Bugliosi ignored the cut wires at the Sebring residence. He also ignored another "cut wire" at the Cielo house. Researcher Josh Casey has posted this:
Pageant, Nov. 1969 issue
Ironically, the house where Sharon and her friends were found murdered had been wired to the Bel Air Patrol, but the service had been discontinued.
It is possible the disaster might have been averted if the service had
been "on," because an alarm is set off when power or telephone lines are
cut.
"the service had been discontinued."
....uh... by who? Sharon, Roman, or Rudy? Or was it at the Bel Air Security Patrol end?
Under what circumstances?
When?
If the service had been discontinued a year before, perhaps by Altobelli
in a cost-cutting move, it would have been unfortunate, but not
especially significant. But what if the service had been 'discontinued'
a week before, or the night before? Then it might have been very significant indeed.
(It
reminds me of the security guard at the estate adjoining the LaBianca
residence who was supposed to be there that night but was inexplicably
absent.)
You'd
think a little tidbit like this would have been considered worth
investigating, but this is the first I've ever heard of this. Now the
source might be a little sketchy, but it makes sense. Logically
speaking, the exact level of security the Polanskis were entitled to,
given what they were paying, would have been of interest to detectives.
But as far as I know, this topic has never come up anywhere.
The Bel Air Security Patrol got a full pass on this, imo. No harsh spotlight was ever shined their way. But they had a lot to answer for.
Chaos, by Tom O'Neill, pg200
On Doris Tate: "Like her husband, she'd conducted her own investigation through the years, becoming convinced that the Cielo house was under surveillance by some type of law enforcement at the time of the murders."
What would make a more perfect cover for the surveillors than as a member of the Security Patrol?
Starviego.
ReplyDeleteI've read that retired cororner Thomas Noguchi did the autopsy on murdered victim Sharon Tate.
A book came out a few months ago detailing Noguchi's alleged statements pertaining to the autopsy of Marilyn Monroe and other people.
It was a "shocker" to me the allegations Thomas Noguchi makes pertaining to the autopsy of Marilyn Monroe
(Totally Shocking)
⬇️
https://nationalenquirer.com/coroner-who-performed-marilyn-monroes-autopsy-reveals-shocking-new-details-about-botched-exam/
How much of his allegations are true?
Who knows🤷🤷🤷🤷🤷
Mario George Nitrini 111
------
The OJ Simpson Case
Interesting. Thanks, Mario. Can't believe Noguchi is still alive.
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome Starviego.
ReplyDeleteYes, Noguchi is 98 years old. I wonder what motive he has to make the allegations pertaining to Marilyn Monroe after all these years?
Mario George Nitrini 111
------
The OJ Simpson Case
This reminds me of the time someone found out there was a recorder running in Nixson's office.
ReplyDeleteStarviego.
ReplyDeleteHere is a Facebook post made by George Christie
(Former spokesman and National President of the Hell's Angels
⬇️
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1076717020490933&id=100044579342951
pertaining to the Straight Satan's & the Satan Slaves pertaining to The Charles Manson Family regarding their time at Spahn Ranch
George Christie doesn't talk much about the "situations" he knows pertaining to The Charles Manson Family and Spahn Ranch.
I pressed George Christie hoping he would give specific details pertaining to what he knew that went on at Spahn Ranch when the Charles Manson Family lived there
⬇️
https://www.mansonblog.com/2019/01/manson-in-mexico.html?m=1
⬇️
https://www.mansonblog.com/2021/12/ivor-davis.html?m=1
Mr Christie got mad at me and blocked me on Twitter.
I'd like to see you do a "deep-dive" and give your opinion regarding this situation.
Thanks....MGN111
Mario George Nitrini 111
-------
The OJ Simpson Case
Careful Starviego - with a post like this, however thought provoking it is, you might incur the wrath of the “no speculation allowed” police on here. Inside of the box thoughts only please ;-)
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts exactly ! Very well put Speculator. I was shocked when the post about the vice presidential dinner was taken down. Open discussion only on someone else’s terms is not open discussion
DeleteProud and happy to be known as a member of said "police" if my efforts help in any way to keep garbage off this forum, or at least significantly reduce the amount of it. My efforts may well be in vain, but I know it's the right thing to do and your snark will in no way dissuade me from continuing.
