Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Starship Reviews Restless Souls, by Statman and Tate

First off, I must say that I believe there to be a lot of truth in this book.  A whole lot of truth.  A story about the basic destruction of a whole family touched by tragedy…and not just any tragedy, but a result of perhaps the most notorious crime of the century.  It’s an incredible story of a journey that none of us would ever want to take - not to mention have to take in that way.  We don’t have any choice at what life throws us, and all of us will be tossed a tragedy or two or three in our lifetimes, but most of us will be able to deal with these tragedies without the glare of the television cameras, the reporters with their questions, flashbulbs popping, books written, films made, and, not least, internet bloggers like me commenting on it some 40 plus years later.

Nine people for sure were murdered in the summer of 1969, but they were certainly not the only victims of the Manson Family.  One could argue we all are victims as all these years later we spend time obsessing over it…but let none of us forget that at the forefront for victimization come the surviving members of the victims’ families, and until Debra Tate gets her act together to tell her story, Brie Tate and Alisa Statman are what we have to consider.

This reminds me of the concept of there being victim’s victims.  The book "The Hour I First Believed" by Wally Lamb, which takes place post-Columbine and concerns the troubles one of the surviving Columbine teachers has as a result of PTSD and how these troubles affect not only her life, but her husband, her career, co-workers etc…and how those people are in turn victimized by her actions is a pretty good example of this.  I think it offers no comfort really, but it explains realistically what can happen to people who are traumatized by such events.  And, unfortunately it strikes me that we see this sort of thing more and more these days.  Certainly PJ, Doris, Debra and Patti were also victims.  And to me it looks like they victimized each other over the subsequent years as well.  Not on purpose, I’m sure.  More on this later.

So back to Restless Souls.  It certainly was written for one clear purpose: to serve as a treatise for why those convicted of the Hinman-Shea-Tate-LaBianca murders of 1969 can never ever be released from prison… even if they’re dying from cancer, after having one leg sawed off.  It makes the case that essentially none of the convicted killers have been rehabilitated, none of them are sorry, none of them have ever even said they are sorry, and that even if they were truly sorry and born-again Christians and all that stuff, that they should recognize that they still must pay for their crimes, and the only way to do that is to remain in prison and to die there.  Just like Susan Atkins finally did.

Doris Tate became the public face of opposition to the killers release.  She became involved with Parents of Murdered Children, and founded the victims rights movement in California and, of course, her influence here has been felt world-wide.  PJ Tate was too private of a person to want to do this…and the book says he rather would have had the killers released so that they could be executed Charles Bronson style, perhaps even by him.  The Tates became estranged from their daughter Debra, and she is hardly mentioned in the book.  But when Doris fell ill and eventually died, the Tates’ daughter, Patti, took it upon herself to oppose parole for the killers, appear on television shows, etc.  And Patti did this until her own untimely death from breast cancer.  The book was written by her daughter, Brie, along with Alisa Statman who apparently became Patti’s lover after her divorce from her husband.  Brie states that she will carry on opposing parole but so far she has not been allowed as her Aunt Debbie is recognized now officially as next of kin.

Readers are to believe that the book was compiled from notes and unpublished manuscripts by Doris, PJ and Patti, and later on Brie.  Alisa Statman freely admits that she expounded on these notes when there are holes to be filled, and herein lies all of the problems the book has.

It’s the oldest trick in the book for fiction writers who include real life events and real people in their work to focus on the people who are no longer living.  After all, dead men or women tell no tales, or file lawsuits for that matter.  Putting words in their mouths holds little risk for the author.  I fear that Alisa Statman has co-opted this strategy for her non-fiction story, and it’s a shame really.  Why feel the need to ‘enhance’ the truth?  This case doesn’t need to be made any more interesting.  The actual truth is compelling enough.

The most obvious example of this is in ‘Patti’s’ recounting of the events at Cielo Drive the night her sister Sharon and four others were murdered.  The set-up is that Patti is steeling herself to carry on her mother’s work as a victims’ rights activist and in opposing parole for the convicted killers.  We are told that Patti had never even once read Helter Skelter, but she sees it on a bookshelf, opens it up, finds that Vincent Bugliosi has autographed it for her father, and that her mother has left her a note inside inspiring her to continue.  So Patti begins reading, and then proceeds to give us a detailed accounting of the events of August 9, 1969 that none of us have ever heard, and certainly one that Vincent Bugliosi never himself wrote.

Why?  The only reason I can think of is that Statman worries that the original accounts of the murders don’t make the killers look bad enough.  So let’s write an account to make them look even more evil. As if.

