Monday, December 19, 2016

A Little Bit About the Caretaker's Friend

I had hoped to write a more informative post about Steven Parent but like many others I could find out very little about him that wasn't already known.

The post started when I found this image of his grave at 'Adventures In Grave Hunting'.




It bothered me because it seemed to symbolize who Steven Parent was in the official narrative. He is largely the forgotten victim- not a coffee heiress, not a drug dealing playboy, not a playboy hair stylist to the stars and not a movie star- instead he is 'the caretaker's friend'. No one makes up conspiracy theories about Steven. The twenty-somthings who took the top shot cleaned off Steven's grave marker.

I can't offer what I originally intended. My research dosn't satisfy my personal expectations but I hope this post adds just a little bit to our understanding of who Steven was and might have been. And maybe the Caretaker's Friend could become Carrot Top, Tina's First Love or DJ Steve.

Steven Earl Parent was born on February 12, 1951. He died on August 9, 1969.

Steven’s parents were Wilfred Earl Parent and Juanita Delee Parent. Wilfred was born in Wisconsin April 28, 1925. He learned his trade from his service during World War Two. Wilfred enlisted in the marines in 1943 at the age of 18 and was assigned to construction training in San Diego. By 1948 he had married Juanita and was living in Pasadena. Wilfred's profession is variously listed as 'carpenter', 'carpenter foreman', 'construction manager'' and 'construction (engineer)'. He may have worked primarily in  the oil industry.

Juanita was born in Springfield, Illinois on October 28, 1924. However, by 1940 her family had relocated to Texas where she graduated from Waco High School. At some point between 1940 and 1948 Juanita relocated to California and married Wilfred. 

By 1958, when Steven was 7 the Parents had relocated to El Monte at 408 E. Bryant Road. By 1969 they had moved a few blocks to 11214 E. Bryant Road in El Monte (either that or the houses were renumbered). 

After Steven's death the family moved to Texas. My guess would be to 'start fresh'. That approach to anything as painful as the murder of a son, under the circumstances here makes sense to me but I would be guessing. I was not able to find the exact date of this relocation.

Juanita passed away in Stephenville, Texas, February 4, 1984. Wilfred remarried the same year. I could not find a record of his death.

Steven had one sibling, his younger sister, Janet, born August 21, 1953. She was a sophomore at Arroyo High School in 1969. Her picture that year is to the far right. Unfortunately, there was no 1971 yearbook available. Janet appears to have had a series of unsuccessful relationships causing one to wonder how Steven's death may have impacted her or at least her ability to form lasting relationships. In November 1971 after her graduation she married Kenneth Barr a year ahead of her at Arroyo High School (it does not seem that he actually graduated). In 1983 she married Johnny Williams of Erath, Texas. She married Keith Stevens in May of 1985 and divorced him in Dallas, Texas in May 1986. In 1993 she married Donald Pryor.

The Arrest


Sometime before his sophomore year Steven was arrested for burglary and spent two years in juvenile detention.  I am pretty sure this is the timeframe because Steven appears in the 1966 Arroyo High School yearbook as a freshman (above) and in the 1969 yearbook as a senior (right). He does not appear in the 1968 yearbook while Janet does. There is no '67 yearbook available.

I searched at some length to find information about his arrest and detention and was unsuccessful. Juvenile records are never 'public'. The article below may be a record of the event. It is from the LA Times and the timing and the age of the perpetrator is right. Then again the official narrative says he committed five burglaries not six and that he had stolen radios. It is at least odd that this youth would make the paper and Steven did not.


The Official Narrative

In Helter Skelter Bugliosi makes the following observations about Steven:

"He had graduated from Arroyo High School in June; dated several girls but no one in particular; had a full-time job as delivery boy for a plumbing company, plus a part-time job, evenings, as salesman for a stereo shop, holding down the two jobs so he could save money to attend junior college that September.

****
Steven Parent had lunch at his home in El Monte. Before returning to work at the plumbing supply company, he asked his mother if she would lay out clean clothes so he could make a quick change before going to his second job, at the stereo shop, later that afternoon.

****
Across the city, in El Monte, Steven Parent hurried home, changed clothes, waved to his mother, and was off to his second job.

**** 
About 11 P.M. Steve Parent stopped at Dales Market in El Monte and asked his friend John LeFebure if he wanted to go for a ride. Parent had been dating John’s younger sister Jean. John suggested they make it another night.

About forty-five minutes later Steve Parent arrived at the Cielo address, hoping to sell William Garretson a clock radio. Parent left the guest house about 12: 15 A.M. He got as far as his Rambler."


Bugliosi, Vincent; Curt Gentry. Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders (variopus locations). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

Some of this is accurate and some of it is not. 

Steven Parent did graduate from Arroyo High School in June of 1969. His prom date was Tina Hather or should I say her prom date was Steven Parent as this image was taken at her prom (see below). 

