A number of people have been quoted over the years saying "Sharon wasn't supposed to be there" (at Cielo the night of the murders) or words to that effect.
The Family, by Ed Sanders (2002 edition) pg512
She(Doris Tate) believed that the Manson group had advance word
that Sharon Tate was not going to be at the house that night. ... we
learned Sharon had intended to spend the night with a friend.
Manson
associate Vern Plumlee had told us that he'd heard the Family thought
she wouldn't be there. My recollection was that on one point during the
trial, Krenwinkle had hinted to one of the attorneys that Sharon wasn't
supposed to be there.
Susan Atkins' lawyer has also spoken words to the effect that Sharon wasn't supposed to be there; presumably Susan told her this. Also Sandy:
From PaulcastVanIsle:
waxidermy.com/dr-jaques-hondorus-within-a-cosmic-odyssey/
comments: Bently Merrick November 10, 2013
In
the 1973 documentary titled “Manson,” Jaques Hondorus was mentioned as
someone who had warned one of his ‘students’ Sharon Tate to leave her home and not to return. Hondorus was also a mentor to the director of that documentary, Robert Hendrickson.
This
mirrored what a man named Vern Plumlee (a confidant of Charles Manson)
had stated, as well as the lone survivor of the murders (who was living
in the guest house) William Garretson. Vern said that he was told that Sharon was asked to leave and Garretson said that a man in a car told him to leave, and to make sure everyone is gone from the home.
These are puzzling statements, as they imply that the Mansonoids had advance intelligence on who would be up at Cielo, even before the murders occurred. And this further implies that the victims were deliberately targeted, as Krenny once claimed.
Krenwinkel January 20, 2011 Parole Hearing Transcript pg46
INMATE KRENWINKEL: I did know that that was, the plan was to murder two women inside the house. That was given, was a given.
Or another interpretation might be that this was an attempt at victim-blaming. Mansonoid: "Well it wasn't our fault that Sharon decided to break her date with Sheila Wells to spend the night at her house, so you can't blame us for her death."
-----------------------------------
And that's about all I have on this topic. If you have any citations to add, please do so.
50 comments:
Well, after the first part of this post I was rolling my eyes lol Vern Plumee, Ed Sanders, are not very reliable sources in my opinion. Of course Susan and Sandy are going to find some excuse to explain away the most heinous and cruel part of these crimes. Nothing at all credible to me.....
However the bottom part was a little more interesting. I am going to go back and reread that Krenwinkle parole transcript. I dont ever remember that? Pat's word in her parole hearings is more credible to me than any of the other family members at large, or any of the outsiders who are trying to involve themselves. So that I will take a closer look at personally. Hopefully Cielo will have that one, or Ill have to go back and see if I am still able to access the old Manson Family Today website. I will like to read the transcript of that hearing around those comments to see if there is any more detail or context?
According to people I personally believe are more reliable, and who actually were around Sharon that day, or spoke with Sharon that day/night- She was very worn out and exhausted on that, extremely hot, day. Hard for me to believe she had any plans to do much or go out beyond eating dinner. In fact she told some people not even to stop by as she was so tired if memory serves me.
But certainly some food for thought.
Thanks Starviego!
I was pleased that as usual Cielo Drive came through for me lol. He did have the 2011 Parole transcript available to read. Read it I did. She did not talk about the commitment offense and Sequiaria didn't ask any questions about it, but she did slip this in during questioning from the commish:
INMATE KRENWINKEL: That was early on I left with a biker, and it was in Redondo Beach and it had been friendly, and Manson came and got me. After a while, the relationship was such that there was implied and direct threat and that I was his, and that that was it. And he made it real clear to this man that there would be problems, you know, unless I went with him, and I did. I went back. That was, I don't know (inaudible) a year and a half. I wanted to be -- if there was any kind of, especially, eventually expressing my own opinion or expressing any kind of disagreement in what, in my relationship with Mr. Manson, he became, there was consequences and they were negative. It was so, after a while, the love that I thought was also very much fear. It was as much, it was fear and love because it was built on this not knowing what dance I was to do for that day, because without it, there would be consequences. One thing that I learned early was that there was consequence for all action in that relationship. When I went to the house with Tex (inaudible), I should have immediately left. I should have found a way and not gone over the fence and run down the hill. (Inaudible) me screaming. Because there was no doubt that I knew that what was ever going to happen here was not going to be good. I did know that that was, the plan was to murder two women inside the house. That was given, was a given.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. I'm not going to ask you to talk about the day of the murder, but I understand what you're saying.