DeleteI don’t think I’ve seen any garbage, as you put it, on here. I have seen, at various times, what could be called completely irrelevant exchanges about the 60/70s music scene though! I wouldn’t dream of calling them out or complaining though as it should be an open forum as Adam pointed out in the previous post. But I find Starviego’s posts far more thought provoking, interesting and relevant than, say, the music chat. Each to his own though.
DeleteHello Mario! I was wondering about you a few posts back. You've been off the circuit for a bit. Marilyn Monroe's death is indeed 'fishy'. The Miner Memorandum etc. Now, I'm aware the housekeeper, Mrs Murray, retracted her original statement in her later years (which everyone knew was BS anyway), but what has Noguchi said in his dotage?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately I can't access the link. Anyone else?
ReplyDeleteHi Ms Milly.
DeleteTry this link.
AOL...same information
⬇️
https://www.aol.com/bombshell-revelation-marilyn-monroe-autopsy-224131284.html
Or this one
Yahoo
⬇️
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/articles/coroner-performed-marilyn-monroe-autopsy-144255610.html
I agree with you Ms Milly
⬇️
(Fishy)
Mario George Nitrini 111
-------
The OJ Simpson Case
"I'd like to see you do a "deep-dive" and give your opinion regarding this situation." -MGN111
ReplyDeleteI think if Mr Christie had wanted to expand on what he knew of Charlie, he already would have. I get the feeling Christie himself never visited Spahn or met Charlie, so I don't know if there's anything there to do a 'deep dive' on.
I was told that George Christie visited Spahn Ranch when the Charles Manson Family lived there.
ReplyDeleteHe never admitted that to me though.
Whether he ever met Charles Manson?
⬇️
I don't know
From my twitter account, I asked George Christie this
⬇️
Mario Nitrini
@nitrini1950
Sep 12, 2017
Part 4
@georgeFPC
Mr Christie ..can you respond to me about some of what you know about Spahn Ranch/ the Manson Family? The OJ Simpson Case
His answer
⬇️
George Christie
@georgeFPC
Well that's a complex question. I will tell you this there was lots of partying going on up there
11:23 AM · Sep 12, 2017
Anyway, that you for replying back to me Starviego.
Mario George Nitrini 111
------
The OJ Simpson Case
I wouldn't believe a thing that Tom O'Neil guy says about anything. All his "evidence" seems to be based on speculation, rumors, and he said/she said. Next...
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteTom half assed his researched, proved nothing, shrugged his shoulders and said "Could be maybe amirite?" His trolling the boards as Vera Dreiser is such journalistic malfeasance as is threatening the families of the victims. He and his book are garbage.
DeleteThe Bel Air Patrol's job--the purpose of their very existence--was to protect the property and lives of the people in that exclusive enclave. They employ retired cops, the very people who know how to spot people who shouldn't be there, and who know what gunshots in the dead of night sound like.
ReplyDeleteNow put yourself in the position of the detectives in the first 48 hours on the case. One of the first things done would have been to arrange a visit to the Patrol's office, and ask to interview every person on duty that night. And then asked to see the logboooks and any audio recordings of calls going back at least a week. And then might even asked to interview every person employed by the Patrol. And of couse the Patrol, consisting mostly of retired or even moonlighting cops, would be expected to cooperate fully. So whatever happened to all that evidence?
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly do we know about the Bel Air Patrol? Were they under a contract to provide any kind of security services at all to the property at 10050 Cielo Drive?
Dec 1967 Candice Bergen writes article for "Esquire" 'Is BelAir Burning?'
"Inside the gate is a rose-infested bungalow housing the Bel Air Patrol, a sort of Special Forces squad of pristine policemen... ..they keep teeny-boppers away from Bel Air's celebrity residents(Elvis).. or celebrity transients(The Beatles)."
Strangely ineffective on the night of Aug 8th, 1969, though. If Bel Air was a 'gated community' how come nobody in the Patrol ever noticed the Watson crew coming and/or going? Twice. (referring to the return visit at the 3:30am-4am timeframe)
Or maybe it was three times. You might even include the evening of the night before, on the 7th, when Charlie may have been up at the top of Cielo Dr. See here:
https://www.mansonblog.com/2024/09/was-charlie-at-cielo-night-before.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete10050 Cielo is not in Bel Air. Do you know for a fact that Cielo was patrolled by the Bel Air Patrol?
DeleteAn "area of silence" (in Ed Sanders words) seems to have enveloped the issue of the Bel Air Patrol early on. You won't find any video or media interviews of any of them. They were rarely mentioned in media accounts at the time. They were never subpoenaed to testify.