Steven Parent's day job was at Valley Cities Supply Company located at 9510 Rush Street in South El Monte. This is close to
Rosemead but not technically in Rosemead. Valley Cities was a plumbing supply wholesaler and Steven could have obtained the job through his father's connections. In the image Valley Cities Supply occupied a building located in the distance with the red lettering. 

I have no idea where Bugliosi came up with John LeFebure. It is possible he changed the name and other facts for privacy reasons. The actual brother of Jean was John Lefebvre. His senior picture from 1970 is to the left. His Arroyo High School junior year picture is below and Jean's senior picture is to the right. Both appear in the Arroyo High School 1969 yearbook. John was not her older brother. 



John didn't work at Dale's Market in El Monte. There was no Dale's Market in El Monte. There was, however, a service station in El Monte known as Dale's and it is possible the detective confused the two when Lefebvre said he worked at Dale's. This ad from late 1968 lists the Dales locations. None are in El Monte. Dales did grow to eleven stores but not until later in the 1970's.

Across the street from Dale's service station was a grocery store named Fry's. The detective who followed up on this event, hearing that John worked at the grocery store 'near Dales', may have simply put the two together and Fry's became Dales Food Mart. John may have worked at Fry's or, in my opinion, more likely Dale's service station.



Frys Supermarket: Yes, it is that Frys. The family sold their supermarkets to Kroger in the 80s and started the electronics chain.

So on the last evening of his life Steven drove from Wilshire Boulevard (Jonas Miller Stereo) back to El Monte and then back to Cielo Drive, stopping to talk with Jean's brother at Dale's service station or Fry's. There he asked John Lefebvre if he wanted to go for a ride. He did quite a bit of driving already that evening. According to Google Maps that trip would take 1 hour and 24 minutes. 

What Might Have Been

Evenings, Steven Parent worked at Jonas Miller Stereo located at 8719 Wilshire Boulevard, pictured today at
right. In June 1969 two young men graduated from high school, Steven and Ken Kreisel (Beverly Hills High School). Both started working at Jonas Miller Stereo.

Kreisel went on to develop and popularize the subwoofer with Jonas Miller and Lester Field. Dr. Lester M. Field was the co-inventor of the traveling-wave tube (among many other inventions and patents). Eventually Kreisel and Miller formed MK Sound, which later became K Sound. His accomplishments can be viewed here:

http://www.kreiselsound.com/timeline.php

And to me they are impressive. 

Here is a quote about him: 

"Ken Kreisel has a long history of audio innovation, in both audio production as well as reproduction. Kriesel has been credited with developing the first subwoofer in the 1960s in response to customer complaints at Jonas Miller Sounds about the lack of bass output from electrostatic loudspeakers. The subwoofer made its first recording studio appearance during the mixing sessions for Steely Dan’s Pretzel Logic and it quickly came into vogue with movie theaters after the 1974 film Earthquake that made successful dramatic use of subwoofers in several theaters. Kreisel also is credited with the first modern satellite-subwoofer speaker design, which now forms the predominant basis for loudspeaker system design in home theater. M&K also owned subsidiary Real Time Records, which pioneered direct digital recording and was the first US record company to release a title on Compact Disc."



Here is an interior shot of Jonas Miller Stereo on Wilshire showing Miller and Kreisel in the shop taken 'during the seventies'.  

Miller not only sold high end stereo equipment but offered to custom design home stereo systems as his ad from August 10, 1969 (Sunday) indicates. In fact, it appears from what I read that it was not uncommon for Miller to send his 'technicians' to your home to 'balance' your system.

At the bottom there you can see the store hours on Wilshire. Jonas Miller Stereo closed at 9 p.m. on August 8th. 


I found references to two other audio innovators with successful careers that worked for Miller during the 1970's: Neil Sinclair and Steve McCormack. I don't know them but maybe you do. It appears Jonas Miller surrounded himself with young, creative souls during that timeframe and launched a number of successful careers. To me it is probable that Steven would have followed a path similar to Ken Kreisel and the rest had he lived.l MK Sound might very have been MKP Sound. 

Dedications

David Gerrold (fka Jerrold David Friedman) testified to the last phone call Steven ever made. He is also a large part of the speculation concerning Steven's sexual orientation. I prefer to listen to Tina, below if it matters at all. Gerrold wrote the Star Trek episode 'The Trouble With Tribbles' in 1967. He was far more then just 'a UCLA student' in 1969 as he  remained on Gene Roddenberry's writers list. He obviously knew Steven Parent and I believe he probably met him at Jonas Miller Stereo. Why do I believe this? What is the first thing you do as a young kid when you had some cash in the vinyl era? Upgrade or buy a new stereo system.

