Wednesday, February 27, 2019

William writes:

Crime Scene Discrepancies

Ed Sanders in his book The Family said that there were considerable discrepancies between the crime scene described by Tex, Linda, Susan, and Katie and what the police found in the morning.

1. Face towel over the head of Jay Sebring. Susan Atkins gave long detailed accounts to anybody who would listen about every aspect of the crime, yet neither she nor evidently the others tucked a face towel over the head of Sebring.

2. The rope extending from Sharon Tate to Jay Sebring. According to Atkins, Sharon stood and moved around the room, yet she did not mention anyone fixing the rope.

3. The steamer trunks in the living room. Located by the hall door they were knocked over during the night. There was a stain of blood on both trunks. It was Sebring’s blood, yet the killers said he was shot, stabbed and killed in one spot and never moved.

4. The glasses. Belonging to a severely myopic person, they were near the steamer trunks face down with the ear frames sticking up.

5. Two large pools of blood on the front porch. The one to the left of the door mat was Sharon Tate’s. The other one on the north edge of the porch was Sebring’s. Yet according to Linda, Susan, and Katie neither Tate nor Sebring ever left the house.

6. Spatters of blood from Sharon in the front hall and on the door sill. While the four perpetrators were on the estate, Sharon was never in the hall.

The above discrepancies show that a second entry was made into the house. According to Sanders, Manson told a lawyer at the trial that he and a companion returned to the scene of the crime “to see what my children did.”

Best wishes,

William Weston

63 comments:

starship said...

Yes, very compelling points that somebody did something other than the what the killers say they did. Also see the First Tate Homicide Progress Report which is the one which states that the police thought the bodies had been moved right from the beginning.

katie8753 said...

Starship!! Good to see you!!

William Weston said...

There’s two more discrepancies I found in Sanders book.

Tex entered the house through the window of the nursery. He did not leave any fingerprints while entering, but some unknown person left quite a few on the freshly painted window sill.

A bloody boot heel print was found on the flagstone front porch. It was not made by the police, nor by Linda, Sadie, or Katie who were barefoot, nor were they made by Watson who wore moccasins.

By the way, the first six discrepancies are found on pages 219-220 of Sanders book, copyright 2002. The bloody heel print and the fingerprints on the freshly painted window sill of the nursery are on p. 228.

katie8753 said...

Hi William. I wanted to let you know the comment moderation is on. That's why your comment didn't post right away. Please feel free to make as many comments as you want. I will be checking regularly to make sure they post.

grimtraveller said...

William Weston said...

Ed Sanders in his book The Family said that there were considerable discrepancies between the crime scene described by Tex, Linda, Susan, and Katie and what the police found in the morning

I've always found this to be a weird statement by Sanders.
Firstly, when does Tex first describe the crime scene ?
We know Linda saw a very limited amount and left before the end.
When has Pat ever described the crime scene ?
Susan clearly left out a number of details.
How much had been described and by whom, before Ed wrote his book ?
The way Ed makes that statement, you'd think the perps all had photographic memories, knew the layout of the house well and had been privy to every single thing that happened in every single place on the premises. And that whatever descriptions they might have given were given the next morning in the cold hard light of sober reality and a good view.
Let's face it, it was dark, the dead of night. If it's true that Pat was coming off an acid trip and Tex and Susan had had snorts of amphetamine, then might there not be a little distortion in their memories ? But we're talking months and in some cases, years later.
More to the point is that much of what the police found was given shape and explanation once Atkins' mouth appeared on the scene.

yet neither she nor evidently the others tucked a face towel over the head of Sebring

Well, no one remembers or admits to it. But it doesn't mean they never did it.

The rope extending from Sharon Tate to Jay Sebring. According to Atkins, Sharon stood and moved around the room, yet she did not mention anyone fixing the rope

Tex admitted in his 2016 parole hearing that he attached the rope from Sharon to Jay. " I actually tied a rope around Jay's neck and threw it over the beam and tied it around Sharon Tate's neck"
And way back in '69, Susan said that rope went around the necks of Jay, Sharon and Abigail. She told the Grand Jury this.

There was a stain of blood on both trunks. It was Sebring’s blood, yet the killers said he was shot, stabbed and killed in one spot and never moved

Yes, but that could easily have come from Tex. Remember, he went up to him and stabbed him 7 times. When he was going after Wojiciech, he could have knocked the trunk and transferred the blood then. You can see from the photo that it's a small amount, not comparable with the porch amount.

grimtraveller said...

William Weston said...

The glasses. Belonging to a severely myopic person, they were near the steamer trunks face down with the ear frames sticking up

Well, we covered that pretty extensively a few threads ago. It was fun.

Two large pools of blood on the front porch. The one to the left of the door mat was Sharon Tate’s. The other one on the north edge of the porch was Sebring’s. Yet according to Linda, Susan, and Katie neither Tate nor Sebring ever left the house

In his summing up during the trial, at one point Vincent Bugliosi made the observation that there were aspects of both murders that they simply did not know about, such as how Manson got into the LaBianca house or how all the blood that could be Sharon or Jay's got onto the porch in such large quantities or how Sharon could have been hung as she was dying, as per the ME's conclusion. But in saying that, he was also saying that the perps had not revealed everything there was to know. In his book, he noted that when he interviewed Susan, there were discrepancies with what she'd apparently told Virginia Graham and Ronnie Howard

Spatters of blood from Sharon in the front hall and on the door sill. While the four perpetrators were on the estate, Sharon was never in the hall

As far as we know. Those spatters could have come from Tex or Susan quite easily, they could also have come from Sharon. We can't say for sure that Sharon wasn't in the hall. We are told she was never on the porch yet there is a large quantity of her blood there. I used to surmise it could have dripped off one of the perps but when you see the photo of the stain, unless that perp was near saturated, there's no way that could have happened. Which therefore casts doubt on what the perps said, in part.

grimtraveller said...

William Weston said...

The above discrepancies show that a second entry was made into the house

If by 2nd entry you mean after the killers had left, then no they don't. Of course, they could mean that. And I'd even go so far as to say that none of the killers would know one way or the other if someone had gone to Cielo after they'd all gone to sleep. Indeed, in Tex's 2nd book, he actually says that he "believes" Charlie went to the house afterwards. There again, in the same book in almost the same breath, he also says Manson was there the night before looking for Terry Melcher and was dealt with rudely by someone in the house, so we know how much he knew.
What I disagree with is that the discrepancies show for a certainty that someone else was there afterwards. They could be just as easily explained as:
i] the killers not being aware of certain happenings because they were in other locations when specific things happened,
ii] them lying,
iii] them having simply forgotten.
For example in the first instance, Susan told her lawyer that Tex sent her and Pat out of the house {while they looked for Linda, she implies he was left alone with Sharon...}; she related that when she came back in to get something to write with, Sharon looked more cut up than before.
In the second instance, Sharon Tate had rope burns on her cheek that the ME concluded happened from hanging while she was in the dying stage yet neither Tex nor Susan copped to that.
Susan related also that Tex stabbed Sharon around the chest area but she had 16 stab wounds in different locations of the body. So obviously, the killers did more than they related.
If someone had gone to the house {bear in mind it's just under an hours journey from Cielo to Spahn so no one could have gotten there in less than 2 hours after the murders}, given that one of Sharon's wounds {called in court, Wound #1} would have killed her instantly, you wouldn't have her blood spattering about the hall. At that point she would have been dead for at least 2 hours ~ but of course, there was much more time than that because the killers went to Rudy Weber's, the petrol station, then they gave Manson and Clem a run down of what had happened etc......that takes up a lot of time.

grimtraveller said...

William Weston said...

According to Sanders, Manson told a lawyer at the trial that he and a companion returned to the scene of the crime “to see what my children did.”

