Tuesday, January 5, 2016

EXCLUSIVE: How Roman Polanski forced wife Sharon Tate to have threesomes and make home sex videos for his friends but refused to sleep with her once she got pregnant and wanted her to get an abortion

  • Sharon Tate was a flower child caught up in Roman Polanski's world of decadence and drugs 
  • An Army brat, she confided to Polanski that she was date-raped at 17 by a soldier in Italy, a new book about the actress reveals
  • '[Polanski] told her how to dress; he told her what make-up he liked, what he didn't like,' reveals Tate's friend
  • He was even pointedly cruel to her in front of others at times, calling her 'a dumb hag'
  • Sharon got caught up in Polanski's sexual decadence and drug taking
  • When Tate refused an abortion, Polanksi went back to London and had an affair with Michelle Phillips of The Mamas & The Papas 
  • The author suspects that Charles Manson was paid $25,000 by a British satanic cult to target Tate 
Sharon Tate had a fatal attraction to dominant men - none more so than famed film director Roman Polanski. 

Polanski had the professional and personal power Sharon craved and thus she was drawn into a world of frequent humiliations, subjected to his sexual proclivities that included drugs, affairs, orgies and home sex videos he shared with friends.

Polanski ruled Sharon's entire life from the time she met him until her violent death at the hands of Charles Manson's gang of evil,  writes author Ed Sanders  in his provocative, well-researched book, Sharon Tate: A Life, published by Da Capo Press.

Tate's father Paul was an army captain who was frequently absent. To occupy herself, her mother, Doris entered her beautiful little daughter in beauty contests.

Validation from beauty pageants and recognition of her looks, combined with strong direction from men became an imperative for the tragic actress.


Sexy starlet: Roman Polanski trolled Sunset Boulevard and the boulevard's clubs for girls he brought home for threesomes with Sharon Tate, a new book reveals
Sexy starlet: Roman Polanski trolled Sunset Boulevard and the boulevard's clubs for girls he brought home for threesomes with Sharon Tate, a new book reveals

When she was crowned Miss Tiny Tot of Dallas in the summer of 1943 at six months old it marked the beginning of what became a lifelong pursuit: to be in front of the camera. 

She won global beauty contests in Europe and then back in the US with the frequently changing residences of an army child.

But life was not all crowns and pretty clothes. The author reveals that Sharon was raped when she was 17 while on a date with a soldier in Italy. It was a secret she kept, and only later confided to Polanski. He said that 'it hadn't left her emotionally scarred'.

Commercials followed and she caught the bug: she wanted to be an actress, a star, the 'new Marilyn of American cinema'.

Introduced to hot-shot producer Martin Ransohoff in 1963, she signed a seven-year contract and at age 20 she was earning $750 a month. But she desperately needed acting lessons to further her career.

Ransohoff sent her to New York to the famed Lee Strasberg's Actors Studio but Sharon didn't connect with Strasberg's technique. 

She did connect with French actor Philippe Forquet. 

Their love affair progressed to a marriage proposal and engagement along with rumors of beatings and claims by Forquet that Sharon cut him in the chest with a broken wine bottle.

Ransohoff demanded that his starlet terminate the relationship or he would dissolve her Filmways contract. Tate quit Forquet but not her fatal attraction to dominant men.

She hooked up with actor Steve McQueen, became engaged to Jay Sebring, a kinky, dungeon-loving hairdresser to the stars, and then began her last love affair with uber-dominant director Roman Polanski.

Powerful connection: Tate was engaged to a successful (and kinky) hairdresser to the stars, when she took acid with Polanski and made love with him at dawn. The pair moved in together in Easter 1966
Powerful connection: Tate was engaged to a successful (and kinky) hairdresser to the stars, when she took acid with Polanski and made love with him at dawn. The pair moved in together in Easter 1966
Dominance: 'He told her how to dress; he told her what makeup he liked, what he didn't like. He preferred her with nothing, no makeup. But he ruled her entire life from the time she met him,' reveals new book
Dominance: 'He told her how to dress; he told her what makeup he liked, what he didn't like. He preferred her with nothing, no makeup. But he ruled her entire life from the time she met him,' reveals new book

The couple initially connected when they were living around the corner from each other in London.

Tate was engaged to Sebring at the time but after sharing a cube of acid with Polanski and making love at dawn, the engagement became past tense and Polanski  and Tate moved in together around Easter,1966.

Sharon got the starring role in front of the camera but it was in Polanski's home sex videos he shared with friends.

Polanski filmed orgies at their house and showed the videos at parties, later reported to be sadomasochistic porno movies with many recognizable Hollywood faces. 

He trolled Sunset Boulevard and its clubs for girls he brought home for threesomes.
Sharon was totally intimidated by him. 

'When she was out in public with Roman, she never felt adequate enough to open her mouth,' writes the author.

'She could only talk to him alone. Her problem was that she had always been beautiful, and people were forever losing themselves in fantasy over her – electing her a beauty queen, imagining her as a wife, dreaming of a caress. 

'Most people had fantasies. But a few people, like Polanski, took charge.

'He told her how to dress; he told her what makeup he liked, what he didn't like. He preferred her with nothing, no makeup. But he ruled her entire life from the time she met him,' Tate's friend Joanna Pettet told the author.

Ransohoff urged Polanski to test Sharon for a role in The Fearless Vampire Killers, a period comedy he was making in London.

She got the role but Polanski confessed that he sometimes required as many as seventy takes for the inexperienced actress to get her part right.

Sharon's first big film role came in 1965 in Eye of the Devil, a movie about human sacrifice. She got the role after Kim Novak fell from a horse and the film had to be reshot without Novak.

Filmed in London, English magician Alex Saunders, known as 'King of the Witches', was hired as technical adviser.

Saunders later claimed that he befriended Tate on the set and initiated her into witchcraft. He said he had photos showing her inside a consecrated magic circle.

Sharon realized that she wasn't going to get a film role in a big movie playing at the time like Sound of Music or Tarzan and the Valley of Gold. Her acting wasn't good enough.

