Friday, May 24, 2019

"Christopher the Weimaraner" by William Weston

Image result for conspiracy theory
Christopher, Rudi Altobelli’s big Weimaraner, took his job as guard dog seriously. The morning after the murders, when police officers DeRosa, Whisenhut, and Burbridge came to the guest house, they saw William Garretson looking out a window. They told him to freeze. Christopher meanwhile was barking furiously. When they opened the door to the guest house, Christopher charged Whisenhut and chomped on his leg (according to Sanders p. 224, chomped on the end of a shotgun according to Bugliosi page 32). Whisenhut had to slam the door on the dog’s head and trap him there until Garretson called him off.

Garretson was employed as Rudi's caretaker in mid-March 1969. He had the task of taking care of Rudi's three dogs, Christopher and two poodles. All three dogs were in the guest house during the time the murders were taking place.

Four months earlier, on March 23, Charles Manson knocked on the door of the main house and Hatami, Sharon’s friend, answered the door. Manson was directed to the guest house where Rudi Altobelli was living. At that time he was not there. Manson returned in the evening and Rudi was home. According to Rudi, he was taking a shower when Christopher started barking and alerted him that someone was at the door. The dog had a certain kind of people bark when people approached. Putting on a robe, Rudi opened the door. Manson tried to introduce himself, but Rudi said “I know who you are, Charlie.” Manson asked if he knew where Terry Melcher was living. Rudi said Melcher moved to Malibu.

Manson must have seen the Weimaraner and witnessed his aggressive tendencies. Four months later, on August 8, he surely knew that Christopher was a factor to be reckoned with, if his Helter Skelter plan was to succeed. I am suggesting that on March 23, Manson also met Garretson as well as Altobelli and received some kind of assurance that the three dogs would be kept confined in the guest house and not cause trouble while the murders were taking place.

294 comments:

1 – 200 of 294   Newer›   Newest»
LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

William said:

"I am suggesting that on March 23, Manson also met Garretson as well as Altobelli and received some kind of assurance that the three dogs would be kept confined in the guest house and not cause trouble while the murders were taking place".


You had my attention for most of your post, but your final conclusion is a bit of a stretch for my sensibilities.

You pointed-out some discrepancies which are worthy of discussion, however, we'd have to re-write the entire TLB saga to include Garretson and Altobelli into the plot.

Bottom line:
I disagree with your conclusion, but I think there's enough fodder here to spark some interesting conversation. And from interesting conversation, useful information can sometimes arise.

So, have at it..

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

William, I consider myself a CONSPIRACY REALIST based on my personal involvement for over almost the last quarter century, and not just from The OJ Simpson Case.

I will agree with Lynyrd that it is a bit of a stretch with
(Garretson & Altobeli)
in the plot. But??????? Garretson is a mysterious "person" in The Charles Manson Case & Saga

I lean towards Terry Melcher being the reason for the Cielo murders.

Mario George Nitrini 111
--------
The OJ Simpson Case

Dilligaf said...

There was testimony from Pat that she went to check the guesthouse. If they knew that the dog(s) were in the guesthouse, there would have been no reason to go there. Just my observation....

katie8753 said...

I wonder how Rudy knew who Manson was. Maybe the dogs knew Pat because she'd been there before to visit Garretson??

Dilligaf said...

Katie,

The flaw I see in that is that any dog, after hearing all of the screaming, yelling, violence, etc., would be in a hyper-agitated state, resulting in barking, and/or yelping, regardless of they knew Pat.

katie8753 said...

Good point Dill. Any dog would be suspicious of anyone after all that!

William, I have to agree with Lynyrd. Bringing Altobelli and Garretson into the conspiracy is a LOT. What would be their purpose? Remember Altobelli brought charges against Roman for these murders for damages.

Plus didn't Sharon have some stray dogs?

sunset77 said...

Manson met with Altobeli and Garretson to confine the dogs? I've never heard that before and it sounds kind of farfetched. Sharon Tate was possibly involved with a number of dogs, there is a video of her washing a large dog on YouTube.

I don't know if it will post or not, but here's a link to a photo of the police possibly removing the Weimaraner and 2 poodles, the photo may need to be enlarged--Dogs

William Weston said...

Mae Brussell had a whole program on the Manson conspiracy on October 13, 1971.