Usually the adage goes that if one doesn’t get the little things right then can one be trusted to get the big things right?  Believe me, this is not a little thing.  It’s a huge thing.  But don’t worry, there is plenty of other little things that are wrong too.  Katie already pointed out that it’s claimed that PJ Tate went AWOL in the 50s in order to see Sharon after she was born, when Sharon, of course, was born in the 40s.  My personal favorite is this: There is only one way in or out of Benedict Canyon, south into Beverly Hills or north toward the valley.  Ummm, doesn’t that actually mean there are at least two ways?

The book reads like a Greatest Hits version of Tate-LaBianca.  Nothing is left out, so whatever your personal favorites are, they’re in here: Did Manson and others go to Cielo after the murders?  Did Garrettson hear more than he let on?  Linda Kasabian is just as guilty as the rest.  Did orgies happen at Cielo?  Was Mama Cass involved? John or Michelle Phillips?  Was Billy Doyle tied up and whipped after screwing up a drug deal for Jay and Voytek?  Candy Bergen says so.  Actually, according to the book, one of the first questions PJ Tate was asked by a defense attorney at the trial was if he had knowledge of Jay ever using a whip on anyone in a sexual manner…but the question is ruled out of order.  Too bad actually.  We may just have learned something of substance had that line of questioning been allowed and followed up on.

So the Trial transcripts are readily available, correct?  Anyone know where they are?  Let’s check on this to make sure we are not being sold any snake oil here.

PJ Tate is depicted as some kind of superhero.  He conducts his own investigation which results in the police being able to bust up a major drug ring in the Bay Area.  He himself interrogates Roman, Steve McQueen, Warren Beatty, Billy Doyle and Mama Cass.  He has others in his trusted circle interrogate the Phillips’, and one of them, while keeping Roman under surveillance, observes him searching John Phillips’ Rolls Royce.  He and Manson see each other outside court. PJ gets to intimidate him.  PJ observes members of the Straight Satans motorcycle gang (possible connection to LaBianca, anyone?) hanging out at the Cielo Drive gate and follows them to Spahn Ranch weeks before the Manson Family are rounded up. (Since there are no dates associated with this, it is hard to tell for sure, but I would think that Manson and his inner circle would have been out at Death Valley by this time.)  But the best is, we are told that at a parole hearing that PJ Tate attended for Tex Watson, that the corrections officers mistakenly allowed Tex into the room where PJ was waiting.  So of course, PJ moves to kill him, and of course Tex is terrified, but then Sharon’s voice tells PJ to cool it, so he stands down, and an officer comes in and takes Tex away to the right room.  I will say straight up I don’t believe that for one minute.  I know the cops are incompetent, but I really don’t think they’re THAT incompetent.

For the record I don’t believe that the Army commissioned PJ Tate to take Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald into custody either.  But if they did I would have to certainly reconsider whether or not a government cover-up took place in the Fatal Vision murders.

So wherein lies the truth?  Again, I believe the greater truth of Restless Souls lies in the stories of the survivors trying to go on: Their struggle to live meaningful lives in the wake of their shared tragedy.  To love others; partners, children, each other, perhaps even themselves.  I fear that all this got the best of them.  I found it a depressing story.  I find myself wondering about all of them, but Doris especially.  Did she ever have a single happy moment again?  I really hope she found a way to be happy in loving her husband, children, grandchildren…but the book really doesn’t say, and the Doris I know from TV doesn’t ever show me that either.

So my biggest criticism of the book is that Alisa Statman doesn’t really give us an idea of her relationship with Patti either.  Were they happy together?  Again, I surely hope so.

My own mother-in-law has a large number of children.  One of them died tragically young.  Make no mistake about it, today she suffers still more than 20 years later.  But early on she realized she had other children and grandchildren to live for and so she went on with an optimism that is incredible to behold.  I really wish the Tate family would be like this.  Perhaps they are, but again I get no sense of it from this book.

All of this points out how hard healing can be.  After Columbine, like two days later, a newspaper headline read THE HEALING BEGINS…as if it could ever really be that simple.  Mourn for a day or two and then let’s heal.  The Tates’ story, I fear, is one where any sense of healing may never be realized.  And that in itself is a terrible tragedy as well.

Thanks Starship!  Great Review!!

===================================================================
I’ve been doing a LOT of thinking…

There’s something about this book, that just doesn‘t “sit right“ with me. 
Until now, I haven’t been able to put a finger on what, or why. 
After much thought… it’s finally come to me. 


It’s not the book itself, or even the contents… but, the way it’s marketed. 
The marketing does not accurately represent, what one finds inside. 
The marketing is misleading.  Allow me to expound...

We are led to believe, that this book is straight from the Tate’s. 
Alisa simply compiled and published it for us.

