If that's true, and I'm not sure it is, her continually being referred to as 'the heiress to the Folger coffee fortune' would not be true. I think it would be more well known if she had been cut off.
It's just one of those thing's I think I heard somewhere. It might not have been when it was said or my memory could be faulty. If someone on the blog doesn't confirm it. I'll write it off as a mixed memory of an old man.
I've been into true crime since Joe Friday's partner was Ben Alexander and the show was in production. It's time for me to have mixed memories.
David wrote an excellent series on Abigail here on the blog. His research included an inventory and appraisal of the entirety of her wealth. This amounted to a very impressive portfolio in 1969. These were legal documents, and there is no indication that she was ever cut off from her inheritance.
Thank you Torque. I'm fairly sure now, that I'm mixing my memory of Abigail with someone else. I've checked Patty Hearst without success. It could be one of the Manson girl's I'm thinking about.
Okay the Great cielodrive has posted the Orca Tate interview either the UK paper the Telegraph. https://www.instagram.com/p/DPWrCe5EQ3I/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link Of all the things that never happened din this world, teenage Debra staring down Charlie is the runaway number one thing that never happened. The article is filled with lies and deceit. Then I read the twitter account of Sharon Tate Archive where the moronic owner claims that there never was a wonderful book called Restless Souls and that Patti and Col Paul's work is owned by Debra (who was SPECIFICALLY disinherited by her family.
I owe Matt the posting MY GRIM BREAKFAST for over 6 weeks now and fuck me I have to go delineate all the bullshit grifters like Debra and O'Neil spew into the case. Fuck these people with a chainsaw.
Okay the Great cielodrive has posted the Orca Tate interview in the UK paper the Telegraph
Some of the article is quite good. But I suspect that a number of people who have an in-depth knowledge of the various {and there are many, as we all know} strands of the case will be somewhat irritable at much of it.
Of all the things that never happened din this world, teenage Debra staring down Charlie is the runaway number one thing that never happened. The article is filled with lies and deceit
It is rather hard to believe that Debbie went to see Charlie, got into the jail and actually sat with him and stared him down, and this in December 1969. I wasn't there so I'll not be staking my life that it never happened. But I don't believe it. I'm not going to disparage Debbie Tate, but let me just put it like this, given that she has spoken much untruth herself at various parole hearings {all easily demonstrable, they're in the hearing transcripts - I've had running arguments about this with a series of people over the years at at Cielo's site}, and distorts things so as to pull on emotional heartstrings, she does not do herself any favours.
As I've said before, she has the facts of the case on her side if she wants to convince people of the savagery of the murderers' actions in '69. But what she doesn't have now, and has never had, is any current information on any of the murderers, because she's never had a conversation with any of them.
It's not as though this wasn't possible. After all, Rosemary's daughter was in contact for a lengthy period with Charles Watson. And with all her immediate family dead, Debbie can basically say whatever she pleases because there's no one to correct or contradict her. The article makes her read like a major heroine. I don't see her that way. Incidentally, that Telegraph article made an interesting point about how, in the UK, the idea of heinous murderers like Ian Brady {who raped and murdered children}, Myra Hindley {who, as Brady's partner, helped procure the kids and lowered their guard, being a woman}, Freddie and Rosemary West, {who murdered some 13 girls and young women and buried them in their house, in the walls, in garden...and their own children were among the victims}, Peter Sutcliffe {the Yorkshire Ripper} and Denis Nilsen {who murdered loads of blokes, decapitated them and shoved their remains under the floorboards or down the toilet at his home - the eventual stink of the drains is what got him caught} being rehabilitated and deemed fit for release back into society in their old age would be unthinkable. The reason it would be unthinkable is on them. Each one of them made no effort at rehabilitation. The only one that seemingly did, Myra Hindley, played duplicitous games with the authorities and was found to be less than trustworthy, to not speak ill of the dead. None of them really ever showed any remorse for their crimes. Some of them never even admitted them. Fred West hung himself before he even got to trial. And 11 years into his sentence, Dennis Nilsen had his minimum of 25 years sentence changed to a whole-life tariff, so that was them out of the way, for starters.
So, it was an interesting point, but not a good one.
Whatever one wants to say about the Tate-LaBianca killers, there has been an attempt from them to recognize their sordid actions and try to rehabilitate. One may be sceptical about their reasoning or doubt their veracity, but they're not comparable with the examples that the Telegraph journalist cited in one of the differences between the USA and here. Because in reality, parole is baked in to almost every sentence meted out in the UK, except in exceptional circumstances.
Somewhere along the way, I think I read that Abigail had been cut from her fathers will. Does anyone else remember that information?