'I don't fool myself. I can't see myself doing Shakespeare,' she said.

She wanted to play light comedic roles and confessed in an interview to being influenced by Faye Dunaway and Catherine Deneuve.

'I'd like to be an American Catherine Deneuve. She plays beautiful, sensitive, deep parts with a little bit of intelligence behind them.'

Sharon rented a house in Los Angeles and continued trying for bigger film roles while getting panned by critics for the two films she had made. 

Polanski stayed in Europe filming and revealed that his wife acquired her first vibrator at that time, says the author.

Back in each other's arms, Sharon introduced Roman to the America she knew – junk food, drive-ins, popcorn and the California coast at Big Sur and Topanga Canyon, where friends of her lived.

It was 1967, the summer of love and Woodstock, and the rise of the hippie phenomenon. Sex and drugs topped the charts as a quick trip to finding oneself and communicating with others.


Crime scene: Tate's death was one of the most brutal murders in the history of Los Angeles. According to an INS criminal investigator's report, the English Satanist group had commissioned Manson to kill Sharon because of 'something that she unfortunately overheard that she was not supposed to overhear either in regards to Sirhan Sirhan or about Sirhan Sirhan,' the man who killed Robert F. Kennedy
Crime scene: Tate's death was one of the most brutal murders in the history of Los Angeles. According to an INS criminal investigator's report, the English Satanist group had commissioned Manson to kill Sharon because of 'something that she unfortunately overheard that she was not supposed to overhear either in regards to Sirhan Sirhan or about Sirhan Sirhan,' the man who killed Robert F. Kennedy


It was that fall when a converted school bus painted black rolled into Topanga Canyon with the words 'Hollywood Productions' written on the side. Its occupants were a roaming group of followers of Charles Manson, himself desperately seeking fame from his music.

The motley crew moved into a secluded house called the Spiral Staircase at the mouth of Topanga Canyon near the Pacific Coast Highway. 

Meanwhile, Tate had a starring role in the 1967 cult classic, Valley of the Dolls, and attended the premier of the film that took place on a docked cruise liner in November in Venice, Italy.

Tate stayed on board for the 28-day journey that ended in Los Angeles and arrived home to bad reviews calling Tate 'a no-talent show girl'.

She took a mini-vacation with girlfriends to a spa in Big Sur, up the coast, while Polanski returned to Los Angeles and invited a young Balinese model to his rented beachfront mansion in Santa Monica for a night of lovemaking.

Tate and Polanski were married two months later in January 1968 in London. Sharon was 25, Polanski 34.
After returning to LA, they moved into the famed Chateau Marmont on Sunset Boulevard. The couple rented different houses before settling into their last – on Cielo Drive high up in Benedict Canyon.

Decadent parties followed.

When she learned she was pregnant, Sharon telephoned her former fiance Sebring to ask his advice on whether or not to tell Roman. He said to wait a month when it would be too late to have an abortion.

Sharon was pregnant when she found a movie of Roman making love to someone else in their bed and thought of ending the marriage.

Roman, for his part, did not want to father a child, Shahrokh Hatami, a confidante of Tate's told the author.

Polanski wanted her to get an abortion in Brazil and when she refused, he went back to London and had an affair with Mamas and Papas singer Michelle Phillips.

'I told him that I'm expecting his child, he said that he doesn't want to father a child, and protested,' Sharon told Hatami.

'You can't do anything, it's my child. I'm going to keep it,' she told Polanski.

Polanski was bored by her pregnancy and stopped having sex with her - but not multiple other partners.

That summer 'he treated her like she was a piece of excess baggage. He was even pointedly cruel to her in front of others at times, calling her 'a dumb hag' and criticizing her whenever she expressed an opinion,' writes Sanders.

She was under his spell and he was in love with her despite treating her badly.

'We have a good arrangement,; Tate said. 'Roman lies to me and I pretend to believe him.'

The house at 10050 Cielo Drive was a revolving door with celebrities dropping by, unknown people flitting in and out, and orgies fueled by cocaine and hallucinogens like mescaline.

It was owned and rented out by Terry Melcher, Doris Day's son, a musician and record producer.

Michelle Phillips, of the Mamas and the Papas told of visiting that house and 'everyone in the house was busy filming an orgy and Sharon Tate was part of it'.
Melcher and his girlfriend, Candice Bergen moved into Doris Day's house in Malibu. 

Melcher knew 'Charlie' Manson and along with his pal, Beach Boy Dennis Wilson, they had been trying to get showbiz manager Rudy Altobelli to make Manson a star.

It was to the Cielo Drive house that Manson came looking for Melcher and sent his Family to kill the occupants when there was no forthcoming record deal to make him a star.


Polanski was in Europe finishing the script for the Day of the Dolphin and Sharon returned to America by ship, the Queen Elizabeth II, too pregnant to fly.

She did not want to come back to LA to have her baby and was very lonely.

Roman filled the house with friends of his so she wouldn't be lonely. He wanted her in LA. 

Sharon suspected he was having an affair in London. She thought about splitting up after having the baby. 

Roman promised Sharon he would leave London the next day, Saturday – only to find out the embassy was closed and he couldn't get a US visa. He would have to fly the following Monday or Tuesday.

That was too late.

On the night of August 9, 1969, eight months pregnant, Sharon was stabbed sixteen times and murdered along with Jay Sebring, Abigail Folger, Steven Parent and Voyteck Frytowski – by the Manson Family.

The book's author concludes, after years of interviews with principals in the case as well as dogged research, that the one loose thread in the story is the role of a mysterious English satanic cult that was active in LA in those years.

The author learned new details after working with LA private investigator Larry Larsen, a former LA County deputy who assisted the investigation into the death of Robert F. Kennedy.

Larsen had been informed through associates that the English satanic group had recruited Charles Manson to murder Tate because of information she had learned about RFK's assassination.

The contention is that members of the English cult had invited Sirhan Sirhan to LA parties and one such party took place at Sharon Tate's residence, where sexual and ritualistic rites occurred – along with heavy drug use.

