate to be a buzz kill but the police did the work for you. The First Homicide report says the car was found in second gear and states it is an automatic transmission.
"An examination of the vehicle revealed that the lights were off; the hood was cool and engine off. The ignition switch was in the vertical, or off, position and the automatic gearshift lever indicated the car was in second gear. The emergency brake was off and a later check revealed that the battery was charged. A later check also revealed slightly over one-half tank of gasoline."
David:
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in as many *demonstrable* details as possible. Those would be the "core facts". Then the next level of veracity would be those attested to by a qualified professional in his/her area of expertise. Then other eyewitness accounts, etc.
So in instances where there is testimony and at least *some* direct evidence, like photos, etc., I like working thru the direct evidence.
I think that's what you did with your seven-part "look at the evidence" series, right?
Let me ask: reading your articles, I get the distinct impression that you tend to be interested in many of the same aspects of the TBL crimes that I am. For me, it's creating a concrete image in my mind, as best I can, of the actual physical events: who was standing where. how could such-and-such a wound have been delivered by a right-handed person, etc.
I'm not out to disprove the narrative, which I believe is essentially accurate. But it lacks in concrete detail in some places, and leave large temporal gaps in other places.
It's not important to me to convince anyone else. It's for my own interest.
Here's a e.g.
There's a lot of speculation about how much time was spent at Cielo. Even the framing of the events is vague, when we discuss them. When does it start? For me, it depends on what part of the attack I'm emphasizing. If it's in relation to Manson possibily re-visiting to the scene, then it's from the time they left Spahn to the time Watson is debriefed by Manson. If it's in regard to possible local Cielo witnesses (Garretson, Mott, Ireland), it's from the time they parked to cut the wires, until they walked down the driveway and started the car and left.
There are lots of holes, as you well know, and their existence does not suggest a conspiracy or cover-up so much as a period of time in which *something* happened for which we have little or no information, and I'd like to know what, and in what likely sequence.
8 stab wounds to Tate's back...where/when/how? It happened in there *somewhere*, but...
Shoe, I appreciate your thought in your latest comment. With regards to your question on how much time the killers spent at Cielo, I know Patricia Krenwinkel said at one of her parole hearings that from the time the killers arrived to the time they left, only about twenty minutes had elapsed. She said that "it happened so fast."
ReplyDeleteTorque, I am reluctant to take any account at face value without at least some kind of personal testing. This is not so much that I mistrust them or I think they are incapable of having been accurate, but as a sort of double-check. If, during the double check, things begin to make less sense, I like to think about them more, to see if further detail then begins to clear up the inconsistencies. It almost always does.
ReplyDeleteE.g., yesterday I was hung up a bit trying to resolve the difference between David's infomation from the property report, that two additional bullets were found inside Parent's car, with Naguchi's testiony that his team found two bullets in Parent's body, and never saw any others. The wording of the question, and Naguchi's answer, were very narrow in scope. He answered to only what *his* team had found during the examination.
Similarly, there seems to be a discrepancy between the examiner's description of a graze-type wound, 1/8" deep, 1/2" long, and 1/4" wide on Parent's left upper lip and Naguchi's testimony in which he never mentions this wound. His testimony can lead one to conclude that it never existed, but in reality, the precise nature of the questioning on the cheek wound and Naguchi's answers were limited to entrance and exit wounds, only, and this was neither, as Naguchi conceived of it. Reading the testimony, you could easily be led to think that the bullet exited Parent's open mouth without any further contact. According to the unrefuted examiner's report, this would not be precisely true. And knowing about the entry/exit in the cheek AND about the graze on the upper left (!) lip, gives us a pretty good start on figuring Parent's posture inside the car at the time of the wound. Face really averted to the right, away from the open window.
Lots of interesting stuff. How long did it take for Kasabian to walk to the back of the house to look for means of entry, as instructed by Watson? It was a very dark night, and any urban ambience lighting would not have helped much back there, between house and the hillside. If we knew, we could then make some informed guesses about how long Watson took to find and examine the DR window, and begin to cut the screen to gain entry. We might then try guessing what Krenwinkel and Atkins were doing...my guess is nothing other than watching Watson. but...
But for now I'm focused (mostly) on the Parent scenario.
Shoegazer said: "So in instances where there is testimony and at least *some* direct evidence, like photos, etc., I like working thru the direct evidence. I think that's what you did with your seven-part "look at the evidence" series, right?"
ReplyDeleteand
"Let me ask: reading your articles, I get the distinct impression that you tend to be interested in many of the same aspects of the TBL crimes that I am."
I didn't have a plan when I wrote those. The tag line was added after the fact on a couple and I missed a couple. It all arose from one of the few organized thoughts I had with this that starts with Never Trust an Eyewitness, even if it wasn't first, chronologically.
My plan was indeed to see if I could poke holes in the official narrative with what you refer to as direct evidence.
You see, I personally believe that "Sadie's Stroll" establishes, conclusively, that the official narrative is inaccurate. The question for me is 'how/where' is it inaccurate and is there an alternative that makes more sense.
But I get it now, you are trying to verify what is written/said and sort of assume nothing is set in stone.
David:
ReplyDeleteYou see, I personally believe that "Sadie's Stroll" establishes, conclusively, that the official narrative is inaccurate. The question for me is 'how/where' is it inaccurate and is there an alternative that makes more sense.
That's an exact example of what I'm trying to do. It's stimulating in a very pure sense of trying to determine verifiable reality. I make no moral judgement while looking at this stuff. If I ever do make any such judgments, they are entirely separate from the verifiable train of events.
E.g., when I stand aside from the events, I do not find much I like about Kasabian--I can only understand her actions as those of a fairly canny, "street-smart" (no formal education to speak of) person optimizing there own survival. In which she was notably successful.
So I value successful strategies on a pure level--there was great intuitive skill involved--but limit it to that. What I'd consider a "decent" person would never have been in the position to have had to resort to the stratagems she used. But if I were indecent, I'd use them too, yep. I'm just not going to let that happen, ever.
But yep, stuff like the blood evidence, and Tate's back wounds, are really intriguing. The best that we'll ever do is what we're doing here on TLB.
Holy Grail stuff, isn't it? We're not going to find it, either. :^)
"I personally believe that "Sadie's stroll" establishes"
ReplyDeleteOut of mild curiosity, how or why do you disbelieve this minor point in the "official narrative" if that's what we're calling this story now. I ask because I find this minor incident to be among the most substantiated little factoids in this entire mess, in fact. First off, the fact that this happened came from Atkins in the first place, late in '69. Sadie's claim on this point was eventually confirmed by Kasabian and also by the fact that a knife matching her description of the missing knife was discovered in the living room chair, which was where she said she had fallen while wrestling with Voytek.
Are you perhaps speaking of something else when you refer to "Sadie's stroll"? What about this seems unbelievable to you?
I like photos and I’m grateful for the ones available but disappointed that more aren’t readily available.
ReplyDeleteThe photo of Parent in his car, and the official narrative, may lead some to make tainted assumptions and suppositions. The photo was taken 10+ hours after the fact. While the photo shows Parent leaning diagonal, with his head towards the passenger seat and feet near the door underneath the common emergency break location, you can’t tell what position(s) he was in before, during, and immediately after the attack. One of his feet may have been on the break during and immediately after the attack. Watson reaching into the car and pushing the car and gravity may have contributed to the position of Parent that is shown in the photo.
It’s unclear to me whether Watson pushed the car 2 feet or 20 feet. Watson could have created the odd car angle but I lean towards Parent creating the odd car angle trying to avoid Watson.
A basic (starting point) truth table may contain first four gear shift positions: park, neutral, forward, reverse; AND second foot on break and foot off break. If Parent shifted gears or changed the position of his feet, more possibilities occur.
I’ve seen no crime photos showing: the (gothic?) wooden fence to the right of the metal gate; the inside split rail fence (shown when Sharon is riding the bike and gnome is present); or the bushes that cover part of the split rail fence. While I don’t think it happened, it’s unclear if Parent car moved forward enough to cause visible damage to these areas.
ToF:
ReplyDeleteThe photo was taken 10+ hours after the fact.
The amount of time is unimportant unless you suggest that he moved, or was moved, during that period of time. I'm working from the assumption that the photo with Parent inside the car was taken to be used as evidence of the position of the body when found. It may be an erroneous assumption, but it's what I'm working from for now.
you can’t tell what position(s) he was in before, during, and immediately after the attack.
Unless he was moved before the photo was taken, we need to create scenarios that could reasonably account for how he appears in the photo.
One of his feet may have been on the break during [the attack]...
That's plausible and even likely.
....and immediately after the attack.
Until he was moved... if he was moved. If the photos are as he was found by the police, that means that Watson may have moved his feet. But this seems likely only if his foot or feet were on the brake.
Watson reaching into the car and pushing the car and gravity may have contributed to the position of Parent that is shown in the photo.
It's plausible that if Parent was still somewhat upright after the conclusion of the attack, Watson would have shoved him far enough to reach the gear selector on the console. If this is the case, it's plausible that he got some of Parent's blood on himself and/or his clothing.
It’s unclear to me whether Watson pushed the car 2 feet or 20 feet.
Everything is possible, but it seems plausible that he'd push it no farther than he felt it was necessary to get it a bit out of sight from the gate. This would be determined in large part by where the car was located at he time of the attack.
It seems clear from what David had said much earlier that the car could not have been close enough to the gate button to use it to open the gate, if for no other reason than Watson would not have enough space to attack thru the open window. If true, the car may have not yet been even with the button, perhaps still approaching it, and Watson jumped out and approached, or the car was very much closer to the NE property line, closer to the white fence than the gate button/low wall. Between the two, I'd opt for the latter simply because given my current grasp of the situation, he would have no plausible reason to be anywhere *other* than attempting to press the exit button.
I lean towards Parent creating the odd car angle trying to avoid Watson.
Could you expand this a bit?
A basic (starting point) truth table may contain first four gear shift positions: park, neutral, forward, reverse; AND second foot on break and foot off break. If Parent shifted gears or changed the position of his feet, more possibilities occur.
If we want to consider all possibilities available given the physical variables, we could do this. The way I'm doing it now is to look at the direct evidence, apply personal experience, and create a set of options.
For brevity's sake, I consider any hypothetical outcome as the result of applying a set of increasingly fine filters. The stack of filters is:
possible
plausible
likely
certain
Very much is possible--so much that this no longer is recreation, and much closer to work. Anyone present and alive at Cielo at the time of the invasion could have pushed, or attempted to push, Parent's car.
Plausible ranges from the barely plausible to the firmly plausible. It is plausible that the knife found in the chair was lost during the attack.
Likely is the most economic and direct explanation drawn from the set of plausible explanations. The knife, above, was lost before it had been used to stab anyone.
Certain is a static, settled, and uncontested fact. Sebring is dead, e.g..
it’s unclear if Parent car moved forward enough to cause visible damage to these areas.
