Several months ago, George Stimson and I collaborated on a video analyzing the blood evidence from the murders at 10050 Cielo drive. Our goal was simple. Challenge the long-standing claim that the blood on the porch floor belonged to Jay Sebring and Sharon Tate-Polanski, and explore the possibility that Voytek Frykowski had been mistyped. Contrary that what people assume, I didn't take any theory to George. It emerged from many conversations where we both kept circling back to the same conclusion: something about the blood typing simply didn't add up. In all reality, George deserves the credit for everything in the video he put out, because this is a thought that has been circulating in his mind for years, and when we spoke about it many times, it kept coming back to the typing not making any sense. It was his long hours of research, and I helped him with things medically that he wasn't aware of. Those that do know me know I am a Nurse Practitioner, such as blood types exist differently in different locations. For anyone that wants to refute that, then you don't understand the simple fact as to why we have blood drives, and I also pointed out to him major inconsistencies in the reports.
You can watch the video here:
After our video came out, TabOrFresca (I hope I got that correct) made a call in to Twilight Garage, and it was weird, not in a bad way, it was like TF was in on the conversations George and I were having behind the scenes.
That video can be seen here:
To boil this down, one of the most glaring inconsistencies is this:
If Voytek Frykowski was type B, where is his blood? In over 50 years, no participant in the murders of Jay Sebring, Sharon Tate-Polanski, Steven Parent, Abigail Folger, and Voytek Frykowski haver ever placed Tate-Polanski and Sebing on the porch. In contrast, statements and testimony from Susan Atkins, Tex Watson, and Linda Kasabian consistently place Voytek there.
This aligns with the initial police interpretation in the First Tate Homicide Progress Report which describes two large untyped pools of blood near Frykowski's attempted escape, suggesting that the paused or struggled in those two locations. Near one of those blood pools, investigators noted a purple scarf as identified as Type O.
Near Frykowski... (credit to Michelle for finding it in this photo IF that is it. looks to be. But it's not visible in the other shots of his body including the bodies being covered and the police on the lawn.)
The color changes from purple to violet. That doesn't mean much concerning the evidence. G43 is listed as purple ribbons and or a fabric assumed to be from the scarf. it was found in or near the entrance way. Type O-MN. You can find this in testimony too.
You can read the article here;
Keypoints of the article are;
"Courtroom observers were left with another puzzle from Granada's testimony. He identified a larger pool of blood found on the front walk as being the same type as Mr. Sebring's O-MN. The other three victims, Abigail Folger, a coffee heiress, Voytek Frykowski, a polish writer and producer, and Steven Parent, an 18-year old friend of Miss Tate's housekeeper (though William was not the housekeeper of the main house, thought I would add that) all had blood types B-MN. Mrs. Linda Kasabian, the states principal witness testified previously that she had seen Mr. Frykowski stagger, bleeding, from the front door and fall in the area of the blood stained walk. Mrs. Kasabian said that Charles D. Watson pounced on him there and continued to beat and stab him. Mr. Frykowski's body was found on the lawn.
This is consistent with Atkins earliest of statements and other statements made there after. For example, in her 12/1/1969 interview with Richard Caballero and Caruso, she states, "I don't remember what exactly happened. I remember seeing Frykowski going outside, he was yelling for his life. he was screaming really loud and I said, Tex, help me, do something. Tex went over and hit him 5 or 6 times over the head with the butt of the gun (blood type O-MN), broke the gun handle, the gun wouldn't work anymore, and proceeded to stab him. While he was stabbing the man was still screaming, I'm surprised nobody heard anything. And he was pretty much half dead on the porch, that's why all the blood was there I imagine.
But you may say, type B was found on the gun? That is true. But lets look at recollection.
Atkins described Watson stabbing Folger inside the residence before returning outside to continue attacking Frykowski. This sequence provides a logical explanation. Folger's blood could have transfered to the gun via Watson's hands.
The blood smears on Sharon Tate-Polanski can easily be explained through statement's Watson made to Bill Boyd. I made this analysis from the John Hurst article who heard some of the "Tex Watson Tapes"
Hurst wrote " As he describes the shooting and stabbing slaughter of five victims, Watson's voice on the tape remains emotionless. His tone is almost disinterested as he tells of murdering Miss Tate, who was eight months pregnant. "I went back inside," he says on the tape recording. " and she was the only one...left that was alive, the Tate girl. She was pleading to me, pleading to me and pleading to me, but I didn't have a moment of hesitation. I took a knife and just slit a big slit across her face, you know, it was all lighting up to me" he continues "just like a big acid trip, all these colors and everything, and I just kept cutting her and carving on the body and started stabbing her in the chest from here up."
"How many times did you stab her?" asks Boyd
"I'd say maybe 15 cuts and stabs" is the matter of fact reply.
You can read the article here;
Conclusion
A reassessment of the evidence indicates the most coherent explanation, and the most logical one, is that Voytek Frykowski's blood type was incorrectly recorded during the initial investigation. Such and error would reconcile the presence of Type O blood along the path attributed to Frykowski, resolve contradictions between testimony and forensic findings, and account for long-standing anomalies noted by both the investigators, observers, testimony and evidence.
Witness testimony and statements made afterwards consistently places Frykowski on the porch and the lawn. The physical blood patterns align with this. Type O blood is present along the path. No credible evidence places Sebring or Tate-Polanski on the porch. This falls apart on the onset of this theory. Clothing evidence does not support the hypothesis that Sebring was the source of the blood on the porch. When all of these are placed together, Frykowski may have been mislabeled/mistyped. The scarf may not have been central to the prosecution, but it could be a likely key to understanding Frykowski's final moments, and revealing at how critical evidence may have been mishandled or misunderstood in the chaos of the investigation.
149 comments:
OK. And?
I'm not sure what you're asking with the "and"?
I think that this is a good re-examination of this very puzzling aspect of the physical evidence seeming to categorically contradict all narratives from all sources of the crime at Cielo.
I think that there are two areas that you raise that I've not explored very well, and that's the scarf on the lawn, and the B blood on the gun.
From the photo of Frykowski's feet, this seems to be what I'm seeing:
1) something purple/violet/lavender on his left ankle, seemingly draped there.
2) something of the same color under his right shin. He is laying on top of it.
3) his right ankle area, right where one expects a sock to be visible, above the shoe, seems white. Either a white sock, or no sock at all.
WRT to Watson's description of the killing of Tate, it's similar to what he said in "Will You Die for Me?": he remembers cutting Tate on the face. And yet there was extensive testimony by Nagouchi, and on the autopsy report, that this was not a cut, but an abrasion likely from the rope, while ostensibly being hauled upright and possible suspended.
This is doubly intriguing because while he never mentioned it, he very likely was the one to have inflicted a severe facial cut to Folger. Now combine these conflicting recollections with this, as you quote from the tape:
"...you know, it was all lighting up to me" he continues "just like a big acid trip, all these colors and everything,..."
He's essentially telling us that he was very, very loaded, and we should infer that his recollections of details and the actual sequence of events may very well be hazy. E.g., it's never been really clear to me whether Watson went and helped Krenwinkel to kill Folger on the lawn (he apparently had stabbed her in the abdomen *before* she ran out of the house, but...) and *then* went back to finish Frykowsky, who had revived enough to stagger from where he was laying on the front porch out to the lawn, where he may have been the source of the shouting that Ireland testified to, or Watson killed Frykowski on the lawn first, then went to help kill Folger afterward.
I have begun to suspect that the "standard narrative" as told by all parrticipants, has essentially all of the major events mentioned, but that the sequence may be scrambled, since Atkins and Watson took drigs prior to the crime, and Kasabian may not have seen the entire sequence and extrapolated.
Finally, I feel pretty certain that you're well awa
...aware of David's length analysis of the crime scene and its evidence. This was exemplary work. The six-part "A Look At the Evidence" series from 2016.
Thanks for the interesting post!b I hope to sharpened up my wits and contribute more on this thread.
This part:
"Much like any detailed medical record, the autopsy diagram also shows where the pants leg ends on his body, well above the ankle. "
I disagree that this is what the written comment on the autopsy report is specifying. I think it is an extension of the description of the clothing just above it, and more importantly, it is noting that Frykowski's pants were pulled way down. This is noted elsewhere.
"Will You Die For Me?" Is from the "Tex Watson Tapes. I can't see Chaplain Ray Hoekstra paying that large amount of money to not be able to use all the material in the recordings for the book.
Back when Van Houten's attorney was seeking to release the tapes, Watson wrote a letter to CNN stating that there were no other murders discussed on the tapes.
The theory that Sebring was on the porch dies at the onset it's spoken or typed. The physical evidence counters the claim. Sebring didn't have stabbings to his legs. And if the pants were changed from Frykowski to Sebring to "stage the scene" they would have noted tears in his pants with no matching wounds...but yet the wounds would have matched Frykowski.
Something else to consider about the recollection. Especially concerning Atkins. She was in a violent fight with Frykowski, pulling her hair, which can, in medical terms, cause a concussion if she is hit hard enough or her hair is pulled hard enough to cause whiplash.
I will say I believe it's possible the scarf was laid on Frykowski since it was near his body. If you look at the morgue photos of Sebring, the towel that was on his head is laid across his legs. So it makes sense that the scarf was laid on Frykowski and placed in a position it wouldn't be moved from.
I will also say, it's clear he confuses Tate-Polanski and Folger. Looking at the morgue photos of Tate-Polanski, her facial wound isn't as bad...I mean it's bad from the rope burn...but not as the abrasions found on Folger's face. When looking at her Morgue photo, she has one across the cheek, one by her chin, and on on her bottom lip. It goes to support the theory that the killers didn't know the victims, otherwise there wouldn't be confusion as to who was who.
I can take that. I made the assertion from looking where his pants leg ends and looking at the diagram which shows within the same area.
When you look into the gun, only type B was found on it...but not the grips. The grips broke when Watson was hitting Frykowski on the head as he's trying to run out the door...the grips have O-MN. Someone who is supposedly type B-MN can not bleed type O-MN.
Another logical explanation from Watson is that he lunged at Parent and cut him with the knife he had (in Will You Die For Me?" Or it's correct from Susan's recollection, he stabbed Abigail Folger before going back outside to finish killing Frykowski. That would cause the blood transfer.
I have no problems with any of that.
I watched the Stimson video. I think it're well done and compelling.
I could not bear to watch the Twilight Garage one, however.
A very interesting article and thank you for all of the research. We have to remember of course, as I’m sure you will accept, that it is essentially conjecture. The blood puzzle will never be adequately resolved - it’s just a shame that it wasn’t resolved at the time of the investigation/trial. You take your pick between errors made by the bloods guy or the full story/sequence of events never having come to light. Personally I'm open-minded on both accounts and accept that if we’re to solely rely on the testimony of the murderers then the former seems the more likely. But we’ll never know for sure. It’s interesting to note the position of the purple scarf if it is as pointed out by shoe gazer wrapped above and below left/ right feet/legs. I’d always assumed that the photo just shows the natural color of WF pants (just distorted by a poor copy of the photo). If it is the scarf - how did it end up like this around his legs? Not important in the overall scheme of things but odd nonetheless?