ReplyDeleteIf that's true, and I'm not sure it is, her continually being referred to as 'the heiress to the Folger coffee fortune' would not be true. I think it would be more well known if she had been cut off.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt's just one of those thing's I think I heard somewhere. It might not have been when it was said or my memory could be faulty. If someone on the blog doesn't confirm it. I'll write it off as a mixed memory of an old man.
ReplyDeleteI've been into true crime since Joe Friday's partner was Ben Alexander and the show was in production. It's time for me to have mixed memories.
David wrote an excellent series on Abigail here on the blog. His research included an inventory and appraisal of the entirety of her wealth. This amounted to a very impressive portfolio in 1969. These were legal documents, and there is no indication that she was ever cut off from her inheritance.
ReplyDeleteThank you Torque. I'm fairly sure now, that I'm mixing my memory of Abigail with someone else. I've checked Patty Hearst without success. It could be one of the Manson girl's I'm thinking about.
ReplyDeleteOkay the Great cielodrive has posted the Orca Tate interview either the UK paper the Telegraph. https://www.instagram.com/p/DPWrCe5EQ3I/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link Of all the things that never happened din this world, teenage Debra staring down Charlie is the runaway number one thing that never happened. The article is filled with lies and deceit. Then I read the twitter account of Sharon Tate Archive where the moronic owner claims that there never was a wonderful book called Restless Souls and that Patti and Col Paul's work is owned by Debra (who was SPECIFICALLY disinherited by her family.
ReplyDeleteI owe Matt the posting MY GRIM BREAKFAST for over 6 weeks now and fuck me I have to go delineate all the bullshit grifters like Debra and O'Neil spew into the case. Fuck these people with a chainsaw.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI salute anyone like Gibby who had the luxury of never having to lift a finger in her life but was working to do good in the world
ReplyDeleteColScott said:
ReplyDeleteOkay the Great cielodrive has posted the Orca Tate interview in the UK paper the Telegraph
Some of the article is quite good. But I suspect that a number of people who have an in-depth knowledge of the various {and there are many, as we all know} strands of the case will be somewhat irritable at much of it.
Of all the things that never happened din this world, teenage Debra staring down Charlie is the runaway number one thing that never happened. The article is filled with lies and deceit
It is rather hard to believe that Debbie went to see Charlie, got into the jail and actually sat with him and stared him down, and this in December 1969. I wasn't there so I'll not be staking my life that it never happened. But I don't believe it. I'm not going to disparage Debbie Tate, but let me just put it like this, given that she has spoken much untruth herself at various parole hearings {all easily demonstrable, they're in the hearing transcripts - I've had running arguments about this with a series of people over the years at at Cielo's site}, and distorts things so as to pull on emotional heartstrings, she does not do herself any favours.
As I've said before, she has the facts of the case on her side if she wants to convince people of the savagery of the murderers' actions in '69. But what she doesn't have now, and has never had, is any current information on any of the murderers, because she's never had a conversation with any of them.
It's not as though this wasn't possible. After all, Rosemary's daughter was in contact for a lengthy period with Charles Watson. And with all her immediate family dead, Debbie can basically say whatever she pleases because there's no one to correct or contradict her. The article makes her read like a major heroine. I don't see her that way.
Incidentally, that Telegraph article made an interesting point about how, in the UK, the idea of heinous murderers like Ian Brady {who raped and murdered children}, Myra Hindley {who, as Brady's partner, helped procure the kids and lowered their guard, being a woman}, Freddie and Rosemary West, {who murdered some 13 girls and young women and buried them in their house, in the walls, in garden...and their own children were among the victims}, Peter Sutcliffe {the Yorkshire Ripper} and Denis Nilsen {who murdered loads of blokes, decapitated them and shoved their remains under the floorboards or down the toilet at his home - the eventual stink of the drains is what got him caught} being rehabilitated and deemed fit for release back into society in their old age would be unthinkable.
The reason it would be unthinkable is on them. Each one of them made no effort at rehabilitation. The only one that seemingly did, Myra Hindley, played duplicitous games with the authorities and was found to be less than trustworthy, to not speak ill of the dead. None of them really ever showed any remorse for their crimes. Some of them never even admitted them. Fred West hung himself before he even got to trial. And 11 years into his sentence, Dennis Nilsen had his minimum of 25 years sentence changed to a whole-life tariff, so that was them out of the way, for starters.
So, it was an interesting point, but not a good one.
Whatever one wants to say about the Tate-LaBianca killers, there has been an attempt from them to recognize their sordid actions and try to rehabilitate. One may be sceptical about their reasoning or doubt their veracity, but they're not comparable with the examples that the Telegraph journalist cited in one of the differences between the USA and here. Because in reality, parole is baked in to almost every sentence meted out in the UK, except in exceptional circumstances.