I do not believe that. If he did tell the lawyer this to pass on to Sanders {and that is the context in which Sanders presents it} then he was messing with his head.
Think about it for a moment. Charlie is on trial for 7 murders with the death penalty the likely prize. He goes out of his way to disrupt the trial for the express purpose of causing trouble so that he can represent himself again. Why does he want to represent himself ? So he can show his "innocence." When that failed and he was found guilty, he leaned on his co~defendants to take the fall but to absolve him. The judge noted later on in the trial that one of the reasons he felt Manson was incompetent to represent himself was because of the decision to put the defence on during the penalty phase instead of the guilt phase. Manson gave interviews all over the shop and never once even so much as intimated that he had anything to do with TLB. Yet we're supposed to believe he passed a message to Ed Sanders via one of the lawyers that he'd been to the scene of the crime after the murders.
I don't believe he gave that as a genuine statement if he actually did give it. Manson was a word game player.

Tex entered the house through the window of the nursery. He did not leave any fingerprints while entering, but some unknown person left quite a few on the freshly painted window sill

Actually, Watson came in through the dining room window. When Kasabian went on her recce, she "missed" {ie, she claims she never looked} the nursery window, which was actually open.

A bloody boot heel print was found on the flagstone front porch. It was not made by the police, nor by Linda, Sadie, or Katie who were barefoot, nor were they made by Watson who wore moccasins

Although she wasn't 100% sure, Linda said she thought Tex was wearing cowboy boots. She also said all the women were barefoot. That one boot heel and a bare footprint that couldn't be identified at the time, were found, tends to corroborate what Kasabian recalled.
Just out of interest, where do you get that Tex was wearing moccasins ? That's a new one to me.



















































William Weston said...

Grimtraveller said,

Just out of interest, where do you get that Tex was wearing moccasins? That's a new one to me.


From Sanders, p. 228

“What seems to remain a part of the mystery is an evident bloody bootheel print on the flagstone front porch that was not made by the police. Whose was it? Probably not Watson’s or Manson’s since they seem to have been wearing moccasins.”

Sanders uncertainty probably would allow Tex to be wearing cowboy boots. Yet Linda seems to be uncertain too.


Grimtraveller said,

“Tex entered the house through the window of the nursery. He did not leave any fingerprints while entering, but some unknown person left quite a few on the freshly painted window sill
Actually, Watson came in through the dining room window. When Kasabian went on her recce, she "missed" {ie, she claims she never looked} the nursery window, which was actually open.”


Thanks for the pictures.

From Sanders, p. 207,

“She [Linda] came around front and found Tex standing at the fresh-painted window of the unfurnished nursery room on the far north end of the house, next to the garage. He was cutting the lower part of the screen, slitting it with his bayonet. … Tex crawled in through the window once he had slashed the screen and pulled it off the frame. There was the smell of fresh paint in the nursery being prepared … Tex entered the kitchen walking south, through the dining room, into the entrance hall then opened the front door and let the two girls in.”

Can you lay out the sources of information that says that Tex went through the dining room window? Perhaps Sanders is not as credible as I thought.


Grimtraveller said,

The rope extending from Sharon Tate to Jay Sebring. According to Atkins, Sharon stood and moved around the room, yet she did not mention anyone fixing the rope
Tex admitted in his 2016 parole hearing that he attached the rope from Sharon to Jay. " I actually tied a rope around Jay's neck and threw it over the beam and tied it around Sharon Tate's neck"

And way back in '69, Susan said that rope went around the necks of Jay, Sharon and Abigail. She told the Grand Jury this.


If Susan said the rope went around the necks of Jay, Sharon, and Abigail, and Tex said it was around the necks of Jay and Sharon, how do you reconcile that? I am not referring to what they could remember or could not remember but the actual practicalities of accomplishing what Susan said.

Grimtraveller said,

The glasses. Belonging to a severely myopic person, they were near the steamer trunks face down with the ear frames sticking up Well, we covered that pretty extensively a few threads ago. It was fun.


Yes, it was very informative. However, I am bringing it up again because I just recently found out that Paul Fitzgerald in his closing arguments December 1970 said that Jay Sebring’s blood were on the glasses. This would contradict Lt. Helder’s statement that there was no blood on the glasses.

I cannot think of an explanation for this, yet another, discrepancy.

grimtraveller said...

William Weston said...

From Sanders, p. 228

“What seems to remain a part of the mystery is an evident bloody bootheel print on the flagstone front porch that was not made by the police. Whose was it? Probably not Watson’s or Manson’s since they seem to have been wearing moccasins.”
Sanders uncertainty probably would allow Tex to be wearing cowboy boots. Yet Linda seems to be uncertain too


Firstly, notice that Sanders' line of argument relies on Charlie going later to the house. Secondly, notice that it is pure assumption on his part that Tex was wearing moccasins.
Thirdly, from the trial itself;
BUGLIOSI: "Mr Fitzgerald then said there was a bloody shoe heel print, not a footprint, on the front porch of the Tate residence. Of course, Officer Granado testified it was a footprint, not a shoe print."
Linda is uncertain of what Tex was wearing on his feet but thought it was cowboy boots. Fair enough. The question then must be asked whether or not her other findings line up with the evidence. And overwhelmingly, they do. So if the boot heel found didn't belong to the police, if Atkins stated in private to Howard and Graham that she, two other women and a guy had gone to Cielo, if Kasabian said the same thing and the prints of 2 of the people Kasabian said were there were found and Atkins implicated herself and Linda said the women were barefoot and a bloody footprint was found etc, etc, then it's not unreasonable to conclude that circumstantially, that boot heel print belonged to Tex. He later kicked Frykowski in the head as he lay on the ground which one might not do if one only had moccasins on..

From Sanders, p. 207,

“She [Linda] came around front and found Tex standing at the fresh-painted window of the unfurnished nursery room on the far north end of the house, next to the garage. He was cutting the lower part of the screen, slitting it with his bayonet...Tex crawled in through the window once he had slashed the screen and pulled it off the frame. There was the smell of fresh paint in the nursery being prepared…Tex entered the kitchen walking south, through the dining room, into the entrance hall then opened the front door and let the two girls in.”

Can you lay out the sources of information that says that Tex went through the dining room window?


Well, for one thing, in the first of the photos I linked to, you can see the screen has been removed and left outside the window. The 2nd gives an internal view of the window and a 3rd which I didn't include shows the proximity of the dining room {of which we have seen shots of its window} to the front door. That description of the route Tex took that Sanders gives is kind of convoluted. The route was also unnecessary, given that by entering the dining room, it places him almost at the front door.
From the trial itself:
BUGLIOSI: "Then Mr Fitzgerald said that the police concluded that the killers, whoever they were, entered through the bedroom of the Tate residence. Now, where he got that, I don't know. The only evidence at this trial shows that they entered through the dining room window. That is the window where the screen had been removed and there was a horizontal slit."

Perhaps Sanders is not as credible as I thought

He comes up with some good information. He also comes up with quite a bit of unsubstantiated conclusion. I'd say that he's no different from any other writer when it comes to this subject and one has to check what he says before deciding to put one's house on his information.

grimtraveller said...

William Weston said...

If Susan said the rope went around the necks of Jay, Sharon, and Abigail, and Tex said it was around the necks of Jay and Sharon, how do you reconcile that? I am not referring to what they could remember or could not remember but the actual practicalities of accomplishing what Susan said

Both Susan and Tex are describing different motions at different times. Susan describes the rope around the neck of the three after Jay has been shot but before anything has happened to Sharon and Abigail. Tex is describing an event later on in proceedings, after Sharon has been stabbed. I'd say this is where he tried to hang her and then didn't go through with that and it would appear, dealt the final strike {the aforementioned wound # 1} that killed her almost instantly.

However, I am bringing it up again because I just recently found out that Paul Fitzgerald in his closing arguments December 1970 said that Jay Sebring’s blood were on the glasses. This would contradict Lt. Helder’s statement that there was no blood on the glasses

Fitzgerald did not say that. He said the blood of Sebring was near the glasses but on the steamer trunk. I went through his entire argument and he does not say there was blood on the glasses. He does say that "now the glasses do not belong to any of the victims. They do not belong to anybody, as far as we know, that had any contact with the Polanski residence whatsoever. Those glasses were introduced into that residence by the person or persons who was actually responsible for the death of the decedents. I don't have any proof of that, but subtracting from what we know, it is a reasonable inference.
Also we don't know what was in the trunks. It appears that a struggle took place in the vicinity of the trunks and it is an inference ~ maybe it is not even a reasonable one ~ but it is an inference, if you try to reconstruct it and look at the pictures yourself, that perhaps Sebring was attempting to, in some fashion, protect the trunks.
That is how the glasses got there. That is how the blood got there."