The theory that Sebring was on the porch dies at the onset it's spoken or typed.
I've examined all photos of Sebring at the crime scene, and I cannot believe that he was moved more than the immediate vicinity (3-5 ft), if that, after he was attacked.
My opinion only.
I will say I believe it's possible the scarf was laid on Frykowski since it was near his body. If you look at the morgue photos of Sebring, the towel that was on his head is laid across his legs. So it makes sense that the scarf was laid on Frykowski and placed in a position it wouldn't be moved from.
If the scarf was laid on Frykowski (and I assume we're talking about the lavender/purple/violet one in the photo with the circle), who laid it onthere, and when?
Also, what do you make of that second lavender thing, same color, under his right shin area?
I will also say, it's clear he confuses Tate-Polanski and Folger. Looking at the morgue photos of Tate-Polanski, her facial wound isn't as bad...I mean it's bad from the rope burn...but not as the abrasions found on Folger's face. When looking at her Morgue photo, she has one across the cheek, one by her chin, and on on her bottom lip. It goes to support the theory that the killers didn't know the victims, otherwise there wouldn't be confusion as to who was who.
This is Watson mixing up in his mind who he cut on the face, right?
Me, I tend to believe that there was a marked rope burn, but no cut. I would think that there would be very little chance of misidentiying the type of wound at the autopsy.
Good discussion!
I absolutely agree...BUT...and there is always a BUT lol...the clothing evidence doesn't match for Sebring to be on the porch and fallen. The gun shot wound was fatal, so it makes sense logically when Susan said something in the lines he was laying on the floor dead or dying.
I believe it's one and the same. G43 on the analyzed evidence report states that there was a fabric with purple ribbons believed to be from the scarf found in or by the entrance way.
It could have been anyone on the scene to move the scarf. From testimony, it was stated as being stiff...that says the blood was dried on it. That could account for the way it's positioned as well.
Yes, I believe Watson was confusing Tate-Polanski with Folger, in the same way Susan confused Sharon And Abigail by calling Sharon, Sharon Folger.
But how does the scarf end up entwined between the legs/feet if it had just been placed there by person(s) unknown. For me it’s similar to how the towel ends up tied around Sebring’s neck as opposed to supposedly have simply landed on his face after been discarded by presumably Atkins. The crime scene photos clearly show that it’s wrapped under the rope around his neck.
And I don’t necessarily buy the suggestion that Watson was confusing AF and ST. He was pretty lucid about the rest of his comments regarding ST final moments
Error above:
The purple/lavender/violet "scarf" is around his RIGHT light (not left) and the other little purple/lavender/violet thingie is under his left shin. It appears near the left knee.
Then we must explain why the autopsy got the wound type on Tate's face wrong, and the Nagouchi personally confirmed, on the stand, that it was a rope burn.
Yes lots of contradictions! You’re right -you would take the autopsy findings concluded in a clinical setting as being accurate
I am coming around to the opinion that the purple thingies circled in the photo are NOT the scarf, but are an intrinsic part of his pants.
His hippy pants...
The thought now occurs to me, probably triggered by the Stimson video where he mentions that if we could find Frykowski's pants in an evidence box, we could tell of he was B or O, I'm thinking that we could possibly learn even more with DNA analysis. If two people havethe same bloodtype, e.g., ) B-MN, you could not be sure who was the source. But a DNA analysis could clear this up, as well.
I can't explain that. There was also shotty police work too, we can't forget that as a possibility. The broken gun grip was seen at various locations. The button was pushed on the gate by an officer...which if Frykowski was mislabeled, that could be his blood on the button to push the gate open.
I think George presented that well...congested area of autopsies being preformed as well constant communications could be distracting hence the errors.
Exactly. When looking at Frykowski's autopsy report, the only blood that was taken was to be drug tested. I believe it's page 12 that shows no mark if blood was taken for typing.
I will also say that his pants were listed on his autopsy report as "multicolored" if there were a purple/violet hem cuff, you would think they would list it.
The towel under the rope on Sebring is something the killers could never get right as to who did it. Could it have been Watson? It's possible. The same thing was done the next night with the sad and brutal killings of Leno and Rosemary Labianca, with the pillowcases and the cords. Now, if we go with Susan's recollection, she didn't recollect a towel covering Sebring's head. She did recollect that Sharon was cut up more than she previously was when she last saw Sharon's body. Watson was one stab wound off when he described killing Sharon.
Susan also said she threw the large beige towel towards Sharon. Granado noted the towel was between Sharon and Jay when he observed it, BUT in the crime scene photos, the towel was moreso close to the fireplace by what looks like a small lamp shade. I have another angle of those photos and it's clear that that towel was the one dipped in Sharon's blood because you can see the blood on the towel that is almost circular absorbed.
The towel under the rope on Sebring is something the killers could never get right as to who did it.
I think that it's because they, themselves, don't know for sure.
And in truth there's no good explanation for the towel, or the eye glasses.
Nor is the much vaunted Manson's return to the scene, just to mess things around.
If forced to guess, I'd say the actual explanations are probably very pedestrian and ordinary. Not having any real impact on the facts of the case. But I'm far from sure, so no claims here.
"I think George presented that well...congested area of autopsies being preformed as well constant communications could be distracting hence the errors."
I profoundly disagree that anything like that could cause the doctor doing the autopsy, with Naguchi--a true publicity seeker--overseeing it, and them him putting his credibility on the line by making a serious error about the nature of the wound.
I think that all Stimson means, or all that can be reasonably inferred, is that errors such number of wounds, etc. might happen.
And as to Naguchi, you'll note that he makes it a public to correct the record on errors.
When looking at Frykowski's autopsy report, the only blood that was taken was to be drug tested.
FWIW, this is a good point so far as I'm concerned.
THere was some talk of digging up Frykowski's Polish medical records to check blood type from years previous. I don't think this was ever done, and I do think that Stimson's speculation that digging the "hippy pants" out of an evidence box somewhere is the best answer.
James, with regard to the photo of the lawn with what may be the scarf, I just eyeballed it at 200% magnification, and I agree that it is something and it's in the area I've seen as identified as where the "purple scarf" was, and here's what I think.
1. Probably >50-50 that it is the scarf in question.
2, It is definitely purple, not violet or lavender.
3, It is not what is on Frykowski's legs in the photo of his legs. Absolutely wrong color.
So I think maybe I misunderstood your point about that stuff on/around Frykowski's legs. I may have misunderstood it to be the scarf. Is that what you meant? If not, please clarify what your point was about the photo of Frykowski's legs.
Thanks!
For what it's worth, Manson admitted he told Pat to take the glasses and drop them off in an interview and he said it to someone else in a recorded phone call.
I do believe it to be the scarf. If you can get angles from where photographs we're taken of Folger and you can clearly see Frykowski and have a good view of behind him, it's not visible. It's also not visible when the bodies were covered. It's described to have purple ribbons...matching the same fabric found by the entrance way, with purple ribbons.
We can clearly tell it's not his purple socks as listed on the autopsy report. If you look closely, the leg under the bloody one(clearly the leg he was stabbed in by Atkins) you can see where the pants cuffs is, and it doesn't match where the hem is under is knee as you pointed out earlier.
In testimony, the clothing wasn't used as evidence, but we're photographed under an infrared camera.
Let's say for the sake of argument that whatever that is around his feet was part of the design of his multicolored pants. That's A LOT of fabric bunched up around the leg on the lawn. When looking at the other leg it goes under the leg and isn't seen around the hem.
IF that on the lawn is the scarf, then it's consistent with Frykowski's path leading to where he collapsed and finally passed away. The blood on the scarf was O-MN just as it was for the fabric with ribbons in the entrance way.
Let's say for the sake of argument that whatever that is around his feet was part of the design of his multicolored pants.
I really want to get this straight, and other readers here may be confused in the same way that I am.
You showed us the photo of something on the lawn and I think it is likely to the purple scarf.
Then you show us the photo of Frykowski's legs. There is something that is a very light purple visible around/near both legs.
I believed that you were saying that these light purple things near his legs were indeed the scarf. This makes little sense to me after seeing a much darker purple object on the lawn, even allowing for the different lighting.
It appears too small and the wrong color, and it is NOT that close to Frykowski's legs.
So what was the intent? Are you saying they're the same piece of material. or what?
Thanks.
"For what it's worth, Manson admitted he told Pat to take the glasses and drop them off in an interview and he said it to someone else in a recorded phone call."
I can't buy that as likely without more specifics.
E.g., I've read about Manson saying that they had the glasses at Spahn and they used it to start fires. There's some optical evidence that it would not work well, or at all, for this purpose. I'd need to review this to see what I think of it.
Too, I think I've read Manson saying that he went back out there with another unnamed family member and that he left the glasses to confuse the investigation.
So much stuff, some mutually exclusive, that I have the glasses in the "to be determined" category and not the "Mason told Krenwinkel to leave them, so that's a fact" category.
It may or may not be. That's the problem. In photos from other angles, the assumed scarf on the lawn is no longer visible. When looking at the black and white photo of the police on the walk way, which the assumed location of the scarf is perfectly visible...only a black smudge is there, but at the same time there are other black smudges in spots on the lawn in those photos. I was just checking Newspapers.com and in NJ the scarf was reported as being blue. I didn't want to post that particular angle of his body out of respect or the other angles taken by Folger's body, where you can see Frykowski on the lawn and the location of this scarf (If that is it on the lawn) is not visible and you get a clear shot all the way to the shrubbery. It's also not visible in the photos of the bodies on the lawn covered with sheets. There is no photo of the scarf in the evidence files to verify if it is the assumed scarf on lawn or what is around his feet.
Here is a screen recording of Manson saying he told Pat to take the glasses and drop them off if she planned to do what she was going to. It's almost verbatim as to what was recorded in a call as well.
https://youtube.com/shorts/6TliUceAg_Q?si=eNEif7QFQnTn81kd
The glasses were for nearsideded people. They wouldn't retract heat to start a fire.
Thanks for continuing the discussion about this important aspect of the case with this post. As always, I recommend that everyone read David's post here on the blog concerning the blood evidence.
"I will also say that his pants were listed on his autopsy report as "multicolored" if there were a purple/violet hem cuff, you would think they would list it."
Of course it's a toss-up, but my feeling is that once the person describing said "multi-colored" they pretty much thought it covered every pattern or color on his pants.
Just my opinion, though.
Lots of good discussion, James!
Is your point that the "scarf" was moved by police personnel or some other official from the position on the lawn in your photo, to Frykowski's legs in the other photo?
I'm not looking to fight this idea--I am glad for new observations based on solid evidence--I just want to be sure I know what it is you're talking about, and we can go from there.