According to an Immigration and Naturalization Service report, the English Satanist group had commissioned Manson to kill Sharon because of 'something that she unfortunately overheard that she was not supposed to overhear either in regards to Sirhan Sirhan or about Sirhan Sirhan'.

Whether or not Sharon knew something about the Robert Kennedy assassination remains unanswered.

Sanders conducted a correspondence with Manson back in the 1980s. Manson sent him a six-page reply to a question list but also said 'I'm not schooled enough to play words on paper with you…'

Manson refused to answer a follow up question asking whether he was offered $25,000 to kill Tate as alleged by a woman and her husband who stated they witnessed the contact with Manson.

'Indeed, it may all be smoke and mirrors and ultimately impossible to prove beyond doubt's shadow,' writes Sanders.

'No loose ends can prevent our sense of outrage and anger for the horrible injustice perpetrated upon Sharon Tate and her friends.'

Sharon Tate: A Life, by Ed Sanders and published by Da Capo Press is available on Amazon


77 comments:

katie8753 said...

I'm gonna buy that book by Ed Sanders. I like that guy. Probably interesting reading.

Poor Sharon, she dates a french guy and gets beat up, then she dates Sebring and he likes kinky stuff, then she dates and marries Polanski who makes porno films about her??? (I don't know if that's true, just waiting to read the book). But I don't put anything past Polanski. That guy is probably still having wet dreams. If I was his new wife I'd lock up the neighbors kids.

Sharon should have just married Jethro. She would have had a "double naught spy" AND a "cement pond".

katie8753 said...

I do have to say, that from everything I've read about Sharon Tate, she was just a sweet girl. I've never heard anyone who knew her say otherwise.

So you can take it from there....

katie8753 said...

Sanders is claiming that Sharon was targeted for the RFK assassination. I've never heard that one before. Is she being painted as a "Marilyn Monroe" type?

But I'll say again. If one or two were targeted for this killing, WHY KILL EVERYONE? Why not just pick these people off at a supermarket or something?

It doesn't make sense....

katie8753 said...

Lifetime movie about Manson Girls debuts February 6th:

www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/article/Lifetime-Original-Movie-MANSONS-LOST-GIRLS-to-Premiere-26-20160105

CarolMR said...

I just received Ed Sanders' book in the mail. Can't wait to start reading it. Unfortunately, I'm a very slow reader. I flipped through the pages and one thing I noticed is that there are very few photos but a lot of drawings. Drawings of the photographs that we have seen many times (the photos, not the drawings). I can't understand why Sanders has these drawings in his book and not the actual photos. It gives the book a tacky quality.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Carol,

Sanders was sued by "The Process Church" following the release of his original TLB book ("The Family").

In the end, "The Process Church" prevailed and Sanders was forced to remove several pages from his book (in subsequent editions).
Sanders may have been forced to pay damages to "The Process Church" as well... I'm not really sure.

After that unsavory experience, Sanders is probably making a conscious effort to avoid liability for using copyrighted material (i.e., photos).

That's my educated guess, and it's probably a smart move on his part.

Any number of quacks could eek out of the woodwork and claim copyright infringement for old photos, and regardless of the validity, it could become a cumbersome legal nightmare for him.

In simple terms, I'd say Sanders is "gun shy" following his last experience.

Again, that's just my guess.

CarolMR said...

Thanks, Lynyrd! Makes sense.

FrankM said...

Yet again we hear about the sex movies Polanski made with Sharon. To this we can add those he is said to have made involving underage girls and fellow Hollywood stars. And we shouldn't forget the illegal sex and snuff movies Manson is said to have made with stolen film equipment. Me, I'm totally sceptical. With the money such films could make –or even the status for a collector in owning them– I'm just not buying it. I mean even Bigfoot and the Alien in the autopsy got film out in the public domain, even if it was falsified. Guess I'll believe it when I see it, but I'm not holding out any hope and choose to dismiss these movies as yet another titillating part of the legend.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Carol. Let us know what you think of it.

Hi Frank!! Good to see you! Yeah I agree, we've heard a lot about these movies, but they've never surfaced.

Bobby said...

I hear you Frank. However, Smoke & fire. Doing the type of drugs that these folks were doing does lend itself to the sex part. You are right though with all these years and no actual tapes to back up the claims. Well there just is not any evidence so until there is it really is a moot point right ? Some folks will think that they probably were into that type of activities & others will may think that they were not. Of all the people writing about the times and events I tend to put credence into Sanders as he was an early supporter of the family and he was very close in time to the events as well as the people and peripheral people. But what do I know. Frank, It is nice to see you posting. I think you set a record for time between post.

grimtraveller said...

Hmmm....
LAPD did find a film of Sharon and Roman making love, which they put back in the place that they found it. So the idea of Sharon on film having sex isn't as wild as it initially appears. It is plausible that she made some more staggier oriented films, what with Roman being a director and her being anxious to please him. People do things when they're emotionally vulnerable or tied, that they may thoroughly regret later. We say things, we do things. We do it as kids, we do it as teens, we do it as young adults and slightly older adults and even as middle aged and old adults. And if you throw in the different ways a human being can respond to various drug use and the mindset of a young lady who wanted to break into movies and by extension, the beautiful young power elite that was to be found in Hollywood before the full emergence of the rock star culture of power mingled with abuse, well, let's just say it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
I do find, however, that celebrities for decades have tended to among the foremost builders of myth ~ both their own and that of others. You can really mess up how someone is seen by the world at large with a few careless {or deliberately malicious} words in an interview or lines in an autobiography. The same thought that crossed my mind when I read the words & ideas of the people that knew Rosemary & Leno in that 2nd police report crosses my mind now: how much debris have we unwittingly left behind in life that, if we died, would come out in ways from people we know or have known that right now, we wouldn't even dream we'd be seen that way ?
Be careful what you sign.

grimtraveller said...

On the other hand, rumours have been the stuff of TLB and I personally am highly suspicious of the notion that there's no smoke without fire.
Most scouts know otherwise !
People lie and exaggerate and speak carelessly.

