Scott Michaels derives his living from Hollywood lore.Hollywood strangely has as much violent crime, or more, as anywhere. Despite all the money there, it has regularly ocurring murders. What goes on in Hollywood is wilder than what goes on in the movies it produces.
Isn't that the guy who does the Manson tours??
I have a question. If you look at the body of the dead Jay Sebring with the hood over his face, I´m sure that most of you have seen that picture. That hood in itself has been an object of speculation. But there is one more thing that puzzles me. That is how Sebring is dressed. First, is it a pair of pajamas trousers he´s wearing? If so, why on earth is he wearing a pair of boots inside the house that "hot" summer night? I can´t find any logical explanation to that question. Anybody who has an idea? Could it be that he had heard the shots when Steven Parent was killed and perhaps thought that he might have to go out and check what was going on. Was Sharon and Jay talking about that noise from outside when the intruders broke into the house?
Hi V717.Jay didn't have a hood on his face. It was a towel. I'm pretty sure Charlie put it there when he went back.Jay was wearing stylish mod pants for the time - vertical stripes. He was wearing shoes because he never got undressed after dinner.
Katie 8753Katie, you are probably right about Jay and how he was dressed.But, according to Vincent Bug Cielo Drive was the last place on earth that Manson wanted be at. He would never risk showing up at that place after the murders.I must say that here Vincent makes perfect sense.
Katie Asked:>>>>"Isn't that the guy who does the Manson tours"??<<<<Yes.Scott Michaels operates "Dearly Departed Tours".The blog has a full thread on him already, listed in the index under "Scott Michaels"... or, just follow this link:http://www.lsb3.com/search/label/Scott%20MichaelsTo my knowledge, he operates tours of several crime scenes, beyond just TLB.I'd have to go back, and refresh my memory.He also made a movie (or wrote a book)... I can't remember which... that Saint had given us a brief review of...(I believe it was a movie)Anyway, it's all in the comments section.
Thanks Lynyrd. I remember we talked about going on that guy's tour. That would be cool! LOL.
V717 I have to agree with Bugliosi that it was absolutely insane for Charlie to go back to the crime scene and risk getting caught.But I do think Charlie did it. I don't think he's insane, but I think that he felt that he somehow was impervious to getting caught and punished. I think he liked the adrenaline of being on the edge and not getting caught.
v717 said...Katie 8753Katie, you are probably right about Jay and how he was dressed.But, according to Vincent Bug Cielo Drive was the last place on earth that Manson wanted be at. He would never risk showing up at that place after the murders.I must say that here Vincent makes perfect sense[end quote]Poirot replies: Bug is wrong here. Manson has repeatedly said he went back.
Hi Mr. P.I think the murders in Hollywood seem much more interesting or bizarre because of who they involve. "Movie stars" and people in the industry are usually larger than life, and we're interested in reading about bad things that happen to them. I guess it's human nature.
This is very interestning. Suddenly Charlie becomes a very trustworthy person. Both Katie 8753 and MrPoirot belives Charlie wen´t back to Cielo Drive that night; since he repeatedly have said so.All other things Charlie says is of course "lies and bullshit" but in this specific case Charlie "for some reason" is telling the truth.-Katie says Charlie likes living on the edge and not being caught-.Well, according to Manson´s criminal record before TateLaBianca he was a lousy criminal. The only thing Charlie did succed in was getting caught for minor crimes; compared of course to the TateLaBianca murders. Charlie is good in one thing and that is getting himself in trouble and he knows that.. So why take such a risk driving up to Cielo Drive?We all know that he is very intelligent.
>>>V717 said: This is very interestning. Suddenly Charlie becomes a very trustworthy person.>>>I don't remember using the word "trustworthy". V717, in my previous comment, I said "caught and punished".Of all the crimes he committed after 1967 when he was released from TI, he rarely got caught. Which leads up to August 9th, 1969. I think he went back to Cielo Drive, not so much because he said, but because I'm sure someone did, and I think it was him. And he didn't get caught.When he was arrested at Spahn's Ranch in August of 1969, he was released because the warrant was dated the wrong date. He got off.What I'm trying to convey is that I truly believe that Charlie, even after he was charged with the murders, really thought he could get off.Whether it was his "aura of invincibility" or just the plain old "using the girls", I think that one way or another, he really thought he could manipulate the system into letting him off.