Gerrold dedicated his first sci-fi novel 'When Harlie Was One' to Steven: 


"For Steven Earl Parent, with love. Sleep well, old friend. You got the job done." 

Gerrold, David. When HARLIE Was One: Release 2.0 (Kindle Locations 116-117). BenBella Books, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

The dedication makes more sense after reading the book. It's pretty good.  The story evolves around Harlie's relationship with David Auberson a psychologist tasked with 'raising' Harlie's awareness from childhood to an adult. Harlie is an artificial intelligence developed by a mega corporation. The real plot, however, centers on the company's desire to 'pull the plug' and the philosophical question whether Harlie is human (or what it means to be human) and thus whether pulling the plug is murder.

The phrase in the the dedication about Steven 'getting the job done' comes from these references in the book. Harley 'speaks' in the caps: 

"How much time do you need? AS LONG AS IT TAKES UNTIL THE JOB IS DONE. All right."

*****


"IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF WAR, BEING NICE IS PERCEIVED AS WEAKNESS. OR SURRENDER. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS WAR, SURRENDER MEANS DEATH. I DO NOT INTEND TO DIE UNTIL MY JOB IS FINISHED. " 

Gerrold, David. When HARLIE Was One: Release 2.0 (Kindle Locations 5272-5273). BenBella Books, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

'When Harlie Was One' was first published in 1972. I believe it is possible that Garrold began writing Harlie during the time he knew Steven and may even have discussed ideas with him. Alternatively, it could be that Gerrold's memory of Steven Parent is reflected in Harlie. Can I prove either theory? No, but they make sense to me. 

The 1970 Arroyo High School yearbook contained this memorial:




Those Who Knew Him

Unfortunately, there is very little other information about Steven that I could find. Here are comments I pulled from 'Find A Grave' that appeared to have been written by people who knew him, personally. I think they shed some light on who Steven Parent was.

"My father knew him and two weeks before his murder. I was in the back seat of his car as a baby because he was helping us move. I was almost a year old then. I still think about Steven even though I never had meet him. R.I.P Steven."

"I will never forget the day I picked up the paper in Casper Wyoming and read that my best friend from Frank L. Wright JR. Hi & Arroyo HS (until we moved to Wyoming) was dead. Over the years I have often thought, if I were in LA I would have been with Steve. I have fond memoaries of summer swimming at my house, the fun we had playing in the fields behind my house. The fun we had pretending (at your house in the room in the garage) that we were radio announcers for pop radio! Lost a great friend that summer day. Rest in peace Steve. Some day I will see you again."

"You always loved the fact that you shared your birthday with President Lincoln, it was a holiday for you."

"Sunflowers, keys, shiney new pennies, hot dogs and oatmeal-chocolate chip cookies, your moms spaghetti, jumping off the fence into the pool, walking the kindergarten wall (forever gone now), Wilderness Park, driving up to Mt Wilson, long walks on the beach looking at your footprints in the sand, hugs, laughter, music, friends and family.
These are the things you miss and are missed about you. 

You are always in our thoughts Carrot Top."

"Steve, it is nearing the 40th anniversary since you were taken from my life. I think of you often and have fond memories of my senior prom and staying out all night. God had a plan for each of us, taking you and leaving me behind to carry on with my life. I often wonder if we would have gotten married and had children and grandchildren and where life would have taken us. Love always, Tina"

I'll leave it at that. 






Saturday, December 17, 2016

2017 Manson Blog Tour - NorCal!


The dates of the 2017 Tour are from April 26 - May 1. This time we will be visiting Northern California. We will likely see places like Guerneville, Ukiah, Stockton, Sacramento and Haight-Ashbury.

If anyone is interested in attending please email either myself or Deb. There's no charge, but you need to make your own travel, lodging and other arrangements.

The exact itinerary is never announced before the Tour but the links below will give you an idea of what it's like.

Past tour links:

MansonBlog Tour 2016 - Jane Doe #59
MansonBlog Tour 2016: The Gun Toss And Steven Weiss' House
MansonBlog Tour 2016: Independence, CA
MansonBlog Tour 2016: Death Valley, The Racetrack Playa and The Michigan Loader Site
MansonBlog Tour 2016: Nude Hippies And The Origin Of An Icon
MansonBlog Tour 2016: The End Of Summit Trail

Manson Tour 2015: Earth Day at Spahn Ranch
Manson Tour 2015: A Discussion With George Stimson: Part I
Manson Tour 2015: A Discussion With George Stimson: Part II
Manson Tour 2015: Olancha - Karl Stubbs' Neighbor and Hannum Ranch
Manson Tour 2015: Goler Wash
Manson Tour 2015: Gary Hinman's Bus -- Not
Manson Tour 2015: Benedict Canyon and the Surrounding Areas: Report on Strange Sounds, Gunshots, Indications of Violence, Related by Persons who were in Hearing Distance of the Polanski Residence on the Night of 8-8-69 and the Morning of 8-9-69