On a different note, I find Ed Sanders to be a strange writer. I'm currently reading one of the revised and updated versions of his "The Family" and it is such a strange book, written in such a strange way. I find that he's definitely got a thing about occult/Satanist groups. Frank wrote a defence of him and his writing perspective some years ago on Col Scott's blog that I find myself having to continually invoke as I get further into the book, otherwise I'd get really irritated by him. I was however, fascinated by his intro in which he said that back in '69/70, he regarded Charles Manson and his group as having wrecked what he and his countercultural cohorts thought of as the dream of the 60s {he says they seemed to wound the best qualities of that generation} and also he initially thought they'd been set up. Also that Charlie would send him abusive letters and threats, which interestingly, Vincent Bugliosi {actually in the book HS} and Ivor Davies {author of a really underrated book, "Five to die" which came out before the trial} also said, except theirs were death threats. Ed doesn't specify.

FrankM said...

I enjoy your posts, Grim. You often have an independent take, which you are prepared to expound on. Although I'm an American (Greenpoint, Brooklyn) I am descended from an English family and can see your Englishness in your writing.

Can you source your "LAPD did find a film of Sharon and Roman making love," or in some way substantiate it? I'd be interested to follow this up.

As for the other post (I told myself my postings were over!), yes, I did defend Ed Sanders, largely because the people discussing that thread at that time seemed unaware of the importance of him as a counter-culture writer or the impact of the Fugs on a gray society emerging from the Fifties. I was a child of the counter-culture moe than the hippie movement, brought up on Corso, Ferlinghetti, Kerouac and Cassidy, Alan Ginsberg even.

Yes, he probably exaggerated, but there is also no doubt he was scared. He was obliged to retract/redact some of what was in his first edition (which I still have), and not just for legal reasons - there was some weird stuff coming down with the Crowley descent. I was hoping that his new book might speak to some of this, but from what I have heard (I don't yet have access to a copy) it seems not to shed much new light.

Bobby: I only post if i have something to say/ask. It's an economy thing, one of Grice's maxims (of manner/brevity).

Happy New Year to all.

FrankM


katie8753 said...

Happy New Year Frank! Hi Grim! Hi Bobby!

You know, I was thinking today about Garretson thinking those shots were firecrackers. He said he was mad at Parent because he thought he was shooting firecrackers.

And then he talked about the dogs barking. He said they had "different barks". My dog has different barks, for firecrackers, strangers, and people he knows. He does have a different bark for each.

Garretson should have known they weren't barks about firecrackers, they were barks at strangers.

CarolMR said...

"LAPD did find a film of Sharon and Roman making love, which they put back in the place that they found it. So the idea of Sharon on film having sex isn't as wild as it initially appears. It is plausible that she made some more staggier oriented films, what with Roman being a director and her being anxious to please him." - grimtraveller

I was in high school when the murders happened. I remember reading all I could about the case, being a fan of Sharon's. I definitely remember reading in the papers that Roman said he and Sharon made a film of them having sex because it would be a cool thing to show their grandchildren.

beauders said...

Katie, after all my research I have only one person who had anything bad to say about Tate and that was Cher. Cher didn't like Tate because she flirted with Sonny. That's it. Sharon must have had a thing for short guys. Bono, Sebring, and Polanski are/were short.

Jean Harlow said...

Frank, Helter Skelter references finding the film of Roman and Sharon making love. Once the film was viewed, it was returned to Cielo Drive where apparently Polanski took possession of it.

Roman also references making the film in his autobiography as Carol pointed out.

sunset77 said...

Off topic comment:

Apparently, "Jun-26-69. A one-shot pilot episode for a TV series that was never picked up. In 1968 Mama Cass had launched her solo career and was hoping to move into television. This one-hour program only aired once on ABC-TV and was never shown again. The show features Mama Cass Elliot with special guest stars: John Sebastian (The Lovin' Spoonful), Joni Mitchell, Mary Travers (Peter, Paul and Mary), Buddy Hackett, Martin Landau and Barbara Bain (husband and wife and both from Mission Impossible and later, Space 1999)."

I couldn't find the entire pilot for the "Mama Cass Show", however there is a clip of Joni Mitchell singing "Both Sides Now". It can be seen-->HERE.

CarolMR said...

beauders, I've read the same thing about Cher's dislike of Sharon. I'd love to know if this flirting with Sonny occurred while Sharon was married to Roman.

grimtraveller said...

FrankM said...


As for the other post, yes, I did defend Ed Sanders, largely because the people discussing that thread at that time seemed unaware of the importance of him as a counter-culture writer or the impact of the Fugs on a gray society emerging from the Fifties

Over the last few months, I went through every thread on the Col's site and the comments sections. Actually, the comments were where the best stuff was. I remember your explanation and that was helpful to me because Ed's is a very off the wall account. I first came across his name in Richie Unterberger's book "Urban Spacemen & Wayfaring Strangers: Overlooked Innovators & Eccentric Visionaries of '60s Rock", a book that features many almost unheard of {by the general public} artists. The piece on the Fugs only mentions in passing his book on the Family. It gets less than two lines. I did find Tuli Kupferberg initially the more interesting character as he was in his 40s when the Fugs began which was the antithesis of the rock revolution of the times.
On a related note, even though it's obviously satirical, the Fugs' "Kill for peace" brings seeds of an idea that throughout history, people have espoused....including, it would seem in their latterdays, the Family.
I also notice that the investigator that worked with Ed Sanders on his book on Sharon, Larry Larsen, is also the guy that did much of the leg work in '69/'70 for Ed's book.

Venus said...

I just got the book, will look at it later.

Many of the things Katie mentioned have been said elsewhere. For example, the threesome rumors. As for the sex film involving Sharon and Roman, yes, that's been stated in other places.

I think they probably did film things. Video recording was pretty new at the time and only people who had a decent amount of $ could afford the equipment (perfect example: Bob Crane)

It seems quite plausible that Roman would want this equipment and would use it in some fashion.

