I think that this is very good, very interesting. From someone who seems at least "grounded" in normality.
Does anyone know who delivered the trunks, and when? It *seems* like at the back of my mind I read this info, maybe trial transcripts? The actual placement of the trunks has always interested me in trying to determine the sequence of events.
They were delivered sometime on the afternoon of the 8th. Chapman said they weren’t there when she left at 4:30 pm (Source: Helter Skelter) Vargas the gardener, not wanting to wake Sharon from her nap signed for them (source: Helter Skelter) he stayed behind finishing work while David Martinez gave Chapman a ride to the bus station. More than likely he moved them into the house.
Hearst is interesting to listen to. But, I don’t know how much of a story teller he is?
This is not Hearst’s first interview. There are at least 3 out there with one being audio only. His Cielo story is consistent but he makes one major mistake when telling his story. Kanarek did not cross examine him.
In the Manson-TLB trial, direct was by Bugliosi and cross by Shin and Hughes. No redirect. Note Kay was not part of the prosecution at this time.
In the Watson-TLB trial, direct was by Kay and cross by Keith. There was no redirect.
In each trial Hearst testified that he arrived at 7:00 PM, exchanged bikes, knocked at the front door for a long time (maybe 5 minutes) and told Sebring that he exchanged bikes and then left the property. He said that Sebring was carrying a green bottle similar to a 7-up bottle. In the Manson-TLB trial he said that he thinks he rang a doorbell before knocking and he left at 7:20. In the Watson-TLB trial he leaves at 7:15. Bugliosi describes the times as later to fit his agenda.
In one of the other interviews Hearst mentions two of his brothers.
One brother went to Cielo Drive a couple of years earlier to buy an (exotic) animal from Rudy Altobelli. Rudy made a pass at him during this visit.
Another brother met Peter Fonda at the bike shop and had a significant role in one of Fonda’s films. I’m guessing it may have been, the dud, “Idaho Transfer” which lists a “Kevin Hearst”?
Hearst says that his visit to Cielo Drive was on his 18th birthday, the summer before he started college.
On his 14th birthday, the summer before he started HS, he delivered a package to Lucille Ball. She asked him to carry it to the back yard and there was a surprise party for him.
TorF and all, I was able to locate Dennis Hearst, and he kindly agreed to an interview with me last October. We spoke for an hour, with Dennis doing most of the talking.
I do not have my interview notes with me at the moment, but I'll locate them and review them to add any additional comment here--or perhaps a short post.
I recall he was able to tell me what kind of bike he delivered to Cielo for Abigail. When I asked him, he said he did not have a receipt for the sale of the bike, or a receipt with the date and time on it when he visited Cielo. I believe he also told me that his father knew that Abigail was going out for dinner before 7pm on Friday August 8th, so it would be best if Dennis would go to Cielo at or shortly after that time.
Dennis also told me that he grew up in Benedict Canyon, so he knew the Cielo area well. When I brought up the green glass bottle, he said at the time he figured it to be a 7-UP bottle. He did say, as I recall, that he was a classmate of Marina Habe, and knew her quite well.
When I find my notes I'll have more to share anout my specific questions. In all, Dennis was very pleasant to talk to and he interviewed very well. I'm grateful for his time as well as his interest in speaking about these events.
The timeline on the afternoon of 8-8-69 at 10050 Cielo Drive is complicated because of the trial witnesses stating conflicting times. I have never seen the witness statements that are supposed to be Addendums to the First Progress Report. So we are left with the trial transcripts and HS.
What is generally accepted is the order of certain people coming and going.
The painter left.
Pettit and Lewis left.
AF left.
VF left after AF.
Vargas saw AF and VF leaving as Vargas was driving to the property.
After Vargas arrived, Martinez and Chapman leave.
Vargas signs for the trunks (1.5 hours) after arriving. The trunks were supposed to be left outside on the front door porch. The delivery man leaves.
Vargas leaves.
At the least Jay Sebring arrives.
Hearst exchanges the bikes, tells Sebring and leaves.
The trunks are mentioned by Vargas at the Manson-TLB trial but not at the Watson-TLB trial.
Chapman and Vargas conflict on times and Vargas is real bad with times.
At Manson-TLB Chapman says that AF leaves at 3:45, leaves at 4:00, and Martinez and Chapman leaves at 4:30. Vargas says that he arrives between 4:30 and 5:00, about 5:30 (which should have been sustained as unintelligible). Bugliosi normalizes this to 5:00. When asked when the trunks arrived, Vargas says 1.5 hours later (6:30). When asked when he left for the day, Vargas says at 6:00. Vargas also says he saw AF and VF leaving, which conflicts with Chapman.
In the Watson-TLB trial Vargas just mentions two times, arriving at 4:30 and leaving at 6:30. No trunks are mentioned.
TorF, Vargas also said when he saw Abigail leaving that she was driving a convertible. (But Bill Garretson described it as having a black vinyl top). If he is referring to her Firebird, I must say that car is a hardtop. Moreover, I believe Sharon's rental was also a hardtop. So certainly a discrepancy on times, but also on styles of vehicles.
In my interview with Dennis I did ask him if he saw the trunks either outside or perhaps inside the entrance to the house. He said he did not see the trunks at all.
I believe Hearst says that the bike was a British brand, Raleigh. A blue bike was delivered and she wanted a green bike.
I believe Hearst says that he was not supposed to deliver the bike before 7:30 because they were out having (an early) dinner. This contradicts the official narrative.
Torque, did you ask Hearst if he noticed AF’s car being parked back a few feet more than Sebring’s car.
Another interesting aspect to Friday August 8 at Cielo is the phone records. Tom O'Neil did obtain them and published them on the internet. I was able to make copies of them and set about trying to find the 10pm phone call from Abigail's mother to Cielo.
I did not find it on the two pages of phone records that I could see, but I did learn there were multiple phone lines at Cielo, so obviously different phone numbers and perhaps accounts?
Mrs Folger may have been yet on a return trip from a vacation, with a stopover in Connecticut to visit friends when she made that call. The phone number incoming to Cielo would not have been, then, a supposed San Francisco phone area code.
Perhaps the date and time of that call are in error, or we don't know which of the phone numbers at Cielo she called.
TorF, I don't recall if I asked him about any cars parked at Cielo, but I may have. I'll know more when I find my notes. The fact that Abigail's Firebird was parked back several feet from the fence bordering the lawn and front walk has always puzzled me. I have thoughts on this which I could discuss later.
If I remember correctly, there was an outgoing call to CT 1-2 days before. If the mother made the call on Friday I don’t know if it would be listed on the Cielo line in that the calling phone would be charged unless the charges were reversed. Also, the call may have been earlier if it were from the perspective of EST. But another line adds in other possibilities.
WRT "...saw Abigail leaving that she was driving a convertible.", and "...described it as having a black vinyl top", it's very easy to mistake these hardtops for a convertible with the top up.
Indeed, some of the later models of vinyl top sedans had ridges designed to emulate the support structure of a canvas convertible top.
So I don't think that this apparent discrepancy is a serious contradiction of the testimony.
It would have either been Martinez or Sebring if the delivery company didn’t do it. The trunks were filled with Sharon and Roman’s clothes and items that they purchased. I
I haven’t listened to this interview in a while, so I’m no sure if Dennis recalled them being outside when he arrived…but I don’t believe they would have been.
Shoe, my thoughts on the position of Abigail's Firebird are basically ones of utility. When looking at images of the Firebird and Jay's car, I see that the walk into the front yard is between the two cars.
Assuming the four took the Firebird only to dinner (as Tarantino's film suggests), the driver(Voytek?), may have parked a few feet back to let Sharon--who may have been in the front seat--exit the car and walk directly to the front yard without walking around the back of the car. This was my gut impression the first time I saw photos of this area.
Too, by looking at aerial views of this area, Steve parent may have avoided parking his car to the right of the Firebird, as it may have blocked the left garage door. This reinforces my view that Steven parked alongside the garage next to the stairs to the room above it.
The limitations of my view, of course, are that I have no hard proof of any of it. We don't know how many cars the four took to dinner, or who actually drove them. And if we look at the autopsy report of stomach contents, only Abigail was found to have any substantial food in her stomach, with Jay and Voytek nearly nothing--and certainly not indicative of a large recently ingested meal.
The available autopsy report on Sharon does not include a description of stomach contents; at least not in the report that I have seen.
In all the position of Abigail's Firebird from an aerial view appears to be half a car length from the fence separating the parking area from the front yard. Taken together, for me this positioning is probably innocent, and served some utilitarian purpose that night.
We know that between 5:30 pm and 6:00 pm Sebring was leaving his residence and going somewhere. That’s confirmed by Amos and Sebrings neighbor (because the neighbor was backing out of the driveway at the time Sebring was leaving and blocked him for a few moments)
It should also be considered that in the first homicide report as I pointed out to George Stimson that Floger’s mother was in Connecticut at the time she called, which would have been 10 pm for her, but 7 pm for Abigail. Since the call was “about 10 pm eastern time” then it was “about” 7 pm pacific time (adjusting for a 15-20 minute difference for the “about”) then it would put Dennis in the time frame he originally stated he saw Sebring because it would make sense that Sebring was handling the exchange for Abigail while she was on the phone with her mother. We know Abigail was back at Cielo Drive because the phone record shows she called the airline to book the reservation for the flight the next morning at 5:33 pm pacific time. That would have been 8:33 eastern time where her mother was.
"... This reinforces my view that Steven parked alongside the garage next to the stairs to the room above it."
FWIW, this is also what I work from for my default scenario: Parent car parked beside the garage, near stairs.
Looking at it from the POV of a kid of the era--and a fairly straight-laced one, too--he'd want to not cause trouble or inconvenience for the residents of the main house, whose cars were clearly parked in front, nearer the walkway/gate. Too, for a number of reasons this location makes backing into the fence, as he did, more plausible than if he had parked alongside (or behind) Sebring's car.
I also agree with your thoughts on the location of the Firebird, and the possible purposes for its location.
My deep interest in *where* the trunks were placed is based on my current default position that, based on the position of the trunks as we see them in the crimescene photos, and the blood marks and their apparent course of dripping downward on both trunks, I keep coming back to the conclusion that:
1) The trunks were placed to the *left* side of the entryway into the LR (as you stand in the foyer facing the LR) and that they were laid lengthwise on the floor, one on top of the other.
2) The trunks were tipped over later in the struggle, rather than when Frykowski ran/staggered out of the front door.
Not only do the blood traces seem to indicate this, but if indeed Tate made it our of the front door (leaving quite a bit of blood evidence on the flagstones to the left of the doorway, as you face it) if the trunks were already down, getting her back in would have been very, very difficult without leaving more of her blood on the trunks.
Starting with the assumption that she was indeed on the front porch, momentarily or otherwise, there are indeed blood smears on the foyer floor, and at the base of the stone frame of the entryway, as if someone were dragged along the ground, either out or in.
In ether case, the trunks in their position as photographed, with none of her blood on either trunk, would have made this very difficult, hence they were tipped later, after she was back inside.
Now, I realize that positioning the trunks in the location I postulate blocks interior foot traffic much more than if the had been placed, on end, side-by-side, next to the white chair on the *other* side of the entryway, but it's damned hard to ever get the sort of blood trails on them that we see when examining them closely.
George Stimson did a recent video that makes it he most sense. Frykowski was wounded on his right and. As he was pulling himself to get out of the house before locking eyes with Linda Kasabian, he had Susan on his back. Being wounded on the right hand would be consistent with someone in the floor already. When Frykowski stands and before he stumbles into the bushes, Watson shoots him and that causes the spray in the front of the doorway.
James D, and let's not forget that one of the two shots to Voytek was a thru-and-thru wound. If it was inflicted while perhaps standing in the front doorway, it may have wound up buried somewhere on the front lawn of Cielo, or maybe went flying down the hillside. Either way that bullet was not found.
It may make one think that with the demolition and reconstruction of the site, it may still be buried somewhere on that property.
"...When Frykowski stands and before he stumbles into the bushes, Watson shoots him and that causes the spray in the front of the doorway."
Except that none of the blood tested that was taken from the front porch/flagstones was Frykoski's. The spray to the left of the door (as you face it from outside) is Tate's; the blood to the right of the doorway is Sebring's.
The problem with that is, if Frykowski was Type B blood, where is his blood? Did killers lie about the version of events that night? That would also include Kasabian’s testimony too. After the attack from Atkins…being shot from Watson, being stabbed 51 times and hit in the head 13 times with the butt of the gun, did he just start bleeding when he got to the lawn and died? When looking at the analyzed evidence, The only person at the residence who was hit in the head with the gun, was Frykowski… How can someone who is supposed to be type B bleed type O? The blood that it was found on the grips of the gun was O. Sebring Was kicked in the face, breaking the bridge of his nose and his eyes socket (source CieloDrive.com) Two sets of documents exist on Frykowski’s blood type. One says he was Type B, And another says No blood was taken for typing. It sounds like the coroner’s office made a mistake. Which was obvious per the testimony when For example, the numbering of Abigail Folger’s wounds, The numbering of Sebring’s wounds, And then later, discovering that Frykowski had been shot twice.
It’s also worth noting that Noguchi testified that there was no proof that Sharon ever left the living room. She was barefoot and this was something they would’ve noted, had she stepped in blood, They would’ve been able to tell by the bottom of her feet, with collection of dirt and other fibers from the carpet.
From The NY Times, Aug 27, 1970 “ Courtroom observers were left with another puzzle from Mr. Granada's testimony. He identified a large pool of.blood found on the front walk as be ing of the same type as Mr. Sebring's, O “MN.” The three other victims—Abigail Folger, a coffee heiress; Voyteck Fry kowski, a Polish writer and producer, and Steven Parent, an 18‐year‐old friend of Miss Tate's caretaker—all had blood types B “MN.”
Mrs. Linda Kasabian, the state's principal witness, testified previously that she had seen. Mr. Frykowski stagger, bleeding, from the front door and fall in the area of the blood‐stained walk. Mrs. Kasabian said that Charles D. Watson pounced on him there and continued to beat and stab him. Mr. Frykowski's body was found on the lawn.
That’s because the corner’s office made a mistake. Frykowski was really type O and not type B.
There probably are errors in evidence gathering, and possibly some errors in blood evidence gathering/labeling/typing/recording. But let's get back to the blood at the doorway, and the three main areas: as facing the front door, from outside, there's the blood spray/spatter to the left of the doorway, somewhat; there is the large-ish smear/pool just to the right of the door, and the untested smear/pool immediately adjacent to the broken bushes. This last area was not sampled. It seems that Granado assumed it was the same as the large-ish pool.
The typing for the left most (spray/spatter) was O-M (Tate), and the large-ish smear/pool was O-MN (Sebring). That's on the record.
Contrary to that we have Kasabian's testimony that she saw a man emerge from the front door, stand by the support post, and collapse. Did she ever identify him as Frykowski?
I, too, thought that there was an error in typing Frykowski, but we're still left with the fact that the blood to the right of the door was Tate's.
I was unaware that Naguchi testified that there was no proof that Tate left the LR. Are you sure of this?
Was there ever any such findings about the condition of Tate's bare feet, either in testimony, interrogations, or reports?