Manson Tour 2014: Stoner's Spahn Ranch Hike
Manson Tour 2014: The Museum of Death and The Sounds of Laurel Canyon
Manson Tour 2014: A Day With Aes-Nihil
Holy Cross

2013 Tour - Robert Hendrickson at The Silent Theatre
2013 Tour - Cielo Drive
2013 Tour - Easton Drive / Rudy Weber
2013 Tour - LaBianca
2013 Tour - El Coyote
2013 Tour - Lotsapoppa
2013 Tour - Westchester/Venice
2013 Tour - Hanging out with Michael on his Back Porch!
2013 Tour - Spahn/Chatsworth

2012 Tour Day 1 - Vegas & Pahrump
2012 Tour Day 2 - Devil's Hole, Father Crowley Point & Olancha
2012 Tour Day 3 - Trona, Ballarat & Barker Ranch
2012 Tour Day 4 - El Coyote
2012 Tour Day 5 - Lower Topanga, Spahn, Box Canyon






Monday, December 12, 2016

The Strange Case of the Royal Chessmen and the Manson Murder Connection

Ugly Things Magazine - Issue #42 - Summer 2016
In early 1969 a group o Latino teenagers from El Monte visited Custom Fidelity's studio in Pasadena to record a 45rpm: ”You Must Believe Me"  b/w "Beggin' You”, issued in February 1969 as CF-742. The flipside, composed by lead singer David and guitarist Gilbert Zabele, went on to become an East LA cult classic, demand being so great that it was bootlegged not once but twice by a notorious Chicano record dealer nicknamed Bootin' Bernie on his illicit labels, Riot and Angle. Original copies on Custom Fidelity, though, are extremely hard to come by, so much so that the single has built up a mythical status among collectors of the East LA sound. In their book 45RPM: The History, Heroes & Villains of a Pop Music Revolution, Jim Dawson and Steve Propes listed it as one of "The 50 Most Expensive 45s," outlining a story that has contributed immensely to the single's reputation and desirability. "The only known copy," they wrote, "ended up with Steven Parent, the son of the people who owned the studio, who was carrying it with him in his car to play for a couple of labels around Hollywood. While visiting a friend who lived in the guest house at Roman Polanski's sprawling estate, Parent was murdered, along with Sharon Tate and others, by members of the Charles Manson family. According to the vocal group members, the LAPD impounded the car in which Parent was killed, and the original 45 might still be in the evidence locker, because they were never able to get it back."

It's a compelling story, but does it stand up to scrutiny? Actually… it sort of does.

While, Parent, 18, was definitely not "the son of the people who owned the studio" (for one thing, Dave Berkus was only 10 years older than him at the time), Berkus confirms that Steve did occasionally hang around at Custom Fidelity. Steve was a music lover, a guitar player, and an audio and electronics enthusiast who was keen to learn more about the recording process. "Steve seemed all about the engineering and sessions as I recall," says Berkus.

Like the Royal Chessmen, Steve lived in El Monte and attended Arroyo High School, so it's quite likely that he was friends with them, as they claim. It was probably Steve who told them all about Custom Fidelity and encouraged them to make their record there. After graduating high school in June 1969, Steve worked two part-time jobs, as a delivery boy for a plumbing company, and as a salesman for a stereo store on Wilshire Boulevard. He was saving money to attend college that fall. Parent may have told the Royal Chessmen that he'd take their single around some Hollywood record companies, exaggerating the music business connections he'd made through his job at the stereo store. Steve had gone to the Polanski house on that fateful night in August 1969 to visit his friend Bill Garretson, who worked as a caretaker there. Parent had brought along a clock radio he hoped to sell to Garretson. Perhaps he also brought along the record his friends had made, maybe even naively thinking that Garretson would tell his Hollywood employers about it. It's a stretch, but not outside the realm of possibility. Tragically, Parent was in the wrong place at the wrong time. As he was leaving, he was slashed with a buck knife then shot four times by Tex Watson, becoming the Manson Family's first victim in that night's killing spree. In the media his death was somewhat overshadowed by that of the more famous victims, but his friends and family naturally were devastated. "When we all heard of the murders, we were in shock for our personal friendship with one of the victims," remembers Dave. Does a copy of the Royal Chessmen single still reside in an LAPD evidence locker? Probably not. But it's a myth that has enhanced the value of the 45 tremendously. What's for certain is that Steven Parent's Royal Chessmen record - if indeed he had one - was not "the only known copy." Others have since surfaced. They change hands for anywhere from $500 to $1,300, depend-ing on condition. Without its connection to one of Los Angeles' most notorious crime scenes, it would likely be worth a lot less. • (Mike Stax)


Thank you, Arrak!







Monday, December 5, 2016

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 9th of August or perhaps even on the 10th 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’.