The front title---
Restless Souls:  The Sharon Tate Family’s account of Stardom, the Manson Murders, and a Crusade for Justice. 
(underneath in smaller inconsequential italic: Alisa Statman and Brie Tate)

"The Sharon Tate Family’s Account". That’s pretty explicit.

On the back cover of the book, (hand-in-hand with the front cover) Alisa clearly states:

“By combing through all that information and then reconstructing the work into a four-decade, cohesive narrative, my goal was to chronicle their lives with historical accuracy in even the finest details… Now, after three generations’ time, this is finally their story”.

She clearly states: “My goal was to chronicle their lives with historical accuracy in even the finest details”.  Also: “This is finally their story”.

But immediately upon opening the book, Alisa begins to backpedal. 
In the book’s introduction, the statement from the back cover (above) is repeated verbatim. 
Only this time, the statement includes an extra sentence. 
The extra sentence is a disclaimer. It reads:

“Nevertheless, with four of the five key witnesses to this story gone, there were a few times when I was left to fill in the gaps with my personal interpretation“.

I repeat: “There were a few times, when I was left to fill in the gaps with my personal interpretation“.

We later find, this happens more than a few times.

Following the book’s release, when pressed on the embellishments regarding PJ Tate, Alisa backpedals even further.  She states:

"The numerous attacks comparing PJ’s manuscript, Five Down on Cielo, to what’s in Restless Souls is a useless endeavor because only a single paragraph was lifted from it. The rest came from conversations with PJ, 20 years after it was written".

So essentially… barring a single paragraph… the entire PJ section of the book, comes from (at best)… conversations with PJ… that were held 20 years after his manuscript was written.

This really differs from the "firsthand" tone expressed on the front and back covers.

Lemme tell ya somethin‘… (as Fire Marshall Bill would say):
Most men will definitely exaggerate stories of such nature, after 20 years... especially if a woman is listening.  It’s a pride thing.  Heck… I can even picture the scene. The man’s older… his daughter is gone.  What’s he got left but stories?  All men do it.  The bass they caught, always gains weight, with each passing year.
Heck… my 4 pound bass from 1984... is currently weighing-in at 10 pounds! LOL
In a few years… I’m gonna have to switch the story to saltwater fishing, because freshwater bass don’t get any bigger than 10 pounds, in my state. LOL 
Throw-in a few shots of bourbon in front of the fireplace… (maybe Alisa was wearing an attractive dress that evening)… and suddenly, PJ is relating stories of grandeur!  He’s Columbo!   : )
I submit, that if everything PJ related were true… he would have been arrested.
Trespassing on private property… insulting investigating policeman, etc. Let’s get real.

Bottom line:

When you couple my concerns mentioned above… with the way everyone in the book speaks like Ernest Hemingway (Alisa in this case)… with the noteworthy embellishments and errors… it’s apparent (to me), that Alisa “filled-in many more gaps”, than the title, back cover, and promotion would suggest.
More importantly...
Alisa filled-in many more gaps, than I had expected, when I purchased the book.
Therein lies my source of disillusion with the book, which I heretofore could not pinpoint.

It’s a good read, but the title and premise are clearly distorted for marketing purposes.

This book is not 100% “Tate”.
It’s 70% “Tate”, and 30% “Statman”.
Or maybe even 60-40 or 50-50.  We’ll never know for sure…

The title of the book, should actually be:

Restless Souls: Alisa Statman’s Recount, of the Tate Family’s Tragedy.
(underneath in smaller italic: compiled with the aid of Tate home movies, audio and video recordings, journals, letters, and personal conversation).

THAT title... would have been an 100% accurate depiction, of what one could expect within the pages of the book.  Truth in advertising, as it were…

I also submit, that Brie Tate (Ford) likely penned no more than 5% of this book. 
Her involvement with the book (and promotional tv circuit)... was a keen marketing ploy to further pad the “Tate” name on the project.
"We're here today, with Brie Tate, niece of Sharon Tate... who co-authored a book". 
Sounds GREAT doesn't it?!  Deceptive marketing, plain and simple.

The completely frank (and accurate) book title which I offered (with "Statman" in the forefront), simply wouldn't have sold as many books.  Statman?  Who is she? 
Heck... my honest title, may not have sold any books!

The American money train rambles on...

With my candor, I would have been a complete failure in the marketing field.
So what's new, huh?!  ; )

Peace Readers... Lynyrd 

96 comments:

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Thank You Starship for a fabulous review.
Your time and effort are much appreciated.
Great Job!
I couldn't be more pleased...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

As everyone might expect, I agree with Starship on all counts.
The book succeeds in eliciting much sympathy for the victims, and their families.
It also succeeds in making a solid argument, that the perpetrators should never be released.
Of course, Doris Tate’s accomplishments cannot be overstated, and the book does a great job exemplifying Doris’ profound work for victim’s rights.
The book is also, quite simply, an enjoyable read.

