Thursday, June 14, 2018

From the Mail Room...

Travis writes:

I’ve always wondered why Watson thought he had to kill Steve Parent? He could have simply laid low in the bushes with the 3 girls and let him pass. It’s doubtful Parent would have noticed them. The only reason I can surmise is that Parent would have noticed their car, parked down the hill, on his exit. He could have provided a description of the car after the murders, and if he were suspicious enough to note the license plate, that would have been a real liability.

But then why use the revolver instead of the knife? They were going to creepy-crawl the house, relying on a stealth approach — and to initiate the whole thing with 4 gunshots in a canyon that would echoed the sound? Watson had to know that the shots might have alerted the occupants, and possibly other inhabitants of the canyon. Someone might have called the police. (I’ve done this before when I heard distinctive gunshots in my neighborhood). Garretson heard the shots and thought they were Parent’s car backfiring. If Garretson heard them from the Guest House, further away, it’s probable that the occupants heard them, too. Only Frykowski was asleep.

I understand that the team had rolled the car back down the hill silently after approaching the gate. But I don’t know how far down the car was, or how exposed it was. Seems Watson was not thinking too clearly here. He could have ordered Parent out of the car at gunpoint, led him to the bushes, and he and the 3 girls could have dispatched him with the knives without making a racket.

But then Watson was not thinking too clearly when he told the victims they were “all going to die,” setting off panic.

Thanks,
Travis

265 comments:

1 – 200 of 265   Newer›   Newest»
LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hello Travis,

I won't purport to know the exact answers to your questions (because those answers are impossible to know), but for the sake of discussion, I'll take a stab at answering you with an "educated guess".

Factor #1:
It's pretty widely believed (at this point), that Watson was probably high on speed.

Factor #2:
I think Watson was probably startled when Steve appeared.

Under pressure to eliminate a perceived witness "before he got away"... Watson simply did the first thing, that came to his intoxicated mind.

I agree, in retrospect, that Watson had other options, that probably would have made more sense.

But in the heat of the moment, and under the influence of drugs, he did what he did.

Watson wanted to get inside the house (with his cohorts) to accomplish their "main objective", and Parent was simply an unexpected potential witness who startled him... and the rest unfortunately, is history.

It's hard to make sense of behavior, that at it's core, is nonsensical to begin with.

I mean... murdering ANYONE in general (outside of formal war or self-defense) is nonsensical behavior to begin with, so trying to make sense of Watson's thinking or behavior is an uphill battle at best.

One could easily make a convincing argument, that ALL of the victims at Cielo Drive could have been spared that night, if the criminals were of sound mind, and made better (more humane) choices.

The woman who interviewed Harold True (I forget her name), was trying to make sense of the criminals' and their behavior as well, and as Harold True said it best: "You can't ascribe reason to crazy people".

Having said all that, I enjoyed your questions, and you definitely offered some great food for thought.

Thank You for your participation and contribution.

I look forward to other peoples' perspectives on the matter.

katie8753 said...

Hi Travis! Good question. As to why he killed Parent, you can go back to Tex's lame excuse from the get-go, that Manson told him to go to the house where Melcher used to live and kill everyone there. Which would include a guy driving off the property when they got there.

As to why he shot him instead of stabbing him, I'm guessing what Lynyrd said. That he was so drugged up he didn't think it through.

How people didn't hear or recognize 4 gunshots in rapid succession is a mystery to me, but they say sounds echo in the canyon. Surely Sharon, Jay & Gibby heard those shots. Why they didn't get up and investigate will always be a mystery. I don't know much about that gun, but it's got a long barrel and I would imagine that it's very loud.

That whole escapade is a mystery. Why did Charlie send Tex with 3 inept girls to do this job? I mean the girls were useless. 1 lost her knife, 1 complained her hand hurt and 1 didn't do anything at all. Tex probably could have done all that alone.

It probably has to do with Charlie wanting the girls to get involved. But beyond that, it's anyone's guess.

starship said...

Hi, Travis,

And if you believe in wider conspiracy theories: Perhaps Tex thought he was the caretaker who, if leaving, would certainly be coming back, so to avoid discovery before they were all done and gone?

This assumes Tex had an idea of who would be there on the property...

grimtraveller said...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I'll take a stab

Careful !

I'd add that it was a combination of panic brought on by surprise and steeling himself to cross that ultimate line. The thing with the houses on the road is that they weren't that close together. In her interview with her lawyers just before the Grand Jury, Atkins said of Frykowski's screams "I’m surprised nobody heard anything." I also suspect he shot Steve Parent because he could see that Parent was really scared and he had to do something. And Tex says he did go for Steven with a knife.
Even before that, his mode in telling Steven to stop, was aggressive.
In that same interview already quoted from, Atkins says of the aftermath of the Parent shooting, "It surprised me that nobody heard the gunshots but they weren’t that loud. It was a very quiet gun."

katie8753 said...

A quiet gun? HA HA. Susan was a looney tune. The only quiet gun I know of is one with a silencer, which Tex didn't have.

Susan was supposed to be so tough at Cielo Drive, but actually all she did was struggle with Frykowski, maybe stab his legs (she's not sure) and lose her knife.

Starship, that's a good point. I've heard that said before, that Tex thought it was the caretaker in the car. Some people think that's why he didn't make sure the guest house was empty because he thought he'd already taken care of it.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Grim said:
"In that same interview already quoted from, Atkins says of the aftermath of the Parent shooting, "It surprised me that nobody heard the gunshots but they weren’t that loud. It was a very quiet gun."


Tex's gun probably was very quiet (compared to most firearms).

Tex's pistol was a .22 caliber weapon, and that's basically the smallest caliber pistol mass-produced worldwide.

There's one common rimfire cartridge which is slightly smaller than the .22 round, and that's the .17 HMR... (which stands for .17 Hornady Magnum Rimfire)... but that's somewhat of a "specialty round"... and that cartridge wasn't even produced until 2002.

.22 caliber weapons produce low noise, and have very little recoil (almost none), which makes them a prime candidate for novice shooters.

ALSO, Tex's pistol was a long-barreled "cowboy-style" pistol.
Long-barreled pistols generally shoot quieter than their snub-nosed brothers.
(Of course there are exceptions, and someone will probably call me on that, but nevertheless, that's the general rule).
That's why, a .22 caliber rifle is generally "quieter" than a .22 caliber pistol.

The fact is... a .22 caliber pistol with a long barrel IS quieter than most other pistols (all else being equal).
It's a low-noise, low-recoil, weapon.

The lowly .22 cannot be underestimated however, as more people are killed per year with this low-caliber round, than any other bullet.
I think that's for 2 reasons:
#1) People grossly underestimate the lethal capabilities of the .22 "snake and squirrel" gun. Many times these guns are bought for/by novices who are led to believe they're a "starter gun".
#2) Because .22 ammunition is the cheapest bullets sold, more rounds are sold (and fired) per year, than any other caliber size. The fact that more people are killed by them yearly, may simply be, because more .22 bullets are fired per year than all other calibers (maybe combined).

From what I'm told, being shot in the head with a .22 round is VERY deadly.
The "weak" .22 caliber bullet does not exit the other side of your head (like with bigger calibers).
The .22 bullet simply ricochets around inside your skull, until your brain is literally carved into Swiss cheese.
Nice, huh?

Here's an excellent article written by "Sunset", about Tex's pistol.

http://www.lsb3.com/2012/11/hi-standard-longhorn-double-nine-hi.html

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I've done a lot of studying on the subject of guns and ammo, since Sunset wrote his article almost 6 years ago.

Tex's pistol had a 9.5 inch barrel, which is extremely long for a pistol... and in a light .22 caliber model, it probably WAS very quiet.

Susan Atkins was crazy, but even a broken clock is correct twice per day...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

The only thing "quieter" than a .22 caliber pistol with a 9.5 inch barrel, would be a gun equipped with an effective "silencer"... (or as they say overseas "moderator")... or an air-powered pellet gun (which technically, isn't even a "firearm").

katie8753 said...

I've got a 357 Magnum Long Barrel pistol and it's so loud it will make your teeth chatter.

I guess you could argue what the definition of "loud" is but this gun is pretty, pretty, pretty loud!!

katie8753 said...

I can't imagine a gun being quiet. Isn't it gun powder igniting? Doesn't that make a sound?

katie8753 said...

If a gun has the power to expel a bullet, doesn't it have to make a sound? Are you saying it sounds like a mouse sneezing?

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

There's a big difference between a .357 and a .22.

katie8753 said...

But did Tex's gun sound like a BB gun? It sure blew a hole through Jay Sebring.

katie8753 said...

Bill Garretson said he thought the gun fire was firecrackers. It must have made a quick loud sound.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I didn't say that a .22 caliber weapon does not make a sound, but if you look at this chart, you can get an idea, of how small a .22LR bullet actually is (compared to others). It's literally the smallest bullet on the chart (second from left).

Compare THAT, to your .357, which is also on the chart.


https://www.pewpewtactical.com/bullet-sizes-calibers-and-types/

If you're interested, there's an entire description of the .22LR round, further down on the same page.
(It's probably not the best and most accurate description, but gives you the basic idea)

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

From the same page:

22LR

The “twenty-two” long-rifle is the most common caliber in terms of units sold.

It has a bullet weight of around 30-40 grains and is extremely mild shooting in both pistols and rifles. The recoil is almost non-existent which makes it a great starter round for someone who has never shot a gun or is uncomfortable with the noise.

The low price of the bullets is also great for learning sight pictures. It is traditionally the starting caliber for shooters. These things are only a few steps up from a pellet gun round.

They can kill, don’t get me wrong, but they’re mostly for killing rats, snakes, and birds. They’ll kill an attacker for sure but it might take a shot or six.

I have extremely fond memories of earning my Rifle Shooting merit badge with a .22LR. Many popular handguns and rifles have .22 versions or adapters that let you practice on the platform but use the inexpensive .22LR ammo."

katie8753 said...

But does bullet size mean how "loud" it is?

katie8753 said...

Wasn't that the original question? How loud was it?

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

For the most part... yes.

The "head" of a bullet is weighed in terms of "grains".

The average .22 caliber bullet weighs 40 grains.

The average .357 bullet weighs 120-160 grains.

The heavier lead bullets require more gunpowder to push them to optimum speed (velocity).
More gunpowder = more "bang".

If you get hit with a .357 bullet, you're going to get whacked 3-4 times harder than you would with a .22 caliber bullet (because the bullet is 3-4 times heavier)... but in actuality... it's more than 3-4 times the "stopping power", because there's a LOT more gunpowder behind that lead bullet... but now, we're getting into "foot pounds" of "muzzle energy" and that's a whole 'nuther ballgame.

It's like getting hit by a train versus a car... and that "train" is carrying a lot more "energy", because of it's sheer size and weight... and that train needs a much bigger engine to move it (as opposed to the car).

Short of a class in physics:
Suffice it to say, a .22 caliber weapon, although plenty capable of killing a man, is the lightest, quietest, firearm (with the lightest recoil)... barring a few specialty rounds of .17 caliber (which probably didn't even exist in 1969).

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Katie asked:
How loud is it?

Well...
I just posted this information in italics, but evidently, you missed it, so here you go again. Read the whole thing:

The .22 caliber bullet has a weight of around 30-40 grains and is extremely mild shooting in both pistols and rifles. The recoil is almost non-existent which makes it a great starter round for someone who has never shot a gun or is uncomfortable with the noise.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

NOTE:

I JUST FOUND SEVERAL COMMENTS SITTING IN THE "MODERATION BIN"... ACTUALLY KATIE DISCOVERED THEM.

SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS ARE QUITE OLD.

MY SINCERE APOLOGIES TO ANYONE WHO TRIED TO POST A COMMENT, AND NEVER SAW THEIR COMMENT APPEAR ON THE BLOG.

I JUST POSTED ALL OF THOSE COMMENTS.

AGAIN, MY SINCERE APOLOGIES.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Lynyrd! My apologies too to those who made comments that were never posted. I hate the comment moderation. It's like the Hillary regime making sure you only say she's purty! ROFLAMO!!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Honestly, I forgot the comment moderation was even on.
(It doesn't apply to you when you're an administrator, so over time, you just forget about it.)

katie8753 said...

Now back to guns. You never said how loud a .22 is. How loud is it?

What I mean is, compare it to a sound. Is it like a chestnut dropping on the leaf filled ground, or like someone hitting a rock with a bat?

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

If a strong man hit a baseball-sized rock with an aluminum baseball bat, that would (roughly) compare to the sound of a .22 caliber gun being fired.

That's a pretty good analogy, actually.

I mean... it's a pretty good "pop", but it's no startlingly loud.

If you slammed the trunk of a car closed (at hard as you could), that would probably be about the same decibels as a .22 caliber gun.

In that ballpark... LOL

I don't think a .22 caliber gun is quite as loud as a firecracker.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

HERE YOU GO KATIE:

This guy is shooting the Ruger "single six".
It's a .22 caliber revolver... cowboy style.
It's basically the same exact pistol that Tex Watson used.

He fires it several times outdoors.
Listen for yourself!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAol2bA8W5s

Of course, if he was firing this pistol in a garage, or inside an enclosed "firing range", it would be much louder, but outdoors, a .22 just makes a distinctive "pop".

katie8753 said...

Okay, well, hitting a rock with an aluminum bat isn't the same sound as slamming a car trunk down.

It depends on the car trunk. If you're talking about a 1966 Impala trunk that would make a really loud sound because that was a BIG TRUNK. If you're talking about a 2018 Toyota, that would probably be a sound like a child dropping a dish in a sink in her dollhouse.