So yep, it's very hard to explain a) lack of Frykowski blood evidence; and b) Sebring blood evidence on the porch. But I think it's entirely possible, and perhaps even probable, that Tate made it to the door at some point.
James D, Shoe, I think here it would be best to read or reread what I consider to be the best analysis on the blood evidence. This is David's post here on the blog, dated Aug. 28, 2017: "A Look at the Evidence #6: Granado's Big Mistake".
Yes, Linda did say at the trial that she recognized the bleeding man who emerged from the house, and fall into the bushes, to be Voytek.
On the bloody barefoot prints on the front porch, we take it as truth that these footprints belonged to Susan Atkins--because she said she ran thru the blood and wiped her bare feet on the grass. But did she? I know of no other source for the ownership of those footprints than Susan's statement. Although of course it may exist. I have often entertained the thought that those bloody footprints may have belonged to Sharon.
Susan also said she dipped a bath towel in Sharon's blood--inside the house--then went out and wrote on the front door with it. She then said she threw the towel back into the living room, where it may have magically landed on Jay Sebring's head?!
The more arguably probable instrument of that front door writing was the bloody scarf, which was found near Voytek's body in the front yard.
In any case, I'd like to see more discussion after another reading of David's post on the blood evidence.
But that is where I’m gonna have to agree to disagree with you respectfully. Yes. I can pull up the testimony and a news article that states he testified that there was no proof that she ever left the living room. Given that she was barefoot, they would’ve made out of this. What’s also worth reading is his testimony about the coroner’s Office on how crowded it was that day. There were going to be a mistakes made… And clearly many were made.
I have a document where Patricia’s footprint was asked to be given per discovery. Was it Susan’s? Was it Patricia’s? Or could it have been Linda’s because I’m pretty sure that Linda testified that all three girls were barefoot.
Concerning the towel. The first homicide report states that there was a towel between Sebring and Tate… But no towel exist between them and the crime scene photos… However, when looking at the crime scene photos, There is something white Sharon’s feet that could be a towel. I believe the towel that was on Sebring’s head was done by Watson or Krenwinkle Because it was a detail that was done the next night… Remember, Leno Sadly had a knife in his throat, And it was not discovered until the pillowcase was removed…like the towel on Sebring’s head was tucked under the rope.
I, too, respect your points of view. But to prefer them over my own, I'd need proof and any speculation I'd accept would be my own, independently developed, or compelling concrete support.
So...
"Yes. I can pull up the testimony and a news article that states he testified that there was no proof that she ever left the living room."
That sort of proof would be compelling. Can you reference it?
"Given that she was barefoot, they would’ve made out of this."
It's not completely clear who "they" are in this statement, but if they are investigators/examiners, I'd expect that they wrote it down and that there'd be a reference to it available, or at the very least, a cite to someone knowledgeable mentioning that Tate's feet were examined. Otherwise, it's pure speculation.
"What’s also worth reading is his testimony about the coroner’s Office on how crowded it was that day."
Fine, but if this equates to specific errors made on the bloodwork, it's pure speculation, also.
To change my default position it requires compelling support. Personal opinions are of value as starting points for further examination, and not compelling evidence.
"This is David's post here on the blog, dated Aug. 28, 2017: "A Look at the Evidence #6: Granado's Big Mistake".
I've read the entire series not less than 4 times, and part 6 probably another 3 times. I have also discussed this with David both on this forum, and in private exchanges. Prior to those exchanges I was of an opinion similar to James': that essentially none of the blood evidence was accurate.
I came around to believing that a) it is statistically unlikely to have been flawed enough to invalidate all, or even most, findings and b) given that, it makes more sense to work from the physical evidence and attempt to coordinate it with testimony. interviews, and reports.
There is a great deal of ambiguity in the interviews and testimony. Some of the discrepancies, maybe most of them, are merely forgotten minor omissions or events somewhat out of sequence. I'm trying to get as much of the testimony/oral/written description to sync up with the physical evidence.
I do not think that there was wholesale lying going on. The official narrative is a framework that hold the sequence of events, and I think almost all events are attested to, but the sequence or minor details might be wrong. E.g., "PIG" written with a towel or a scarf.
A case of a serious omission is the towel secured over Sebring's head and basically tied down with the rope. There is no testimonial support for this, and yet there is is, in the photos, and in testimony.
I stand corrected but I’ll post this quote from NY Times article, August 27, 1970 “ An informed source said to day that the prosecution , had “no evidence that Sebring ever left the house” and was at loss to explain the large quan tity of blood that was ap parently his on the front walk.” I do believe it was said elsewhere about Sharon not leaving the living room. I’ll try to dig it up.
An autopsy tells the story of the deceased’s last day(s) alive. This includes if they had eaten or not, what they ate, etc. With a bloody footprint, they will check the victims feet and if there is a match, investigators and the coroner will examine the feet and it would be in a report.
The trunks have blood drops on the trunks that is labeled as Sebrings blood would be more consistent with Frykowski trying to get out of the house as he was being stabbed from Atkins.
If Sharon or Jay were on the front porch and attacked…where is the trail of blood? Did Watson and co clean the floors? There is no dripping going into the living room, only what’s consistent with Frykowski trying to flee his attackers.
Linda identified the man as Frykowski when he fell and was attacked by Watson. If this story is true, his type is O, and not B. Blood on the broken was O and not B. That would be a mistake from the coroner’s office where the investigators got the blood typing from for the report. A type B blood type person can’t medically bleed another blood type. Then we have to ask…where is Frykowski’s blood? If he is type B, and Linda, Watson, and Atkins are telling the truth…then the blood on the porch is Frykowski’s and on the walkway. If it’s not true, where is Frykowski’s blood?
This is a very good exchange, in my opinion. Thanks.
I agree that I cannot see any plausible way that Sebring was ever out front.To my eye, he looks as if his body was found right at about the place he was killed, and this is fairly consistent with all testimony. Only Sebring's blood evidence is inconsistent here.
"An autopsy tells the story of the deceased’s last day(s) alive. This includes if they had eaten or not, what they ate, etc. With a bloody footprint, they will check the victims feet and if there is a match, investigators and the coroner will examine the feet and it would be in a report."
So far as checking, it makes sense, but until I see a report, I would not speculate on what was, or wasn't, on Tate's feet.
"The trunks have blood drops on the trunks that is labeled as Sebrings blood would be more consistent with Frykowski trying to get out of the house as he was being stabbed from Atkins."
Yep.I agree.
"If Sharon or Jay were on the front porch and attacked…where is the trail of blood? "
There is an apparent elongated smear on the foyer flagstones (just inside the door) with a similar smear at the base of the stone wall that separated the LR from the foyer. Both smears are Tate's type, in the report.
Just Outside the door, identified as Tate's type:
https://i.imgur.com/A2BnvCl.jpg
Inside the foyer. Note faint smear on floor and smear at the base of the wall.These are identified as Tate's type. Note green arrows.
https://i.imgur.com/lTNYDUh.png
I agree that the lack of Frykowski's blood, even out on the lawn, for christ's sake, right where he's laying, is strongly indicative of any error ***ON FRYKOWSKI'S BLOOD EVIDENCE***. I would not assume from that that the other blood evidence is in error, without some very strong concrete evidence to the contrary
Both of those smears are consistent with Susan’s testimony of fighting with Frykowski, being wounded on the right hand, it is consistent with him being on the flood and she stabbing him in the legs. With this going on, where is the type B blood? The only type B blood that was found was that of Flogers as she ran down the hallway and out the French doors. They are too low to be that of Tate who was stabbed in the leg, she would have to have been stabbed in the ankle or foot for those spots to be hers. Linda identifying in the locations she said he fell is very compelling that the blood that is mistaken at Tate and Sebring’s is that of his. Unless all three made this story up? If not, then it’s a error done by the coroner’s office
And don’t forget that Frykowski who was supposed to be type B blood, and the only person beat in the head with the gun, and according to Watson’s testimony, he held the barrel of the gun when beating him in the head, the broken grips had Type O blood. How is this possible? It’s evident he didn’t stab Sebring until they left because type O blood (consistent with Sebring) was found on the gate button…unless that was really Frykowski’s blood too, when Watson stabbed him again before leaving to make sure he was dead and then kicked him in the head…BUT logically, if Sharon did die last, and Watson stabbed her to death, then wouldn’t that blood that’s on the gate button hers?
“ And, as I hesitated, he reached up and grabbed my hair and started pulling my hair. So I had to fight for my life, as far as I was concerned. We fell against a chair that was next to the couch. He was fighting and I was kicking him. I was all of a sudden fighting for my life. Wow! Then I proceeded to stab him five or six times in the leg — but I would say it was in self-defense. I luckily enough had the knife in my hand, because the man was big and with one whack, he could have — wow! And then while this was going on, Abigail was getting loose and fighting with Katie. And Linda, we found out later, heard some noise and went back down and sat in the car, so we had no watch for the outside. Well, as this went on, all this confusion, I just don’t remember what happened. Except — I remember seeing the man I had stabbed, trying to go outside. He was yelling — he was yelling for his life. I was hanging onto him, I think, and I yelled: “Tex, help me. Do something.” Then, in the excitement, Tex must have shot him in the back as he was running out, then followed him and hit him over the head with the butt of the gun. It broke the gun handle and the gun wouldn’t work any more. So he began stabbing the man. While he was stabbing, the man was still screaming. I’m surprised no one heard anything. The man was pretty much half dead on the porch — that’s where all the blood was, I imagine — before he ever got to the lawn.”
Even she confirms the blood on the porch was that of Frykowski’s.
"If not, then it’s a error done by the coroner’s office."
Big how big an error, James? So big that you feel comfortable about throwing out all of the blood evidence from the front of the house, but everything inside the house is OK? Bear in mind that if one wants to believe that all of the blood out front is from one person, Frykowski, who *might* have actually had type O also (although David did a pretty decent job of convincing me otherwise, but I can't recall the details, nor were there any supporting data), this means that the blood evidence gathers/typers made two separate and distinct mistakes: mistook the Frykowski's hypothetical O-MN (also Sebring's type) for Sebring's then turned around and mistook Frykowski's O-MN for Tate's O-M. Two such mistakes are much less likely than one, especially if Tate has so many unexplained knife wounds that one wonders when and where she got them.
Me, I wouldn't be comfortable with that much speculation. I once was, until kicking it a good deal with David, and reading, re-reading, and re-re-reading Part 6 of his report. The way it looks to me at this point is that the O-MN on the porch is probably misidentified in some fashion. The B, types, and the O-M are valid.
So for the other blood evidence,like the B types, you see no problems, is this correct?
But it;s fine to hve different opinions, that's for sure.
"Then, in the excitement, Tex must have shot him in the back as he was running out, then followed him and hit him over the head with the butt of the gun. It broke the gun handle and the gun wouldn’t work any more. So he began stabbing the man. While he was stabbing, the man was still screaming. I’m surprised no one heard anything. The man was pretty much half dead on the porch — that’s where all the blood was, I imagine — before he ever got to the lawn.”
Even she confirms the blood on the porch was that of Frykowski’s."
You know that there are three separate blood areas on the porch, I'm sure. It's possible for some to be Tate's and some to be someone else's. Two separate bleeders. And sure enough, that's what the report says: two separate and distinct blood events:
This one to the north end of the porch, ID'ed as Sebring's: https://i.imgur.com/d9d11mO.jpg
And the one I showed you earlier, identified as Tate's type: https://i.imgur.com/A2BnvCl.jpg
It's fine if you want to believe that all of them were made by Frykowski. It's not impossible.
TaborFresca and all, I did locate my notes for my interview with Dennis Hearst, dated 28 October 2024. He described the scene at Cielo as very quiet, but did not recall any vehicles parked there. But we must believe Jay's car was there as he answered the door when Dennis arrived with the bike.
The bike Dennis delivered was of course the exchange bike, and it was a Raleigh Superb, which was a three or four speed recreational bicycle. He said the bike he delivered was green, and the original purchased one was blue, however, he said, "I could not swear to it."
Dennis said he placed the bike along the left wall inside of the garage. He went on to say that his father would have performed the exchange himself on Thursday Aug. 7th if Abigail would have called for this purpose. But she called on Friday for the bike to be exchanged. Dennis said his father knew Abigail was to be going out for dinner on Friday Aug. 8th.
Since Dennis grew up in Benedict Canyon, I asked about why Tex may have chose Portola to find a hose to wash off. He told me he feels thst Portola was a good choice because it was easy to turn onto at that place in the road.
We also discussed Marina Habe, who he knew quite well, and related that at one time she drove an MG Midget. He said that he did not know Maureen Serot from Coelo Drive.
Dennis also said that his brother, Michael, knew Rudi Altobelli. At a point 1-3 years prior to the murders, Rudi called Michael to take care of one of Rudi's cats. And in fact it was Michael who instructed his father how to find and activate the gate button at Cielo when he made the original delivery of Abigail's bike.
"BUT logically, if Sharon did die last, and Watson stabbed her to death, then wouldn’t that blood that’s on the gate button hers?"
Can we say with certainty that it isn't?
It looks like for all the O only, as opposed to the O-subtype samples, we don't have definitive evidence to even speculate intelligently unless we have some level of concrete support. The same could be said of the B type blood (Folger or Parent?) except that Parent's body was a long way from the inside of the house and there are no intermediate blood events between his car and the house, nor does he appear to me to have moved or been moved.
So that's an example of finding some concrete supporting evidence for ambiguous blood events. Similarly, I see no definitive supporting evidence that Sebring ever got anywhere other than where he was found, supporting the idea that there's an error in some of the blood typing outside, where his O-MN is found. I*do* have trouble blythely accepting that separate areas tested O-M and O-MN are from the same source, however.
In short, I agree with you that it's likely that much of the O-MN is unreliable, but that the O-M and the B types are OK. I see no reason to think otherwise, based on physical evidence.
When looking at the direct testimony, it’s clear a mistake was made. If the blood is not that of Frykowski’s where is his blood. The type B? How did type O blood get on the broken gun grips from someone who was Type B after being beat in the head with it? It’s medically impossible to bleed two different blood types (trust me I know, my “day job” is in the medical profession…)If Frykowski was Type B, then Type B would be on the broken gun grips. In all the locations he was described in testimony is consistent with the blood type O, not B.
There would be no reason to doubt the other type B blood of Parent and Folger because its consistent with testimony.
And another factor that’s medically and genetically overlooked is that blood types are different in different locations across the world. For example the most common blood type in Poland is type O. Type B comes in in third place. The percentage of type B blood in America is far less than that in Poland. I no longer live in the United States, I moved to Argentina, and the area I live in, just a few minutes from downtown Buenos Aires, is the “Little Italy” of Argentina. The descendants are of Italian immigrants and the most common blood type in Italy is type A. Many other Argentines have German descent as well, and they have Type A blood. (I know this sounds crazy, but you can look it up but it’s true, as I pointed out this lesser known fact to George Stimson)
James, it looks like you want to say that somehow there is no B-MN evidence present for Frykowski where one would strongly expect to see it, like right next to his body, or anywhere in the house, for that matter.
I agree with this.
I'm not sure if you want to say the O-MN is also his. I would not readily agree. I'd need something concrete.
So I register for the draft of my 18th birthday, in 1965. If you went to college fulltime and held a 2.0 average (indeed it was harder then) you had 5 years of 2-S deferment.