Here is a screen recording of Manson saying he told Pat to take the glasses and drop them off if she planned to do what she was going to. It's almost verbatim as to what was recorded in a call as well.
[LINK SNIPPED]
James, here's how I'd evaluate this statement by Manson.
Manson said many things, and many seemed contradictory and possibly false. So we have him trying to convince a TV interviewer, years after the incident, that he was not responsible for what the killers did at Cielo. The killers could have listened to be, but still they could have just not done them: the choice was theirs. Then he uses an example of the glasses as to how Krenwinkel didn't have to take them and leave them at the scene.
Manson was well-aware of the mysterious glasses: he also has implied that he, himself, went back to Cielo (with an unidentified family member) to inspect how well they did the job. I also talked about the glasses being at Spahn.
All that *could* be true. Manson was very good at finding areas that he could exploit to try to plant doubt, but it could be true.
It could also be true that he told Krenwinkel to take the glasses. Let's explore that possibility.
No one else mentioned this in any narrative. Still, I think they simply did not recall a lot of stuff. But still the only mention of Krenwinkel doing the glasses was the Manson TV interview.
We can tell that there was significant planning and some degree of familiarity with 10050. Took a rope, shears to cut the wires, a change of clothing, etc.
So, where was she carrying the glasses on the way in the car? Blouse pocket (did she have a pocket there?), jeans pocket? If jeans, >50-50 they'd be damaged--crushed, and they weren't. But still let's go with it.
So when did she place the glasses? If it was as they left--and I'm not sure if she ever went back into the house after she chased Folger out--if true, this means she carried them somehow climbing over the fence, during the fight with Folger, then, if you believe Krenwinkel, she checked out the guest house, and all this time she's somehow carrying them, and somehow they're undamaged.
Or did she place them on the floor, before all the action? If so, the trunks were likely not down, and then there was all the mad scrambling by Frykowski, Atkins, and Watson. And still they're unbroken.
So, to me, I continue to doubt that Krenwinkel took and planted glasses at 10050.
James, I'm just using this to show how I tend to evaluate stuff. It is just my opinion, but still, there it is... :^)
The glasses were for nearsideded people. They wouldn't retract heat to start a fire.
GENERAL OPEN QUESTION
In the discussion re the mystery glasses, I got curious about them and asked Google AI:
"Could the glasses found at the 10050 Cielo Drive crime scene be used to start a fire by focusing sunlight?"
It went and told me no, etc. but it mentioned that they were found to belong to Tex Watson. I was surprised. I asked a further question:
"When were these glasses found to belong to tex watson?"
And the answer was:
August 9, 1969: Found inside the 10050 Cielo Drive estate during the initial crime scene processing.
October 23, 1969: LAPD Detective Lt. Robert Helder publicly reveals the glasses as a "key clue," describing them as having amber rims and plastic prescription lenses.
Late 1969: Investigators used the glasses during lie detector tests for suspects, but they remained a "mystery" clue without a confirmed owner.
August 1971: During Tex Watson's trial, the prosecution presented the glasses as evidence. Testimony and records eventually confirmed they were Watson's, linking him directly to the physical evidence left inside the residence.
I don't fully trust AI to get things right, so does this info jibe with your knowledge?
I will say that it's not for me to tell who Charlie told that to in a recorded call, but this person was associated with Charlie when the murders happened and a year before.
Manson has always refuted going to Cielo drive after the murders. I found an article from either 2012 or 2013 in Rolling Stone magazine on Charlie, and he told the interviewer that if he had gone to that house it would have been cleaner. So that's six instances compared to one...Manson in his own words... Where he has refuted going to the house after the murders. One of those people he refuted it to was George Stimson.
As far as that goes with the glasses, I don't recall ever hearing that... But I can always find out.
I will say that it's not for me to tell who Charlie told that to in a recorded call, but this person was associated with Charlie when the murders happened and a year before.
James, why is it not for you to say? If you know, you need to identify the source if you want to be taken seriously.
Otherwise it's innuendo and gossip.
Please, let's not go down that road. We've already got enough of that in this forum. I thought you were onto something--and you were, with the possibility of confused blood types. It was pretty well supported as a possibility using logical speculation. It'll never be definitive until more concrete evidence comes--and after 57 years, this seems very unlikely.
He told Sandy Good.
I just checked, and there was nothing about the glasses being Watson's or linked to him.
Also checked the reports and I don't seen Parent's glasses listed as found near him unless I'm looking over it. Parent would have been nearsided...same lines found in the glasses.
shoegazer
Torque, the Stimson video did a good job of bringing to the forefront an aspect of the existing blood evidence that had nagged the back of my mind without really coming up front, for consideration:
In looking at the recent photos of Frykowski's legs and feet, when James was showing the lavender coloration of something I noted again that his pants were totally and completely soaked with his blood. He bled copiously, it's plain to see.
Now, based on this simple observation, it is pretty difficult to accept any scenario where he did not leave quite a lot of blood evidence from the point where he was first attacked, and along whatever route he followed to get to the lawn.
This does not prove anything. What it does, however, is to deeply undermine the validity of the blood evidence as it was recorded. It invites other lines of speculation, which is exactly what Bugliosi did when forming up his case against the killers. It ignored the blood evidence so far as Frykowski was concerned.
Lenses not lines.
Yeah, I followed up more closely with Google AI, and they basically took it all back:
My new follow-up question:
On which day in the Tex Watson murder trial were the glasses in evidence identified as belonging to him?During the trial of Charles "Tex" Watson, the amber-rimmed glasses found at the Tate murder scene were discussed in depth, but there remains significant historical debate regarding whether they actually belonged to him.
Key facts regarding the glasses as evidence include:
Discovery: The glasses were found inside the Tate residence, near the bodies of Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring.
Physical Identification: Experts determined the owner was likely nearsighted with a small, "volleyball-shaped" head and one ear higher than the other.
Connection to Watson: While some investigators initially believed they belonged to the killer, prosecutors eventually focused on Bruce Davis, another Manson Family member whose prescription allegedly matched the glasses.
Watson’s Testimony: In his own 1971 trial, Watson testified that the glasses actually belonged to George Spahn (the owner of Spahn Ranch) and were used by family members to start campfires using sunlight.
Ultimately, the glasses remained a "mystery" piece of evidence; while they were used to build a profile of the suspect early in the investigation, they were never definitively proven in court to be Watson's personal property.
AI is not quite there yet, is it?
I don't trust AI at all on some things. I have my own copies of transcripts and other things that all I have to do is a easy search to locate.
From the first Tate homicide report
"The patrol officers continued toward the main house using various methods and routes in gaining entry to the main house. The officers found the remaining four victims in the positions as described in the resume portion of this report. Two large trunks were in the living room near the north wall (Addendum 1B). The trunks were just inside the living room to the left, or south of the entry way. The trunks were parallel with the north wall of the living room with the east end of the west trunk sitting on top of the west edge of the east trunk. A blood stain was found on each of the trunks. (This was blood type O.) The stain runs from left to right from the upper trunk to the lower trunk and appeared to be from the same drop. They continued from upper trunk to lower trunk in a direct path. A pair of horn-rimmed eye glasses were just east of the east edge of the lower trunk. The glasses were on the floor, glass down, ear frames up, top portion of the frame to the west. Two wooden pieces of gun grips were found near a dining room chair which was located against the east wall of the living room, just north of a living room desk (Addendum 1B).
The crime scene photo of the glasses shows one ear frame down when photographed.
Then it says
Two trunks were observed in the same position as described in an earlier portion of this report by the first officers on the scene. No glasses were observed, however, as described by original officers. The broken gun grips were observed in the position described by first officers on the scene and previously described in this report.
"Watson’s Testimony: In his own 1971 trial, Watson testified that the glasses actually belonged to George Spahn (the owner of Spahn Ranch) and were used by family members to start campfires using sunlight."
Gotta love AI and the stuff it makes up. Watson never said anything remotely to that effect at his trial
It definitely confused Charles Watson with Charles Manson and what Manson allegedly told Nuel Emmons in Manson In His Own Words. Except the glasses were not for farsightedness (magnified) but for someone who is nearsighted...to which a fire can't be started with them.
CieloDrive.com said:
Gotta love AI and the stuff it makes up. Watson never said anything remotely to that effect at his trial
I guess it's almost logical that AI should be involved in the "fake news" dept. After all, it is artificial intelligence, supposedly....
AI said:
Key facts regarding the glasses as evidence include:
Discovery: The glasses were found inside the Tate residence, near the bodies of Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring.
Physical Identification: Experts determined the owner was likely nearsighted with a small, "volleyball-shaped" head and one ear higher than the other.
Connection to Watson: While some investigators initially believed they belonged to the killer, prosecutors eventually focused on Bruce Davis, another Manson Family member whose prescription allegedly matched the glasses.
Watson’s Testimony: In his own 1971 trial, Watson testified that the glasses actually belonged to George Spahn (the owner of Spahn Ranch) and were used by family members to start campfires using sunlight.
Ultimately, the glasses remained a "mystery" piece of evidence; while they were used to build a profile of the suspect early in the investigation, they were never definitively proven in court to be Watson's personal property.
Here is a rather interesting blog post about those glasses from yesteryear.
"Unlike glass lenses, plastic resisted shattering and was the choice of very active people such as athletes.Unlike glass lenses, plastic resisted shattering and was the choice of very active people such as athletes."
This makes sense and wouldn't break if there were stored in a pocket. Being nearsighted as well, I've always gotten plastic lenses because they are indeed harder to break and hard to scratch. I just wasn't aware they existed back in 1969. but then again I'm not an optician lol.
I do disagree with this "The mystery of the glasses has never been solved. One thing is clear: at least one other person had participated in the slaughter at the Tate house on August 9, 1969."
If Manson is telling the truth, and he did tell Patricia to take the glasses as he claimed in the interview and what he told Sandy, and she(Patricia) did drop them off, I can't see her admitting to that because its premeditation, it's deliberate planning just as no one has admitted who put the towel under the rope on Jay Sebring.
Considering this was one of the most important murder scenes in the history of crime, it’s hard to comprehend how things were so thoroughly botched by such a hopelessly inept LAPD. The Three Stooges could have done better! One blunder after another plagued the investigation from the get go with clumsy detectives kicking evidence around, trapesing over and superimposing blood stains, not verifying license plates, etc. Apparently it was amateur hour for blood “expert” Granado, who singlehandly created a veritable mountain of confusion with his shoddy specimen and typing work.
I’m in complete agreement with Stimson and his theories. Very interesting video. If you could make it through the other one, my hat’s off to you. I have never bought into the “Manson returned to Cielo and rearranged things’” scenario. Despite what he may have told Nuel Emmons in a fit of bluster, I doubt he would have been stupid enough to risk his association with the scene. Sharon was never dragged anywhere. You don’t need to be a genius to glean from the photos that she bled out and died where she lay. The fact that Granado wasn’t able to establish that Frykowski was type O and that it was indeed his blood all over the porch and lawn is appalling! When you look at the above photo, your first impression is that he was wearing red pants, that’s how drenched they are! And I tend to agree that those are cuffs rather than something wrapped around his ankle.