You need to be specific.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Watch this video, and judge for yourself...

The man is shooting a Ruger "single six" .22 caliber "cowboy" revolver... the same exact style of gun, that Tex used...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAol2bA8W5s

Granted, the music in the video is a little annoying, but you get the picture.
It's definitely NOT a LOUD gun.

.22's make a distinctive "pop"... but it's nothing too alarming.

katie8753 said...

Okay if that gun had such a weak sound like a mouse sneezing, why did the neighbors call in to the police that they heard gunshots?

katie8753 said...

How could they even hear that?

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

It sounds like a gun, but it's not a loud gun (relatively speaking).

I'm not sure what you're looking for at this point, but you've worn me out.
(Maybe that's your goal).

Of course, the "loudness" of anything, also depends on the environment.

A gun of any size, is obviously going to sound much louder inside of an empty garage, than it would outside in an open field.

It's all relative.

A .22 caliber firearm is definitely one of the quietest weapons you'll find (compared to other calibers), all else being equal.

You can take that to the bank...

katie8753 said...

Well okay then. You earned your pay! LOL. But this isn't the end of it!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I'm not sure what the "acoustics" were, in and around the area of Steve Parent's car...but I can tell you one thing for sure, a pistol shooting .44 Magnum bullets would have been much fucking louder. LMAO

Garretson would have filed out of that "guest house" faster than Kato Kaelin. Lmao

sunset77 said...

I expect Watson was on drugs that night, in his state of delusional paranoia, he did exactly what Manson told him to do, kill everyone at the main house. As he seen Parents car approach, Watson probably assumed he had just left the main house and Watson didn't want to let him escape. Watson might not have even known there was a guest house on the property.

One of my relatives had a long barreled .22 Colt Buntline, the type Watson's pistol is often mistaken for. I never fired it, but I held it in my hands and examined it several times. A long barreled pistol is unwieldy to carry and use. It takes a special long holster, my relative had one, but I didn't. When Watson shot Steve Parent, he almost certainly stuck that long barrel through the open drivers window, the muzzle of the pistol would have been inside the car when he fired it. If the other windows on the car were rolled up, that would have deadened the sound significantly. .22's are about the "quietest" firearm to start with, there is no comparison to large caliber pistols like .357 and .44 magnum. It seems to me Garettson said he heard firecrackers, although I think he also said something about "Rosie Tate Polanski". It's hard to believe anything he says about anything. Also, I think the other shots were fired inside the house, there probably wasn't a whole lot for anyone to hear that night, no matter the later claims.

When I used to fire my dad's Hi Standard Longhorn in the woods, sometimes it would become very quiet, almost silent, for a few seconds. The birds and insects would stop chirping, I guess they were scared by the sound and looking around to see what it was. I remember distinctly that when I would eject the spent casings on a hard surface like concrete, pavement or boulders along a river, the casings made a clearly audible "tinkling" sound as they landed on a hard surface. Spent .22 casings are made of brass, the same thing bells are made of. I think the driveway at the Tate house was paved, I've never heard of anyone ever mentioning hearing that sound. If Watson would have ejected the spent casings after shooting Parent, and they landed on the pavement, I'm sure Watson and the girls would have heard it. As best I can tell, Watson's pistol was loaded before he ever got to the Tate house, with 9 live rounds or less, and he never reloaded.

grimtraveller said...

It also occurs to me that the .22 was a gun that the people on the ranch used for target practice so Watson may well have been less worried about noise than he would have been if he had used the .45 that Manson had the next night {the one Clem eventually ditched}. After all, he'd have known its relative quietness.
The point made about the proximity of the gun to Parent and some of the sound being soaked up by the internals of the car {with seats etc} is actually a really good point.
Sound is a funny thing. The way one might hear sounds coming from one's left will differ in each ear and vice versa. And sometimes, one might not hear certain sounds at all. I remember once, I was at home listening to music with headphones and I thought I could hear some thumping. Because in the days when I'd record my records onto tape and if you bumped around the room, some of the bumps would come out on the recording, I just thought it was that. But it turned out to be the Police breaking down one of my neighbour's doors because they were worried about her state of mind after a call from one of her friends. But no one else in our house heard it ! And I heard it through loud music on phones !
If a building is in the way of some sound waves, the sound can dissipate in unpredictable ways, which could partially account for why Mrs Kott heard the shots and William Garretson heard the shots {Rosie notwithstanding}. And as was shown in the first Tate Police report, lots of sounds were heard during the wee hours of that night, most of which occurred at times that couldn't have had anything to do with the murders.

Carlos said...

I have always understood that initally Garretson claimed he had heard neither gunshots nor screams. For example, we have this bit in VB’s book:

A few days after the Lee-Lomax meeting, SID criminalist DeWayne Wolfer went to 10050 Cielo to conduct sound tests to see whether he could verify, or disprove, Garretson’s claim that he had heard neither screams nor gunshots.

Using a general level sound meter and a .22 caliber revolver, and duplicating as closely as possible the conditions that existed on the night of the murders, Wolfer and an assistant proved (1) that if Garretson was inside the guest house as he claimed, he couldn’t possibly have heard the shots that killed Steven Parent; and (2) that with the stereo on, with the volume at either 4 or 5, he couldn’t have heard either screams or gunshots coming from in front of or inside the main residence.* The tests supported Garretson’s story that he did not hear any shots that night.


(Kindle edition)

I understand too that Garretson testified to this at trial, based on every transcript I have seen:

Q: Did you hear any gunshots during the night?
A: No.
Q: Did you hear any loud screams during the night?
A: No.
Q: Did you hear any loud noises of any kind whatsoever?
A: No, I didn’t.
Q: How loud were you playing your stereo?
A: It was about medium. Something like that. It wasn’t very loud, you know. It was just
enough so that I could hear it.


FWIW, I have plenty of firearm experience since I was a kid, and I can add my confirmation of how quiet a .22 LR can be in both absolute and relative terms. As a kid, we’d buy a full brick of ammo, take the .22s - rifles and pistols - out to the desert and shoot the full brick with no hearing protection while my dad took a nap in the car. Years later I was at an outdoor range shooting a .357 magum with serious ear muffs. There was a group of people near me with ear plugs who had to move to far end of the range, because my gun was painfully loud to them. The relative difference really is huge.

One last technical point regarding .22 LR ammo that I don’t think has been touched on. Given the right combination of ammo (powder load and bullet mass), barrel length, and air temperature, a .22 LR bullet may be subsonic, and that can produce a significantly different sound quality. We know for sure the fairly short barrel length that Tex was using on that August night.

Carlos said...

sunset77 said...

If Watson would have ejected the spent casings after shooting Parent, and they landed on the pavement, I'm sure Watson and the girls would have heard it. As best I can tell, Watson's pistol was loaded before he ever got to the Tate house, with 9 live rounds or less, and he never reloaded.

Yes, according to all the sources I have ever read, no spent brass was recovered at Cielo Drive, and when found by Steven Weiss, the gun had two live rounds and seven spent casings.

grimtraveller said...

Carlos said...

I have always understood that initially Garretson claimed he had heard neither gunshots nor screams

Initially, yes. Thirty years later, he claimed to have heard what he thought were firecrackers {we assume it was the gunshots though it may not have been} and seen Pat chasing Abigail and hearing them. He claimed that because there were sometimes guests at the house, he didn't know that they weren't guests messing about.
I've long felt that had he said this initially, the case could have been broken earlier because, if nothing else, the Police would have been looking for a woman, at least for questioning. Put together with the bloody footprints found at the scene, the info that Sergeants Whitley and Guenther from LASO brought to LAPD while the Cielo autopsies were happening and before the LaBiancas had even been found, about Bobby Beausoleil, the Hinman killing and the hippies that were led by a guy called Charlie that they thought was Christ, they could have headed to Spahn, seen that there were women there that went barefoot and.......
But Garrestson held onto this info until 1999. Maybe he was in major numbness, having been the only survivor of a slaughter and having seen the door handle of his house "altered" during the night.

Carlos said...

grimtraveller said..

Thirty years later, he claimed to have heard what he thought were firecrackers {we assume it was the gunshots though it may not have been}

What has always stood out the most about his evolving story is the results of the SID tests I highlighted above, specifically:

Wolfer and an assistant proved (1) that if Garretson was inside the guest house as he claimed, he couldn’t possibly have heard the shots that killed Steven Parent; and (2) that with the stereo on, with the volume at either 4 or 5, he couldn’t have heard either screams or gunshots coming from in front of or inside the main residence.

If we accept these results and we accept Garretson’s later story about hearing and seeing from inside the guest house, we have a fascinating contradiction.

His polygraph results are also interesting, because he was specifically asked about what he heard. We don’t seem to have access to any detailed notes or analysis by the examiner, but we do know the polygraph helped clear him as a suspect. And I’m willing to assume that any sign of deception on such a topic would likely concern the police. Having said that, polygraphs were and still are pseudoscience.

If Garretson’s later story matched the SID test results in the sense that he claimed for example he had walked Steve Parent to his car and things got weird, then it would be really easy for me to accept. And if he hadn’t done a 180° on Steve making his phone call. But his later story doesn’t do this. And it has the whole WTF-factor of the three eyed baby and strange dudes pointing guns at him.

We know something spooked him that night, and it appears to have stuck with him the remainder of his life, which is truly sad.

grimtraveller said...

Carlos said...

If we accept these results and we accept Garretson’s later story about hearing and seeing from inside the guest house, we have a fascinating contradiction

Either way, we have a fascinating contradiction. And every contradiction leaves the door open to sometimes wild, sometimes sound, speculation and theories.
I do take SID's findings with a pinch of salt though. Some conditions simply can't be recreated if no one was keeping an overall record of the original set up ~ and no one would be. It's like trying to recreate a particular battle from 500 years ago.

His polygraph results are also interesting, because he was specifically asked about what he heard. We don’t seem to have access to any detailed notes or analysis by the examiner, but we do know the polygraph helped clear him as a suspect. And I’m willing to assume that any sign of deception on such a topic would likely concern the police

Lt Burdick thought that he was holding back something and this was noted at the time. But after that polygraph, he ceased to be an actual suspect, especially when the LaBiancas were found, even though the two crimes were dealt with as separate incidents, in the main.
Garretson appears to have mentally imploded as the years went by.
You know, neither of his utterances {heard shots, saw women/heard nothing, saw nothing} really change the eventual outcome but I can't help thinking that if he'd said his 1999 stuff in 1969, the case would have possibly broken much quicker, for the reasons I gave earlier. His 3 eyed baby/Rosie revelations tend to taint pretty much anything he said after the trial.

starship said...

I believe that Garretson had a very low IQ and may have been on the spectrum as we would call it today. Or borderline personality disorder. He had something which made him not react to the world around him appropriately.

Carlos said...

grimtraveller said...

I do take SID's findings with a pinch of salt though

You and me both, sir, perhaps in our own ways.

We don’t know specifically how SID parameterized the experiment, especially selecting the cutoff threshold for being able to hear the gunshots from within the guest house. We don’t know if they only tested with all doors and windows closed or some combination of them open. But some things like the distance from the driveway to the guest house and the presence of that big hill around which the property wraps are fixed and known. And the parameters of the gunshots (gun type, barrel length, etc.) are known, and as discussed at length above the expected acoustic signature is also known; it’s expected to be surprisingly quiet. If the experiment was conducted with reasonably similar atmospheric conditions (air temperature and wind) and reasonably similar ambient noise, it’s still compelling evidence that Garretson could not hear the gunshots from inside the guest house.

Garretson is certainly free to contradict his own initial statements, but he is not free to contradict the laws of physics. I have to give SID the benefit of the doubt in this case.

GreenWhite said...

Hi, Starship. I'm in Ohio near Garretson's hometown. I know people interested in this case who met him but I never did. The impression they got was more or less dumb hick/good old boy/country bumpkin. There are many carbon copies of that type of dude around there btw. Amiable, dopey smile, not a ton going on upstairs. Easily angered. Working labor jobs. Cans of cheap beer. Etc.

Regardless, I've always been fascinated with his role in the case and wish I'd had a chance to talk to him. Going from Lancaster, Ohio to Cielo Drive is about as likely as reaching the moon from there. Incidentally, and pardon me if I'm wrong, was that you who wrote about talking to Garretson several times on the phone?

GreenWhite said...

First time commenting on here. Shoutout to everyone.

starship said...

Hi, GreenWhite, no I never spoke to him, but have heard the interview over on the Tate-Labianca radio program. I'm from upstate NY and have been out to Ohio and the rest of the midwest too and so I know first hand the kind of folks you refer too.

WG's manner from the get go seem pretty strange and the police thought so too, but I think if you consider that he really wasn't very smart then his general incoherence starts to make sense, and it was probably aggravated by the stress he was under.

There's a theory that doesn't really mean anything other than explain maybe why WG was living in Rudy Altobelli's guest house, and that is that he probably made $$ on the side turning tricks with men, which also explains maybe why Stephen Parent showed up (hoping for a booty call) when he did. Rudy was certainly gay and he picked WG up one night and somehow ended up with a gig taking care of the Cielo Drive property and dogs and living in the guest house. Good gig if you can get it and you're 19 and living in 1969 LA. WG's lie detector test he is asked if he ever had homosexual sex and he answers very vaguely like, "I got stoned with a guy and fell asleep so maybe...."

GreenWhite said...

I think that was the case with Garretson too but what a "stroke" of luck to find Rudy until it wasn't. Regardless, there were probably zillions of boys trying to run that same game out there.

FWIW, the guy who introduced my friends to Garretson was a flamboyant, erratic, wealthy gay man. So, since I ask everyone, do you think Billy hid outside at Cielo or what's your take on it?