Note: I just skimmed thru the book and noticed something that should clear up a discussion we had on an earlier thread regarding the video filmed at Jay's house. I (and a few others) said we saw Sharon's wedding ring. Well, Sharon's friend Sheilah Wells was there and said that it was filmed in late 1968 which is exactly what I've said. (Logically it was filmed either in the spring or fall because while many of them are wearing sandals, they're also wearing lightweight jackets, but she was there and said it was in the fall)

grimtraveller said...

FrankM said...

Can you source your "LAPD did find a film of Sharon and Roman making love," or in some way substantiate it? I'd be interested to follow this up

Yeah, my edition of "Helter Skelter" is the 1977 Penguin edition. I bought it in Camden market in late '82. I've sellotaped and highlighted it to death but because it's the same as the edition I originally bought my sister in '78, I've never wanted to buy one of the more recent editions. I may have to one day though ! Anyway, on page 33 is written:
"During the first few days a total of 43 officers would visit the crime scene, looking for weapons and other evidence. In searching the loft above the living room, Sergeant Mike McGann found a film can containing a roll of video~tape. Sergeant Ed Henderson took it to the Police Academy, which had screening facilities. The film showed Sharon and Roman Polanski making love. With a certain delicacy, the tape was not booked into evidence but was returned to the loft where it had been found."
When Earl Deemer interviewed Pic Dawson {I think that was his name}, Dawson gave him a film that showed Abigail and Wogiciech and some other person having a stoned dinner. I guess the fact that stuff is on film lends a certain credence to rumours of heavier stuff. At worst it's an indication that there might be some truth to some of the stories. Going back to the 1920s there have been rumours of stag movies involving people that went on to become Hollywood stars and people have written books on the subject, some claiming that they've seen some of these films. Thinking about it further, in this day and age of the camera phone and the phenomena of sexting and "revenge porn" it seems to me that there have always been people that have been ready and willing to get their kit off in front of the camera with little thought of who may go on to see the film. A mate of mine's brother's wife was having an affair with this guy and they used to film whatever they used to do and she had it on her phone and my mate's brother found it, watched it and learned of what was going on. I asked my friend if he thought his sister in law had deliberately left the phone for her husband to find and he said he didn't know but he thought so.
To be honest, I hope the stories of Sharon Tate in stag films aren't true. But we're human beings and we do questionable things at times that seem like a good idea when we do them. Or at least, not a bad one.
One of the things that TLB brought to the surface quite a while before the perpetrators were caught was the under the covers lives of the fairly well off. Nowadays it all seems rather tame and we get a bit blasé about what 'stars' and the wealthy do but back then it was still relatively new and shocking.

Venus said...

Grim, you're so corrct. Many years ago, a friend of mine rented a film that supposedly showed famous celebs in porn films (just scenes featuring them) In all honesty, I have no idea if it really was the famous person or just a lookalike as some of the footage was rather grainy or just older, in other words, the quality wasn't great. There were several scenes tho and we all got a kick out of debating whether or not it was the real person.

Venus said...

My point is that I do think films could've been made at Cielo ) or elsewhere).

katie8753 said...

Thanks Beauders. I didn't know Sharon knew Cher!

Hi Jean! Hi Venus!

I think since Roman was a movie director and Sharon admittedly didn't have any problem appearing nude on film, that it's very possible they made sex films with each other. The only problem I have is with Roman scouring Sunset Blvd for kids to join them. That's a "Hmmmmm" on my part.

Lynn said...

Sunset, I have the Mama Cass Television Program on DVD. There's also a great performance of Cass singing I dig Rock N Roll Music with Sammy Davis Jr. It's a treasured DVD in my collection.

Jean Harlow said...

Hi Katie

In 45-46 years no one has found any of these sex tapes. I'm not saying 100% they don't exist or that threesomes didn't happen but I think the fact that nothing has come out in that period of time leads me to believe they don't exist.

maudes harold said...

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

I have no problem believing various and sundry videos were made by a whole mess of people in and around this case, on both sides. Who and to what extent, we'll probably never know for sure.

Katie, understanding the sleazy side of Hollyweird, it is not uncommon for those type of Sunset Strip pick ups to happen, at all, for celebrities or criminals. Isn't that where Rudy found Garretson?

It sounds as if this book by Sanders is a revisit/revamp of "The Family" with a few extras thrown in. I've read elsewhere that in it, Hatami admits that he was pressured to say he saw Charlie at Cielo, when he didn't. That's interesting, but doesn't really change the facts of the actual murders.

I hope Venus will give us her thoughts after she's read it.

katie8753 said...

Hi Lynn, good to see you! Sunset, I meant to thank you for that contribution about Mama Cass, and just got caught up in a thousand things and forgot. Sorry for that. I remember when Mama Cass was trying to go out on her own. I guess her time caught up with her. She was a great singer and entertainer.

Jean, I think that if the police did give those tapes back to Roman, he either destroyed them or they're under lock and key. I think that if they did exist we would have seen at least one. I'm starting to think the "Tex Tapes" don't exist either.

Maude good to see you too! There's probably a lot of weird in Hollyweird that I can't fathom! Stranger things have definitely happened!

Venus, I've ordered that book and should have it in a few days. We can do a book report on it together if you want! Just let me know!

Grim & Frank, you guys talk a language of your own! LOL. Keep on keepin' on!

Now I'm running out of gas and I'm gonna turn in. Y'all have a wonderful evening!!

beauders said...

I think that if the films existed, and I think they did, they were destroyed. Remember Polanski and Warren Beatty got a hold of what they thought was all the copies of "The Other Side Of Midnight." Maybe these films were so scandalous they had to be destroyed, such as most of Hollywood was involved in some way .

grimtraveller said...

Jean Harlow said...