INMATE KRENWINKEL: It was -- I should have, but I, you know, I committed to it. I committed to what Tex said and I, you know --
Hmmmmm.....
I have read multiple times that they were instructed to "Kill whoever was inside". Is it possible after 40 years give or take, and the hindsight of knowing who she killed, that came out on that particular day and "Murder the two women inside"? Pat making this up that far along in her life/Rehab seems a reach to me, but this a huge rabbit hole to go down if this means they really did know in advance who they were killing, and exactly who would be there. Not sure I am going to buy that just yet, but certainly an interesting quote to me.... Do I dare go back and read all of her transcripts again to see if this shows up a anywhere else? I do not remember anyone else ever indicating this in parole hearings, but I didn't remember Pat saying it either.....
"...her transcripts again to see if this shows up a anywhere else?"
Krenny was ask about her 2011 statement at her next parole hearing several years later. She claimed having no memory of having said that, and didn't comment further. Personally, I believe Krenny spilled the beans in 2011, but this was something that would just open up a can of worms, which would end up serving no one's interests.
2016 Parole Hearing transcript:
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: ... the plan was to murder two women inside of the house. That was - - give, that was given, was, "a given." That's taken from the last transcripts. ...
INMATE KRENWINKEL: I don't know why that's there. That --
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: You don't know why?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: I don't even remember saying that. I mean, that's not -- I don't.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay. Okay.
INMATE KRENWINKEL: I never said that.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAM: Do you know what two women you may have been referring to at the last transcript -- the last hearing?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: No. I don't, I don't even know.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: It's page 46, at the bottom.
ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Okay.
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Let me --
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay.
INMATE KRENWINKEL: -- read that. That doesn't even make sense. I never said that.
This has been discussed ad nauseum in the past. It gets discussed on 24th Dec 2015 in the " THE TATE LABIANCA MURDERS - IS THE TRUTH UGLIER THAN WE THINK?" thread and gets discussed again in the June 2018 thread "Why Esalen ?"
Even back then, Pat was, by her own admission, a nervous speaker, and not someone hardened and unlikely to crack. Charlie knew that about her, which is why it was imperative to get her down from Mobile and once again throw in her lot with him and she did it.
Pg 245 of the 1971 version of “The Family” :
“Evidently Sharon was supposed to stay overnight with an old friend Sheilah Welles at Miss Welles' house. Sharon and Sheilah Welles were roommates for a year in Hollywood. Something caused her to change her mind.”
The November 1969 version of “Screenland Magazine” had an article where Sheilah Wells was interviewed by Marcia Borie.
I have only seen photos the first few pages of the article, but supposedly it is (re-typed) online. If what is online was included in that 11-69 article, then Wells is the source of Sharon spending the night away from Cielo. If what is online was appended at a much later date, then it’s back to rumors.
“Early on the night she was murdered, my phone rang. It was Sharon. She asked me to come over. I told her I couldn't, that I was having a few people in for dinner. Then she said, 'Can I come over
to your house?' I said, sure, of course, come on over. But a little while later she called and said she wasn't coming. She was too tired, she said. She'd decided just to go over to a local drive-in and get a hamburger. I told her that was silly. In the time it took her to drive to the restaurant
she could come over to my place. And I asked her to spend the night. But Sharon said no. She had to do her hair. She thought she'd better stay home. She was so lonely, she said, she missed Roman and she was so tired. She decided not to come.”
Thanks to all... My general feeling is that Pat misspoke at the 2011 hearing and meant to say " Go in and Kill whoever was inside" This would be supported by much testimony as was the fact that she was too tired to have gone anywhere else that night. I know personally, I poured over hours and hours of testimony and never encountered anything that said they had an idea of who would be there previously...
PS. Something else new to me. I was doing a search the other day on this topic and came across the 2'nd official Tate Labianca Blog. Did Col expand? Is this sanctioned by him? Not sure how I never came across this before lol... And why didn't he ask me to moderate it :)
St C said:
“2'nd official Tate Labianca Blog.”
BJ Thompson’s blog predates “Evil Liz”, so it’s been out there a long time.