She said:

...the murder of Sharon Tate and the other persons in her home was a political massacre. ... It had to be planned well in advanced of when it happened. ... It was described by people later as a military ambush. ...

Now what did they have in [Manson's military-style] commune? They had shacks with lookout points; they had telescopes; they had walkie-talkies; they had military field telephones; they had collections of knives and shotguns; they had four-wheel drive [dune buggies]. The neighbors turned them in for threatening them. They drove all night and made so much noise that the neighbors said, "You know, you keep us awake." And they said, "Oh, we'll kill you if you don't shut up." They threatened their lives. ...

Who was buying the machine guns, the walkie-talkies, and the dune buggies? He was on the edge of the Mohave Desert. They didn't steal all of it; none of them were hardly ever arrested for anything. They have parts of expensive cars. They had material things that are warfare things, and they never got arrested. And the gasoline."

So Brussell thought the murders of Tate-LaBianca was a military-style ambush, paid for from the bountiful resources of intelligence agencies.

Altobelli and Garretson had to be involved. Not only to contain the dogs but also for surveillance. Garretson was in touch by phone with Altobelli the night before the murders and reported to him what cars were in the parking lot. Why he did he have to do that, if he were some dumb teenager? Helter Skelter could not occur if Sebring and Tate had gone to Las Vegas as they had planned, or if the big party they had planned had occurred. So because they stayed home that night the opportunity to kill them was that night. Only surveillance could have timed the event that precisely.

Torque said...

I have not ever heard that Bill Garretson was in touch with Rudi Altobelli the night before the murders, describing cars in the parking lot. I do know that Bill drank four beers, smoked quite a bit of weed, and took a dexadrine capsule on the Thursday night before the murders, however, so that may have influenced his ability to communicate effectively with anyone that night.

Concerning the pets at Cielo, according to Garretson's 10/16/2011 interview on The Truth On Tate-Labianca Radio(truthontatelabianca.com), Bill took care of Christopher, as well as two poodles(Peppie and Peetie), as well as a bird named Edward.

In the main house were Sharon's dog, Prudence, and Abigail Folger's dog, Tom, a Dalmatian. Sharon was reportedly taking care of a kitten that wandered onto the property. This kitten may have been offspring of one of the reported many cats that Terry Melcher had, and probably left behind when he moved out of Cielo.

Susan Atkins claimed she saw a "hunting dog" looking in on her through one of the windows of the Cielo living room, just prior to the murder of Sharon. If true, I believe that dog was Christopher.

In his interview with LAPD, Garretson said he left the patio door slightly open, so that Christopher could get out. If true, this could have been when Christopher got out to see Susan.

What I can't understand is how Patricia Krenwinkel did not report seeing or hearing dogs when she went to the guest house to check it. One would think the dogs would have been barking wildly, not to mention Christopher possibly attacking Patricia or Tex. Patricia, when describing her actions at the guest house, could only say that she looked in, and only saw a lamp, but no people or dogs.

Additionally, the police found the dogs in the main house in a closet, on the morning after the murders. Do we know who put the dogs there, and in which closet?

The pets at Cielo certainly factor into the discussion of the murders, but to my knowledge, none of the killers discussed them during any of their parole hearings. This could be a very interesting avenue of inquiry, at least at Cielo. We do know at the Labiancas, that the killers pet their dog on the way out of the house, and let it roam free after the murders. That dog can be seen in a crime scene photo at the Labianca residence.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

We'll,Torque, like Lynyrd said:

"And from interesting conversation, useful information can sometimes arise"

Interesting paragraph & question Torque:

"Additionally, the police found the dogs in the main house in a closet, on the morning after the murders. Do we know who put the dogs there, and in which closet?"

Mario George Nitrini 111
------
The OJ Simpson Case

katie8753 said...

I've gotta say that I've wondered about all these dogs at these horrific murder scenes. I've thought about doing a thread on these dogs. Why did the dogs at Cielo and the dogs at LaBianca just let them get away with this? Didn't Leno & Rosemary have guard dogs? And as Torque said, they "petted them on their way out".

I truly believe that the killers have been lying about a LOT of things since day 1. Why they continue to lie is beyond me.

You would think that they would realize that honesty is the best policy. That's one reason why they're all still in prison. Because it doesn't ADD UP!!!