ReplyDeleteAnd thus they never had to explain their catastrophic, spectacular failure the night of the Cielo murders. You start pulling on that thread, who knows what could turn up.
starviego said:
ReplyDeleteAnd thus they never had to explain their catastrophic, spectacular failure the night of the Cielo murders. You start pulling on that thread, who knows what could turn up
We know exactly what would turn up.
Nothing.
Speculator said:
Careful Starviego - with a post like this, however thought provoking it is, you might incur the wrath of the “no speculation allowed” police on here
By all means, continue to come up with speculation that goes nowhere and "provokes" thought. Just as people are allowed to come up with out of the box speculations with nothing whatsoever to back them up, other than an intense dislike for LE or the "conspiracy theory gene," 🫨🫠 others are allowed to call bullshit and back that up with a lot more than what is often presented.
Adam logobie said:
I was shocked when the post about the vice presidential dinner was taken down
I wouldn't say I was shocked, as it has happened before and I've complained about things that people have said being struck out. I thought the criticisms that Star was getting were worthwhile and made for good reading. I thought the comebacks on his side of the debate were interesting.
Open discussion only on someone else’s terms is not open discussion
Agreed. I've never liked it when people's comments are wiped, let alone whole posts. For the record, Star knows that in general, I disagree with most of his speculations. And Speculator and I have had plenty of run-ins on these pages. But I've always enjoyed the debates. Agreement is not necessary, even when one party is asking what the subject of the post has to do with the case.
Grim - you seem to be annoyed that people might wish to speculate about what they perceive as gaps and anomalies in some of the circumstances surrounding these murders. It’s extremely unlikely that any new hard evidence will come to light now all these years down the line. So on the basis of what you offer in argument, this site may as well shut down. If on the other hand, posters highlight gaps and/or anomalies which may then invite logical and critical thinking what is wrong with that - even in the absence of hard evidence. The anomalies exist irrespective of hard evidence pointing one way or another. I mean it’s not like anyone is suggesting that aliens came down and had a hand in the murders :-) ! These are quite reasonable questions to ask which can be politely refuted if that’s how you see it. Why don’t you respond to what has been said rather than trying to ridicule it. The Jack the Ripper murders are still being analysed, investigated and new theories posited over 120 years later because the case has mystery around it as many believe this one does too.
DeleteSpeculator - everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not to their own facts. The uneducated like yourself who push nonsense as facts always claim "But it is just my opinion" while supporting bullshit and lies they don't even understand. There are people out there who use nonsense to lie about Bryan Kohberger's crimes. They twist and misuse facts and call it lunch. These people are idiots. They cannot be stopped. Grim is simply pointing out you are one of these people.
DeleteCon Scott (sic) - thank you for your incredibly insightful comments. I feel humbled to be in the company of someone who is clearly so well educated - alas an education is not for all of us as you so eloquently point out. I haven’t pushed any nonsense though, as you put it. I merely pointed out how dismissive some people are on here of other posts - only the educated posters though of course. Anyway, I hope the eggs on London were good and matched your intellect (poached not scrambled I mean). Sounds like Grim must’ve paid given your little love in :-)
DeleteGrim did you and the Col meet up when he was in London?
ReplyDeleteWe did. Eggs were eaten and facts were beaten.
DeleteOh to be a fly on the wall
DeleteMr Mxyzptlk-
ReplyDeleteI recently was on Instagram and asked Jack Schlossberg, the grandson of our last great president John Fitzgerald Kennedy how much wood COULD a woodchuck actually chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
He seemed enraged at the very idea of chucking wood, and went off on a tirade about how his worm addled uncle was ruining everything with his evil anti vaxx stance as well as his support of the Moxley girl's killer.
We argued on DMs for a while and then hugged it out and concluded the likelihood that a member of Huey Duck's Woodchuck Brigade likely killed his Grandfather from UNDER The grassy knoll !
Lee Harvey Oswald IIIIIIIII, Deceased
-------------------
The JFK Assassination Case
shoegazer said...
ReplyDeleteDo you know for a fact that Cielo was patrolled by the Bel Air Patrol?
No, we don't know that. Which is exactly the problem. Why don't we know that? Apparently no one ever bothered to ask the Bel Air Patrol!
It should be pointed out that Olivia Hussey apparently did contract with the Bel Air Patrol after the murders.
Researcher Nancy Farrell:
"According to Olivia Hussey, after the murders they had a button at Cielo under a desk that connected directly to "the Bel Air Police" I think she probably meant the Bel Air Patrol, the private security company."