Then under Nixon came the lottery.
I was in the first lottery ('70) and as I recall I was #4. 10/18/47
Ooops! #5
YEOW!!
Boy did I learn a lot trying to keep from being drafted. Many valuable life lessons.
Regarding the towels at 10050 Cielo drive. My understanding is that there were 3 towels that came into play. Also two sheets may also be in the living room pictures.
The blood report mentions 2 towels that contain type O-M blood (Tate’s type).
G-42 is a yellow towel found in the front of the living room near the trunks.
G-39 is a beige towel found in the (back of the) living room between Tate and Sebring.
There is a white towel that was placed on Sebring’s head, with the rope rapped around the towel near the neck. This towel was not typed for blood.
I believe that the white cloth, that are near the feet of both Tate and Sebring, are bed sheets. Some have thought that may be Tate’s nighty and a runner that may have been placed on the piano. I believe they are sheets.
G-42 can be seen in two photos.
If you look at the photo with the man (maybe Garanado) pointing to blood in the foyer and look directly above his head you can see a glimpse of the towel.
If you look at the photo that shows Tate and Sebring connected to rope, you will see a white towel on his head and a white cloth near his feet; and a white cloth near her feet.
Near the fireplace there is a container and the beige towel, G-39, is near it.
I believe that someone in LE placed white towels over the bodies. The coroners and detectives did not arrive until the early afternoon.
If you look at the photo showing the flag on the couch and the fireplace, you can see G-39 on the floor in front of the fireplace (on the right and below the barbecue).
How the white towel got on Sebring’s head is a mystery.
In the book Roman, by Roman Polanski, he said :
“He had not been sexually mutilated, nor was there any hood over his head, just a cloth one of the policemen had used to cover his face because his wounds were so appalling.”
https://archive.org/details/roman0000pola_b8d7
Note you can search webarchive books without checking the book out.
If Roman was duped by LE or if he is just being creative, Krenwinkle had the (unaccounted) time to do it while Watson was stabbing Tate while Atkins held her (Tate).
Since there were two towels with Tate’s blood, it could explain how Tate could have been stabbed near the front door and made it back to the couch area without leaving a trail. She had a towel with her.
TorF, yes, good explanation on the towels in the living room. We know Susan said she initially used a towel to tie Voytek's hands, which she may have found in one of the bathrooms or the linen closet in the hall outside Abigail and Voytek's room.
It may not be a stretch to say that sheets may also have been used by LE to cover the bodies of Sharon and Jay. It is clearly evident in many photographs that the bodies of Abigail and Voytek were covered by sheets on the front lawn.
Even though towels in the living room tested positive for Sharon's blood, I believe it is doubtful that there was enough blood on any one of those towels to be the writing instrument for the front door.
"If you look at the photo with the man (maybe Garanado) pointing to blood in the foyer and look directly above his head you can see a glimpse of the towel.
So one wonders if the towels had been there before the above photo was taken, and then removed, or the common photo was as the investigators found the trunks, and someone--maybe Granando--had been handling the towel, then put it down on the trunk when he stopped over for the photo you supplied.
Anyone have any ideas? I don't think it's pivotal--I just like to explore all the stuff.
"I believe that someone in LE placed white towels over the bodies."
That seems very plausible to me.
"If you look at the photo showing the flag on the couch and the fireplace, you can see G-39 on the floor in front of the fireplace (on the right and below the barbecue)."
Yes. What you you suppose the blackish textile object is on the chair to the left? It's also on the previous photo. Looks like maybe a man's jacket...
"Since there were two towels with Tate’s blood, it could explain how Tate could have been stabbed near the front door and made it back to the couch area without leaving a trail. She had a towel with her."
Yes, this is an interesting angle.
Really, the towel wrapped over Sebring's head, then the rope looped around it, the glasses, and the putative placement of the trunks before the fracas, and when they went over, are all very puzzling.
So far as I'm concerned, none of these issues is fundamental: I think the basic "official" narrative is pretty close to what happened. It's just interesting trying to fill in the blanks on the narrative as they coincide witht he physical evidence.
"It may not be a stretch to say that sheets may also have been used by LE to cover the bodies of Sharon and Jay. It is clearly evident in many photographs that the bodies of Abigail and Voytek were covered by sheets on the front lawn."
Yes. Exactly. It is as if it was a part of the standard procedure in cases of violent death.
While we're talking about the towels and sheets, etc., does anyone have a favored scenario that explains the opened Buck knife between a cushion and a chair back? As I recall, it had been unused...no traces of blood.
I believe there was a smudge of some kind on that knife, Shoe. No fingerprints and standing blade up in that chair in the living room. Since the first time I learned about that knife I learned that Susan Atkins made much ado about it, claiming that she lost it in the struggle. I do not say I doubt this, yet it was found to be without fingerprints. None of the killers admitted to using gloves, so it has always seemed odd to me that the knife could have been found without either prints or blood on it.
We do know, of course, that both Tex and Patricia left prints at Cielo. So if gloves were in use, why not wear them when gaining entrance to the house, or when chasing Abigail as she ran out the doors to the pool, where the prints were found?
It's certaintly odd that there were no prints, because to simply extend the blade, as it was found,requires you to grasp the knife in both handles and pull the blade out (folded, pocket knife-style) with one hand.
So far as what was on the blade, I can recall reading that it was a substance that led me at the time to think that it was inorganic, but did not seem to be a cleaning agent of some sort. I'd guess it was a thin residue of whatever the knife had been previous used to cut back at Spahn, most likely.
This issue with "no prints" makes me wonder if there were zero prints, at all, or there were no usable prints. This speaks to a larger question: what the language used in the reports more-or-less uniform, or was it more individual and subjective? If true, it might lead us to believe that there were many, many more areas of unusable print traces that are now generally understood to be entire devoid of prints of any kind, leading to speculation about a "clean-up"visit by Manson.
I'm working entirely from memory on many of these details. I've got so damned much stuff I've dragged out over the years or bookmarked, but it's poorly organized.
Back to the knife. If it had *unusable* prints, it would then make a clearer, less mysterious scenario. One of the Manson group opened the blade at some point, probably before entry into the house, but lost it at some point.
Shoe, yes. I am of the opinion that the circumstances surrounding the knife were probably not nefarious. There may well be a simple explanation to this object. Perhaps that same thinking can be applied to the eyeglasses found in the living room, or other objects.
"Perhaps that same thinking can be applied to the eyeglasses found in the living room, or other objects."
I tend to agree, T.
It's funny how the unexplained aspects function as a sort of rorschach test for the TLB readership. It tends to split along the lines of people looking for added mystery/conspiracy and hence *drama*--"Aha! Do I see the fine hand of Voldemort here? The Illuminati?..."--or those who simply want to find the most plausible explanation for the unresolved elements of the case--"What's the most parsimonious way this might this be explained given the evidence and the context"? That then becomes the default, to be amended as new information dictates.
The clasp Buck knife found on the right soft chair was visually looked at by Garanado and he said that he could not see any blood but the blade appeared to have fatty tissue on it. Before testing it for blood, he set it aside for fingerprinting by Boen. Boen, was the fingerprint guy who lifted the front door Watson print and bedroom-pool door Krenwinkle print. The clasp Buck knife handle did contain a print but the combination of of number of points and clearness was not enough to classify it as a useable print. When Garanado tested for blood after fingerprinting he found none but he didn’t know if the fingerprint powder affected the test.
The clasp Buck knife was brought to Spahn by Kasabian and according to DeCarlo it was the only one he had ever seen. While Atkins believed that there were four knives, because everyone was supposed to bring one, the official narrative says there were only three. The three knives are supposed to consist of of: the clasp Buck knife: a Buck knife with electrical tape on a broken handle; and a third knife. Noguchi has said that many of the knife wounds are consistent with a bayonet, but no one has said there was a bayonet on night one. Guinn has written that Krenwinkle did not bring a knife with her (he interviewed her).
What happened with the knives is nearly as ambiguous as the blood trail. A starting point for the Buck clasp knife is that Atkins lost it while fighting with VF. Since she said she blindly (backwards) stabbed at VF and may have stabbed VF in the legs and/or the soft chair, this is the start of various scenarios. What complicates it is: that VF does have multiple stab wounds in the legs; there is no blood on the knife (but possibly fatty tissue); and there is no blood trail.
One possibility is that Atkins did stab VF in the legs just a couple of times and not much blood came out and what came of was absorbed by the Indian mod-style pants worn by VF. The pants would have partially cleaned the knife blade and the blade was further cleaned by stabbing the soft chair. Watkins inflicted most of the leg wounds. David’s article ~Scarlet discusses this knife.
Regarding dark/black cloth-like material on left soft chair.
I believe there may be a jacket/blazer/coat on that chair.
The property report says that Sebring had placed a (?navy-)blue jacket on a living room chair and it contained a wallet with $80. Ed Sanders describes it as being placed over a high back chair near the desk but it isn’t there in the 1-2 pictures that I have seen nor does it appear in any of the other pictures showing chairs. If the jacket is a dark navy-blue then maybe it was on the left soft chair? Other possibilities include SID contaminating the picture by laying their coat down. The photographer and Finken (coroner’s office) are two that come to mind. Of course it could be something completely different.
Question? Does anybody know the names of the two men removing Tate’s body from the house? There is a younger blond and a black guy. As a starting point I’ll guess that they are Finken (blond) and Johnson (black) - both of who work for the coroner’s office.
Thanks, ToF. This is all very good. It helps refresh my memory (somewhat).
WRT to the Buck knife's lack of blood, I now vaguely recall the sequence of investigation in which I came to realize that any tissue of any kind may have been obliterated/obscured by the finger printing techs, and that the substance described on the blade may very well have been the print highlghting medium (power as seen on the front door & elsewhere).
So I'd think that we can't drawn a firm conclusion about whether or not that knife had actually drawn blood. Given what we have, I'd surmise that it likely had, but only just barely over 50-50. In a way it seems, from the detail of Atkin's narratives, that she would have mentioned if she had knowingly lost it early, hence no tissue/blood. So I tend to think she tussed a bit and likely did draw blood, but as you propose, it may have been very little and subsequently wiped clean later in the struggle.
I mean, ultimately, it's a small detail because sure enough, all of the people in the house were stabbed.
In the course of trying to reconcile the narrative(s) with the evidence, two things have often jumped out at me: a) no one has ever clearly mentioned hanging Tate momentarily; and b) no one addresses the "hood-like" arrangement of the towel over Sebring's head.
For a while I thought it was maybe a reluctance to admit to sort of "ritualizing" the murder--seemed like it was not simply murder, but a planned scene of evilly motivated carnage. But gradually I have moved from that, and a part of it is that they've all mentioned and essentially taken "credit" for comparably demented acts--like entertaining slicing the baby our of Tate's womb, or taunting her with "I have no pity for you".
Plus, actually creating a ritual killing scenario was largely what they said that Manson had instructed them to do.
So gradually I've set a soft default: they do not clearly remember all the acts and the actual sequence in which they were performed. It's a sort of mental jumble--and probably was even as early as the next day--and it has deteriorated from there.
Last question...
Somewhere in this thread someone mentioned that maybe Krenwinkel had time to go back in and place the towel on Sebring, near the conclusion of the invasion/murders. Instantly this strung a wrong cord, and it's because of all the main participants, Krenwinkel seems maybe the least likely to take any initiative. By this I don't mean she was reluctant, but she was basically an embittered follower--little personal agency, led around by stronger characters.
I stated that it had to have been Watson or Krenwinkle because that detail was applied the next night. Only two people would know to bind the pillowcase around Leno’s head as it was done with Sebring (the towel under the rope) if it wasn’t Krenwinkle, it was Watson.
"I stated that it had to have been Watson or Krenwinkle because that detail was applied the next night. Only two people would know to bind the pillowcase around Leno’s head as it was done with Sebring (the towel under the rope) if it wasn’t Krenwinkle, it was Watson."
It would be interesting to speculate from this a bit--no real way to verify any of it, but that's just a fact of life in this discussion group.
If we go with the idea that Krenwinkle was not likely to direct herself to take independent and imaginative action--like go back in and decide to hood Sebring--it would point to Watson.
This is of course assuming that the two pillow bindings were definitively associated with the same person. But let's go with it...
So it follows that if Watson did it in both places, here we have the hanging of Tate and the hooding of Sebring both done by the same person who has never even hinted that he did either. He admits in his book that he cut Tate on the face (I think he's conflating this with slicing Folger), so he's not reluctant to admit to brutality, so I'm guessing he just plain got everything scrambled in his head.
But we can now also speculate as to the timing of all this, and coincide it with the fact that no one else recalls the hanging or the hooding.
He may have come in after everyone else was out, made a quick pass, to check, recalled Manson's injunction to make it look bad, real bad, and he then quickly hooded Sebring and briefly tried to hang Tate. He came back out and told Atkins to write something witchy.
A quick way to falsify this hypothetical would be to consider where Tate's body was found in relation to the support beam over which the rope was hung. I can recall that both she and Sebring were fairly close, but can you in your mind's eye imagine that her body is *close enough* that yep, the last thing he did was try to hang her, failed, and basically set her down close by, next to the sofa? Then, as leaving, realized that it wasn't good enough and told Atkins to write something? It likely would have been too dark to clearly see where the towel she says she threw back in landed,and now there's no need to suppose that it somehow landed on Sebring's head. It mostly likely did not.
This would also handily account for the appearance, noted by the instigators, that Tate's body appeared to have been handled.
While Krenwinkle is usually described as a follower, she did take the initiative on night 2 in writing the words in blood, stabbing a dead Leno LB with a two-prong meat/carving/barbecue fork, and possibly inserting the (~steak) knife into Leno’s throat. So it leaves open the possibility that she may have done more on night more. She did at least have the opportunity. At a latter Parole Hearing, after LE acquired the Tex tapes, a DDA asked Krenwinkle if she stabbed JS. Why? Did she do more?
Neither Atkins or Watson mention hanging Tate. Atkins mentions in the C&C interview that ST and JS were tied with the rope and that she held it tight. This is very early before stabbing started. Watson says that after tying JS and ST he then shot JS and JS fell.
On direct Noguchi’s “consistent with hanging” statement was sustained. On cross Fitzgerald brings up Noguchi’s hypothesis and Noguchi says that he believes this occurred while Tate was in the dying state.
I disagree with what Noguchi said and don’t know if his rough prior year had any bearing on why he made statements regarding hanging.
If you look at the autopsy, the partial autopsy that is accessible, you will see that on the left side of Tate’s cheek contains two rope burns and that the left side of the neck contains a rope burn. The right side of the neck and the neck under the chin do not contain marks on the skin. The autopsy does not describe major damage to the chin, neck, or hyoid. If you look at the photo of ST and JS tied with the rope, you will see that Tate is lying on her left side. The rope around Tates neck is strung over the beam at about a 70 degree angle. If you were going to hang someone it would require a 90 degree angle. A 90 degree angle could be achieved by Tate moving 3 feet to the left, bedroom side of couch, or if you remove the rope from JS and restring it over Tate’s head. Neither of these scenarios occurred. If Tate was hung 3 feet to the left, bedroom side, there would have been blood on the carpet and marks on her right neck. If Tate were hung towards the middle of the couch: there would have been more blood on the cushions; a mark on her right neck; and the rope would have had to have been moved.