You Know V717, I really don't think Charlie was a bad person before the murders.I think that when he was released from TI in 1967, he fell back on the oldest profession known to man - prostitution.Only it wasn't prostitution for money, it was prostitution to lure people. He needed people in his life.And I really don't judge him for that. The only skills he had, he had learned in prison from other no-gooders.I think at first, he did have a big heart and wasn't out to hurt anybody.But somehow...somewhere...that changed. I don't know if it's ego, or anger...but it changed.I do think he ordered the murders. And I think he should stay right where he is for the rest of his life.
Katie 8753-Of all the crimes he committed after 1967 when he was released from TI, he rarely got caught. -"Yes, I agree. That is very strange. As I have pointed out before there are indications that the local police was not allow to intervene by someone higher up in the hierarchy."Well, why not kill Bill?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPzlpbzku2E&feature=related
Yes V717, I've read that material that there was some kind of conspiracy to keep Charlie loose.But I don't buy it.....not at all.I think that his parole office...Roger something...was just a dufus that was afraid of Charlie and wasn't doing his job. That's why he got away with everything.You know V717, if we ever met in person, we'd have a hellava chat. HA HA HA. :)
I don't think Charlie was under some "cosmic charm" or anything else. I think the police were so inept that they really didn't care to bust a bunch of "thieving hippies" stealing here and there.I think the cops were lazy and just felt that hunting down hippies was too much trouble."You bust some guy, then you gotta fill out paperwork, then go to the station....aaaahhh".I think it was just too much trouble. Even when they busted "those hippies at the ranch" it was just too much trouble. Nobody really cared at that point.Not until "those hippies" were suspected of the "Tate murders". That's when someone finally paid attention.
V717 you are using a catch-all claim to prove your point. There are many things that back up Charlie's claim that he went back. NOBODY can place Charlie at Spahn Ranch between 2:30am and 4:30am. There are accounts of a loud argument at Cielo around 4:00am. Stephanie said Charlie did not go to bed until dawn. None of the killers can be attributed to putting the towel over Sebring's head etc, etc, etc......There are many ways to authenticate Charlie's claim.
Katie 8753I agree that we probably have a hellava chat. But there is a continent and a whole ocean between us. I´m talking literally now.
Mr. P., somebody dreamed up this "the government was protecting Charlie" stuff a while back to perpetuate his innocence.It's all crap.It was probably promulgated by Sandy & Squeaky, until they both finally wised up and beat feet.
V717, I was kidding about the chat. At least in person.I think we're better off with an ocean between us. HA HA HA.
Katie 8753V717, I was kidding about the chat. At least in person.- That was a relief-
>>>v717 said: That was a relief>>>HA, HA, HA
MrPoirotYou have some good points. But for once I´m on the same road as Bug.
V717 how did the glasses get on the steamer trunks? None of the killers put them there?
katie look up a man named preston guillory. he was working for the sheriff's dept. in malibu and was involved in the raid on spahn. he was the one who speculated that someone high up was looking out for manson. he said that the police thought manson was going to kill black panthers and the police were ok with that.
MrPoirot said... V717 how did the glasses get on the steamer trunks? None of the killers put them there?"I don´t know. There are loose ends here. Could it be that after all there was some relevance behind Garretson´s drivel in that interview? I know it´s a long shot but."
What would anyone gain by going back to the scene of the crime so soon? That is what I am asking myself.
Hi Beauders!I have read Paul Krassner's ridiculous story about how Hal Lipset told him about all the porno tapes in the Polanski's loft, which linked the Manson Family to the victims, and how Preston Guillory said that "he was told" (doesn't say who told him) not to arrest Manson or his gang because of a supposed launch on the Blank Panthers.This guy is a good fiction writer. But that's all it is...fiction.There is no proof of any of that. So I don't believe it.Where and when did this "massive attack on the Black Panthers" take place? Why in the world would "someone" put out orders to keep a murderer on the street in hopes that he would commit more murders that never took place.I'm scratching my head here. LOL.