At some point it was. The mailbox had the "Protected by Bel Air Patrol" sticker
DeleteThe mailbox on Aug. 9
Then shortly after the murders the Bel Air Patrol sticker was painted over
ReplyDeleteShoegazer said :
"10050 Cielo is not in Bel Air. Do you know for a fact that Cielo was patrolled by the Bel Air Patrol?"
This does not answer your question, but the "Bel Air Patrol" is mentioned in the Tate First Homicide Investigation Progress Report. Two Bel Air Patrol officers reported hearing 3 sounds. One was located south of both Cielo Drive and the Westlake School, at 10231 Charing Cross in Holmby Hills. The second was located east of Cielo Drive at 2175 Summitridge Drive. Neither of these places are in Bel Air.
CieloDrive, thanks for the enlarged view of the mailbox sticker. I've spent a long time trying to decipher what was printed on it.
ReplyDeleteI have an clear one somewhere but can't find it right now
DeleteCielo, do you know if the Aug 9 photo of the mailbox appeared in the press? And perhaps the Bel Air Patrol saw it and didn't want the public thinking they still had a contract there? Or maybe the police asked the Patrol about it and then painted over it.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that there would have been receipts from the Belair Security Patrol or cancelled checks from the Polanskis indicating they had employed it. The next question is who painted over the decal?
ReplyDeleteThe Bel Air Security Patrol, most likely... ;^)
DeleteThat thought crossed my mind.
ReplyDeleteBugliosi's JFK assassination book is very convincing
ReplyDeleteAn article on July 6, 1969 in the Los Angeles Times says the Bel Air Patrol covers "an area north of Wilshire Blvd., from Beverly Hills west to Bundy Drive, although the major part of its operation is in Bel Air proper."
ReplyDeleteThen on August 14, 1969 in the Los Angeles Evening Citizen News it is reported that the Patrol has added thirty more all-night guards to protect individual homes, and ten additional private police cars.
I should clarify they added thirty guards and ten cars just in the few days since the murders. They also mention the murder August 12 of William Lennon, father of the Lennon Sisters singing group. I looked that killing up and he was murdered at the golf course at Marina Del Rey by a stalker of one of his daughters.
ReplyDeleteI don't doubt the basic facts, but there's no golf course in Matina del Rey. I lived in Playa del Rey, the other side of Ballona Creek, for years.
DeleteShoegazer I looked at Wikipedia and it says it was in the parking lot of the Venice Golf Course in Marina Del Rey (later to be the sight of a Toyota dealership) where he worked as a private instructor. I don't know the area well at all.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I thank you for digging out the info and I'm sure he got killed at or near a golf course, but you know how this forum can bring out the anal retentive in some of us...gulp!
DeleteI think there were two golf courses near the area when I lived there in the 80s. One was sorta behind (east of) Venice, maybe near Fox Hills? It was a 9-hole course I think (I may have played there--public course), and the other was in Westchester, nearer LAX, maybe near Loyola-Marymount.
Hah! The old Hughes airport was still there, just down the hill from Loyola-Marymount/Playa del Rey, along Ballona Creek. I think it must be redeveloped by now...
There was a (9 hole?) Golf course/range off of Rose Avenue in Venice during the 60's and may still be there. It was close to Marina Del Rey.
ReplyDeleteWalter Cronkite reported that Lennon was shot to death in a parking lot in the Venice suburb of LA.
Another source says that Lennon was murdered at the Venice Golf Course near Rose Avenue.
I don't think that anyone who lives down there would consider Rose Ave to be in Marina del Rey. It's actually much closer to Ocean Park/Venice Beach than Marina del Rey.
DeleteSo the golf course is close to Marina del Rey in the same sense that Venice is close to Marina del Rey, but they are worlds apart, I assure you.
Hi shoegazer.
DeleteThe 9 hole pitch & putt golf course was on the borderline of Venice and Mar Vista. I played there as a child several times. It was called PenMar pitch & putt.
And you are correct. In Westchester, there is a golf course. Played there many times. I made my only birdie in my life......lol.....on the par 4 second tee.
I wasn't the greatest golfer in the world.....lol
Mario George Nitrini 111
------
The OJ Simpson Case
There was a "Marina Del Rey Golf Course" located at 4360 Lincoln Blvd, Venice. It was supposed to be directly east of Marina Del Ray. 9 hole, 3048 yards, par 35l? Electric and hand carts. Private lessons - Bill Roberts PGA. Group lessons - Bill Lennon.Open 7 days from daylight until 10 PM during the week and 7 PM weekend.
