Thursday, January 21, 2016

A book review...Sharon Tate...A Life...by Ed Sanders.


From what I can see, Ed Sanders didn't mention anything new about this case except for these things:

Hatami now has no memory of Charlie being at Cielo Drive in March of 1969 (which doesn't make any difference really).

Sanders claims that Sharon "overheard" something about Sirhan Sirhan (yes he has the same first & last name) and an "English Cult" contracted Charlie to kill her.

And then he says "what she overheard can't be mentioned".

AAAHHH, it's the Same Old Shit, Different Day.  

None of this matters!!  Manson ordered these murders!  We just want to know WHY!

This was not a drug burn or a cultist hit.  It was just blatant murder!   And may I ask, if I might be so bold, What this had to do with the Waverly Drive hit?

We haven't solved these murders.  We're back right where we started.

And, at the end of Sanders' book, it seemed he was sad about Sharon's murder, but WHY did he go on and on about her being in a cult???

That's the problem with these new books.  They propose lots but prove nothing....

35 comments:

katie8753 said...

Sanders says that Sheilah Wells said that the video at Jay's was filmed in the fall of 1968, and that she was the woman in the swing.

leary7 said...

I agree Katie that the new "revelation" books about TLB are as tiresome as the JFK books.

But I have to admit that Sanders 'Satanism and sex tapes' theory at least got me thinking. We all know that Manson, Bobby B and Sadie had extensive dealings with Satanism, and that Tex declared himself "the Devil" that terrible night. And interestingly enough, Roman too seems to have had extensive dealings with the 'Dark Arts'. And we also know that not just the Family but Roman and Jay Sebring practiced not just sexual adventurism but sexual extremism.

The question Sanders seems intrigued by is if Sharon dallied in these areas as well. I know, Katie, that you are a fierce defender of Sharon as a quality good person. But being a good person doesn't necessarily preclude one from getting their freak on. (By the way, I have long been curious about the rumors that Rosemary wasn't June Cleaver either and some of her two million fortune may have come from the sex business).

Anyways, if there is in fact more to the TLB story still to be discovered a half century later, the Satanism and sex extremism storylines just seem far more compelling to me personally than the tired 'drug burn' and 'copycat' thesis.

A couple of questions....if Manson was paid 25K as I hear the Sanders book infers, was there any evidence whatsoever that Charlie came into money in August of '69? You remember that in the Watergate story Woodward was told to "follow the money". I just wonder if a forensic accountant has ever looked at the TLB case to explain some of the money questions.

And we seem to accept that there was at least one sex film of Roman and Sharon with rumors of more. Back then you couldn't get film developed at the corner Walgrens. I wonder if Roman had an accountant in L.A. and if said accountant would have been paying for any film development and if any law enforcement looked into that as a way of solving the sex tape rumors. We all know how inept the police investigation was back then. Does anyone know if Roman's financial records were ever looked at as a way of determining the validity of all the sexcapade rumors? I wonder even if Sanders tried that road.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

Altobelli & Hatomi recanted their testimony that Charlie was at Cielo Drive in March of 1969

Hatami I'll deal with later but exactly what does Sanders say about Rudy Altobelli's testimony ?

katie8753 said...

Grim, I'll have to go back and re-read that part. I'm pretty sure he said they both backed off that account. I'll get back with you.

katie8753 said...

Venus, check your e-mail.

katie8753 said...

Leary, Sanders does mention that a search was done to see if any money was deposited for Charlie, but I honestly don't remember the details. I skimmed through a lot of this book because of all the rambling that was going on. One minute it was the spring of 1967, then it was the fall of 1967, then it was the summer of 1967, then back to the spring of 1967...

Leary since you know so much about LH Oswald, tell us what you might know about Sirhan Sirhan. I know virtually nothing about him. I THINK Sanders was trying to say he was hypnotized by somebody (cult??) to shoot RFK upon some sort of command.

katie8753 said...

Grim, I went back and re-read parts of the book involving Altobelli, and I can't find where he denied Manson was at Cielo Drive in March. I guess I dreamed that.

It says that Hatami testified that Manson was there in March of 1969, but he now says that he has no memory of that, that it was suggested to him back then by an investigator working for Paul Tate & Bugliosi, but that he now doesn't remember him being there at all.

He also says that Altobelli thought that Manson might be involved in the murders, but didn't bother to mention that to anyone because "no one asked him". It doesn't say (that I can see) why he thought that.