BJ is a writer and in her articles she mixes thoughts and creative writing with some facts. She honors the dead and doesn’t glorify the killers. She does not accept the excuse that (former) family members use; that they had no choice or free will to leave the family or, …
Since, I tend to focus on “just the facts” and disregard most thoughts, including my own, I find it to be too lite me; like Coor’s Lite!
OK Actually I do remember that now. She once had a long essay I read most of.
That sure was a very long time ago... lol ( Not the last Coors-lite)
The well-known photograph: “Sharon in the Cielo Drive front door way”, is in my opinion a fake or doctored photo. There are multiple architectural pieces that are off.
Finally, I feel as though I have something of some note to contribute! From "Lovely Me The Life of Jacqueline Susann by Barbara Seaman, 1987, page 313:
"On August 9 Sharon Tate phone with an impromptu dinner invitation, which Jackie accepted. She liked Sharon, though she had some misgivings about her husband, director Roman Polanski. It was just a few people that Sharon had called when she'd learned Jackie was in town. As Jackie was dressing, Rex Reed arrived unexpectedly. She called Sharon, who told her to bring Rex, but when it turned out Rex was tired, Jackie and he decided to skip the gathering at Sharon's house."
In the paragraph that follows, "Jackie always credited Reed for saving her life that day, although years later, when she was terminally ill, she told him, 'I could've all happened a lot sooner if we'd gone to Sharon's that night.' "
i hope no one else has shared this, lol. i'm a huge JS fan.
This may or may not be true ( I think alot of people tried to involved themself in that night.) I have no reason to doubt this persons word, but in either case- this would not have caused Sharon to "Not be there that night" it just would have added to the carnage. Interesting nonetheless :)
I believe Pat challenged the transcript of 2011 a few times during the 2016 parole hearing. Its possible there were problems with the recording, I don't believe 2011 was filmed or we could check.
See, this is why I'm surprised Leslie was released first. She knew about Cielo and still wanted to go the second night. Because of the threat of violence, Pat felt she didn't have a choice in anything. She couldn't leave and she couldn't say no.
It's not an opinion Tab. 100% fake
No, but it proves the opposite? And unfortunately, the (late) author of that book didn't assign notes in her sources; just people's names for each section of each chapter. But she did have access to Jackie's diary, and Ms. Susann faithfully kept a diary since she was a child.
What are your findings and opinions, ToF? I'd be interested.
Also, FWIW, there is no real reason to make this doctored photo other than to further mine the potential interest in the crime.
The entire Ceilo thingie is a very complex window on human nature, in my opinion. Neither good nor bad, just quirky.
St. Circumstance said:
This may or may not be true ( I think alot of people tried to involved themself in that night.) I have no reason to doubt this persons word
I do. It's baloney, bullshit and balderdash. When one reads a lot, one soon notices that an impossible number of people "were supposed to be at Cielo that night." The only people that can genuinely say they could have been at Cielo that night but for whatever reason didn't come, would be Witold K, the Polish artist friend of Wojiciech Frykowski, a woman called Sandy Tennant, Sharon's sister, Debbie, who asked if she could drop by but was rebuffed as Sharon was feeling tired, and the housekeeper Winnie Chapman, who was invited to stay over, but declined.
It's also standard common knowledge that Sharon was meant to be over at Shelagh Wells' place, but put it off. When I say common knowledge, I mean in retrospect. Obviously only Sharon and Shelagh knew of their plans and the changes wrought.
And Jackie wrote "Valley of the Dolls", not sure if you know that.
Shoegazer said:
“What are your findings and opinions, ToF? I'd be interested.”
First, look at three pictures: the blood spatter door mat and threshold ; Granado in front of the trunks near the foyer; and the foyer picture taken from the dining room. Notice the interior wall that is on the side of the door that the knob and latch are on. The wall is stone and it is recessed back from the door frame by more than a foot. Now look at the fake picture at Sharons right hand. Her hand is on a grainy surface, like a post or a pattern on a short wall that is not recessed.
Second, notice that the seams/grout marks near her feet do not match other foyer pictures.
Third, the door is off in multiple ways. Look at the bottom of the door. The fake picture has what appears to be quarter-round moulding attached, the type of moulding you place below a baseboard. There should be at least a 6 inch square frame in the bottom section of the door and it is missing. Below the window panes there should be 4 blocks that stick out nearly an inch and they are missing. It almost appears that they tried to use a wainscoting wall to construct a fake door.