ReplyDeleteGood work, ToF!
DeleteProbably only lasted for a few years.
Aha! Nice detective work Tab!
ReplyDeleteNow, if we can just find two independent contemporary documents from Poland that record Frykowski's blood type...
ReplyDelete;^)
This stuff about the golf course--it's really the kind of thing I like!
ReplyDeleteHere is a link to a site with old aerial views. The particular link if for Playa del Rey and I got two good images of Marina, one in 1962--and to my eye there looks to be a golf course right there on Lincoln, across from the Marina.
1963
The other is a near-identical view but from 1972. It has been bulldozed.
1972
What fun this is! :^)
For what it's worth, some excerpts from That's Amore: A Son Remembers Dean Martin:
ReplyDeletep 22
The Bel-Air Patrol guards that we had securing our house in the 1960s would have made Barney Fife look like Eliot Ness.
Page 22
The members of the Bel-Air Patrol back then ranged from long-retired beat cops to fresh-scrubbed rookies, the latter hopeful that a stint as a rent-a-cop would get them a sponsorship to the police academy. Each night they were supposed to patrol the house, but this "patrol" usually consisted of sitting in their car while it was parked in the driveway, just in front of the carport, and sleeping. At times, their snoring was so loud we had to go outside and wake them. Or just ask them to roll up the windows.
Page 22
Needless to say, the Bel-Air Patrol didn't last long at 601.
Thanks gang for all of this research into the Bel Air Patrol! I was going to mention that Cielo is not in Bel Air, but Shoegazer already replied and then the superb sleuthing team here solved that mystery in no time -- the Bel Air Patrol covered much more territory than Bel Air proper. (and fascinating side trip about the Marina golf course!)
ReplyDeleteSpeculator said:
ReplyDeleteyou seem to be annoyed that people might wish to speculate about what they perceive as gaps and anomalies in some of the circumstances surrounding these murders
Annoyed ?
Remind me not to sign up with your online psychology service !
Hey, speculate all you want. Some people still believe Paul McCartney died in 1966. Some people believe in a flat earth. Some fervently believe there was no moon landing. They don't believe these things for no reason....
on the basis of what you offer in argument, this site may as well shut down
It’s not my site.
You seem to see what you want to see. In my previous post, I already stated quite clearly that I enjoyed the debates, even though I haven’t agreed with much of the content – a pretty important distinction in a debate.
For the record, I think there are a plethora of matters to discuss and debate around this case that a good conversationalist {which I consider you to be} can have without any of the speculation that dogs many discussions. For example, David’s 7-parter, “A Look At The Evidence” and others like it spawned tons of great points and questions and loads of great discussion and debate. It didn’t change the overall result of the case though. But it provided some good food for thought that wasn't apparent in '69/'70.
If on the other hand, posters highlight gaps and/or anomalies which may then invite logical and critical thinking what is wrong with that
Nothing at all.
However, I dispute to the hills that this is generally what Starviego does. I think you deliberately ignore the fact that, by his own admission, Star is a conspiracy theorist and this means that there are no innocent or simply curious invites to look at gaps and anomalies. He has an agenda.
I challenge you publicly and personally with this question, what is your hoped-for end game ? Given all {and I mean all} that has come forth in this case, both in the ‘69-’71 period and especially in the 50+ years subsequent, have you weighed up all the angles ? Taken into account over a number of years, all the deflections, lies, pieces of story, obfuscations, evidence etc of every one of the players in this saga ? And when I speak of the players, I mean virtually every one, from perps to LE to jury to cops to witnesses to family members to friends to press, etc, etc, etc ? Weighed thousands of statements up together, separately and both ?
What is it that you are actually hoping to glean ? That the CIA did it ? That LE deliberately turned a blind eye to murder ? That Charlie, poor guy, was innocent and set up by the FBI or Vincent T ?
even in the absence of hard evidence
This one is nuanced. But can you not see the dangers of constantly speculating in the absence of any hard evidence, or even soft evidence ?
There are times when this is appropriate. And I’ve long gone along with that. But there may come a point when the emperor has no clothes on and someone has to tell him so.
Otherwise, where do you stop ? You joked earlier that no one is suggesting that aliens had a hand in the murders. As stupid as that may sound, that is the eventual destination if one just accepts every question and piece of speculation going as legit.
