A Wrongful Death

On July 29, 1970 a lawsuit was filed in the Federal District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of Bartek Frykowski, a minor (age 12). The lawsuit sought one million dollars in general damages and one million dollars in punitive damages for the 'wrongful death' (murder) of Bartek's father, Wojciech Frykowski. The defendants were Charles Manson, Susan Atkins, Charles ‘Tex’ Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel and Linda Kasabian. 

His attorney, Nathaniel J. Friedman, filed the complaint on behalf of young Bartek and simultaneously appointed Hanna Prominska to serve as guardian ad litem (guardian for purposes of the litigation) for Bartek. Friedman served Manson, Watson, Krenwinkel, Atkins and Kasabian while they were in various jails in Los Angeles and Texas. 

After the lawsuit was filed and served, Manson, Atkins, Watson, Krenwinkel and Kasabian all filed answers to the complaint. Watson and Krenwinkel represented themselves. Kanarek appeared for Manson and Shinn represented Atkins. Fleishman answered on behalf of Kasabian. 

On August 27, 1970 plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Friedman attached to his motion portions of the trial testimony of Kasabian and asserted there was no issue of material fact for a jury to decide as to whether the defendants were legally responsible for Frykowski’s death. After several delays that motion was granted by the court on February 9, 1971. The only issue that remained for trial was the amount of damages: how much money Bartek would receive. 

In the end, only Manson and Atkins appeared at trial on July 29, 1971. No personal appearance occurred. Manson and Atkins were represented at the trial by two attorneys, Mary and Hugh Fielder. Watson, Krenwinkel and Kasabian were defaulted for failing to appear at trial. 

Manson and Atkins waived a jury trial and the court decided the matter of damages after taking the testimony of several witnesses. A judgment for $500,000 was entered against all of the defendants making them ‘jointly and severally’ liable for the debt. In other words, any one of them could be required to pay the entire amount. 

By 2003 that judgment had grown, with interest, to in excess of 2.7 million dollars. 

The Defense Never Did Seem to Get It Right

On August 24, 1970 Kanarek filed an answer to the complaint for Manson. On August 28, 1970 Daye Shinn filed an answer to the complaint for both Manson and Atkins. You would think these two guys, seeing each other daily, could get something this simple, right, but apparently, not. 

In the end this error didn’t matter but, of course, instead of simply accepting responsibility for the error when it came up at a later stage of the proceedings, Kanarek blamed Friedman. 

Kanarek Will Be Kanarek

Kanarek disputed every claim in the complaint and reiterated his opposition in his response to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. 

He denied Bartek was Frykowski’s ‘sole heir’ suggesting Frykowski may have been married at the time of his death. 

He denied the claim was worth anything suggesting that Frykowski never supported his child. This may have been accurate, although claiming Frykowski’s death had no value was not a very good optic. 

He even denied that Manson was a citizen of the state of California.

He also raised a classic Kanarek: he argued that California had no legal reciprocity with Poland because it was a communist country. Since Bartek was a citizen of that communist country, and thus a communist, Bartek could recover nothing. 

None of this worked in the end. 

No Defense, Again

Once Friedman filed the motion for summary judgment and relied upon Kasabian’s trial testimony to establish the facts showing the defendants were liable it was incumbent upon the defendants to submit counter affidavits. In other words, in order to avoid summary judgment on the issue of liability they had to submit an affidavit refuting Kasabian’s testimony. They didn’t. 

Kasabian, of course, was caught in a legal, Catch-22. She couldn’t very well refute her own testimony without admitting she lied in the criminal trial. That, of course, would put her immunity deal in serious jeopardy. Fleischman was left with only one course of action: argue that the law didn’t support a finding of liability. He came up short. The judge sided with Friedman on that issue. 

Watson didn’t respond to the motion. It is likely this was because by August, 1970 his attorneys were aware he was going to admit responsibility in his trial and claim diminished capacity as a defense. 

Krenwinkel asked for more time and in the end submitted no opposition to the motion. 

But the response of Manson and Atkins is a bit baffling. Shinn joined in Kanarek’s response and Kanarek made several legal arguments (those above) without any supporting affidavit.

Kanarek also argued that Manson couldn’t respond more fully because it would ‘prematurely’ reveal Manson’s defense in the criminal case and because Manson was too busy defending himself in that case. 

To me this doesn’t make sense. First, while Kanarek’s response was filed on November 15, 1970, by the time the motion was finally heard by the court the defense, in the criminal trial, had ‘rested’ without putting on a defense. This was something noted by Friedman when they got there. Kanarek, after November 15th, could have amended his response and submitted an affidavit from Manson. But even as of November 15th how hard would it have been to submit an affidavit(s) by Manson and Atkins refuting Kasabian’s testimony? Weren't they claiming they were 'not guilty'? 

All Manson had to say to create an issue of fact was: 

I never said ‘now is the time for Helter Skelter’.

I never said ‘go with Tex and do whatever he says’. 

I never said ‘leave something witchy’. 

I had nothing to do with the murders at Cielo Drive.  

He wasn't at Cielo that night and this civil case wasn't about Helter Skelter it was about the murder of one person. All he had to say was that he had nothing to do with that night.

Isn’t that what Manson claimed ever since?

That simple document would have created an issue of fact and would not have impacted the defense Manson never raised. It is essentially what the ‘girls’ attempted to do, indirectly, in the penalty phase. But Kanarek did nothing. 

One reason may be that Friedman was prepared to depose the defendants. On September 10, 1970 before the motion was heard by the court Friedman noticed Kasabian’s deposition. Unfortunately for us, he subsequently withdrew the notice without taking her deposition. 

The Trial

The trial occurred on July 29, 1971. The sole issue was how much money Bartek would receive for the death of his father. 

Friedman’s witness list appears at the right. An interpreter, fluent in Polish, was brought in for the trial.

Friedman submitted one exhibit at trial. It was a letter from Roman Polanski addressed ‘to whom it may concern’ dated December 18, 1967 (below, right). The letter confirms that Polanski was attempting to help his friend break into the movie business. It is also inadmissible in a courtroom. 

Without Polanski being present there is no way to authenticate the document (prove it is real) and without Polanski it is also, hearsay. 

The amount of damages in the case turned on two factors. The financial benefit Bartek lost due to Frykowski’s death together with the monetary value of losing his relationship with his father. The letter appears to be the only evidence of Frykowski’s ‘financial benefit’ to Bartek. The witnesses don’t appear to really be in a position to testify to that issue. Nor does it appear that there was sufficient evidence of a relationship between Bartek and his father. Frykowski wasn’t going to return to Poland and from what I know he had very little contact with Bartek. I’m not sure how this adds up to $500,000. Punitive damages were not awarded. 