In 45-46 years no one has found any of these sex tapes. I'm not saying 100% they don't exist or that threesomes didn't happen but I think the fact that nothing has come out in that period of time leads me to believe they don't exist

^^^^This was my first impression when I read the piece. I certainly feel that way about other aspects that have come up in this case, for example, although Vincent Bugliosi stated that Gary Hinman used to furnish the Family with drugs and Susan Atkins and Sandra Good were both on record as saying, back in '68, that they had bought drugs from him, I do find it weird that in 46 years not a single source outside of the Family has ever said he made or dealt mescaline although the Family did use mescaline.
In 46 years not a single source that I'm aware of has definitively linked Wogiciech Frykowski and Charles Watson or even Tex and Jay or Tex and Suzan LaBerge {prior to the murders}. I don't believe such a link exists.
I don't believe that a sizeable shipment of drugs were delivered to Cielo a few hours before the murders etc, etc.
But the making of sex films are different. That they might have been made but never surfaced isn't really a mystery to me. They may have been made, located and destroyed, wiped or just taped over. Maybe Roman would get bored of the film once he or his mates had watched it {if indeed his mates did} a few times and then thought 'time for another !' Perhaps there weren't a huge number, maybe copies weren't run off, maybe the copy found by LAPD in the Cielo loft represented all that was left and Roman had been keeping it to remind himself of happier times before his wife's body lost it's tightness & snap due to childbirth. Expectant Dads can think all kinds of bizarre stuff.

grimtraveller said...

maudes harold said...

I've read elsewhere that in it, Hatami admits that he was pressured to say he saw Charlie at Cielo, when he didn't

If that's true, that would make Rudy Altobelli's statement about Charlie coming to the guest house a lie because he supposedly said he was sent there by the people in the main house. It would also make his statement about Sharon's "did the creepy guy come back" statement on the plane to Europe a lie. The whole incidence of Charlie going to the house began with Altobelli. It was he who mentioned that he thought Hatami was there that day.
In the same way that one piece of corroborated evidence can infer the truth of another piece of evidence, so one lie can connect to other evidence and unpick the stitching of a case.


katie8753 said...

Mama Cass

There's very few people that refer to Cass Elliot as Mama Cass, the glorious chorus of "Creeque Alley" notwithstanding. But it's all I've ever known her as. Back in the 60s as a little boy, that's what my Mum always referred to her as. In fact it was years before I found out Cass Elliot was her name and it was a very long time before 'Cass Elliot' sounded right to me. Even when she died, I didn't connect Cass Elliot as her name. I can still hear my Mum in her Nigerian accent saying 'Mama Cass !'; it's like a phrase that transports me instantly to memories of childhood.

katie8753 said...

Grim said: In 46 years not a single source that I'm aware of has definitively linked Wogiciech Frykowski and Charles Watson or even Tex and Jay or Tex and Suzan LaBerge {prior to the murders}. I don't believe such a link exists.

Grim, I am with you! I don't believe any of that either. And these sex tapes could exist. But they've been buried deeper than the secrets of Cheops.

katie8753 said...

Rudy Altobelli was a weird guy. He picks up a mindless kid to "oversee" his property on Cielo Drive? Who does that?

And he sues Sharon's estate after she's killed? Who does that?

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

the secrets of Cheops

That takes me back to school when we were learning about Egypt in history. Many a laugh was had by my mate Athos and I. We couldn't get over someone being called Cheops. We drove the pork cheops, lamb cheops & fish and cheops gags into oblivion !


Rudy Altobelli was a weird guy. He picks up a mindless kid to "oversee" his property on Cielo Drive? Who does that?

I'm not so sure that it was that weird, given the times and the loosening up of that era. I used to think it was weird that George Spahn, out of the blue, gave Charlie & the Family permission to stay at Spahn Ranch or that Arlene Barker did likewise. It's quite notable how many people were just crashing in other people's pads or how Danny DeCarlo fixes a bike and gets invited to stay at Spahn and a number of other events like that {even the arrangement at Cielo while Roman & Sharon were away when Wogiciech & Gibby had their own pad}. There just seems to have been this looseness in certain arenas in which people picked up jobs, places to stay, people to copulate with, went on cross country road trips with people they never knew or had met once.....
Mind you, in the late 70s my Dad gave a couple of guys a job cutting the grass and somewhere to live, guys who just turned up one day looking for a room to live in. They ended up living in this out house we had for years.

And he sues Sharon's estate after she's killed? Who does that?

It sounds bloody minded and small minded and stingy.
On the other hand, Roman and Sharon were renting the place. Should Roman have ceased to pay rent due under the terms of the lease ? Maybe. It's a hard one. When my Mum died I had to go down to where she lived and pay off the rent and council tax that she owed otherwise the borough of Tower Hamlets would have taken me to court, death or no death. I never gave them the chance to get funky, my brother and I cleared and cleaned the place and I took it upon myself to settle any debts.
Obviously, Roman was in a state, his wife being murdered, and so settling costs wasn't on his mind but the reality is that those of us that are left when someone dies have to still deal with real life. Altobelli as the landlord also still had real life to be getting on with. How long was he to wait ? Is there a nice way of asking for a contract/lease {and all that's contained within it like cleaning} to be honoured in the aftermath of a death ? Especially a murder ? Short of not saying or doing anything at all, Altobelli would probably be always seen by many as the bad guy in this matter, and somewhat callous.
But I got to be honest, I think his actions were, even though I kind of understand them.

katie8753 said...

Grim I just love your comments. You make me do a "160" on my thoughts sometimes! Thanks!

I think Rudy sued Sharon's estate, not only for the unpaid rent, but for the damage to the house. I'm sure that he was reading in the paper at that time that the victims were "responsible for their deaths" due to drugs, devil worship, etc.

But my question is: didn't Rudy have insurance on that house? I would think that any responsible homeowner would have insurance, and insurance will pay for damage to the home after the deductible is met.

Does anyone know if Rudy had insurance?

And the fact that Col. Tate had to scrub the carpets is unimaginable. You can't get that kind of blood stain out no matter how much you scrub. Why not just re-paint and re-carpet?

Again, insurance pays???? If nothing else, hire a carpet cleaning company. Rudy had the money. Why make Col. Tate scrub up his own daughter's blood?

And you would think the dead would be off the hook when it comes to debts, but like you said, even the dead aren't immune to creditors!

katie8753 said...

Oops, I meant to say a "180". LOL.