Fourth, at the end of the foyer opposite the front door, there should be a closet door on the left, a short wall in the center, and a bathroom door on the right. What the fake picture shows is two horizontal lines that are probably steps. There is also what appears to be a piece of furniture where closet door should be.
Thanks, ToF. This is exactly the stuff I like...not exposing fraudulent photos, but examining details.
It sure does look like everything inside of the door frame in an insert, doesn't it? All the stuff you mention is now very evident once it's pointed out.
Thanks!
Off topic to this post but has no one been able to find any recent pictures of Ruth?
The last picture I saw of Ruth was probably about 8 years ago. She was at a formal function of some kind. I cant remember... it was a weeding, or party for one of her kids, but she looked absolutely stunning. Very pretty woman. She looked like she was having a very normal- good life. I am really glad for her. With a father like hers- and at such a very young age- I give her much more of a pass than maybe any of the others. She is the absolute real case that others have made for Leslie over the years. Diane Lake was another one who really never stood a chance. But Ruth looked to me like she was doing alright.
My memory isn't what it used to be lol. The Coors light and weed are starting to take their toll, but if I do recall- Ruth made a strong effort to prevent her photo from being made public, and that was almost 10 years ago. My guess would be it is going to be very difficult to find many more recent ones. She has obviously worked very hard to move on in life and protect her identity. I think in this case- good for her.
I'm updating that post quoted. Sandra did actually talk to Patti between takes, even though in a Stimson interview with us way back, he said they didn't. Still not sure about the coke part. I spoke to Statman recently about this, and she maintains she was there and that's what she heard. George says there was no mention of coke other than during the hard copy interview.
1. How would the killers know Sharon was going to be home or not? Call?
Ed Sanders told Doris Tate in the interview taped by Bill Nelson that there were no phone calls from Spahn Ranch to 10050 Cielo Drive. The only calls recalled by Winnie Chapman was the that of Jay Sebring, Peter Sellers, and Roman.
2. Who knew of Sharon’s plan? Could the real reason she canceled going to Welles home be because Abigail Folger was leaving the next morning at 10am to fly to San Francisco to meet up with her mother for Abigail’s birthday. It would make sense as this be the reason since Folger wasn’t going to be around her friends there at Cielo for her birthday. So a small get together makes sense. Also makes sense as to why she told Deb she couldn’t come over that night. Are there any sources to prove that Sharon was going to stay with Welles or do we take Welles word? She asked Winnie Chapman to stay over because her apartment had no air conditioner.
This doesn’t sound like plans of a woman that was supposed to spend the night elsewhere. To the best of my recollection, Winnie Chapman never mentioned such, that doesn’t seem like a detail Sharon would leave out.
3. I do not believe for one minute Sandra Good told Patti Tate that Sharon was stoned on coke when on the Bertice Berry show. Why?
1. There would have been an argument and Bugliosi would have countered it and tried to “prove” what kind of person Sandra was.
2. I firmly believe that Alyssa mixed the Steve Dunleavy interview in with the Bertice Berry show. The only time Sandra has said that is when Steve had interviewed her. No where else in any interview has she said such ever again.
3. If it has been said to Patti, when asked what Sandra had said to Patti by Bertice, why was it not brought up? IF Alyssia heard it, that means the audience would have heard it, including Vincent Bugliosi…and Bertice Berry because the mics would not have been cut.
I’m sure I’ll think of more later.
James D.
"She asked Winnie Chapman to stay over because her apartment had no air conditioner. "
James, did Cielo have A/C?
Well. I’m assuming so I should say. It may or may not have. But Chapman testified that due to the heat, and that her apartment didn’t have an air conditioner, Sharon wanted her to stay there that night.
Regarding Sandy on the Bertice Berry show. A multipart question was asked in the comments section of the Goodbye Helter Skelter Podcast Episode 28. Refer to the link:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R6MnE0zV7ZI&pp=0gcJCcMJAYcqIYzv
Some snips
Question:
[[
@SEAsia2011
…
“My comment relates to statements in the Feb 18, 1994 Bertice Berry show that featured you and Sandra, Patti Tate and Bugliosi:
I want to ask you here… directly… if you are able to explain once and for all any of the following:
1. Why was Sandra so insistent (to Patti Tate) that Sharon “𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘦" on the night of the murders?