The anomalies exist irrespective of hard evidence pointing one way or another
I totally agree. In fact, I couldn’t agree more. That is the reality of human life ¬> anomalies exist. I’ve been saying this here and on other sites for years. I call it paradox and nuance, but essentially, it’s an acceptance that not every matter follows smoothly and logically. I’ve never doubted that. In fact, if you read what I’ve written here over the last 11 years, you’d know that I champion that. But the vice is also versa, ¬> that there are anomalies is no indication of anything dodgy. Unless you demonstrate otherwise.
Grim - I don’t have an end game in mind - hoped for or otherwise. I just think that there is much more to this case than has come to light - and I mean in terms of both motive(s) (as more than one motive may have come together and co-existed in the minds of different perps) as well as who really did what why where etc.both in the events leading up to the murders, during the murders and in the immediate aftermath. Of course it’s all conjecture and you might say what does it matter as the right people were convicted (including Manson quite rightly). But much of it is intriguing you must admit and I suppose an end game - if you want to call it that - would be new evidence or testimony/accounts forthcoming. Likely never to happen though at this stage of the game.
DeleteSpeculator said:
ReplyDeleteThese are quite reasonable questions to ask
Sometimes, they are. Until they no longer are because one gets past their relevance.
The subject of this post is a good example.
The night before a brutal murder that involved the cutting of wires, one of the victim's houses experienced a power cut and an engineer said he thought it looked like a wire had been cut. Now, it was the engineer’s opinion, but it wasn’t conclusive that it was a deliberate action. When it turns out that 4 of the victims were at the house, it begs questions. How could it not ?
I have no problem with asking questions. But I have a major problem with those that dismiss any answers that come their way because it runs against what they are seeking to put across, but can’t.
All kinds of angles were explored when this case was a live concern. Once the perps had been rounded up, those angles ceased to be of any consequence. The Bel Air Patrol are irrelevant....unless one is trying to somehow implicate them in the murders.
All I have ever said is this; if the prosecution were wrong, demonstrate it. I’ve been waiting since 2015 and not a single person has ever come remotely close. Continual open-ended questions are so immature. Questions are for the purpose of finding answers. Once answers have been arrived at, unless you have evidence or proof to the contrary, then suck it up.
which can be politely refuted if that’s how you see it
You & I have had this discussion on this site before. It’s not new. Go to Dec 2020 and look at the post about the revenge motive. Some of your words in that tête-à-tête are virtually identical with your words here.
And Star, over on Lynyrd’s site last year was pushing this as another conspiracy with false information {ie, Manson being up at the Cielo house the night before the murders and getting a beating} in order to basically, when it comes down to it, re-make the case.
So, yeah, I do dismiss it. There have been many discussions around this topic. Inviting me to be a good boy and discuss it again is like me inviting you to go back to elementary school and sit down with books teaching you how to read. I wouldn’t insult you in that way.
Grim - I think you’re getting the wrong end of the stick - read my previous reply - don’t believe that the prosecution got anything wrong in terms of the convictions - but the motive(s), events, circumstances before/during/after the murders may not have been truly revealed - hence the various anomalies, weird coincidences, call them what you may. And I’m NOT suggesting that there is more than has been so far revealed - purely that there MAY BE!
DeleteSpeculator said:
ReplyDeleteWhy don’t you respond to what has been said rather than trying to ridicule it
Always do your research before you make statements like this, my friend. I responded to this some years ago, because we’ve already had the debate. I remember Vera Dreiser getting their knickers in a twist about it and George Stimson putting in his penny’s worth. I’ve responded ad nauseum, and I happen to think that some of the arguments you want me to respond to, having been looked at, are seriously found wanting. I’m not preventing anyone from constantly bringing this stuff up. But don’t expect me to give it any credence. I’ve long gone past that point because I did the examining before reaching a conclusion.
The Jack the Ripper murders are still being analysed, investigated and new theories posited over 120 years later because the case has mystery around it as many believe this one does too
The Jack murders are always going to be analysed because the murderer was never caught. No one knows who the killer was, or even whether there was more than one killer or even if the killer of all or any of the victims was male. There wasn’t a known con involved, there wasn’t a known liar involved, or known perps that changed their stories like a chambermaid from the old days changed hotel bedsheets. There wasn’t the nationwide cynicism about law enforcement, or the “Them and Us” mentality that took a hold in the western world during the 60s. So there is always going to be a measure of natural speculation regarding these killings.