Dilligaf said...

GT was in the ball park on a couple of things. I think most of us would agree that to sue the victim's family was tacky to say the least, Altobelli was within his right to do so. There was damage caused to the house, he was entitled to be made whole. The question comes to mind as to why Polanski would not pay for damages? LE is not responsible to clean up crime scenes, nor do they pay if there is additional damage caused in retrieving evidence. You can almost hear Altobelli whine "why did this happen to me????.

In regards to insurance, my first thought is whether Altobelli's insurance carrier knew that the Cielo house was being used as a commercial venture? If so, the type of policy would more than likely a fire/liability coverage only. If the company did not know of the rental activity, then the policy would most likely have excluded the coverage. Either way, keeping Altobelli's proclivities in mind, it seems that he got screwed this time...

katie8753 said...

Speaking of Cher, I do believe that I mentioned that Cher had those "side burns" on her hair which Sharon had also, and I can't remember who thought of that first.

Does anyone know? Who copied who?

katie8753 said...

Thanks Dill! So if Altobelli didn't disclose it was a rental property, the insurance company probably denied his claim. So that was HIS fault!

Interesting! I wouldn't think that Polanski would be made to pay for damages. If someone gets murdered in a rent house, do the survivors have to pay for the damages?

Why did all these 60's people rent anyway? Couldn't they pluck down money for their own house? I think Jay owned his house.

Who is LE?

katie8753 said...

And if someone gets murdered during a rental contract, isn't there an out? Force Majeure?

Dilligaf said...

As the renter, Polanski would have been liable for damage to the house, and its contents while in his control. The murders certainly fall into that classification. Again, setting aside the distasteful act of suing a victim's family, somebody had to pay to rehabilitate the property.

It could be argued that the murders fell under Force Majuere in that while it was not an Act of God, it certainly was unforseeable and that there was nothing that could have been done to prepare for such an event.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Dill! You're the best!!

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

Who is LE?

We live in this age of acronyms {lol/IIRC/WTF etc...} and I try to work them out without help but some of them I end up having to look up eventually. I kept seeing LE all over the place and just could not think of what it could be. It hit me totally by accident that it was 'law enforcement.' I don't even know how I got to it or if it's right but every time I see it used I assume it is and it always seems to fit.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Grim! I dig ya! :)

DreiserFan said...

hi I've never posted here before. Wanted to let grim know that I think he writes the most intelligent verbiage on these forums. I always enjoy reading you grim.

Bobby said...

I have read including myself Grim complimented for his excellent writing of posts. He has yet to acknowledge. Humble he is.

grimtraveller said...

Thanks !

I have to say though, that there are and have been a number of contributors to various TLB blogs that, over the years, regardless of which sides of the various debates they stand on, have brought out lots of great points and many of those points are priceless in the way they challenge the mind to think and consider.
When Bugliosi and Gentry originally wrote "Helter Skelter" I wouldn't mind betting that they wanted people to accept pretty much wholesale all that was in the book as opposed to people taking their words and ideas apart to test whether or not they actually stood up under the cold hard light of day. Which is not a criticism, I would imagine most writers do. But there's so much there to consider and though sometimes it can feel like the debates have been done to death, every so often a slightly different light is shed on old beans, either confirming what was concluded in the first place, or sowing doubts that demand a second look.

katie8753 said...

I'm on page 76 of Sanders' book and I now know 3 things:

(1) I've learned the entire cast & crew, storyline, and scene by scene explanations of most every movie made in the 60's.

(2) It appears that Steve McQueen was just an asshole, and

(3) If I read where one more person said Sharon was "exquisite, one of a kind, drop dead gorgeous, unbelievable looking, and so beautiful she was painful to look at" I'm gonna barf.

And I think some of the dates are mixed up. I really hope this book gets better....

Venus said...

LOLOL Katie.....

Venus said...

I agree with Dill. Although it was "tacky," it seems like Mr. Altobelli was within his rights to sue for "damages" to the house.

What is a bit confusing tho is that it was a sublet. Terry Melcher was still on the lease, right? So, technically, wouldn't he have been responsible? Or does a "damage" clause get transferred?

katie8753 said...

Hi Venus! I thought Melcher was off the lease and Sharon & Roman were the Lessees. But if you're right, and it was a sublease, and Melcher was still the Lessee, it would still be his responsibility.

I also read that Altobelli was suing Sharon's estate because Gibby & Voytek were living there, and they weren't on the lease, just Sharon & Roman. Which is understandable, although I can't imagine that he didn't know they were there all the time. He probably didn't care until his house got damaged.

Also, the rent for August hadn't been paid by Polanski. I would think the rent was due on the 1st and interest and penalties started accruing by the 5th.

Dill?

katie8753 said...

Sharon was shown that house on Cielo drive by Gig Young's wife, who was a realtor. I really don't think it was a sublease. But I could be wrong.

beauders said...

Katie it was a sublet, I forgot but remembered when it started being questioned.

katie8753 said...

Wow Beauders! Thanks! Venus, you're right!

That makes this a whole new case!

So how did Altobelli sue Sharon's estate for damages? Elaine Young rented this house to Sharon. Did Sharon know Melcher? Did Altobelli sue Melcher as well? When did Melcher's lease run out?

I don't know the legal mumbo jumbo for this. Does the original Lessee owe money to Lessor for damages caused by the Sub-Lessee?

Dill? Anyone?

Dilligaf said...

As far as late fees on rent goes, it depends on how the lease was written.

If the lessee sub-let the property without the approval by the lessor, one of two things could have occurred. One, the terms of the lease could have been breached, potentially bringing an immediate end to the lease, and/or, Two, the lessee being responsible for damages caused by the sub-lessee, if the sub-lessee is unable or unwilling to make the lessor whole.

Now you know why I spent Twenty-Five years in the criminal arena.......

katie8753 said...

Thanks Dill! You're the best!

I bought a Power Ball ticket that will be announced at 9:59pm. I'm gonna tune in.

Have a nice evening y'all. We'll continue this in the A.M.!