2. Did someone on Spahn's Ranch have an 'inside connection' to any individual(s) at the Cielo house?
3. If so, was someone in the Family informed by someone inside the Cielo house that Sharon wouldn't be at Cielo but would instead be staying with Sheila Welles on Friday 8 August?
• 𝘞𝘩𝘰 was the contact inside Cielo and 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩 knew the particular individual(s) at Cielo?
Finally...
4. How did Sandra come by such information?
• Was she told 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 the murders?
• Was she aware of this 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 the murders? “
]]
Answer:
[[
This question comes up every six months or so and the best explanation that I can offer is that when Blue said Sharon “shouldn’t have been home,” she misspoke and really meant “she shouldn’t have been there,” an idea she explains right after the “home” remark on the Berry show where she says that Sharon shouldn’t have been in the Hollywood milieu.
I hope that explains your first question. As to the rest, the only explanation I have for that is that people like conspiracy theories and are eager to latch onto anything that suggests conspiracy, even if it’s really just a case of someone choosing a wrong word.
]]
Question:
[[
…
“It would seem that from Blue's perspective Sharon was (and I assume still is, by Sandra) considered a legitimate target for murder.”
…
“On the face of it, Sandra’s comments suggest to me that she …personally… considered Sharon to be a legitimate target for murder, because Sharon had inserted herself into the Hollywood milieu, and/or had 'allowed herself' to be placed in an exploitative position by others.”
…
]]
Answer:
[[
Not targeted, but a random victim who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time because she was in Hollywood instead of being (for example) married to a truck driver in Dallas.
If you accept Sharon as a random victim instead of being targeted, all of your thinking and questions go away.
]]
And if I remember correctly, I’m going to have to go back and watch the full episode again, I believe Sandra said “She Shouldn’t have been in Hollywood” and that somehow got twisted into “She shouldn’t have been home.” Because Sandra brings up thereafter that statement that Hollywood was a Hellish place and that IT (Hollywood as a whole) was exploiting Sharon more than Bugliosi.
James D.:
WRT A/C, I don't think Cielo had any. I spent a fair amount of time looking over everything I could find on the building, itself.
This is not to doubt *you*, James, but to wonder what exactly was the deal with Chapman's testimony. It could be she lived much further to the east. The Valley, too, is much hotter than the westside.
There at that part of LA, it is a lot cooler than, say, closer to downtown. However, some of the cooling is lost as you go up hill. Cielo wasn't that far up, really, so it would probably be cooler than where Chapman lived.
Absolutely. We just know that Sharon wanted Winnie to say because Winnie had no air conditioning and it would be too hot for Winnie at her apartment.
I misspoke. Sandra does say “She shouldn’t have been home” but it’s clear she meant Hollywood because the conversation goes right into the hellish place Hollywood is.
I’m working on Transcribing this particular episode.
Tex said: I slit the bottom of the screen,
removed it, pushed up the window, and climbed through. It was very still inside the house.
If the AC was off on such a night- wouldn't the windows at least be open?
Also Tex said: Then he laid out how he wanted the murders themselves done. He apparently didn't know who was
living in the house or how many people we might find, but whoever and however many it was we were to kill them all, mutilate them
Multiple times from multiple people I have heard some version of this from the actual participants in the crime. "Kill everyone inside" Sandy and Squeakster would say anything to....
1. Minimize the viciousness of the crimes- From people who have actually spoken with Sandy in last few years I have heard directly she still says that killing Sharon is no different from Killing a tree.
2. Deflect from Charlies responsibility.
I personally still cant believe George humiliated himself on TV doing that show. That was the first time I ever heard him speak or saw him. I once spent an entire afternoon driving around the scenes of the crime with him. George was a reasonable, thought out and bright guy. Not at all what you would think watching on that show...
“ Tex said: I slit the bottom of the screen,
removed it, pushed up the window, and climbed through. It was very still inside the house.
If the AC was off on such a night- wouldn't the windows at least be open?”
Or at the very least, any of the windows would be open in there were no AC.
Also, the window he entered through was being transformed into the nursery…and had a new paint job the day before. I’m sure the smell of the paint was somewhat strong.
Two things.
First, there are (conflicting) reports that it wasn’t that hot on the night of August 8-9.
From the opening paragraph of “5 to Die”, by Davis and LeBlanc,
“The coldest hour on the night of August 8-9, 1969, came shortly after midnight, when the temperature slumped to 70 degrees.”