The scarf is perplexing though, and this is the first time I’ve heard so much speculation about it. Could it have been a neck scarf fashionable in those days? Did Sadie try and tie him with it? Another thing that has always bothered me: when did Tex shoot Voytek? When the gun was discovered weeks later it was revealed to have a bent barrel. This was obviously caused by Tex using it like a hammer on the poor guy’s skull. He must have been shot in the living room as he was breaking for the door prior to the bludgeoning. The gun was useless after that and Tim Ireland would have undoubtedly heard the shots if he’d been gunned down on the lawn. Why did Sebring drop like a rock after one shot and Frykowski was able to struggle on after two?
So many questions. Thank God we’re all still here to mull it over!
From "Will You Die For Me?"
"They began pleading with us for their lives, and suddenly Frykowski started kicking and fighting,
jerking at the towel that bound his hands. “Kill him!” I ordered Sadie, but he dragged her down as she
flailed at him awkwardly with the knife, stabbing him in the legs several times. Then she had lost the
knife in the cushions and Frykowski was loose, tearing her hair and pulling her down onto the floor. I
would have shot him, but he and Sadie kept rolling and fighting, so I finally threw myself on him and
beat him over the head with the butt of the gun until it broke, a section of the grip dropping to the floor.
He was enormously powerful, fighting for his life as he dragged the two of us across the hall toward the
front door, knocking over the trunks.
As we staggered out onto the front porch, he kept screaming, “Help me. Oh God, help me!” I
stabbed him over and over, blindly, the whole world spinning and turning as red as the blood that was
smearing and spattering everywhere. Finally I shot him twice and he slumped onto the stone porch. I
looked up and realized Linda was standing on the walk, staring at me in horror. She must have been
there when we first came out, as well, since I could suddenly remember her screaming to Sadie, “Make it
stop!” and Sadie shrieking back that it was too late."
According to testimony at Watson's trial, it was a scarf that went around the neck. Probably an ascot of the sort...since they were the fashion then.
That story is pretty consistent with Atkins and then later Kasabian from what she saw. At Watson's trial, I was just checking for reference, She said he fell to her right where she was standing, to him(Frykowski) it would be his left.
The blood spray on the porch was also type O. Which would be consistent with getting shot.
SeanK, the scarf was likely worn by either Jay or Voytek that night, and would probably have matched with what they were wearing. Interestingly, William Garretson was also known to wear a purple scarf (at least in one instance) where he was photographed in the guest house with it tied around his shirt collar. You can see that photo in my article here on the blog, under the Abigail Folger category, "Once Upon a Time in Cielo Drive".
If you read David's post here on the blog about the blood evidence, it would appear possible that the scarf--and not a towel--was used to write on the front door of Cielo. And instead of Susan throwing it back into the living roon, she left it near Voytek's body.
It should also be remembered that when it came to blood writing instruments, the killers used a wadded up newspaper to perform that act at the LaBianca's, even though they had access to towels, pillow cases, etc.
Also concerning the gunshots to Voytek and Jay--although I am not a forensic pathologist--it is likely that Jay's single wound impacted his lung to such a degree that it was deflated and consolidated due to the blood loss inside the organ. The immideate inflammation of Jay's chest, along with his arrested breathing, would no doubt have taken him out of the fight all but immediately.
Voytek was shot twice. One wound was to his back where the bullet lodged against the spine. Early on, Dr Naguchi did not consider this an immediately fatal wound. The second wound was to the leg, and it was thru-and-thru. That bullet was not recovered. It may make one wonder if that leg shot took place in the house. If it had, the bullet may have been found embedded in an interior wall, etc. If that shot took place outdoors, we may expect the bullet to go flying down the canyon or into a tree. Regardless, these wounds were extremely painful, but it may have been the case that Voytek was able to continue on the fight for his life due to sheer detetmination.
SeanK said...
When the gun was discovered weeks later it was revealed to have a bent barrel.
The gun was test fired by investigators later on. If the barrel had been bent, this would have been impossible.
The towel in question, I have a different angle of the scene, was a beige towel that Susan tied Frykowski with, it's a much larger towel, and can be seen near the corner of the fireplace. You can see where Susan dipped the towel in Sharon's blood to write PiG on the door. I will upload that angle in a little while.
Thanks guys for all of your very valid and valuable insights. This is indeed a very fascinating discussion about, perhaps, the most intriguing aspect of this case. We are all “detectives” of a sort with an obsession for sorting it all out. Some may call it sick or depraved. For me, it’s been a source of endless fascination since I first perused Helter Skelter (my friend’s father had a hardback copy) as an eleven year old in 1976. And then came the TV movie, which I wasn’t allowed to watch, but managed to see the terrifying opening minutes of from the hallway outside my bedroom. Truly the stuff of childhood nightmares, seeing the maid running down the driveway screaming bloody murder. Only The Nightstalker (Kolschak) scared me more!
Thanks for the Buntline info. I’d forgotten that they were able to fire it after the murders. I’m still confused, however, that Ireland couldn’t hear the shots. In his testimony he states how quiet it was that night and how clearly he could hear Voytek’s screams, which were chillingly and suddenly cut off. I’ve always found that account to be particularly harrowing.
As for the testimony of the killers, it is questionable as to just how accurate they are. Whether they were high on speed or not, it would seem incredible that such scenes of absolute horror, especially if you are the perpetrator, wouldn’t remain indelibly etched in your psyche. Yet Sadie claims that it was all so confusing when Tex began his assault on the fleeing Frykowski. And can you even take Tex’s word on anything seriously? After all, he couldn’t even remember that it was Abigail’s face that he so viciously gashed, rather than that “Tate girl” whom he so nonchalantly refers to. Let’s face it, despite his “born again” conversion, Tex has never really sincerely come to grips with the utter swath of horror and suffering he left in his wake. Not only his poor victims, but generations of their families have felt the horrendous brunt of it. I truly hope he rots.
SeanK, once Susan Atkins told the story, it basically became the official narrative and remains so to this day. About Tim Ireland not hearing shots, it should be remembered that--depending on exactly where Ireland was at the Harvard Westlake School--the distance to the front yard of Cielo was about 1,500-1,800 feet per measuring via Google Maps. That .22 caliber Buntline was not a roaring loud gun.
There are arguably several variables present in the crime at Cielo that were not at the LaBianca's. And have you ever noticed that when comparing the two crime scenes, Cielo drive is always the most problematic and difficult to analyze?
We could all go on at length about 'anomalies' at Cielo, and certainly have. To be sure, Ed Sanders claims in his book, The Family, that it was not conclusively proven that the bloody footprints on the front step belonged to Susan Atkins. And why throw the towel (if that was what was used) back into the living room anyway? A close look at the crime scene photos reveals it was a considerable distance from the front door to the area in front of the couch where the towel was supposed to have landed.
It was said that music was playing on the stereo when the killers entered the living room at Cielo. But how loud would this music have been? If it were too loud, Abigail may have been distracted from her reading, and Jay and Sharon may not have been able to enjoy their chat. The point is, according to the official narrative, Abigail, Jay. And Sharon did not hear Tex kicking in Voytek's face and telling him he was there to do the devil's business.
Agreed Torque. No argument that Cielo was infinitely more complicated due to the number of victims, the scattering of their remains and the general chaos that ensued. The poor LaBianca’s were tied, pillowcased and remained relatively stationary as they were set upon. In many ways I find their killings to be even more cruel in that they had been immobilized and assured by Charlie himself that they would be safe prior to their murders. They didn’t have the opportunity, like Frykowski and Folger, to at least attempt an escape from their killers.
I don’t believe I was ever aware that there was music playing in the living room when the killers arrived at Cielo. Music played a huge role in the guesthouse, however, when Garretson claimed he heard nothing unusual. Until, of course, thirty or so years later when he suddenly recollected that he had heard Abigail pleading “I’m already dead”. Convenient that Krenwinkel’s account of that exchange had become common knowledge by then! Funny how things come back to you when Inside Edition waves a little cash in front of you. He lost all credibility for me after that bit of BS!
The Atkins footprint is a puzzler too. I’ve heard all sorts of stories. One claims that they were all barefoot during the massacre while another says that only Sadie was because she had some sort of infection. At any rate, I highly doubt that Tex was, given that a boot print was found on the walkway leading to the lawn.
I’ve heard somebody here talking about a better picture of the towel in the living room. I’d very much like to see that. It makes sense that Sadie would have used that rather than the blood soaked scarf to scrawl PIG on the door as the printing appears to be rather faint. As to whether she could have thrown a towel that far, I’m not sure.
WRT to music in the main house, I've not heard or read about it, but I'd like to veer of onto the topic of the lights in the main house.
Atkins has said that they were off, but there was sufficient ambient lighting to do the crime. Let's picture this for a second...
It means that Frykowski was sleeping in the LR, fully clothed, with the lights off. This is possible but a bit unlikely. Watson would have crawled into a completely dark house that he may/may not have ever been inside of and quickly found the darkened LR, and the sleeping Frykowski.
Too, Tate & Sebring were talking in the BR and it was lighted, and ditto for Folger, reading. So unless someone turned off the lights as they left each of these rooms, they'd be a light source.
Then Atkin's description of the events in the LR seem too detailed to have been in observed in ambient lighting. If dark, when Atkins went to find a towel, it would have been very hard and awkward to find one, and yet she never mentions this in any version she told.
Off the top of my head I don't recall if any of the main house killers described the clothing of the victims, especially small details or colors, or any aspects of the interior of the house. If they did, it further implies that at least some of the lights were on for a part of the time.
What I suspect happened was that they had the lights on, and as Watson left he may have turned off the main lights of the LR, then as an afterthought, told Atkins to go back in and do the witchy stuff. She went into a darkened room, was able to see Tate and a light colored towel, and this is what stuck in her memory.
The the assailants were drugged up and bit, wound up on adrenaline, and really emotionally aroused. I think that it's very, very likely that all of the events of the standard narrative are correct, but that the sequence of these events became somewhat scrambled in their later recollections.
Shoe, with regard to the lights, we know that after everyone was brought into the living room, Tex ordered the lights inside to be turned out. Logically for me this implies that there was a light or lights on in the living room before the killing began.
There were two carriage lights outside on either side of the front door, and one of those was burned out. Still, Susan claimed there was enough light coming in from outside to do their dirty work.
Additionally, good quality color photos of the house at night show pole mounted lights near the wood rail fence out front, as well as other up-lighting and the glow of lights coming from the pool area, not to mention a light in or near the fake wishing well. The surveyor's drawing of the property references many of these lights, and of course this is available online.
About the stereo on in the house, I will have to check the trial transcripts. But I am almost certain that Linda Kasabian was asked if there was music on at the time and she claimed there was.