Carlos said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Carlos said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GreenWhite said...

Hi, Carlos. They met him unexpectedly in a bar and didn’t ask about the case. I forget if they’d been there awhile or Bill had but one or the other was in no state for serious discussion. This was during the whole three eyed baby time too. I think Bill was already ruined in everyone’s eyes. Rosie is also somewhere nearby too from what I hear. I wonder if her story is still the same.

Carlos said...

GreenWhite said...

Thanks for the insight into Garretson from the people you know who have met him. If they actually discussed the case with him, I’m sure plenty of us here would be interested in anything you feel appropriate to share.

So, since I ask everyone, do you think Billy hid outside at Cielo or what's your take on it?

I have personally decided the following are the most likely scenarios, most likely to least likely:

1) His story as told to the police and the polygraph examiner and as testified to under oath at trial

2) After noticing the turned door handle and the dogs barking like there was someone at the door, he ventured out as the attack was concluding enough to determine something was going on, but he decided the best thing to do was go back inside and ignore it

3) He heard and saw nothing during the actual attack, but ventured out the next morning, perhaps when he discovered the phone was out, saw at least some of what had happened, freaked / froze and then went back to the guest house not sure what to do

4) He walked Steve to his car, heard the gunshots - perhaps even seeing the shooting - got himself out of sight, and effectively witnessed the whole attack

For scenarios 2, 3 and 4, when the cops finally showed up obviously thinking he did it, he decided the best course of action was to simply claim he heard and saw nothing. Each involves lying to the cops, satisfying a polygraph examiner and commiting perjury at trial, but to vastly different degrees. Each also involves convincing VB.

I really can’t believe his later story with the three eyed baby.

But this is just me.

grimtraveller said...

GreenWhite said...

was that you who wrote about talking to Garretson several times on the phone?

That was a guy called Max Frost. Generally well regarded when it comes to this case, even if not agreed with in all respects.

GreenWhite said...

Ah, right. Thank you.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hello to Carlos and GreenWhite, and welcome to the blog!

katie8753 said...

Hello, hello, hello everyone!!

katie8753 said...

If Garretson was gay, why did he have girls come over? And if Parent was gay, why did he comment on the 2 good looking chicks in the main house?

GreenWhite said...

Hi, Katie. Maybe Garretson considered himself a hustler back then and not gay. I dunno. Or bi. Maybe that's why he left Lancaster, Ohio. I can't see that town being cool with anything other than getting married at 18 and starting a family back in those days. What are your thoughts on the Patty Montgomery as a visitor to the guest house the night before story? I know it's been discussed on this blog in the past but I always find myself wondering if/why Billy was spared.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

GreenWhite said:
"Hi, Starship. I'm in Ohio near Garretson's hometown. I know people interested in this case who met him but I never did. The impression they got was more or less dumb hick/good old boy/country bumpkin. There are many carbon copies of that type of dude around there btw. Amiable, dopey smile, not a ton going on upstairs. Easily angered. Working labor jobs. Cans of cheap beer. Etc."

This made me laugh. I have a friend from Ohio, and this description is pretty accurate. This guy would slosh-around in untied construction boots (coupled with blue jeans of course) everywhere he went... even formal events.

One day, I attended a summer barbecue. It was literally 100 degrees outside. I was curious to see if "Mike" would actually show-up wearing those untied construction boots (and jeans) on such a scorching-hot day... and moreover, there were beautiful girls at the party.

Would "Mike" actually "dress-up" (a litle bit) in summer attire? Khaki shorts? Flip flops?

Well... (LOL)... Mike parked his 4-door Jeep, and strolled-in wearing "cutoffs". For those not familiar with that local terminology, "cutoffs" are blue jeans that are cut at the thigh (with scissors) to create shorts... and yes, he was STILL sporting untied construction boots. I was thinking... "Is this guy serious"? LOL

But his most distinguishing quality, was that he was the cheapest bastard that I've ever met in my entire life. This guy wouldn't spend $2 to save his own life... (and it's not that he didn't have money. He had a pretty good job as a delivery driver for UPS). I've seen some pretty "tight" people before, but this guy brought "cheap" to a whole new level. Again, it was so blatant, that it actually made it a bit embarrassing to be associated with him, at times.

He also had OCD. This guy's truck, apartment, and possessions, were immaculate. This guy wouldn't let you touch ANY of his stuff (or enter his apartment) for fear that you might dirty or break something. If he bought something, it would literally last forever. All of his possessions were at least 10 years old (usually older), and still in good shape. I honestly think this quality was just a strange spin-off of being so cheap. He figured, if he could make his possessions last forever, he'd never have to "re-buy" them.

He was blessed in that, despite being a very peculiar dude, he was a handsome man. He was predominantly Dutch (in background), and he did some long-term dating, but he never married. Bottom line: He was handsome enough to "get" women, but no woman could ever LIVE with him... or vice-versa. He was just too peculiar. I'm sure he did all of his dating "out on the town" or at "her house" (because no one was ever welcome at his place)... and I'm sure his girlfriends probably paid for just about everything they did together.

But...
He did have some good qualities. He was honest, reliable, clean to a fault, and hard-working... and at times, he could be pretty damn funny.

To meet him, you'd think you were back in 1975. The same outfit, mannerisms, tastes in music, and haircut.

Ohio breeds some peculiar people.

grimtraveller said...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Ohio breeds some peculiar people

Some would say, not least Charlie himself !

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

And if Parent was gay, why did he comment on the 2 good looking chicks in the main house?

Perhaps he was trying to throw Garretson off the scent.

It makes one wonder how long Steve spent looking at Abigail and Sharon in order to determine their pulchritude and, if they were in separate rooms as they would be by the time Atkins got into the house and went to check who was there, why he'd be flitting from window to window to check them out.
That's rather creepy in itself.

katie8753 said...

Hi Green! I wrote a thread years ago about Krenwinkel being Patty Montgomery. It's just a theory though, I can't prove it. But I've always thought it was very strange that Bill was spared, especially by Krenwinkel. In an interview (I think with Diane Sawyer) she explained that when she got to the guest house, she realized that she was doing something horrific and "this madness has to stop". I'm not buying that. She was more than happy to run Gibby down, tackle her and stab her. No hesitation there. And she was more than happy to stab Rosemary and help mutilate Leno the very next night. No hesitation there.

So, I think it just might be possible that Pat already knew Bill, because she was Patty Montgomery.

katie8753 said...

Grim I can't remember if Parent saw Sharon & Gibby that night, or if he was talking about seeing them the first time he was there.

If he's talking about the night of the killings, I would think that since he arrived at the house around 11:45 and the murders took place around 12:15, that Sharon & Gibby were already in their rooms. He could easily have seen Gibby from the lower path to the guest house because she was reading with the light on and there weren't curtains on those windows. But if Sharon was in her room he couldn't have seen her except to go look in by the patio door by the pool, which would be very creepy.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

I talked about my theory on Brians radio show that the two girls Parent saw were actually Susan and Pat or Linda or any combo of two out of those and they were quietly casing the place beforehand getting an idea of the layout and how many people were there, from creepy crawly missions in the past they obviously werent scared of doing things like that and it only makes sense before they actually go in to do whatever they planned to do to know what they were dealing with, the likelihood of it being Abigail and Sharon is pretty low because in my opinion they would already have been in their bedrooms when Steve arrived

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Plus why wouldnt Steve make mention of Jay and Voytek if they were up and milling around?

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Sunset said:
"A long barreled pistol is unwieldy to carry and use. It takes a special long holster, my relative had one, but I didn't. When Watson shot Steve Parent, he almost certainly stuck that long barrel through the open drivers window, the muzzle of the pistol would have been inside the car when he fired it. If the other windows on the car were rolled up, that would have deadened the sound significantly".

Excellent point.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Grim said:
"The point made about the proximity of the gun to Parent and some of the sound being soaked up by the internals of the car {with seats etc} is actually a really good point."

I agree.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I said:
"Ohio breeds some peculiar people".

Grim responded:
"Some would say, not least Charlie himself !"

Good point! LOL

katie8753 said...

Susan how could Parent have seen Pat, Susan or Linda around the main house on his way to the guest house? They didn't get on the grounds until Parent was leaving the property.

Parent could easily have seen Gibby reading in her room. The windows to Gibby's room were on the front of the house and there were no curtains on the windows so it would be easy to see her reading in bed. Like I said, if Sharon was in her room, he wouldn't have been able to see in her room unless he was to the left of the house by the pool area.

I don't know why he wouldn't mention Jay or Voytek, except that he was just pointing out that 2 gorgeous women were in the house.

katie8753 said...

Those were good points about the sound of the gun. Especially since the gun evidently didn't make a really loud noise.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hello SAG:

I have no problem with you personally, and I have no problem with you blogging here.

But please... stick to the topic of TLB, and keep things civil.

I spent an entire evening discussing baseball with you on Brian's website, so I know you're capable of normal conversation.

In fact, your intelligence and knowledge in several areas, really makes me wonder if your outrageous online behavior is just an act... or "fictitious persona".

Point being:
I know you're capable of normal intelligent conversation.

The fact is, Katie and I both HATE moderating comments.
It's a royal pain in the ass.

I'm sure you don't want to be "moderated"... and honestly, Katie and I, really don't want to do the "moderating". (We actually fight over who will be stuck with the unsavory task).

So please... do us all a favor, and just keep things cool.

6+ years ago, this was a pretty "lively" place, with arguments raging-on until 3am almost nightly. Needless to say, that crap doesn't interest me in the least these days.

Please let a "word to the wise" be sufficient, and hopefully, we can all be friends.

In return, I'll ask my bloggers to give you a fair chance at participating here, without harassing you over past problems.

Peace...

PS: It would probably be easier for people to take you seriously, if you took a different "Handle". You screen name just screams "troll". But, I'll leave that decision up to you. Just a polite suggestion...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Everyone,

Give SAG a fair chance at participating here, without unduly goading him.
Let the past, be past.

I really don't need any drama, and neither does Katie.

Keeping the "comment moderation" tool turned-on constantly is not only a pain in the ass, but it decreases the posts and participation here by 50%.

Let's face it, people don't like to wait 4-6 hours to see their comment posted on the blog.

When people see "comment moderation" on a blog, many times, they just "move-on" and don't bother participating, because that type of blogging is just not fun.
People like to blog in "real time".

So, when the "comment moderation tool" is turned-on, the whole blog loses.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

I can't remember if Parent saw Sharon & Gibby that night, or if he was talking about seeing them the first time he was there

He definitely saw them that night.
Garretson was asked how come he hadn't seen Abigail & Sharon when he came back from buying his dinner ~ he says he knew they were in because their cars were there. He replied that he just walked along the path and didn't make a habit of looking in their window. He also said that if he did look in that direction, he might see them in the front room through the window but it would be hard to say.
To be fair, it was Garretson who says that he commented to Parent that the women were good looking.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea

my theory: the two girls Parent saw were actually Susan and Pat or Linda or any combo of two out of those and they were quietly casing the place beforehand getting an idea of the layout and how many people were there

Well, given that you're determined to make this a Tex and Linda led drug murder in the absence of any evidence other than a poorly thought out lie that failed woefully during the penalty phase that all the perpetrators have subsequently rubbished, it's no more fanciful than any other.

There are a number of problems with it other than the main one of it simply not being true. Firstly, not one of the 4 perps spotted Parent or heard his car ? Secondly, one assumes that after Steven saw them, Tex then went and got the car and drove up Cielo and shinnied up the pole then cut the wires. I say this because we know Parent made a phone call before the phones went dead. Thirdly, it means Parent was among the last to die. At what point would he have died ? If he left at the time Garretson said, surely he would have run into the killers.
Oh, hang on, he did.

it only makes sense before they actually go in to do whatever they planned to do to know what they were dealing with

Unless of course, they happened to be with someone that already knew the layout who, once they were in the house, could direct them where to go to check for people.
Oh hang on, they were.

the likelihood of it being Abigail and Sharon is pretty low because in my opinion they would already have been in their bedrooms when Steve arrived

Garretson said that from the route you'd take if you were going to the guesthouse, the window you'd see people through would be the front room. Which would mean that Tex must have been with them. He wouldn't need to case the joint having been there 5 or 6 times. And why would Steve have only seen 2 of the women and not 3 ? Or not seen Linda hanging around ?
I think this theory is a planet in search of a sun.

grimtraveller said...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I know you're capable of normal intelligent conversation

I agree. Capability however, is only the first step on the journey.

katie8753 said...

Everyone,

Give SAG a fair chance at participating here, without unduly goading him.
Let the past, be past.


Grim you're being a little too sarcastic. Shall we call it "goading"? Let's all get along and discuss the case as Lynyrd requested, shall we?

To be fair, it was Garretson who says that he commented to Parent that the women were good looking.

Well I'm not going to research this, but I remember something about Garretson saying that Parent commented on the women in the house being "hot" or something along those lines.

Carlos said...

katie8753 said...

I can't remember if Parent saw Sharon & Gibby that night, or if he was talking about seeing them the first time he was there

grim said...

He definitely saw them that night.

I’ve occasionally wondered if there isn’t a more mundane explanation. And somewhat less creepy one, too.