Then a little bit later, he says "now, as you look at the markings where the blood appears, you find a number of things. You find Sebring's blood on the trunks, Sebring's blood near the glasses, Sebring's blood near where the gun grips were found."

grimtraveller said...

William Weston said...

I cannot think of an explanation for this, yet another, discrepancy

After the lawyers' closing arguments, Bugliosi rebutted each one. He was pretty savage and he really went to town on Fitzgerald. He said "Let's talk about Paul Fitzgerald. When Mr Fitzgerald addressed you ladies and gentlemen, he misstated the evidence so many times that at first I absolutely could not believe what I was hearing.....Paul Fitzgerald, ladies and gentlemen, during his argument, I submit, was just a wee bit confused."
He then goes into detail and it's a horror story. He cites 20 examples of where Paul stated the evidence wrongly and if you look at each one, you can check it for yourself. They do check out. And I actually found some that Bugliosi doesn't talk about, such as him saying that what kills you when you're hung is a broken neck and not the rope tightening round the neck and cutting off the air. He said this in relation to throwing doubt on the idea that the victims were meant to be hung, saying it wasn't a good or efficient way to kill someone ! But the things Bugliosi pulls him up on were actual evidence from the case. For example, Fitzgerald tries to draw doubts between the times Steven Parent left the guesthouse {12.15} and the time Tim Ireland heard screams {12.40} asking how could it have taken Parent so long to get to his car. Bugliosi has to point out that no one ever testified Parent screamed. It was Frykowski's screams that were heard. There's lots of that kind of misstating the evidence.
It seems to me that Sanders picks up on stuff like that, he leans very much in the direction of the defence lawyers, which may account for why Bugliosi told Laurence Merrick that he didn't think much of Sanders' book {it's in "Death To Pigs"}.
The thing with the few discrepancies that crop up is that they are hugely outweighed by that which is not a discrepancy. They don't alter the essential story of what happened and most importantly, all the perps bar Manson copped to it, interestingly, in their original trial and subsequently.

grimtraveller said...

starship said...

very compelling points that somebody did something other than the what the killers say they did

The killers definitely filled in many parts of the picture. I'm not of the opinion that "they're just a bunch of liars and therefore you can't trust a word any of them said or say" and I don't have a problem with any of them having made self serving statements because realistically, even the act of confessing all is self serving.
However, from the very moment that Susan Atkins began to describe what happened inside the Cielo house and put meat on the bones of the police's initial discoveries {and indeed, batted many of them out of the stadium}, it was clear that there were things that had happened that either she was not aware of or had lied about. For example, she lied about stabbing Gary Hinman to death and how many times. At the same time, when she was asked about the 'hood' on Jay's head, she was insistent that there was nothing on his head. And the more the evidence came to light, the clearer it became that for whatever reasons, the killers hadn't told everything exhaustively. Bugliosi alluded to that a few times. But he also added that it didn't really matter who had done what as they were all guilty of murder.

Also see the First Tate Homicide Progress Report which is the one which states that the police thought the bodies had been moved right from the beginning

The first Tate homicide report remains a fantastic document, primarily to see what the police were right about after their first thoughts and what they got wrong. It's not a big deal that they were wrong about a number of things. It only happens in Sherlock Holmes dramas that everything is summed up correctly at first glance.

William Weston said...

I said...

However, I am bringing it up again because I just recently found out that Paul Fitzgerald in his closing arguments December 1970 said that Jay Sebring’s blood were on the glasses. This would contradict Lt. Helder’s statement that there was no blood on the glasses

grimtraveller said...

Fitzgerald did not say that. He said the blood of Sebring was near the glasses but on the steamer trunk. I went through his entire argument and he does not say there was blood on the glasses.


Grim, perhaps you should check your source again. I have copied out the following newspaper article, which appeared in many newspapers.


From an Associated Press story 12-29-1970

The defense in the Sharon Tate murder trial said Monday there’s a good chance that someone other than Charles Manson and his three women co-defendants killed the actress and six other persons.

“I have no proof of that,’ Paul Fitzgerald, the chief defense counsel told jurors in his final summation, “but it is a reasonable assumption.”

He cited a single piece of evidence – a pair of eye glasses found at Miss Tate’s mansion.

The glasses have not been connected to an an owner, Mr. Fitzgerald said they were found behind some steamer trunks splashed with the blood of victim Jay Sebring.

"Those glasses were introduced into that residence by the person or persons actually responsible for the deaths," Mr. Fitzgerald said.

He suggested that there might have been a struggle in which "perhaps Sebring was trying to protect the trunks ... I'm concerned about the contents of the trunks." He said no evidence was introduced as to what was inside them.



I think that Fitzgerald had some inside information to make such a bold claim that the glasses were splashed with Sebring's blood before the jurors.

Cielodrive.com said...

Tex didn’t leave fingerprints in the nursery because he entered through the dining room

grimtraveller said...

William Weston said...

Grim, perhaps you should check your source again. I have copied out the following newspaper article, which appeared in many newspapers

My source is the trial transcript. In my reply to your quote about the glasses, I quote verbatim.


I have copied out the following newspaper article, which appeared in many newspapers From an Associated Press story 12-29-1970......The glasses have not been connected to an an owner, Mr. Fitzgerald said they were found behind some steamer trunks splashed with the blood of victim Jay Sebring

That's exactly what I said. The glasses were found near some steamer trunks splashed with Jay's blood. It's the steamer trunks that are splashed with Jay's blood. Not the glasses.

I think that Fitzgerald had some inside information to make such a bold claim that the glasses were splashed with Sebring's blood before the jurors

Except that is not what he said. He says "You find Sebring's blood on the trunks, Sebring's blood near the glasses, Sebring's blood near where the gun grips were found." He never once states that there is blood on the glasses. If he had, Bugliosi would have picked him up on it, the way he did on those other 20 occasions that he misstated evidence. And it would say so in the transcript. And it would say so in the newspaper report that you quoted. You've misread it.
Fitzgerald is trying to introduce doubt in the minds of the jurors so he emphasizes the glasses as being something that he wants the jurors to think belonged to the killer, as his whole schtick is to show that the wrong people are on trial. He earlier mentioned that Pat could well have been at Cielo as a friend. Why go to these lengths ? Because he's a defence lawyer and Pat's prints were at the site and Linda had told everyone that she'd seen her chasing a woman with an upraised knife. So he throws in doubts and red herrings about steamer trunks and not knowing what was in them {which wasn't true. They'd come on the 8th} and glasses and Jay's blood on the trunks....but never the glasses.

He said no evidence was introduced as to what was inside them

No evidence was introduced about the colour of the curtains either. Because, like the contents of the trunks, it was irrelevant.

William Weston said...

grimtraveller said...

The glasses were found near some steamer trunks splashed with Jay's blood. It's the steamer trunks that are splashed with Jay's blood. Not the glasses.


okay, that make's sense

William Weston said...

I said …
yet neither she nor evidently the others tucked a face towel over the head of Sebring

Grim said . . .

Well, no one remembers or admits to it. But it doesn't mean they never did it.


Manson admitted it. From the book Manson in his Own Words’
"The two of us took towels and wiped every place a fingerprint could have been left. I then placed the towel I was using over the head of the man inside the room."

Grim said …
If someone had gone to the house {bear in mind it's just under an hours journey from Cielo to Spahn so no one could have gotten there in less than 2 hours after the murders},

It takes about 30 to 40 minutes to get from Spahn Ranch to Cielo Drive in the middle of the night with no traffic. Assuming Watson, Kasabian, Atkins, Krenwinkel returned back to Spahn Ranch at about 2:00, that would leave enough time for Manson and his friend to get to Cielo Drive by 3:00. That would give them at least an hour on the premises to do whatever they had in mind to do.

Grim said …
given that one of Sharon's wounds {called in court, Wound #1} would have killed her instantly, you wouldn't have her blood spattering about the hall.