William Weston said...

Torque said...
I have not ever heard that Bill Garretson was in touch with Rudi Altobelli the night before the murders, describing cars in the parking lot.

I thought I read that somewhere. Have not had time yet to locate the source.

As Linda and Bugliosi came up the drive to 10050 Cielo two large dogs belonging to Altobelli were barking furiously. Linda started crying and Bugliosi asked her what was the matter. She said "Why couldn't they have been there that nignt?" (Bugliosi p. 347)

This shows the importance of keeping the dogs contained in the guest house.

The story of Atkins getting her knife stolen by a dog doesn't ring true. If a dog did take the knife, how could it have left it in the cushion of a chair sticking up without her noticing or someone else like Tex or Katie?

beauders said...

I remember reading somewhere that Clem and Susan Atkins had creepy-crawled the LaBianca house multiple times. Maybe this tamed the LaBianca dog(s) to strangers but it does not explain why there wasn't a lot of barks while these dog(s) masters were being butchered. For Tate property all I can think was they were off the property with Garretson. If that is true then somehow Garrettson was part of the conspiracy. The Tate dogs have always perplexed me. Christopher was an aggressive dog as the police found out when they raided the caretakers house. I just cannot picture that dog being on the property and not making a lot of noise as the murders were occurring. It's possible that Atkins did see Christopher at the window if he had got away from Garrettson when he was leaving the property or possibly the dogs were drugged. The dogs being drugged is the only other explanation I can think of. The dogs would have to be drugged prior to Watson, etc. getting there so again the conspiracy then had to include Garrettson, and I don't think he was smart enough to keep that covered up his whole life, unless he was absolutely terrified of the Manson Family and associates his whole life.

katie8753 said...

I don't think Garrettson was smart enough to be involved in any conspiracy. He sounds brain dead in every thing I've heard him in.

Not that there's anything wrong with that! LOL.

beauders said...

I agree Katie but maybe he was really scared. I think the dogs behavior will never explainable.Truly the only options are that the dogs were off the property or drugged. The guy was pretty exploitable Bill Nelson had a few conversations with him, promised Garrettson some money and then he starts remembering he heard sounds. Then he gets involved with 'Rosie Tate Polanski'and claims she is the daughter of Sharon Tate delivered on the night of her mother's murder. These things just make him not credible.

katie8753 said...

If he was that involved, how did he pass a lie detector test? I think he got seriously messed up by all of this. Whether or not he was messed up before, I have no idea.

William Weston said...

Torque, as far as I can find out, Altobelli called Garretson on Thursday night not Friday night as I originally thought (according to Garretson's lie detector test).

Katie said that Garretson sounds "brain dead." My opinion is that he was shamming mental disorientation and lack of memory. I compare him to Tex Watson. When the decision was made to extradite him from Texas to California he went into a catatonic "virtually vegetative state", mute, unable to eat meals. This was a ploy to get off on an insanity plea. When he was moved from the Los Angeles jail to Atascadero State Hospital, he was suddenly normal again, eating meals, talking, etc. A physician said in a Nov. 3, 1970 news article that he suspected Watson was playing games with them. I think Garretson is also playing games too.

I notice, Katie, that you found a connection between Garretson and Krenwinkel, alias Patty Montgomery, and that you comment on it in a thread on this blog. I believe Krenwinkel was the link between Manson and Garretson, by which they communicated one with another, setting the stage for the future slaughter at Cielo Drive.

katie8753 said...

William I think it's possible that the Patty Montgomery Garrettson mentioned was Krenwinkel. But I don't know if there was a conspiracy between the two that involved Manson.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

This is a critically important situation regarding the dogs.

Were the dogs locked in a closet?
Or,
We're the dogs locked in Garretson's guest house?
Or
Somewhere else?

IMO, if the dogs were locked in a closet, someone(s) else is involved in this murder (conspiracy).

If the dogs were locked in Garretson's room, IMO, Garretson had to be involved in this murder conspiracy with someone(s) else.

Regardless, with the dogs not barking:
IMO, other people, other than Watson, Krenwinkel, Atkins, and Kasabian, are involved.

Mario George Nitrini 111
------
The OJ Simpson Case

katie8753 said...

I know that Tex played "stupid" when he got extradited to CA to stand trial. Probably at the advice of his attorney in Texas.