One consistent fact I’ve always seen regarding Garretson’s previous encounter with Parent was that about 3 or 4 weeks before the murders, Garretson was hitchhiking back to the property and Parent gave him a ride. No mention I know of of Parent venturing any significant distance into the estate, and VB’s book even mentions dropping Garretson of at the gate. Just another of many rides Garretson took. If one accepts that, then on the evening of the 8th, Parent is confronted, in the dark, with a large estate for the first time, and he simply wants to find Garretson. Would one expect him to know about the walkway to the guest house or even the precise location of the guest house? My take is no, not likely. What if he did the obvious and banged on the first door he saw on the first structure he saw in order to ask? Remember, it’s already firmly established that Parent was willing to show up unannounced at 11:45 at night and bang on one door; I imagine he’d have no problem banging on two.

Yes, this is pure conjecture. But I would argue that while exploring possible scenarios, it’s ok to consider the boring, mundane, everyday sort of scenarios.

katie8753 said...

Carlos, that's an EXCELLENT theory!!! It's so refreshing to hear some new theories that just might be right!!!

Parent did pick up Garretson previously to give him a ride home. He dropped him off at the gate. He probably saw Garretson push the button and get in. If Parent did the same, he would drive in and park behind the cars already parked there. He could very well have possibly knocked on the main house door and ask for Garretson. He would be directed to the guest house.

The problem with this case is that we have NO evidence from the victims. Anything that happened that night can only be corroborated by the killers or the survivors. And since we can't believe the killers, and the only survivor seemed to be shell-shocked, we just have to surmise what happened.

Excellent point Carlos!!! That could very well be true!!

grimtraveller said...

Carlos said...

Remember, it’s already firmly established that Parent was willing to show up unannounced at 11:45 at night and bang on one door; I imagine he’d have no problem banging on two

I wonder whether, if this was the case, he wouldn't have mentioned it to Garretson. Also, because Garretson had extended an invite to drop in anytime, he would surely have said exactly where he lived.

Yes, this is pure conjecture. But I would argue that while exploring possible scenarios, it’s ok to consider the boring, mundane, everyday sort of scenarios

Totally agree with that.

katie8753 said...

Grim you're being a little too sarcastic. Shall we call it "goading"?

Davie's a big lad. He understands banter and humour.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

And since we can't believe the killers, and the only survivor seemed to be shell-shocked, we just have to surmise what happened

I don't go with this at all. If you disregard everything Atkins and Kasabian said and take away anything Garretson said, then basically all you're left with is.....nothing. You basically have 2 fingerprints, neither of which are proof of murder. All they prove is that the bearers of those prints were there, one at some point after Tuesday lunchtime, the other at some point after early Friday evening. The First Tate Police report is numerous on theories and pages.......but none of it comes remotely close to any of the killers. It took Atkins' framework to do that. And when you think about it, in terms of the murder of 5 people, what's not to believe ? Don't you believe Tex cut the phone lines ? Don't you believe he shot Steve or that he was the first to die ? Or that when it came to Sharon, Pat was a loud voice in saying "kill her" or Tex having a major direct hand in the death of every one of the victims ? And so on and so forth. We know all this from the killers and a lot more besides. And let's not even get to the next night.....
And while Garretson was shellshocked, he corroborated certain facts. For example, he offered to the police info about the clock radio, the time Parent arrived, the call he made as well as finding the line dead later. He wasn't even asked any of this. These things helped to corroborate Atkins' tale when it first came to Police attention. So they knew it wasn't bullshit.
Much of the stuff that we pour over is pretty small potatoes and flat beer when it really comes down to it. Even the point I made earlier about Steve looking at the women was an aside. It doesn't really add or subtract anything substantial. It doesn't tell me anything because there's no way of knowing if he did it.
Yes, loads of evidence came together that ultimately formed a strong enough case to convict the perps but if Atkins and Kasabian had kept their mouths closed, we wouldn't have a clue about anything that actually happened at 10050 Cielo Drive. All we'd really have is what the Police already knew by the end of that week.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Grim,

You're a smart guy, and your points are definitely capable of standing on their own legs. There's no need to buttress your points with snarky remarks. Allow the facts and substance contained within your posts, to speak for themselves.

Your participation here is always appreciated, but please, tone it down a little bit. At the end of the day, this is just a hobby. There's no need to cross-examine every word posted by each blogger.

Bear in mind, the folks participating on these blogs come from all different experience levels (in regards to TLB)... from novice to expert. It's okay, for someone to be a novice. It's our job to teach people, and hopefully, keep them coming back. When people come back, they continue to learn. We were ALL novices, at one time. View yourself as a "gentle teacher" and the blog will grow, and knowledge will spread.

In regards to "SAG" specifically... please, give him a fair chance. Then if he fails, it will be on his shoulders (only).

I really don't want to be placed in the role of "referee", and I'm pretty much done with the "comment moderation" nonsense.

I know that "SAG" has said some very inappropriate things to you (in the past), but I'm asking you to be the "bigger person". After all, You and I represent the blog.

I'm fully aware that "SAG" may fail and resort to his previous behavior... but if he does, let that failure be on his own accord.

I know you to be a reasonable man, so I'm hoping that what I've said, will resonate with you.

Carlos said...

I said...

Remember, it’s already firmly established that Parent was willing to show up unannounced at 11:45 at night and bang on one door; I imagine he’d have no problem banging on two

grim said...

I wonder whether, if this was the case, he wouldn't have mentioned it to Garretson. Also, because Garretson had extended an invite to drop in anytime, he would surely have said exactly where he lived.

Perhaps for the same reasons he didn’t specifically say he casually looked through a window or went full peeping tom or anything else: How he saw them wasn’t as important as the fact he did see them, and his focus was on getting Garretson to tell him about these two ladies.

I’ve always interpreted the statement to drop by anytime as either a polite non sequiter while thanking Steven for the ride or simply all he needed to say to extend the invitation. Steven obviously knew where the property was; that’s most of the way there. And even if Garretson had specifically said he lived in the guest house, that is still entirely consistent with Steven showing up in the dark and realizing he needs to find the guest house, so why not ask.

katie8753 said...

Well Grim, if you consider the testimony of Atkins, Kasabian & Garretson, you're really left with nothing anyway. And this includes Tex!

We know Jay, Sharon, Gibby & Voytek went to El Coyote for supper. We know that because witnesses at the restaurant verify this. We don't know if they all went in one car. There's no way 4 people would fit in Jay's Porsche. A 1969 Camaro and a 1969 Firebird are the same thing. They really didn't have back seats. If Sharon had pushed her seat back, someone would have been uncomfortable. So I'm assuming they took 2 cars. We'll never know.

We assume they went to supper at around 8:30 or 9:00. We assume they got back around 10:00 or 10:30. We can only guess what they did then.

We THINK that around 12:15 Sharon & Jay were in her bedroom talking, Gibby was reading in her bed and Voytek was asleep on the couch. All of this info is supplied by the killers. We don't know any of that for a fact.

Tex is a liar.

Susan is a liar.

Linda is a liar.

So let's go on to the facts of the case. We know that Voytek was found on the grounds, stabbed and shot to death.

We know that Gibby was found on the grounds, stabbed to death.

We know that Sharon was found in the house by the couch, stabbed to death.

We know that Jay was found in the house by the chair, shot & stabbed to death.

These are the facts. All of the rig-a-marole told by the killers in-between supper and death is spoon-fed to us by the killers. Known liars.

So I take all that with a grain of salt.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I've just been informed that, evidently, SAG and Grim have been trading barbs for days, over at Mansonblog.

Well... be that as it may... that's not my affair.

I'm done with the comment moderation.
It's a pain in the ass, and it's bad for the blog.

Hopefully, we can rise above such nonsense, and all get along.

If not, I'll just have to delete inappropriate comments on-sight, as my time permits.

Hopefully, it won't come to that...

Carlos said...

grim said...

Yes, loads of evidence came together that ultimately formed a strong enough case to convict the perps but if Atkins and Kasabian had kept their mouths closed, we wouldn't have a clue about anything that actually happened at 10050 Cielo Drive. All we'd really have is what the Police already knew by the end of that week.

You could very well be dead-on on this one, sir.

On the other hand, the Family was in some very real ways fracturing by the fall of ‘69. Many people knew what happened, and plenty of them were clearly realizing that Manson was no longer the character who had first enticed them. And in the case of people like Watkins and Poston, they were sharing things with outsiders like Crocket. Furthermore, the links back to Hinman’s murder wouldn’t stay unnoticed forever, and Bobby was already in custody for that one; that could easily have led to the Family. To paraphrase the Grateful Dead, there was too much, too fast.

The only truly interesting bit to me is whether or not a different path to the Family, and to Tex, Susan, Pat, Linda and Leslie in particular, would have resulted in a Manson conviction. That’s a puzzler I can argue both ways. Overall, since the only valid defense these five had was being under Manson’s dominance, I can see a similar legal conclusion being reached, though perhaps without much of the drama. Or not.

katie8753 said...

Well I'm going to bed. Y'all have a nice night! Play fair now!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Grim,

My apologies.
I didn't realize you and SAG were having problems on another website.

I'm not privy to the specific details of the situation, so if I said anything inaccurate, forgive me.

I can only base my opinions, on what I see here.

Up until now, SAG hasn't referred to you at all (on my website), since his return.

As I said, I can only react to what happens here, specifically.

SAG may very well deserve a verbal thrashing from you, but since it didn't start here, I have no details, and really can't get involved until/unless the problem materializes here, as well. I'm hoping, it doesn't. Probably wishful thinking on my part... but, I'm an optimist. LOL

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Katie its because I don't believe it happened the way its been laid out, i know that's going to raise some eyebrows but i dont think Steve was killed until he saw part of the killings from the bushes, got up when he realized what he was witnessing was a murder or arned robbery and got up and ran, he was caught by either Linda or one of the girls temporarily, possibly slashed in the hand and made it to his car, when he got there he got in, backed up, hit the fence, got the car turned around and was caught by Tex who shot him while he was in his car, then the attention was turned back to the house

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

No problem man ill do that and i really like discussing baseball with you

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Read my reply above to Katie about most of your questions, i dont feel like posting them again

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

The answer on the last part is who said Tex was in the house at that point? I said 2 girls were in there and IT COULD BE ANY COMBINATION of Susan, Pat or Linda and he would need to case the house because even though he MAY HAVE known the layout he didnt know who or how many people were there which wasvthe reason he would have sent them in

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Katie thats assuming that the gate was set to automatic open instead of locked when Parent was there on both visits, remember the gate could be locked which needed a key to open

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Katie you win post of the year, this is EXACTLY what my position on this case has been, the tale of both nights of murder have come ftom THE KILLERS who have reason to lie, obfuscate or in some cases just forgot or blocked out, even the timeline is a rough estimate, almost everyone has gone back and forth on specific times, sequences, etc, Weber and his wife have said 1am, maybe 1 am, close to 1 am, 1:30, etc, Jarrold Freidman has changed his story on the Parent phone call as has Garretson, at first he did make the call then years later he didnt, etc

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

It won't happen here, at least from me thats a promise

katie8753 said...

Thanks Susan. I'm seriously bushed from working this week. I'm heading to bed.

I will say one thing. That gate did need a key to open it, but according to the police report, Sharon & Roman weren't using the key to open the gate because it was too much trouble. It was set on auto. Mrs. Chapman said she just pushed the button to open the gate. I'm assuming Garretson just pushed the button too. And Parent saw that and realized he could push the button too.

I will get with you in the morning and we'll discuss!!!

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Like i said it wont happen here, ill be the first to admit hes a bit hypocritical in that he wants civil discourse but he is very sarcastic but like i said you wont have any trouble from me

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Yes Katie I agree on the night of Aug 8th but im not sure of other nights

Carlos said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

... i dont think Steve was killed until he saw part of the killings from the bushes, got up when he realized what he was witnessing was a murder or arned robbery and got up and ran, he was caught by either Linda or one of the girls temporarily, possibly slashed in the hand and made it to his car, when he got there he got in, backed up, hit the fence, got the car turned around and was caught by Tex who shot him while he was in his car ...

A few things spring to mind. One, the physical evidence strongly supports the knive wound also cutting the watch band, and the watch was found inside the vehicle. Two, the autopsy report describes the knive wound going “as deep as the bone and the tendons.” A wound like that is going to bleed, and yet we have no report of blood evidence supporting Parent bleeding outside the vehicle as proposed. Three, if Parent made it to his car and got moving, and he knew he had people out to kill him, I highly doubt he would stop. Think about it, your proposal would likely require Tex to keep pace with a moving car and shoot successfully; that’s a stretch. I believe Tex got the advantage over Parent because Parent had stopped to press the gate button and was trapped. Four, if the killers took time out to deal with Parent, especially Tex who was the big, intimidating dude with the gun, why did no one in the house successfully make an escape? Five, one of the aspects of the case that has been told consistently for 49 years by the killers is that the encountered Parent on the way in. What possible rationale is there for all of them to lie about this aspect?

Carlos said...

I’ll add a sixth one. If Parent had the presence of mind to make a run for it as proposed and get driving, would he not also have the presence of mind to be laying on his horn trying to get some help? Yet we have no reports to that effect.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

1) the watch could have been thrown into the car after Tex rolled it back up the drive from the gate 2) there were multiple mistakes made by Granado and his people collecting blood and typing it, there is a picture of a splatter of some type of fluid that looks similar to the way blood would splatter in the garage near Sharons rented Camaro, not saying for sure its blood but its a good possibility 3) Steve or any other normal human being would definitely stop if confronted by a man with a gun telling him to stop or he'll shoot, its human nature, a conditioned response, as far as the car moving how fast could it have been moving in that driveway at night 4) people did make a run for it we just dont know for sure when and where, my position is that it happened sooner than the official story says 5) the rationale for all of them to lie and go along with the script is they are trying to get parole and changing stories not only look bad it practically sinks your chances automatically going against the official DAs story

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Well all i can do is offer what I WOULD DO and i consider myself to be an average normal thinking person and in that situation laying on the horn is not something i would do, id be more preoccupied steeringband then dealing with Tex trying to reason with him not to shoot me

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

A changing story to a parolw board is basically begging for a "we need to look into this further so we're giving you a 5 year denial"

Carlos said...