Torque, do you recall if there was any trial testimony as to whether any police, or Chapman about the state of the lights or light switches after the crimes?
What is the source for Tex ordering lights off?
Thanks.
I believe Atkins addressed the lighting issue in either her grand jury testimony or some other interview. If I remember correctly, she stated that at some point after the victims were assembled in the living room, Tex ordered Katie to douse the lights. Susan took the opportunity to share a particularly eerie memory. She stated that once the lights were out and the ambient light from the porch illuminated the room, she recalled seeing the backlit image of a dog on the porch, head cocked, peering curiously into the window. The dog then darted over the hedge and into the darkness of the lawn as the melee began. This was most likely Rudi Altobelli’s Weimaraner Christoper who had strayed away from the guesthouse yard. Too bad he wasn’t able to testify as to what he witnessed that night!
Shoe, yes, police testified on the stand to lights being on inside the house when they arrived. The story about Patricia being told by Tex to turn off lights inside is repeated in many places. I believe Bugliosi mentions that in his book as well.
The photos of the towel Susan used to tie Frykowski and write PIG in blood on the door are here.
I included the picture from CharlesMansom.com (I have a copy, it was just easier to get it from there rather than dig through the evidence files) while a photocopy of the original picture, you can see some blood spotting.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1FsFJ_ERgN4Qp5pYxGMZZCM9t3QGJqXJp
In "Will You Die For Me?" Watson apparently told Bill Boyd (since the book is based off the "Tex Watson Tapes")that he cut one of the lights off with his elbow to keep from leaving prints.
Thanks, Torque.
I found the reference to Watson telling Krenwinkel to turn off the lights in Atkins grand jury testimony. She did noty mention it in her first interview with Caballero.
And yet the police found that the lights were on.
Yet another anomaly, huh?
My gut tells me that they were probably on during the crime, at least the parts with the main action: confronting the victims, and likely attacks on them.
But this is just my opinion, and it's no big thing.
FWIW, in her GJ testimony, Atkins herself mentions--maybe twice--to having a jumble fuzzy memory of the events.
Thanks, James.
No problem! Chose to include the photo from Charles manson.com because it is a little bit more lighter, and if you zoom in you can see a blood spot on it, there's another angle that I'm trying to find that I have somewhere, that is taken directly from being behind the couch, and you can tell that that blood spot is bigger... Which would be consistent with Susan saying that was the towel that was used to tie Frykowski and the towel she dipped in blood from Sharon to write Pig on the door.
Yes, makes sense about the towel, James.
So far as the towel over Sebring's head, this is of course an odd one, and for my current default I think that maybe Watson did it while he was there at the end, killing Tate.
I'm of the belief that no matter what Manson said sometimes, he did not go to Cielo afterward. The entire reason he sent the four killers was so that he'd have no physical connection with the crime scene.
But who knows?
I a rolling stone magazine article from 2012 or 2013, I can upload the full magazine, there is a piece on Charlie...Charlie said something to the effect that if he had gone to the house, it would have been cleaner. If Charlie went there after the murders to "clean up" or "stage the scene" which logically doesn't make sense. Stage the scene for what? What would the purpose of staging the scene? How in the 50 plus years were the killers able to keep a consistent story and not confuse what happened when they were there with what Charlie and his alleged "co - conspirators" ...lack of a better word, did afterwards. They did a bad job of cleaning up.
I believe Watson did that with the towel as well. It was repeated the next night with the killing of Leno and Rosemary.
All good comments and discussions on matters of evidence as they relate to the events at Cielo.
Now I've come around a bit more toward thinking that Frykowski's blood type was mis-identified, or was mistyped on a sort of seminal document, from which the error was copied/repeated. So I need to look more at the likely process of when/how the blood documentation was created to see if their a focal point where the error was likely to have been made and from that, copied.
I truly think that David's work on blood type convinced me that the sampled blood types were properly handled and analyzed for the most part. But if we consider that they found "O" reliably. but the thought that FRykowski was "B", that's just about where the official record is now.
What rang true on the Stimson video was just how in the world could the copiously bleeding Frykowski have managed to get from inside the house outside to the lawn, all the while leaving no B type blood? This really seems highly unlikely.
Now combine this with what looks to me like neither Sebring, nor Tate, moved very much after they were attacked, and yet their blood type was found where one could easily imagine Frykowski's route from the LR to the lawn, it points to erroneously labeling Frykowski as "B", when he was in fact "O".
To reach thus conclusion--a working hypothesis and not a proven fact--we can completely ignore any descriptive narratives, because they could be wrong, either intentionally or simply confusion and misremembrance. It is purely the physical evidence telling us this.
"What rang true on the Stimson video was just how in the world could the copiously bleeding Frykowski have managed to get from inside the house outside to the lawn, all the while leaving no B type blood? This really seems highly unlikely."
And let's not forget that Frykowski was the only victim to be best in the head with the butt of the gun which caused the grips to break, typed to be O-MN.
Shoe, it may be that most of the attack to Voytek took place just outside the front door, leaving little blood inside the house. Susan said that Voytek made it outside the front door screaming for help. I would have to believe that Voytek's only hope would be to get out that front door to sound the alarm.
In the case of Sharon, she may have made it out the front door behind Voytek, where she may have received her first (non fatal) wounds. These may have been the wounds to both of her upper arms. When I look at the blood just outside the front door, the large drops with tails may easily have come from Sharon's arm wounds, as blood ran down her arms and dripped onto the concrete. The large pool opposite this is an altogether different pattern. From here Sharon could have been forced to "watch" both Voytek and Abigail die, as Susan said. This may be why it was said Sharon was the last to die. We do know at one point Sharon asked to sit down. Susan said she then took Sharon and, "took her over" to sit down, ostensibly on the sofa.
From here everything else in the official narrative could work. In essence, Sharon was killed in front of the couch as the large amount of blood there evidences. Meantime, Jay would have already been on the floor where he had died at the beginning of the attack.
"In the case of Sharon, she may have made it out the front door behind Voytek, where she may have received her first (non fatal) wounds. These may have been the wounds to both of her upper arms. When I look at the blood just outside the front door, the large drops with tails may easily have come from Sharon's arm wounds, as blood ran down her arms and dripped onto the concrete."
The problem with this is, where is the blood trail leading back to the living room? Even Abigail Folger left a trail of B blood when she tried to flee running down the hallway and out the french doors.
James D. The Manson Archives said...
"When I look at the blood just outside the front door..."
It wasn't just outside the door. It was in the floor mat, and it was inside the door too. Bloodstains on the floor and on the wall.
James: "The problem with this is, where is the blood trail leading back to the living room? Even Abigail Folger left a trail of B blood when she tried to flee running down the hallway and out the french doors."
What's more, I'm going to assume tha the trunks were down, roughly in the position found later. If you carefully look at all the photos of the area of the trunks, from all angels and blown up, it becomes very difficult to believe that she came back in without bumping into them, or bleeding on them in ways that suggest a spatter-type pattern than the two drops that were found.
And then are we to surmise that yep, Tate made it out there, but nope, not Sebring? Both O-M and O-MN were on the front porch. I think it's possible, but if so, it happened before the trunks were down.
James/Shoe, Abigail did leave evidence of blood from the area of the rocking chair and piano down the hall and out the back door. But when she was on the run, that blood "trail" was merely a few spots. Of course when she stopped at the French doors in Sharon's bedroom and battled with Patricia, there was obviously more blood.
If we believe the official narrative as told by Susan, Abigail's first wound too place in front of the rocking chair/piano after she threw her hands up in the air, and said, "I give up. Take me." At which time Tex stabbed her in the lower abdomen. This first wound may have been the one that cut into her bladder, according to the autopsy.
Too, Abigail very shortly thereafter got defensive wounds of her hand, as she tried to grab the knife. The point here is that Abigail was significantly wounded as she ran down the hall to the back door, but for the most part only left a few blood drops behind. This is clearly pointed out in the crime scene photos where officers point to these spots.
Hi, Torque.
The O-M just outside the door is *copious*, very much an active external blood flow. This same would would have to slow down, stop to get back inside, all the way to the front of the sofa, to avoid a trail. Nor was she running probably, which greatly reduces the time for blood to drip from her wounds.
Me, I don't know. The fact that this "copious" blood I mentioned is type O-M strongly indicates that it's NOT Frykowski's subtype MN, assuming he did indeed have O type and not B, as recorded. But really, you really have to work *hard* at finding a way to get Tate, or Sebring, out onto the porch without any significant intermediate blood traces, coming or going. There's the smears on the wall between the LR and foyer, and smears on the foyer floor--which could be consistent with someone being dragged either outside or inside (or both), but this same sort of leakage should then be found on the LR rug immediately near the foyer. And it's not.
The blood evidence patterns would seem to fit best with Frykowski's path outside, being attacked all the way, as James has said.
More enduring mysteries, huh? ;^)
"It wasn't just outside the door. It was in the floor mat, and it was inside the door too. Bloodstains on the floor and on the wall."
Which would have been consistent with Frykowski. Sharon nor Jay had any wounds on their lower parts of their bodies, for example to make the blood stains in the foyer on the bottoms of the walls. Frykowski had a defensive wound on his hand that would be consistent with his struggle to escape.
I should include that when someone is stabbed, it's not like it is in the movies. You to remember that when someone is stabbed, blood vessels are damaged, muscles and tendons are ripped, and the possibility of veins being separated. She could have been holding the area of the abdominal stab(and I believe that to be the case) because of the blood smear that's on the white binders of the french doors.
I should also add that Frykowski had a defensive wound on his hand that George pointed out that would be consistent with the struggle in the foyer with Atkins and Watson. When he gets up, Watson shoots him in the leg leaving the blood spray, he falls, which is seen by Kasabian, an Watson tackles him. Watson goes back in because Folger and Patricia are fighting, and he stabs Folger before going back outside to finish killing Frykowski. That would account for the only spot of blood to be typed on the gun that was type B. Transferred by Watson.
James, agreed that Abigail was holding and covering the area of her initial abdominal stab wound. This would of course have covered her hand in blood, which then would have showed up on the doors.
Additionally, when looking at the close-up photo of the living room wall behind the rocking chair and the straight back chair, sprayed blood is clearly indicated. I have always thought this to be from a reaction Abigail had after her hand was cut while defending against the knife. I would argue that it is a common reaction to "shake off" the sharp cutting sensation in a fast and hard hand gesture, thereby spraying that blood on the wall. In my opinion this may be evidence that Abigail had at least one hand defensive wound and at least one abdominal wound in the immediate vicinity of those two chairs.
James this is not an objection, it's an attempt to refine the situation as I see it evolving. So:
Watson goes back in because Folger and Patricia are fighting, and he stabs Folger before going back outside to finish killing Frykowski.
I'm thinking Atkins has Watson going down the lawn to finish off Folger. It's likely when he cut her face. Does this happen before or after he finishes Frykowski?
I would definitely agree with that because I've had an almost identical theory.