Hi Adam!>>>What would anyone gain by going back to the scene of the crime so soon? That is what I am asking myself.>>>Well that depends on who you're asking. LOL.Charlie said he went back to "see what his children had done." Others think he went back to wipe down prints and make sure there was no evidence pointing to his camp. Others think he went to plant false clues. Others think he went there to bloody the scene more (hang bodies upside down, etc.).The bodies of Sharon and Jay were moved to the porch and back to the living room. Why? I don't know. But someone did it, and none of the killers have mentioned doing that.The glasses found on the trunk didn't belong to any of the victims or killers. Somebody mentioned that maybe the glasses fell out of one of the guy's pockets that delivered the trunks.Well, that's plausible, but not practical. The glasses were for an extremely nearsighted person. Without them...that person couldn't see to get out of the house. Or...maybe the guy wore contact lenses and had the glasses in his pocket. Again...plausible but not practical. Back in 1969, the only lenses available were hard lenses, and the width of the lense depended on the degree of nearsightedness. Therefore, those lenses would have been thick and very uncomfortable. I would think it would have been much more comfortable to wear glasses.
I have floated the theory on other blogs that whoever went back there may have been dragging the bodies out to a car with the intention of burying the bodies somewhere. Without the bodies wouldn't it be classed as a missing persons case? Maybe they underestimated just HOW heavy a dead person is to move and gave up? All conjecture on my part, I know. Whoever did goes back there (be it Manson, Nancy, Bruce, ?) had big brass ones, because if anyone had arrived at that time they would have been caught red handed.
Adam, that's a good theory. It's possible that they might have been trying to hide the bodies and gave up.They did prosecute Charlie, Bruce & Clem for Shorty's murder without a body so it's possible to assume that someone was murdered even without a body. I guess it depends on the physical evidence and/or witness statements.
Bury the bodies?????????????Give me a bteak!
Why so far-fetched Mr. P.? They buried Shorty.But...I don't know why they would drag them out to the porch, then drag them back. LOL.
Maybe they planned on flying the bodies to Hawaii? They flew Barbara Hoyt to Hawaii didn't they?
>>Mr. P. said: Maybe they planned on flying the bodies to Hawaii? They flew Barbara Hoyt to Hawaii didn't they?>>>Yeah...First Class! HA HA HA!
According to Nikolas Schreck: "Atkins finally admitted that the Helter Skelter motive was a lie in the last document she wrote before her death."
V717, can you provide a link please?
I think this link will work:It´s a long interview with Schreck, and he dosen´t mention any sources about Atkins utterance. The interview is about his new book "The Manson File."Perhaps there are more about Susans utterance inside his book.http://atwaatwar.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/the-manson-file/
Thanks for the link V717.I read thru quite a bit of that interview, and I have to say, a little of what this guy spouts seems plausible, but most of it is "he said/she said/they said/Manson said/I think" kind of stuff, which is unsupported and unsubstantiated, and simply a matter of opinion.He compares the Cielo Drive slayings to a "modern day minor starlett being murdered because of her ex-boyfriend's drug dealings", trying to explain the impact it would have if it happen today.That is the understatement of the year. You can't chop it down and simplify it like that. There were a whole lot of factors involved in these murders that have a lot more to do with than "drug dealing".And it's not even a proven fact that Jay was dealing drugs. It's simply an opinion.And it's my considerate opinion that a lot of the writers who get so enamored with Manson just try to "cut the fluff" and try to simplify the story, thereby trying to exonerate Manson.
And the supposed porno tapes found at Cielo Drive?They have never surfaced and there is no proof of them having existed except through word of mouth.I just don't buy that either.