Since Bugliosi admitted that “there were aspects of both murders that they simply did not know about, such as … how all the blood that could be Sharon or Jay's got onto the porch in such large quantities or how Sharon could have been hung as she was dying, as per the ME's conclusion,” how do you know for sure that Sharon was not still alive when Manson and his partner came back? Wound #1 could have been inflicted at that time.

I believe the main purpose of Manson and his friend going to the house was not just to look at the carnage but to make sure there were no survivors, remove fingerprint evidence, plus, if they had time and inclination, to make the scene more helter-skelterish. One might think that multiple stab wounds would effectively kill someone, yet the Zodiac Killer stabbed Bryan Hartnell six times and he survived and Celia Shepard ten times and she survived two days, long enough to answer questions from the police.

I said …

According to Sanders, Manson told a lawyer at the trial that he and a companion returned to the scene of the crime “to see what my children did.”

Grim said …

I do not believe that. If he did tell the lawyer this to pass on to Sanders {and that is the context in which Sanders presents it} then he was messing with his head. Think about it for a moment. Charlie is on trial for 7 murders with the death penalty the likely prize. He goes out of his way to disrupt the trial for the express purpose of causing trouble so that he can represent himself again. Why does he want to represent himself? So he can show his "innocence."


Since Sanders was not present, how would he know whether or not the lawyer told Manson that he was serving as a go-between for a journalist? I would think the natural thing for a lawyer to do would be simply to ask the question, without introducing extraneous information as to why he was asking it, which might have put Manson on his guard.

grimtraveller said...

William Weston said...

Manson admitted it. From the book Manson in his Own Words’

As has been discussed before, Manson frequently trashed that book, referring to it as 'bullshit.' Now, I'm inclined to not be so dismissive of it because there are quite a number of things in it that check out in other places. So my view on what's in that book tends to be that if it's corroborated elsewhere, I won't dismiss it out of hand, I'll take a good look at it, balance and weigh. For example, the corroboration elsewhere may be lies. But if there's no corroboration in addition to 30+ years of denial and denigration, then I wouldn't be using it as hardcore evidence of any case I'm trying to make. We already saw in the 'glasses' thread how he leads off about being in Cielo with fake info {the glasses used for making fires} and then totally contradicts this and being at Cielo in his interviews with George Stimson {via Sandy Good} in the book that came out nearly 30 years later.
It's interesting that in updated editions of his book, Sanders quotes quite a bit from the Emmons book. He also puts in inaccurate info, such as Joel Pugh being a Manson associate and ex-husband of Sandy.

It takes about 30 to 40 minutes to get from Spahn Ranch to Cielo Drive in the middle of the night with no traffic. Assuming Watson, Kasabian, Atkins, Krenwinkel returned back to Spahn Ranch at about 2:00, that would leave enough time for Manson and his friend to get to Cielo Drive by 3:00. That would give them at least an hour on the premises to do whatever they had in mind to do

The reason I often emphasize the timeline is not because Manson couldn't have reached the house and done all these things before Mrs Chapman discovered the bodies, it's because the bodies would have long stopped bleeding before he could have arrived. So some of the things he is suspected of doing wouldn't have happened.

how do you know for sure that Sharon was not still alive when Manson and his partner came back? Wound #1 could have been inflicted at that time

Now, that, on the face of it, is a tremendous point. We don't know for sure. We know very little in life for sure. You are, of course, implying that Manson and his mystery partner directly murdered Sharon by that point. Which opens up a set of different paints and re-colours the canvas.
Coroner Noguchi was asked by Irving Kanarek what the agonal stage was and Noguchi explained that it was the stage of dying. He also explained, when talking about Frykowski, that the agonal stage would be very short, 10~15 minutes if a stab wound hit a vital organ. Sharon had 5 fatal wounds plus 2 others that he considered 'potentially fatal,' which he explained as being so in conjunction with the amount of other wounds she had. Wound #1 is the one that killed her almost instantly but she had 4 other wounds that were fatal. Given that they were stab wounds in vital organs, 4 of them, she would have been bleeding at a furious rate. So in reality she wouldn't have survived the time the killers got back to Spahn {don't forget their 2 detours on the way back, plus debrief} and someone else making the journey to Cielo.
So your point assumes she was alive until Charlie and the mystery partner got there. It also assumes they are the ones that had to inflict all of the fatal blows to her. So what was she doing for almost 2 hours ? None of the other wounds were sufficient to kill her.

I believe the main purpose of Manson and his friend going to the house was not just to look at the carnage but to make sure there were no survivors, remove fingerprint evidence, plus, if they had time and inclination, to make the scene more helter-skelterish

If Charlie did go to Cielo for those reasons, he did a pretty shitty job where the fingerprints were concerned and didn't make it look specifically like Black people had carried out the crimes.

grimtraveller said...

William Weston said...

Since Sanders was not present, how would he know whether or not the lawyer told Manson that he was serving as a go-between for a journalist?

Good point. On the other hand, what lawyer gives a journalist that kind of information outside the knowledge of their client ? And we're assuming it would have to have been Kanarek as he was Manson's lawyer and Kanarek did not fraternize with the press, particularly the underground press.
It's interesting that Sanders steers clear of saying it was Manson's lawyer.

I would think the natural thing for a lawyer to do would be simply to ask the question, without introducing extraneous information as to why he was asking it, which might have put Manson on his guard

Since there was no proof that Manson went to the house and seeing as though the prosecution weren't even hinting, let alone presenting, that he did, and seeing as though Susan Atkins' Grand Jury testimony had set the template and the prosecution case emphasized Manson's domination, highlighted by the fact that he didn't even have to be at Cielo, it strikes me as a question that wouldn't even have to come up. But if it did, whatever pretext "the lawyer" might have used, are we to honestly believe that the lawyer then went to a journalist and told him that Manson, who hadn't directly been involved in the murders and was pleading 'not guilty' had in fact gone to the scene after the event ?
There's something about that whole episode that smells somewhat fishy. Sanders admits that if Manson went to Cielo, it was unbeknownst to any of the perps. At every point, Manson could dump the women in it because there was, outside of Linda's testimony, no direct evidence he'd actively been involved. Whereas there was evidence Atkins, Krenwinkel and Van Houten had, outside of Kasabian's words.

William Weston said...

Grim said …

So your point assumes she was alive until Charlie and the mystery partner got there. It also assumes they are the ones that had to inflict all of the fatal blows to her. So what was she doing for almost 2 hours ? None of the other wounds were sufficient to kill her.


Using once using again the example of Bryan Hartnell, who had feigned death to escape further injury from the Zodiac Killer, his first impulse was to get help. Although severely wounded, he managed to crawl to the road where a ranger found him, who had a police officer summon an ambulance and thus saved his life.

If Sharon were still alive, she would be seeking help also. Severely injured as she was, her movements would be slow. Perhaps her first action was to get to a telephone. There was one on the desk in the living room. Of course she would not know that the phone lines were cut. She then probably tried to go outside, going through the front hall and to the porch and walkway. The loss of blood would have severely impeded her progress and probably that’s why she stopped. Jay Sebring might have been still alive and moved to the porch also. This would explain the large quantities of blood on the porch. They might have hoped their screams for help might have drawn the attention of their neighbors. In the first homicide investigation report there is mention of a police station getting a report of a screaming woman.


Grim said …

what lawyer gives a journalist that kind of information outside the knowledge of their client ? And we're assuming it would have to have been Kanarek as he was Manson's lawyer and Kanarek did not fraternize with the press, particularly the underground press. It's interesting that Sanders steers clear of saying it was Manson's lawyer. … There's something about that whole episode that smells somewhat fishy.

Perhaps the fishy part was not the story itself but how the information was obtained. Paul Fitzgerald gave a great deal of information to Sanders, and he might have convinced Kanarek to check out a hunch that he himself had, without telling Kanarek the original source of the hunch. Sanders came to believe that there was a second entry based mainly on the map of the blood spots in the house as displayed in the courtroom and of course the above named discrepancies.

katie8753 said...

William that's an interesting theory. I've always wondered about the blood spots on the porch and no one has really explained them away. Some people think Manson moved Sharon & Jay's bodies to the porch, then moved them back in the house. That doesn't make any sense. It does make more sense that they got to the porch somehow, then were later moved back in the living room. Plus if they were dead for hours before Manson got there, there probably wouldn't have been that much blood flow to have that much on the porch if he was the one who moved them there.

