Reassessing the Blood Evidence at 10050 Cielo Drive

  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:

GBHS # 32

 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:

TG#42

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.)

But what do we have here at his feet?

From testimony 

                                                                  From the analyzed Tate evidence report 

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. 

The Scarf and the fabric/ribbons raise some serious questions. Although not visible in every photograph, it does appear near his body. His autopsy diagram details everything he had on except for underwear. it states he was wearing purple socks, when looking at the photo, one can tell, that is not socks. Much like any detailed medical record, the autopsy diagram also shows where the pants leg ends on his body, well above the ankle. 

If Frykowski bled along the path from the porch to the lawn, ending where he collapsed, how can that not be Type O?

A New York Times article from August 27th 1970 highlights the confusion even at the time. 

it highlights testimony from Kasabian and Granada. From Kasabian it basically says that she testified before Granada did and said that Frykowski staggered out onto the porch and collapsed in the area's noted where Type O blood was found. Even more striking, the prosecution reportedly had no evidence Jay Sebring was on the porch.  How would they have come to that conclusion? Sebring was not bleeding profusely from his wounds. as seen in the autopsy photo, he has very little blood on his pants opposed to Frykowsk. Why? because he wasn't  stabbed in the legs and trying to escape his killers. With that amount of blood, Sebring would have had blood on the bottom of his shoes, then you have to question, If that scenario is true that it was/is Sebring's blood on the porch, who switched Sebring's and Frykowski's pants? That's a conspiracy of it's own. and wouldn't line up with the evidence and tears in the pants, but no wounds inflicted on Sebring. 

You can read the article here;

Manson Trial Hears Testimony

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;

Watson Has Found Remorse

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.

The Charles Manson Story Hollywood Didn’t Want You to Know

 

Newsman Chuck Moshontz tells his infamous story about meeting the Manson Family shortly before the Tate-LaBianca murders.

 

Manson (1973) | Welcome To The Family Cult

 

Manson's Final Phone Call: What He Told Me Before He Died

 

 

Guarding Charles Manson at San Quentin Prison - Darren Monahan

He discusses Manson from approximately 6:30 - 11:30

 

I Got the Forgotten Cielo Drive Artifact After Decades (Dearly Departed Tours with Scott Michaels)

 

Story Location Tour - Charles Manson and the residents of Hollywood Heights

Interesting history of the Franklin Gardens apartments (Crowe)

 

Inside the Manson Desert Hideout (The Last Days of Barker Ranch)

 

Mark Lindsay's Secret Cielo Drive Collection Exposed

 

CUTTING TO THE TRUTH. - Col's Book Review

As one of the foremost TLB researchers in the world, the Col feels it incumbent upon him to read everything published. Because ya never know. I really enjoyed the Jay Sebring documentary CUTTING TO THE TRUTH by Anthony DiMaria and reviewed it during the pandemic on this very blog. So I came to the new book JAY SEBRING : CUTTING TO THE TRUTH with very positive vibes.

Because of poor layout the book is a whopping 547 pages. I popped for the softcover version which was still a whopping $25.00. It's not a self published book but I have never heard of Genius Book Publishing just like they have never heard of layout software or editors. The book is credited to Marshall Terrill and Anthony DiMaria. It's fascinating that DiMaria is second.

Wikipedia credits Terrill as :Marshall Terrill (born December 17, 1963) is an American author and journalist, noted for numerous detailed biographies of Steve McQueen, Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash, Billy Graham, Pete Maravich, and Jay Sebring. When I found this just now it crystallized the problem I had with the book, or one of the two. The book, much more than the movie, is trying to convince us of two things. First, that Jay should be mentioned in the same breath of many of the greats, as in the Wikipedia entry. And also he was a great guy who laid a lot of great looking women.

I've had the privilege of reading a screenplay about Shorty Shea that the great Deb S took part in creating. It is well written, informative and I enjoyed it A LOT- more than some scripts I've read before that got made. Bu the problem is that the most interesting thing that happened to Shorty Shea was that he was murdered by The Family. Don't take that as a slight- if you took my life and made it into a biopic the interest would wane after eight minutes. I'm not that interesting. Neither, I hate to break it to you, are you. That is why the best biopics focus on a period in time not someone's whole life. But a biographical book has to encompass the whole life of the subject. And though there is little doubt that Sebring likely would have had an interesting life, he was murdered in his mid 30s and is remembered, if at all, as a TLB victim.

Yes, he pioneered men's hair styling and that isn't nothing. DiMaria gives him heavy credit for that, but I am not sure that the history reflects this. Because he was good looking, albeit very short, he was able to parlay that into celebrity. Had he lived he was on his way to the fame and wealth the Vidal Sassoon eventually obtained, no doubt. But I mean, let's face it- Sharon Tate was a gorgeous woman, not the best actress. She would be the equivalent of Barbara Feldon today, once beautiful, a few roles, and a nice old lady forgotten for the most part and enjoying life. Sharon is remembered now only for having been slaughtered.