I don't doubt that there were tapes of Roman and Sharon together, or even Frykowski and different girls, but I just don't buy into it that there were 1000's of tapes, involving Sharon with bisexual black panthers, or Yul Brynner and Peter Sellers getting it on, and 100's of other Hollywood stars having orgies, etc.If Yul Brynner and Peter Sellers wanted to get it on, they didn't need Roman to film it. And I doubt that they would. And that goes for other Hollywood stars. They all had their own cameras.Plus, Roman and Sharon weren't even at Cielo Drive that much. Roman left in February 1969 and didn't return until after the muders. Sharon left in March 1969 and didn't return until July 1969.
Katie8753I agree with you to a certain point. Schreck simplify little to much. There are many dimensions in this case and as Manson says: "I´m the man in the mirror."
I'm sure this wouldn't be deemed a missing persons case. Even without the bodies, the house is covered in blood.I have never been one to believe that Manson went to Cielo after the murders. But I was thinking about it and I was thinking about Garretson and how suspicious he's seemed, and this is what I thought~~~~~~Now, I don't know why Patricia stopped and turned away from the guesthouse but for whatever reason William was spared. I've also never believed that Patty knew him. But If his light was on I would think it would be pretty clear that some one was in there. Also the dogs could have easily been heard. Maybe they were afraid of the dogs? Anyway, either Manson is told about the guesthouse and why it wasn't attacked or he wasn't told about the guesthouse at all, but had intended for it to be attacked. Either way, he goes and he finds Garretson and SCARES THE SHIT OUT O HIM. Manson lets him live but threatens his life and his entire family. Maybe he even makes him stab one of the already dead victims or help move them around. Manson tells him to get back in the guesthouse and if you come out I'll kill you.It would certainly explain how suspicous and idiotic Garretson has always seemed. It's also the only reason in my mind for Manson to go to the scene, to deal with the survivor.That's what I thought.Where can I read about the bodies being moved for certain?
Blogger v717 said...According to Nikolas Schreck: "Atkins finally admitted that the Helter Skelter motive was a lie in the last document she wrote before her death."Susan changed her story like most people changed their socks. That unfinished account on her website she was writing before her passing has some of the most flawed logic I have ever read.
RevatronMaybe there were other uninvitied guests at Cielo Drive that night. If Manson was there he sure would have scared the shit out of Garretson; but I still think Bug is right about the assumption that Cielo Drive was the last thing on earth that Manson wanted to be at.Is it so far-fetched to belive that it could have been another swat team that was in operation that night?
Adam saidSusan changed her story like most people changed their socks. That unfinished account on her website she was writing before her passing has some of the most flawed logic I have ever read.-I couldn´t agree more. I just quote from Schreck.-
Hi Revatron.>>>Revatron said: Now, I don't know why Patricia stopped and turned away from the guesthouse but for whatever reason William was spared. I've also never believed that Patty knew him.>>>I think it's possible that Pat knew him, but of course, there's no proof.>>> Anyway, either Manson is told about the guesthouse and why it wasn't attacked or he wasn't told about the guesthouse at all, but had intended for it to be attacked.>>>I haven't read anywhere that Manson mentioned the guesthouse or that anyone mentioned it to him.>>>Either way, he goes and he finds Garretson and SCARES THE SHIT OUT O HIM. Manson lets him live but threatens his life and his entire family. Maybe he even makes him stab one of the already dead victims or help move them around. Manson tells him to get back in the guesthouse and if you come out I'll kill you.>>>Now you're really reaching, LOL. It sounds "Mansonish" but I really doubt that happened. I think Garretson was half nuts before the murders.>>>It's also the only reason in my mind for Manson to go to the scene, to deal with the survivor.>>>I really don't think he thought anyone survived. I think he went back to just check it out, tie up any loose ends, plant false evidence and change the crime scene up.>>>Where can I read about the bodies being moved for certain?>>>There's nowhere for CERTAIN that you can read about the bodies being moved. It's only the bloodtrail evidence that suggests it. Sharon & Jay's blood was pooled on the porch, which suggests they were on the porch for a time. No one really knows for sure though. No one has admitted to moving the bodies.