According to Atkins, Watson went back inside and stabbed Folger. Susan was in the house when this happened and then he went back out to finish off Frykowski.
According to Atkins, Watson went back inside and stabbed Folger. Susan was in the house when this happened and then he went back out to finish off Frykowski.
Ok then the sequence is, with the light off, per Atkins:
1. Watson tells Atkins to kill Frykowski.
2. Fryhowski fights Atkins and may have been wounded superficially.
Frykowski breaks for the door, yelling. Probably no major wounds yet.
3. Atkins calls to Watson for help.
4. Watson catches Frykowski near the doorway and clubs him with the gun, and stabs him.
5. Frykowski falls on the front porch, as seen by Kasabian.
6. Concurrently, Krenwinkel is fighting Folger, and calls to Watson for help.
7. Watson leaves the area near Frykowski and goes over and stabs Folger in the lower abdomen. (It's unclear if she falls, or starts down the hall.)
8. Watson goes back into and thru the LR.
9. He tells Atkins to kill Tate, but she can't. Krenwinkel is also present nearby.
10. Watson kills Tate as Atkins holds her.
11. Sometime in this sequence Frykowski revives from the porch and gets out onto the lawn.
12. After killing Tate, Watson goes out the front door and probably further assaults Frykoski on the front lawn.
13. Atkins is outside and sees Folger further down the lawn, as Folger is falling.
14. Watson goes to Folger and it's then that he does the multiple stabs and cuts.
15. Watson returns along the lawn toward the front door and kicks Frykowski as he is lying there. Atkins believes him to be dead, or near death at that point.
All victims are dead or near dead at this point. The post morten activities would happen then. I'd save that for a separate discussion so that we can really focus on the killing sequence.
I think this is close. I am unsure of at which point(s) Watson shot Frykowski.
What are your thoughts, anyone?
Watson had stated he made Susan and Pat leave and he killed Sharon on his own. So it's really unclear if she actually did hold Sharon. Susan went back in and noticed Sharon had been cut up more than she has previously seen her. That's always been unclear. .
I think Watson shot him as he was fleeing through the front door...that accounts for the spraying. The second time may have been when he (Frykowski) got back up and tried to escape again, and such a beating made the gun not work anymore according to Watson and Atkins.
But looks very consistent. Linda testified that she saw Pat chasing Folger with her knife raised in the background. this would have had to have been after Watson stabbed Folger in the abdominal area.
Sounds OK.
Now Folger. When Watson stabbed her, if she fell to the ground at that point, the killers may have focused their attention moretoward the front door/LR. I'm thinking that if indeed it was as Atkins' GJ testimony, she saw Folger by herself as she fell over near where she was found later. In this scenario, Krenwinkel was not chaing her down the hall, and not stabbing her on the lawn.
It implies that Folger kinda played dead and then snuck down the hall while the attention was on Tate/Frykowski. She may have been trying to get somewhere behine the guest house, or any sheltering place to hide, but was simulataneously seen by Atkins and grew weak and collasped.
I think I also heard versions where Krenwinkel chased Folger thru the house and out the back door and called for help then, but you know, this makes less sense than calling for help in the house.
But it was a big, disordered mess. We'll never really know for sure. All these years of long wrangling is trying to determine what we can reasonably know, and what is within the realm of possibility, and what is out-and-out fantasy.
You can speculate until the moon turns purple about what exactly went down in that living room. As previously stated, we’ll never know. All we have are our hyperactive imaginations to fill in the blanks. That and, of course, the often conflicting recollections of the killers.
One thing I’m pretty certain of is that Sharon was never on the porch. Of all those present that night I think we can all agree that Linda Kasabian’s version, as observed by a non participant, is probably the most reliable. From her perspective on the walkway near the porch, she had a very discerning view of the goings on. She saw Voytek stagger out the door, already fatally wounded, as he glared pleadingly into her eyes, holding one of the wooden posts and collapsing into the shrubs. She saw Sadie follow him out (probably leaving that footprint) and saying “it’s too late” when Linda implored her to “make it stop”. She also saw, in the distance, Abigail being chased across the lawn by Katie, knife raised. What she didn’t see was Sharon on the porch, or at any time, for that matter.
I don’t think Abigail would have had the wherewithal to “play dead” after suffering the fatal abdominal wound inflicted by Tex. She most likely dropped to her knees in agony and possibly to the floor, hence the blood spot, and then shortly thereafter made her desperate bid for escape. I’ve never seen any photos of her blood on the louvered doors.
As for Sharon, it’s hard to imagine what that poor girl was going through. Obviously complete shock, horror and disbelief. She had just seen her ex-lover shot, kicked in the face and stabbed to death. Now her friends were being chased about the house in a mad, bayonet/buck knife-wielding frenzy. I’ve often wondered if when she may have been left alone for any length of time, she may have had an opportunity to slip out that door to the right of the fireplace and make a break for the driveway via the back yard. Sometimes I wonder if she just reasoned that they might spare her because she was in such a late stage of pregnancy. Unless you’ve been through it, who can possibly imagine what was going through her mind. As Sadie said “Sharon was going through a lot of changes”. It would have been interesting to see what “changes” Susan might have gone through had she been led into the gas chamber!
A new wrinkle to consider...
Once, when examining some of the crime scene photos, after a while I noticed this:
https://imgur.com/a/XscPCEG
Note the rope under Sebring's right hand. If you look at how Sebring and Tate were found:
https://imgur.com/a/XscPCEG
it suggests to me that Sebring was laid across the rope AFTER Tate was already on the floor.
Otherwise, it would be very hard, perhaps impossible, for the rope under his arm to be as it was when found by the police.
This further suggests that just before leaving maybe Watson did indeed put the towel over Sebring's head, re-winding the rope around his neck, then laying him back down to the position in the photos.
SeanK, although the often conflicting recollections of Tex and Patricia are indeed evident, it may be asked if that is intentional on their part. After all, both are still trying to be paroled. And although they are the only two surviving witnesses to the terror of that living room, we are not cast adrift without other important evidence, namely forensic data and the crime scene photos. But of course these elements will continue to foster speculation. The important question may be, why does it matter? For me it has always mattered in that this immense story was basically handed down to us by Susan Atkins. Susan was also known to be a liar. All those innocent victims had their lives taken from them, and the explanation of how and why that happened was provided by the killers. Added to this was the fact that the press at the time (and to some extent still today) have blamed the victims in their own deaths. For this, Roman Polanski famously said that the victims "died twice".
Concerning the possibility of Sharon being on the porch, I would highly recommend that you read David's post here on the blog on the blood evidence, unless you have already done so.
Agreed that Abigail was in no way "playing dead". She was running and fighting for her life.
Also, Susan did say that Sharon was going through her "changes," but in another telling of that moment Susan said that Sharon "was pretty much out of her mind" and hysterical. That very short passage gives us a very small window into the sheer terror Sharon experienced.
SeanK, I forgot to mention that a color photo of the blood on the French doors in Sharon's bedroom does exist. It is a close-up view which was provided by cielodrive.com. I don't have the photo or the link available at this time, but if I can find it I will provide the link.
"Concerning the possibility of Sharon being on the porch, I would highly recommend that you read David's post here on the blog on the blood evidence, unless you have already done so."
I've read it again recently after not having read it after it came out. He did an outstanding job on it. But when it comes to the medicals of Sharon on the porch, it's impossible. No matter where she would have been stabbed if she were on the porch, she would have left a trail. There would have been pooling where she stood before being killed. If she was sitting, blood would have gotten on the couch other than where it may have been where she was killed and died.
James:
There would have been pooling where she stood before being killed. If she was sitting, blood would have gotten on the couch other than where it may have been where she was killed and died.
I see it the same way, essentially, but there's the troublesome fact of therebeing two differing type O subtypes out there.
It's one thing to consider that a single typo--a "B" for an "O", when entering a list of multiple victims' blood types--that, again, served as the source from which all other references to blood type in all other reports, but it's a whole other level and type of error to get the subtype wrong.
So we'd havetwo differ types of errors occurrng in two different task areas of the blood work. Not impossible, for sure, but it does double the odds.
Me, I don't know what to make of it, but...oh, well! :^)
Agreed. But when thinking about it from a medical standpoint and logically, one of the killers would have to have been applying pressure to a wound that they inflicted on Sharon. When looking at the towel that was on Sebring's head, it is rather bloody. So could that towel be what was used to apply pressure to Sharon's wounds? If she was stabbed in the arms or legs, you have to remember, there is separation of veins and a open wound...think of it like this, you're using a Water hose to put out a fire....someone cuts the hose, what happens? It pours from where it was severed until shut off...the same would be to apply pressure to stop the bleeding.
Medically it can take up to 20 minutes to stop bleeding with pressure ... without pressure, depending on the severity and location, 45 mins or longer.
James I'm not following here.
My comment has nothing to do with the quantity of blood found out front, it is that it is two distinct types: O-MN (nearer to the bushes), and O-M, nearer the doorway and doormat.
Why are we talking about one of the killers applying pressure to reduce bleeding? I've never seen/read anyone or anything that would indicate that they did--or would have any reason to do so.
Please clarify because I am interested in your views on this. They are good.
"Why are we talking about one of the killers applying pressure to reduce bleeding? I've never seen/read anyone or anything that would indicate that they did--or would have any reason to do so."
I'm speaking in a scenario that if Sharon was stabbed on the porch, to keep from leaving a blood trail, and pooling,(depending on where the person claims she was stabbed on the porch and by not identifying the stab wound or wounds inflicted on the porch, but under the belief that she was stabbed on the porch) applying pressure would prevent the blood trail or pooling until the bleeding stopped. If no pressure was applied, there would be a blood trail. If pressure was applied, then It would reduce bleeding until it stopped and flow onto the towel...only to be violently attacked again. Someone could easily argue that Susan applied the pressure while holding her.
But this falls apart as well. Frykowski and Folger were stabbed in upright positions. Blood flows down in that position. Hence their clothing soaked. Sebring was shot and fell to his side, and can see the blood flowed onto the floor and not below the waist not only from the gun wound but from the stab wounds too. Sharon is smeared in blood, that's easily accountable when Watson was stabbing her, he would have had to roll her over to stab her in the back/shoulder blade area. According to the recording heard Hurst...Watson was just one stab wound off on his answer to Boyd.
But I still stand behind my assumption that Watson confused Sharon with Abigail when it comes to slashing of the face. This is also another indicator that the killers didn't know the victims like they claimed.
James, Shoe, for the record I have traditionally been skeptical about Sharon being wounded on the front porch for the apparent lack of a consistent blood trail back to the couch. But of course I have not ruled it out because of this, either.
As I said earlier, if Sharon had only been wounded on both of her upper arms while on the front step, and had she stood there for some time (as the police reasoned), perhaps the blood would have had time to coagulate to a degree necessary to avoid a long trail back to the couch. If any pressure was being applied to those wounds, Sharon might have been temporarily able to do that herself.