CarolMR said...

"One minute it was the spring of 1967, then it was the fall of 1967, then it was the summer of 1967, then back to the spring of 1967." - Katie

I'm finding this annoying, too. For every few paragraphs about Sharon, Sanders has to include a section about Roman's life. This isn't a book about Roman yet I'm learning more about him than about Sharon! Maybe it's because there isn't much that is definitely known about Sharon, especially her early life.

katie8753 said...

Yeah Carol, I got tired of that.

Sanders has a version of the murders that is a little different than what I've previously read. When I get a chance, I'm going to re-read his version in his other book and see if it's the same.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

Manson ordered these murders! We just want to know WHY!

Around 20 years ago there seemed a concerted effort to put in concrete form what some journalists in the 70s had been alluding to for years ~ that Helter skelter as a motive for murder was a crock of shit that no sane, rational, thinking, enlightened human being could possibly agree with. Some important books and films came out on the subject over the next 20 or so years up to the present day, openly mooting doubt on HS and actively pushing other, seemingly plausible ideas for motives. Also arising during this period was the weblog {blogs for short !} which brought together like minded people or people that had shared interests even if they personally hated each other and there has been extensive re~trying of the case and as a result, we have a far greater understanding of the alternative motives than was appreciated by 1975, but crucially, nothing new and sticking. Most alternatives were mooted long before the 80s, be it copycat, drug burn, drawing attention to the big industrial nations killing the earth, reflecting the USA govt's attitude in pushing on with Vietnam, mafia hit etc.
This century they've gathered ground and supporters but no consensus as to which it is. Every last word, action, lie and blink of almost every major and minor participant {whether Family, law enforcement, judiciary, victims, their families, the Families of the Family, authors, friends, associates, journalists etc} has been analyzed into oblivion and at least for me, no one has yet put forward anything definitive that tells me what was used to convict these guys was not correct.
In his opening argument, Bugliosi told the jury he believed there to be more than one motive. In his closing argument he said that Helter skelter was not the motive for Watson and the three women, but for Manson.
The motive itself [singular] is not as important as people think. Bugliosi called HS circumstantial evidence and later said it's what connected Manson to the crimes. It kept coming up in investigation that Charlie was in on these murders and it made sense to ask oneself, why would he want these murders to happen, especially if he wasn't even present during any of them.



We haven't solved these murders. We're back right where we started

We're always likely to be right back where we started because a group of interested parties on the internet aren't going to solve crimes that have already been solved !

Hatami now has no memory of Charlie being at Cielo Drive in March of 1969

Even in "Helter Skelter" Hatami never positively identifies Manson and neither does he in court. In court he looked at a photo and said it resembled the man that came to the house. That's no good. "Resembled" isn't "is." What he says in Sanders' book isn't controversial, it's entirely consistent with what has always been his position. It was the prosecution that put 2 and 2 together and made 22, while we fill in the gaps ourselves and assume Hatami and Sharon saw Manson. I always did ~ until I read it for the 40th time !


Venus said...

The thing that confuses me about Manson supposedly being seen at Cielo is the fact that Altobelli commented about Sharon asking him about "the creepy man" when they were on the plane together. Wasn't it said that "the guy" was sent back to the guest house by Hatami? And Altobelli said (or "allegedly" said) that he spoke to him and told him not to bother the people at the main house. Sooooo....????? If not Manson, then "who" was it?

katie8753 said...

Yeah I don't get that either Venus. I can't imagine Hatami saying that a "creepy guy" came to the door and he sent him to the guest house, and then saying he can't remember that. If that didn't happen, why didn't he just say it didn't happen??

katie8753 said...

Grim, nobody knows why these murders were committed, except Manson. And he ain't talking. Why? Because he gets attention.

If he admitted why these murders took place, people would forget about him like yesterday's wallpaper.

Why did Hatami say he doesn't remember? Who knows? Maybe he's just an old man, or maybe somebody paid him to say that.

grimtraveller said...

Venus said...

The thing that confuses me about Manson supposedly being seen at Cielo is the fact that Altobelli commented about Sharon asking him about "the creepy man" when they were on the plane together. Wasn't it said that "the guy" was sent back to the guest house by Hatami? And Altobelli said (or "allegedly" said) that he spoke to him and told him not to bother the people at the main house. Sooooo....????? If not Manson, then "who" was it?