Tex & the girls never really explained much about Sharon's death. They explained Gibby's & Voytek's to the nth degree. That was odd too. I wonder if that was because they were trying to protect Manson during the trials.

grimtraveller said...

William Weston said...

If Sharon were still alive, she would be seeking help also. Severely injured as she was, her movements would be slow

I think your theory is highly enterprising and well thought out and an enjoyable read.
But I don't buy it. Not because it's not plausible {in the absence of the medical info we have}; it is plausible, but the medical evidence paints it highly unlikely. In your Brian Hartnell example, it would appear that his wounds were fatal and that had he not received medical attention, he would have died. But Sharon's wounds are grouped into three specific types ~ those that would definitely have caused death [5], those that had the potential to cause death given other factors [2] and those that would not have resulted in death [11]. For your theory to work she would have to have been assailed by those last 11. And those last 11 do not fall into the category of wounds that incapacitate to the extent that she could only get to the door or the porch. So it is fair to conclude that before the killers left, they had dealt the blows that produced either sufficient bleeding that she would have been dead in 10-15 minutes {and there are 4 of these} or that one blow from which she would have died instantly or near enough.
This is a really interesting piece on some of what is touched on in terms of discrepancies.

This would explain the large quantities of blood on the porch. They might have hoped their screams for help might have drawn the attention of their neighbors

Jay's gunshot wound make his lengthy survival even more unlikely, if not impossible. It's worth noting that in private conversation with Leslie, Pat was of the opinion that the whole thing was over really quickly. Now, coming off an acid trip, time may have been distorted for her but William Garretson, without prompting, offered the information that Steve Parent had come up around 23.45 and Rudy Weber had run into the killer quartet around 1am and Tim Ireland had heard what were acknowledged to be Frykowski's screams at 00.40. So a rough estimation of time can be worked out and Jay, having died of exsanguination wasn't going to be hanging around for a few hours.

grimtraveller said...

William Weston said...

In the first homicide investigation report there is mention of a police station getting a report of a screaming woman

The reason I mention all that bit in the previous post is because of the screaming woman call and the dogs of Emmett Steele barking. Those are the dogs that were barking around 2am that only barked when they heard gunshots. Once one starts thinking about the case, Bugliosi's opening to the book is actually rather sensationalist because there's no way the timespan of 12.15 to 4am covers the murder time. It's much too wide. In a way Bugliosi and Gentry are partly responsible for much of the wild speculation and conspiracy theories that have arisen, because they made public the police's preliminary findings and didn't tell the reader that that is what it was. In that first Tate report, the police had virtually nothing concrete to go on regarding suspects and piecing together what happened and they had to rely on every little crumb that they could. So naturally, they paid attention to sounds and oddities that occurred through that night. They couldn't know at the time whether things would turn out to be connected or not. So they listed all kinds of things. I've often said, I wouldn't mind betting that on many nights such sounds would have been heard within a similar area and few would attach great significance to them. It's just that this was the night of "the famous Tate murders" so those are the sounds people will focus on. Had Bugliosi and Gentry not started off their book with it in such dramatic fashion {even though they knew most of it was completely unconnected to what happened at Cielo}, I doubt that we'd ever talk about the screaming woman or the teenager that heard an argument coming "from the direction of Cielo" ~ a mile away.

Sanders came to believe that there was a second entry based mainly on the map of the blood spots in the house as displayed in the courtroom and of course the above named discrepancies

It's interesting how he didn't seem to have factored into his thinking that the perps didn't {perhaps couldn't have} tell the whole story. As pointed out before, there are reasons why that could be. One simple reason is memory. As one is moving along in live action with no thought that one day you'll have to recall every move you've made in clear tangible detail, there are going to be loads of things that you miss.
I've long found it interesting that the Nazis and ISIS film their atrocities. They don't see them as atrocities but by filming what happens, there's little chance for those watching to 'interpret', the way we do with these crimes we have no way of assessing chronologically. We can go only by the evidence ~ and only then to the extent that it is unshakable, which isn't often ~ or the accounts of witnesses which, as we know, is not totally reliable in many, possibly most, instances.

grimtraveller said...


katie8753 said...

Some people think Manson moved Sharon & Jay's bodies to the porch, then moved them back in the house. That doesn't make any sense

Not in terms of how all that blood got there. Perhaps there's something to Atkins' statement that Sharon was the last to die because she had to watch all the others die. Wojiciech and Abigail died outside, visible from the porch. Perhaps she saw that....then they started on her and ran inside.

It does make more sense that they got to the porch somehow

There's really no other explanation than that they were on that porch at some point. So obviously someone was not telling.

Plus if they were dead for hours before Manson got there, there probably wouldn't have been that much blood flow to have that much on the porch if he was the one who moved them there

This is the point of mentioning the distances from Cielo to Spahn and the time spent talking about what had happened plus the length of time either Jay or Sharon would have lived having been stabbed in a vital organ.

Tex & the girls never really explained much about Sharon's death. They explained Gibby's & Voytek's to the nth degree. That was odd too. I wonder if that was because they were trying to protect Manson during the trials

The women certainly were at the trial. Tex has never tried to protect Charlie. Arguably, he's tended to lean towards making sure Charlie's responsibility is well borne out for all to see. At his trial he blamed Charlie and the women.
Pat has said virtually nothing about Sharon's death other than in the most general acknowledgement. Yet it is odd that in separate instances, both Susan and Tex put the responsibility for Sharon's death when it happened on Pat. Both say she was the one that said 'kill her.'
As for Susan alone, she changed her story pretty much each time she told it over the years and is as far from reliable without some corroboration as Birmingham, Alabama is from Birmingham in the West Midlands.

katie8753 said...

Grim how do you know if Sharon or Jay were stabbed in a vital organ?

katie8753 said...

Wait, let me rephrase that. How do you know WHO stabbed Sharon or Jay in a vital organ?

Rock N. Roll said...

One thing I've always thought odd was Sharon has blood rubbed on her. Not just splatter but it's like someone was trying to cover her with blood. If you look at the pictures she looks quite different then the other victims.
As for blood on the porch, I think the person assigned to collection and records screwed it up.

Torque said...

Yes, Rock N. Roll, I've always thought it odd, too. But one explanation may be that the blood on Sharon was not intentionally rubbed on her. It could be that if Sharon struggled with her attackers, she would have rolled around on the carpeted floor, thereby smearing the blood upon her.

Additionally I've always been perplexed by Susan Atkins' admission that she went back into the house to touch a towel to Sharon's chest, for the purpose of writing on the front door in her blood. If Susan really went in the house to do this, perhaps she did more than touch the towel to Sharon. Susan could have used that towel to smear the blood herself, creating the appearance we see on the crime scene photos. Moreover, was it in fact a towel that was used?

I would ask why Susan did not simply wipe blood up from the front step to use in her "witchy" writing, as there was plenty of it there. Or, why not obtain blood from Voytek, as he was covered in blood on the front lawn? (It should be remembered that Susan told her lawyer that she did not want to go back into the house to obtain that blood). Could it be that Sharon's blood was singled out to leave that message on the front door?

The forensic finding of the blood of Jay and Sharon continues to be a mystery. It's difficult to think how either of them could have been moved to the porch after death, and still leave blood out there. To be sure, we are told that dead bodies don't bleed. Yet consider the following about the autopsy of Rosemary Labianca: "Large amounts of blood pours out from the wounds in the posterior back, especially in the upper region." (Murdersof69.freeforums.net).It could be that blood had pooled in the back of Rosemary, and perhaps when she was turned over for the external examination, it was able to pour from the wounds.

With Jay and Sharon, I would expect to see a rather pronounced trail of blood leading from the front step, back to the area where they were discovered the next morning.

Finally, if Sharon was the last to die because "she had to watch," exactly how was it that she had to watch the others die? And why?

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

How do you know WHO stabbed Sharon or Jay in a vital organ?