Too, it may be possible that after convincing Susan to let her sit down, Sharon could have attempted to reason with the killers to let her live, as she was, after all, pregnant. If we follow the official narrative, Sharon even goes so far as to ask for her baby to be born, then to kill her. The point here is that she may not have been critically wounded yet, and was still hopeful to employ reason as her defence. Bottom line: arguably not much blood may have wound up on the floor during the trip from the front door to the couch.
Again, compare this with Abigail, and we may see what was possible in terms of a blood trail. Abigail received her first wounds in the living room, and went down to the floor and left both smeared blood and blood drops there. There is a consistent blood trail of Abigail's blood down the hall, in Sharon's bedroom, on the French doors, on the steps and sidewalk outside, and finally ending at the drainage grate where she was found dead in the morning. In all of that distance, only a handful of blood drops were ever found on the carpeted floor and on the walk outside the bedroom door. Of course we don't know how many stab wounds Abigail had sustained at this point, but one thing is certain: Abigail proves that she was wounded (arguably severely) and was able to run a considerable distance without leaving a heavy trail of blood.
As an aside we should also consider what is undoubtedly blood on a wicker basket laying on the floor near where Abigail's blood was found in the living room. This is a b&w photo. To my knowledge, the blood on this basket does not appear on Granado's blood map list. That basket may have originally sat on top of the coffee table which was in front of the sofa.
James:
I'm speaking in a scenario that if Sharon was stabbed on the porch, to keep from leaving a blood trail, and pooling,(depending on where the person claims she was stabbed on the porch and by not identifying the stab wound or wounds inflicted on the porch, but under the belief that she was stabbed on the porch) applying pressure would prevent the blood trail or pooling until the bleeding stopped. If no pressure was applied, there would be a blood trail. If pressure was applied, then It would reduce bleeding until it stopped and flow onto the towel...only to be violently attacked again. Someone could easily argue that Susan applied the pressure while holding her.
Thanks. I see now.
You are doing a sort of "devil's advocate", coming up with how Tate could have been stabbed near the front door, bled copiously, and still have gotten back into the LR without a well-defined blood trail. You are saying that if a killer held a towel tightly to staunch the flow, then maybe it just might be possible.
But of course this is unlikely for many reasons.
I agree with all this about her bleeding there on the porch and then coming back in as being very unlikely, but also I have been interested in looking at where the trunks were on the floor.
Check this out:
Trunks near foyer entry
and
Other angle
Very, very hard to imagine getting a heavily bleeding Tate back into the LR, past the trunks without smearing them further (they have only two smallish drops on the other side) or bumping into them a lot.
So, that means that to get her back in the LR without leaving blood, someone would have to staunch the blood flow AND she was moved back in before before the trunks were pushed down.
Anyway, that's how it seems to me.
I agree with that, and in a statement by Atkins, she described Frykowski knocking them down or something to that effect. I'll look for it and get it verbatim. Just as George pointed out, the dripping on the trunks is consistent with someone trying to go out the door, not come back in...it would be impossible I assume for Sharon to not have either stumbled over the trunks or bumped into the trunks....unless...and playing devils advocate again...she was carried.
James:
I agree with that...
So where I am now in my personal model of how it played out is that Tate was never out there, and that the big blood pools, spurts. spatters near the door, where there is O-M is yet another kind of blood evidence error.
Plus, anyone even attempting to carry Tate back in past the trunks, in the dark, seems very likely to have either bumped them around a lot, or more likely, tried to kick one or both out of the way.
...and all the while staunching significant bloodflow.
"Abigail proves that she was wounded (arguably severely) and was able to run a considerable distance without leaving a heavy trail of blood."
Which leads me to believe she was applying pressure to abdominal wound while her night gown was absorbing some of the blood. That is also evident of the bloody handprint that smeared on the french doors.
It would be more different than Frykowski's case. He had leg wounds that would be bleeding profusely, and then a gun shot to add to that, not counting the 3-4 times he was hit in the head with the butt of the gun and being stabbed from Watson as observed by Kasabian.
"So where I am now in my personal model of how it played out is that Tate was never out there, and that the big blood pools, spurts. spatters near the door, where there is O-M is yet another kind of blood evidence error."
Exactly. Why was it not marked that no blood had been taken for typing in Frykowski's autopsy report but it was marked that blood was taken for drug testing? My assumption is, since by testimony, the samples were not tested until weeks and months later, since Frykowski was the only victim to be beat with the gun, and the gun had type B on it, which is an evident transfer from Folger by Watson, he was incorrectly
typed as type B...but yet the broken grips were type O-MN.
It would be easy to determine if Jay and Sharon were on the porch or not. Unless everyone who worked the scene were completely incompetent! Let's not forget the bloody footprint was compared to the victims and it didn't match. That's just a sample of how they would have been able to rule them out from being on the porch.
James, WRT the volume of blood found at the scene as external blood evidence, I can vaguely recall getting interested in the minor anomaly of there not being a whole lot of blood on the floor near Sebring.
I can recall reading the autopsy report and finding the volume of blood that was contained within his lungs. Now my memory is bad, but I'm sorta thinking that it was a significant percentage of the blood volume of the average person.
This proves nothing, but it suggests that depending on the location of the wound, if the major part is adjacent to a large body cavity into which the blood might collect, it does not show up externally.
So in the case of Sebring, it was his lungs; in Folger's case, it may well have pooled inside her abdominal cavity--perhaps the bladder, is it was pierced.
Probably in a careful reading of her autopsy, maybe.
From Sebring's autopsy report:
"LUNGS:
The right lung weighs 800 grams. The left approximately 300 grams and is completely collapsed by the surrounding blood. The pleural surfaces are smooth. The right lung shows marked congestion and edema, but no consolidation. There is marked evidence of aspiration of blood. The left lung is collapsed. There is severing of the left main pulmonary artery at its entrance into the hilum of the lung. This is the apparent continuation of stab wound #5. There are several other superficial stab wounds of the left lung."
That's absolutely why there isn't much blood around his body.
From Folger's autopsy report:
Number 8. It's the fatal stab wound.
Both of her lungs are collapsed by surrounding blood.
Blood in the bladder from stab wound.
With the abdominal wound, common logic with about 99% of stab wound victims is she's going to hold it/apply pressure.
James:
...but yet the broken grips were type O-MN.
Yes, indeedy, this is a very big problem, because if Sebring's blood is on the broken grips, do we see the sorts of marks/wounds on his autopsy report that would come from a hard, angular object, like the butt of a revolver?
We don't, do we? But boy, oh, boy, they're all over the top of Frykowski's head.
Looks like it was a blood typing error, more and more...
This is probably a stupid question, but does any material evidence still exist in storage? I mean, recent tests have been done on a scarf belonging to one of Jack the Ripper's victims. It was inconclusive, as I recall, but that case far precedes the Manson murders. One would hope, in a case so relatively recent, something remains in storage. Anyone know?
With all due respect to everyone contributing to this dialogue, I think it’s time to step back and reevaluate what you’re trying to do here. Are you dedicated to focusing on the established evidentiary facts or are you trying to rewrite history?
I’m puzzled by the participants in this discussion attempting to, by hell or high water, place Sharon on the front porch. The suggestion that the killers brought her out there to shed certain volumes of blood and then perform some kind of bizarre half-assed first aid in order to get her back into the living room without leaving a blood trail is absolutely absurd. What possible motive would the killers have for doing this? These savage miscreants had one objective: enter the house, kill everyone present and then get the hell out as soon as possible. There is no way that they were concerned about leaving a predetermined pattern of blood evidence.
Earlier, one of you presented a numbered sequence of events. I found it to be a feasible chronology. According to the best available evidence, the whole horrific episode most likely started between 12:15 and 12:20 am which we know was when Steven Parent left the guesthouse, arrived at his car and began to leave the premises. This point in the timeline is corroborated by the testimony of Mrs. Seymour Kott, who stated that she heard four rapid fire gunshots sometime between 12 and 12:30 am. The next significant eye (or ear) witness testimony comes from Tim Ireland, who claims he heard Frykowski’s screams at between 12:40 and 12:45 am. This suggests that the whole multiple homicide occurred in roughly twenty or twenty five minutes, a very reasonable timeframe. I simply can’t accept that the killers, all inexperienced except for the airhead Atkins, would have had any other agenda except to execute Charlie’s orders and vacate ASAP. In other words, they weren’t concerned with making sure Sharon bled on the porch first before being led back to the couch to be slaughtered there.
All of this debating about the blood on the porch is superfluous and pure supposition. I myself have been spellbound for years by the mystery of the blood on the porch, but I honestly feel, after watching Stimson’s video, that this is an acceptable explanation. After all, in Helter Skelter, Bugliosi himself points out multiple times the ineptitude of the evidence gathering by the LAPD. I think the more enduring and nagging questions should be: how did the towel get wrapped around Sebring’s head and who stabbed Sharon in the back? The wounds did not match Tex’s bayonet and Katie was the only other one, at that point, who still had a knife.
It should be noted too, and I forgot this earlier per the photos you posted of the trunk's, no victim other than Frykowski would have suffered wounds that low even on the porch. If they were on the porch, how did the blood smears get in the location they are in? It just doesn't jive with the theory Sharon and Jay were on the porch. The smears are consistent with either the struggle that took place between Watson, Atkins and Frykowski, while rolling around on the floor and it would coincide with the defense wound while he was trying to get to the door to escape... Then seen by Kasabian.
"I think the more enduring and nagging questions should be: how did the towel get wrapped around Sebring’s head and who stabbed Sharon in the back? The wounds did not match Tex’s bayonet and Katie was the only other one, at that point, who still had a knife."
With certainty, I will say it was Watson who stabbed Sharon in the back. In the recorded conversation, he was one number off on how many times she was stabbed. He said he stabbed her 15 or 16 times. She was stabbed 16 times. And he may have cut her, but he did confuse her with Abigail Folger. Folger had three (I was right because I was going by memory) cuts to her face.
As far as the towel, Watson had to have done that because it was repeated with the pillowcases at the savage slaying of Leno and Rosemary Labianca. Watson stated he wiped his hands with a towel. So it makes sense he would have done it. And maybe it was so dark that Susan couldn't see the towel on Sebring's head.
The problem is when people try to say Sharon a d Jay were on the porch are the people who try to give a middle finger to Bugliosi...which nothing is wrong with that... however, Bugliosi did not create the standard narrative..Susan Atkins did. She told Virginia Howard and Ronnie Graham way before Bugliosi had the case dumped into his lap. Susan Atkins narrative is and was repeated Watson and Kasabian. When Susan said "Sharon had to watch the others die" and "Sharon was the last to die" she's not wrong. This is a fact that she knew.
James:
With certainty, I will say it was Watson who stabbed Sharon in the back. In the recorded conversation, he was one number off on how many times she was stabbed. He said he stabbed her 15 or 16 times....