Well, this is the thing. Bugliosi is the one that assumes Hatami, Altobelli and Sharon all saw the same guy.
But read the Helter Skelter account again. Altobelli is the only one that positively identifies Charlie because he'd met him before and Dennis Wilson & Gregg Jakobson kept going on about him. Hatami sent "a guy" to the back house one afternoon but Altobelli saw Charlie between 8 & 9 in that evening. Sharon saw Hatami's man and he is her "creepy guy" but nowhere is any proof offered that this afternoon creepy guy was Charlie. It's an assumption we've all made, as VB made it. He makes it even as he writes. Notice how he leaps from a man Hatami can't positively identify to saying that they now had evidence that Manson had seen one of the victims. Now, the reason we know Manson had seen at least one victim is because according to Altobelli, Charlie said the people at the main house had sent him to the guest house and 4 of the victims were there that day. But the afternoon guy and Charlie are by no means the same guy.
In court Hatami looked at a photo of Manson and said he resembled the man that came that afternoon but couldn't say that it was him. When you consider lots of guys had the Charlie kind of look of a beard & long hair, we could easily be talking about two different guys and Hatami did think the man he saw was young.
Truth be told, we do not know for sure who the guy Hatami saw is. So when he tells Ed Sanders 46 years later he has no recollection of Manson, he really is not saying anything different to what he said in 1970.
To me that story is just a pair of faded ankle socks ! It sounds dramatic until you read it with both eyes then you realize it's lumpy gravy. Altobelli positively ID'd Charlie in court. Bugliosi wanted Hatami to ID Manson in person but Kanarek objected. Manson wanted to appear before Hatami but Judge Older told him he hadn't been ID'd by Hatami and if Hatami saw him and ID'd him, it would be bad for him as evidence not yet existing would then exist against him so Charlie declined.
Interestingly, both Charlie & Bugliosi wanted Hatami for their own ID purposes and both men could have been scuppered {though not devastatingly} if Hatami hadn't said what either wanted. It is clear now, that neither man knew what Hatami would say.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

If he admitted why these murders took place, people would forget about him like yesterday's wallpaper

I don't buy that. He's long said it was to get Bobby out of jail. But his enduring fascination goes beyond just the motive. I don't believe him because there are a number of question marks regarding the copycat, but love him, ignore him or hate him, he's interesting although now he just sounds old.

katie8753 said...

I don't think it's important if Manson saw Sharon at Cielo Drive or not. Manson mentioned to Tex that "some movie stars" were living at Cielo Drive. He obviously had some knowledge of who lived there.

CarolMR said...

Well, still reading this book (I'm a very slow reader and like to read every single word) and I've learned that Jay "probably" wore Sharon's high school ring on a chain around his neck until the day he died. Venus, did you know this? And I learned more about THE FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS (almost 6 pages) than I really wanted to know.

katie8753 said...

Carol I saw that about Sharon's ring. I don't think I've read about that before, but it sounds kind of familiar. Yes Sanders gives a lot of info on movie plots that I found boring.

I thought it was interesting that Sanders says that Sheilah Wells was the girl in the swing that Sharon was laughing with in that video made at Jay's house. I always thought that was Debra Tate.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

Manson mentioned to Tex that "some movie stars" were living at Cielo Drive. He obviously had some knowledge of who lived there.

I don't believe Tex about this. This comes from his trial and in that trial by his own admission, he lied for self preservation. He lied his balls off. Fortunately, by 1978 he was being somewhat more truthful.

katie8753 said...

Yeah Grim, I certainly don't believe everything Tex says, but I think we can agree that Charlie knew Melcher lived at Cielo Drive, he knew that he had moved, and he knew where it was located. I don't see how him knowing the people that lived there made much difference.

And if Manson wanted the TLB murders to be copy cat murders, why didn't he just say "go kill everyone and make sure it looks like the Hinman murder". It's funny that Susan Atkins wrote "PIG" on the door in Sharon's blood, and that she's the only one there that night who saw what Bobby wrote on the wall at Hinman's.

I personally think that the TLB murders were about(1) revenge on people that were successful and (2) needing money. If he did tell Tex to get money at Cielo Drive, obviously Tex wasn't listening.

But on the other hand, who has $1000's of dollars just lying around the house? Wouldn't it have been better to rob a bank or a convenience store??

CarolMR said...