Collection Efforts

Early in the trial Friedman attempted to push the case faster than the court’s regular docket. He wasn’t successful but the stated reason was his belief the defendants were going to receive royalties for literary works, which turned out to be true. Friedman spent the next thirty years trying to collect from those sources with some, limited, success. 

On August 25, 1971 Friedman served an order for a judgment debtor’s exam on Leon Isaacson, Vice President of Beverley Hills Bancorp (New American Library, Inc.). The goal, here, was to intercept Atkins’ royalties for The Killing of Sharon Tate by Lawrence Schiller. He was too late. As the debtor’s response indicates, they had already paid all the royalties they were going to pay, about $17,000. 

Friedman also attempted to sit Kasabian down for what is known as a judgment debtor’s exam on August 18, 1971 but was unable to serve her as she had already left California. 

He subsequently obtained an order for a judgment debtor’s exam of Atkins on May 22, 1973. I am not sure what event triggered this effort. The file does not reveal what happened on that occasion but no partial satisfaction of judgment was entered in the court file in that time frame so nothing was collected as a result of the effort. But Friedman wasn’t done with Ms. Atkins.  

On September 14, 1981 Friedman filed with the court for a writ of execution against Atkins. This time the target was her wedding ring. It appears from the file that on October 5, 1981 a ‘Lee Cox’ went to the California Institute for Woman, met with her and saw her wearing the ring but she refused to give it to him. Although my knowledge about executing on judgments is not great I have to wonder why Mr. Lee didn’t enlist the help of the guards to secure the ring since he had a valid writ. 

The Geffen Records Satisfaction

On January 6, 1994 Friedman served a writ of execution on Geffen Records. This resulted in the payment of $72,608.26 on February 24, 1994. These were royalties owed Manson for the band, Guns and Roses’ recording of Manson’s song Look at Your Game, Girl, which appeared as a hidden track on the GnR album, The Spaghetti Incident?

A UPI story at the time states two interesting facts. First, it appears that Geffen Records contacted Friedman and asked him to serve a writ on them for Manson's royalties, estimated at $62,000 per million albums sold. The article also suggests that Geffen Records attempted to remove the song from the album. 

"Record executive David Geffen and other top representatives of the label have said they agree in principle with the objections by Tate and other opponents to the song.

However, Geffen President Ed Rosenblatt said the contract with Guns N' Roses forbids the company from deleting the track without the band's consent."

(UPI Archives, Geffen to Pay Manson's Song Royalties to Victim's Family, December 8, 1993.)

The Atkins Satisfaction

For unexplained reasons on August 20, 2000 Atkins paid $1,000 towards the judgment. There is no indication where Atkins acquired the money, nor is there any explanation why she paid it. The file discloses no collection efforts by Friedman at that time, suggesting it may have been voluntary. One possible explanation for the payment may be: parole hearings. It certainly would look better to pay something rather than nothing at all while funneling any profits from your books to a charity of your choice. 

The Manson Satisfaction

On January 8, 2003 someone who owed Manson money paid $54,237 towards the judgment. Unlike the Geffen Records payment, this satisfaction does not identify a third-party debtor of Charles Manson. 

There is no writ of execution, order for judgment debtor exam or other court document in the court file that would indicate the source of this payment. It could have resulted from a writ of garnishment (those are not filed with the court). But the question is then, who was served? Who was holding 54k for Manson in 2003? That answer is in the lawsuit United States of America vs. Bartek Frykowski and Nathaniel Friedman, below. 

The ‘Confidential’ Satisfaction

The most interesting part of the file is the existance of the ‘dummy’ court docket in the image to the left. I was unable to determine what a ‘dummy docket’ is and personally, in my legal career, I have never heard of such a thing. There is no formal partial satisfaction of judgment for this $25,000 payment in the file. Someone, described only as ‘confidential’ claimed to be a debtor of Charles Manson and on September 22, 1995 paid $25,000 voluntarily on the judgment. The sum is odd, an even 25k. It raised the question who would have owed Manson 25k in 1995?

After a bit of searching, my legal assistant, whom I will call ‘Linda’ discovered the answer in another Manson-related lawsuit involving Bartek. On May 1, 1995 Friedman, on behalf of Bartek Frykowski, filed a separate lawsuit against Grove Press Inc. and Grove Atlantic Inc. seeking damages of $100,000 claiming Grove and Manson had engaged in a 'fraudulent conveyance'. 

Friedman alleged in the complaint that Grove knew about the judgment, obtaining the information from Nuel Emmons, author of Manson In His Own Words. He claimed that Grove then arranged with Manson for Manon's royalties to be paid to Grove, knowing Bartek would otherwise receive them. In other words, Grove and Manson conspired to defraud Bartek by making an end run around his judgment. If this is true compare Grove's actions to those of Geffen Records.

The matter was dismissed by the court on October 2, 1995 one week after the satisfaction, above, was filed with the court. As a result we will never know if Friedman's claim was true. 

 Grove is the ‘confidential’ debtor and the 'confidential' status was likely part of a settlement agreement.

United States of America vs. Bartek Frykowski and Nathaniel Friedman

By far the strangest discovery by Linda, however, was a lawsuit filed by the United States of America  (US) against Friedman and Bartek in March 2003. The suit claimed that the government had overpaid Friedman and Bartek Frykowski by the sum of $46,709.92. 

Friedman lost a motion for summary judgment filed by the United States and was ordered to repay $17,716.21, which he did. The claim against Bartek was dismissed because he was never served. 

The court’s docket record from the decision on the motion for summary judgment on November 18, 2004, after finding against Friedman, says this: 

_____

“However, the court DENIES the governments [sic] request to off-set funds received to date and accruing funds due to Mr. Frykowski until it recovers the full amount of the overpayment.”

_____

The US was asking the court to allow it to off-set funds accruing and owed to Bartek  against the remaining balance of the overpayment alleged by the US to be 46k+. The request was denied for the same reason Bartek was dismissed from the case: he hadn’t been served. He was in Poland. The US never followed up but it appears that it did ‘block’ future payments to Bartek. 

The lawsuit resulted from a clerical glitch in the US Marshall's office (USMS). On January 6, 1994 the US Marshall for the Central District of California served a writ of execution on Warner Music Group Services on behalf of Bartek seeking Manson's royalties from 'T-shirts and songs'. 