I'm not aware of any scenarios that include Parent's car striking anything other than the white fence and scraping the curb. Are there any such hypotheses?
Tobiasragg said: "I ask because I find this minor incident to be among the most substantiated little factoids in this entire mess, in fact. First off, the fact that this happened came from Atkins in the first place, late in '69. "
ReplyDeleteIt was not my intent to derail the Parent discussion I was trying to communicate to Shoe to get on the same page so to speak.
Here is my answer to your question: https://www.mansonblog.com/2017/05/sadies-stroll.html
______
Shoegazer said: "Holy Grail stuff, isn't it? We're not going to find it, either. :^)"
No, we are not.
Since a few of us have mentioned area/objects/etc that they would've loved to have had crime scene photos of - but, feel certain that there are none (and, in a number of instances our reaction is "what the fuck were they thinking when they decided that they didn't need to document whatever it is that we are flabbergasted to find out that these photos likely never existed)!!!
ReplyDeleteIt has completely vexed me since the mid-80s that there seems to be not a single photograph of the frequently discussed towel (or. whatever it was that she used) that Atkins used to write "PIG" on the door.
With all the chaos and speculation about the blood sources on the porch...and, the probability of thicker and heavier (coagulated? Sharon's?) blood in a few areas where people have debated various scenarios going down on that tiny porch, including the transportation of Sebring's and Tate's bodies to that area and/or, the killing starting there, so on...
Wouldn't a photograph of the towel be a huge help in ascertaining the consistency and, amount of the blood that Adkins "gathered" for her bloody message?
I'll STFU now, but I will probably think about this LE "braincramp" in the moments prior to my death.
I'm sure that many of you have your own version of the towel...
Thoughts?
If any of you have access to the photo that haunts me in it's absence...throw the man a bone (or, a blood-soaked towel).
D
Doug, I don't have any additional information on the towel, or any photos, but dredging up my recollections (always risky!), it seems like the investigation noted more than one cloth item in the house that might have been used. Seems like at least one of them did not have much blood on it--and in a way that fits with the appearance of "PIG" on the front door. It is faint and smeared, as if the medium used to apply the letters did not have a lot of pigment on it. Like painting a house with a brush, and you load up the brush and apply the paint, and eventually you can tell that it's time to put more paint on the brush--that's what the letters on the door look like to me. Not applied with a saturated medium.
ReplyDeleteNow to raise an even more fundamental question: does it appear to you, after years of going over the investigation, evidence, testimony, and the fairly shaky info to be found in after-the-fact books and interviews, that the investigative process was substantially flawed in its execution?
E.g., the blood evidence mis-match. Working hard and being flexible, I *can* see the possibility that Tate was, in fact, at the front door and barely onto the porch, and therefore left blood evidence. I mean there are temporal gaps in the narratives, and those knife wounds to the back could reasonably be explained as happening as she tried to go out the front door during the struggle with Frykowski, got stabbed and maybe pulled back into the house. If true it brings up other inconsistencies (was the rope around her neck at that time, and if so, was it long enough to have permitted her to get the door frame?)
But looking over photos of Sebring, and aligning it with the narratives, he looks to me like he could really go nowhere after he was shot/stabbed/kicked. So Sebring blood on he porch seems highly unlikely if we assume it is directly from Sebring's wounds.
All this implies that we cannot reliably take the simple courses offered:
1. We MUST take all of the physical evidence (and investigative descriptions) as fact, and construct the most likely scenario from that basis. Any place the narratives are at odds, the narratives are wrong.
...or
2. We reject the investigation as valueless and make up our own scenarios that may feature events that have left no trace, whatsoever: drug deals, etc.
The way I'm going at it right now is to try to trust both the investigative material *and* the eyewitness narratives, as given to attorneys, before the Grand Jury, at trial, at parole hearings. When there is a serious mismatch, I try to lump thru it and end up just using my best guess based on life experience and, to a degree, common sense.
And I'm prepared to change anything as evidence or better logic comes up.
Doug,
ReplyDeleteI'll see your towel and raise you one set of purple ribbons.
For those following along at home that is G43 on the incomplete blood report, type O blood, found 'on side of door'. Sanders said in one of his Free press articles that they were found draped over the inside front door handle.
Oh and throw in a complete blood report. Not one missing 7+ entries. That has driven me nuts forever.
Doug, David, indeed. I'd add to that mix any additional police reports to accompany the first and second Tate progress reports. Add to that the transcripts to all of the interviews police conducted, photographs of the space above the Cielo garage, the Cielo main house service area, and photos of the interior of Abigail and Voytek's house on Woodstock.
ReplyDeleteDavid, what do the missing entries suggest to you?
ReplyDeleteBear in mind, I'm not the one to look for malfeasance/conspiracies/cover-ups. These are of course *possible*, but for the most part they don't even make it to the "plausible" category.
What I *can* see as a plausible answer is a bit of sloppiness, maybe some ass-covering, and Bugliosi presenting *parts* of the full scenario, to keep the presentation to the jury simpler and more understandable.
So I've read this blog enough to see that there are others who'd like to ascribe any inconsistencies to some kind of malevolent intervention, but not me.
So given that, and your professional experience, what might be the reasons for unexplained gaps like the 7 entries?
Torque,
ReplyDeleteAre there any good photos of the bathroom that is right off of the entry way? Has anyone ever seen the inside of the dressing room off of the master BR?
Was the heating unit upstairs? The house looks to me to be on a poured slab, not even a perimeter crawlspace, so the mechanicals like heating would need to be either in the house, or above it. There is that apparent stairway up, as in:
floor plan
Does anyone suppose that the exterior light above the back exit off of the master BR was ON during the attack, as it appears in this photo?
back door light
300x mag:
door light close-up
David
ReplyDeleteI laughed out loud when you raised me the pair of purple ribbons!
Kinda like the little girl did in the film Little Miss Sunshine when she had just finished listening to the phone message letting her know that she was going to California to compete in the dance contest due to the girl who beat her in the regional qualifier being disqualified for steroids.
And. My neighbour's balcony is about two feet from where I am typing this. And, I am a 6"5" behemoth of a man. A human mountain...so. my 8yr old extremity excitable "purple ribbon squealing sound" must've scared the hell out of them.
Cheers
Shoe, the bathroom off the main entry is clearly featured in a video walk-thru from about 1990. This is posted on YouTube. I don't currently have a link to it, but its something like: 10050 Cielo Drive Walk-Thru. Its shot at the time it was a recording studio for Nine Inch Nails.
ReplyDeleteI do not know of any available photos of the dressing room attached to Roman and Sharon's bedroom, but I of course wonder if LAPD would have photos of that in their files.
The furnace to 10050 Cielo would have been in a downstairs room, and this would have been a very small space. The small bump-out at the back of the house shows stairs going down, I believe. Additionally, I don't believe either the main house or guest house had central AC, and there is no evidence of window AC units.
Shoe said: "David, what do the missing entries suggest to you?"
ReplyDeleteThat the 'report' we have is not the actual report and that entries are missing from what we have.
We know it is not the actual report because it is missing certain identifying information such as a case number. It is a memo not a report. It is in a modern font not a typewriter font and my version has some random images attached and identified as G-9, etc.
Granado was shown images separately when he testified (Exhibit 94 for example) and actually identified one of the missing entries (G25) as the mark on the beam. So we know there is a complete report which may shed light on some issues.
Torque,
ReplyDeleteThanks, for the "walk-thru" video. I have it bookmarked, must have seen it, and I'll look again. All the sound equipment, the console, right in front of the fireplace, as I recall.
The furnace to 10050 Cielo would have been in a downstairs room, and this would have been a very small space. The small bump-out at the back of the house shows stairs going down, I believe.
I'm less certain of this, based on the widely available floor plan, and the description of the foundation in the master building permit.
Here's the floor plan showing the stairwell. It shows a door and it shows an arrow that is ambiguous as to direction.
main house stairway
Here's what the stairs to the garage "attic" look like:
garage stairs
To me, the plns could be read either up or down, but we know for sure that the garage stairs go up for the perspective of ground level. However, it's just too ambiguous for me.
But we can look at the master building permit, where it describes the manner of construction:
master permit
It describes a concrete foundation that's 12" deep, built on footings that are 14" wide and the foundation's 6" thick wall rests on this, and on top of the 6" wide wall are 2"x6" redwood sills (sometimes called "plates") to which the remained of he house is affixed.On top of the sills would be the Joists, described as 2x6 "subfloor", which means that the the subfloor is 6" above the sills.
From this the best course is to surmise that there's only a crawlspace of about 1 foot beneath the main structure of the house. And looking at exterior photos, there is no step up to either the front door or the service entrance, and maybe a 2-step drop from the master BR door to the pool. I cannot even find any vents for under the house.
So unless there's documentation for an excavated room, going with the evidence I'd form the working assumption that the stairway at the back of the house goes up, and it may actually give outside access to the room behind the doorway shown in this photo (note red arrow):
loft door
This sure does not mean that the heating was up there. The interior shots of the house show forced air vents about 18" above floor line. So I'm inclined to think that the heating was: a) not in a subterranean room; and b) in one of the rooms at ground level, in a dedicated utility closet of some sort. Ducting would have been laid beneath the floor at the time of building and brought up to 18" above floor wall vents. The alternative (if upstairs--and I have a rental that has this configuration) is to have the heating in the "attic" and have ceiling vents.
I agree: no A/C that I can see or can document; you could run A/C thru the heating vents, but the unit would have to be outside or have access to the outside. Having lived in LA, it was reasonably comfortable most of the time. You needed heat, but not necessarily A/C.
Of course, everyone has it now... :^)
David,
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Do you think that what we have are taken from Bugliosi's prepared notes? If not, what might have been the purpose for this "unofficial" subset of information? If not a typewriter font, when might it have been prepared?
Again, I see nothing worse here than the possibility of Bugliosi only highlighting the parts of the evidence he wanted to emphasize during the trial. This would seem to me to be standard operating procedure for a competent prosecutor.
Shoegazer said:
ReplyDeleteI'm not aware of any scenarios that include Parent's car striking anything other than the white fence and scraping the curb. Are there any such hypothesis?
10-15 years ago there was a retired cop that provided a lot of info (photo’s and (apparent) snippets of interviews (or possible addendums). He was credible. He mentioned that there was gate/fence damage/dents.
Since the car was originally moved towards the gate, I weigh the probability of the car going forward higher than going backwards. But, even if I saw said missing photos (inside gate area), It still would not convince me that that damage was caused during the attack; just as I’m not convinced that the known fence area was caused during the attack.
Shoegazer said:
… stairs…
About a decade ago on another (now defunct) blog, cielodrive.com responded that the stairs lead down to a small utility room (that is what he was told).
Shoegazer said:
Does anyone suppose that the exterior light above the back exit off of the master BR was ON during the attack, as it appears in this photo?