But for all it’s merits…
It isn’t truly a firsthand account.
It’s a secondhand account, no matter how you slice it.
Alisa is ‘told” the story (sorta speak) through home movies, audio and video recordings, journals, letters, police and court documents, personal conversations, etc.
Alisa then… in turn… tells us (the reader) the story.
It’s a re-telling, or secondhand account.
Debra Tate, is the only “Tate” still alive, who could truly relate a bona-fide firsthand account.
She was there.
But as Starship said it best:
“until Debra Tate gets her act together to tell her story, Brie Tate and Alisa Statman are what we have to consider”.

Alisa Statman’s influence on the story, first became apparent to me, through the writing style.
Each person in the book communicates amazingly well, like a professional author… in an amazingly similar fashion.
Whether it’s the memories of an 11 year old girl… or Paul Tate describing how he opened a window:
“The window squawked in protest, as I opened it”… they all communicate equally and exceptionally well… at all times.
It‘s just not realistic.
I just don’t know too many men, who express themselves that way… or that vividly, in regards to a window.
As a student of this case, I’d prefer raw hand-written original documents, with grammatical and spelling errors.
I’m concerned with accuracy regarding facts, not literary genius.
But… here’s the Rub:
Most folks across the nation, are not fanatical students of this case.
Alisa wrote the book, with a mainstream audience in mind… and, I get that.
Folks across America (and beyond) want a professional “harlequin romance”, chamelot presentation for their money.
That‘s what Alisa provides.
I understand that fact.
“It is, what it is”.

Colonel Paul Tate.
I don’t doubt for a moment, that Colonel Tate launched his own investigation… but this section of the book is clearly embellished.
Alisa readily stated:
“The numerous attacks comparing PJ’s manuscript, Five Down on Cielo, to what’s in Restless Souls is a useless endeavor because only a single paragraph was lifted from it“.
The account(s) are not taken directly from PJ’s manuscript… and as Starship stated (paraphrasing):
"dead people don’t protest a whole lot, when things are embellished".

As Starship said…
The book does read like a “Greatest Hits” version of TLB.
If you’re reading this book, in the hopes of finding one clear “motive” to be presented… and the case to be “solved” for you… you’ll be sadly mistaken.
It seems every angle discussed on the blogs is covered in some capacity in this book… drugs, the music scene, orgies, Billy Doyle, Pic, Jay, Voytek… even Roman himself is a suspect.

It’s also evident from the book (and moreso from the fallout following it’s release), that the folks were victimized… and things became dysfunctional for the individuals themselves and their inter-relationships.
Regardless of who’s to blame… it’s obvious that Alisa and Debra have had a dysfunctional situation going-on for years.
That’s why I dropped the subject completely.
It’s not my business.
As Starship said (paraphrasing):
“It’s victims, victimizing themselves and others”.

---------CONTINUED BELOW---------

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

My final take?

As I said initially…
The book succeeds in eliciting much sympathy for the victims, and their families.
It also succeeds in making a solid argument, that the perpetrators should not be released.
Of course, Doris Tate’s accomplishments cannot be overstated, and the book does a great job exemplifying Doris’ profound work for victim’s rights.
The book is also, quite simply, an enjoyable read.

On the downside… it’s not a firsthand account in the truest sense of the word.
There are inaccuracies and embellishments.

Bottom Line:
If you’re looking for a well-written, enjoyable read, which is targeted to a mainstream audience… and you’re not overly hung-up on absolute precision… you’ll love this book.
If you’re hoping to “solve the case”… you’ll be disappointed.
I really think, for a young person not familiar with this case at all, this would be a great book to start with.
One could start with this book to inspire interest in the case, from “the right side of the fence” (the victim's side) as it were… and then read the other books subsequently.
Although unfortunately… it’s too late for us old dogs, to do that.

Peace… Lynyrd

Mary said...

Thanks Starship and Lynyrd. I think I will pass on reading the book...y'all seemed to have summed it up. Great job.

leary7 said...