I see three scenarios for making the rope burns on Tate’s left cheek and left neck.
The rope burns on the cheeks may have occurred early on before the stabbing occurred. Either pulling or snapping of the rope or the gravity of Sebring (if he was tied at the point) could have resulted in these wounds.
Or, Tate had a couple of defensive wounds her arm. Atkins held her at least until there was a serious wound inflicted. If she later switched to holding the rope as Watson inflicted more stabs, the rope burns may have occurred then.
Or, after all the wounds were inflicted, and Tate was lying on her left side, that Watson, as he was leaving, saw the rope on the bedroom side of the couch and wondered if he could lift her - and pulled a couple of times and left. Her head and neck would have lifted a little bit and the rope burns would have occurred but not much would have left the floor. This (proposed) action was not a hanging.
Note that neither ST or JS were actually tied with a knot. They were not tied with noose. The rope was wrapped around their necks with overlapping. Similar to hitching a horse. I wonder if Watson had ever been around a horse before?
Shoe, concerning the hooding of Jay, I am reminded of the interview Susan had with Caballero and Caruso on Dec. 1, 1969. In it, one snippet of the conversation has always interested me:
RICHARD CABALLERO: " I know the incident about the towel that you were relating to Mr Caruso, but what I want to ask you is when you did so---" SUSAN ATKINS: "I didn't even look, I just threw it." RICHARD CABALLERO: "So, could it have fallen therefore over Jay Sebring's head as well?" SUSAN ATKINS: "Yes." RICHARD CABALLERO: "Okay, that explains it."
To me, Susan quickly cuts off Caballero when she said that she didn't look, but simply threw the towel. The question here being that if Susan was perhaps becoming uncomfortable with questions about the towel, she may have here been trying to evade speaking more about it, and then simply move on.
Why this may matter is that she may have known very well about Jay being hooded--and by extension, Sharon possibly being suspended. And she may have had a part in both, or was perhaps trying to protect Tex from even further atrocity.
If so, Susan could here be 'lying by omission'. She did this later in the same interview when asked if Manson went looking for another house/victims on the LaBianca night. She lied and said she became tired at that point, and quickly shifted the conversation to other topics.
TorF, on the possibility of Patricia stabbing Jay, I'd say the parole board's question may not have arisen because of the Tex Tapes. From Jay's autopsy, we know that there was a single half- inch wound, noted as wound #7: "left shoulder, measures 1/2 inch skin length; superficial."
I believe this wound is consistent with a buck knife, and due to the superficial nature of it, the parole board may have thought Patricia or Susan inflicted it. This may be why Patricia was asked about it. I believe one of those two probably stabbed Jay on the left shoulder.
Also, we know that Tex was from a small country town, and that as a member of FFA raised at least one calf or more. His mother mentions this at length in her testimony. I would think Tex was familiar with farming and farm animals, including horses. In addition to his usefulness as an auto mechanic, I don't doubt that he was also quite handy at tying nots with rope.
TorF, I'd also say that the killers truly learned of the identity of the Cielo victims the day after on the TV. Susan described in detail the reaction to this in the C&C interview. I believe even the killers were shocked, especially when they learned of the continued emphasis on Sharon's pregnancy in the news.
Susan Atkins established the narrative blueprint, but I believe it to be entirely possible that she purposely left out the forensic hanging of Sharon--and Watson did the same. Why this is is that--even after they were arrested and charged--the killers knew it was likely they would be convicted of murder, but they wanted to hide the fact that they also attempted to string up a very pregnant young woman. Maybe even in their minds they knew this would be seen as especially sick.
Noguchi did testify that Tate was suspend in air for a short about of time as she was dying, though not the cause of death, and also not long enough to break her hyoid bone, but enough for her face to slide on the rope causing the rope burn. The way her face (head) is laying is consistent with that theory because the rope is close to the cheek.
None of the killers mentioned this detail. You can’t overlook that the detail was applied the next night. We know the pillow case wasn’t placed on Leno’s head while he was alive, otherwise detectives and the coroner’s office would have noticed the knife in his throat area.
Susan also said Watson told her to leave while he was in the house with Tate. I have a news paper article from the late 80’s of a reporter that heard the tapes and the reporter quotes Watson on tape by saying “he says cooley on the recording” that Watson said Tate was still alive when he went back in the house and stabbed her 15-16 times.
That leaves Watson in the house alone while Susan and Pat were looking for Linda.
Susan said she was holding Sharon in a chokehold while she was being stabbed so it makes sense as to how what looked like smears on her body…but looking at the photo, the killers must have cleaned her body because there are no visible smears. If Tate ever left the living room and was taken back in, there would be blood…to which there aren’t any trails or spots. Did the killers clean the floor and the scarf (which was really an ascot) was used to clean Sharon’s blood? Was Frykowski attacked on the lawn and was never in the living room….and Susan, and Tex got message to Linda and told Linda she had to testify to what she did and what she claimed she saw?
"While Krenwinkle is usually described as a follower, she did take the initiative on night 2 in writing the words in blood, stabbing a dead Leno LB with a two-prong meat/carving/barbecue fork, and possibly inserting the (~steak) knife into Leno’s throat. So it leaves open the possibility that she may have done more on night more. She did at least have the opportunity. "
I have to go off of my subjective impression of who/what Krenwinkel is, and it's certainly not definitive, but...
She is a strange case, I suspect. A very unattractive young woman, who *knew* it, I believe, and so had sorta collapsed into an embittered and largely passive existence until Manson paid attention to her. Then later, she allowed herself to be "courted" by a biker, and I read that as simply trying to get Manson to demonstrate that he cared.
Now given this, it's my understanding that on the night of the 8th/9th she was told by Watson to take action. I don'gt recall her role inside the house, but she apparently called for aid in killing Folger, and vaguely recall reading that Watson instructed her to check out the guest house, and she did a sort of uninspired job of it, claiming later that she *would* have killed anyone in there, but...
I know almost nothing about the following night, but wonder if Watson again instructed her, but if not, she may have taken a bit of motivation from the evening before, in part to demonstrate to Mason her loyalty and enthusiasm, and also it functioned as a sort of "instruction run" for her to use at LaBianca.
So I'm asking what you think about these two possibilities whe may have taken on the 10th: did Watson first tell her to do something, or did she initiate it herself? If not, do you think she was encouraged by what happened at Cielo, and *how* it transpired, to use this as motivation?
What I'm getting to is that at Cielo, I see no actual evidence of much initiative on her part.
"At a latter Parole Hearing, after LE acquired the Tex tapes, a DDA asked Krenwinkle if she stabbed JS. Why? Did she do more?"
That's got too many "what ifs" for me. It does not disprove it, it just makes it so that I'd never be satisfied that it was solid enough for my tastes.
WRT to Naguchi and the rope burns, I don't really know what to make of him, either, really. I try to never be influenced by personalities, but he is an almost uniquely unlikable--almost repellent--so I have to fight it.
The thing is, while he has beacoup de credentials, I tend to think that he's tailoring his testimony to demonstrate his expertise--like he *needs* this added respect and awe. This comes out as him testifying with too much certainty about events that are uncertain. So with the rope, I can accept his testimony that it caused an abrasion in a couple of places (and that none of them are a knife would, as many reader seem to wish to believe--there's just too much independent conclusion that they're abrasions and not incisions, like with Folger).
I just am none too sure about "agonal states" and "post-mortem states". I think he's coming off as certain in areas where no one can be ascertain as he wishes to portray. So When the "hanging" occurred, and whether it was an actual "hanging" I do not feel this is certain, by any means. The semi-dragging scenario you propose is entirely possible, in my opinion. I especially like the scenario where as Watson left, he tried pulling her up, was getting nowhere with it, and he was eager to leave at that time, so...
WRT to horses, he was at Spahn on and off, and it was a horseride place, so...
WRT to Atkin's interview with Caballero, I don't see it as quite so obviously evasive, whne including the orevious section:
"SUSAN ATKINS: They didn’t put anything over their heads. They didn’t have anything over their heads when we left, except Sharon Tate – I threw a towel over her head.
RICHARD CABALLERO: When you threw the towel over her head, was her head near Sebring’s?
SUSAN ATKINS: Sebring and Sharon Folger —
RICHARD CABALLERO: Sharon Tate.
SUSAN ATKINS: Sharon Tate was laying curled up near the couch and Sebring was coming out this way from the fireplace and their heads were probably close together."
I think the topic was exhausted, so she was moving on.
Also on the topic of the Caballero-Caruso interview, early on they did an interesting thing that in my mind reveals a bit about them, and more about Atkins.
Early on in conversation she tells them that Manson only made love to her six times. Then Caruso says...
PAUL CARUSO: That’s strange. You’re a very attractive girl.
SUSAN ATKINS: Thank you. I’m aware of that.
PAUL CARUSO: Self-confidence. You should have it. That’s why it’s a shame for anybody to put you down because you shouldn’t be put down. You should have self-confidence.
Here they're just buttering her up, seeing how she'd handle the compliments, and noting that she not only ate them up, but in saying that she knows men find her attractive, she is implying that she has a bit of power over Caruso/Caballero--which she doesn't, probably.
I think at most they *might* move their chairs to better peer down her dress, or check out her legs, but that's the extent of it.
So she over-values herself in the sense that a narcissistic personality would, and I suspect the attorneys noted this, sagely.
I have a news paper article where Susan complained about not getting attention from Manson. I’ll dig it up. Because it seems like she reveled in the attention…because it quote her saying she was getting all the attention. That’s reveling as well.
New York Times - Feb 12, 1971. Headline “Manson Disciple Insists She Lied” “In this morning’s session, she said she had first linked Manson to the murders because “Charlie never gave me very much attention,” she said. “Well, I’m getting attention now ... I’m getting attention now.”
I believe even the killers were shocked, especially when they learned of the continued emphasis on Sharon's pregnancy in the news
I see this as paradoxical: certainly, in Atkins' mind, if what she said to Caballero, Caruso, Graham and Howard is true, there was definitely an element of "showing the Black man how to rise up" attached to the Cielo murders. As such, I think the killers were shocked, but shocked in the way the news just ran and ran. I don't think they thought such a thing might happen. I don't think they even thought about it; after all, they'd not really had time to process the reality of being seen as murderers or wanted for murder or facing the gas chamber on the night of August 8th. It was one thing to talk about Helter-Skelter in an acid reverie in the comfort of the Spahn Ranch raps; it was something else altogether to see something one was responsible for go completely out of one's control and to realise the police were looking for you, even if they didn't yet know who you were. Now this was the real world. Helter-Skelter was now here and the reality of battling against 202 million people was front and centre.
Susan Atkins established the narrative blueprint, but I believe it to be entirely possible that she purposely left out the forensic hanging of Sharon--and Watson did the same. Why this is is that--even after they were arrested and charged--the killers knew it was likely they would be convicted of murder, but they wanted to hide the fact that they also attempted to string up a very pregnant young woman. Maybe even in their minds they knew this would be seen as especially sick
Perhaps so, but I've long wondered about this. Is it really any sicker to have hung the very pregnant woman than it was to stick a rope over a beam and then around her neck and pull, so that she couldn't sit down, call her a bitch and tell her to get ready to die and make sure she watched the others die while she was begging for her life and that of her baby ? Then to stab her right in the heart area and 15 more times all over ? Right at the start of the story, Sharon's pregnant state is established. That's why Jay was shot. I would agree completely with your point, had Sharon been hung before being stabbed. That would have been almost beyond the pale. But so much had already happened that one was never going to retreat from in the excess cruelty stakes, that it will always be a mystery as to why it was left out. I think Tex left it out for obvious reasons ¬> after all, he left everything out and faked mental illness and denied that he'd killed anyone at trial, until he finally admitted it. And at the risk of sounding really harsh, the hanging was irrelevant. It did not contribute to the death of Sharon. No one was on trial for hanging. They were on trial for murder.
I see the failure of the intruders--those inside the house, which may exclude Kasabian--to mention the hanging *and* the hooding of Sebring as part and parcel of their general disorientation that evening. I don't think they purposely withheld this, I think they lost it in the jumble. Like Atkins losing her knife.
I would guess that it's possible that they were reluctant to mention the hanging, out of a sense of delicacy, but I think not. Not when you publicly share the ideation that you could, if you wanted to, slice open her abdomen and take the unborn child with you.
Too, if they all remained silent on the same points, it looks like either collusion and agreement--and gosh, the Family sure wasn't very good at that, as far as I can see--or all of the participants found the hanging (and the hooding, I'd suppose) to be equally disagreeable so they, independently, put it out of their minds totally.
None of this sounds like Atkins in jail or with Caruso/Caballero, or Watkins in his book.
The hanging and the hooding happened on the return visit, about 4am. That's why they can't talk about it
That simply cannot be. The rope abrasions happened during the agonal stage, which is the stage in which one is dying. But one of the wounds would have killed her almost instantly. If there was a return visit, for your words to be true, Sharon would have to have been alive for around 3½ hours after the others died and that would mean that the death blow to her would have been administered on that 4am visit. According to David in his part 7 of "A Look At The evidence," Noguchi testified that wound #1 was of the type to mean almost instant death. Conspiracy theories are nearly always done in by the fact that.....they are not true. Still, never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy, eh ?
"wound #1" The wounds were numbered arbitrarily, not in the order that Noguchi thought they were made. So for all we know, wound #1 could have been the last wound inflicted.
This is true, but remember, Sharon had a number of wounds that were in and of themselves fatal, not to mention the cumulative effect of all 16 stab wounds. The wounds were numbered arbitrarily, but that's kind of irrelevant unless you are going to make a case that wound #1 was the last blow and it was struck at 4am. But then, if you go down that path, you have to explain how 4 other fatal {plus 11 non-fatal, yet cumulatively damaging} wounds didn't kill her for those 3½ hours. I think the return visit is going to have to remain what it is, given all of the evidence....a highly improbable fantasy.
88 comments:
This was very interesting, Matt. Was it made specifically as part of a podcast?
I think that this is very good, very interesting. From someone who seems at least "grounded" in normality.
Does anyone know who delivered the trunks, and when? It *seems* like at the back of my mind I read this info, maybe trial transcripts? The actual placement of the trunks has always interested me in trying to determine the sequence of events.
They were delivered sometime on the afternoon of the 8th. Chapman said they weren’t there when she left at 4:30 pm (Source: Helter Skelter) Vargas the gardener, not wanting to wake Sharon from her nap signed for them (source: Helter Skelter) he stayed behind finishing work while David Martinez gave Chapman a ride to the bus station. More than likely he moved them into the house.
Air Dispatch Company is the company that delivered them.
James, so far as you know, did the carrier (Air Dispatch) leave them on the front porch, and Martinez moved them inside?
I don't think it's overly important *who* handled them, just where they ended up being placed inside of 10050.
Fascinated by the idea of "what would I have done?"..the Butterfly Effect...who would have died instead?
Hearst is interesting to listen to. But, I don’t know how much of a story teller he is?
This is not Hearst’s first interview. There are at least 3 out there with one being audio only. His Cielo story is consistent but he makes one major mistake when telling his story. Kanarek did not cross examine him.
In the Manson-TLB trial, direct was by Bugliosi and cross by Shin and Hughes. No redirect. Note Kay was not part of the prosecution at this time.