I find this question to be impossible to answer, the way you worded it, unless you ask Krenwinkle or Watson. But LE did testify that the light was on when they arrived (Tate’s bedroom/pool light. Never read anything about state of second light bear AF’s BR).
Shoegazer said:
ReplyDeleteI lean towards Parent creating the odd car angle trying to avoid Watson.
Could you expand this a bit?
If you and David and anyone else thinks that Watson could not have been near the inside gate button and inflicted the wounds from that position, with Parents car beside Watson - then no matter what I say - you wont buy it. But if you want to be amused, this is what I’m driving at.
There is at least 10 feet from the wall to the bushes and a little more space if you don’t mind “bush possibly scratching your finish”.
Now look at the picture above titled:
“View of gate with Steve's car and gate light”.
The cop in the khaki uniform is operating the inside gate button and SID/detectives are on the left. Parent’s car was six feet wide and that is the span from the cops right foot to the ground below the left SIDs shoulder. A normal driver exiting the residence would veer left trying to be 6-24 inches from the wall so they could push the button (Its like grabbing a toll ticket). With Watson coming around the corner and passing by the wall (and button) Parent would have veered to the right a little to avoid Watson. I believe that this was the start of of odd angle. Some of it may have been caused by Watson pushing the car back, but I doubt that Parent’s car was straight and that Watson created the angle himself. He would have just pushed the car straight back.
Now if it were not for Atkins being asked about the location of the car, then I would lean towards Parent have creating the odd angle during parking or turning around (he could have parked right where the car was found). In this case Watson just could have attacked Parent in the car where it was and wouldn’t have had to move it. But Atkins said that the light moved closer and that Watson pushed the car back from here to there.
Short story, if Watson had 2 or more feet he could have inflicted the wounds even if he was near the wall.
As you have read in his book: gun in right hand, knife in left; fired four shots and inflicted a knife wound (but he doesn’t know when in sequence); he pushed the car back.
Shoegazer said:
ReplyDeleteIt’s unclear to me whether Watson pushed the car 2 feet of 20 feet.
Everything is possible, but. ..
This gets back to: your words, David’s words, the broken fence and the retired cop’s words. Mainly David’s 5 mph and Watson didn’t have enough room.
So if Parent is attacked while in forward and his foot comes off the brake, if he is not stopped he will move 22 feet in 3 seconds (and 29 in 4 seconds likely making contact with the gate wooded fence area).
If Parent was able to shift to reverse, with no foot on brake or accelerator, it would have taken 9-10 seconds to hit the (broken)fence.
If the car was moving at 5mph, then Watson could have ran along side it.
If the car hit the fence in reverse, and Watson finished Parent off, Watson would have left the car near the fence.
If Watson completed the attack on the garage side of the gate button, why push the car?
I don’t see him pushing the car back, unless it was adjacent to the button or closer to the gate.
Now it’s possible that Watson was to the left of the gate button (adjacent but fence side) but that would have given Parent access to the button.
I toggle between Watson initiating the attack and Parent defending with his arm; and Parent reaching out, either as a talking gesture or to reach for the gate button… and Watson thinking that he must counter-attack.
ToF:
ReplyDeleteIf you are willing, I'd like to explore this some more. Please understand that I'm not out to make anyone look bad or ridiculous. This blog is purely a way to get as much info, and to test it for solidity, so as to simply satisfy my own curiosity about what happened, precise as I can get it, at Cielo.
This gets back to: your words, David’s words, the broken fence and the retired cop’s words. Mainly David’s 5 mph and Watson didn’t have enough room.
So if Parent is attacked while in forward and his foot comes off the brake, if he is not stopped he will move 22 feet in 3 seconds (and 29 in 4 seconds likely making contact with the gate wooded fence area).
If Parent was able to shift to reverse, with no foot on brake or accelerator, it would have taken 9-10 seconds to hit the (broken)fence.
OK, for sake of discussion I accept these assumptions.
When you say: "...making contact with the gate wooded fence area." and then: "...it would have taken 9-10 seconds to hit the (broken)fence.", you're talking abut two separate areas of the fence, right? If Parent was attacked at Point A in both cases, the car would have traveled to two different spots, it seems like.
So are you talking about being attacked at Point A and the car going either forward or backward, or about being attack at either Point A or another place, call it Point B?
If the car was moving at 5mph, then Watson could have ran along side it.
Yes, but harder to attack with the knife. The wound was significant and forceful.
If the car hit the fence in reverse, and Watson finished Parent off, Watson would have left the car near the fence.
Make the most sense to me.
If Watson completed the attack on the garage side of the gate button, why push the car?
Yes. I agree.
I don’t see him pushing the car back, unless it was adjacent to the button or closer to the gate.
Yes, but I wonder if he was closer to the area of the red dot. Not all the way over there, but closer to the dot than to the gate button:
car and gate
That might imply that Parent had spotted Watson as Parent approached the button. Not sure if I buy that, however.
Now it’s possible that Watson was to the left of the gate button (adjacent but fence side) but that would have given Parent access to the button.
Yes. Seems not likely, given what happened.
I toggle between Watson initiating the attack and Parent defending with his arm; and Parent reaching out, either as a talking gesture or to reach for the gate button… and Watson thinking that he must counter-attack.
Me,for now, I prefer the former (Watson initiates) for a number of reasons, mainly based on the type and location of the defensive wound.
ToF:
ReplyDeleteIf you and David and anyone else thinks that Watson could not have been near the inside gate button and inflicted the wounds from that position, with Parents car beside Watson - then no matter what I say - you wont buy it.
Please give me more credit than that, T! :^)
There is at least 10 feet from the wall to the bushes and a little more space if you don’t mind “bush possibly scratching your finish”.
That's at the red dot (used in other reply), right?
red dot
Parent would have veered to the right a little to avoid Watson. I believe that this was the start of of odd angle
This seems plausible and even likely. The angle where his car ended up, and the alignment of the front wheels (assuming they had not been altered during investigation) suggest to me that the car did not begin being pushed while adjacent to the button. Your idea that Parent had, at the last few moments, steered *away* from Watson as he emerged would account for the angle/alignment. I think that also if Parent was killed immediately adjacent to the button, if Watson pushed the car straight back for a few feet, then cranked the wheel and continued pushing until the car was where found, that might work, too.
But again, it would have been really hard to attack with Parent in position to push the button.
In this case Watson just could have attacked Parent in the car where it was and wouldn’t have had to move it.
If parked there all along, then we'd have to assume that Parent broke the fence when he arrived, not as he was leaving. That would require a lot more thinking on what may have been possible.
...and of course he'd not tell Garretson, right?... :^)
(you know, it's plausible that he wound not...)
Short story, if Watson had 2 or more feet he could have inflicted the wounds even if he was near the wall.
At 2 feet, hard to do, especially if he was, as you mentioned, carrying the knife in his left hand. Let's see...
The knife would have been in "thrust grip" simply to be able to get his left arm/hand into the window. At two feet he'd almost have to edge sideways to approach Parent, sitting in his car. So which side goes first: edge with left hand first? Nope, you then got your back to Parent at the window. Edge right hand first? Now you're facing Parent, all right, but you'll have a hell of a time bringing your left hand (with knife) into play because you're too close to the window to do anything but shoot first. Did he do that, I wonder. To me, it's possible but not plausible.
More likely the car window was not near the gate button and Watson had a much freer approach, to that he could quickly use both right and left hands.
Aside: boy there should have been Watson's prints in many places on the car, and yet we hear of no gloves, no wipedown, and it was pretty dark outside, making a thorough wipedown much harder.
Hmmmm...on the property report there was the tip of a rubber glove found near Folger's body...so far as I know, that, and the yellow metal ring found near her, have never been explained. This was on the property report, which I'm now having trouble finding.
As you have read in his book: gun in right hand, knife in left; fired four shots and inflicted a knife wound (but he doesn’t know when in sequence); he pushed the car back.
Still, I always like to check as much as I can. After all, he does say he slashed Tate's face, and Naguchi disagrees, which means I'd have to try to check both.
ToF:
ReplyDelete10-15 years ago there was a retired cop that provided a lot of info (photo’s and (apparent) snippets of interviews (or possible addendums). He was credible. He mentioned that there was gate/fence damage/dents.
I believe you, but the way I'm going about this analysis/reconstruction I'd not be able to incorporate this.
Since the car was originally moved towards the gate, I weigh the probability of the car going forward higher than going backwards.
Me, too, and for the same reasons.
It still would not convince me that that damage was caused during the attack; just as I’m not convinced that the known fence area was caused during the attack.
To be clear, when you say "...during the attack...", do you mean from the time that Watson first approached Parent, or do you also include Parent perhaps backing out before either he or Watson putatively saw each other?
I've never really entertained any scenario in which fence damage happened while neither party was aware of the other, except as in Torque's "Steve's Stroll" hypothesis.
About a decade ago on another (now defunct) blog, cielodrive.com responded that the stairs lead down to a small utility room (that is what he was told).
Maybe, but for now I'll go with my own findings: likely in a small closet/room on the ground floor.
Shoegazer said:
Does anyone suppose that the exterior light above the back exit off of the master BR was ON during the attack, as it appears in this photo?
I find this question to be impossible to answer, the way you worded it, unless you ask Krenwinkle or Watson. But LE did testify that the light was on when they arrived (Tate’s bedroom/pool light. Never read anything about state of second light bear AF’s BR).
By my question I simply mean: what do you *think*? Under the circumstances I'm thinking "yes", which then partly illuminates the pool area.making it more visible for other possible considerations, e.g. how hard was it for Krenwinkle to go around to the guesthouse, if indeed she did? Did Kasabian ever catch sight of the pool?
Shoegazer said: .. a lot of things, including acknowledgment, feedback, comebacks, counter-(action/attack), curiosity, and doubt.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to have gotten a pretty good feel for my observations and picked up on some things I would not spell out (unsolicited) to the reader. You did pick up on Watson possibly having to move Parent’s foot, if it were on the brake. Also you did pick up on Parent not telling Garretson that he hit the fence, that is assuming that the fence was hit upon arrival.
I believe the split-rail fence was hit before Watson and the girls scaled the front fence and would set odds to this at 99.9%. I would also set the odds above 90% that the fence was broken before Parent visited Garretson.
Draw a dotted line from the inside gate button to the dot you added to the photo. Use your 18” ruler to draw a solid line on each side of the dotted line. Then draw a solid line 3 feet left of the left line and another line 3 feet to the right of the right line. The middle 3 foot zone is the zone I place at the highest probability at 39% and the other zones at 30% each - closer to garage and closer to gate. These zones are the attack zones. From the dotted line to the gate is roughly 22 feet and from the dotted line to the broken part of the split rail fence is in the 65-75 foot range (9-10 secs at 5 mph).