A great contribution by one of the expert posters, though I will quibble, because I am Irish.
I serioiusly doubt anyone but a Manson junkie would label it the 'crime of the century'. Certainly the JFK assassination had more historical and cultural impact. And some would argue OJ and the Lindbergh kidnapping were on the same level.
And I am a bit sensitive to the characterization that those of us who are interested in this case are necessarily "obsessed". Passionate interest does not always equate with obsession.
Also, a "memoir" has long been regarded as neither fiction or non-fiction. It is a rememberance. While I agree that Alisa probably took some excessive poetic license so to speak, that honestly has been standard for years with memoirs.
I suspect strongly that her publisher pushed her to include a retelling of 8/9 believing that for the book to have wide appeal it would benefit from an updated account. Probably a misguided belief, but again a common practice in memoirs.
I enjoy Lynyrd's assessment that the book "is what it is" - neither history or non-fiction but second (or even third) hand interpretation of the crime and a first hand account of the family pain. Alisa walked a thin line between the two and clearly stumbled in parts but unlike many of the Manson books I can say with conviction Restless Souls is a worthwhile read. Just one opinion.

katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
St. Circumstance said...

I just bought this book for my Kindle - I am going on a cruise next month for my birthday... was going to read it on the boat... after reading this, as well as catching up with all Col's comments- I am not sure I can wait lol

very well done review L/S and Starship...

It sounds like this book will have things that are both new and interesting for me ....

bobby said...

Yes great review, both Starship & Lynyrd. Thank you.

Venus said...

I don't have the book handy right now--did it say that the Army commissioned PJ to pick up Dr. MacDonald? I thought it was just because he was working as a PI at the time along with officer Helder.

I don't kniow who did the editing/proof-reading for the book, but the comment about PJ going AWOL in the 1950's for Sharon's birth jumped right out at me the minute I read it. That was such an obvious error that I can't believe no one caught it.

katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MrPoirot said...

I doubt Brie wrote any of this book.
Just take Susan Atkin's two books as an example. The first book was written by Susan with the aid of an editor. Susan was the source for most of that book even though the editor surely had influences. Howver. Susan's second book has not a single word written by Susan. She had no part in it's construction. The entire second book is the creation of Susan's husband. The simple fact is that Susan Atkins wrote only one book in her entire life.
The so-called second Susan Atkins book is analogous to the case Casey Anthony's atty, Baez, submitted in court to defend Casy Anthony. there is probably no truth at all in Baez' courtroom defense story.

I find it interesting how Starship ponders why must writers today make up stuff about Manson if he was so evil. Why not just print the truth?
I'll tell you why they make shit up. They make it up because it requires no actual research to tell a bunch of lies. Did Alisa Statman ever read Helter Skelter? Did she even watch all the Tate family home movies? i doubt it.

The Statman-Tate book is basically an historical novel.

katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MrPoirot said...

Paul Tate did consult a lawyer and expressly forbade Debra from getting his ashes. I have it from a reliable(but secret) source who told me personally that Col Scott was the attorney Paul Tate used. That's how Col Scott ended up getting disbarred,

katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Mr. Poirot said:
"I doubt Brie wrote any of this book".

==========================

Good point Poirot... and very perceptive.

Krissie Parsons... a guest on Brian Davis' radio show (3-11-12), made a similar assertion.
http://starcityradio.com/live.html

Krissie asserted, that Brie wrote very little of the book.
Krissie asserted that Brie wrote her own intro preface (which is a paragraph in length)... and a small portion of the very last chapter.

I agree totally.

Adding Brie to the book, was nothing more than a marketing ploy.
Statman wanted to add a "Tate" name to the book... thus padding legitimacy for promotional purposes.
Debra was evidently not an option for that purpose... and hence, Brie was used.

Moreover...
Brie had here-to-fore (by most accounts)... gone by her real last name of Ford... but began going by the name of "Tate" for the book.

I agree with Krissie.
I really believe Brie wrote very little of the book.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Leary said (paraphrasing):
"The book is a second (or even third) hand interpretation of the crime and a first hand account of the family pain".

That's a pretty accurate one-sentence synopsis.

But, bear in mind:

There are other things, in addition to the interpretation of the actual crime itself, which are askew.
Starship (and Katie) covered a few, and there are others.
On television, Alisa stated that Altobelli sued for 250k.
In the book, that figure escalates to 480k.
That’s almost double.
In 1969-1970 money, that‘s no small detail.
At 250k (although utterly exorbitant)… I defended Rudy‘s right to sue for damages.
At 480k… Rudy becomes (in my mind) an insensitive, nutjob, crazed gold-digger.
There's just no way to defend a figure that high, with a straight face.
Individually, such errors can appear miniscule… but, when you encounter enough of them, it makes an impact on one‘s confidence, as a reader.

But... in general, you're right.
The strength of the book, is in accounting the family's pain, etc.
Forced to choose just one sentence to summarize the entire book... your sentence (although overly simplistic) would be as good, as any.
Your mindset, regarding the book (in broad terms) is pretty accurate.
Or, as my Dad used to say:
"You got the general idea". LOL

... and to think I could have wrote that one sentence, and went to bed 2 hours earlier last night! LOLOL

katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CarolMR said...