I don't. All I can go with is what we've been told and thus far there are 3 candidates for Sharon and in the main one for Jay.
Susan doesn't help because she has told at least 4 stories. In one, she killed a defenceless and pleading Sharon. In another Tex killed Sharon. In another, they all killed Sharon. And in another Abigail and Sharon were fighting with Pat and she went to her aid and killed Sharon.
As for Jay, in all the versions I've heard, it was Tex.
Now, in a sense, it does not really matter who stabbed who in a vital organ. What matters, for the purposes of this conversation is when the stabbing in vital organs took place. William came up with a really interesting theory and it would be plausible except that for it to be so, one would have to accept that Sharon was directly murdered by Charlie "and/or whoever he came to Cielo with" because the wound that was labelled 'wound #1' would have killed her instantly or within a very short space of time. Which would mean that she had to have been alive for at least a couple of hours before they arrived. Which, by extension, would mean that she could not have been stabbed in any vital organs. Which then forces one to look at her 11 wounds that were not fatal. And none of those wounds would prevent her from getting the heck off those premises and looking for help. Remember, she died of massive haemorrhage due to vital organs being penetrated. Another question which would spring to mind is why the killers would have left her alive.
So that theory is fraught with problems, problems that are brought into sharp focus by the medical evidence.
Which leaves pretty much the scenario as Susan and Linda {and subsequently Watson} painted it, incomplete of detail as it is. I'm inclined to believe the perps did the deed ¬> it's interesting that Susan stated that Sharon was stabbed until she stopped screaming. Tex later said he was stabbing her and then suddenly there was silence. Which would seem to correspond to a blow like wound #1 killing her almost instantly.
The killers were definite that all the victims were dead before they left. I know they were not the most honest of citizens but why would they admit to killing if they hadn't ? Whatever the women may have been doing in the penalty phase to save Charlie, Tex in his trial certainly didn't want to die. He began by denying he killed but the following day or so, copped to all 7.

Torque said...

I would ask why Susan did not simply wipe blood up from the front step to use in her "witchy" writing, as there was plenty of it there

It could be a combination of it being dark, knowing for sure where there was blood and simply following orders. Also she needed to go into the house to get something to write with.

if Sharon was the last to die because "she had to watch," exactly how was it that she had to watch the others die? And why?

I was thinking out loud there because as you say, the blood on the porch is a mystery. On another site, a lawyer called David has pointed out that coroner Noguchi spoke of wounds on Sharon's arms that could be described as defensive although he didn't. He described those kinds of wounds that way however, when describing others. As stated earlier, it's obvious that just from those wounds and the ones on Sharon's back and leg, Susan and Tex have not described everything that took place, let alone the abrasions to her cheek. So just because no one says that Sharon was brought out to the porch doesn't mean that she wasn't. And as to why, let's face it, once the three in the house got into murder mode, they showed themselves to be bloody sadistic.

William Weston said...

Grim said …
Which then forces one to look at her 11 wounds that were not fatal. And none of those wounds would prevent her from getting the heck off those premises and looking for help. Remember, she died of massive haemorrhage due to vital organs being penetrated.

I note on the autopsy report that wound number 5 was in the upper abdomen area. Could that have been severe enough to slow her down but not enough to kill her immediately?

Grim said …
Another question which would spring to mind is why the killers would have left her alive.

They probably thought that they had killed everyone, not realizing, as in the case of Bryan Hartnell, the victims might have been feigning death. Manson and his partner probably recognized the possibility that the injuries described might not have been immediately fatal and had to go back and check.

Grim said …
Jay's gunshot wound make his lengthy survival even more unlikely, if not impossible.

Do we have any descriptions by any perpetrators that Watson shot Jay?

Torque said...

Grim, yes that does stand to reason about Susan needing to go back into the house, at least if she was ordered to do so. However, even though it was dark, we do know that the outside front door lights were on, thus illuminating the entire front door area, including the pools of blood there. At some point in testimony, Susan said that the lights in the house were turned off, but that the killers had enough light to see what they were doing in the living room, as the outside lights provided sufficient illumination for their intentions.

We also know, of course, that a scarf was found close to the body of Voytek, but Susan may not have seen that for possible use in her writing on the door. But it may well be as you say, that if Susan was specifically told to go in the house(by Tex), then that is no doubt what she would have done.

Also, yes, I've seen the excellent presentation by David on the blood analysis, over on the Manson Blog. Very compelling reason there, and for those who have not read it, they would do well to check it out. Taken together, for LAPD to be wrong about the blood on the front step, they would have had to of made possibly seven sampling and analysis errors--something that is not very likely.

The story told by the killers simply does not seem to add up. That includes the blood evidence, the leg and arm wounds on Sharon, the rope Mark's on Sharon and Abigail's necks(but not Jay's?), the lights found on inside by police the next morning, after the killers said they turned them off, not mentioning dogs in the Cielo house, what may have happened at the guest house, and on and on.

It would seem the narrative as put forward by Susan in December 1969 became the template, and any further elaboration on what truly happened was conveniently swept aside.

Ultimately, yes, when the three killers became emboldened enough to carry out what they did, it was truly sadistic. I dare say that after 50 years we probably don't know how sadistic that really was.

grimtraveller said...

William Weston said...

I note on the autopsy report that wound number 5 was in the upper abdomen area. Could that have been severe enough to slow her down but not enough to kill her immediately?

That one was a 4-5 inch deep wound and was fatal. It penetrated her liver.
Every one of the non fatal stab wounds would have slowed each person down to some degree. But remember, we're talking about wounds for which medical attention is not immediately necessary. They'll hurt like hell and slow one down but not to the extent that you cannot move. It would be different if we were talking about broken bones, bad sprains to various leg joints like knees and ankles or groin dislocations or blows to the head that could render one unconscious for hours but not be critical. 4 of the 5 fatal wounds were at least 4 inches deep. The deepest non fatal one was 3 inches {most were 1-2 inches} and there were two of these. One of the fatal wounds was 3 inches and all the fatal ones were at the front of the body {4 chest, 1 abdomen}.

They probably thought that they had killed everyone, not realizing, as in the case of Bryan Hartnell, the victims might have been feigning death

That assumes that every one of the stab wounds perpetrated before they left would have to be the ones that were not fatal. The chances of that must be beyond astronomical. Besides which, if they could figure out that some of the victims were dead, then how could they not determine all of them were ?

Manson and his partner probably recognized the possibility that the injuries described might not have been immediately fatal and had to go back and check

Two things there.
Firstly, both Susan and Linda describe Tex reporting to Charlie that everyone was dead. Later on Pat spoke of committing five murders to Leslie. Tex is reported to have gone to each of the 4 house victims when they were already down and incapacitated and stabbed them further or kicked. There was no feigning death there, a la Lotsapoppa.
Secondly, it means of course, that one of the killers is still at large or at least was never identified as being responsible for their part in the crimes.
I just do not believe that when everything over the last 50 years is taken into consideration.

Do we have any descriptions by any perpetrators that Watson shot Jay?

The only descriptions of Jay's death are of Tex shooting him. Even when Susan was giving her penalty phase lies, she still Tex shooting him.

Torque said...

The story told by the killers simply does not seem to add up

It adds up in some places but not in others. And as such, leaves an eternal mystery. I don't think Pat or Tex even remember most of it.

It would seem the narrative as put forward by Susan in December 1969 became the template, and any further elaboration on what truly happened was conveniently swept aside

I suppose that was because it wasn't actually important overall. Let's put it this way ~ 5 people dead. 5 perps caught. No subsequent mysteries about killers on the loose. Fitzgerald and Kanarek tried that one with the glasses and the accusation that the police messed up and in doing so we couldn't be sure all the killers were in custody. It failed dismally, that ship has sailed. Bugliosi had hoped to further question Susan after the grand jury when she was still onside but that notion soon died and Linda had run off so she was no help with what specifically took place inside. By the trial none of the perps were talking and it took almost 50 years of dribs and drabs to come out. But as Bugliosi said in his summing up of the guilt phase ~ it didn't matter who did what specifically. They had the perps and they were guilty and 2 died in jail and 2 are still there.

katie8753 said...

Boy that Grim doesn't run outta words, does he? HA HA!