Place your back against a door jamb (door open, door size <= 36 inches). Right fist to left shoulder- perform backhand motion. Left fist to right shoulder - perform backhand. You should notice that a downward motion requires the least space, an upward motion the most space, and a horizontal motion in between the two. After each backhand motion reverse the backhand motion (which takes less space than a forehand). You should see that you can do a lot in a small space and when you factor in the open window, it is doable close to the wall. If your ass is fat you will have to make adjustments (Watson did not have a fat ass).
I don’t believe the car hit the front gate/fence or split rail fence - after the attack. Again for completeness some have historically hypothesized that Parent shifted in reverse and then was shot in the cheek, some believe he was looking over his left shoulder and others his right. Neither Atkins, Kasabian, or Watkins say that the car hit the fence (in reverse during the attack).
Total time of attack would be less than 2 minutes. I believe JS took 1 minute tops.
Shoegazer said: .. a lot of things, including acknowledgment, feedback, comebacks, counter-(action/attack), curiosity, and doubt.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to have gotten a pretty good feel for my observations and picked up on some things I would not spell out (unsolicited) to the reader. You did pick up on Watson possibly having to move Parent’s foot, if it were on the brake. Also you did pick up on Parent not telling Garretson that he hit the fence, that is assuming that the fence was hit upon arrival.
I believe the split-rail fence was hit before Watson and the girls scaled the front fence and would set odds to this at 99.9%. I would also set the odds above 90% that the fence was broken before Parent visited Garretson.
Draw a dotted line from the inside gate button to the dot you added to the photo. Use your 18” ruler to draw a solid line on each side of the dotted line. Then draw a solid line 3 feet left of the left line and another line 3 feet to the right of the right line. The middle 3 foot zone is the zone I place at the highest probability at 39% and the other zones at 30% each - closer to garage and closer to gate. These zones are the attack zones. From the dotted line to the gate is roughly 22 feet and from the dotted line to the broken part of the split rail fence is in the 65-75 foot range (9-10 secs at 5 mph).
Place your back against a door jamb (door open, door size <= 36 inches). Right fist to left shoulder- perform backhand motion. Left fist to right shoulder - perform backhand. You should notice that a downward motion requires the least space, an upward motion the most space, and a horizontal motion in between the two. After each backhand motion reverse the backhand motion (which takes less space than a forehand). You should see that you can do a lot in a small space and when you factor in the open window, it is doable close to the wall. If your ass is fat you will have to make adjustments (Watson did not have a fat ass).
I don’t believe the car hit the front gate/fence or split rail fence - after the attack. Again for completeness some have historically hypothesized that Parent shifted in reverse and then was shot in the cheek, some believe he was looking over his left shoulder and others his right. Neither Atkins, Kasabian, or Watson say that the car hit the fence (in reverse during the attack).
Total time of attack would be less than 2 minutes. I believe JS took 1 minute tops.
Good discussion, ToF! The kind I really like!
ReplyDeleteI want to break your reply into two pieces, in part because I want to take some time playing around with the doorjamb experiment, and with the "attack zones" ideas. All are interesting and need more time to play with.
Here's what I'd like to work thru for now, if you have time...
I believe the split-rail fence was hit before Watson and the girls scaled the front fence and would set odds to this at 99.9%.
Yes, me too. There's the added question of whether Parent saw any of them before he hit the fence, and that's one aspect of Torque's "Steve's Stroll". I still don't kn ow what to make of it. It's a good point, but right now I am tending to reject that idea.
When I think of a "split rail fence", I at first envision the fence along the pathway back to the guest house. This is unpainted and has uprights with bored holes into which fit rough split rails.
walkway
This is not what we're talking about, is my guess. From context I think we're talking about the white low fence at the edge of the property, looks like maybe 2.5-3 ft high, made of 2x6s attached to 4x4 or 6x6 vertical uprights, in the parking area, right?
white fence
As an aside, I noticed the beginning of the drain channel near the broken part of the fence, and it means that this is the lowest part of the parking area. It would be possible for a ball or a wheeled vehicle to tend to roll toward that part of the parking area under some circumstances. But I don't really see that as coming into play unless there are other facts that support that Parent's car rolled there, at some point. Me, I doubt this but it's best to put everything on the table because some other reader might be able to make something of it, if they haven't already.
I would also set the odds above 90% that the fence was broken before Parent visited Garretson.
Clarify, please. Starting with the premise that the LAPD found scrapings on the concrete curb matched scrapings from the underside of Parent's car (do I have that right? working from 75 year old memory here...) you statement would mean That Parent hit the fence while parking and did not tell Garretson. Is this correct?
To me, for now, it seems like it's well established that Parent's car broke the fence with the back of his car, and that it happened that night. Is this how you see it?
I don’t believe the car hit the front gate/fence
Front gate/fence = the motorized gate, is his correct? If so, I agree; I have seen nothing to indicate that his car struck anything besides the low white fence, at the point where it's broken.
or split rail fence - after the attack.
Agreed. The odds are that he hit it before the attack, either before he talked to Garretson, or while leaving.
I'll try out some of the experiments.
One issue about the mouth wound. The position is very odd. It hit him low on the left cheek, not that far from the mouth, exited grazing his left upper lip.
describe wound 3
wound drawing1
wound drawing2
So it seems like the bullet entered his lower left cheek, ran along the inside of his cheek between the cheek and gum, and exited grazing his upper left lip, without hitting teeth, gums, inner mouth.
Very unusual angle if I've got this right. It seems that he would have to be looking sharply away from the driver's side window, where Watson was, maybe leaning down a bit.
Weird, huh?
Shoegazer said: … back light …
ReplyDeleteStarting to get off track from Parent’s stroll. That being said …
The ST BR door light / pool light was on when LE arrived (as was the left front door light and split rail fence Christmas lights). I don’t remember reading about any other exterior lights being on when LE arrived.
I don’t remember reading (or seeing a photo) about an underwater pool light. The (overhead) pool light may have been on all night and not shut off or it could have been turned on after Parent arrived, when AF was fleeing Krenwinkel, by Krenwinkel when she returned from the guesthouse, accidentally by LE, etc.
If the pool light was on when Parent arrived, then he probably saw the pool both on arriving and leaving (even taking the guesthouse walkway.
If the pool light was on, Kasabian:
1. Probably did not see the pool when she (didn’t check) / checked for open windows and doors on the service entry side; unless she went past the bump-out closet off ST’s BR.
2. Probably didn’t see the pool from the front walk or front walk gateway area unless she walked closer to JS car and there was a bald spot in the trees providing a view of the pool.
3. Possibly saw the pool if she very briefly entered the house before becoming the lookout. Something like this. Watson opens door and SA and PK enter. SA climbs ladder to check out loft. LK enters house and notices pool from foyer/LR entrance. Watson instructs LK to to go and be the lookout. PK follows LK to borrow LK’s knife. LK was in the house but not really or significantly in the house.
4. Possibly saw pool during jailhouse visit with Bugliosi. Maybe the physical pool or a just a photo.
5. Possibly was shown a photo of the pool by her lawyers or ADA before trial.
Krenwinkel was sent by Watson to check out the guesthouse. SA and LK did not view this. After Watson was satisfied that VF was taken care of, he took over for PK directing PK to checkout the guesthouse while he took care of AF. He then went to the house to take care of ST. After that he did a final round on VF and AF, just to be sure.
PK had reentered the main house before Watson began to kill ST.
The path to the guesthouse that PK took was probably partially illuminated by the pool light. What other outside lights were on are not documented. The front path gateway did have a light and the pool to guesthouse gateway and the guesthouse walkway to guesthouse gateway may have contained lights.
The guesthouse windows should have been illuminated. The path to the guesthouse from the pool was forked. The left (fork) leading to pergola with a light above it and a covered glass patio / porch which contained a lot of glass. The patio/porch was adjacent to the LR. The right (fork) leading to the kitchen door, which probably had a window. There was a bump out on the front of the guesthouse that contained a 2 foot window and that room was likely the bath. It is likely that light was seen coming from all the glass. If PK looked in the kitchen door window, it’s less likely she would have seen Garretson than if she entered the patio/porch. If Bill was in the bathroom, bedroom, dog room, or in the guesthouse back yard, PK would not have seen him. Bill also mentioned that people commonly turned the guesthouse doorknobs backwards and thought the doors were locked when open.
Krenwinkel never knew Garretson and halfheartedly checked the guesthouse spending just roughly just a minute or so.
One thing that has been a puzzle is that the “Fingerprint’s Lifted Report” states this concerning Parent’s car:
“Right thumb and left middle of Steven Parent from flashlight and steering wheel.”
Was there a flashlight in the car and did he use it to get to the guesthouse or does the report mean prints were found on the “directional (flasher) lever” or something else?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTobias, feel free to ignore any post that has my name on it.
ReplyDeleteYou'll have a better day.
ToF:
ReplyDeleteI still have to work thru the body mechanics of the Parent attack, but I'd like to respond to your most recent post. There are good areas of interest in it...
The ST BR door light / pool light was on when LE arrived (as was the left front door light and split rail fence Christmas lights). I don’t remember reading about any other exterior lights being on when LE arrived.
FWIW, it *seems* like I remember someone mentioning that there was no underwater light in the pool. That said, I'm going to assume that the porchlight behind the master BR, shown in that daytime photo I used earlier, was on at night, just as it was found the next day.
Now this has some implications that might be worth considering...
If it was on, I feel pretty sure that Folger did not turn it on as she ran out, so I assume it was already on, and further, that maybe it was routinely ON. If so, what other outside lights might also be routinely ON?
E.g., this photo is taken well after the fact (shows both front door lamps on, when the one on the right, as you face the door, was out on the night of the attack), but it shows the colored lights as on, and there are three other light sources I've circled. If these were also ON during the attack, it helps explain Atkins' statement that during the attack they had the interior lights OFF, but there was adequate light anyway.
night, annotated
The path to the guesthouse from the pool was forked. The left (fork) leading to pergola with a light above it and a covered glass patio / porch which contained a lot of glass. The patio/porch was adjacent to the LR. The right (fork) leading to the kitchen door, which probably had a window.
Not sure for now, but I think the kitchen door (rt fork) had a porchlight beside it. If so, it may have been ON for two reasons: a) routinely ON; many people do this; and b) Garret may have turned it ON as Parent left, to help illuminate the walkway for him.
guesthouse light
Was there a flashlight in the car and did he use it to get to the guesthouse or does the report mean prints were found on the “directional (flasher) lever” or something else?
Hard to say about the flashlight, or lack of it, but here's something I'm not clear on...
I have the impression that the night of 08 Aug was Parent's first visit, and also that it was unannounced. Given that, entering the property, for the first time, in the dark, and ostensibly without fairly explicit instructions on how/where to go (including the need to press the outside gate button), all this raises a lot of questions.