Thanks, Starship and Lynyrd, for the great reviews.

"Bottom line is, Alisa Statman is an opportunist of the cruelest kind, taking advantage of a poor hapless sad woman like Patti Tate, and for her to herald her new book which is nothing but her own imaginings is akin to killing the family again." - katie

I agree, katie.

bobby said...

Mr P. said: "Paul Tate did consult a lawyer and expressly forbade Debra from getting his ashes. I have it from a reliable(but secret) source who told me personally that Col Scott was the attorney Paul Tate used. That's how Col Scott ended up getting disbarred"

Seems that this would be on record some where if true. In fact it seems like it would have even made the new's.

Headline " Tate lawyer disbarred over ashes"
It's earley I'll think of some funny headlines as the day goes on.

Mr. P. You dont need to site a source just, provide a link to support the claim.

katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
leary7 said...

there is little I enjoy more in life than when Lynyrd lowers the hammer. Great analysis. I have tried hard to stay positive about the book because the intentions seemed well-meaning. But Katie's and Lynyrd's and Starship's critiques seem dead on. Good thing the Col is laying low or everyone here would be dodging shrapnel again.

Venus said...

I loved the book when I first read it. Then, as I started to re-read parts of it, I became rather skeptical (mainly due to the obvious errors that are mentioned above)

Some things just don't add up. Supposedly the author never met Doris but yet she talks like she knew her. Example: the photo of Doris in her kitchen with a caption that says something about how this is Doris, the way we knew her best.

When did she meet Patti? Was it when she was living at the Cielo house? To me, that would've been a big red flag. I'm not saying that to judge her, just making a comment that it seems "off" to me.

While I think Paul Tate was a strong man (as most men of that generation were), he was made out to be some sort of superhero who deserved to have his own comic book. No one is like that. I admire the guy, don't get me wrong, but it was made to appear that he did nothing but hunt for the killers/suspects 24/7.

Dilligaf said...

Katie, let me see if I can answer the parole hearing questions for you.

To begin, please, no Mr. Dill. Just Dill, or Dilligaf, or whatever you are comfortable with. Mr. was my dad, and he has been gone 38 years now. My ex-wife may have some good names to share however. :-)

Now, in CA, a victims next-of-kin, or immediate family member can attend, along with a support person who is not able to speak. There can be more than one relative request to speak, as provided in Marsy's Law, also known as Prop. 9, passed in 2008. However, there are some challenges to the law, and as such, some conditions of the law are not in effect, pending outcome of legal filings, Valdiva, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al filed in U.S. District Court. You can find the law on the CA Sect. of State website. Ironically, both Bruce Davis and Leslie Van Houten are mentioned in the law as "Helter Skelter inmates".

Prop. 9 says that the Board "shall" allow, not "may" allow any victim to speak. However, the given definition does not specifically include extended relatives. As such, it remains a discretionary matter at this time.

katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mattprokes said...

it seems to me that most books will have one or two small mistakes,but in this case it feels like big ones that could have been easily avoided with just a little research.
to me that makes everything else in the book suspect.
which is a shame because this angle has'nt really been taken before.
i'll still read it if it shows up in the library system sometime but i would'nt pay for it.

starship said...

Wow, LYNYRD . Excellent points. I'm writing this before I read a single comment too.

bobby said...

Mattprokes said "it seems to me that most books will have one or two small mistakes,but in this case it feels like big ones that could have been easily avoided with just a little research.
to me that makes everything else in the book suspect"

Is it possible Alisa didn't know,think of, care about. that there are many people who know the facts of the case and that those people would challenge the details of the book.

starship said...

Assuming the Col was a disbarred attorney BEFORE he became the official tlb blogger, I truly don't think the fate of PJ Tate's ashes would have any relevance. Tate died just a couple of months before the Cols blog begins. And who would have had him disbarred anyway? If anyone else cares that passionately about PJs wishes we certainly would hear more from them, no? So, mr. Poiroit, caveat emptor.

mattprokes said...

there were two rumors about the good cols true identity that i remember from the late 90s on the clark ronson message board.
1-he was a movie producer with the initials d.m.
2-he was a disbarred lawyer
if i remember it right he denied it at the time and i'm sure he'd deny it now.
and i don't remember anyone saying he had some connection to the tate family back then just that he was a disbarred lawyer.
don't forget this is the internet-anyone can be accused of being anyone without proof.
that doesnt always mean its true

katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Venus said...

Katie, i think Alisa said (somewhere) that she did know about what happened at the Cielo house (how could she not??) because it was disclosed in her lease. There's no way anyone could not know about that house.