I haven't gotten to the part about Sharon and Roman's wedding yet. I'm hoping that Sanders has some explanation as to why none of Sharon's family was there. I've always found that very curious.

Venus said...

Yes, Carol, that's true about the ring!

Venus said...

He did mention the wedding but basically said it was done in such a hurry, that's why they weren't there. But, friends managed to fly there from the US and she had a dress made so that doesn't make much sense. I wonder if she thought they'd try to talk her out of it? I don't think they even met him until after the marriage even tho they'd "dated" for a while.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Venus. I really think Sharon didn't want them there because her parents were pretty "straight laced" and wouldn't have approved of that "hippy wedding". I can just imagine that Doris wanted her married in the Church in a traditional marriage.

I have a hard time believing that Paul was that accepting of Roman. Speaking of "creepy little men". LOL.

I really don't see what Sharon saw in him, especially in light of the fact that he was cheating on her, even with friends she knew. That's pathetic.

CarolMR said...

Thanks, Venus, that's so interesting about the ring. I never knew that! I also think it's strange that the Tates weren't at Sharon's wedding. Yes, she had a dress made and it looked like many arrangements were involved in the reception. I don't think Debra has ever explained, either, why they weren't there.

Venus said...

My "guess" is basically what Katie said. She probably knew this wouldn't have been what they wanted. I know they really liked Jay and stayed in touch with him (and vice versa) so maybe they'd sort of made it clear that he was their preference?? Jay had asked her father for his blessing to propose to her and I'm sure that her dad really liked that.

Jay's family did return the ring to Sharon's parents.

I don't know what she saw in her hubby either. He'd made it clear that he wasn't going to change, that he would continue to cheat on her so WHY did she agree to marry him??

Jean Harlow said...

According to Debra Tate in Recollections, Roman did ask Colonel Tate for Sharon's hand.

Venus said...

I don't remember that, but I'll take your word for it!

From what I remember from that book, wasn't it said that they didn't meet until later? I remember some story (in Sanders book, maybe??) about how her dad was there and Roman was carrying on about how he didn't want to meet him at that time.

Jean Harlow said...

If you find the picture with Debra and Sharon with the horse, I think the story is there.

I read that story about Roman and Colonel Tate in Restless Souls so I don't know if I believe the story or not.

katie8753 said...

Jean I don't believe a word of Restless Souls. I think Roman is a pig. And he proved it. He raped a young girl. I can't believe that Paul Tate ever approved of him.

But that's just me.

Jean Harlow said...

Katie I am not making excuses for him but the rape was almost 8 years after Sharon's death and probably 10 years after the Tates met him so there is no reason why they wouldn't approve of him.

I wouldn't nominate Roman as husband of the year but no one knows what the true nature of their relationship was so I can't comment.

katie8753 said...

Yeah, I understand that Jean, and I certainly don't know what Doris & Paul were thinking of Roman, but surely they knew of his infidelity to Sharon.

If my daughter was married to a philanderer, I'm sure I wouldn't like him.

william marshall said...

Hello Katie everyone it's been a minute Out my 16 or so Manson T/L book's both versions of the family are probably some of my favorites I like the feel of the original version all the stuff about the cult activity in the late 60's not saying I buy into all of what he says but the same goes for every other book in my collection I read something online years ago about the Cielo murders going down over Sharon's knowledge of the RFK assanation & I thought the same thing then as I do now how dies that explain the Labinacas I expect to get plenty of back lash for this but honestly in my opinion 40 + years later IMO most evidence points to Helter Skelter as the motive am I 100% convinced of course not or I wouldn't still be here but there's more actual evidence pointing to this motive then anything else that's came out since or it may very well be the same scenario as the JFK assanation so much miss information & original bad investigation that none of us will ever know what really happened

katie8753 said...

Hi William! I'm not sure what you're saying. I can't imagine the RFK assassination had to do with TLB. I just don't see it. And as you say, what did that have to do with LaBianca?

I fear we haven't solved this mystery yet. Good to see you old chum!!! :)

william marshall said...

Hi Katie good to see you to I guess I'm trying to say in my opinion 46 year's later the Helter Skelter motive is really the only one were there was any proof pointing to it drug burn's free Bobby a paid hit where's the evidence all these years later it's all speculation once again I'm not convinced that was the reason just saying at least there was some evidence pointing in that direction but more than likely we will never know the real reason why it happened