When I first stated reading this forum, I found a lot of speculative, tawdry posts about homosexuality between the two, and that it had been n-going. Personally, I don't see any evidence of that, at all. But what *may* have happened is that Parent picked up Garretson hitch-hiking and drove him to the gate, maybe in daylight, and saw Garretson open the gate, and also noted in what direction he walked to the guesthouse.
I'd further surmise that if this is accurate (drove Garretson home once), while asking Garretson where to go, Garretson might have conversationally mentioned that he lived in a guesthouse of a Benedict Canyon "Hollywood" house, around back. If Parent dropped him off, then saw him open the gate and stuck around long enough to see Garretson get to at least the beginning of the guesthouse path, that would go a long way to removing any questions about "how the hell did Parent know where to go?".
I don't know about other people, but me, at age 18 or so, I would have been *really* interested in going up there, just for bragging rights.
Do you have any opinions on this, ToF?
ToF:
ReplyDeleteNow to get back to one of your body mechanics demonstrations:
Place your back against a door jamb (door open, door size <= 36 inches). Right fist to left shoulder- perform backhand motion. Left fist to right shoulder - perform backhand. You should notice that a downward motion requires the least space, an upward motion the most space, and a horizontal motion in between the two. After each backhand motion reverse the backhand motion (which takes less space than a forehand). You should see that you can do a lot in a small space and when you factor in the open window, it is doable close to the wall. If your ass is fat you will have to make adjustments (Watson did not have a fat ass).
I can see the points you are making, but I want to be clear that I understand you because my conclusion is pretty different, but I need to test both, I'm not sure how "right" my guess is.
Let's start with something you mentioned earlier, that Watson says right hand gun, left hand knife. This does not make it so, but it's a decent starting place.
What kind of grip did Watson have on the knife: a thrusting grip (like a sword fighter with a sword) or a "hammer" grip, the reverse of the thrusting grip, which would mean that you would be striking downward, like hammering? (BTW, I think the knife wounds to Tate's back were hammer grip wounds, for example.)
Me, I look at the description of the defensive wound, combined with the breaking of the watchband. Seeing it this way, it would require a very firm attack to cut bone deep, and while doing so, the point of the knife ran up the palm of Parent's hand, and caught on the band. There was enough force or leverage to break the band, slinging it up into the back seat.
The easiest way that I can envision this stroke thru the window from outside is a powerful thrust, from somewhat front to back, maybe near the area of the side view mirror. We're speculating that it was left-handed, and I can see this as fairly plausible *if*:
1) Watson fired first, from close range (powered marks on check wound).
2) Seeing the gun come up, Parent reached out with his left hand/arm and averted his head away from the intended line of fire. He may have spoiled the intended aim, and he was hit with that shallow mouth wound.
3) Watson then thrusts inside, hard while Parent keeps his and/arm up defensively, and Watson thrusts along his wrist/palm, snagging the watchband.
4) Watson re-centers himself from just a bit father back and shoots Parent 3 more times.
What are your opinions on the sequence of events for the Parent attack?
Now an odd one:
I was looking at photos of the gate button, taken at various times and from various angles. I am convinced that from the direction of someone driving out, as they approach the button is hidden by the wall; yes, the button is on the *other side* of the wall, the side that faces the motorized gate.
Jeez, this means that unless Parent had noted the location on his way in (this is fairly plausible, given the pole light mounted on the wall) when leaving he'd have been unsure where the button was,and might have to sorta look for it.
It also means that anyone wanting to push the button would have to get very close to the edge of the wall, maybe within 6-12 inches.
I've got some photos ad will link them if needed--let me know. I'm lazy right now.
Shoegazer said:
ReplyDelete… gate/fence ….
…split-rail fence …
The front of the driveway contains an electric motorized gate that is made of metal and chain-link fence. The metal electric motorized gate opens after pushing either the interior gate button or exterior gate button.
The metal electric motorized gate sits in between two sections of wooden privacy fence. The privacy fence is sometimes called a stockade, gothic, or other regional names and the fence is made of vertical wood members that usually create a solid panel but may have cracks, as it drys and ages, that you can peek through.
When I have mentioned gate/fence I was referring to the gate and fence just described. I don’t believe Parent damaged this area. However by the time the trial started there was work done on the metal gate, at the least the bell switched sides. One of the trial photos shows this.
A rail fence usually contains horizontal members, may use less (or more) material than a vertical fence, and is not solid or private and you can see through it.
Guard rails are common on roadways and while they used to be made of wood (and painted white) they are usually now made of metal.
Split-rail fences are commonly rustic and unfinished. The horse corrals in Western movies and TV shows were commonly split-rail.
In some areas the white 2-rail guard-rail style fence and 3-rail rustic split-rail fence, both of which exist on this property, are referred to as split-rail and the “TATE FIRST HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION PROGRESS REPORT” refers to the fence as split-rail.
The flat portion of this property borders an incline on one side and a decline on the other side. The flat tarred or paved portion of the property has a 2-rail white guard-rail style fence that borders the decline. This fence potentially runs from the Kott’s house to JS car. It’s not known if there was fence directly behind the bushes, opposite the interior gate button (your dot), or if the interior fence shown while Sharon was riding a bike was still present on 8-9-69.
A 300+ foot masonry wall runs the distance of the property where the flat portion borders the incline. At the back end of this masonry wall a 3-rail rustic split-rail fence starts and it runs along the border of where the flat meets the decline and lawn areas. This includes: behind the guesthouse, along the long side of the guesthouse, near where AF and VF were found, and bordering the driveway - near JS car, AF car, and the front walk. There are breaks in this fence where walkways/pathways exist, including the mysterious one behind the guesthouse. These breaks tend to be made through what I refer to as a gateway.
I’ve never seen anything written describing Parent hitting the 3-rail rustic split-rail fence that borders the driveway. I would say it was not damaged.
When I have previously referred to split-rail fence I was referring to the 2-rail white guard-rail fence.
Shoegazer said:
ReplyDeleteAgreed. The odds are that he hit it before the attack, either before he talked to Garretson, or while leaving.
Clarify, please.
“That Parent hit the fence while parking and did not tell Garretson. Is this correct?”
Yes.
“To me, for now, it seems like it's well established that Parent's car broke the fence with the back of his car, and that it happened that night. Is this how you see it?
Not 100%.
Parent arrived on 8-8 before midnight. He could have damaged the fence on arrival ,and not told Garretson. He left Garretson shorty after midnight,8-9, and could have caused the damage then. Both of these cases are on the same night. However, what if Parent came on 8-5, 8-6, or 8-7 and caused the damage and nobody saw him - because they were not home or because he caused the damage on arrival and left immediately? In this case, paint transfer and concrete scraping would still match his car but the damage was not done that night.
Second while I believe that Parents car did cause the damage, it may not have.
The “TATE FIRST HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION PROGRESS REPORT” says:
“The scrape marks
and the break in the split-rail fence appeared fresh. A search of the
undercarriage of Parent's car revealed similar scrape marks and
concrete transfer. The rear bumper of the car also showed white paint
transfer similar to that as on the split-rail fence.” Also note that the “Property Report” lists a 3” by 3” square of concrete.
Notice the word similar twice and appeared once.
There is enough doubt (for me and maybe only me) that the fence damage could have be been caused by another car. I previously mentioned the “My Cousin Vinny” scenario. Matching concrete and paint would have been less exact than matching blood. While the probability if this is low, I would rate it higher than Schreck’s fabrication or of the fence being hit be Parent after being attacked. Not trying to convince anyone.
Shoegazer said:
Weird, huh? (concerning cheek/mouth wound(s))
Yes. I don’t know if I’ll ever be prepared to give a response to this without being slightly ashamed for not spending enough time studying or preparing for it. It’s somewhat like the JFK magic bullet - hard to believe without Zapruder and simulations. Wonder if he swallowed it and they missed it?
ToF:
ReplyDeleteNotice the word similar twice and appeared once.
The way I've viewed it is that it was the first report and that investigation was not completely, so I did not put too much importance in the lack of precision,
But as it seems to have turned out, there was no more investigative work done on the car and fence, near as I can tell, so your point about lack of certainty stands.
Intuitively, I get the feeling that understanding the nature of the mouth wound is the key to understanding the details of the physical attack, itself. It suggests sequence, body positions, etc.
I agree with all of the other points in your post.
ToF:
ReplyDeleteGreat replies! This is helping me a lot, thanks!
Here's more, but don't feel obliged to spend a bunch of time on this; I'm retired so time means little to me now.
The front of the driveway contains an electric motorized gate that is made of metal and chain-link fence. The metal electric motorized gate opens after pushing either the interior gate button or exterior gate button.
The metal electric motorized gate sits in between two sections of wooden privacy fence. The privacy fence is sometimes called a stockade, gothic, or other regional names and the fence is made of vertical wood members that usually create a solid panel but may have cracks, as it drys and ages, that you can peek through.
I've seen the gate motor, the arms that open/close the gate, and had never really thought much about the metal frame, chain link gate separately. Buy I now see it as a part of the "stockade" fence that butts up against the vertical incline on the west side of the property, the one that's shown with one of the detectives standing beside it, to highlight where the intruders climbed up the incline, over the fence, and were inside. It does pretty much the same on the other end of the gate.
Here is a neat old photo of what the entrance looked like back when the French actress owned the property in the 40s:
full view of the gate
Here is a 300x blow up of the area of the gate:
300x blow-up
I like this kind of stuff. All kinds of pieces begin to fit a bit better--although we'll never know for sure. E.g., there is sometimes a bit of discussion about *why* the pole light near the gate button had a sort of clumsy power line running back to it from the garage. Why was it not underground? The photo shows that the low stone wall was the vertical support for a rustic ranch-type gate. And the gate apparently matched the "guard rail fence", the white one that Parent likely broke.
So the functional gate in the 40s was well inside the property line (assuming that the 1960s gate was pretty much flush with the property line--although a case might be made that the property line ended where the white guard rail fence ended. I'll have to check photos and maybe plot maps to see if I can tell.
But it does hint that as you mention, the guardrail fence is obscured by those bushes right at the gate button on the photo I attached with the red dot.
As to the mysterious path that apparently starts at this pergola:
south pergola
It is at the bottom of this path where the box of sheffield steak knives was found, and it appears on the property report. Me, I've never thought that this had anything to do with the crime, although anything is possible. And I tend to put the scenario where Parent broke the fence at an earlier date in that category. It's possible that he did, but there is no evidence i am aware of that he did, and my gut tells me that if he'd gone up there and found that Garretson was not in, did he really want to go up again on the 8th?
Hard to say: he was carrying that radio he tried to sell, but personally, I think the radio was merely an excuse to go up there and see where the stars lived.If he had been up there earlier, he would have seen it, so why go back?
I'm not aware of any evidence that Parent and Garretson had any social connection other than maybe Parent giving him a ride up the hill, after hitch-hiking. Maybe just one time, got an eyeful of the house, maybe got told that Sharon Tate lived there, got a polite invitation to drop by anytime for a beer, and decided to take him up on it.