On July 27, 1995 the USMS served a writ on Bartelsmann Music Group for 7 million in damages owed to MCI by Charly Records from a trademark infringement case. 

On August 28, 1998 the USMS served a third writ on behalf of JEC International on Warner Services Group to intercept royalties owed Chaka Khan resulting from a judgment in favor of JEC for 250k for her breach of a contract.  

It appears from the complaint that Warner Services Group paid the $47,000 to the USMS in two checks. One was due MCI and and the other was due JEC on the non-Manson collection efforts. Someone at the USMS sent the money to Friedman. The Manson Satisfaction, above, likely results from these two checks plus an additional sum collected on behalf of Bartek from Warner Services Group and accurately paid to Friedman. 

Following the motion for summary judgment Friedman engaged in some strenuous efforts to compel the US to disburse what is referred to in the court docket as the ‘blocked’ funds. The Estate of Bartek Frykowski sought to prevent the disbursement of the funds held by the US. Freidmen’s basis for seeking to compel the release of these funds was his lien: he was owed one third of any payments. 

The court eventually resolved the issue on July 15, 2005 against Friedman and in favor of the Estate of Bartek. The court declined to order disbursement of the 'held' funds. The court’s docket record from that hearing also reflects this:

“Court further orders that Defendant Friedman provide copies of all documents in his possession pertaining to the case of Frykowski vs. Manson et al within 10 days of this order.”

On April 28, 2005 Alexander Volchegursky had substituted as attorney, replacing Nathanial Friedman. The substitution indicates that Volchegursky was now representing the Estate of Bartek Frykowski. 

So, what did Friedman have in his file that Volchegursky wanted? I believe it is likely evidence of malpractice. That would also explain Volchegursky's efforts to prevent payment of Friedman. 

A judgment is ‘good’ for ten years. Before the expiration of the ten-year period one can renew a judgment for another ten years. Freidman did this in 1981 and 1991. The Manson court file contains no further renewals of the judgment. This means that Bartek’s Estate’s judgment (by 2003 in excess of $2 million) ceased to exist in 2001. Absent some rule I am unaware of that might preserve the judgment, that would be malpractice, especially in light of the claims floating around that Manson's estate is worth a small fortune. (Danielle and Andy Mayoras. The Charles Manson Estate Battle: What Are They Fighting For? Forbes. January 16, 2018.)

Did the Wrongful Death Case Have any Impact?

Bartek or his estate at least received 2/3’s of all the sums paid or about $102,000. 

The file also suggests that Charles Manson’s estate is not burdened by the judgment. The judgment appears to have expired in 2001. That means it no longer exists and cannot be collected. Unless there is something out there I don’t know or didn’t find, a claim cannot be filed against the Manson’s estate with any hope of collecting anything. That does, however, raise an ethical question for the heirs about what should happen to Manson's estate. A question I believe the combatants will ignore. 

Of course, we don’t know what agreements Friedman may have entered into with entities such as Geffen Records or Grove Press. Geffen Records actually asked Friedman to issue the writ against them when GnR recorded Look at Your Game, Girl. It could be that those entities agreed to pay any future royalties to Bartek without future collection proceedings. 

By one account The Spaghetti Incident? has sold 6.1 million copies world wide (https://chartmasters.org/2018/03/cspc-guns-n-roses-popularity-analysis). If this information and Geffen Records' estimate in 1993 are accurate that would have put Manson's royalties at $375,000. 

We also learned that Linda Kasabian probably abandoned her book deal with Joan Didion because of this lawsuit. According to Kasabian she was to receive 25% of the profits for her story. Didion was to be the author and according to Didion portions of Didion’s book The White Album were drawn from her initial interviews of Kasabian. 

It seems likely that once Kasabian realized that she was not going to actually ever see any part of the cash that she abandoned the project. I do have to wonder why Friedman never attempted to intercept any payments Kasabian received from her various TV appearances over the years. Maybe, she wasn’t paid or maybe the aging Friedman lost interest in the case. Or maybe they found a way to pay her without it appearing on the radar. To me that possibility is rather disconcerting. Did Kasabian say "Yup. I'll appear in that wig if you find a way to get me the cash without having to pay the judgment against me?" Did Bugliosi participate in such a scheme, a scheme known as a fraudulent conveyance? We likely will never know. 

To me the lawsuit also tells us that at least one lawyer, Daye Shinn, was attempting to protect Atkins’ future royalties, which, of course would have paid his fees. Perhaps Kanarek mounted his defense for the same reason. 

The lawsuit also likely explains why Atkins’ books and Watson’s book did not result in actual payments to either of them to the best of my knowledge. Their effort to avoid paying the judgment by directing the profits to charities of their choice instead of to Bartek should tell you something about each of them, their jail-inspired Christian values and their acceptance of responsibility for the crimes. 

But that, together with the abandonment of the Kasabian project, I think, tells us something else about those three and especially Kasabian.

Lest we forget, before she testified Linda Kasabian had a book deal of her own. 

Q (Fitzgerald): Are you to receive some money from the sale of this book, Mrs. Kasabian?

A: Yes.

Q: How much are you to receive?

A: I have no idea.

Q: have you been promised a certain amount of money in connection with the sale of your book?

A: Yes.

Q: How much have you been promised?

A: 25 percent of whatever comes in.

*****

Q (Shinn): Is someone writing a book on your behalf?

A: Yes.

Q: You stated her name was what?

A: Joan Didion.

(Testimony of Linda Kasabian at Tate-LaBianca. Cielodrive.com)

_____

Joan Didion was involved with Linda Kasabian before she ever took the witness stand.  Didion purchased her trial dress for her at I Magnin. I Magnin is the same place Abigail Folger shopped almost one year to the day before Didion bought Kasabian’s dress from the same Beverley Hills store. 

Bugliosi also participated in the fashion decision. He rejected Kasabian’s first choice, “a long, white, homespun shift”. 

_____

“Long is for evening he [Bugliosi] advised Linda. Long was for evening and white was for weddings.”

(Joan Didion. The White Album. Simon and Schuster. Page 45. 1979)

_____

Apparently, while the defense couldn’t get near Kasabian an author seeking interviews for a book deal, could.

_____

“On July 27, 1970, I went to the Magnin-Hi Shop on the third floor of I. Magnin in Beverly Hills and picked out, at Linda Kasabian’s request, the dress in which she began her testimony about the murders at Sharon Tate Polanski’s house on Cielo Drive. “Size 9 Petite” her instructions read. “Mini but not extremely mini. In velvet if possible. Emerald green or gold. Or: A Mexican peasant style dress, smocked or embroidered.”