In the Watson-TLB trial, direct was by Kay and cross by Keith. There was no redirect.
In each trial Hearst testified that he arrived at 7:00 PM, exchanged bikes, knocked at the front door for a long time (maybe 5 minutes) and told Sebring that he exchanged bikes and then left the property. He said that Sebring was carrying a green bottle similar to a 7-up bottle. In the Manson-TLB trial he said that he thinks he rang a doorbell before knocking and he left at 7:20. In the Watson-TLB trial he leaves at 7:15.
Bugliosi describes the times as later to fit his agenda.
In one of the other interviews Hearst mentions two of his brothers.
One brother went to Cielo Drive a couple of years earlier to buy an (exotic) animal from Rudy Altobelli. Rudy made a pass at him during this visit.
Another brother met Peter Fonda at the bike shop and had a significant role in one of Fonda’s films. I’m guessing it may have been, the dud, “Idaho Transfer” which lists a “Kevin Hearst”?
Hearst says that his visit to Cielo Drive was on his 18th birthday, the summer before he started college.
On his 14th birthday, the summer before he started HS, he delivered a package to Lucille Ball. She asked him to carry it to the back yard and there was a surprise party for him.
TorF and all, I was able to locate Dennis Hearst, and he kindly agreed to an interview with me last October. We spoke for an hour, with Dennis doing most of the talking.
I do not have my interview notes with me at the moment, but I'll locate them and review them to add any additional comment here--or perhaps a short post.
I recall he was able to tell me what kind of bike he delivered to Cielo for Abigail. When I asked him, he said he did not have a receipt for the sale of the bike, or a receipt with the date and time on it when he visited Cielo. I believe he also told me that his father knew that Abigail was going out for dinner before 7pm on Friday August 8th, so it would be best if Dennis would go to Cielo at or shortly after that time.
Dennis also told me that he grew up in Benedict Canyon, so he knew the Cielo area well. When I brought up the green glass bottle, he said at the time he figured it to be a 7-UP bottle. He did say, as I recall, that he was a classmate of Marina Habe, and knew her quite well.
When I find my notes I'll have more to share anout my specific questions. In all, Dennis was very pleasant to talk to and he interviewed very well. I'm grateful for his time as well as his interest in speaking about these events.
The timeline on the afternoon of 8-8-69 at 10050 Cielo Drive is complicated because of the trial witnesses stating conflicting times. I have never seen the witness statements that are supposed to be Addendums to the First Progress Report. So we are left with the trial transcripts and HS.
What is generally accepted is the order of certain people coming and going.
The painter left.
Pettit and Lewis left.
AF left.
VF left after AF.
Vargas saw AF and VF leaving as Vargas was driving to the property.
After Vargas arrived, Martinez and Chapman leave.
Vargas signs for the trunks (1.5 hours) after arriving. The trunks were supposed to be left outside on the front door porch. The delivery man leaves.
Vargas leaves.
At the least Jay Sebring arrives.
Hearst exchanges the bikes, tells Sebring and leaves.
The trunks are mentioned by Vargas at the Manson-TLB trial but not at the Watson-TLB trial.
Chapman and Vargas conflict on times and Vargas is real bad with times.
At Manson-TLB Chapman says that AF leaves at 3:45, leaves at 4:00, and Martinez and Chapman leaves at 4:30.
Vargas says that he arrives between 4:30 and 5:00, about 5:30 (which should have been sustained as unintelligible). Bugliosi normalizes this to 5:00. When asked when the trunks arrived, Vargas says 1.5 hours later (6:30). When asked when he left for the day, Vargas says at 6:00. Vargas also says he saw AF and VF leaving, which conflicts with Chapman.
In the Watson-TLB trial Vargas just mentions two times, arriving at 4:30 and leaving at 6:30. No trunks are mentioned.
That guy is peak LA.
Hah!
Like Jerry Dunphy...
TorF, Vargas also said when he saw Abigail leaving that she was driving a convertible. (But Bill Garretson described it as having a black vinyl top). If he is referring to her Firebird, I must say that car is a hardtop. Moreover, I believe Sharon's rental was also a hardtop. So certainly a discrepancy on times, but also on styles of vehicles.
In my interview with Dennis I did ask him if he saw the trunks either outside or perhaps inside the entrance to the house. He said he did not see the trunks at all.
In these interviews:
I believe Hearst says that the bike was a British brand, Raleigh. A blue bike was delivered and she wanted a green bike.
I believe Hearst says that he was not supposed to deliver the bike before 7:30 because they were out having (an early) dinner. This contradicts the official narrative.
Torque, did you ask Hearst if he noticed AF’s car being parked back a few feet more than Sebring’s car.
Another interesting aspect to Friday August 8 at Cielo is the phone records. Tom O'Neil did obtain them and published them on the internet. I was able to make copies of them and set about trying to find the 10pm phone call from Abigail's mother to Cielo.
I did not find it on the two pages of phone records that I could see, but I did learn there were multiple phone lines at Cielo, so obviously different phone numbers and perhaps accounts?
Mrs Folger may have been yet on a return trip from a vacation, with a stopover in Connecticut to visit friends when she made that call. The phone number incoming to Cielo would not have been, then, a supposed San Francisco phone area code.
Perhaps the date and time of that call are in error, or we don't know which of the phone numbers at Cielo she called.
TorF, I don't recall if I asked him about any cars parked at Cielo, but I may have. I'll know more when I find my notes. The fact that Abigail's Firebird was parked back several feet from the fence bordering the lawn and front walk has always puzzled me. I have thoughts on this which I could discuss later.
If I remember correctly, there was an outgoing call to CT 1-2 days before. If the mother made the call on Friday I don’t know if it would be listed on the Cielo line in that the calling phone would be charged unless the charges were reversed. Also, the call may have been earlier if it were from the perspective of EST. But another line adds in other possibilities.
I'd be very interested in these thoughts, and any plausible implications they may evoke.
WRT "...saw Abigail leaving that she was driving a convertible.", and "...described it as having a black vinyl top", it's very easy to mistake these hardtops for a convertible with the top up.
Indeed, some of the later models of vinyl top sedans had ridges designed to emulate the support structure of a canvas convertible top.
So I don't think that this apparent discrepancy is a serious contradiction of the testimony.
It would have either been Martinez or Sebring if the delivery company didn’t do it. The trunks were filled with Sharon and Roman’s clothes and items that they purchased. I
I haven’t listened to this interview in a while, so I’m no sure if Dennis recalled them being outside when he arrived…but I don’t believe they would have been.
Shoe, my thoughts on the position of Abigail's Firebird are basically ones of utility. When looking at images of the Firebird and Jay's car, I see that the walk into the front yard is between the two cars.
Assuming the four took the Firebird only to dinner (as Tarantino's film suggests), the driver(Voytek?), may have parked a few feet back to let Sharon--who may have been in the front seat--exit the car and walk directly to the front yard without walking around the back of the car. This was my gut impression the first time I saw photos of this area.
Too, by looking at aerial views of this area, Steve parent may have avoided parking his car to the right of the Firebird, as it may have blocked the left garage door. This reinforces my view that Steven parked alongside the garage next to the stairs to the room above it.
The limitations of my view, of course, are that I have no hard proof of any of it. We don't know how many cars the four took to dinner, or who actually drove them. And if we look at the autopsy report of stomach contents, only Abigail was found to have any substantial food in her stomach, with Jay and Voytek nearly nothing--and certainly not indicative of a large recently ingested meal.
The available autopsy report on Sharon does not include a description of stomach contents; at least not in the report that I have seen.
In all the position of Abigail's Firebird from an aerial view appears to be half a car length from the fence separating the parking area from the front yard. Taken together, for me this positioning is probably innocent, and served some utilitarian purpose that night.
We know that between 5:30 pm and 6:00 pm Sebring was leaving his residence and going somewhere. That’s confirmed by Amos and Sebrings neighbor (because the neighbor was backing out of the driveway at the time Sebring was leaving and blocked him for a few moments)
It should also be considered that in the first homicide report as I pointed out to George Stimson that Floger’s mother was in Connecticut at the time she called, which would have been 10 pm for her, but 7 pm for Abigail. Since the call was “about 10 pm eastern time” then it was “about” 7 pm pacific time (adjusting for a 15-20 minute difference for the “about”) then it would put Dennis in the time frame he originally stated he saw Sebring because it would make sense that Sebring was handling the exchange for Abigail while she was on the phone with her mother.
We know Abigail was back at Cielo Drive because the phone record shows she called the airline to book the reservation for the flight the next morning at 5:33 pm pacific time. That would have been 8:33 eastern time where her mother was.
I meant Vargas not Martinez. My brains not functioning this morning ha!
"... This reinforces my view that Steven parked alongside the garage next to the stairs to the room above it."
FWIW, this is also what I work from for my default scenario: Parent car parked beside the garage, near stairs.
Looking at it from the POV of a kid of the era--and a fairly straight-laced one, too--he'd want to not cause trouble or inconvenience for the residents of the main house, whose cars were clearly parked in front, nearer the walkway/gate. Too, for a number of reasons this location makes backing into the fence, as he did, more plausible than if he had parked alongside (or behind) Sebring's car.
I also agree with your thoughts on the location of the Firebird, and the possible purposes for its location.
Not sure, Whut. I'm not big on podcasts.
My deep interest in *where* the trunks were placed is based on my current default position that, based on the position of the trunks as we see them in the crimescene photos, and the blood marks and their apparent course of dripping downward on both trunks, I keep coming back to the conclusion that:
1) The trunks were placed to the *left* side of the entryway into the LR (as you stand in the foyer facing the LR) and that they were laid lengthwise on the floor, one on top of the other.
2) The trunks were tipped over later in the struggle, rather than when Frykowski ran/staggered out of the front door.
Not only do the blood traces seem to indicate this, but if indeed Tate made it our of the front door (leaving quite a bit of blood evidence on the flagstones to the left of the doorway, as you face it) if the trunks were already down, getting her back in would have been very, very difficult without leaving more of her blood on the trunks.
Starting with the assumption that she was indeed on the front porch, momentarily or otherwise, there are indeed blood smears on the foyer floor, and at the base of the stone frame of the entryway, as if someone were dragged along the ground, either out or in.
In ether case, the trunks in their position as photographed, with none of her blood on either trunk, would have made this very difficult, hence they were tipped later, after she was back inside.
Now, I realize that positioning the trunks in the location I postulate blocks interior foot traffic much more than if the had been placed, on end, side-by-side, next to the white chair on the *other* side of the entryway, but it's damned hard to ever get the sort of blood trails on them that we see when examining them closely.
Anyway, that's my current thinking.
I've got it bad, don't I? :^)
George Stimson did a recent video that makes it he most sense. Frykowski was wounded on his right and. As he was pulling himself to get out of the house before locking eyes with Linda Kasabian, he had Susan on his back. Being wounded on the right hand would be consistent with someone in the floor already. When Frykowski stands and before he stumbles into the bushes, Watson shoots him and that causes the spray in the front of the doorway.
James D, and let's not forget that one of the two shots to Voytek was a thru-and-thru wound. If it was inflicted while perhaps standing in the front doorway, it may have wound up buried somewhere on the front lawn of Cielo, or maybe went flying down the hillside. Either way that bullet was not found.
It may make one think that with the demolition and reconstruction of the site, it may still be buried somewhere on that property.
That could be be very possible. There were a lot of gafs at the crime scene.
"...When Frykowski stands and before he stumbles into the bushes, Watson shoots him and that causes the spray in the front of the doorway."
Except that none of the blood tested that was taken from the front porch/flagstones was Frykoski's. The spray to the left of the door (as you face it from outside) is Tate's; the blood to the right of the doorway is Sebring's.
https://www.cielodrive.com/first-tate-homicide-report.php
The problem with that is, if Frykowski was Type B blood, where is his blood? Did killers lie about the version of events that night? That would also include Kasabian’s testimony too. After the attack from Atkins…being shot from Watson, being stabbed 51 times and hit in the head 13 times with the butt of the gun, did he just start bleeding when he got to the lawn and died? When looking at the analyzed evidence, The only person at the residence who was hit in the head with the gun, was Frykowski… How can someone who is supposed to be type B bleed type O? The blood that it was found on the grips of the gun was O. Sebring Was kicked in the face, breaking the bridge of his nose and his eyes socket (source CieloDrive.com)
Two sets of documents exist on Frykowski’s blood type. One says he was Type B, And another says No blood was taken for typing.
It sounds like the coroner’s office made a mistake. Which was obvious per the testimony when For example, the numbering of Abigail Folger’s wounds, The numbering of Sebring’s wounds, And then later, discovering that Frykowski had been shot twice.
It’s also worth noting that Noguchi testified that there was no proof that Sharon ever left the living room. She was barefoot and this was something they would’ve noted, had she stepped in blood, They would’ve been able to tell by the bottom of her feet, with collection of dirt and other fibers from the carpet.
From The NY Times, Aug 27, 1970
“ Courtroom observers were left with another puzzle from Mr. Granada's testimony. He identified a large pool of.blood found on the front walk as be ing of the same type as Mr. Sebring's, O “MN.” The three other victims—Abigail Folger, a coffee heiress; Voyteck Fry kowski, a Polish writer and producer, and Steven Parent, an 18‐year‐old friend of Miss Tate's caretaker—all had blood types B “MN.”
Mrs. Linda Kasabian, the state's principal witness, testified previously that she had seen. Mr. Frykowski stagger, bleeding, from the front door and fall in the area of the blood‐stained walk. Mrs. Kasabian said that Charles D. Watson pounced on him there and continued to beat and stab him. Mr. Frykowski's body was found on the lawn.
That’s because the corner’s office made a mistake. Frykowski was really type O and not type B.
There probably are errors in evidence gathering, and possibly some errors in blood evidence gathering/labeling/typing/recording. But let's get back to the blood at the doorway, and the three main areas: as facing the front door, from outside, there's the blood spray/spatter to the left of the doorway, somewhat; there is the large-ish smear/pool just to the right of the door, and the untested smear/pool immediately adjacent to the broken bushes. This last area was not sampled. It seems that Granado assumed it was the same as the large-ish pool.
The typing for the left most (spray/spatter) was O-M (Tate), and the large-ish smear/pool was O-MN (Sebring). That's on the record.
Contrary to that we have Kasabian's testimony that she saw a man emerge from the front door, stand by the support post, and collapse. Did she ever identify him as Frykowski?
I, too, thought that there was an error in typing Frykowski, but we're still left with the fact that the blood to the right of the door was Tate's.
I was unaware that Naguchi testified that there was no proof that Tate left the LR. Are you sure of this?
Was there ever any such findings about the condition of Tate's bare feet, either in testimony, interrogations, or reports?
So yep, it's very hard to explain a) lack of Frykowski blood evidence; and b) Sebring blood evidence on the porch. But I think it's entirely possible, and perhaps even probable, that Tate made it to the door at some point.
James D, Shoe, I think here it would be best to read or reread what I consider to be the best analysis on the blood evidence. This is David's post here on the blog, dated Aug. 28, 2017: "A Look at the Evidence #6: Granado's Big Mistake".
Yes, Linda did say at the trial that she recognized the bleeding man who emerged from the house, and fall into the bushes, to be Voytek.