More stuff we'll never know, for sure, but fun to think about... :^)
Shoegazer said:
ReplyDelete“What are your opinions on the sequence of events for the Parent attack?”
This reply borders half-ass but it is a start.
Parent’s autopsy was performed by Herrera and supervised by Noguchi. The autopsy report is somewhat clear, concise, and it says that Parent had one incised wound to the left palm and 5 gunshot wounds which may have been made by as few as 3 bullets.
The incised wound to the palm is 3 inches in length, bone deep, with no tendon damage.
Gunshot wounds #1 and #2 were to the chest, each fatal, and the bullets/slugs were in the body. Gunshot wounds #3, #4, and #5 were through and through with #3 in the left cheek and #4 and #5 in the left arm. Gunshot wounds #4 and #2 may have been made with the same bullet. Gunshot wounds #5 and #1 may have been made with the same bullet. Gunshot wound #3 is the only wound which is suggestive of powder burns.
Independently Lee (LE) found 4 bullet fragments in the passengers door of Parent’s car and Varney (LE) found a bullet fragment on the back seat.
More than a year later Noguchi testified at the trial. Noguchi slightly deviated from the autopsy report.
Using an X-ray screen test, bullet fragments where seen in the head area near Gunshot wound #3.
Using an X-ray screen test, bullet fragments were seen in tissue near Gunshot wound #5.
Gunshot wounds #4 and #2 were caused by the same bullet.
Four bullets entered Parent’s body.
Hypotheses thinking starts.
If the bullet fragments found in the passenger door and backseat are from separate bullets, then the four bullets are accounted for. If this is true, then Gunshot wound #3 may have been caused by the bullet whose fragments found in the door. Likewise Gunshot wound #5 may have been caused by the bullet whose fragment was found on the backseat.
Using the letters A, B, C, and D the note the sequence that the 4 bullets were fired and correlate the sequence with gunshot wounds, I would start with this sequence.
A. GSW #3 - left cheek
B. GSW #5 - defensive wound
C. GSW #4 - defensive wound; GSW #2 - chest
D. GSW #1 - chest
I believe the probability is low that GSW #5 and #3 occurred after the chest wounds.
There are 5 possible sequences for the single incised knife wound. Before all
bullets were fired and after each of the bullets were fired. I believe that the incised wound is highly unlikely after sequence B and is most likely before or after sequence A. That is, the knife wound occurs before any gunshots or after the first gunshot.
Shoegazer said:
ReplyDelete“Me, I look at the description of the defensive wound, combined with the breaking of the watchband. Seeing it this way, it would require a very firm attack to cut bone deep, and while doing so, the point of the knife ran up the palm of Parent's hand, and caught on the band. There was enough force or leverage to break the band, slinging it up into the back seat.”
Agree that it may have take force to break the watchband.
However, it doesn’t take much force to create the bone deep incised wound, it takes a very sharp knife. It can be thought of as a slice.
I witnessed and treated a more serious hand wound caused by a very sharp machete with very little force. I didn’t have to cauterize to stop the blood. I knew it would require a surgeon after seeing tendons that were cut.
So, for me, the breaking watchband is more of a challenge than the incised wound.
Shoegazer said:
“
1) Watson fired first, from close range (powered marks on cheek wound).
2) Seeing the gun come up, Parent reached out with his left hand/arm and averted his head away from the intended line of fire. He may have spoiled the intended aim, and he was hit with that shallow mouth wound.
3) Watson then thrusts inside, hard while Parent keeps his and/arm up defensively, and Watson thrusts along his wrist/palm, snagging the watchband.
4) Watson re-centers himself from just a bit father back and shoots Parent 3 more times.”
I think what you say is very plausible. The knife would fit in after A in the sequence A, B, C, D sequence I described above. It may make more sense than the knife wound occurring before the four shots in that Watson may have not been expecting a car and decided to shoot first. Parent reacts defensively which results in Watson using the knife and then shooting three more times with two of those shots hitting Parents defensive arm. The initial defensive reaction by Parent may have thrown off the first shot.
Shoegazer said:
“Here is a neat old photo of what the entrance looked like back when the French actress owned the property in the 40s”
I agree that its a neat photo. The property probably looked very nice when first built but wood fences and decorative features take a lot of maintenance, which was neglected.
ToF:
ReplyDeleteIf the bullet fragments found in the passenger door and backseat are from separate bullets, then the four bullets are accounted for. If this is true, then Gunshot wound #3 may have been caused by the bullet whose fragments found in the door. Likewise Gunshot wound #5 may have been caused by the bullet whose fragment was found on the backseat.
This is my default case, currently.
Sequences, for convenience's sake...
A. GSW #3 - left cheek
B. GSW #5 - defensive wound
C. GSW #4 - defensive wound; GSW #2 - chest
D. GSW #1 - chest
I believe that the incised wound is highly unlikely after sequence B and is most likely before or after sequence A. That is, the knife wound occurs before any gunshots or after the first gunshot.
Yes, I agree and in my opinion this is the most likely sequence. Further, I think it 's slightly more likely that the incised wound happened after A. There is no firm evidence (such evidence as exists would support the incised wound before A just as well) but I feel that if the incised wound, the result of a left-handed thrust (my guess), happened before GSW 3 (cheek), there's a fair chance that Parent might have gotten his head far enough away from the gun muzzle to have not gotten any powder residue on his cheek wound. Plus, After the thrust, Watson might have to reposition himself somewhat to continue the attack, and this might have taken *him* a bit farther from the open window, also making powder reside less likely.
I see it as:
1) Watson rapidly approaches the open window and as he approaches, Parent speaks.
2) Watson still advances and sticks the muzzle into the window of the car, aiming at Parent's head from very close range.
3) Parent reflexively throws his left arm upward and began to pull away from the open window just as Watson fired the first shot, which was off-target to the left of where Watson intended. This would tend to be the direction the muzzle would be pushed by Parent's partly extended left arm.
4) Watson thrusts into the car toward Parent's face. Parent's arm is still curled at the elbow upward, protecting his head/face. The point makes contact with Parent's hand/wrist, snagging the watch strap, which breaks as a result of the thrust and follow through. It is swept into the back seat, directly behind the driver's seat.
Maybe it happened that way; maybe not. I'm currently using this as my personal model. I can, and will, amend it as warranted.
More about the knife in response to your other post.
ToF:
ReplyDeleteAgree that it may have take force to break the watchband.
However, it doesn’t take much force to create the bone deep incised wound, it takes a very sharp knife. It can be thought of as a slice.
Yes. I see it as the result of a sort of glancing thrust.
I witnessed and treated a more serious hand wound caused by a very sharp machete with very little force. I didn’t have to cauterize to stop the blood. I knew it would require a surgeon after seeing tendons that were cut.
Good info, and it brings to mind that Parent's tendons were *not* cut, suggesting to me that the blade's edge was parallel to the tendons, thus missing them all.
So, for me, the breaking watchband is more of a challenge than the incised wound.
Yes, agreed.
Now here's a further consideration: the nature of the knife Watson used. While I've heard about bayonets, etc., while reading this forum, for the most part I think that documented examination and testimony indicate the strong possibility that all knife wounds were made by the same kind of knife: 1-sided, approx 3"-5" blade.
This is a decent description of the Buck knives that the participants testified to.
Buck 110 Hunter
As shown in the image, the knife is held in a thrust grip (but in Watson's left hand) and I postulate that as he thrust forcefully into the open window, the sharp side contacted Parent's wrist/hand, starting at the wrist and ranging upward along the palm of his hand. At first contact, by happenstance, the tip snagged under Parent's watchband, and snapped it rather than cut it.
But I don't even know for sure that Watson was using a Buck-type knife in the attack. I *suspect* that he was, but...
ToF:
ReplyDeleteThis part if interesting:
More than a year later Noguchi testified at the trial. Noguchi slightly deviated from the autopsy report.
Using an X-ray screen test, bullet fragments where seen in the head area near Gunshot wound #3.
All descriptions of the wound, both Herrera's and Naguchi's, do not note any bullet contact with any bony structure such as teeth or jaw. But he was able to find "fragments" in the head area. So this raises:
1) How likely is it for fragments to be left if no solid body structure is hit?
2) What is the nature of the "fragments"? Like tiny lead flakes?
3) Was there some amount of bullet contact with a bony structure in the head--e.g., jaw, teeth? If so, this appears to be unreported.
4) Where, exactly, in the head area were the fragments found?
It would be good to know, but likely we never will. For a working scenario, I'll go with:
1) The bullet passed, as noted, through the lower left cheek, very close to the mouth.
2) There was an entrance wound on the outside of the cheek, the bullet passed thru the thin tissue of the cheek and exited on the inside surface of the cheek, very close to the entrance wound.
3) The trajectory carried the bullet parallel to the gumline and teeth of the lower left jaw area, traveling forward and upward, toward the front of the mouth/face, but miraculously striking no bony structures.
4) After passing the lower cheek area, the bullet made contact with the lower left lip, perhaps mostly on the inside of the lip, on the soft tissue, and then apparently exited thru Parent's open mouth, fragmenting against the passenger side door, somewhere, and later found. The fragment(s) appear on the property report.
If all this is accurate, it implies that it *is* possible for a bullet that strikes no hard body material (bones, etc.) to leave fragments of some sort. I may try to look this up in some kind of forensics source.
Shoegazer said:
ReplyDelete“When I first stated reading this forum, I found a lot of speculative, tawdry posts about homosexuality between the two, and that it had been on-going. Personally, I don't see any evidence of that, at all. But what *may* have happened is that Parent picked up Garretson hitch-hiking and drove him to the gate, maybe in daylight, and saw Garretson open the gate, and also noted in what direction he walked to the guesthouse.
I'd further surmise that if this is accurate (drove Garretson home once), while asking Garretson where to go, Garretson might have conversationally mentioned that he lived in a guesthouse of a Benedict Canyon "Hollywood" house, around back. If Parent dropped him off, then saw him open the gate and stuck around long enough to see Garretson get to at least the beginning of the guesthouse path, that would go a long way to removing any questions about "how the hell did Parent know where to go?".
I don't know about other people, but me, at age 18 or so, I would have been *really* interested in going up there, just for bragging rights.
Do you have any opinions on this, ToF?”
I do not believe that Parent and Garretson had a homosexual relationship or even a relationship. They met twice, first when Parent picked up Garretson hitch-hiking and second on the night Parent was murdered.