(Joan Didion. The White Album. Simon and Schuster. Page 45. 1979)

_____

Over the years more than one person has castigated Bugliosi for being in the process of writing a book during the trial, even suggesting he made up the Helter Skelter motive for his book or that his book deal, at least, influenced his trial presentation. If you can make that argument then shouldn’t you also make the argument that a book deal may have played a factor in the state’s star witnesses’ performance at Tate-LaBianca? Maybe immunity plus a book deal helped Kasabian present her emotional testimony at that trial. It certainly was gone seven years later. 

According to Linda Deutsch there was a marked difference between Kasabian’s demeanor and testimony at Leslie Van Houten’s 1977 trial compared to the Tate-LaBianca trial. 

_____

“The witness offered none of the dramatic touches which marked her first testimony in the 1970 Tate-LaBianca trial. During that case, she sobbed frequently as she recalled the two nights of murder in which she drove the getaway car. 

*****

Then her voice fading to a sleepy monotone, Mrs. Kasabian answered ‘yup’ and ‘nope’ to a series of questions about the two nights of death.” 

_____

In fact, the DA, before that trial, could not find Kasabian. She was no longer in New Hampshire where the DA expected to find her. She had disappeared. She was, in today’s vernacular, off the grid. Admittedly she had left town in part because she had been arrested near her home town, Milford, New Hampshire, for inciting a riot the previous year (the bonfire incident).

When she was eventually found in Florida, she was arrested (as a material witness) and extradited to California where she appeared before the court and agreed to return for the trial (likely, after being reminded about the terms of her immunity deal). 

Was that all because by 1977 she was just tired of it? At the time, Stephen Kay claimed she was afraid of Family revenge. One has to ask in 1977 who was around to seek that revenge? Or was it because the promise of cash from a book deal evaporated on July 29, 1971 when a judgment was entered against her for $500,000? A judgment, I would add, she has made absolutely no effort to pay, despite those TV appearances and her supposed feelings of responsibility. 

I think it was the latter. 

We have been told that Linda Kasabian was the one true flower child according to some. She has also been called the ‘innocent hippie’. She claimed that she was 'ordained' to tell the truth. She stated that she felt so compelled to speak the truth that she would have testified without immunity. 

_____

“From the start Fleischman, dedicated to the welfare of his client, had wanted nothing less than complete immunity for Linda Kasabian. Not until after I had talked to Linda myself did I learn that she had been willing to talk to us immunity or not, and that only Fleischman had kept her from doing so. I also learned that she had decided to return to California voluntarily, against the advice of Fleischman, who had wanted her to fight extradition.”

*****

“We did grant Linda one special privilege, which might have been called a “bonus.” On the three occasions we took her out of Sybil Brand, we let her call her mother in New Hampshire and talk to her two children. Her attorney paid for the calls. Though Angel was only a month old and much too young to understand, just speaking to them obviously meant a great deal to Linda.

Yet she never asked to do this. She never asked for anything. She told me not once but several times that although she was pleased to be getting immunity, because it meant that eventually she could be with her children, it didn’t matter that much if she didn’t get it. There was a sort of sad fatalism about her. She said she knew she had to tell the truth about what had happened, and that she had known she would be the one to tell the story ever since the murders occurred. Unlike the other defendants, she seemed burdened with guilt, though, again unlike them, she hadn’t physically harmed anyone. She was a strange girl, marked by her time with Manson, yet not molded by him in the same way the others were.”

(Bugliosi, Vincent. Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders (25th Anniversary Edition) (p. 314). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition)

_____

Linda Kasabian also testified that she felt responsible for the murders at Cielo Drive. 

_____ 

Q: (Kanarek): I see, and is your state of mind such that you were not responsible for any one passing away the night before?

A: Yes, I feel responsible. 

Q: You feel responsible for the killings?

A: Yes. 

Q: Correct. The night before?

A: Yes. 

(Testimony of Linda Kasabian at Tate-LaBianca. Cielodrive.com)

_____

Taken together the inference is that Kasabian’s feelings of responsibility for the deaths of Sharon Tate, Abigail Folger, Jay Sebring, Steven Parent and, of course the subject of this post, Wojciech Frykowski, drove her to tell the truth about what happened that night. 

If Kasabian really wanted to tell the truth and accept responsibility for her part in the murders why make no effort to pay the judgment? Why defend the lawsuit filed by a child whose father you watched being slaughtered, literally ten feet away from where you stood?

“Responsibility” I guess, ends at 25% of the profits. 

Pax Vobiscum

Dreath

Bernard Crowe: criminal charges and other alternative facts

Bernard Crowe was called as a witness by the prosecution in the penalty phase of the TLB trial.  The purpose was to show that Charles Manson was capable committing a violent act that could potentially result in the death of another.  In fact Manson did believe that he had killed Crowe at the time he shot him.

Vincent Bugliosi relates in his book Helter Skelter, Part 5 titled "Don't You Know Who You're Crucifying? March 1970" that it was by chance that Manson discovered that he had not actually killed Crowe when the two passed each other in a hallway at either the Hall of Justice or perhaps the LA County jail. 

Bugliosi says in the last paragraph that Crowe had been "jailed on a marijuana charge."  While doing further research into Crowe I discovered that he was not jailed for a marijuana charge but rather burglary and forgery charges.  He was involved with three other people in what was said to be a "$250,000 forgery and burglary ring."  To put it into perspective that amount of money in 1970 would be worth a whopping $1,555,109.54 today.  Crowe's forgery endeavors were no small potatoes and much more lucrative that what Crowe could have made dealing kilos of marijuana.

Cielodrive provided me with the trial transcripts of Crowe's testimony.  I wanted to see what, if anything, was said about the burglary and forgery charges against Crowe or if they had any bearing on his testimony in the penalty phase of the trial.  Bugliosi questioned Crowe first and nothing was said about the charges.  When it came time for Irving Kanarak, Manson's attorney, to question Crowe it is apparent that Kanarak knew about the charges but due to his ham handed style of lawyering he was not able to present questions to Crowe about the incident in a manner that satisfied the court or prosecutor Bugliosi.

Kanarak broached the subject by asking Crowe if in May of 1970 or earlier that year if he had been charged with forging the seal of the State of California.  Objections by Bugliosi ensued and counsel was asked to approach the bench so the matter could be discussed out of the jury's hearing.