Terrapin said:
Grim did you and the Col meet up when he was in London?
We did indeed. It was a blazing hot Saturday in mid-June, and we had a good chat about a range of things, actually. I wish we'd had longer.
Dan S said:
Bugliosi's JFK assassination book is very convincing
I spent 5 months reading it last year, as it’s just over 1600 pages {with another 2000 pages of endnotes}. I think it’s a fantastic book. In true Bugliosi style, it’s so very thorough. He doesn’t hide his biases, doesn’t shy away from sarcasm, and doesn’t duck any of the anomalies or difficult episodes that crop up. Unlike so many other books on the subject, it deals primarily with facts and although he clearly has his opinion running through the book, you really get to make up your own mind.
I did a lot of travelling last summer {7 flights, including to the USA} and my sons and I calculated that we spent more than 24 hours in the sky. Most of my memories of being in the sky are wrapped up in that book. It was a great talking piece with people that I met. And of course, when you get talking with someone you don’t know, one subject leads to another.
I won’t be going far down the JFK rabbit hole, though. I have fairly firm views on it.
Lol not a fart in the wind! I get it: not the JFK blog....
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSpeculator:
ReplyDeleteI'd like to hop in here if I may.
Perhaps my overall stance on the TLB murders is similar to Grim's in that I tend to view that the trajectory of fact-finding resembles an asymtotic progression in some sense: in the aftermath of the crimes, as the initial facts emerged. much factual progress was made and as time progressed, the new factual aspects of the crime became fewer and fewer, simply because the facts are finite and as more became demonstrably known, fewer remained to be discovered. At this stage, barring the discovery and examination of any new "boxes" it's my opinion all of the principal elements of the crime are known and that they are in the current record. Anything else is likely to never be known because it no longer exists.
So what sometimes sets me off is wording like this:
"...the motive(s), events, circumstances before/during/after the murders may not have been truly revealed..."
This conveys a belief that there is some apparently organized and possibly malign controlling agency that has the information, but is purposely withholding for covert purposes. And as of right now, I've never seen any documented evidence that this was ever the case.
So we have a vast, malevolent cabal intent on keeping the rest of the world from learning the actual truth of a private criminal event of 56 years ago. Without evidence--not speculation, hearsay or innuendo, but something that *might* qualify as courtroom evidence, this is spectacularly absurd and a total waste of time.
I've only been active here for 6 years. It's apparent that the site can attract cranks...and yet I find David here, and Torque, and Matt, and Deb S., and a few others who, at best are actual and true historians of popular culture. It has a level of
Shoe - I’m not suggesting at all that there was/is any kind of organised cover-up of anything. I simply meant that there may be some facets/details of the murders that haven’t been uncovered. I stress the word MAY! As has been said many times before, the job of the prosecution was to convict rather than fully explain the crimes. The two didn’t necessarily have to go hand in hand. I agree with you - the likelihood of anything new coming to light is remote -either simply because there is nothing new to be revealed or the passage of time has made it impossible.. The Watson Tapes (so-called) would be interesting to hear.
Delete...actual historical value that stands a chance of affecting gthe work of future historians. And this is why I'm here, mostly.
ReplyDeleteToo, I hate to see co-respondents doing to themselves what Starviego seems bent on doing: destroying their personal credibility.
There's a party going on in a large room. Suddenly a lady guests notices she has lost an expensive diamond earring, and begs the host for help. The host tells everybody to start looking for the lost earring. After awhile a guest notices that everybody is gathered in one corner of the room, and says "why are you all over there? That diamond earring could be anywhere in this room." To which the host replies "yeah, but the light is on over here."
ReplyDeleteAnd so it is with TLB research. So many stick to the well-lighted corners of the case. But I hunt my prey in the darker, murkier corners. And in those regions, a degree of speculation is allowable.
So you see this as a sort of FPS (first person shooter) type of video game, rather than a police procedural?
DeleteSorta like the Tamara play in the Hollywood American Legion Hall?
It certainly would explain a lot...
Speculator:
ReplyDelete"...The Watson Tapes (so-called) would be interesting to hear."
Understood. I'm probably overly sensitive...
Speculator said:
ReplyDeleteSounds like Grim must’ve paid given your little love in
Actually, although I had come prepared to do that, the Col paid and was a generous host.
starviego said:
ReplyDeleteSo many stick to the well-lighted corners of the case
What are now the well-lighted corners were once the darker, murkier edges. The point of bringing such into the light is that it remains dark and murky, no more.
