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.
15 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.
Post a Comment