Venus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Venus said...

I just deleted a double post. I don't know why it did that.

katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CarolMR said...

"Doris Tate was NOT portrayed in Greg's book as a starstruck, meddling, conniving stage mother, pushing Sharon into the limelight. Quite the opposite. She was portrayed as a concerned mother.
" - katie

I read King's book. As I remember, it was ROMAN who described Doris to King in this way.

prefeteria said...

Ultimately I felt this book was kind of like the Hendrickson movie Inside the Manson Gang. Each enjoyable in their own ways due to heretofore unseen or unpublished material, but ultimately fail due to statements within that were either unsubstantiated or outright false.

CarolMR said...

Col. Scott always criticizes Anthony DiMaria (Jay Sebring's nephew) for showing up at parole hearings because Anthony never met his uncle. How would the Col feel if Brie Tate attended a parole hearing?

katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CarolMR said...

"I'd like to know what the difference is between Jay's nephew and Sharon's niece." - katie

There's a difference only in the Col's mind.

Venus said...

The Col. says that Anthony DiMaria never met his uncle Jay. How funny that is. Anthony has said (at parole hearings) that he does remember him and has shared memories. Just because he was a little boy doesn't mean that he doesn't have memories.

CarolMR said...

"The Col. says that Anthony DiMaria never met his uncle Jay. How funny that is. Anthony has said (at parole hearings) that he does remember him and has shared memories. Just because he was a little boy doesn't mean that he doesn't have memories." - Venus

I had forgotten that Anthony actually did meet Jay, even though he was a very young child. Venus, a few years ago I read that Anthony was making a documentary about his uncle, interviewing dozens of Jay's Hollywood friends and clients. Was that ever completed?

Venus said...

According to Jay's official site, it's "coming soon." I hope that "soon" is tomorrow. LOL

katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Venus said...

Maybe he uses one name for his personal life and one for his professional life?

Jay's official site; www.jaysebring.com

katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CarolMR said...

katie, according to IMDb, Anthony DiMaria uses different names when acting: Anthony DiMaria, Anthony Gerard, Tony DiMaria, and Tony Gerard. He had a small part in "The Sopranos." He was also on an episode of "Deadwood." And, yes, he is an extremely good looking man.

katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CarolMR said...

"He's as fine as wine!!! HA HA." - katie

I'll say! Takes after his uncle. I really wish I knew more about Jay and his family. None of his Hollywood friends could find time to write a biography?

katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dilligaf said...

Katie,

You said Rudy should have gone man to man against Roman, but here is the problem with that. Rudy was not a 13 year old girl, so Roman would not have been interested....

katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Evidently, Hitler's ashes are worse off than Colonel Tate's...

Regarding Hitler:

"His remains were exhumed in the 1970s and incinerated.
The ashes were flushed into the city's sewage system".


AHahahahaha

Full Story:

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-world-europe/20120330/EU.Austria.Hitler.Grave/?cid=hero_media

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Nothing quite compares to being flushed down the toilet!
LMAO!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Burial at sea.
: )

Venus said...

LOL at Dill's comment!

Oh, Katie, I could talk about Jay for hours (and I have!!!!) What a guy. The fact that he stayed in touch with Sharon's parents speaks volumes to me. He also stayed in touch with his ex-wife's family. That says a LOT about the guy.

katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Venus said...

For one thing, neither of them would've been at Cielo Drive.

CarolMR said...

Venus, I hope you're right about Jay's nephew's documentary. I still can't understand why no one has written a book about Jay. That would make one hell of an interesting read. Is there anyone in Hollywood Jay didn't know?

katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Katie...

It pained me to delete your last comment, as it was quite simply hilarious. LOL

But, I've had enough drama to last me a lifetime.

Please keep it civil...

When you insult people, I'm the one that has to deal with the fallout.

I SO couldn't be bothered at this point.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Mind your own business.

That's the new "watch-word".

As the dude from the "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" movie says:

Learn it, love it, live it!

: )

beauders said...

i think patty suffered terribly she was only eleven when the murders happened, had to live with that most of her life, then to die from breast cancer in her 40's and know she was going to leave her children. how horrible, losing a child is the worst but having to leave your children thru your own death that's almost as bad.

katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Venus said...

Katie, I'm totally cracking up at your description of what baby Paul could've looked like. Too funny!

I'm definitley looking forward to seeing the Jay documentary.

Carol, I also wish someone would write a book about Jay. Maybe someday. There's been lots of info about him in other celebrity books.

starship said...

Yes, begs the question. Just shooting my bourbon laced mouth off...perhaps Jay is just too unsavory of a character for a book to be put forth...too much Jay was my drug connection celebrity stuff...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Starship...