Good conversations! Good ideas! Good back & forth! These are the things I wonder about. I love the back & forth about these points because none of this stuff can ever be proven. It's all theories, because the killers have never told the whole truth, and if you can't provide evidence from the crime scene, because (1) it doesn't make a lot of sense and (2) frankly the police investigation fell flat, then all you have is guesses and theories, basing it on liar testimony and theories.

I would get into it, but I think I'll let y'all just talk amongst yourselves. Good job! Keep discussing, it's getting really interesting!

beauders said...

Wasn't it Atkins who claimed Tate had to die last so she could watch? Well Atkins even though not much of a killer was a sadisttic and mean person. I don't think Tate was picked out to be last, it just happened that way because Sebring, Frykowski, and Folger gave the killers trouble Tate did not. I had to put my female cat Gypsy down yesterday. My mom loved Gypsy so now they are together. I've still got her stinker of a brother, Cupid. Portland, Or. is also having our second snow storm of the season, which is a lot. I expect the whole region to close down tomorrow. If you like snow days Portland is a great city to live in for that.

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

Beauders sorry about your cat. I know exactly how you feel! Stay warm!

William Weston said...

Grim said …
Every one of the non fatal stab wounds would have slowed each person down to some degree. But remember, we're talking about wounds for which medical attention is not immediately necessary. They'll hurt like hell and slow one down but not to the extent that you cannot move.


I keep going back to the case of Bryan Hartnell, because I think it is so instructive. Hartnell suffered non-fatal wounds, but in a short amount of time he became nearly immobile.

Hartnell suffered six stab wounds in the back – none of which penetrated vital organs (lucky for him!). After the Zodiac Killer had left, Hartnell and Cecelia managed to untie themselves. After getting free, Hartnell started walking toward the road. His mind was clear but his vision began to black out. He laid down until he could see again. He got up and walked another twenty feet, and lost his vision again. He kept having to do this until he finally had to crawl to reach the road. When Park Ranger Dennis Land came by in his truck, he saw Hartnell sitting on the ground, crying for help. Hartnell could not move on his own power, so Land had to carry him back to the place where Cecelia was and with fellow ranger William White, wrapped the couple in blankets until an ambulance arrived.

So even if Sharon had suffered non-fatal stab wounds, the bleeding and shock from them would still have been an impairment to her mobility, to the point perhaps where she could not move beyond the front porch.

Grim said …
Tex is reported to have gone to each of the 4 house victims when they were already down and incapacitated and stabbed them further or kicked. There was no feigning death there, a la Lotsapoppa.


If Bryan Hartnell could fool someone as experienced as the Zodiac Killer, someone else could fool an amateur like Tex.


Grim said …
The only descriptions of Jay's death are of Tex shooting him. Even when Susan was giving her penalty phase lies, she still Tex shooting him.


I am having trouble finding out where the bullet hit Sebring. Can you tell us where it hit him?


I said ….

I note on the autopsy report that wound number 5 was in the upper abdomen area. Could that have been severe enough to slow her down but not enough to kill her immediately?


Grim said …

That one was a 4-5 inch deep wound and was fatal. It penetrated her liver.


From a news article –
Using a life-sized drawing of the 26-year-old actress' body to indicate where the 16 stab wounds and two cuts were located, Dr. Noguchi testified that her death was caused by “multiple stab wounds of the chest and back, penetrating the heart, lungs and liver and causing massive hemorrhage.”

I thought the information below was interesting, especially in regard to the “liver” and “lung” wounds.

Stab Wounds Don’t Always Kill
Writers often ask me questions about various traumas and how they will affect the victim. Maybe it’s a gunshot wound, or a knife wound, or a blow to the head, or even a push down the stairs. The problem with answering these questions is that almost anything can happen. A gunshot wound can be a minor flesh wound, or it can be immediately fatal — usually if it enters the heart, the brain, on the upper portion of the spinal cord. The gunshot wound could cause damage to internal organs such as the lungs or liver and the victim could bleed to death rapidly, or slowly, or not at all. The same can be said of knife wounds and blunt trauma. Ask any emergency room physician and they will tell you that these types of injuries come in 1000 flavors.

From www.writersforensicsblog.wordpress.com

grimtraveller said...

William Weston said...

I am having trouble finding out where the bullet hit Sebring. Can you tell us where it hit him?

According to coroner Noguchi, "the gunshot wound was found in the left axilla, inside the armpit, and this was found slightly in front of the midline of the left side of the chest. The wound tract penetrated downward, penetrated to the left fifth rib and penetrated through the left lung."

Stab Wounds Don’t Always Kill

That's true. The article is bang on the money, there are so many variations of the different kinds of wounds. But once again, while technically possible, you have to consider the circumstances facing the victims and the likelihood that a pregnant woman, unused to that level of physical violence could feign death with 11 stab wounds that have, in some cases, punctured {though not unto death} lungs etc.
Another point that occurs to me is this; there is no possible way that Susan could have known that Sharon was stabbed in the chest, around the heart unless she'd been there. And they are essentially the wounds that were fatal. That, more than anything else tells me Sharon did not feign death and then was finished off hours later by Charlie and your mystery assailant. It's comparable to what sunk Leslie Van Houten ~ her statement to Dianne Lake that she'd stabbed a body that was already dead. Why that was so devastating is that it was medically possible to determine if the body was stabbed after death had occurred. By hitting on something so unusual, it proved beyond any reasonable doubt that she'd been there. Susan got the area of death 100% accurate ~ something she couldn't have done without actually knowing it.

If Bryan Hartnell could fool someone as experienced as the Zodiac Killer, someone else could fool an amateur like Tex

Did the Zodiac attempt to make sure Hartnell was actually dead ? Kicking him in the face, whacking him in the face, further stabbing once he lay on the ground ?
Tex may have been an amateur but he was pretty thorough. When someone is feigning death, they're not prepared for surprise moves.

katie8753 said...

none of this stuff can ever be proven. It's all theories, because the killers have never told the whole truth

That's only true up to a point though.
Leslie wasn't lying when she said she'd stabbed a dead body. It's just that she didn't know that the body had also been alive when she started stabbing.
Even if the perps haven't told the entire story {it may never have been possible for them to}, that doesn't mean a case could be made to absolve, say, Pat and Tex. No direct evidence proves they did anything. So we then have to take the words of Susan and Linda. When Linda tells that Pat moaned about her hand hurting because she kept hitting bones as she stabbed, and then the coroner testifies that bones showed signs of having been penetrated, then that is proof.
What will always be conjecture on our part is something like why Sharon had defensive wounds on her arms or rope abrasions of the type consistent with hanging on her cheek. But again, these don't alter what happened and who was guilty of the crimes.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

Boy that Grim doesn't run outta words, does he? HA HA!

He would if this was an Egyptian or Slovakian blog !

chris hannel said...

Is it safe to post here again?

katie8753 said...

Only if you keep it clean.

William Weston said...

According to Bugliosi in his book Helter Skelter, copyright 1994 p. 269, the Longhorn revolver, when found, had two live rounds and seven empty shells. Originally coroner Noguchi said that Frykowski had been shot one time, Sebring one time, and Parent five times. Seven shots matched seven empty shells. Yet Susan Atkins said that Parent had been shot four times. So Bugliosi had Noguchi examine photographs of Parent’s body until he found that two wounds in the body were created by one bullet, thus making four shots fired. That left one shot unaccounted for. So Bugliosi had Noguchi examine photographs of Frykowski’s body, at which time he detected a second wound in the thigh.

I bring this up because a security officer for Bel Air Patrol, Robert Bullington said he heard three shots spaced several seconds apart, at approximately 4:00 am. This was the period of time when Manson and his partner would have been at the house.

This brings me to a theory I have.

Tex shot Frykowski twice with the Longhorn revolver – in addition to beating him on the head with the gun and stabbing him with a knife. When Manson and his partner came to the house, they saw Frykowski lying on the ground. Not sure if he was really dead, one of them fired a round into the body to test whether or not he had a response. This gun was not the Longhorn that Tex had. A test round might also have been fired into the bodies of Parent and Folger as well. If Noguchi missed in his physical examination (the best evidence) the true disposition of the bullet wounds in Frykowski and Parent (and possibly Folger), it is quite possible that he made further errors in his examination of the photographs (secondary evidence).