Fingers crossed I'll win! :)

katie8753 said...

Wait if I don't win or don't win, I can still talk. LOL.

katie8753 said...

I WON!! HA HA...

Just kidding.

katie8753 said...

Okay, back to bidness.

If the lessee sub-let the property without the approval by the lessor, one of two things could have occurred. One, the terms of the lease could have been breached, potentially bringing an immediate end to the lease, and/or, Two, the lessee being responsible for damages caused by the sub-lessee, if the sub-lessee is unable or unwilling to make the lessor whole.

Now you know why I spent Twenty-Five years in the criminal arena.......


I used to be claims adjuster, and I talked to lawyers I guess like you. Probably most not as good you!

How could the Lessee sublet the property without the approval of the Lessor? Doesn't his signature need to be on the new lease?

Doesn't the Lessor need to sign off on a new lease by the Sub-Lessee, as well as the Original Lessee?

Dilligaf said...

It would not be unusual for an apartment, or a home, to be sub-let without the lessor's knowledge, especially if the lessor was hands off. If a lease does allow for a sub-let, you can be assured that protections for the lessor existed in the lease.

katie8753 said...

So if a Sub-Lessee rented from a Lessee, the Lessor's signature it not required?

Dilligaf said...

If a space is sub-let without the Lessor's knowledge, there would be nothing between the sub and the Lessor to sign, as it would not be a valid sub-lease.

katie8753 said...

It would not be a valid sub-lease. Then sub-lessee would not be liable.

Thanks Dill! We'll talk about this tomorrow. I'd be asleep by now except some girl came banging on the door looking for my son.

Grrrr. Oh well, it's late, night!

katie8753 said...

OK I read in Cousin Ed's book today that Sharon & Roman signed a lease with Alto Rudibelli in February of 1969. LOL.

Sooooo.

CarolMR said...

"(1) I've learned the entire cast & crew, storyline, and scene by scene explanations of most every movie made in the 60's.

(2) It appears that Steve McQueen was just an asshole, and

(3) If I read where one more person said Sharon was 'exquisite, one of a kind, drop dead gorgeous, unbelievable looking, and so beautiful she was painful to look at' I'm gonna barf."- Katie

True!! I've just started reading the book and you are absolutely correct. I'm distracted by the awful drawings in the book - they are really bad.

CarolMR said...

Why am I reading about Nike-Hercules missiles in a book about Sharon Tate? Sanders veers too often from the subject at hand. Roman's childhood, Vietnam, RFK.

katie8753 said...

Carol I agree. I skimmed through a lot of that stuff that didn't seem to have anything to do with Sharon.

Yeah those drawings are creepy.

leary7 said...

I can't think of anything that has happened in a long time that has cheered me as much as seeing a Frank post again. Like Grim, it isn't just the intelligence that he brings but a distinct soulfulness. Now we gots us a party.
Katie, I wouldn't rule of a simple desire to "extend the spotlight" in regards to Rudy. I've seen this often - folk who get touched by infamy - but only in a periphery way - often do whatever it takes to inject themselves closer to the central storyline. Rudy was a flamboyant guy who may have simply just loved the attention that suing brought him.

It's easy to dismiss "sexcapades" as a primary motive for historical happenings. But if you will, indulge me a quick "story".
One of the most prominent questions that began this century was how did a howdy doody idiot like W become the most powerful man in the world.
Of course, his dad, HW, was one of the, if not the, most powerful characters of the 20th century in terms of both continuous and cumulmative political power.
In Texas, it was long accepted for years that HW had a beautiful mistress named J.
It is said in political circles that if you become gov of Cal, NY or TX, you are halfway to the presidency.
W, of course, was a total failure until he surprisingly won the TX governorship running against an immensely popular incumbant - Ann Richards.
One of the keys to W's victory was the endorsement of the then LT Gov BB (an infamous reprobate) and a DEMOCRAT.
A year earlier, LT Gov BB had shocked the world by marrying (his 6th) wife - the beautiful and socially prominent J, the long time mistress of HW.
That's how W got to the top of the mountain, BB got J, W got BB's backing, HW continued the family dynasty, and we all got the worst president in US history.
Obviously, there is a ton more to the story, and maybe it will all come out someday after HW finally kicks it.

What does this very unsubstantiated anecdote have to do with TLB sex tapes? Nothing really, just to point out that old adage 'that there is always more to the story'.

leary7 said...

wait, I left out something important.
I know that tale because for a time I was close to J's mother, who...(and this is were the story jumps the shark and becomes downright unbelievable) was herself a mistress of LBJ.
How's that for a story - mother and daughter presidential mistresses.
And damn if its not true.

katie8753 said...

Leary said: Katie, I wouldn't rule of a simple desire to "extend the spotlight" in regards to Rudy. I've seen this often - folk who get touched by infamy - but only in a periphery way - often do whatever it takes to inject themselves closer to the central storyline. Rudy was a flamboyant guy who may have simply just loved the attention that suing brought him.

That could be true. Rudi (with an "i") does appear to be quite "queenish".

HW continued the family dynasty, and we all got the worst president in US history.

Nahhh, I'm pretty sure our current Prez has that dubious distinction. And Bush was the best "shoe dodger" I've ever seen.

Ann Richards was a money waster. She spent thousands of dollars installing expensive ashtrays at the State Capital, then decided that no one could smoke. LOL.

Venus said...

I also don't think that "W" is the worst President we've ever had.

Venus said...

Back to the new book....Katie and Carol, I agree with you both. I don't care about details about the movies, etc. The book jumped around too much.

katie8753 said...

I know Venus, and it appeared to me that Sanders just "cut and pasted" a lot of info from his other book The Family. The stuff about Hinman was basically the same word for word.

In fact, there are only a couple of things that Sanders mentioned that I haven't heard before. We've all heard that stuff for years about sex tapes, orgies, cult activities, etc., all of which just word of mouth, no proof that I know of.

Venus said...

Exactly.

lman28 said...

As told to Ed and his investigator by White Rabbit...end of story and credibility....

katie8753 said...

LOL.