But I hunt my prey in the darker, murkier corners
"I hunt my prey," would be a great one if it was being used sarcastically in humour....but I can only sum you up in the words you have used about yourself down the years.
And in those regions, a degree of speculation is allowable
Conspiracy theorists do not speculate. They aver, under the guise of "asking questions" and speculating.
There isn't a problem with speculation. There's lots of it from people that have followed this case for years. Quite a bit of has been really good, on many sides of the equation. However, demonstrable answers and conclusions are generally the death blow to speculation.
Another cut wire that Bugliosi didn't want to talk about
A case in point. He had the killers. He had their 4 or 5 points of motivation. He had masses of evidence. He had 9 months-worth of witnesses. He had his case. He secured the conviction he was looking for. He made the point that there were anomalies in the case and that there would always be pieces that didn't fit.
So why in the world would he want to talk about a cut wire that doesn't suggest, let alone demonstrate, let alone prove anything ?
But in the way you raise it, there is always a smell left behind. You are, of course, perfectly entitled to do so. I've never said to you {and I won't ever} "don't do this." You're always going to have a coterie of followers. CTs inevitably do.
Speculator said:
ReplyDeleteAs has been said many times before, the job of the prosecution was to convict rather than fully explain the crimes
Interestingly, your acceptance of this fact only blows wider open why Starviego's conspiracies and "speculations" ultimately become so tame and lame. What made this case so fascinating is precisely the fact that it wasn't just a case of "convict the murderers." That was all Aaron Stovitz wanted. He was the head of the trials division.
But the reality is that people wanted to know why that crazy murder that bred so much initial fear, speculation and so much else, had happened. Was it a drug deal gone wrong ? Was there some connection between the pregnant wife of the director of "Rosemary's Baby" and the ex-boyfriend ? Was it some bizarre sacrifice ? Was it "Goona-Goona" ?
As Bugliosi pointed out many a time, people want to know why and in a trial, although the prosecution doesn't have to say why, it is powerful evidence if you can show why. And it made it even more powerful, given those who were on trial. Very young women ! A clean-cut ex-college boy. A semi-illiterate ex-con. Had it not been during the Hippy era or among the Hollywood cognoscenti, it may not have merited so much attention after a couple of weeks. And the more one went into details presented, the more fascinating it became.
Vincent Bugliosi was insane to have deigned to bring all that came up, to trial and in a way, Aaron Stovitz deserves a measure of credit that he doesn't usually get, for allowing all that to go ahead. But, all of the evidence pointed that way. And the more that has come up subsequently to attempt to obfuscate {such as the subject matter of this thread}, the stronger their case has looked. Shoegazer hits the nail squarely on the head when he says as time progressed, the new factual aspects of the crime became fewer and fewer, simply because the facts are finite and as more became demonstrably known, fewer remained to be discovered. At this stage, barring the discovery and examination of any new "boxes" it's my opinion all of the principal elements of the crime are known and that they are in the current record. Anything else is likely to never be known because it no longer exists. So one has to continually ask, why bring up and speculate at this point in time unless one has an endgame in mind ? George Stimson was honest enough to have an end game, the same one that Squeaky had in her oh so gentle book back in 2018. Both demonstrably demolished, but there was no "may be" and "perhaps" where they were concerned. They took their position and defended it. They stood on solid ground, not quicksand, because as far as they were trying to persuade the world, lil' ol' Charlie didn't really do anything naughty.
Of course, solid ground is periodically subject to earthquakes, wherein, it no more remains solid.
The prosecution did explain the crimes, and fully. Or at least, as fully as can be expected, given 56 years of flip-flopping, minimization, obfuscation and self-promotion.
Fountain of the world race war ideology demogoguery convinces strapping young lad willing to do anything to get into the real orgies in the big house. Top bitch with speed perhaps. Second night, "show em how it's done", leave victims trussed up: no escaping culpability.... Cutting hinman and shorty also pretty undeniable
ReplyDeleteI think we're more ghouls than a-holes... Do you enjoy true crime stories? I like how you're firmly in the copycat camp. I feel the "get the brother out of jail" could be a real winner. Col, you can stop wondering now.
ReplyDeleteTerrapin said:
ReplyDeleteOh to be a fly on the wall
Not near my omelette, mate !
Dan S said:
I feel the "get the brother out of jail" could be a real winner
Grandma, what big eyes you have !
{i.e, the punchline in a previous fairy tale}.
Yawn.....
ReplyDelete