Parent had to feel good driving that car. When he saw Garretson hitch-hiking, he saw no threat in little clean-cut Bill and stopped to give him a ride. Bill probably asked Steve if it was his car, told Steve where he was heading, and asked him if he knew what time it was. Steve would have looked at his watch and told Bill the time, and Bill would have mentioned that he never knew the time because there were no electric clocks where he was staying and it and its a drag to have to wind clocks. Bill probably mentioned that he was dog/house-sitting on an estate. Whether Bill invited Steve to see the estate that night, or to stop by if he was in the neighborhood is unknown. Whether Steve dropped Bill off outside the gate or inside the gate is unknown. At Watson’s trial Garretson responded “yes” to a ambiguous leading question of “he dropped you off at the house”.
I would guess that on the night Parent gave Garretson a ride that either Parent didn’t have the time to visit with Bill or that Bill did not offer to show Steve the property. Either way, Steve wanted to see the property and probably thought highly of that clock radio. Remember in those days it was rare for cars or homes to have FM radio and Steve had no way of knowing that Bill had a stereo where he was staying. I’m not sure if Bill would have purchased a $2 electric alarm clock, but he definitely would not have spent half a weeks pay (or more) on that clock radio when he had a stereo to use and could get the time by using the phone.
I believe he at least saw Bill push the outside gate button.
Shoegazer said:
ReplyDelete“This is a decent description of the Buck knives that the participants testified to.
Buck 110 Hunter
“
and
“We'd need to consider which hand held the knife, and whether the grip was a hammer grip or a thrust grip.”
The “Buck 110 Hunter” is a good and popular knife. If the major Cielo wounds were made by a knife like this, with no guard, I’d like to be shown how.
The military would not have issued the “Buck 110” as a knife that may have to be used in hand-to-hand combat.
During WWII, the US Navy issued knives like the MK2 KA-BAR and knives made in Camillus, NY. The USN Camillus NY knife, had a blade that was 6.5+ inches in length, 1 1/8 inches at its widest, and 1/8 inch thick. It also was sharp for 1.5+ inches on the dull side. It had a guard and a decent handle.
The Buck 119 and Buck 120 are knives that are closer to combat knives than the Buck 110. A knife guard and a good handle are important.
DebS posted a list of the knives that were found at Barker. A number of larger blade buck knives are listed. Also listed is: “Solingen, Germany “Arkansas Toothpick”. A knife like this or a shorter WWII bayonet may have also been an option.
https://www.mansonblog.com/2022/12/the-manson-family-knives.html?m=1
For myself a knife guard is important for the execution of the type major fatal wounds found.
Shoegazer said:
ReplyDelete“This is a decent description of the Buck knives that the participants testified to.
Buck 110 Hunter
“
and
“We'd need to consider which hand held the knife, and whether the grip was a hammer grip or a thrust grip.”
The “Buck 110 Hunter” is a good and popular knife. If the major Cielo wounds were made by a knife like this, with no guard, I’d like to be shown how.
The military would not have issued the “Buck 110” as a knife that may have to be used in hand-to-hand combat.
During WWII, the US Navy issued knives like the MK2 KA-BAR and knives made in Camillus, NY. The USN Camillus NY knife, had a blade that was 6.5+ inches in length, 1 1/8 inches at its widest, and 1/8 inch thick. It also was sharp for 1.5+ inches on the dull side. It had a guard and a decent handle.
The Buck 119 and Buck 120 are knives that are closer to combat knives than the Buck 110. A knife guard and a good handle are important.
DebS posted a list of the knives that were found at Barker. A number of larger blade buck knives are listed. Also listed is: “Solingen, Germany “Arkansas Toothpick”. A knife like this or a shorter WWII bayonet may have also been an option.
https://www.mansonblog.com/2022/12/the-manson-family-knives.html?m=1
For myself a knife guard is important for the execution of the type major fatal wounds found.
TorF, I would also agree that at 18 years of age it would be really interesting to have possible contact with the Beautiful People at Cielo, especially as bragging rights.
ReplyDeleteWe need to remember that Steve approached his friend John Lefevre about accompanying him for that drive up to Beverly Hills. John of course declined, leaving just Steve with his clock radio to make that final trip.
Also we will do well to remember the phone conversation Steve had while at the guest house at 11:25PM. Garretson heard this, and was later able to describe in detail to police that Steve made a big thing about the fact that he was at the Polanski residence. That said, the bragging rights started that very night.
Shoegazer said:
ReplyDelete“This is a decent description of the Buck knives that the participants testified to.
Buck 110 Hunter”
“We'd need to consider which hand held the knife, and whether the grip was a hammer grip or a thrust grip.”
The “Buck 110 Hunter” is a good and popular knife. If the major Cielo wounds were made by a knife like this, with no guard, I’d like to be shown how.
The military would not have issued the “Buck 110” as a knife that may have to be used in hand-to-hand combat.
During WWII, the US Navy issued knives like the MK2 KA-BAR and knives made in Camillus, NY. The USN Camillus NY knife, had a blade that was 6.5+ inches in length, 1 1/8 inches at its widest, and 1/8 inch thick. It also was sharp for 1.5+ inches on the dull side. It had a guard and a decent handle.
The Buck 119 and Buck 120 are knives that are closer to combat knives than the Buck 110. A knife guard and a good handle are important.
DebS posted a list of the knives that were found at Barker. A number of larger blade buck knives are listed. Also listed is: “Solingen, Germany “Arkansas Toothpick”. A knife like this or a shorter WWII bayonet may have also been an option.
https://www.mansonblog.com/2022/12/the-manson-family-knives.html?m=1
For myself a knife guard is important for the execution of the type major fatal wounds found.
ToF:
ReplyDeleteThanks for additional responses. This has been a really good exchange from my POV.
As to the knife(s) used at Cielo, it's hard to tell, and I base my speculation that most, if not all, wounds at Cielo were made by large folding knives of the Buck 110 type on the autopsy reports that describe wound depth, blade configuration (two edges or one edge), and "length" of wound, which I take to be the measurement of the wound opening in the skin of the victim.
Separately, I consider how the killers would have carried the weapons onto the Cielo property. It's very clumsy and accident prone to carry an unsheathed fixed blade knife, like the Buck hunting knives you mention. So while it's possible for them to carry these while going up the hillside past the gate, it's also far easier to carry a clasp knife and open it up before using.
To counter that idea, however, I sorta recall that driving over the knives were in a sort of bundle, and that someone (Kasabian?) passed them out. This makes sense that they may have been fixed blades, else why not just get clasp knives at Spahn, put them in your pocket there?
So briefly this morning I quick-scanned the autopsy reports, and while it was easy to find that most reported the "length" of wound (thru the skin, I currently assume) as mostly 1 1/2 inches, only Frykowski's autopsy report mentions depth, and not always. The depth I saw was no greater than 3 1/2 inches. Combined with a single edged blade configuration, it sounded to me like a folding clasp knife.
Also, assuming a blade guard (hilt) of a fixed blade knife, any forceful stabs probably would have been stopped by the hilt, giving a full blade length wound depth. Most fixed blades a a lot longer than 3 1/2 inches, in my experience.
Are you aware of any additional solid sources about the nature of the knife wounds, that might help us guess what sort of knives were used?
So far as military blades, I never read anywhere about that possibility.
Great, informative discussion!!!
Torque:
ReplyDeleteWe need to remember that Steve approached his friend John Lefevre about accompanying him for that drive up to Beverly Hills. John of course declined, leaving just Steve with his clock radio to make that final trip.
Torque, I am trying to remember anything about someone going up to Cielo with Parent? Is Lefevre the guy he called from Cielo? I can recall reading the testimony of the guy he called, but cannot remember his name.
Where did the info about someone being offered a chance to go up with Parent to Cielo come from?
Shoe asked: Is Lefevre the guy he called from Cielo?
ReplyDeleteNo, he called Jerrold David Friedman aka David Gerrold who wrote the Trouble With Tribbles.
For Steven Earl Parent,
with love. Sleep well, old friend.
You got the job done.
Gerrold, David. When HARLIE Was One: Release 2.0 . BenBella Books, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
Shoe, to find out more on John, please check out David's post from 2016 on Steve Parent. You will also find a photo of John in that post. I'm unable to link to it, but if you pull up the posts on Steve Parent you will see it among the list.
ReplyDeleteTorque:
ReplyDeleteThanks a lot for the reference!!!
Shoegazer said:
ReplyDelete“As to the knife(s) used at Cielo, it's hard to tell, …”
“I base my speculation that most, if not all, wounds at Cielo were made by large folding knives of the Buck 110 type …”
“Are you aware of any additional solid sources about the nature of the knife wounds, that might help us guess what sort of knives were used?”
There are a number of things that may help but nothing that is solid like a fingerprint.
Noguchi in Vol 68 Manson-TLB:
Page 8930
“and I believe I am quite cautious not to express an opinion when I am not able to back my opinion in a scientific manor”.
Page 8941
“ one to one and half inches wide and at least five inches long”
Page 8856
“In my opinion, the 102 stab wounds were caused by a similar type of stabbing weapon.”
Page 8859
“Just to give an example, it is something strong that was deliver the same wound pattern as would a bayonet “
Page 8887
“and the tip of the knife to here, that is, where the double edge disappears, may be a distance of 1 1/2 inches”
Watson in “Will You Die for Me”:
Page 64:
“We also made a number of trips down to an army-surplus store in the Valley for supplies and weapons, especially knives, and it was at this point that we bought the Buck knives and the chrome- plated bayonet, later put to such hideous use. On the first of these trips, while we were carrying all of Linda's $5,000 in crisp new $100 bills, …”
Page 73
“When we were all gathered at the car, Charlie handed me a .45 automatic pistol. He also had the chrome-plated bayonet we'd bought at the army-surplus store at the same time we'd purchased the Buck knives used at the Tate house.” [Note the bayonet was used on the second night]
Page 68
There were three knives — one of them the one that Katie would end up with, with a broken handle that was taped”
Page 72
“Katie kept complaining that her hand hurt — her knife hadn't had a proper handle and she'd kept hitting bones when she struck”
Kasabian brought the folding knife to Spahn along with $5000 and acid tabs.
“This knife was owned, originally, by Linda Kasabian and is a folding buck knife. It was found blade up in a chair located in the living room of the house.”
https://www.mansonblog.com/2017/02/miss-scarlet-in-living-room-with-knife.html?m=1
Paul Crockett said that the girls at Barker would be naked with the exception of their knifes strapped to their waists even while having sex.
In chapter 18 of Paul Watkins’ book:
“Then Sadie, Snake, and Brenda appeared. They were all dressed in Levi’s and wore buck knives strapped to their waists.”
Again look at the post by DebS, previously mentioned, that lists the Barker knives and shows them in a picture.
DeCarlo also mentioned somewhere (interview, testimony?) that they had purchased several German bayonets at an army surplus store.
ReplyDeleteI believe he also testified that he recognized EX 39- the knife in the chair- because it was a folding Buck knife and I believe he said he did because those were rare.
Atkins told Caruso/Caballero, that the taped knife was stuck in a log at the ranch suggesting to me it did not 'fold'.