1) That would require the killers to even realize they’d managed to slice off a watch in the dark and in the fury, and it would require them in the heat of the rampage to decide there was some valid reason to pick it up and put it in the car.

2) That garage photo clearly looks like oil to me, which is exactly what I’d expect to find in a garage. Mistakes were certainly made with blood they found, but there is no compelling evidence they failed to find blood consistent with Parent getting a serious knive wound outside.

3) If I’ve already been stabbed, and I make it to my car and get moving, I’m running over people who tell me to stop. That old Rambler could move quicker than one might think. If Parent got going at all, he could easily get and stay ahead of anyone running.

4) Evidence of happening sooner is?

5) Assuming there was a script from the start, why would this proposal need to be part of it? What advantage does it provide to anyone? Furthermore, Linda has no such parole worries and never did. What’s her motivation? Finally, a big part of Scramblehead’s parole success was to break with the script about Shorty being beheaded and cut into nine pieces.

6) I completely agree it comes down to what each person would. I personally would be making as much noise as I could.

Carlos said...

6 again) In the interest of being fully objective, I’ll note that it is certainly possible that no one heard any such horn noise or simply didn’t think it was worth reporting when interviewed about seeing or hearing anything. My point was, and is, that this proposal has lots of potential hurdles that must be addressed.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

1) how hard is it to picture Linda or whoever sliced Steves hand realizing they cut the arm band to the watch and going back to where it was and throwing it back in or a cop the next morning putting it there, remember i dont know whether it was in the homicide report or another account that the watch was missed the first time cops searched the car 2) i said it COULD BE blood in the garage just like it COULD BE oil, neither one of us know for sure 3) Thats what YOU would do not what EVERYBODY would do in that situation 4) Evidence of it happening later is? 5) im not going to explain to you how parole boards operate, im just telling you they look at changing stories as deceptive, ask any attorney who has experience in the area, the reason Grogan changed his story is he had ACTUAL PHYSICAL PROOF of where Sheas remains were, as for Linda she knew her best interests lied in keeping to the story she told, she then added her little tidbit of rifling through Parents wallet with Bugliosi sitting right next to her on Larry King, you honestly believe they didnt rehearse that little epidode?

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

So does the "official story" in my opinion, so many things just dont add up

Carlos said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

So does the "official story" in my opinion, so many things just dont add up

The official story has faced its hurdles at multiple trials and all possible appeals. I’m not saying I like every aspect of it; if I did, I wouldn’t be here. But like it or not, it sets a certain bar that must be overcome in order to claim an alternative.

I’ll leave it at that.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Problem is its not a very high bar, "go to Terrys and kill everyone in the house to start Helter Skelter" just doesnt fly

katie8753 said...

That's an interesting theory Susan, but it only changes the order of the victims getting killed. It doesn't explain motive at all that I can see. It only helps to explain why Parent evidently backed into the fence. That's something that people have been discussing for years now.

As far as Linda throwing the watch back in the car, why would she bother to do that? The place was a bloody massacre and she's going to bother with a watch? Why would she care if the cops thought parent was in or out of his car at the time of his attack? I don't think any other personal objects were thrown around the other bodies to leave a false clue. The only false clue really was the pair of glasses left near the trunks.

I personally think that Parent just backed into the fence perhaps because he wasn't a good driver???

Do you think that Parent being killed during the other murders somehow explains motive?

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Hows it going Katie? No, motive is something i have another theory on, ill go into it in another post, putting the watch back in the car i think wasnt really much of a conscious thing, more of a conditioned thing or automatic behavoir to basically "cleaning up a mess" for lack of a better term, ive also thought about whether Steve just backed into the fence by accident but that parking area is so big once it opens up past the narrow area where the gate button is that hed have no trouble at all completely turning the car around even in the dark

grimtraveller said...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I didn't realize you and SAG were having problems on another website

I don't and never have regarded our discourse as problematic. Back on May 2nd of this year in the "Predictions" post, I actually stated "I was never offended by SAG." On a particular post elsewhere where he had 114 of his comments removed, I stated for the record that I didn't agree with it.
We tend to go in hard on one another, like footballers from the 70s. I get his humour and I make no bones about it, I am sarcastic at times.
But never with people that haven't demonstrated either an appetite for it or are prepared to use strong arm tactics against what are only opinions that others happen to hold.
Odd as it may sound, I've defended him all over the place. I've said continually, he raises interesting talking points, which any public forum needs.

katie8753 said...

I've always thought it was very strange that Bill was spared, especially by Krenwinkel

I don't. We assume that Pat could have gotten into his house, but he says he locked it. We also assume that Pat knew there was someone there. Or that she wouldn't have been put off by barking dogs. It's also an assumption that having gone to the guest house on her own, armed with just a knife, she'd be confident with whatever she found there. Male or female. But Tex had incapacitated all the males he'd met with a gun. There was no problem doing away with Parent and Sebring. But the gun stopped working which was why he'd been hitting Frykowski with it. Perhaps Pat didn't know this by that point but going round to somewhere she'd never been to with just a knife and not knowing what she might meet and possibly just wanting to get out of there, I'm not at all surprised she didn't pursue it further. Equally unsurprising is that we did not learn about this until years and years later when it no longer mattered.
Earlier, Carlos made the point that we shouldn't discount some of the things we do simply because they're everyday and mundane and I apply that to Pat and Bill. For them to have known each other must mean that they established and built their relationship between March & August of '69 which must mean Garretson was no stranger to Spahn or Pat made frequent sorties to Cielo.....or they met on neutral ground. Most of the things we talk about in this case that we may not know for sure at least have their basis in something real world, which is based on a reading of some kind of evidence.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

If we take Garretsons original claim that he was in the guesthouse witb the music and lights on and that Pat did check it then common sense woukd say that Pat would have been apprehensive entering considering she had only a buck knife and there could be a man or any number of people inside, in ny opinion it was just self preservation kicking in

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

if you consider the testimony of Atkins, Kasabian & Garretson, you're really left with nothing anyway

How so ? Are you saying Manson was wrongly convicted, given that Kasabian's testimony was dynamite where he was concerned ?

And this includes Tex!

Tex's trial testimony is horseshit. By his own admission, most of it's lies. But if a liar says they've told lies, do you believe them ?

We know Jay, Sharon, Gibby & Voytek went to El Coyote for supper. We know that because witnesses at the restaurant verify this. We don't know if they all went in one car

Sure, but none of this has anything to do with the killers and what they've had to say.

We assume they got back around 10:00 or 10:30

It isn't an assumption because Abigail's Mum phoned her and spoke to her around 10:00.

We THINK that around 12:15 Sharon & Jay were in her bedroom talking, Gibby was reading in her bed and Voytek was asleep on the couch. All of this info is supplied by the killers. We don't know any of that for a fact

Technically, this is true. We don't know any of that for a fact. However, to take the line that because it was supplied by the killers is an odd one to take unless there is something in what any of the killers said that actually benefits them. Rather than take the view that
Tex is a liar. Susan is a liar. Linda is a liar, I'd rather contextualize whatever lies they've been known to tell. For example, Susan told Nancy Jordon, Ronnie Howard and Virginia Graham that she'd stabbed Sharon Tate. When it came to private conversations with her lawyers, she said she hadn't and that in fact Tex had. She maintained this throughout her life except in one instance, the penalty phase ~ and we all know about that. She has on a number of occasions said why she said she'd stabbed Sharon. I ask myself this; does it make her any better, any less a heartless murderer if she didn't stab Sharon but did say those awful words to her that she did ? It doesn't really. Saying "I didn't actually stab her" doesn't actually let her off the hook because she was as much responsible for what happened to Sharon ~ even if California never had the laws it did. I mean, let's face it, many people hold Charles Manson just as responsible for the Cielo deaths and yet other than Nicholas Shreck, no one seriously argues that he was physically part of the murders.
So Atkins gains no sympathy or cred for not being the one to wield the knife. There's nothing I can see, if one takes everything in the round, that scores her any points for not directly stabbing Sharon. The knife evidence even points to her telling the truth.
With all that in mind, I believe her on that one.

These are the facts. All of the rig-a-marole told by the killers in-between supper and death is spoon-fed to us by the killers. Known liars

My problem with all of that is simply this ¬> without whatever the killers have said {and you need to specify which bits of which killers words you're talking about} all you are left with are the facts. To put it another way, without them, what proof do you have that Atkins and Kasabian were even at Cielo ? What proof is there that Watson was even at Waverley ?

So I take all that with a grain of salt

I take all of what everyone says with a pinch of salt because there's often the possibility of a contradiction from someone else. But that doesn't mean the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater without at least a thorough examination.

grimtraveller said...

Carlos said...

On the other hand, the Family was in some very real ways fracturing by the fall of ‘69

I agree with that. I'd say that that fracturing went a long way towards sinking the ship in the end. Bobby Beausoleil actually observed that when he talked about the whole thing balancing on "whether the Family stays together in their heads and doesn't break up and start testifying against itself", which I've long thought to be one of those statements that one tends to forget in the pantheon of statements made throughout this saga, yet, when examined really closely is chock full of meaning, both at the time it was made and subsequently.

The only truly interesting bit to me is whether or not a different path to the Family, and to Tex, Susan, Pat, Linda and Leslie in particular, would have resulted in a Manson conviction

If you haven't already come across it, a book I'd recommend is "In a summer swelter" by Simon Davis, an Australian lawyer. He puts his case together really well and perhaps the centrepiece of his argument is that Helter Skelter wasn't necessary to convict Manson. He's pretty savage on three of the four lawyers on the defence team and what he has to say is fascinating. Lots of good food for thought.
It's noteworthy that by October '69, a good month before people like Al Springer and Danny Decarlo had spoken to the Police and before Bugliosi was on the case, the sands of time were running out for Charlie from 3 directions. But I'd be interested to hear how a case could be made against that lot that did not involve words from the killers at some level.

GreenWhite said...

Thanks for the positive recommendation on In A Summer Swelter. I'd stayed away from it because of the reviews. I just grabbed the Kindle and will give it a read over the weekend.

grimtraveller said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

this is EXACTLY what my position on this case has been, the tale of both nights of murder have come ftom THE KILLERS who have reason to lie, obfuscate or in some cases just forgot or blocked out....the rationale for all of them to lie and go along with the script is they are trying to get parole and changing stories not only look bad it practically sinks your chances automatically going against the official DAs story

People have said that for years and the assumption behind this is that they are lying, but keeping to the "official script" to earn brownie points for parole.
The facts do not bear this out.
Steve Grogan changed his story. He was as far away from the official narrative as it's possible to be. Although it's said that he could prove it, it points the way to there being holes in the official story. With the Shea case, there were big ones.
Pat, from her first parole hearing, said she didn't carve WAR on Leno. Tex has admitted he did it. But the official story is that she did it. But for 40 years she's said she didn't. If your theory was correct, she'd just say she did it. Atkins would have just said "yeah, I stabbed Sharon and I'm remorseful." She didn't. She kept to the story that she didn't, in contravention of the court record. Pat also openly contradicts Leslie's assertion that she was told to wipe prints at Waverley. It's important because it shows Pat acting knowingly to avoid detection. If she wanted to keep on the right side of a parole board, as a liar that knew she hadn't told Leslie to, she'd just admit it. "Yeah, I told her." She's already serving time for something infinitely worse than telling someone to wipe prints. What's she got to lose ? But she doesn't. They're just a few examples.
According to the evidence, I'm curious as to what it is felt they lied about. That there were lies regarding what happened on the premises once they had landed more than implies that either worse stuff went down {and we know there isn't any} or, as Katie pointed out, the order of the killings was different. As we don't know exactly the point that the people in the house actually died, no one has ever been able to ascertain who died when and before whom so that doesn't really alter anything.

even the timeline is a rough estimate

The first time I ever entered a discussion on a log regarding TLB, it was on the subject of the timeline. Personally, I've always thought the timeline is largely irrelevant unless someone was seriously making the case that they didn't happen at the time much of the evidence, when put together, indicates things happened. Bugliosi is really the author of the exact timeline which isn't surprising ~ neat bundles are much better for a lawyer.
The Tate detectives pointed out other sounds that couldn't have been heard in proximity to the murders and it's tempting to say that at the time they made these observations, they didn't have the full facts ~ but they did have a ballpark time ~ they had Garretson and Mrs Kott.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

The first part of your answer kind of proves my theory although my point was to the greater point of who killed who not who carved what or wiped down prints but Pat, Susan and Leslie changing statements is a part of why they were never granted parole in my opinion

Carlos said...

grimtraveller said...

If you haven't already come across it, a book I'd recommend is "In a summer swelter" by Simon Davis, an Australian lawyer. He puts his case together really well and perhaps the centrepiece of his argument is that Helter Skelter wasn't necessary to convict Manson. He's pretty savage on three of the four lawyers on the defence team and what he has to say is fascinating. Lots of good food for thought.

Yes, I grabbed this when the Kindle edition came out, and I have enjoyed its perspective on things.

grimtraveller said...