It was just a stoner thought. I don't really believe Manson went to Cielo, though I guess there is some evidence to suggest things were tampered with. It is possible that Patty knew William, but for now I don't believe it. I always thought that Garretson was just weird but after all the Garretson talk a few weeks ago I became (almost) convinced that he knew something real bad was happening outside. It is possible that the guesthouse was simply overlooked but I'm having a hard to believing that - Unless he turned his light off and managed to shut the dogs up. Garretson could have been weird before the murders, I don't know, but he kind of acts like some one who has experienced trauma.Katie said..."I haven't read anywhere that Manson mentioned the guesthouse or that anyone mentioned it to him."Me either, but my point was that Manson knew of the guesthouse and if it wasn't mentioned to him MAYBE he went to Cielo to check up on the guesthouse. That is one loose end I can see him wanting to tie up. For me, there has to be more of a reason for Manson to go to Cielo. Seeing the scene and moving things around just doesn't do it for me - but it's possible. V717 said..."Is it so far-fetched to belive that it could have been another swat team that was in operation that night?"Are you suggesting that a 2nd group of murderers went to Cielo, found their victims already dead and decided to tamper with the scene instead? That does seem far fetched.
Revatron, Garretson is a very strange guy. I tend to disregard his memory of the events that night. Either he can't remember it and is just trying to convey something that he thinks he remembers, or he's making it up. I hope it's the former and not the latter. LOL.If you look at him in 1969, you can see that he just doesn't seem all there, even then.
RevatronSaid: "Are you suggesting that a 2nd group of murderers went to Cielo, found their victims already dead and decided to tamper with the scene instead? That does seem far fetched."-Well, I agree that is a bit far fetched but I suspect that the Manson family was under surveillance from some organization that we don´t know about and I also suspect that it was they who tampered with the dead bodies. I don´t think Manson was on Cielo Drive that night. If i wasn´t Manson then it must have been somebody or other-.
V717 said..."I suspect that the Manson family was under surveillance from some organization that we don´t know about"I definitely don't subscribe to that. But we agree on one thing, for now, and that is that Manson did not go to Cielo that night. I haven't ruled it out and it's certainly a possibility but it's a hard pill for me to swallow.Katie said..."Revatron, Garretson is a very strange guy. "Fucking A. I just wish we knew if he were that strange before the night of the murders.
Revatron, I don't know how strange Garretson was before the murders, but if you read the transcript of his polygraph, you can get an idea of how his brain worked. His thoughts were disjointed and unclear a lot of the time.
Here is the interview with Vincent Bug were he strongly deny that Manson went back to Cielo Drive that night. It´s 8 min into the clip.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIVt5zLmur8&feature=related
Thanks V717.Somebody went back to the scene, and if it wasn't Manson (like he said) who was it?Manson was unaccounted for after midnight and before dawn on August 9th. Where was he?
v717 said...Adam saidSusan changed her story like most people changed their socks. That unfinished account on her website she was writing before her passing has some of the most flawed logic I have ever read.-I couldn´t agree more. I just quote from Schreck.-[end quote]Poirot replies:Sadie's lawyer hubby wrote every single word in Sadie's so-called last "book".
Katie8753"Manson was unaccounted for after midnight and before dawn on August 9th. Where was he?-Why don´t you write Manson a letter and ask-.
MrPoirot"Sadie's lawyer hubby wrote every single word in Sadie's so-called last "book".I thank you for that information. Do you have any link to that?
I believe Manson went back as well. There's just too much eveidence pointing in the direction that the scene was tampered with. Manson himself has admitted as much.Garretson is borderline retarded. Always has been. PK ran to the guesthouse, WG, freezes in the walk-in closet and observes her out the window, she doesn't see him so didn't go in...tells Tex no one is there. Tex thinks the kid in the car is the caretaker, so doesn't worry about it further, even though the dogs are barking..The most plausible explanation for why WG lives and breathes to this day.
If the bodies had been moved to the front porch, then back, wouldn't there have been more blood, plus drag marks on the floor? Do you know what is weird? There was a very loud argument that was heard at around 4 AM coming from the Tate house. Garretson knows A LOT more than he told the police. I do not see how that guy ever passed the polygraph.
Post a Comment