On the bloody barefoot prints on the front porch, we take it as truth that these footprints belonged to Susan Atkins--because she said she ran thru the blood and wiped her bare feet on the grass. But did she? I know of no other source for the ownership of those footprints than Susan's statement. Although of course it may exist. I have often entertained the thought that those bloody footprints may have belonged to Sharon.
Susan also said she dipped a bath towel in Sharon's blood--inside the house--then went out and wrote on the front door with it. She then said she threw the towel back into the living room, where it may have magically landed on Jay Sebring's head?!
The more arguably probable instrument of that front door writing was the bloody scarf, which was found near Voytek's body in the front yard.
In any case, I'd like to see more discussion after another reading of David's post on the blood evidence.
But that is where I’m gonna have to agree to disagree with you respectfully. Yes. I can pull up the testimony and a news article that states he testified that there was no proof that she ever left the living room. Given that she was barefoot, they would’ve made out of this. What’s also worth reading is his testimony about the coroner’s Office on how crowded it was that day. There were going to be a mistakes made… And clearly many were made.
I have a document where Patricia’s footprint was asked to be given per discovery. Was it Susan’s? Was it Patricia’s? Or could it have been Linda’s because I’m pretty sure that Linda testified that all three girls were barefoot.
Concerning the towel. The first homicide report states that there was a towel between Sebring and Tate… But no towel exist between them and the crime scene photos… However, when looking at the crime scene photos, There is something white Sharon’s feet that could be a towel.
I believe the towel that was on Sebring’s head was done by Watson or Krenwinkle Because it was a detail that was done the next night… Remember, Leno Sadly had a knife in his throat, And it was not discovered until the pillowcase was removed…like the towel on Sebring’s head was tucked under the rope.
James:
I, too, respect your points of view. But to prefer them over my own, I'd need proof and any speculation I'd accept would be my own, independently developed, or compelling concrete support.
So...
"Yes. I can pull up the testimony and a news article that states he testified that there was no proof that she ever left the living room."
That sort of proof would be compelling. Can you reference it?
"Given that she was barefoot, they would’ve made out of this."
It's not completely clear who "they" are in this statement, but if they are investigators/examiners, I'd expect that they wrote it down and that there'd be a reference to it available, or at the very least, a cite to someone knowledgeable mentioning that Tate's feet were examined. Otherwise, it's pure speculation.
"What’s also worth reading is his testimony about the coroner’s Office on how crowded it was that day."
Fine, but if this equates to specific errors made on the bloodwork, it's pure speculation, also.
To change my default position it requires compelling support. Personal opinions are of value as starting points for further examination, and not compelling evidence.
"This is David's post here on the blog, dated Aug. 28, 2017: "A Look at the Evidence #6: Granado's Big Mistake".
I've read the entire series not less than 4 times, and part 6 probably another 3 times. I have also discussed this with David both on this forum, and in private exchanges. Prior to those exchanges I was of an opinion similar to James': that essentially none of the blood evidence was accurate.
I came around to believing that a) it is statistically unlikely to have been flawed enough to invalidate all, or even most, findings and b) given that, it makes more sense to work from the physical evidence and attempt to coordinate it with testimony. interviews, and reports.
There is a great deal of ambiguity in the interviews and testimony. Some of the discrepancies, maybe most of them, are merely forgotten minor omissions or events somewhat out of sequence. I'm trying to get as much of the testimony/oral/written description to sync up with the physical evidence.
I do not think that there was wholesale lying going on. The official narrative is a framework that hold the sequence of events, and I think almost all events are attested to, but the sequence or minor details might be wrong. E.g., "PIG" written with a towel or a scarf.
A case of a serious omission is the towel secured over Sebring's head and basically tied down with the rope. There is no testimonial support for this, and yet there is is, in the photos, and in testimony.
I stand corrected but I’ll post this quote from NY Times article, August 27, 1970
“ An informed source said to day that the prosecution , had “no evidence that Sebring ever left the house” and was at loss to explain the large quan tity of blood that was ap parently his on the front walk.”
I do believe it was said elsewhere about Sharon not leaving the living room. I’ll try to dig it up.
An autopsy tells the story of the deceased’s last day(s) alive. This includes if they had eaten or not, what they ate, etc. With a bloody footprint, they will check the victims feet and if there is a match, investigators and the coroner will examine the feet and it would be in a report.
The trunks have blood drops on the trunks that is labeled as Sebrings blood would be more consistent with Frykowski trying to get out of the house as he was being stabbed from Atkins.
If Sharon or Jay were on the front porch and attacked…where is the trail of blood? Did Watson and co clean the floors? There is no dripping going into the living room, only what’s consistent with Frykowski trying to flee his attackers.
Linda identified the man as Frykowski when he fell and was attacked by Watson. If this story is true, his type is O, and not B. Blood on the broken was O and not B. That would be a mistake from the coroner’s office where the investigators got the blood typing from for the report. A type B blood type person can’t medically bleed another blood type.
Then we have to ask…where is Frykowski’s blood? If he is type B, and Linda, Watson, and Atkins are telling the truth…then the blood on the porch is Frykowski’s and on the walkway. If it’s not true, where is Frykowski’s blood?
James:
This is a very good exchange, in my opinion. Thanks.
I agree that I cannot see any plausible way that Sebring was ever out front.To my eye, he looks as if his body was found right at about the place he was killed, and this is fairly consistent with all testimony. Only Sebring's blood evidence is inconsistent here.
"An autopsy tells the story of the deceased’s last day(s) alive. This includes if they had eaten or not, what they ate, etc. With a bloody footprint, they will check the victims feet and if there is a match, investigators and the coroner will examine the feet and it would be in a report."
So far as checking, it makes sense, but until I see a report, I would not speculate on what was, or wasn't, on Tate's feet.
"The trunks have blood drops on the trunks that is labeled as Sebrings blood would be more consistent with Frykowski trying to get out of the house as he was being stabbed from Atkins."
Yep.I agree.
"If Sharon or Jay were on the front porch and attacked…where is the trail of blood? "
There is an apparent elongated smear on the foyer flagstones (just inside the door) with a similar smear at the base of the stone wall that separated the LR from the foyer. Both smears are Tate's type, in the report.
Just Outside the door, identified as Tate's type:
https://i.imgur.com/A2BnvCl.jpg
Inside the foyer. Note faint smear on floor and smear at the base of the wall.These are identified as Tate's type. Note green arrows.
https://i.imgur.com/lTNYDUh.png
I agree that the lack of Frykowski's blood, even out on the lawn, for christ's sake, right where he's laying, is strongly indicative of any error ***ON FRYKOWSKI'S BLOOD EVIDENCE***. I would not assume from that that the other blood evidence is in error, without some very strong concrete evidence to the contrary
Both of those smears are consistent with Susan’s testimony of fighting with Frykowski, being wounded on the right hand, it is consistent with him being on the flood and she stabbing him in the legs. With this going on, where is the type B blood? The only type B blood that was found was that of Flogers as she ran down the hallway and out the French doors. They are too low to be that of Tate who was stabbed in the leg, she would have to have been stabbed in the ankle or foot for those spots to be hers.
Linda identifying in the locations she said he fell is very compelling that the blood that is mistaken at Tate and Sebring’s is that of his.
Unless all three made this story up?
If not, then it’s a error done by the coroner’s office
Then there would be pooling and dripping, to which there was none.
And don’t forget that Frykowski who was supposed to be type B blood, and the only person beat in the head with the gun, and according to Watson’s testimony, he held the barrel of the gun when beating him in the head, the broken grips had Type O blood. How is this possible? It’s evident he didn’t stab Sebring until they left because type O blood (consistent with Sebring) was found on the gate button…unless that was really Frykowski’s blood too, when Watson stabbed him again before leaving to make sure he was dead and then kicked him in the head…BUT logically, if Sharon did die last, and Watson stabbed her to death, then wouldn’t that blood that’s on the gate button hers?
From Susan Atkins 2 Nights of Murder publication.
“ And, as I hesitated, he reached up and grabbed my hair and started pulling my hair. So I had to fight for my life, as far as I was concerned.
We fell against a chair that was next to the couch. He was fighting and I was kicking him. I was all of a sudden fighting for my life. Wow!
Then I proceeded to stab him five or six times in the leg — but I would say it was in self-defense. I luckily enough had the knife in my hand, because the man was big and with one whack, he could have — wow!
And then while this was going on, Abigail was getting loose and fighting with Katie. And Linda, we found out later, heard some noise and went back down and sat in the car, so we had no watch for the outside.
Well, as this went on, all this confusion, I just don’t remember what happened. Except — I remember seeing the man I had stabbed, trying to go outside. He was yelling — he was yelling for his life.
I was hanging onto him, I think, and I yelled:
“Tex, help me. Do something.”
Then, in the excitement, Tex must have shot him in the back as he was running out, then followed him and hit him over the head with the butt of the gun. It broke the gun handle and the gun wouldn’t work any more. So he began stabbing the man.
While he was stabbing, the man was still screaming. I’m surprised no one heard anything.
The man was pretty much half dead on the porch — that’s where all the blood was, I imagine — before he ever got to the lawn.”
Even she confirms the blood on the porch was that of Frykowski’s.
"If not, then it’s a error done by the coroner’s office."
Big how big an error, James? So big that you feel comfortable about throwing out all of the blood evidence from the front of the house, but everything inside the house is OK? Bear in mind that if one wants to believe that all of the blood out front is from one person, Frykowski, who *might* have actually had type O also (although David did a pretty decent job of convincing me otherwise, but I can't recall the details, nor were there any supporting data), this means that the blood evidence gathers/typers made two separate and distinct mistakes: mistook the Frykowski's hypothetical O-MN (also Sebring's type) for Sebring's then turned around and mistook Frykowski's O-MN for Tate's O-M. Two such mistakes are much less likely than one, especially if Tate has so many unexplained knife wounds that one wonders when and where she got them.
Me, I wouldn't be comfortable with that much speculation. I once was, until kicking it a good deal with David, and reading, re-reading, and re-re-reading Part 6 of his report. The way it looks to me at this point is that the O-MN on the porch is probably misidentified in some fashion. The B, types, and the O-M are valid.
So for the other blood evidence,like the B types, you see no problems, is this correct?
But it;s fine to hve different opinions, that's for sure.
James:
"Then there would be pooling and dripping, to which there was none."
Can you clarify what you're talking about here? Where exactly, and who are we talking about?
Thanks.
James:
"Then, in the excitement, Tex must have shot him in the back as he was running out, then followed him and hit him over the head with the butt of the gun. It broke the gun handle and the gun wouldn’t work any more. So he began stabbing the man.
While he was stabbing, the man was still screaming. I’m surprised no one heard anything.
The man was pretty much half dead on the porch — that’s where all the blood was, I imagine — before he ever got to the lawn.”
Even she confirms the blood on the porch was that of Frykowski’s."
You know that there are three separate blood areas on the porch, I'm sure. It's possible for some to be Tate's and some to be someone else's. Two separate bleeders. And sure enough, that's what the report says: two separate and distinct blood events:
This one to the north end of the porch, ID'ed as Sebring's:
https://i.imgur.com/d9d11mO.jpg
And the one I showed you earlier, identified as Tate's type:
https://i.imgur.com/A2BnvCl.jpg
It's fine if you want to believe that all of them were made by Frykowski. It's not impossible.
TaborFresca and all, I did locate my notes for my interview with Dennis Hearst, dated 28 October 2024. He described the scene at Cielo as very quiet, but did not recall any vehicles parked there. But we must believe Jay's car was there as he answered the door when Dennis arrived with the bike.
The bike Dennis delivered was of course the exchange bike, and it was a Raleigh Superb, which was a three or four speed recreational bicycle. He said the bike he delivered was green, and the original purchased one was blue, however, he said, "I could not swear to it."
Dennis said he placed the bike along the left wall inside of the garage. He went on to say that his father would have performed the exchange himself on Thursday Aug. 7th if Abigail would have called for this purpose. But she called on Friday for the bike to be exchanged. Dennis said his father knew Abigail was to be going out for dinner on Friday Aug. 8th.
Since Dennis grew up in Benedict Canyon, I asked about why Tex may have chose Portola to find a hose to wash off. He told me he feels thst Portola was a good choice because it was easy to turn onto at that place in the road.
We also discussed Marina Habe, who he knew quite well, and related that at one time she drove an MG Midget. He said that he did not know Maureen Serot from Coelo Drive.
Dennis also said that his brother, Michael, knew Rudi Altobelli. At a point 1-3 years prior to the murders, Rudi called Michael to take care of one of Rudi's cats. And in fact it was Michael who instructed his father how to find and activate the gate button at Cielo when he made the original delivery of Abigail's bike.
James:
"BUT logically, if Sharon did die last, and Watson stabbed her to death, then wouldn’t that blood that’s on the gate button hers?"
Can we say with certainty that it isn't?
It looks like for all the O only, as opposed to the O-subtype samples, we don't have definitive evidence to even speculate intelligently unless we have some level of concrete support. The same could be said of the B type blood (Folger or Parent?) except that Parent's body was a long way from the inside of the house and there are no intermediate blood events between his car and the house, nor does he appear to me to have moved or been moved.
So that's an example of finding some concrete supporting evidence for ambiguous blood events. Similarly, I see no definitive supporting evidence that Sebring ever got anywhere other than where he was found, supporting the idea that there's an error in some of the blood typing outside, where his O-MN is found. I*do* have trouble blythely accepting that separate areas tested O-M and O-MN are from the same source, however.
In short, I agree with you that it's likely that much of the O-MN is unreliable, but that the O-M and the B types are OK. I see no reason to think otherwise, based on physical evidence.
When looking at the direct testimony, it’s clear a mistake was made. If the blood is not that of Frykowski’s where is his blood. The type B? How did type O blood get on the broken gun grips from someone who was Type B after being beat in the head with it? It’s medically impossible to bleed two different blood types (trust me I know, my “day job” is in the medical profession…)If Frykowski was Type B, then Type B would be on the broken gun grips. In all the locations he was described in testimony is consistent with the blood type O, not B.
There would be no reason to doubt the other type B blood of Parent and Folger because its consistent with testimony.
And another factor that’s medically and genetically overlooked is that blood types are different in different locations across the world. For example the most common blood type in Poland is type O. Type B comes in in third place. The percentage of type B blood in America is far less than that in Poland.
I no longer live in the United States, I moved to Argentina, and the area I live in, just a few minutes from downtown Buenos Aires, is the “Little Italy” of Argentina. The descendants are of Italian immigrants and the most common blood type in Italy is type A. Many other Argentines have German descent as well, and they have Type A blood. (I know this sounds crazy, but you can look it up but it’s true, as I pointed out this lesser known fact to George Stimson)
James, it looks like you want to say that somehow there is no B-MN evidence present for Frykowski where one would strongly expect to see it, like right next to his body, or anywhere in the house, for that matter.
I agree with this.
I'm not sure if you want to say the O-MN is also his. I would not readily agree. I'd need something concrete.
The draft lottery for those born on 8-8-51 is 49.
Wonder why Hearst says nothing about that?
Grogan on 7-13-51 had 349.
https://www.sss.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/1971-Vietnam-Lottery.pdf
Wow! Brings back memories!!!