I've heard the argument many a time that it is believed that Linda did do some of the actual killing and/or stabbing so obviously, it would make sense that she'd lie if she could, regarding her actual participation. What wouldn't make sense is that right from the start she was identified as the one that didn't kill anyone. What would make even less sense than that is that no one would, subsequent to them all denouncing Manson, come out and say she killed if she had done so.
No one has.
Both Bruce and Clem came out many years later and pointed out Tex's involvement in the Shea murder. To the extent that in some parole hearings, Watson has been called a crime partner in that case ~ even though he has never even been charged with that crime.
So there is precedent.
The closest one comes to that is Pat saying to Jeff Guinn that she was as willing as anyone else that night but everyone acknowledges that she ran away and they didn't find their lookout until they got back to the car, which tends to deflate Pat's assertion.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Well all i can do is offer what I WOULD DO and i consider myself to be an average normal thinking person

Later on however, you say to Carlos, when he offers what he would do in a particular situation facing Steve, "Thats what YOU would do not what EVERYBODY would do in that situation." Why would his reaction to an extreme stress situation be any lesser than yours and why would yours be any closer to the average normal thinking person than yours ?
And that's not goading or baiting. It's a question I'd ask anyone because I'm interested in the answer.
Regardless of what we like to tell ourselves, we don't really know how we'd respond in particular situations even if we've faced them before so I'm inclined to accept that the way any person reacts in any given situation is the way they happen to have reacted in that situation at that time. It may seem illogical, it may seem cowardly, it may seem confused, it may seem stupid but we're human beings, not squares whose angles ever fixed.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

And again Grogan changed his story because he knew where Shortys remains were and im sure his attorney told him there would be a deal in it for him

Carlos said...

grim said...

The Tate detectives pointed out other sounds that couldn't have been heard in proximity to the murders and it's tempting to say that at the time they made these observations, they didn't have the full facts ~ but they did have a ballpark time ~ they had Garretson and Mrs Kott.

Not to mention Tim Ireland, whose 12:40 timepoint sandwiched nicely with Garretson’s 11:45 to 12:15 timeline.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

I dont think Linda physically paticipated in anyones murder, i do believe she was in the house probably at the beginning and probably gave Atkins her knife when Susan lost hers in the chair and needed another one to get Voytek off her back, if her "job" was to be a lookout why have her come all the way up to the house, in my opinion thats when she bolted out the door and ran to the car and the reason Tex was so pissed at her, as to Carlos statement i should have explained myself more clearly, i was acknowledging what he would do and then just telling him that its not what everyone or even most people would do but his reaction is no less or more valid than mine or anyone elses

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Grim i think in a 1978 parole hearing of Atkins she slipped up and said Linda was in the house at one point but left

Carlos said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

And again Grogan changed his story because he knew where Shortys remains were and im sure his attorney told him there would be a deal in it for him

We’ve gone down this whole parole path becase of a premise about following a script. I still don’t see any basis for believing there was ever an actual script that included pointless lies concerning the murder of Steven Parent. I’ll stress again: If there was, why would Linda chose to stick to it? Remember, part of the immunity deal involved being completely truthful. She was facing the death penalty if things didn’t work out right, and she had clearly turned her back on the Family.

You’ve been arguing the incarcerated ones can’t admit to lying now because of parole issues. What’s a compelling basis for claiming they lied in the first place about Steven’s murder?

grimtraveller said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

The first part of your answer kind of proves my theory although my point was to the greater point of who killed who not who carved what or wiped down prints but Pat, Susan and Leslie changing statements is a part of why they were never granted parole in my opinion

I know what your point was but what I said doesn't really prove it. If you and those who make the same point know that a clean bill of health was important for a parole date, don't you think that both their lawyers and them would know that too ?
I think there is a heck of a lot more to why Pat in particular has never got close to parole than what in the end are relatively minor changes in her story.

ive also thought about whether Steve just backed into the fence by accident but that parking area is so big once it opens up past the narrow area where the gate button is that hed have no trouble at all completely turning the car around even in the dark

That's true, but as a young guy of 18 that was feeling buzzed on a couple of beers with part of his mind on where he was going to, it's not inconceivable that in the dark, he'd end up backing into a fence.
One of my bugbears is the way people park. Most people I observe regularly do exactly the same thing all the time, every time, even when they don't have to. I've had so many conversations down the years about how people could make life easier for themselves by doing the simple thing as I see it. And that's the key, as I see it. As someone that has been driving since I was 14 and spent 20 years driving for a living, I'd naturally see it differently to many other people. But those people park or come out of parking the way they do. It suits them, they're comfy with it, regardless of what anyone else might think. Steven Parent may well have been the same, especially being a young driver so hitting the fence doesn't automatically point to anything nefarious, even though nefarious things were very quickly to happen.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Youre missing the point, it isnt ONLY Parents murder i think theyre lying about, its the whole episode of which the Parent murder is but one piece

katie8753 said...

For what it's worth, some people surmise that when Parent was getting into his car getting ready to leave, he might have seen a man or others climbing over the fence and it disturbed him so he floored it to back up and hit the fence. That makes sense, considering when he put it in drive and got close to the gate, that's when Tex supposedly confronted him.

Just puttin' that in! LOL.

grimtraveller said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

i think in a 1978 parole hearing of Atkins she slipped up and said Linda was in the house at one point but left

I'll defer to you on that one as I've not looked through the '78 one yet, but she certainly said that in her book which came out the year before.
The problem with Susan, as we all know, is that her credibility on anything is pretty much zero. I used to say that we utilize a Susan statement to support our theories at our peril ~ and that's regardless of which side of the fence one happens to be on. Copycat, drug burn, helter skelter, vengeance on & message to Melcher, she smacks us all up ! It's amusing that she was doing it right to the end. But not everything she said was untrue; it's just a matter of how much sifting one wants to do.

if her "job" was to be a lookout why have her come all the way up to the house

So she'd be closer to the house instead of having to run from distance. At one point she was told to go and wait by the cars.
What I find interesting about Susan's interview with her lawyers is that she goes out of her way to say that Linda wasn't in the house, emphasizing that she was supposed to be outside but ran away and they couldn't find her and actually went looking for her. And in the Grand Jury, the episode that Susan said to her dying day was where she told the truth {!}, she's asked specifically on 2 occasions if Linda was in the house or who was in the house. She never puts Linda there and a big part of the story of their exit from Cielo is Linda not being around.
Leslie, in her private interview with her lawyer, specified that the way the story came to her was that "Tex and Sadie and Katie were on the inside, and Linda was supposed to be on the outside." And a month previously, when Bugliosi had only been on the case 5 days and a few weeks before she was even charged, Leslie told Mike McGann that Linda was one girl who didn't kill anyone. Kasabian naturally claims she was never in the house and later, Tex said she was never in the house. Considering she was implicated by everyone else in various activities, I'd say the weight of what we have available suggests she wasn't ever in the house. Granted, all the evidence is from the killers, but without some direction from the killers, the prosecution was always going to be left with a case that had little real bite.

katie8753 said...

Grim I think Susan Atkins was just a big liar. She was a blowhard who tried to get attention. That's why she blabbed in jail. She was looking for attention and trying to get respect out of fear.

She said that Gibby smiled and waved at her to say "hi" when she poked her head in Gibby's room. We have no idea if that's true, although so many of these shows that come on TV make a point of that.

Then she turned religious and suddenly started telling the truth? Give me a break!

Tex turned religious and I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth!

katie8753 said...

Maybe Pat did think when she got to the Guest House that she was unsure of who was inside and what weapons they had. Not a fair fight!

But she was willing to chase down Abigail Folger who was completely defenseless with glee. And she was happy to push around Sharon Tate, who was 8 months pregnant.

Talk about an UNFAIR FIGHT! What a cowardly PUNK!!!

Carlos said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Youre missing the point, it isnt ONLY Parents murder i think theyre lying about, its the whole episode of which the Parent murder is but one piece

I understand that; I’m simply asking for evidence, at least evidence that reasonably suggests an alternative sequence of events is more probable than tthe sequence established at trial.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Hey Grim since we're on the night of Cielo who do you think stabbed Sharon in the back 8 times? I dont hear this talked about much but ive only seen the first part of Naguchis report where he only talks about the 3 fatal wounds to her chest which were obviously delivered by Tex but he said hed list the rest of the stab wounds in part 2 but i havent been able to find it anywhere

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Where is the physical evidence that it happened like the original story? Im not saying theres physical evidence to back my theory but i see none that bucks the official story either

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

The only physical evidence we have is two bodies stabbed, beaten and shot on the lawn, two bodies stabbed, shot and beaten in the house with rope around their necks, one body found outside in a car shot 4 times and slashed with a knife, phone lines cut, blood on the porch, bloody footprints on the walkway, blood drops in the living room and hallway, pool of blood where Sharon is, writing in blood on the front door, a dazed 19 year old boy on the premesis when the body is discovered, HOW THEY GOT THAT WAY is the question

Carlos said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Where is the physical evidence that it happened like the original story?

I didn’t restrict things to physical evidence; I asked for any evidence at all.

The standard narrative of events is supported at a minimum by physical evidence like blood stains, a fingerprint or two, the slit window screen, the nature of the wounds, the murder gun - including the broken handles, the cut wires, and the bloody clothes.

The timeline for the standard narrative of events is supported by Garretson’s testimony and Ireland’s testimony in particular, as well as the Webers and the Kotts.

The standard narrative is also supported by the various statements made by the killers over the last half century. It is certainly true that there have been some discrepancies over the years, but on the whole it has all worked very nicely to corroborate the sequence of events. And I’m only talking sequence of events here, not motive.

To me it all comes down to what is most probable.

And if you claim there is a fundamentally different sequence of events, perhaps you should propose the whole thing.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Nobody is arguing that the victims were killed by Watson, Krenwinkel and Atkins, whst size the stab wounds were, what blood stains or fingerprints were found where, i believe all of those points of evidence, my position is that the crime didnt happen the way it was laid out in court, as i said my position is the killers LIE,,they've been caught in lies and for me its a fruit of the poison tree situation, all we kniw from the Kotts is what time their party let out and APPROXIMATELY what time they went to bed and APPROXIMATELY when they hears what they believe were gunshots, all we know from Garretson OFFICIALLY is that Parent visited him at APPROXIMATELY 11:45 and left at APPROXIMATELY 12:15, all we know from Rudy Weber is Tex and the girls used the hose at APPROXIMATELY 1am

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

My position is like Manson so famously said, "you got the right people its the motive you got wrong"

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Pat infuriates me more than ANYONE in this case, she is tge one woman in the entire world id literally punch in the jaw, her bullshit act in those parole hearings acting like shes forgotten everything and her crocodile tears annoy the living shit out of me, just the sight of her ugly dyke looking ass in that chair mskes me want to chuck a rock through the screen

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

She said that Gibby smiled and waved at her to say "hi" when she poked her head in Gibby's room. We have no idea if that's true

No, we don't. But for me, I weigh up all the available facts and from there, proceed. Doesn't mean I'm right, but I look at whether or not something is feasible.
Abigail had quite a bit of MDA in her system. Her Mum said when she spoke to her around 10pm, she sounded lucid, but a little high. Atkins told her lawyers that she could tell by their faces that the Cielo crowd were people that "turned on." She was able to spot a druggie when she saw one. I put that alongside stuff I used to do; I nearly always could tell the people that used to get stoned because I was part of that set. And I still can, much of the time, though I've left that world behind. Even when I'm watching people on TV. And I know that back in the day people could tell that about me. Sometimes, it used to really irritate me ! Also, given the era of letting it all hang out and friends dropping in and whatnot, it certainly wouldn't surprise me if what Atkins said was true. Abigail seems to have been someone with an open and social heart. She was also described by Polanski's business manager as almost always stoned when he saw her. So Atkins saying she saw Abigail who looked up and smiled {and it's partly the way Atkins describes her as lowering her glasses, something so many people do when they wear them, that has a ring of truth about it} isn't something I'm going to fight her on. It may not be true. But it could be. I can't dismiss it just because it comes from Atkins who is often unreliable.

Then she turned religious and suddenly started telling the truth? Give me a break!

If only it were that simple. There are still loads of contradictions after her conversion. Some of the ones in "The Myth of Helter Skelter" are embarrassing, some of the stuff that comes out in some of her parole hearings is highly questionable and her first autobiography is all over the place.

Carlos said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

... my position is that the crime didnt happen the way it was laid out in court ...

Then please tell us how you think it did happen, start to finish, all the way through.

... APPROXIMATELY ...

Approximately is all we’ve ever needed for the standard timeline of events. I suspect it’s all we will ever need.

... Manson so famously said ... motive wrong ...

It’s interesting that you have dismissed the accepted sequence of events on the basis that the Family members who were there have lied, but you then rely on trusting Manson who arguably has the worst record of the whole bunch regarding trustworthiness.

Carlos said...

katie8753 said...

She said that Gibby smiled and waved at her to say "hi" when she poked her head in Gibby's room. We have no idea if that's true

grim said...

... that has a ring of truth about it ...

That’s an outstanding way to characterize and summarize things for this matter.

As I have mentioned before, I always start looking at all things TLB from a boring, everyday perspective whenever possible, because up until the last moments of their lives, each of the victims was simply enjoying a regular day. They didn’t expect anything like what happened; who would have? So, given how open and friendly the vibe was at the property, I can easily see Abigail’s most obvious reaction being to simply say, “hi.”

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Yet Manson is the only one who all the way down the line maintained his innocence

beauders said...