Please check your email, if you have a chance.

Thanks... Lynyrd

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Beauders, your comments have been deleted...

This thread is a review of the book, "Restless Souls"... NOT a review of Alisa Statman.
I believe Starship and I, both did a splendid job of keeping this review focused on the book itself.

The only one who strayed from the book focus (to my knowledge), is Katie... and I had already deleted most of her inappropriate comments (which strayed to personal topics regarding Alisa herself).
I deleted those comments, because this type of "pissing contest" is exactly what I don't want.

I've reviewed the book... not Alisa.

Furthermore...
I have no interest in seeing Alisa reviewed by others... including you.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Going forward...

Any comments which do not involve the book itself... and I mean... it's contents specifically... will be deleted.

Speculating on lesbianism... personal relationships... what so-and-so knew... (or didn't know)... when they moved into a given location... doesn't interest me in the least!

Everyone Clear?

Thanks!

PS... and for the record:
1) Colonel Tate let his daughter marry Polanski.
So much for great judgement.
2) A photo of Patti's 3rd child, shouldn't be difficult to obtain... regardless of where in the world she "may" be living.
It's called "email".

Thanks!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

ALSO... and for the record:

I laid intio Katie (off-blog) yesterday (but good)... for her bullshit on this thread.

I don't play favorites or games.

Starship and I, invested MUCH time and effort, to bring folks this very comprehensive review.

I will not have it compromised, and watered-down by anyone...

If anyone wants to take-on Starship or I, one-on-one, in regards to the contents of this book specifically... bring it on!

Otherwise... get lost.

I've had it up to my eyeballs, with blog crapola.

CarolMR said...

"No Venus, they wouldn't have ended up at Cielo Drive. They probably would have been at Jay's house." - katie

katie, I can't tell if you're joking or serious. If you're serious, that means you think Sharon and Jay were specifically targeted.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I deleted about 10 more bullshit comments... mostly Katie stuff.

Folks...
Keep it professional.
My tolernce level for crapola, has dipped WAY below zero, at this point.
I'm done.

And, why the funk do we have so much chatter about ColScott on here?
Last time I ckecked... he has his own blog.
If you want to speak to ColScott (or about him), do it here:
http://tatelabianca.blogspot.com/
I'm confident he will enjoy addressing any/all issues and curiousities, with his patented barrage of personal insults.

I really have to start reading (and evidently editing) the comments section, more regularly.

starship said...

No sweat LYNYRD. I'm there on that email thingy....

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I might as well use this grand opportunity, to address a few other issues, which are unrelated to this thread (specifically)... which (none-the-less) have "gotten my ass", over time...

While I'm Tearing New Assholes Tonight… Here Goes:

This only happens occasionally, but it's well-worth addressing, because it's one of my major "pet peaves".

If ANY bloggers have ANY issues with ColScott, Liz, Cats... or anyone else...
GO to THEIR location... and deal with them directly.
If you're not welcome... get creative... send them an email.

DON'T use my blog, as a "sounding board" for your beefs!

I'm not operating a "safe house" for pussies and outcasts.

Bottom Line:
I DON'T want folks, standing behind ME... to throw their stones!
I Repeat:
DON'T stand behind ME... to throw your stones!

If you've got a stone to throw... deal with it, on your own terms!
Don't involve me, with your problems.
I repeat...
DON'T involve me with your problems.

That goes for EVERYONE.
I deal with my own problems.
Deal with yours.

I'm here to share knowledge... NOT handle people's personal problems.

It's always the same (very short list) of folks, who do this.

==================================

ALSO...

If you ARE at another location... fighting with people... DON'T EVER evoke my name, to support your argument!

Examples:
"Like Lynyrd said"...
According to Lynyrd"...

GAWD... how I HATE that!

In fact... don't even do it HERE!

If I have something to say... BELIEVE ME...
I'll speak for myself.

==================================

ALSO:

DON'T DISCUSS thread topics, which are posted at other locations, on MY BLOG.

That ALWAYS leads to trouble!

If a discussion or thread found elsewhere interests you... by all means, GO to the other location.

Generally, it's the same (very short list) of folks... who do this!

==================================

I think that just about covers everything, for this tyrade...

Happy Blogging!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Starship.

Sorry dude...
None of that meltdown, was directed at you.

I was making a correction and re-post (of part) of my tyrade, and you got in my line of fire... LOL

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

You want a perfectly good blog?

The domain is paid through July. : )

fiona1933 said...

The Hour I First Believed is brilliant

Unknown said...

Believing in yourself is the first secret to success. Thanks for sharing your knowledge :)

gofastek.com