So I register for the draft of my 18th birthday, in 1965. If you went to college fulltime and held a 2.0 average (indeed it was harder then) you had 5 years of 2-S deferment.
Then under Nixon came the lottery.
I was in the first lottery ('70) and as I recall I was #4. 10/18/47
Ooops! #5
YEOW!!
Boy did I learn a lot trying to keep from being drafted. Many valuable life lessons.
Regarding the towels at 10050 Cielo drive. My understanding is that there were 3 towels that came into play. Also two sheets may also be in the living room pictures.
The blood report mentions 2 towels that contain type O-M blood (Tate’s type).
G-42 is a yellow towel found in the front of the living room near the trunks.
G-39 is a beige towel found in the (back of the) living room between Tate and Sebring.
There is a white towel that was placed on Sebring’s head, with the rope rapped around the towel near the neck. This towel was not typed for blood.
I believe that the white cloth, that are near the feet of both Tate and Sebring, are bed sheets. Some have thought that may be Tate’s nighty and a runner that may have been placed on the piano. I believe they are sheets.
G-42 can be seen in two photos.
If you look at the photo with the man (maybe Garanado) pointing to blood in the foyer and look directly above his head you can see a glimpse of the towel.
https://web.archive.org/web/20191011025214/http://cielodrive.com/photo-archive/blood-near-door.php
If you look at the photo showing the two pieces of the gun grip under the chair you can see a clear picture of the same towel (G-42).
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/2927/Pt9G6j.jpg
If you look at the photo showing the towel on Sebring’s head, you will see it’s a shade of white.
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/6482/dJPG6W.jpg
If you look at the photo that shows Tate and Sebring connected to rope, you will see a white towel on his head and a white cloth near his feet; and a white cloth near her feet.
Near the fireplace there is a container and the beige towel, G-39, is near it.
I believe that someone in LE placed white towels over the bodies. The coroners and detectives did not arrive until the early afternoon.
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/922/6o8plZ.jpg
If you look at the photo showing the flag on the couch and the fireplace, you can see G-39 on the floor in front of the fireplace (on the right and below the barbecue).
https://web.archive.org/web/20191011055818/http://cielodrive.com/photo-archive/10050-cielo-drive-couch.php
How the white towel got on Sebring’s head is a mystery.
In the book Roman, by Roman Polanski, he said :
“He had not been sexually mutilated, nor was there any hood over his head, just a cloth one of the policemen had used to cover his face because his wounds were so appalling.”
https://archive.org/details/roman0000pola_b8d7
Note you can search webarchive books without checking the book out.
If Roman was duped by LE or if he is just being creative, Krenwinkle had the (unaccounted) time to do it while Watson was stabbing Tate while Atkins held her (Tate).
Since there were two towels with Tate’s blood, it could explain how Tate could have been stabbed near the front door and made it back to the couch area without leaving a trail. She had a towel with her.
TorF, yes, good explanation on the towels in the living room. We know Susan said she initially used a towel to tie Voytek's hands, which she may have found in one of the bathrooms or the linen closet in the hall outside Abigail and Voytek's room.
It may not be a stretch to say that sheets may also have been used by LE to cover the bodies of Sharon and Jay. It is clearly evident in many photographs that the bodies of Abigail and Voytek were covered by sheets on the front lawn.
Even though towels in the living room tested positive for Sharon's blood, I believe it is doubtful that there was enough blood on any one of those towels to be the writing instrument for the front door.
T0F:
"If you look at the photo with the man (maybe Garanado) pointing to blood in the foyer and look directly above his head you can see a glimpse of the towel.
https://web.archive.org/web/20191011025214/http://cielodrive.com/photo-archive/blood-near-door.php
And then the most common photos of ghe trunk show no towels:
Trunks
So one wonders if the towels had been there before the above photo was taken, and then removed, or the common photo was as the investigators found the trunks, and someone--maybe Granando--had been handling the towel, then put it down on the trunk when he stopped over for the photo you supplied.
Anyone have any ideas? I don't think it's pivotal--I just like to explore all the stuff.
"I believe that someone in LE placed white towels over the bodies."
That seems very plausible to me.
"If you look at the photo showing the flag on the couch and the fireplace, you can see G-39 on the floor in front of the fireplace (on the right and below the barbecue)."
Yes. What you you suppose the blackish textile object is on the chair to the left? It's also on the previous photo. Looks like maybe a man's jacket...
"Since there were two towels with Tate’s blood, it could explain how Tate could have been stabbed near the front door and made it back to the couch area without leaving a trail. She had a towel with her."
Yes, this is an interesting angle.
Really, the towel wrapped over Sebring's head, then the rope looped around it, the glasses, and the putative placement of the trunks before the fracas, and when they went over, are all very puzzling.
So far as I'm concerned, none of these issues is fundamental: I think the basic "official" narrative is pretty close to what happened. It's just interesting trying to fill in the blanks on the narrative as they coincide witht he physical evidence.
"It may not be a stretch to say that sheets may also have been used by LE to cover the bodies of Sharon and Jay. It is clearly evident in many photographs that the bodies of Abigail and Voytek were covered by sheets on the front lawn."
Yes. Exactly. It is as if it was a part of the standard procedure in cases of violent death.
While we're talking about the towels and sheets, etc., does anyone have a favored scenario that explains the opened Buck knife between a cushion and a chair back? As I recall, it had been unused...no traces of blood.
I believe there was a smudge of some kind on that knife, Shoe. No fingerprints and standing blade up in that chair in the living room. Since the first time I learned about that knife I learned that Susan Atkins made much ado about it, claiming that she lost it in the struggle. I do not say I doubt this, yet it was found to be without fingerprints. None of the killers admitted to using gloves, so it has always seemed odd to me that the knife could have been found without either prints or blood on it.
We do know, of course, that both Tex and Patricia left prints at Cielo. So if gloves were in use, why not wear them when gaining entrance to the house, or when chasing Abigail as she ran out the doors to the pool, where the prints were found?
Torque:
It's certaintly odd that there were no prints, because to simply extend the blade, as it was found,requires you to grasp the knife in both handles and pull the blade out (folded, pocket knife-style) with one hand.
So far as what was on the blade, I can recall reading that it was a substance that led me at the time to think that it was inorganic, but did not seem to be a cleaning agent of some sort. I'd guess it was a thin residue of whatever the knife had been previous used to cut back at Spahn, most likely.
This issue with "no prints" makes me wonder if there were zero prints, at all, or there were no usable prints. This speaks to a larger question: what the language used in the reports more-or-less uniform, or was it more individual and subjective? If true, it might lead us to believe that there were many, many more areas of unusable print traces that are now generally understood to be entire devoid of prints of any kind, leading to speculation about a "clean-up"visit by Manson.
I'm working entirely from memory on many of these details. I've got so damned much stuff I've dragged out over the years or bookmarked, but it's poorly organized.
Back to the knife. If it had *unusable* prints, it would then make a clearer, less mysterious scenario. One of the Manson group opened the blade at some point, probably before entry into the house, but lost it at some point.
Shoe, yes. I am of the opinion that the circumstances surrounding the knife were probably not nefarious. There may well be a simple explanation to this object. Perhaps that same thinking can be applied to the eyeglasses found in the living room, or other objects.
"Perhaps that same thinking can be applied to the eyeglasses found in the living room, or other objects."
I tend to agree, T.
It's funny how the unexplained aspects function as a sort of rorschach test for the TLB readership. It tends to split along the lines of people looking for added mystery/conspiracy and hence *drama*--"Aha! Do I see the fine hand of Voldemort here? The Illuminati?..."--or those who simply want to find the most plausible explanation for the unresolved elements of the case--"What's the most parsimonious way this might this be explained given the evidence and the context"? That then becomes the default, to be amended as new information dictates.
never heard nada from Grim my ignorant friend
The clasp Buck knife found on the right soft chair was visually looked at by Garanado and he said that he could not see any blood but the blade appeared to have fatty tissue on it. Before testing it for blood, he set it aside for fingerprinting by Boen. Boen, was the fingerprint guy who lifted the front door Watson print and bedroom-pool door Krenwinkle print. The clasp Buck knife handle did contain a print but the combination of of number of points and clearness was not enough to classify it as a useable print. When Garanado tested for blood after fingerprinting he found none but he didn’t know if the fingerprint powder affected the test.
The clasp Buck knife was brought to Spahn by Kasabian and according to DeCarlo it was the only one he had ever seen. While Atkins believed that there were four knives, because everyone was supposed to bring one, the official narrative says there were only three. The three knives are supposed to consist of of: the clasp Buck knife: a Buck knife with electrical tape on a broken handle; and a third knife. Noguchi has said that many of the knife wounds are consistent with a bayonet, but no one has said there was a bayonet on night one. Guinn has written that Krenwinkle did not bring a knife with her (he interviewed her).
What happened with the knives is nearly as ambiguous as the blood trail. A starting point for the Buck clasp knife is that Atkins lost it while fighting with VF. Since she said she blindly (backwards) stabbed at VF and may have stabbed VF in the legs and/or the soft chair, this is the start of various scenarios. What complicates it is: that VF does have multiple stab wounds in the legs; there is no blood on the knife (but possibly fatty tissue); and there is no blood trail.
One possibility is that Atkins did stab VF in the legs just a couple of times and not much blood came out and what came of was absorbed by the Indian mod-style pants worn by VF. The pants would have partially cleaned the knife blade and the blade was further cleaned by stabbing the soft chair. Watkins inflicted most of the leg wounds. David’s article ~Scarlet discusses this knife.
Regarding dark/black cloth-like material on left soft chair.
I believe there may be a jacket/blazer/coat on that chair.
The property report says that Sebring had placed a (?navy-)blue jacket on a living room chair and it contained a wallet with $80. Ed Sanders describes it as being placed over a high back chair near the desk but it isn’t there in the 1-2 pictures that I have seen nor does it appear in any of the other pictures showing chairs. If the jacket is a dark navy-blue then maybe it was on the left soft chair? Other possibilities include SID contaminating the picture by laying their coat down. The photographer and Finken (coroner’s office) are two that come to mind. Of course it could be something completely different.
Question? Does anybody know the names of the two men removing Tate’s body from the house? There is a younger blond and a black guy. As a starting point I’ll guess that they are Finken (blond) and Johnson (black) - both of who work for the coroner’s office.
Thanks, ToF. This is all very good. It helps refresh my memory (somewhat).
WRT to the Buck knife's lack of blood, I now vaguely recall the sequence of investigation in which I came to realize that any tissue of any kind may have been obliterated/obscured by the finger printing techs, and that the substance described on the blade may very well have been the print highlghting medium (power as seen on the front door & elsewhere).
So I'd think that we can't drawn a firm conclusion about whether or not that knife had actually drawn blood. Given what we have, I'd surmise that it likely had, but only just barely over 50-50. In a way it seems, from the detail of Atkin's narratives, that she would have mentioned if she had knowingly lost it early, hence no tissue/blood. So I tend to think she tussed a bit and likely did draw blood, but as you propose, it may have been very little and subsequently wiped clean later in the struggle.
I mean, ultimately, it's a small detail because sure enough, all of the people in the house were stabbed.
In the course of trying to reconcile the narrative(s) with the evidence, two things have often jumped out at me: a) no one has ever clearly mentioned hanging Tate momentarily; and b) no one addresses the "hood-like" arrangement of the towel over Sebring's head.
For a while I thought it was maybe a reluctance to admit to sort of "ritualizing" the murder--seemed like it was not simply murder, but a planned scene of evilly motivated carnage. But gradually I have moved from that, and a part of it is that they've all mentioned and essentially taken "credit" for comparably demented acts--like entertaining slicing the baby our of Tate's womb, or taunting her with "I have no pity for you".
Plus, actually creating a ritual killing scenario was largely what they said that Manson had instructed them to do.
So gradually I've set a soft default: they do not clearly remember all the acts and the actual sequence in which they were performed. It's a sort of mental jumble--and probably was even as early as the next day--and it has deteriorated from there.
Last question...
Somewhere in this thread someone mentioned that maybe Krenwinkel had time to go back in and place the towel on Sebring, near the conclusion of the invasion/murders. Instantly this strung a wrong cord, and it's because of all the main participants, Krenwinkel seems maybe the least likely to take any initiative. By this I don't mean she was reluctant, but she was basically an embittered follower--little personal agency, led around by stronger characters.
This by no means proves anything...
What do you think?
I stated that it had to have been Watson or Krenwinkle because that detail was applied the next night. Only two people would know to bind the pillowcase around Leno’s head as it was done with Sebring (the towel under the rope) if it wasn’t Krenwinkle, it was Watson.
James:
"I stated that it had to have been Watson or Krenwinkle because that detail was applied the next night. Only two people would know to bind the pillowcase around Leno’s head as it was done with Sebring (the towel under the rope) if it wasn’t Krenwinkle, it was Watson."
It would be interesting to speculate from this a bit--no real way to verify any of it, but that's just a fact of life in this discussion group.
If we go with the idea that Krenwinkle was not likely to direct herself to take independent and imaginative action--like go back in and decide to hood Sebring--it would point to Watson.
This is of course assuming that the two pillow bindings were definitively associated with the same person. But let's go with it...
So it follows that if Watson did it in both places, here we have the hanging of Tate and the hooding of Sebring both done by the same person who has never even hinted that he did either. He admits in his book that he cut Tate on the face (I think he's conflating this with slicing Folger), so he's not reluctant to admit to brutality, so I'm guessing he just plain got everything scrambled in his head.
But we can now also speculate as to the timing of all this, and coincide it with the fact that no one else recalls the hanging or the hooding.
He may have come in after everyone else was out, made a quick pass, to check, recalled Manson's injunction to make it look bad, real bad, and he then quickly hooded Sebring and briefly tried to hang Tate. He came back out and told Atkins to write something witchy.
A quick way to falsify this hypothetical would be to consider where Tate's body was found in relation to the support beam over which the rope was hung. I can recall that both she and Sebring were fairly close, but can you in your mind's eye imagine that her body is *close enough* that yep, the last thing he did was try to hang her, failed, and basically set her down close by, next to the sofa? Then, as leaving, realized that it wasn't good enough and told Atkins to write something? It likely would have been too dark to clearly see where the towel she says she threw back in landed,and now there's no need to suppose that it somehow landed on Sebring's head. It mostly likely did not.
This would also handily account for the appearance, noted by the instigators, that Tate's body appeared to have been handled.
What do you think, James?
While Krenwinkle is usually described as a follower, she did take the initiative on night 2 in writing the words in blood, stabbing a dead Leno LB with a two-prong meat/carving/barbecue fork, and possibly inserting the (~steak) knife into Leno’s throat. So it leaves open the possibility that she may have done more on night more. She did at least have the opportunity. At a latter Parole Hearing, after LE acquired the Tex tapes, a DDA asked Krenwinkle if she stabbed JS. Why? Did she do more?
Neither Atkins or Watson mention hanging Tate. Atkins mentions in the C&C interview that ST and JS were tied with the rope and that she held it tight. This is very early before stabbing started.
Watson says that after tying JS and ST he then shot JS and JS fell.
On direct Noguchi’s “consistent with hanging” statement was sustained. On cross Fitzgerald brings up Noguchi’s hypothesis and Noguchi says that he believes this occurred while Tate was in the dying state.