Looks like some of Bret's collection is up on ebay, or there are another collector of Manson material in Iceland. I miss Bret. These are copies of press photo's.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Im going to outline my version of the events either tonight or tomorrow but before that let me ask you something, does it make any type of rational sense (especially for a lifetime con like Manson) that as the story lays out Manson is infuriated at Melcher for his perceived going back on his word to record him (which is a point for another post) but hes pissed so instead of going to Terry himself and settling business m, he sends for people 2 or 3 years removed from high school to Terrys FORMER RESIDENCE knowing full well he didnt live there anymore and tell them to butcher the NEW RESIDENTS who he doesnt know "as gruesome as possible"? If im that angry at someone im either going to beat them to death myself or im getting someone to do it while i watch ftom a distance to see their fear and horror, how is Terry even supposed to know it was Manson who ordered the killings anyway? Did he tell Terry afterwards? Did he go to the police and confess? Of course not, now im sure your answer will be something along the lines of "no sense makes sense" but sorry, that not how life works

katie8753 said...

Pat makes me sick too. She needs to rot in prison!!! She tries to play the "lame card" at parole hearings that she was completely oblivious to what was going on. She's a FUCKING LIAR! She was a willing participant in murder.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Beauders. I miss Bret too!

Carlos said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Im going to outline my version of the events either tonight or tomorrow but before that let me ask you something, does it make any type of rational sense ...

“You can’t ascribe reason to crazy people.”. Harold True

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Lol right on cue, what did i say above? Theres doing irrational things and theres doing things that are so out of norms of human behavoir that theyre fkn space alien behavoir, getting drunk and taking off your clothes and running around outside is irrational, ordering the killings of 7 people youve never met to "get back at the establishment" doesn't happen....wouldnt happen, it only happens in fiction whuch is what Bugliosi was peddling

grimtraveller said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

since we're on the night of Cielo who do you think stabbed Sharon in the back 8 times?

The person that said he did and who was said by one of the other killers to have done so. Stabbing Sharon to death is one of the few things Tex has remained constant about. It's noteworthy that first time around, he came clean about it, not because he was being truthful and remorseful, but because of the fingerprint and Manson, Krenwinkel, Atkins and Van Houten all having pleaded not guilty then gotten the death penalty. So he decided to try and play the insanity card. The point of that was to come clean, admit the killings but nothing else and play the deluded zombie.

Where is the physical evidence that it happened like the original story? Im not saying theres physical evidence to back my theory but i see none that bucks the official story either

That's the point I was making to Katie and the one that I've made to a number of people that take the line that because they lied in various places, whatever they say that might appear to put them in a better light must be a lie.
Physical evidence on its own doesn't do much. A fingerprint on a door only tells us that the bearer was there, not what they did. So in a situation where a whole load of things happened and no one that witnessed it {other than the killers} is alive to report on what did happen, then you are beholden to their version. Now, on occasion, some physical findings might catch the killers out. And at that point, one is justified in saying, they're holding something back. A good example of that is the blood that was found to belong to either Sharon or Jay being found in large quantities in a place that none of the killers have ever stated either of them being. It's a mystery for sure. But all I can note about the physical evidence is that it doesn't disprove that Tex shot Parent, Sebring and Frykowski and went at them with a knife, it doesn't disprove he stabbed the women, it doesn't disprove that Pat stabbed Abigail, it doesn't disprove Susan stabbed Frykowski ~ indeed, there, a case can be made that Atkins may have struck at least one fatal blow to Frykowski. The interesting thing there is that she doesn't know where she stabbed him other than the legs. So she may not actually have known if she stabbed his back, which is where one of the fatal blows was. That wouldn't mean she didn't or that she was lying if she said she didn't.
The evidence can not really determine the sequence, only the result.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

I heard he was pretty young and died of an OD, if so thats sad, ive read his biographies of people in the case and was amazed at how much info he had, very impressive

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Lol i agree Katie, too bad were not on the parole board, it would be so satisfying saying "Denied...see ya in 5 years"

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Ive never heard him confess to the wounds in the back only the fatal chest wounds, where have you seen him confess to those?

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Fingerprints of people who had abdolutely no reason to be there that have been narrowed down to a close proximity to the killings like Winifred was able to do are very credible in my opinion

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Also add to that the fact that theyre fingerprints of associates of a woman whos been blabbing to cellmates about being involved in the murders

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Wow Grim you just touched on something ive been saying for awhile now and that is i think theres evidence if you look at Feykowskis autopsy report that Atkins delivered at least one of his fatal wounds to his back, the blade is listed as either a 3/4 inch or 1 inch long wound on a couple of his fatal back wounds which are consistent size wise with a buck knife

grimtraveller said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

right on cue, what did i say above?

Unfortunately, you can't ignore it or simply toss it aside because for you it's beyond irrational. There are all kinds of bizarre things that happen in this world ~ and there always have been. Jim Jones trod a road that defies belief and took hundreds of people with him. There are people that engage in sex with babies because they believe it will cure them of AIDS. We could go into humongous detail about the things people believe or the reasons people have killed as a result of the things they believe. Although you do frequently say that what Manson is purported to have believed that ultimately led to murder is nonsense and no one would kill over such rubbish, the reality remains ~ you are not Charles Manson.

her bullshit act in those parole hearings acting like shes forgotten everything and her crocodile tears annoy the living shit out of me

Pat was an incoherent acid head and a woman lost enough to be seemingly eternally grateful to a man that gave her what she thought was self esteem when she felt her own parents hadn't. A heady cocktail. I think her tears are genuine ~ not for the victims but for the mess she's made of her life. And I think there are things she genuinely does not recall, partly because Pat did rather than thought, partly because she's older now, and partly because deep self reflection wasn't the order of the day in the Family.

like Manson so famously said, "you got the right people its the motive you got wrong"

Charles Manson could not and would not dare admit that he was beaten by the Man. To admit to any of the prosecution's 3 motives would be to say that he was once again beaten by society's guardians. Can't have that. He spent the rest of his life from before his conviction saying that he was denied the opportunity to represent himself when a good look at the record shows this is simply not true. But he still kept on saying it. He lied in court, stating that if the cops hadn't arrested Bobby for something he hadn't done.....when he absolutely knew Bobby had killed Hinman. He gave all kinds of interviews and speeches to the media, crying about how he was being done by the media, while at the same time believing that he had killed Lotsapoppa.....
However you slice and dice Charlie, he remained duplicitous.
For me it is telling that three of his most formidable supporters, Nicholas Shreck, AC Fisher Aldag and George Stimson, people that he spent years with, people that had his ear, all came out with different motives for the murders. Charlie turned out to be as changeable as Susan and Bobby ~ and that's a real eye opener. I can understand him being pissed with society. With that in mind, why should he have played what he saw as society's game by society's rules that include remorse, taking responsibility and being hopeful of parole and jumping through hoops to get it ? People say he remained true to himself. He did ~ by being slippery.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Lol hes admitted Bugs won in a few interviews and has admitted he had a superior intellect and more education and knowledge than him, you dont want to believe in his innocence of what he was charged with thats your business, my opinion is that he was

Carlos said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Lol hes admitted Bugs won in a few interviews and has admitted he had a superior intellect and more education and knowledge than him,

What relevance is there to any of this?

VB obviously won at trial - and his convictions survived all appeals - so what is there to “admit?” Nothing. Manson was an elementary school dropout, so pretty everybody has more education than him, but again, so what?

you dont want to believe in his innocence of what he was charged with thats your business, my opinion is that he was

My long time, and continuing, interest in TLB has nothing to do with what I want to believe, because I don’t want to believe in anything. I want understanding, and I want it based on facts and evidence that I can analyze and challenge and reason about and from which I can draw logical inferences and conclusions. I go wherever logic takes me; when logic takes me to multiple possibilities, I rely heavily on common sense to help me rank my choices probabalistically.

I respect everyone’s individual opinions, but I’m always going to consider them and react to them as I just described.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

I was responding to Grims claim that Manson could never admit Vince beat him

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

And i ask again where are the facts and evidence that the crimes happened the way they were laid out in court? Just because the story was bought by 12 people on a jury who came back with a guilty verdict doesnt make the story true or factual, my COMMON SENSE and LOGIC tells me the crime didnt happen the way it was told in court and the motives were very different than what was given as well

katie8753 said...

What do you think the motive was Susan?

Carlos said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

... my COMMON SENSE and LOGIC tells me the crime didnt happen the way it was told in court ...

When are you going to tell us exactly how it did happen?

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

I think the motive was two fold, 1) the MDA I believe Harrigan delivered to Frykowski a couple of days before the murders along with the drugs Rostau admitted to delivering the night of the murders and 2) to get money to get Bobby, Sandy and Mary out of jail, by summer of 69 in my opinion things had gotten pretty hot and desperate at the ranch, Charlie had exhausted all money donors like Wilson and Melcher who i think cut ties with him over the Crowe shooting and the Deasy incident at the ranch and Charlie pressured Tex to do something to help out and re pay his favor of handling the Crowe situation for him, this DOESNT MEAN Charlie ordered him to kill anyone i think he told Tex to get some money whatever way he could but font tell him how, just do it, i think Tex and Linda knew about the drugs that would be there and that was their reason for going there

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Common sense tells me that theres no need for rope or cutting phone lines if the objective is a premeditated murder

katie8753 said...

Well if they wanted drugs, did they take any? Supposedly Sebring had drugs in his car and they didn't take that. They only got $72. That's not much money. And why did they kill everybody?

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Of course they got what they came for, they weren't worried about the small personal amount in Jays car or in the bedrooms on nightstands, Tex killed everyone because he got freaked about OR had something personal with them, he stabbed up close and personal multiple times

Carlos said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Common sense tells me that theres no need for rope or cutting phone lines if the objective is a premeditated murder

Disabling the phone has been an established crime technique since the invention of the phone. The motivation is simple: to eliminate the obvious manner in which anyone on the premises can seek help if things go sideways. As a true crime buff, I couldn’t count the number of cases I’ve read about in which the phone lines have been cut, even in cases where there was only a single person in the house. It obviously doesn’t happen in every crime, but it obviously happens and not just for premeditated murder. If there is a common theme, it’s in cases where the criminals had concern about multiple people in the house, kind of like was usually the case at Cielo Drive.

Home invasion robberies - for drugs or money or whatever - have occurred since forever, and bringing rope to these is certainly not unprecedented. It’s generally about maintaining control until the crime is commited and to prevent the victims from calling the cops or coming after the criminals until the criminals are long gone.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

What purpose is there to cut phone lines is everybody is going to be killed?

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Dont just say "its just common criminal practice"

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

And yes I agree on the rope, thats what i meant in my previous comment, the rope was brought to tie everyone while they searched for the stash of drugs

Carlos said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

What purpose is there to cut phone lines is everybody is going to be killed?

I’ve already answered that question. If you disagree with the answer, that’s certainly your right, and I will absolutely respect it. But the question has been answered.

Dont just say "its just common criminal practice"

Please don’t ask me a question and then tell me what my answer can’t be. It tells me you’re not interested in an objective, open-minded discussion. And that makes me wonder why anyone would even bother.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

You didnt answer my question as to what logic there is in cutting phone lines if everyone in the house is going to be killed? Who would be left to call police?

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Seems to me thats alot of effort AND risk climbing a power pole to cut lines that you dont know are phone lines or electric lines for something that doesnt even need to be done anyway if the victims are going to be dead

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Unless Tex was using his buddy Eugene Massaros MO which was "injuring phone lines" before robberies and rip offs

Carlos said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

You didnt answer my question as to what logic there is in cutting phone lines if everyone in the house is going to be killed? Who would be left to call police?

Actually, I did.

Assume the intent was mass murder. Well, the occupants of the property aren’t going to be dead instantly just because Tex and the girls will it to be so. There might very well be large numbers of people, panic, fighting back and confusion, just like is actually believed to have happened. Cutting the phone lines ensures that regardless of any of those outcomes, none of the victims can make a call for help and put the criminals at unnecessary risk.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Nah sorry, doesnt hold water with me, like i said if your intention is to round up everyone in the house and tie them up and kill them climbing 20 feet up a power pole to cut lines you dont know are phone lines or power lines is a bit much

Carlos said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Nah sorry, doesnt hold water with me, like i said if your intention is to round up everyone in the house and tie them up and kill them

You gotta successfully find them all first and successfully get them all tied up first.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

They did the first but the second not so much but even if the lines hadnt been cut being that 911 service wasnt available in 69 i doubt anyone would have had time to pick up the phone and wait for the operator

katie8753 said...

Susan why didn't Tex cut the phone lines at Labianca? What was the motive there?

Carlos said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

They did the first but the second not so much but even if the lines hadnt been cut being that 911 service wasnt available in 69 i doubt anyone would have had time to pick up the phone and wait for the operator

Dialing 0 for operator is actually quicker than dialing 911, especially on a rotary phone. And I remember the days of operators, including southern california in 1970. Not too much waiting. And if the choice was that or dying, I’d take the chance.

We’ll never know if any of the victims had the time to pick up the phone and try, because Tex was bright enough to cut the wires on his way in.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Yes he was and the reason was because it was a planned robbery that went horribly wrong not a planned murder

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

No idea other than possibly it would have been easier to spot him doing it since im just assuming the pole at Waverly was on the street and more chance of him being seen

Carlos said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Yes he was and the reason was because it was a planned robbery that went horribly wrong

Then we disagree, and that's OK, and that’s the end of that. Going on in circles is pointless.

My not being able to convince you doesnt’t make me wrong any more than your not being able to convince me makes you wrong, unless something is cleary contradicted by undisputable facts.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Agreed, no problem

katie8753 said...

But Susan, why didn't Tex cut the phone lines at LaBianca? And what was the motive there?

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Look above Katie, under your first question

grimtraveller said...

SAG said...

Ive never heard him confess to the wounds in the back only the fatal chest wounds, where have you seen him confess to those?