Thus Bullington could have been entirely correct when he said he heard three shots spaced several seconds apart at 4:00 am.

chris hannel said...

Please let this post go through. I'm having trouble comprehending something. Allegedly the Family practiced homosexuality. But in prison Howard and Graham were hitting on Atkins and She started telling them a bunch of crazy shit about the murders and stuff. And while in prison Pat and Leslie became full fledged lesbians but Susan didn't because She said it was against Her religion. Did Susan ever have sex with a girl or not or did some girls partake in LGBT sex but others didn't? Was it a lie that the Family did LGBT stuff? I really really need to know. Katie, Grim, anyone really. Please answer. I know Howard said some questionable things about Susan in her interview with McGann and Patchett but Howard and Graham also "spiced it up a bit" AKA made shit up. Was Susan bi? Did Susan ever have sex with another girl? Please answer. I really need to know. Please. I'm not trolling or anything I swear to God I'm just seriously wanting to know cause I'm reconsidering some things. And please cite your source. Bill Nelson and Ed Sanders aren't reliable so don't cite them. What I'm really asking is this: Did Susan Atkins ever have sex with, make out with, or flirt with a girl? I know She had a fling with a male prison guard in 1973. Please Katie let this post go through. Please.

katie8753 said...

Chris I posted the above comment. I'm not going to post the 2nd comment you are trying to make. It's just more of the same except much longer & seedier.

Keep in mind that YOU are the reason the comment moderation is on. If you want to post comments that aren't offensive to anyone who replies to your question, then there shouldn't be any problem.

William Weston said...

Torque said …
Finally, if Sharon was the last to die because "she had to watch," exactly how was it that she had to watch the others die? And why?

Sharon Tate would not have seen the final death blows of Frykowski and Folger. Perhaps the original intent was for her to see all of them die before she was killed, but their escape from the living room prevented that from happening.

The killers thought they had killed Sharon and Jay, but they somehow survived and moved to the front porch. Thus when Manson and his partner arrived on the scene, they moved them back into the living room. Susan Atkins must have learned later that Sharon was the last to die from Manson. That would mean that Manson and his partner had forced Sharon to watch them give the final death blows to Jay before killing her. They probably did this to increase the cruelty of her own death. Why? Because she was a blonde Nordic-looking woman who had married a Jew. I believe Sebring, whom Sharon dated, also had a Jewish background.

Manson was a white supremacist who told his followers that “Hitler had the best answer to everything” and that he was “a tuned-in guy who leveled the karma of the Jews.” As an admirer of Hitler, Manson would of course find mixed marriages especially abhorrent.

The whole Helter Skelter operation was conceived and executed by a violent faction within an ultraright, white supremacist group.

chris hannel said...

Susan Atkins didn't do any lesbian stuff. She was straight. That lesbian stuff was lies.

katie8753 said...

William do you think that Manson really knew that much about Sharon? Did he ever mention her by name prior to the Cielo Drive killings?

beauders said...

Chris, according to John Gilmore in, "Garbage People," Susan Atkins had a girlfriend she was having sex with when she met Manson.

chris hannel said...

What was the girl's name? Is that true? Did Susan really do that stuff? Is Gilmore reliable and known for accuracy?

katie8753 said...

Okay I'm going to bed. This time change is killing me.

We'll take this up in the morning. Night y'all!

beauders said...

Chris read Gilmore’s book it paints a very interesting picture. I learned a lot about Beausoleil from that book. It’s available on Amazon and is an old book so you could probably find it at the library. Sleep well Katie.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Beauders.

Chris I'm not going to post your last comment. It's just 5000 words or less about how you now hate Susan Atkins. If you want to re-write it and join in an intelligent conversation, feel free.

chris hannel said...

I don't hate her I'm just saying I won't and can't support an LGBT person. I was just wanting Beauders to tell me what Gilmore says specifically and if any other books say she had a girlfriend. Where did Gilmore get this information from?

William Weston said...

katie8753 said...
William do you think that Manson really knew that much about Sharon? Did he ever mention her by name prior to the Cielo Drive killings?


I cannot refer to any source that says that Manson knew Sharon Tate by name prior to the killings.

Manson would have learned much about her and her marriage with Roman Polanski from reading the newspapers. He also visited the Cielo Drive residence twice on the same day in March 1969, claiming he wanted to find Terry Melcher, but since he was having meetings with Melcher during this time, it is hard to believe that he did not know that Melcher had moved out the previous month. Sanders said the visit is “still mysterious.”

He also could have gained a lot of information from circulating among the children and relatives of entertainment personalities. His association with Dennis Wilson is well known.

According to Terry Mauro’s book The Ultimate Evil, Robert deGrimston, founder of a satanic group called the Process, met Manson in the spring of 1968 at a residence in Topanga Canyon. deGrimston traveled in a social milieu that included Sharon Tate, John and Michelle Phillips, Jay Sebring, Warren Beatty, Jack Nicholson, Jane Fonda, Peter Sellers, Wojiciech Frykowski, and Abigail Folger.

The Process that deGrimston founded combined Satanism with white supremacist ideology. According to Bugliosi, p. 613, members of the Process had a “natural hatred for the Negro.”

I believe that the decision-making for Helter Skelter came not from a single individual like Manson but rather it came from a group. Manson would have been part of this group, and of course a key player, but his knowledge of who Sharon Tate was as a person prior to the killings was not a necessary component in the plan by the group to kill her and blame it on the blacks.

chris hannel said...

Beauders, John Gilmore is a liar. He said she had a girlfriend but literally all other reports have it that she was staying at a house with a bunch of people when one day Manson came in and played guitar and her and him spoke to each other the same day. It also has it that the house was raided later on leaving her homeless and Manson invited her to come travel with him and the Family. So she left her MAN and went with them. Gilmore seems to be the only one saying She had a girlfriend. Where exactly does he get this from? Is it from Susan or the Family themselves? From interview, news, and trial transcripts? Newspapers? Did someone contact him and tell him that they were Susan's girlfriend? Please answer. Also do any other books mention this?

katie8753 said...

Beauders, I posted this comment from Chris. It's up to you whether or not you want to answer it. I told him to tone it down and just have a civil conversation. Which he has done, as much as he can.

beauders said...

It’s been a long time since I read the Gilmore book. I don’t remember the woman’s name. Obviously Atkins was not a lesbian. A lot of women experiment in their teens and twenties. This is what I believe Atkins was doing.

beauders said...

Atkins having lesbian experiences is not the defining act of her life, we all know what that was. Falling for a dead woman seems pretty strange but people do what people do. Read Gilmore’s book it might answer some of your questions.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Beauders.

For what it's worth, I think that Susan Atkins was "ruined" in her teen years because her mother died and her Daddy took a powder, and she was left to fend for herself. I think she did whatever she thought would "shock" folks, which made her feel better as a person because she was so damaged. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I feel sorry for Susan because that all happened to her. But it didn't give her license to kill.

Having said all that, this is NOT the Susan Atkins blog.

And the time change says I should go to bed.

Night y'all!

beauders said...

I agree Katie that Atkins was ruined but I have a niece who was in a similar situation. She was a foster child my brother and his wife brought into their lives and adopted when she was three. We later learned she had been sexually abused and was taught some bad habits such as shop lifting. When Kristin was twelve my brother died. Her adoptive mother provided her a home and food but not a lot of love or attention. It was so bad that she moved in with my sister and her family for a year. It was a 750 mile move but it was worth it. Today my niece is married with two children. Her husband is a great guy who loves her and their children. They are a little older than thirty and just bought their first house in the Bay Area, which is quite a feat for anyone there. They are an ambitious, family orientated couple. Thank goodness Kristen didn't take Atkins road. Kristen's biological people were drug users so she has the addictive gene in her biology too. Her children have even healed the rift between my niece and her adoptive mother, she is a great grandmother.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Beauders. That's a heart warming story. I wish everything could end happily. But sometimes it doesn't.

But it's nice to hear that sometimes it does.

beauders said...

Yes my niece is very lucky, there are not a lot of happy endings in life.