This line of questions and objections goes on for pages.  What Kanarak seemed to be trying to get at was whether or not Crowe was going to be given leniency or perhaps dismissal of the charges pending against him for his testimony.  Bugliosi objected at every turn.  Crowe tried to invoke his fifth amendment rights a few times.  The judge has him answer a time or two but in the end I think the jury is left with the impression Crowe was arrested for something, they know not what except that it might have involved the Great Seal of the State of California, and he may or may not be relieved of those charges for his testimony.

The question for me was why, in his book, did Bugliosi misrepresent the charges that Crowe was facing when he had that chance meeting in the hallway with Manson?  The book came out about three years after all was said and done.  There had been testimony that Crowe was facing criminal charges though the jury never quite knew what those charges were.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I drafted all of the above in this post before this post by Dreath was published.  Comments made in that post had me rethink a couple of things.  Col Scott said that Bryn/Bryan Lukashevsky was present at the Crowe shooting.  I could not find any evidence of that in the court testimony where Crowe named the people who were present. 

I looked for and found an LA Times article that recounted the day's testimony to see what was reported.  I noticed that the person named Steve in the court transcripts of Crowe's testimony had quotes around his name in the newspaper article as if that was not his true name.  The person named Del in the transcripts did not have quotes in the newspaper, neither did Rosina or Manson.  However T.J. does have quotes around his name and we know T.J. was Thomas Walleman's nick name.

I contacted Dreath to ask if it was possible the court would allow the use of an alternate name in testimony and he told me it was highly unlikely.  It is done when minors are involved and if there was some legitimate reason to do so for an adult the name used would be "John Doe".

Manson took "Steve's" shirt after shooting Crowe.  I think if "Steve" were Bryn, Manson would have looked like he was wearing a dress if he wore the shirt.  Manson was 5'2" and Lukashevsky was 6'1".

Also, the reporter seems to think that the charges pending against Crowe were drug charges.  The jury likely had that impression, too.

There was no question that Manson shot Crowe, no one denied it, not even Charlie.  The point of Crowe's testifying was to show that Manson was capable of violence that could result in murder.  Why did Bugliosi write something that was definitely not true and in court suppress the true charges that Crowe was facing?

I am completely blown away that the date of the Crowe shooting was misrepresented in court, too.

A Look At the Evidence #3: The Death of Steven Parent (Who told it best?)

Other Posts: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7

The official narrative says that Charles Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel and Linda Kasabian arrived at Cielo Drive at approximately midnight on August 9, 1969. Watson cut the telephone line and then the murderers drove their car back down Cielo Drive, parked and walked back up to the gate of the Polanski residence.

The Testimony

Here is what the witnesses have to say about the events that followed.

Atkins:

Bugliosi: What happened next?

Atkins: Then he told us to get our changes of clothes and we all walked back up the hill and walked to this fence.

Q: Now, when you say "this fence," I see the word "gate" on the diagram. Did you walk up to the gate?

A: We walked up to the gate but we didn't want to touch it or go over it because we thought there may be an alarm system or electricity running through it.

Q: Is there a fence adjacent to this gate?

A: Yes, there is.

Q: On the left and right? 

A: Left.

Q: Left of where I am pointing now but it would have been to your right?

A: That is correct.

Q: South on this diagram; is that correct, assuming that this is north?

A: Uh-huh.

Q: What happened after you approached the fence?

A: I was told to go over first so I threw my changes of clothes over the fence and held the knife between my teeth and climbed over and got my pants caught on part of the fence and had to kind of boost myself up and lift from where I was caught off of the fence and fell into bushes on the other side of the fence and I was followed by the other three people.

Q: You say "other three people," you mean Tex, Patricia Krenwinkel  and Linda Kasabian?

A: Right.

Q: What happened next?

A: Then we were going to move forward in this direction.

Q: Toward the residence?

A: Toward the residence, and we saw lights coming from, apparently, this car.

Q: You say "this car." Are you referring to a little rectangle here that has "Parent's two-door Rambler, MPX 308"?

A: Right.

Q: Was this car in motion, would you say?

A: I didn't actually see the car, I just saw the headlights.

Q: Did the car appear to be in motion? 

A: Yes, it did.

Q: What happened next?

A: Tex told us girls to lie down and be still and not make a sound. He went out of sight.

Q: Did all three of you girls lie down and stay silent?

A: Yes.

Q: What happened next?

A: Tex went out of my sight and I heard him say, "Halt."

Q: Did you hear any voice other than that?

A: Yes, I heard a voice say –

Q: Was it a male voice?

A: Yes, it was. 

Q: Man or boy?

A: It was a male voice.

Q: What did the male voice say?

A: "Please don't hurt me, I won't say anything." And I heard a gunshot and I heard another gunshot and another one and another one.

Q: You heard four gunshots?

A: Yes.

Q: What happened next?

A: Tex came back to us and told us to come on. I saw him go to the car, which was not parked here. At the time, it was over here. [Referring to a diagram.]

Q: It was parked closer to the gate than it is right now on the diagram?

A: Yes, he reached inside, turned off the lights, and then proceeded to push the car to where it is parked here.

Q: On the diagram?

A: Yes.

Cielodrive.com. Susan Atkins Grand Jury Testimony (Kindle Locations 411-414). Kindle Edition.

Kasabian at Tate/LaBianca:

Q. What happened after you, Katie, Sadie, and Tex walked up the hill?

A. We climbed over --- we climbed over a fence and then a light started coming towards us and Tex told us to get back and sit down.

MR.KANAREK: Your Honor, I must object to what Tex said as to Mr. Manson, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled, subject to the same conditions as I have indicated previously. Are you able to go on, Mrs. Kasabian?

A. Yes I am. And a car pulled up in front of us and Tex leaped forward with a gun in his hand and stuck his hand with the gun at the man's head. And the man said, "Please don't hurt me, I won't say anything." And Tex shot him 4 times.

Q. Linda, you say when you saw the headlights coming, this was after you climbed over the fence?

A. Yes.

Q. And Tex told you to keep down when the headlights were coming?

A. Yes.

MR.KANAREK: Leading and suggestive, your Honor. [He’s actually wrong yet again. It is leading but not objectionable. Why?]

MR.BUGLIOSI: This is for clarification, your Honor. I believe she already testified to this. [He’s right.]

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. Did you actually see Tex point the gun inside the window of the car and shoot the man?

A. Yes, I saw it clearly.

Q. About how far away were you from Tex at the time he shot the driver of the car?

A. Just a few feet.

Q. Was the driver's side of the car --- were you on the driver's side of the car or were you on the passenger side of the car?