Alternatively, could someone please provide a link to a photograph showing the condenser for the A/C?
Second, the window that Watson is said to have entered the house, is the dining room window. This window is less than 10 feet from the front door. The recently painted nursery (or vacant bedroom) window that, LE (Whisenhunt, Burbridge) entered through, was close to 50 feet away - close to the garage. Refer to the Manson-TLB testimony of Guerrero, Whisenhunt, and Burbridge.
ToF:
To the best of my knowledge, inspecting very many exterior photos, I never saw any sign of an A/C.
Let me expand a bit on this. For people who have never lived on the west coast, up until the recent warming trend, very, very few people in private houses anywhere there was maritime influences had A/C. They simply opened the windows at night, or turned on fans that drew the air inside. I know this first hand, having lived exclusively on the coast, within this zone, from San Diego to San Luis Obispo, for the first 40 years of my life.
This is simply added background information, to give perspective to the idea of how unnecessary people thought A/C was, in coastal CA, at that era. And it may yet be the case, but I now live in Portland, OR, so I wouldn't know.
WRT the window, all crime scene images I've seen show the dining room window, and screen, as the entry point. And saying that he "pushed up the window, and climbed through" does not necessarily mean that the window was closed, simply that it was not open far enough for someone to climb thru stealthily.
Here's a funny thing I *think* I recall from one of Watson's later parole hearings. He described entry thru the window, and going to let the others in thru the front door, but if I understood correctly, he noted ironically that the door was not locked. My memory may be playing me false, or I misinterpreted the wording, so...
The painter testified that the window was closed when he left, that’s not to say that one of the occupants of the house cracked it open.
Watson also stated during his trial the door wasn’t locked. He claimed he went into the residence by entering the front door.
James, so far as anyone knows, the window in nursery had nothing whatsoever to do with the crime. ToF and I are talking about the dining room window. That state of the nursery window has no bearing on any of this.
A bit more on Watson's 2021 parole hearing, WRT the front door:
"I cut the window and I went in through the window. And, um, I, um, then the girls though walked straight in to the door, so I went through the window, they walked right into the door, the door was open and we met right there."
To me this read like the door was not locked, and that the girls had begun to come in *before* he even got to the door.
He could have it jumbled, too.
Yes I was mistaken apparently about the window. When on the stand, the man doing the painting was questioned about the window as was Winnie Chapman. I don’t recall any painting of the dining room?
From Chapman’s Grand Jury Testimony.
“ MR. BUGLIOSI: Mrs. Chapman, when you left on August the 8th, 1969, are you assuming that this window was open because the painter was working there?
ANSWER: Yes.
QUESTION: Did you actually look at the window and see it was open when you left on August the 8th?
ANSWER: Not as I went out of the house, but I think it had been opened. No, not as I went out of the house.
QUESTION: So you are assuming that the painter must have opened it?
ANSWER: Yes.
QUESTION: But you did not know of your own knowledge, whether it was open when you left on August the 8th, is that correct?
ANSWER: No.”
From Helter Skelter
“ When they reached the house, Linda said, Tex sent her
around the back to look for an unlocked window or door. She
reported that everything was locked, though she hadn’t
actually checked. (This explained why they ignored the open
nursery window.) Tex then slit a screen on one of the front
windows with a knife. Though the actual screen had since
been replaced, Linda pointed to the correct window. She also
said the slash was horizontal, as it had been. Tex then told her
to go back and wait by the car in the driveway.”
And
“ Why would the killer(s) go to the trouble of slitting and
removing a screen when other windows, those in the newly
painted room that was to be the nursery for the Polanskis’
unborn child, were open and screenless?”
So the nursery windows were indeed open too.
I don't know if anyone has mentioned it here, but Linda did say that when she stood in front of the entry window with Tex, she could see a vase of flowers just inside of the room. Photos of that room do in fact show what are no doubt those flowers.
Indeed.
DR window with flowers
Didn't I write a posting on this years ago called, "Pat's Parole Hearing of Weirdness" or something like that? I remember that stood out to me in her parole hearing. How can she deny saying that? What purpose would that serve for the transcriptionist to add in that little nugget? These people have changed their damn stories so many times, they don't even remember what they said. Also, anything Sandra Good says is a joke! She's an absolute nutjob who is still, over 50 years later, excusing what her ridiculous friends did! She makes me sick!
Post a Comment