Shoegazer said:
ReplyDelete“only Frykowski's autopsy report mentions depth, and not always. The depth I saw was no greater than 3 1/2 inches.”
Tates wound depth is described in Noguchi’s testimony.
The 3 left chest wounds, below the breast, were 4 inches deep.
Wound 5, upper right abdominal, was 4-5 inches deep
Wound 14, right upper arm, was 5 inches deep.
4 of the 8 back wounds were 2 inches deep.
Refer to Vol66, Manson-TLB, pages 8702 -8710.
When I mention guard that is not necessarily the same as hilt. A guard is necessary so your hand doesn’t slide off the handle, such as when sweating or covered in blood. I don’t believe any of the testimony, photos, or transcripts describe marks next to the wounds that are made by the guard (if the knife had one) or by the hilt. These marks are not made when the blade is longer than the depth of the wound. One or more of the knives had a 5+ inch blade.
Clip-point blades may be sharpened on the dull side for a second edge of 1.5-2 inches. So the same knife can create double-edge and single-edge wounds.
ToF:
ReplyDeletePaul Crockett said that the girls at Barker would be naked with the exception of their knifes strapped to their waists even while having sex.
In chapter 18 of Paul Watkins’ book:
“Then Sadie, Snake, and Brenda appeared. They were all dressed in Levi’s and wore buck knives strapped to their waists.”To the best of your knowledge, which buck knives that are strapped to one's body are we talking about:
110 belt sheath>
or
Tate 5
and
Tate 14
Hmmmm.
What does this say about the sequence of attack as per Frykowski and Tate?
Lessee...
According to the official narrative, Watson killed Frykowski, finished off Folger, then went back to the house and killed (or helped kill) Tate.
The Frykowski wounds were never more than 1 1/2" skin openings, and about 3 1/2" in depth. Then we'd need to study Folger and see which wounds were likely caused by Watson, and we'd expect that they'd be similar to Frykowski unless he changed knives.
Then on to Tate, and it would seem that the wounds would be similar to Frykowski/Folger, but some of the serious ones were not. They were 1"in skin puncture, and up to 5" in depth.
Longer and thinner.
This implies either a different person wielding a different knife, or Watson changing knives before killing Tate.
What do *you* think?
Fun to try to figure out, huh?
Shoe, I don't know if you brought it up earlier, but let's also remember that Jay Sebring had a one half inch stab wound to his shoulder. This single wound was the smallest, and shallow, making it a complete outlier from all of his other stab wounds.
ReplyDeleteTorque:
ReplyDelete...Jay Sebring had a one half inch stab wound to his shoulder. This single wound was the smallest, and shallow, making it a complete outlier from all of his other stab wounds.
I think that a complete, in-depth study of the shape, depth, and direction of the wound channels would go a long way to informing us several *likely* positions that the victim is in when receiving the wounds, and where the attacker likely was in relation to the victim.
This would be very laborious because there are many possibilities for both the victim and the attacker, and we'd also need to know right-handed/handed attack, and grip (thrust or hammer). Maybe other stuff, too; I'd have to think about it.
Gosh. That's a hell of a lot, isn't it? I should get started with making some tables, but...
I'm thinking that if I were to start, I'd start on Sebring since both the narrative and the apparent position he was found make it perhaps the simplest case.
At the other extreme, Tate might be the hardest, since she has many more knife wounds than can be justified by the scope of the "official narrative" and the apparent shape and location of the wounds could easily be accounted for by her actual enduring at least two separate attacks: those on the back, and the 4 (is it?) to the region of the heart. This might also partly explain her blood type at the doorway.
The problem is that there's such a lot of evidence and testimony that you'd almost have to gather it and correlate the evidence and the testimony in an easily referenced form. E.g., the gate button. Every photo, and all testimony and description by anyone with experience of it. The testimony might be sorted for the date it was taken and for source. Credibility of source can also be evaluated somewhat. But very little should be excluded out-of-hand.
This is truly daunting, and it proves to myself that I'm actually a dilettante killing time... <:^(
Have you ever noticed that if you mention to someone outside of the TLB groups that you're interested in the details of the crime, they start to look at you differently? :^)
I have a friend who's an oncologist, and once he told me conversationally that he's noticed that when people first meet him and ask him what he does for a living and he answers, "I'm an oncologist," they get real quite and no longer want to talk as much. He said that once he was asked this at a dinner party, while at table with maybe 10-12 others, and the entire table got real quiet real fast.
Funny story!
ToF:
ReplyDeleteI just thought to ask a question based on this:
Again look at the post by DebS, previously mentioned, that lists the Barker knives and shows them in a picture.
This leads me to think that some people think that the knives found at Barker Ranch may have had some connection to the Cielo knives. And maybe they do.
But I'm now wondering: if the Cielo killers purposely tried to get rid of their clothes and the gun to sever connection to the crime scene, is there any reason to think that they decided to keep the knives?
Is there any part of any narrative version or subsequent testimony, interview, article, or book, that mentions what happened to the knives after Cielo? We know that one was left at the scene, but what happened to the others?
Given the implied rational that they wanted to get rid of physical evidence that could tie them to the crime, I'm inclined to speculate that they also dumped the knives. The thinking that they should dump the gun would tend to include the knives, as well.
Is this something you've ever heard/read about, ToF?
Shoe asked: Is there any part of any narrative version or subsequent testimony, interview, article, or book, that mentions what happened to the knives after Cielo?
ReplyDeleteYes, Atkins, Kasabian and Watson in his book say they were thrown out the window of the car. Kasabian says one hit a tree/bush.
According to each witness each woman was told, in some fashion, to get a knife and go to the car. Somehow, they were on the front passenger seat when Kasabian got in the car and Watson told her to wrap them in something and throw them out the window if the cops stopped them- who put them there is an interesting, perhaps red headed, question.
Each woman left the car with a knife. Only VB suggests in his book that there were 4 knives because of the Parent attack. But he apparently lost sight of the idea Katie gave her knife to Watson before the attack and thus needed to go get Kasabian's knife, later.
Kasabian testified she threw two knives out the window.
As an aside to previous comments: when I wrote Miss Scarlet I read way too much about knife wounds and forensics. I even spoke to a retired forensic investigator at length. I am happy to discuss this off forum but I will say there are so many variables involved in a knife wound that when I brought up the knife wound anomalies mentioned in that post his reaction was 'so what' and then went on to explain.
Shoegazer said:
ReplyDelete“This leads me to think that some people think that the knives found at Barker Ranch may have had some connection to the Cielo knives. And maybe they do.”
“Is this something you've ever heard/read about, ToF?”
They did not keep their knives after Cielo. They knew that Beausoleil was caught with his knife and clothes and knew they needed to dispose of them.
Watson and DeCarlo said that their where about 10 (fixed) Buck knives at Spahn and DeCarlo said that when he first saw the Buck folding knife it was the first one he had ever seen.
The reason I mentioned the article by DebS was because it shows and lists the types of knives that they were carrying. The Buck 110 folding knives may have been an adequate choice if they were cutting neck arteries and getting/dressing but their were better knife choices.
I recommend taking up David’s offer. If not, they notice the similarity of the would size of JS and the front of ST. Also notice the wound locations between JS and ST. With just a couple of minor (possible) exceptions, they are all likes inflicted by Watson and probably using the same knife.
I had an interesting event occur over the weekend. I asked my second cousin who is about Parent’s age to watch my house and feed my dogs while we went to a wedding up on the mountain. When I returned he acted as all was well. Never mentioned a problem even when asked.
ReplyDeleteThe next day I went to make coffee. The grinder was messed up. The coffee maker was too and had clearly overflown. The circuit was tripped-off where both appliances plugged in and upon further examination there was a mass of coffee soaked paper towels in the outside garbage.
He had opened the electrical panel in the basement and flipped a couple but simply turned off then on the clock on other appliances.
Not a word had been mentioned about the “broken fence”.
It gave me a better insight into This event and how likely the fence was much like my coffee maker and not something to fess up to.
David:
ReplyDeleteNot a word had been mentioned about the “broken fence”.
I think this *is* a good observation. Nothing definitive, but it *is* illuminating--a sort of reality check on how young males might act in a situation in which they clearly screwed up in an embarrassing way, and seek to obscure their part in it.
Regarding the photo from the embankment that is used to illustrate the killers’ point of view, I took that picture myself when I was a senior in high school. We were on a family trip to Los Angeles; I bugged my parents until they agreed take me to Cielo Drive. At that point I’d been following the case for a few years and was beyond excited to reach the crime scene. I remember how quiet it was, without a soul in sight. Just wanted to leave a comment. I enjoy visiting this blog and it’s nice to see someone making use of the photograph. Take care everyone.
ReplyDeleteUnknown, thanks for commenting on this post, and of course thanks for the photo. Unfortunately so many photos on the internet are not credited, but thanks for making the trip to Cielo and posting this interesting view of the property. Can you provide a date for the photo?
ReplyDeleteThe photo was taken sometime in the Fall of 1982; I remember that it was close to the beginning of the school year. I took several photos that day, but the others were mostly angles that had been covered pretty well by other people over the years and weren’t particularly exciting. I do recall I pressed my back against the gate and snapped a photo of the next house down; it showed just how close in proximity the next door neighbors were. I posted the embankment photo many years ago on the Sharon Tate page of the Findadeath Forum so I imagine it was lifted from there at some point. As I mentioned, I was happy to see it here and I appreciate your nice response. If I can find the other photos I will let you know, maybe they can be of some use to you. Take care. Rich
ReplyDeleteThanks again, Rich. I appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your involvement, Rich.
ReplyDeleteRich, if you are able and have the time, can you tell if it was possible to make a U-turn up there at the closed gate, so that if one drive up there, they could turn around and drive back down?
ReplyDeleteWas it possible, in your estimation? If so, how hard?
There's some fogginess in my mind about whether the 4 Manson intruders drove up, cut the lines, and went back down the long private drive forward or backward. Common sense tells me that it was be far better to make a U-turn and drive down normally.
I've heard only that they backed down, but that would have been very tough on that driveway, and must have been pretty dark because the moon (declining crescent) did not rise until after 1 AM.
A public service notice to all: in case you have not already done so, you may wish to check out the Facebook page of George E. Smith, who has been collecting Sharon Tate and Cielo Drive items all of his life.
ReplyDeleteA few items on his site which recently were shared: a video of the very rare Cielo maid's bedroom and bathroom, the service porch area, and the kitchen. This was shot by a guy apparently in the early 1990's. Here's the link:
https://youtu.be/a_KRWMnfEoY
Also at George's page is an excellent interview with Dennis Hearst. It should be remembered that Dennis delivered Abigail Folger's bicycle to Cielo on the night of the murders.
Additionally, George recently said that after a lifetime of collecting all things Sharon and Cielo, he will be selling off his collection soon. He says as he is getting older, he would like his collection to go to good folks who will appreciate and care for it.