A. The driver's side.

Q. Did you notice anyone else in the car other than the driver?

A. No.

Q. Did you see the driver?

A. Yes.

Q. After Tex shot the driver 4-times, what was the next thing that happened?

A. The man just slumped over. I saw that, and then Tex put his head in the car and turned the ignition off.

Q. Did the man slump to his left or to his right, if you recall?

A. Towards the passenger side to his right.

Q. Okay, what is the next thing that happened?

A. Tex put his hand in the car and turned the ignition off. He may have taken the keys out, I don't know. And then he pushed the car back a few feet and then we all proceeded towards the house.

*****

Q. Now, did you climb directly over the gate, or how did you get over the gate?

A. We climbed a small embankment.

Q. You climbed over the embankment to the right of the gate?

A. Yes.

Q. All four of you?

A: Yes

Kasabian at Watson:

Q: What is the next thing that happened?

A: Let's see, we climbed up a small embankment, climbed through some barbed wire which was part of a fence, part of the gate.

*****

Q: Once you, Tex, Katie and Sadie went over the front gate of the Tate residence, what is the next thing that happened?

A: Almost immediately after we all got through the fence some headlights started coming toward us and Tex sort of said, you know, "Get down," which we did and the car came right up to us and Tex had a gun in his hand and there was a man in the car and I saw his face, he wore glasses, and he said something about, "Please don't hurt me. I won't say anything." And Tex just shot him in the head four times.

Q: Where were you in relation to this car?

A: Right there, right -- the car was right here and I was five feet from it or something.

Q: Was the driver of the car fairly close to you?

A: Yeah.

Q: You were on the driver's side of the car then?

A: Yes.

Q: Just a couple of feet away?

A: Yes.

Q: And you saw Tex shoot this man?

A: Yes.

THE COURT: I think she said five feet away; is that right?

THE WITNESS: I don't know the exact feet.

MR. BUGLIOSI: I think I said a few feet away.

What does the physical evidence tell us?

The Embankment

Although Atkins’ testimony is a little confusing, the embankment is to the right of the gate. The image above shows the embankment the killers climbed to scale the fence. You can see, here, why they chose to climb the embankment. It is higher then the fence.

This image is the view from the embankment just at the fence looking directly towards the gate button inside the gate. The button is barely visible on the edge of the wall extending from the light pole near the pillar at the end of the wall. The gate is to the left, out of the picture. This is a pretty good representation of what Atkins and Kasabian could have seen (of course it was dark) immediately after crossing the fence from the embankment.

(This image was taken well after the crimes when barbed wire was added to the top of the gate.)

The view reveals two important pieces of information relevent to the event. The wall that ends at the gate button extends some distance from the embankment (to the right) out into the drive. The traffic lane is quite narrow here. It is a ‘choke point’ and the perfect location for an ambush. The wall appears to be at least ten feet in length given the width of the traffic lane. It appears to be about five feet tall at least at the pillar given the position of the gate button. If the foliage was present that night Steven Parent’s car would have been completely obscurred by the wall from this location unless he actually reached the gate button as the killers reached this location. We know that didn’t happen.

The wall can be seen in this image as well.

The wall is located just behind the gate and appears as a solid dark area ending at the lighter vertical line (the pillar). This image suggests that the area in front of the wall from this angle is the logical ‘landing zone’ after the killers climbed the fence. It provides perfect cover and is the ‘natural’ path.

This is another view of the wall, this time from inside the gate looking out. The car to the right suggests the width of the traffic lane at this point. The figures suggest the height of the wall and again it appears to be about ten feet in length. The wall is past the debre where four of the six figures are standing. (One has to wonder what these guys, except the one on the wall, are doing.)

This diagram was constructed by me from an arial view of the property probably taken either late on the 9^th of August or perhaps even on the 10^th or later. One police car stands guard. Steven Parent’s car has been removed and the investigators are gone. My ‘car’ symbol may be a little small given the size of the police car but its close enough for what I am trying to illustrate.

I assumed Steven Parent parked his car at location #1. It made sense to me. He would have been largely ‘out of view’ of the main house at that location and still in the common parking area with the other cars. Those cars likely would have drawn him to that location. It also seemed to line up with the damaged fence (where the blue lines meet the fence) on a fairly natural arc. He could have parked more to the left and next to the Firebird. He also could have parked at car location #6 and backed straight back into the fence. This location (#6) would also put his car completely out of sight from the house.

The other blue lines represent two paths Steven Parent could have taken to the gate. Again, precision is not necessary although the lines are probably pretty close.

The red lines represent two possible paths the killers took after crossing the fence reflecting the fact they either had to enter the driveway in front of the wall (between the gate and the wall) or behind the wall. 

“XXX” is the general area where Watson and the rest would have been had they immediately seen SP’s headlights after climbing over the fence as Kasabian claimed at the Watson trial. That is about the location in the picture above that looks towards the wall. This is clearly more then a ‘few feet’ from any possible location for Steven Parent's car. Therefore, if Kasabian is right about the distance, they were not at XXX.

“X” and “XX” mark two other locations where Atkins, Kasabian and Krenwinkel could have been located when Watson confronted Steven Parent. From these you can identify a myriad of other locations along the two routes. These locations (“X” and “XX”) however, put the three women close to Watson’s possible location. 

The yellow triangle is a representation of SP’s headlights and the yellow arc shows how they would have moved from top to bottom as he made his turn towards the gate. In order to avoid being exposed by the headlights Watson, Krenwinkel, Atkins and Kasabian had to be somewhere in front of the wall near “X”.

Car location #2 places Steven Parent at the gate button. I believe the physical evidence makes it unlikely he was there when Watson confronted him. Why? Looking at the photo above from Cielodrive.com (thank you, by the way) from inside the gate looking out and the first photo, above, there doesn’t appear to be any room for Watson to stand next to the driver’s side door and attack Parent. The wall is higher and wider at the end where it forms the pillar about 5-6 feet tall and about two to three feet wide. The button is beyond the pillar closer to the gate but near the pillar. His car would be at most about 1-1.5 feet from the button (if not closer) and the pillar so he could reach it without getting out of the car. The pillar and the gate button, then would largely block access to the driver’s side window unless Parent was further from the wall and planned to exit the car to open the gate. Steven Parent would have also been stopped at that point rendering the command ‘Halt!’ rather meaningless.

Car loacation #3 assumes Watson stopped Steven Parent just before he approached the gate button. Watson would be at “A” approaching either from the “XX” or “X”. Location #3 seems to be the most likely scenario, especially if he approached from the cover of the wall from “X”. Steven Parent would have seen nothing until Watson stepped out from behind the wall. He would not have reached the button (and thus it would also be harder to push the button really fast and 'run'). An approach from “XX” would have exposed Watson to Steven Parent’s lights well before he reached the car.