Well, I don't just rely on direct confessions or specifics of where, when and how someone was killed, unless it is important to the point or event. Tex simply tells us "I looked at Sadie. But she just sat there holding Sharon, so I reached out and made the first cut across her cheek. Later, Prosecutor Bugliosi {because of some things Susan-Sadie bragged about in jail in one of her attempts to get attention} was convinced that it was she who killed Sharon Tate, but his suspicion was not true. It was my hand that struck out, over and over, until the cries of 'Mother . . . mother . . .' stopped."
On top of that, Atkins says two very interesting things. Describing Sharon's death, she says to her lawyers " I said...'Tex, I can’t kill her, I’ve got her arms, You do it.' And Katie couldn’t kill her. So Tex stabbed her in the heart and he told us to get out. We, Katie and I, went running outside looking for Linda because we didn’t see her and yelling for her but we didn’t want to yell too loud. When Tex came out..." and a few days later she said to the Grand Jury "I just blanked my mind and walked into the house and picked up the same towel that I had tied Frykowski up with and walked over to Sharon Tate's body and she seemed to have been cut up a lot more than when I had last seen her."
Given that during his trial this exchange had taken place;
Q: Now, just for the record, did you kill all seven of these people?

A: Yes.

Q: So you also killed Sharon Tate, then; is that correct, the female Caucasian depicted in people's 87?

A: As far as I know, yes.


then I think it's fair to posit that Tex administered all the wounds to Sharon. "Over and over" seems to me to depict more than just the chest area. This is corroborated by what Atkins said about Sharon appearing more cut up and Tex's form that night shows he went back to each of the victims in the house and dealt extra blows while they were already incapacitated, so why not Sharon too ? It's certainly circumstantial but that kind of evidence often forms the bulwark of a case. Tex has never tried to fight it.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Yeah ive heard that statement from Susan too, didnt Pat make a similar statement about the bodies being more cut up too? My only problem with the back wounds is that theyre all clustered on the left upper back/mid back, if it was the same knife Tex used to leave the chest wounds, 1 1/2 to 1 3/4 inches long and 4 inches deep then id assume at least a couple of those would be listed as fatal as well unless Tex grabbed a buck knife from one of the girls for his little last hurrah

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

But your theory makes sense definitely

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Katie the motives for Labianca is probably the thing about this case that puzzles me the most, Leno and Rosemarys lives were pretty turbulent leading up to the murders, break ins, Lenos money problems, Rosemarys conflicts with Suzan over Dorgan, Frank jrs troubled friends, etc, i still havent figured out what to think about it, obviously 3301 Waverly was not random so why was it picked?

grimtraveller said...

SAG said...

Fingerprints of people who had absolutely no reason to be there that have been narrowed down to a close proximity to the killings like Winifred was able to do are very credible in my opinion

I completely agree, but with caveats.
For example, who is to say the killers had no reason to be there ? Using your argument of the Harrigan or Frykowski or even Rostau connection, Tex could easily have had reason to be there. A canny lawyer could have spun Tex out of that jam, if none of the perps were talking. It's the perps spilling the beans that makes that print lethal to him.

Also add to that the fact that theyre fingerprints of associates of a woman whos been blabbing to cellmates about being involved in the murders

Which is the crux of my point about evidence, what it points to and in this specific example, the fingerprints. It's the perps, specifically Atkins {and later Kasabian}, that give shape and a reason as to why the prints of Watson and Krenwinkel are relevant in a way that every other print collected is not. Without Atkins initially saying "Tex did this, Tex did that..." what's to stop Tex saying he called on Wojiciech that evening ?

hes admitted Bugs won in a few interviews and has admitted he had a superior intellect and more education and knowledge than him

I wasn't talking about Bugliosi. When I said "Charles Manson could not and would not dare admit that he was beaten by the Man" I was referring to the establishment or authority in general and not admitting defeat by kowtowing to the prosecution case and saying it was right. If he admitted Bugliosi got it right, he'd be guaranteeing himself major ridicule in prison which was where he envisaged being for most of his life, not to mention admitting he was guilty of murder.

you dont want to believe in his innocence of what he was charged with thats your business, my opinion is that he was

It is that belief of yours that makes some of what you have to say interesting in the first place. I completely disagree with it as you know and I have reasons for doing so. I have listened to Charlie and those that hold him to be innocent, extensively and I've not been convinced that he stands up against the weight of evidence against him from so many different directions.
But you're wrong when you say I don't want to believe in his innocence. It's not a matter of 'want' it's a matter of assessing what is before me. I'm on record a number of times {I've even done a post on it on this site} as saying that I felt for him and much of what he passed through in his life and that there were people in his past that bear a measure of responsibility for how he turned out.
But he shimmys away from any admission of guilt in any of the murders he was convicted of. Even the ones where he admits he was part of them. So his track record on TLB, when one looks at Crowe, Hinman and Shea doesn't bode well for him if takes the same stance.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

That last part is pretty interesting because the funny thing is that im sympathetic to Charlies cause for different reasons, outside of his pre teen incarcerations i think he deserved to be locked up for the things he was doing, were a society of laws and as Charlie has stated many times "if you break the law you put yourself in jail", his behavoir and treatment of others was abhorrent especially after his last incarceration, most of the treatment he recieved that he complained about was to be expected considering his verbal abuse, ive said before ive known people and im sure you have as well who had childhoods worse than Mansons who took a more positive road, my sympathy for his cause lies with the fact that i feel he was railroaded by an opportunistic political climbing DA and people higher than him like Younger and possibly Reagan who pressured the office to nail him any way they could and if they could scapegoat him they could do it to anybody but im definitely not a Manson apologist

katie8753 said...

Susan said:

Katie the motives for Labianca is probably the thing about this case that puzzles me the most, Leno and Rosemarys lives were pretty turbulent leading up to the murders, break ins, Lenos money problems, Rosemarys conflicts with Suzan over Dorgan, Frank jrs troubled friends, etc, i still havent figured out what to think about it, obviously 3301 Waverly was not random so why was it picked?

Agreed!!!

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Even if their murders were completely random the sheer number of problems and conflicts are pretty amazing considering they were murdered, just the law of averages would tell you the motive has to be one of them

grimtraveller said...

SAG said...

And i ask again where are the facts and evidence that the crimes happened the way they were laid out in court?

And I'll state again that the facts and evidence don't tell us that story.
I'm not afraid to consider the words of a liar because even a liar doesn't lie all the time.
The issue isn't really questioning whether or not the facts and evidence show us if the crime happened this way or that, rather, with the evidence at hand, does it support anything the killers have said ? Tex said he shot Frykowski twice. Not one of the killers even remembers him shooting Frykowski. But he had two bullet wounds. We can speculate that maybe one of the women shot Frykowski. After all, the evidence does not prove none of the women shot him. But if none of them say they even remember the shooting and Tex said he did it then the evidence and his account match up. I'm well aware that they could all be lying and that it is possible that Tex didn't do it. But that can never be known unless one of the others 'fesses up and then, how do you argue they're telling the truth ? Because the same facts will apply. You're then getting into a whole other ball game of trying to work out why someone should cop to a shooting they didn't do. But ultimately, it would all be academic because under California law, each member of the conspiracy was guilty whether they squeezed the trigger or not.

Just because the story was bought by 12 people on a jury who came back with a guilty verdict doesnt make the story true or factual

Naturally. And you could say that about tons of verdicts, crimes and explanations of what happened.
That's why there is independent verification, evidence, corroboration, questioning on both sides etc. It's not a perfect system by any means and things can go wrong, juries can be biased, lawyers can be smart and people can lie. But the vice is also versa. And it is important to remember that the prosecution majored on the circumstantial evidence in presenting their case. Something Bugliosi said which was so important was that "we went over it ad nauseam, that from circumstantial evidence of one fact we infer the existence of another fact." In other words pieces of evidence pointed to other pieces of evidence in establishing certain facts.

my COMMON SENSE and LOGIC tells me the crime didnt happen the way it was told in court

IYour common sense and logic is your common sense and logic. It refuses to take into account anyone else's mode of being. There are many places in which I agree with you about the motives and reactions of what may even be the majority of people. No problem with that. But there isn't only one way of being.
The case, from the start of Manson's known involvement, lent itself to multiple motives. There was a time not so long ago when I could see that the copycat could well have played a part in these crimes. I was certainly prepared to take that on board. Then I began to really examine it. And its flaws then came to the surface. That's been the case with every alternative theory I've come across. I'm agreed that HS sounds daft, to the extremes. But so does the philosophy of ISIS, the Peoples' Temple and Heaven's Gate and tons of people died as a result of their teachings.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Out of curiosity what did you think of Myth of Helter Skelter? I think it laid out a pretty believable set of events backing the copycat motive, problem is its Atkins saying it so its hard to tell what to believe but the way she lays it out makes sense and ive never been a big believer in the copycat motive because of how ridiculous a concept it would be

katie8753 said...

I was reading in the paper today there's a new bio on Bruce Lee coming out. The article mentions that Bruce was good friends with Jay Sebring. It also says that Roman suspected Bruce Lee of being the killer. I had never heard that one. Bruce Lee wouldn't need a gun or knife to kill people. Plus he was good friends with Jay & Sharon. I wonder how Roman came up with that one.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Thats weird, the claim was from Bruce? I heard he gave Sharon and Roman lessons when they lived at Summit Ridge or Trail, can never remember which but Patty Dukes place, makes me wonder if maybe Bruce got into an argument or conflict with Roman or Sharon otherwise why would he think hed be involved in the murders? Do you have a link to the article?

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Just checked it out, seems during the time Roman was investigating the murders checking out friends cars for blood, bugging peoples phones, etc, Bruce told him or someone he knew that he had lost a pair of eyeglasses and Roman became suspicious because of the hlasses found at the scene, on another note Bruce said that Roman flew him in to Gstaad, Switzerland for lessons while he was working on a movie and that most of the time was spent hobnobbing with rich friends of Romans all men in their 50s and he said there were always 14 and 15 year old girls hanging around, i think Bruce died in 72 or 73 so this shows that Roman was probably into his activity with underage girls long before his 1977 episode

Carlos said...

http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/bruce-lee-gems-gleaned-from-new-biography

“But when Lee mentioned to Polanski that he lost his glasses — the director knew that an unidentified pair of horn-rims were found at the house — Polanski grew suspicious and took the actor to buy a new pair. But when Lee’s prescription didn’t match that of the evidence at the scene, Polanski thankfully relented.”

katie8753 said...

Thanks guys. I never heard anything about Bruce Lee saying he lost his glasses. The article I read today was in our local newspaper. It said some strange things about Bruce I'd never heard. It says that when he was introduced to someone he would always say "hit me as hard as you can." It says he never learned to ride a bike and he was terrified of water, he won a Cha Cha contest when he was a teenager, he loved Jerry Lewis, he was a terrible driver, Steve McQueen introduced him to Marijuana, and he had his sweat glands removed from his armpits because he thought it made him look bad.

The author says he died in his mistresses' bed, probably from a heat stroke, which could have been a result of his removing his sweat glands.

Bruce did give Sharon martial arts lessons for a movie she was in with Dean Martin. Too bad she didn't "Kung Fu" Tex right between the legs! HA HA.

Yeah Roman has probably been the same pedo scumbag since he was very young.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

I think the official story was that Bruce died from some type of legal drug interaction, i cant remember exactly which ones, i think it was Chuck Norris i read the story from, theres been alot of talk about him being murdered, i think he died in Hong Kong

grimtraveller said...

GreenWhite said...

Thanks for the positive recommendation on In A Summer Swelter. I'd stayed away from it because of the reviews

It's certainly got some mixed reviews and some really condemnatory ones. But I liked the book immensely and thought it did a really good job in concentrating on the legal aspects of the case. It's an easy read too.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Out of curiosity what did you think of Myth of Helter Skelter? I think it laid out a pretty believable set of events backing the copycat motive, problem is its Atkins saying it so its hard to tell what to believe

Overall, I like the book but the more I read it, the larger the holes become in it. Firstly, quite a bit of the time, it's not written like it's Susan writing it, it's written like it's been done by someone who is struggling to remember what Susan has told them.
Secondly, there are "facts" contained within that are simply not facts at all. I often get twitchy when someone who purports to have insider knowledge relays facts that we know are not. But it's damn near unforgivable when the person claims they were there ! For example, she claims Tex's belladonna episode happened at the start of the week the Crowe shooting happened when we know that it was months earlier. We know that because it was as a result of that episode that he was arrested and fingerprinted. She also gets the nature of the Crowe burn wrong, saying Tex made off with the drugs, rather than the money. She claims only the women were told about HS despite the fact that Watson, Watkins, Poston, DeCarlo, Jacobson all testified to it. She claims her & Mary were sent to Hinman's because they had babies that could be used as bargaining chips and that Linda hadn't arrived yet, even though she'd been there almost a month at the time. She even says she couldn't remember what was written at Hinman's when to the grand jury she specifically told them she wrote 'pig' because she'd been involved at Hinman's and seen 'political piggy' on the wall. I could go on, there are so many inaccuracies, like saying Charlie was there discussing the copycat with them when he wasn't even at Spahn at the time.
It seems to me that the book is designed to show that she wasn't as bad as she was made out to be, that she hadn't killed Sharon Tate and to show Charles Manson in the worst light possible {her talking about Manson directing the botched copycats shows this}, while also giving Linda and Bugliosi both barrels with menace, but a kind of toned down menace. She could not say HS was one of the motives because for decades, her autobiography had claimed it was the copycat.

Yet Manson is the only one who all the way down the line maintained his innocence

That's because he refused to take on board what the law stated. He didn't take on board what the law said about self representation, hence, till he died he also claimed he hadn't gotten his rights, equally wrong.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 265   Newer› Newest»