I disagree with what Noguchi said and don’t know if his rough prior year had any bearing on why he made statements regarding hanging.
If you look at the autopsy, the partial autopsy that is accessible, you will see that on the left side of Tate’s cheek contains two rope burns and that the left side of the neck contains a rope burn. The right side of the neck and the neck under the chin do not contain marks on the skin. The autopsy does not describe major damage to the chin, neck, or hyoid. If you look at the photo of ST and JS tied with the rope, you will see that Tate is lying on her left side. The rope around Tates neck is strung over the beam at about a 70 degree angle. If you were going to hang someone it would require a 90 degree angle. A 90 degree angle could be achieved by Tate moving 3 feet to the left, bedroom side of couch, or if you remove the rope from JS and restring it over Tate’s head. Neither of these scenarios occurred. If Tate was hung 3 feet to the left, bedroom side, there would have been blood on the carpet and marks on her right neck. If Tate were hung towards the middle of the couch: there would have been more blood on the cushions; a mark on her right neck; and the rope would have had to have been moved.
I see three scenarios for making the rope burns on Tate’s left cheek and left neck.
The rope burns on the cheeks may have occurred early on before the stabbing occurred. Either pulling or snapping of the rope or the gravity of Sebring (if he was tied at the point) could have resulted in these wounds.
Or, Tate had a couple of defensive wounds her arm. Atkins held her at least until there was a serious wound inflicted. If she later switched to holding the rope as Watson inflicted more stabs, the rope burns may have occurred then.
Or, after all the wounds were inflicted, and Tate was lying on her left side, that Watson, as he was leaving, saw the rope on the bedroom side of the couch and wondered if he could lift her - and pulled a couple of times and left. Her head and neck would have lifted a little bit and the rope burns would have occurred but not much would have left the floor. This (proposed) action was not a hanging.
Note that neither ST or JS were actually tied with a knot. They were not tied with noose. The rope was wrapped around their necks with overlapping. Similar to hitching a horse. I wonder if Watson had ever been around a horse before?
Shoe, concerning the hooding of Jay, I am reminded of the interview Susan had with Caballero and Caruso on Dec. 1, 1969. In it, one snippet of the conversation has always interested me:
RICHARD CABALLERO: " I know the incident about the towel that you were relating to Mr Caruso, but what I want to ask you is when you did so---"
SUSAN ATKINS: "I didn't even look, I just threw it."
RICHARD CABALLERO: "So, could it have fallen therefore over Jay Sebring's head as well?"
SUSAN ATKINS: "Yes."
RICHARD CABALLERO: "Okay, that explains it."
To me, Susan quickly cuts off Caballero when she said that she didn't look, but simply threw the towel. The question here being that if Susan was perhaps becoming uncomfortable with questions about the towel, she may have here been trying to evade speaking more about it, and then simply move on.
Why this may matter is that she may have known very well about Jay being hooded--and by extension, Sharon possibly being suspended. And she may have had a part in both, or was perhaps trying to protect Tex from even further atrocity.
If so, Susan could here be 'lying by omission'. She did this later in the same interview when asked if Manson went looking for another house/victims on the LaBianca night. She lied and said she became tired at that point, and quickly shifted the conversation to other topics.
TorF, on the possibility of Patricia stabbing Jay, I'd say the parole board's question may not have arisen because of the Tex Tapes. From Jay's autopsy, we know that there was a single half- inch wound, noted as wound #7: "left shoulder, measures 1/2 inch skin length; superficial."
I believe this wound is consistent with a buck knife, and due to the superficial nature of it, the parole board may have thought Patricia or Susan inflicted it. This may be why Patricia was asked about it. I believe one of those two probably stabbed Jay on the left shoulder.
Also, we know that Tex was from a small country town, and that as a member of FFA raised at least one calf or more. His mother mentions this at length in her testimony. I would think Tex was familiar with farming and farm animals, including horses. In addition to his usefulness as an auto mechanic, I don't doubt that he was also quite handy at tying nots with rope.
TorF, I'd also say that the killers truly learned of the identity of the Cielo victims the day after on the TV. Susan described in detail the reaction to this in the C&C interview. I believe even the killers were shocked, especially when they learned of the continued emphasis on Sharon's pregnancy in the news.
Susan Atkins established the narrative blueprint, but I believe it to be entirely possible that she purposely left out the forensic hanging of Sharon--and Watson did the same. Why this is is that--even after they were arrested and charged--the killers knew it was likely they would be convicted of murder, but they wanted to hide the fact that they also attempted to string up a very pregnant young woman. Maybe even in their minds they knew this would be seen as especially sick.
Noguchi did testify that Tate was suspend in air for a short about of time as she was dying, though not the cause of death, and also not long enough to break her hyoid bone, but enough for her face to slide on the rope causing the rope burn. The way her face (head) is laying is consistent with that theory because the rope is close to the cheek.
None of the killers mentioned this detail. You can’t overlook that the detail was applied the next night. We know the pillow case wasn’t placed on Leno’s head while he was alive, otherwise detectives and the coroner’s office would have noticed the knife in his throat area.
Susan also said Watson told her to leave while he was in the house with Tate. I have a news paper article from the late 80’s of a reporter that heard the tapes and the reporter quotes Watson on tape by saying “he says cooley on the recording” that Watson said Tate was still alive when he went back in the house and stabbed her 15-16 times.
That leaves Watson in the house alone while Susan and Pat were looking for Linda.
To the best of my recollection, No one mentioned the knife in Leno’s throat…which is another omission.
Susan said she was holding Sharon in a chokehold while she was being stabbed so it makes sense as to how what looked like smears on her body…but looking at the photo, the killers must have cleaned her body because there are no visible smears.
If Tate ever left the living room and was taken back in, there would be blood…to which there aren’t any trails or spots. Did the killers clean the floor and the scarf (which was really an ascot) was used to clean Sharon’s blood? Was Frykowski attacked on the lawn and was never in the living room….and Susan, and Tex got message to Linda and told Linda she had to testify to what she did and what she claimed she saw?
ToF:
"While Krenwinkle is usually described as a follower, she did take the initiative on night 2 in writing the words in blood, stabbing a dead Leno LB with a two-prong meat/carving/barbecue fork, and possibly inserting the (~steak) knife into Leno’s throat. So it leaves open the possibility that she may have done more on night more. She did at least have the opportunity. "
I have to go off of my subjective impression of who/what Krenwinkel is, and it's certainly not definitive, but...
She is a strange case, I suspect. A very unattractive young woman, who *knew* it, I believe, and so had sorta collapsed into an embittered and largely passive existence until Manson paid attention to her. Then later, she allowed herself to be "courted" by a biker, and I read that as simply trying to get Manson to demonstrate that he cared.
Now given this, it's my understanding that on the night of the 8th/9th she was told by Watson to take action. I don'gt recall her role inside the house, but she apparently called for aid in killing Folger, and vaguely recall reading that Watson instructed her to check out the guest house, and she did a sort of uninspired job of it, claiming later that she *would* have killed anyone in there, but...
I know almost nothing about the following night, but wonder if Watson again instructed her, but if not, she may have taken a bit of motivation from the evening before, in part to demonstrate to Mason her loyalty and enthusiasm, and also it functioned as a sort of "instruction run" for her to use at LaBianca.
So I'm asking what you think about these two possibilities whe may have taken on the 10th: did Watson first tell her to do something, or did she initiate it herself? If not, do you think she was encouraged by what happened at Cielo, and *how* it transpired, to use this as motivation?
What I'm getting to is that at Cielo, I see no actual evidence of much initiative on her part.
"At a latter Parole Hearing, after LE acquired the Tex tapes, a DDA asked Krenwinkle if she stabbed JS. Why? Did she do more?"
That's got too many "what ifs" for me. It does not disprove it, it just makes it so that I'd never be satisfied that it was solid enough for my tastes.
WRT to Naguchi and the rope burns, I don't really know what to make of him, either, really. I try to never be influenced by personalities, but he is an almost uniquely unlikable--almost repellent--so I have to fight it.
The thing is, while he has beacoup de credentials, I tend to think that he's tailoring his testimony to demonstrate his expertise--like he *needs* this added respect and awe. This comes out as him testifying with too much certainty about events that are uncertain. So with the rope, I can accept his testimony that it caused an abrasion in a couple of places (and that none of them are a knife would, as many reader seem to wish to believe--there's just too much independent conclusion that they're abrasions and not incisions, like with Folger).
I just am none too sure about "agonal states" and "post-mortem states". I think he's coming off as certain in areas where no one can be ascertain as he wishes to portray. So When the "hanging" occurred, and whether it was an actual "hanging" I do not feel this is certain, by any means. The semi-dragging scenario you propose is entirely possible, in my opinion. I especially like the scenario where as Watson left, he tried pulling her up, was getting nowhere with it, and he was eager to leave at that time, so...
WRT to horses, he was at Spahn on and off, and it was a horseride place, so...
Great exchange, FWIW...
Torque:
WRT to Atkin's interview with Caballero, I don't see it as quite so obviously evasive, whne including the orevious section:
"SUSAN ATKINS: They didn’t put anything over their heads. They didn’t have anything over their heads when we left, except Sharon Tate – I threw a towel over her head.
RICHARD CABALLERO: When you threw the towel over her head, was her head near Sebring’s?
SUSAN ATKINS: Sebring and Sharon Folger —
RICHARD CABALLERO: Sharon Tate.
SUSAN ATKINS: Sharon Tate was laying curled up near the couch and Sebring was coming out this way from the fireplace and their heads were probably close together."
I think the topic was exhausted, so she was moving on.
Torque:
Also on the topic of the Caballero-Caruso interview, early on they did an interesting thing that in my mind reveals a bit about them, and more about Atkins.
Early on in conversation she tells them that Manson only made love to her six times. Then Caruso says...
PAUL CARUSO: That’s strange. You’re a very attractive girl.
SUSAN ATKINS: Thank you. I’m aware of that.
PAUL CARUSO: Self-confidence. You should have it. That’s why it’s a shame for anybody to put you down because you shouldn’t be put down. You should have self-confidence.
Here they're just buttering her up, seeing how she'd handle the compliments, and noting that she not only ate them up, but in saying that she knows men find her attractive, she is implying that she has a bit of power over Caruso/Caballero--which she doesn't, probably.
I think at most they *might* move their chairs to better peer down her dress, or check out her legs, but that's the extent of it.
So she over-values herself in the sense that a narcissistic personality would, and I suspect the attorneys noted this, sagely.
I have a news paper article where Susan complained about not getting attention from Manson. I’ll dig it up. Because it seems like she reveled in the attention…because it quote her saying she was getting all the attention. That’s reveling as well.
New York Times - Feb 12, 1971.
Headline “Manson Disciple Insists She Lied”
“In this morning’s session, she said she had first linked Manson to the murders because “Charlie never gave me very much attention,” she said. “Well, I’m getting attention now ... I’m getting attention now.”
ColScott said:
never heard nada from Grim my ignorant friend
Patience, matey boy, patience....
Torque said:
I believe even the killers were shocked, especially when they learned of the continued emphasis on Sharon's pregnancy in the news
I see this as paradoxical: certainly, in Atkins' mind, if what she said to Caballero, Caruso, Graham and Howard is true, there was definitely an element of "showing the Black man how to rise up" attached to the Cielo murders. As such, I think the killers were shocked, but shocked in the way the news just ran and ran. I don't think they thought such a thing might happen. I don't think they even thought about it; after all, they'd not really had time to process the reality of being seen as murderers or wanted for murder or facing the gas chamber on the night of August 8th. It was one thing to talk about Helter-Skelter in an acid reverie in the comfort of the Spahn Ranch raps; it was something else altogether to see something one was responsible for go completely out of one's control and to realise the police were looking for you, even if they didn't yet know who you were. Now this was the real world. Helter-Skelter was now here and the reality of battling against 202 million people was front and centre.
Susan Atkins established the narrative blueprint, but I believe it to be entirely possible that she purposely left out the forensic hanging of Sharon--and Watson did the same. Why this is is that--even after they were arrested and charged--the killers knew it was likely they would be convicted of murder, but they wanted to hide the fact that they also attempted to string up a very pregnant young woman. Maybe even in their minds they knew this would be seen as especially sick
Perhaps so, but I've long wondered about this. Is it really any sicker to have hung the very pregnant woman than it was to stick a rope over a beam and then around her neck and pull, so that she couldn't sit down, call her a bitch and tell her to get ready to die and make sure she watched the others die while she was begging for her life and that of her baby ? Then to stab her right in the heart area and 15 more times all over ? Right at the start of the story, Sharon's pregnant state is established. That's why Jay was shot. I would agree completely with your point, had Sharon been hung before being stabbed. That would have been almost beyond the pale. But so much had already happened that one was never going to retreat from in the excess cruelty stakes, that it will always be a mystery as to why it was left out. I think Tex left it out for obvious reasons ¬> after all, he left everything out and faked mental illness and denied that he'd killed anyone at trial, until he finally admitted it. And at the risk of sounding really harsh, the hanging was irrelevant. It did not contribute to the death of Sharon. No one was on trial for hanging. They were on trial for murder.
Grim:
Good discussion, as usual.
I see the failure of the intruders--those inside the house, which may exclude Kasabian--to mention the hanging *and* the hooding of Sebring as part and parcel of their general disorientation that evening. I don't think they purposely withheld this, I think they lost it in the jumble. Like Atkins losing her knife.
I would guess that it's possible that they were reluctant to mention the hanging, out of a sense of delicacy, but I think not. Not when you publicly share the ideation that you could, if you wanted to, slice open her abdomen and take the unborn child with you.
Too, if they all remained silent on the same points, it looks like either collusion and agreement--and gosh, the Family sure wasn't very good at that, as far as I can see--or all of the participants found the hanging (and the hooding, I'd suppose) to be equally disagreeable so they, independently, put it out of their minds totally.
None of this sounds like Atkins in jail or with Caruso/Caballero, or Watkins in his book.
The hanging and the hooding happened on the return visit, about 4am. That's why they can't talk about it.
starviego said:
The hanging and the hooding happened on the return visit, about 4am. That's why they can't talk about it
That simply cannot be. The rope abrasions happened during the agonal stage, which is the stage in which one is dying. But one of the wounds would have killed her almost instantly. If there was a return visit, for your words to be true, Sharon would have to have been alive for around 3½ hours after the others died and that would mean that the death blow to her would have been administered on that 4am visit. According to David in his part 7 of "A Look At The evidence," Noguchi testified that wound #1 was of the type to mean almost instant death.
Conspiracy theories are nearly always done in by the fact that.....they are not true.
Still, never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy, eh ?
"wound #1" The wounds were numbered arbitrarily, not in the order that Noguchi thought they were made. So for all we know, wound #1 could have been the last wound inflicted.
This is true, but remember, Sharon had a number of wounds that were in and of themselves fatal, not to mention the cumulative effect of all 16 stab wounds. The wounds were numbered arbitrarily, but that's kind of irrelevant unless you are going to make a case that wound #1 was the last blow and it was struck at 4am. But then, if you go down that path, you have to explain how 4 other fatal {plus 11 non-fatal, yet cumulatively damaging} wounds didn't kill her for those 3½ hours.
I think the return visit is going to have to remain what it is, given all of the evidence....a highly improbable fantasy.
Post a Comment