Car loaction #4 assumes Watson intercepted Parent before he reached the button by an alternative route. This second route was chosen because it is as close as Parent can be to the retaining wall, bushes and trees along the drive to the right. The image from Cielodrive.com shows there were garbage cans and other debre (a wagon wheel?) lined and piled up behind the wall along that side of the drive. These are also visible in the diagram. The witnesses do not mention these items or climbing through or around them in their testimony. This suggests they were not in area “XX”.

Location #4 is actually close to where Steven Parent's Rambler was found the next morning. Given location #4 is also blocked from view from the street by the wall it is unlikely this was the route Steven Parent took if the killers (or Watson) did, in fact, push the car back up the drive and behind the wall out of sight where it came to rest. They wouldn’t have had to do that if he approached by this route. The configuration of the car’s wheels could suggest someone pushed the car and turned the wheels sharply to the left to steer it back behind the wall.

Under any scenario, there is, however, no location where Atkins and Kasabian could have been within 'a few feet' of Watson and actually observed the murder of Steven Parent from cover. To be within a few feet they have to be standing or crouching right next to Watson at either “A” or “B”.

The logical place for Atkins, Kasabian and Krenwinkel to have been located is either behind the wall at “X” or up on the embankment “XXX”. The problem with both of these locations is you likely can’t see the confrontation from either location, if you are crouching or ‘sitting down’, especially at night.

Between “XXX” and “X” I believe the better location is at “X”-behind the wall. At “XXX” they would not have seen Steven Parent’s car, especially at night. They also may not have been able to hear anything spoken unless one or both participants spoke loudly. Steven Parent, at least, did not, by witness testimony.

Conversely, if the three murderesses were sitting or crouched down near “X” and Watson confronted Steven Parent at “A” (car location #3) they still would not have been able to see him attack Steven Parent with a knife or stick the gun in the window and fire four times. At “X” they likely would have heard a good deal but would have seen very little.

……which is precisely what one of our two witnesses claimed.

Kasabian places herself within ‘a few feet’ of Watson and actually sees the attack. Even thenher testimony is not accurate. She doesn’t see the knife blow.

Atkins

A:Tex told us girls to lie down and be still and not make a sound. He went out of sight.

Q: Did all three of you girls lie down and stay silent?

A: Yes.

Q: What happened next?

A: Tex went out of my sight and I heard him say, "Halt."

*****

A: *****And I heard a gunshot and I heard another gunshot and another one and another one.

Q: You heard four gunshots?

A: Yes.

Q: What happened next?

A: Tex came back to us and told us to come on.

Atkins saw nothing, including the use of a knife but she heard the gunshots and the conversation. Her story makes sense based upon the physical evidence. It describes precisely what she could see and hear from near location “X” if she was hiding as instructed and Watson confronted Steven Parent at location #3 or “A”. In the midst of the attack Steven Parent may have cried out after being slashed with the knife if he had time but there would likely be no telltale sound that would alert Atkins to a knife attack.

Kasabian TLB:

Q. Did you actually see Tex point the gun inside the window of the car and shoot the man?

A. Yes, I saw it clearly.

Q. About how far away were you from Tex at the time he shot the driver of the car?

A. Just a few feet.

Kasabian at Watson:

Q: You were on the driver's side of the car then?

A: Yes.

Q: Just a couple of feet away?

A: Yes.

Q: And you saw Tex shoot this man?

A: Yes.

Kasabian claims she saw the whole thing from ‘a few feet away’. Then why didn’t she see Watson attack Steven Parent with a knife? The logical answer is that she, like Atkins, can’t describe that event because she didn't see it. How could she have later testified that she saw the young man wearing glasses in the car, slumped to the passenger side? The same way Atkins did. When she came up next to the car either before or when Watson (maybe with her help) pushed it backwards. This is the same way Atkins saw and coldly decribed Steven Parent’s body in her testimony.

That fence…..

Steven’s car caused the damage to the fence pictured below. The police concluded that the damage occurred as Steven was fleeing the scene trying to escape his attackers.

First Tate Homocide Investigation Progress Report:

“*****

Officers noted that the split-rail fence which runs to the north of the garage area was broken, and that scrape marks appeared, on the curb directly in front of the split-rail fence. The scrape marks and the break in the split-rail fence appeared fresh. A search of the undercarriage of Parent's car revealed similar scrape marks and concrete transfer. The rear bumper of the car also showed white paint transfer similar to that as on the split-rail fence.

*****

The second theory is that as Parent left the Garretson residence he observed either part or all of the above-described crimes. He ran for his car, which was parked somewhere in the paved parking area of the property. He entered the car, backed it up at a high rate of speed, struck the curb and knocked down the split-rail fence previously described. He then turned the car in a westerly direction, and in an attempt to evade his pursuers turned the car at an odd angle toward the gate. At this point, he was caught and killed.”

Others have explained the fence by assuming Steven Parent was either a little tipsy from his one beer or just careless and backed into the fence while leaving. I even read one comment somewhere where the author suggested Steven and Garretson must have smoked some pot together. You can’t, however, explain the fence with just this assumtion. You have to make other assumptions. 

You have to assume Steven Parent decided not to go back and tell Garretson. You have to assume this happened either because Steven figured either he’d never see him again or that Steven would call him the next day and explain. But he’s 100’ feet away. Why not just stroll on back and fess up?

You also have to assume Steven failed to tell the people in the house because he wanted to avoid a confrontation or was intimidated like any teenager. This one I can buy and clearly he didn’t because no one was ‘alert’ when Watson entered the home.

There is another possibility but it also requires a lot of assumptions. If Steven’s car was parked at either location #1 or #6 and he was attacked while starting his car and trying to escape (by someone wielding a knife) it may have happened exactly like the Homocide Report states. But again, you have to make assumptions. Neither witness describes the attack on Steven Parent happening this way and no one subsequent to the trials did either. It is an intriguing idea, however-especially given the blood evidence- Watson runs out of the house to help someone stop Steven Parent from getting away, everyone counts heads and makes a dash for the doors when the guy with the gun is gone. This scenario does make the use of the gun, contrary to Manson's orders more of a panic situation. But this scenario has to assume everything in the official narrative is wrong. Atkins lied and Kasabian simply parroted Atkins.  As we will see, the later part of this assumption is possible.

Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

The fence, to me remains a mystery. I see no simple explanation that does not involve a host of assumptions. 