There's a visible pattern to the knife wounds on Tate's back. Two distinct directionbs: four or five from one orientation (red circles), two from another (blue squares), and one or two outlier. It suggests either:
1) Two attackers from different angles; or
2) Two separate attacks, each from a different angle.
There are other permutations, but these two are the most basic.
Annotated Tate back wounds
As far as the towel, Watson had to have done that...
I'd again point to these photos, which to me suggest that the odds were tha
...as far as the towel, the two photos I linked to earlier suggest to me that Sebring's final position, with part of his right hand/arm laying on top of the rope that connects him to Tate, was established after Tate was down. It's possible, but much less likely, for this position to be established in another order of events. I'd go with Sebring being raised up to sitting, having the rope around his neck unwound, the towel placed, and then the rope re-wound around his neck, then letting him slide to the floor with his arm across the rope.
Tate & Sebring on floor
My guess would be Watson's final pass with the girls outside, just before he went back out and told Atkins to do something witchy in the house.
"My guess would be Watson's final pass with the girls outside, just before he went back out and told Atkins to do something witchy in the house."
I agree with this. I don't think Susan would have been able to see the towel on Sebring's head, if she actually even looked...IF it was dark in the house. She noted that Sharon had been cut up more than she was when she last saw her... minutes before.
We know Watson had a knife, by his admission, he cut Parent on the arm, which explains the defensive wound before shooting him four times. One knife was left in the chair cushion, one knife found in the sink that tested no human blood...it could be probable he used another knife in addition to his bayonet. The fact that he was one number off on how many times she was stabbed sticks with me. I went back and checked testimony, Sharon did have cuts, but none made to her face. By his admission he cut her as well.
OMFG give it a rest you people! This has gotten just as tiresome, tedious and useless to read as the discussions regarding the JFK Assassination. Your speculations have gotten you no closer to the "truth" than you were 50 years ago.
James, diverging quite a bit, now focusing on Watson's attack on Steve Parent, there are interesting details to unwind. I am by no means certain of anything, but...
It seems like Watson approached Parent with a gun in one hand and a knife in the other. This is somewhat awkward, and he might had done it differently, but it does seem like he did this.
Now, to have taken what appears to be one swipe with the knife, ostensibly to knock Parent's left hand away, probably upward from the base of the thumb, immediately catching (by blind circumstance) Parent's watchband, severing or breaking it hard enough to sling it into the back seat, it seems like it would have been a very hard and assertive upward swipe. Is that how you see it?
I'm guessing that he was holding the knife as one would to carve a roast (blade protruding from the Y formed by the thumb/index finger) rather than as one would to hammer downward (blade protruding from the heel of the hand). I'm supposing this was in Watson's left hand.
After swiping upward, he shot 4 times, I believe, with one of the bullets--strangely enough--passing thru the left cheek and apparently emerging from between Parent's teeth without hitting any of them.
After this, Watson would have laid down both the gun and knife (unless he either had places to hold one or both, or an assistant to hold them) so that he could turn of the lights, turn off the ignition, possibly move the shift lever to neutral (if automatic trans), then push the car backward a bit, while reaching inside to steer it some.
Does this seems like what you think likely happened.
It is slightly accurate given by recollection. I went through "Will You Die For Me?" and Watson couldn't recall if he cut him first or shot him first. he just recalled at one point he cut his arm when he raised it to shield his face. Kasabian claims to have had the clearest view and claimed to have seen Watson stick the gun in the car window.
"Now, to have taken what appears to be one swipe with the knife, ostensibly to knock Parent's left hand away, probably upward from the base of the thumb, immediately catching (by blind circumstance) Parent's watchband, severing or breaking it hard enough to sling it into the back seat, it seems like it would have been a very hard and assertive upward swipe. Is that how you see it?"
To be honest, I THINK this is how I see it. it had to have been a strong "swipe" to have broken the watch band...unless the knife went under the band. I can see it happening moreso that way.
"After this, Watson would have laid down both the gun and knife (unless he either had places to hold one or both, or an assistant to hold them) so that he could turn of the lights, turn off the ignition, possibly move the shift lever to neutral (if automatic trans), then push the car backward a bit, while reaching inside to steer it some.
Does this seems like what you think likely happened."
He would have had to put the knife and gun somewhere. I can't see him sticking them in a pocket. Sadly we have no real recollection if this that I am finding. The car would have been moving either forward or reverse so the most logical thing to do would be lay them in the seat or on the hood or top of the car. But those people were not the most logical of thinkers. IF he put the gun in the car, there is also the chance of transfer of Parent's blood on the gun...IF it hadn't transferred in the initial shots, given that Kasabian actually did see him lunge the gun in the car window when he shot Parent.
James:
...given that Kasabian actually did see him lunge the gun in the car window when he shot Parent.
Focusing on just this aspect (where the muzzle of the gun was when fired) I've thought for a while that if the muzzle was either very close to the open driver's side window, or inside the window by even just a few inches, the interior of the car would have absorbed/blocked much of the sound from those first 4 shots.
And if the passenger side window was rolled up, this too, would make it quieter. I'm unsure whether I've ever read the orientation of the passenger side window, nor seen a definitive photo.
.22's make more of a snap or crack than one hears on TV. Higher pitch. I think that the supposed questions about the lack of hearing shots--as people say they would have expected--could be the result of the direction of the shots into the car.
Of the other shots, maybe only one was outside the house. Again, a snap sound.
".22's make more of a snap or crack than one hears on TV. Higher pitch. I think that the supposed questions about the lack of hearing shots--as people say they would have expected--could be the result of the direction of the shots into the car."
Exactly, George and I pinpointed the location the girls hid when Parent was pulling up. It was indeed close to the gate which can be seen here. there are other views but I used this one because it was the only one I could find at the moment. The location makes it more feasible to believe that Mrs Kott did hear it, but it was weak enough sounding to sound like fireworks (maybe a fire cracker) but a good distance from the main house that they either didn't hear it, or assumed someone was shooting fireworks (or maybe firecrackers) as well. From W.G's location at the guest house, which was further away than people actually assume, he wouldn't have heard the shots.
https://postimg.cc/HJzSkqRD
Linda said he (Watson) lunged forward and she saw him stick the revolver in the car window and shoot Parent. From going back over recollections, Atkins didn't have the same view that Kasabian claimed to have.
James, do you know if it was ever determined if the passenger side window was open or closed when found by the police?
To the best of my recollection I'm not seeing it in the reports. BUT I did find a video within the first seconds of when it starts, the passenger window is rolled up. You can see the officers reflection in the window.
https://youtu.be/QCWTEeF_c6Q?si=Io73dXyJ85BPUWSv
James, WRT to the video (I've never seen this before), the window position goes a long ways toward explaining why the were not more reports of gunfire downrange from Cielo.
Thank you.
Stick a fork in it! Lol gets me every time
No problem!
I've seen it before, and I may have the actual news coverage, I just didn't dig through my channel... But I knew that there was an angle of his car that was taken from the passenger side from B-roll footage.
The other day a video was sent to me... From an aerial view of investigators on the property... You can see the bodies on the lawn... But you can't see the scarf.
But those are my thoughts too. And as previously stated, and is Atkins even said, the gun was not very loud.
Let me amend this. I was just sent a screenshot from the recent clip I posted the other day, that I didn't notice before, of what could be the scarf on the lawn that is in proximity of located near Frykowski's body.
James:
...of what could be the scarf on the lawn that is in proximity of located near Frykowski's body.
It would be good to see, if possible.
Here is the screenshot I was sent
https://imgur.com/a/RytgzzT
And here is the video
https://youtu.be/JaUEcQXhD-0?si=mt1rxWBKpyVMwlQx
James:
...here is the video
It looks pretty certain there as the police walk by to the left of it.
I agree.
The scarf is also intricate to Frykowski and his final moments. If it's not his, who else could it be? Sebring's? If that's the case, why is the scarf in the direction of Frykowski's body and not towards the drive way when the killers left?
James D. The Manson Archives said...
The scarf is also intricate to Frykowski and his final moments. If it's not his, who else could it be?
The killers brought it with them?
|
LADA files Box 51A Mary Brunner trial court docs Sept 1971 Grand Jury Proceedings pg514
Q: Were there any other items in the (VW micro)bus with the exception of the money that had to be taken care of?
A(Ella Jo): Yes, there was. There were clothes, there was gloves and there were SCARVES and things the girls had been wearing. They had been told to take those along so as not to leave fingerprints around.
Clearly it didn't work. Pat and Tex left print's..
Ella assisted Brunner when they wiped fingerprints on one of Hinman's vehicles at Spahn ranch. She could have been charged with an accessory.
I'm just putting that out there. She had something to gain from any statements made.
No offense, but "collaborating" with Sandra Good's partner is not exactly subjective.
It doesn't matter really who her partner is... especially when it comes to the case. Also her partner doesn't have anything to do with the inconsistencies of the case such as this topic.
It should also be noted that Sebring bled from his back onto the floor as seen in this angle.
https://imgur.com/a/7HuVAMu
James:
It should also be noted that Sebring bled from his back onto the floor as seen in this angle.
Great stuff! I've never seen this photo, or a view from this angle.
Two points (one I raised before):
1. From the way his right arm is over the rope that goes directly to Tate's neck, it seems to me that it was very likely that his body was laid over the rope after Tate was in more-or-less her final position. She might have been moved a bit, but she could not have stood, or have been hung without moving the rope from under Sebring's arm. It would be HIGHLY UNLIKELY for any of this.
Adds to the idea that maybe Watson came in for the final pass, while the girls were outside, maybe stabbed Tate and/or Sebring a bit more, and propped Sebring up, unwound the rope, put one of the towels, now on the floor, that Atkins had brought out to tie people with over Sebring's head, and re-wrapped the rope, letting Sebring drop or slide back down, and his arm ended up over the rope.
...and think about this if Watson did this at the very end. According to Atkins' official story, the first thing Watson did when he came back outside where the girls were, was to tell Atkins to do something witchy. My guess is that the reason he said it was because it was on his mind, and that's because he just got doing something witchy himself, with the towel.
But that's pretty speculative, for sure.
2. If the above is true, Watson did not lean Sebring back against the chair (no blood on the cushion--which there would have been given the blood in your new photo). He may have sat there himself while he put the towel on Sebring.
FWIW, James, this is the kind of stuff that really interests me. The how/why stuff. I don't care about issues like the personalities of any of the people involved, nor their motivations, unless it affected the how/when stuff.
I don't care about good/evil labels; I have no need to virtue signal. This was all a done deal >50 years ago. I'm only interested in things like the physical/temporal details. They are pieces and it's fun for me to try to arrange the pieces in the most likely sequence that they actually happened.
Thanks for the great stuff!
I have no problems with those theories. Especially concerning Watson's possibly. We know Atkins said that when she went back in and dipped the towel in blood to write Pig, she noticed Sharon had been "cut up more" than she previously had been just minutes before.
Post a Comment