Background : First you should know that in 1985 I was in the USC Library Special collections looking at the clippings file on both Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski. I had been in LA 3 months, tops, but my TLB knowledge desired more. By sheer fate, as I was reviewing it a student came to ask to share it. He introduced himself as Sebring's nephew. I thought, "Fuck, welcome to Los Angeles." I shared the files, we talked a bit, I shared what I knew and noted that his Uncle, who he didn't know, was reported to be majority kinky so cognizant. This stayed with me because what are the chances? Subsequently, during an epic ten year run hosting the ONLY Official TLB Blog I called out persons who were obsessed with parole hearings, even going so far as to attend hearings that had nothing to do with their relatives. This applied mostly to the vile Orca Tate, but also to DiMaria (who, based on this book, got even worse on this subject). Some time maybe eight years ago I was getting a table at Musso and Frank's and DiMaria was there- while I braced for a confrontation he was nothing but lovely.

Also the agent Tony Seidl is thanked in the credits for setting the book up and I have worked with Tony in the past.

The GOOD: The writing style is breezy and informative. No one will ever need to do a Jay Sebring bio again- this cannot be topped, ever. So don't try.

The BAD: Instead of 24 pertinent photographs beautifully recreated in the middle of the book there are 72 pages of black and white photographs, one to a page, badly printed and often for no point- hey look, a portrait of Jim Morrison did you know Jay did his hair?

THE FACTS: as we have all learned, FACTS are the only thing to deal with in this case and I have questions with this book.

Page 318- I do not believe Terry Melcher produced the Mamas and the Papas ever

Page 325 exhibits a deep misunderstanding of Bugliosi's Helter Skelter Fiction. The copycat motive theory was to free Bobby. I never read that it also included framing the Black Panthers to divert from Crowe. They were happy framing ANYONE.

Page 335 - here and in other spots in the book the authors seem to think that in order to pump up Jay they have to denigrate Polanski. Remember, the goal here is that Jay was a legend (even called iconic as is his vanished salon) and he got screwed by being killed. This page really wants us to believe that Sharon was all but back with Jay- something Orca, DiMaria's bff, denies vehemently.

Page 341 a lawyer reveals that Sharon had drawn up divorce papers before her death. This is of course horse shit and even repeating that shows that the desperate Jay adulation is off the charts. This page also points out that Tom O'Neill is lying garbage as all researchers already know.

Page 353 (ref Page 325 above) is as confused about the Helter Skelter motive as earlier.

Page 372, while slagging O'Neill, always a good thing, is wildly offensive. First of all, the Col had cited that Steven Parent was gay as far back as the 1990s Yahoo groups. For his work the Col would be yelled at and questioned because homophobes have issues. But I've spoken to David Gerrold - his now somewhat famous boyfriend at the time. Steven was gay and was likely at Cielo to frolic with Garretson. AND THAT'S FINE. This book states that O'Neill was the first to call Parent's sexuality into question in 2024. But first of all, being gay isn't "into question". He was gay. Fuck you if you don't like that for some reason. And O'Neill, stealing from the research of his betters, was not even close to the first to reveal this.

Page 408- any time Barbara Hoyt is given credibility one's own credibility takes a hit.

Page 436 provided my favorite factual revelation - and then took it away! In a Parole Hearing that includes Orca and Di Maria, a "media observer" is permitted - Sophia Arguelles. The book then claims she is Michael Brunner's daughter/ Manson's granddaughter. Which is a POW moment. But then the text reveals that she is Daniel Arguelles' (an ALLEGED Manson son) daughter. Confused.

Page 457- DiMaria is very upset that Leslie is paroled. You know, after all the shit she did to his uncle that he never knew, she was freed. I mean I would not have freed her but calm down guy.

As indicated above there is a BIG movement in the book to establish that Jay fought for himself, Sharon and the others. SUPER SEBRING! And any chance we get to push that Jay and his Jeet Kune Do could have saved the day gets added over and over again. Of course this skips the logic that MAYBE if there were any chance to survive (very unlikely) a short dude punching and kicking people didn't help. MAYBE it made everyone more aggro!

On Page 467, mirroring O'Neill, the authors are very upset that Bugliosi won't engage to be interviewed - you know, the man who never met Jay Sebring.

Page 497 reprints a famous photo of Jay and Sharon at the pool in Cielo, the day or two before the carnage. It is credited to the DiMaria Family- which is nonsense. The photographer and thus the copyright is unknown. The film was stolen by an LAPD piece of shit cop and then stolen from him (bravo) decades later by Patti Tate's lover and noted TLB researcher Alisa Statman.

Page 186 wraps up a chapter that comes to the conclusion that Jay Sebring created Bruce Lee- okay then.

Page 150, again trying to pump up the dead (because why have a bio otherwise ?) we learn that the Unions and Mob and Licensing board DID NOT STOP trying to close the little shop on Fairfax down but SUPER JAY saved the day.

Barbara Luna, who I've met at autograph shows, was with Jay a long time and as google tells us, was a real looker and provides good tales. Cami Sebring, the first wife, google also tells us was gorgeous. But since SUPER JAY can do no wrong when she divorces him it takes a paragraph and no reasons are given- they stayed friends till the end. They just divorced because reasons.

I think the authors bring too much of their own prejudices to the story. Jay was into BDSM like so many are today, but DiMaria is offended because that makes him seem impotent so a lot of time is spent denying it, with no evidence provided. Jay was surely a player but wtf is he doing with an almost naked ex late at night, drunk, up in the hills if he isn't desperately clinging. Sebring accomplished a HELL of a lot in his short life and was on his way to accomplishing a LOT more. But he wasn't fucking Moses.

The tome is worth it for every serious researcher, just be advised as to the serious slant.. I don't know that Jay Sebring needed a 500+ page biography but we got one.