And about that knife….

Watson attacked Steven Parent with a knife. The autopsy report confirms a defensive wound.  Remember, neither witness saw this incident happen. We know it did but where did Watson get the knife?

Kasabian TLB:

Q. Were there any knives or guns in the car, Linda?

A. Yes, there was.

Q. How many knives and how many guns?

A. There were 3 knives and one gun.

*****

Q. Did Tex then drive off?

A. Yes.

Q. Were there any knives in the car at that point?

A. Yes.

Q. How many?

A. Two knives and the gun.

*****

Q. What about the knife which you brought to the ranch, the folding Buck knife?

A. That wasn't there. That was the knife Katie --- excuse me, Sadie --- left behind.

*****

Q. You may continue, Linda. You drove off and what happened?

A. Then Tex told me to wipe off the prints from the knives.

Q. The two knives?

A. From the knives, the two knives. Yes.

Kasabian Watson:

Q: Were there any knives or guns in the car?

A: Yes.

*****

Q: How many knives were in the car?

A: Three.

Q: One was the knife that you had; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And there were two other knives in the car?

A: Yes.

Q: And who had those two knives?

A: Sadie and Katie.

Q: Did you see any knife on Tex's person?

A: No.

*****

Q: What is the next thing that happened?

A: I don't know, we were driving up hills, up and down, winding, and then he told me to throw the knives out and I did.

Q: You say the knives. Are you referring to the two knives that were in the car?

A: Yes.

Q: You started out with three knives that night.

A: Yes.

Q: And you ended up with two knives?

A: Right.

Kasabian consistently says there were three knives when they arrived at Cielo Drive and two knives when they left. She reports throwing two knives out of the car. There is no fourth knife and Watson does not have a knife.

A fourth knife doesn’t make sense. Why would Watson order two of three murder weapons wiped for prints and thrown out the window and keep his own knife? In case the police pulled them over? A keepsake? 

Atkins:

Q: Did you and the others take anything with you when you left the Spahn Ranch on the evening of August the 8th, 1969?

A: There was a rope in the back seat of the car when I got in there. There was a set of bolt cutters in the back seat of the car. Tex had a gun. I had a knife.  Linda had a knife. Katie had a knife, and to my best knowledge I believe Tex had a knife. You will see why I am not sure whether he had or not, but it makes sense that he did.

Q: All three of you girls had a knife; is that correct?

A: Yes. 

*****

Q: What happened when you reached Mulholland Drive? 

A: All we did was drive along and all of the weapons except for one weapon, I believe it was my knife, was handed to Linda who was sitting up in the front seat along with the gun and we drove along the road until we came to what looked like an embankment going down like a cliff with a mountain on one side and a cliff on the other.

*****

Q: To your knowledge, then, she threw the bloody clothing –

A: Yes.

Q: -- away?

A: Yes.

Q: And what else, again?

A: All of the weapons except for one  knife.

Q: The gun and the knives?

A: Yes, I knew on the way down the hill that I had lost a knife. 

Cielodrive.com. Susan Atkins Grand Jury Testimony (Kindle Locations 679-680). Kindle Edition.

Atkins is less clear whether Watson had a knife. She is admittedly unsure and bases her belief on what makes sense- in other words what follows: Watson wields a knife during the crime and she sees it. She does place all of the weapons in Kasabian’s hands before they were thrown from the car but never identifies how many knives Kasabian had before she threw them from the car.

Krenwinkel, per Kasabian, borrows Kasabian’s knife later in the story after the murder of Steven Parent. I suppose you could assume from this that Watson borrowed Krenwinkel’s knife before they climbed over the fence or just after, thus disarming her for some unexplained reason. Perhaps it was in response to seeing the headlights of Steven’s car and Manson’s possible admonition to not use the gun. But then Watson didn’t hesitate to use the gun. And neither witness apparently saw Watson borrow Krenwinkel’s knife.

Borrowing Krenwinkel's knife is only one of two ways Watson could have attacked Steven Parent with a knife. The other is if Watson had a fourth knife and Kasabian is wrong about the number of knives she threw out of the car. (I am relying primarily on the testimony of these two witnesses but in Watson's book, I Will Die For You he also identifies only three knives and never mentions having a fourth or borrowing a knife. He does admit attacking Steven Parent with a knife.)

From the testimony of the witnesses alone Watson didn't and couldn't have attacked Steven Parent with a knife. So who did? Kasabian, perhaps, standing 'a few feet' from Watson? She could see the entire assault if she was standing at "A". And she does go out of her way to disarm herself later in the story.

In the end this event takes another jab at Kasabian's credibility. The physical evidence does not appear to support her statements. Maybe to be more fair I should say the physical evidence more closely supports Atkins' testimony.

Returning a moment to the jury instruction: 

In evaluating a witness's testimony, you may consider anything that reasonably tends to prove or disprove the truth or accuracy of that testimony. Among the factors that you may consider are:

How well could the witness see, hear, or otherwise perceive the things about which the witness testified?

*****

How reasonable is the testimony when you consider all the other evidence in the case?

Did other evidence prove or disprove any fact about which the witness testified?

*****

Has the witness engaged in other conduct that reflects on his or her believability?

Was the witness promised immunity or leniency in exchange for his or her testimony?

Do not automatically reject testimony just because of inconsistencies or conflicts. Consider whether the differences are important or not. People sometimes honestly forget things or make mistakes about what they remember. Also, two people may witness the same event yet see or hear it differently.

 If you decide that a witness deliberately lied about something significant in this case, you should consider not believing anything that witness says. Or, if you think the witness lied about some things, but told the truth about others, you may simply accept the part that you think is true and ignore the rest.

Our natural tendency when confronted with Atkins as a witness is to disbeleive her. We should. She changes her story. Her lack of true remorse or feelings for her victims is readily apparent not only in 1969-71 but in the ways she decribes them in her first book, Child of Satan, Child of God.

Her only concern is for herself. This becomes quite evident in her second book written 40+ years after the crimes, TheMyth of Helter Skelter. Here her goals are clearly to take one last jab at Bugliosi and his book and set out her arguments for the unfairness of her circumstances when compared to Kasabian. By the way in that book she mentions her victims by name a total of 54 times. 49 of these are Sharon Tate. Of course she is also trying to prove she didn’t stab Sharon Tate. Voytek Frykowski gets two mentions and the rest, one.

That said, as to the murder of Steven Parent, Atkins’ testimony is closer to the objective evidence, again, then Kasabian. She tells the tale ‘best’.