But Garrettson is different. Why would he invite Parent to "drop by any time" if he knew a murder was going to happen in a few days. That doesn't make any sense.

I really think Garrettson was either crazy before the murders, or went crazy after. A 3-eyed baby??? Why would anyone say that?

Mario, I think the dogs were in the guest house at night just because that was where they were at night. If the people at Cielo Drive had guests in and out, they didn't want dogs running around barking at people.

And I think they did bark. Dogs can hear things even when they are in the house. But if they are in the house, they can't attack.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Great points Ms Katie.

Do we know for sure that Garretson invited Steven Parent over?
Or did Parent just drop by unannounced?

If the dogs were in the guest house when Patricia Krenwinkel went to the guest house, my take is that the dogs would have been barking wildly.

But, were the dogs locked in a closet?

Mario George Nitrini 111
-----
The OJ Simpson Case

katie8753 said...

Well Mario, as usual in this case, we don't know anything for sure. We can only rely on people's testimony to assume what really happened in this case.

Garrettson said in his lie detector test that Steve Parent picked him up hitch-hiking one night and drove him to Cielo Drive. He told police that he told Parent to "come by any time".

Whether he said that or not is up for debate.

We have to decide what is real in this case and what isn't real.

We know the dogs are real. We've seen pictures of them. We know they existed.

We know what dogs do. They bark.

But the problem we have with this case is what the witnesses say. Because they all seem to lie about everything.

That's the hard part.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Yes Ms Katie, everything you say in your comment is absolutely
RIGHT-ON-TARGET.....

I don't know what else to add. You are 100% correct in your comment.
("That's the hard part")

Mario George Nitrini 111
------
The OJ Simpson Case

beauders said...

Katie Garrettson said he slept through a blow job in his polygraph, I think he was cracked at the time.

Doug said...

Perhaps the dogs were locked up when Parent came over. They wouldn't have known Steve and, if the dogs were going to bark at Parent for the entire time he was there - maybe Garretson was afraid to piss off the people in the main house. He seemed a bit uneasy about crossing paths with them...going as far as to brush Parent off when he got all starry-eyed about the hot women starlets inside.

Or - COMPLETE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE HERE - maybe Steven Parent was the connection and, his dying pleas to Tex were legit in that HE REALLY WOULDN'T TELL because he was ON THE JOB?!?!

Maybe the 3-eyed baby was...real...

Ok...that was a bit too far

katie8753 said...

Slept thru a blow job. Three-eyed baby! HA HA HA!!!

What we have here is a failure to communicate!

Okay let's get down to facts, because gossip and innuendo doesn't cut it here. That's why this case is so hard to figure out.

William, you're trying to establish that there was a connection between Manson, Altobelli, Garrettson & the killers. And you're trying to draw the dogs into this.

Let's take the dogs out of the equation. Exactly what evidence do you have that Manson, Altobelli & Garrettson were in on a murderous rampage at the Tate house? And how does all that connect with the LaBianca killings? Sans the dogs.

Let's start with that. Because if you're basing it on the dogs, you have a really long way to go.

What possible angle would Garrettson or Altobelli have to kill Sharon and her friends? Altobelli sued Polanski for the mess made in the house. Do you really think he would go to court to do that if he was implicit? That would destroy him if that came out in court.

I really highly doubt Altobelli would have done that.

beauders said...

It wouldn't just destroy him, it would put him in prison.

katie8753 said...

That's right Beauders. He would go to prison. I can't see any reason why Altobelli would want to be in on killing Sharon and the others. What would that gain him? If he wanted them out of his house for some reason, he could just evict them.

William Weston said...

Katie said …
Let's take the dogs out of the equation. Exactly what evidence do you have that Manson, Altobelli & Garrettson were in on a murderous rampage at the Tate house? And how does all that connect with the LaBianca killings? Sans the dogs. Let's start with that. Because if you're basing it on the dogs, you have a really long way to go.


I am still puzzled about the LaBianca killings. Obviously I have homework to do on that one. LOL!

Going back to the Tate case, if we take the dogs out of equation, then we would be left with a small conspiracy that depended on a whole series of random circumstances to achieve the murder of five people. The official version seems to depend on an implausible conglomeration of factors beyond the control of Manson and his followers, e.g. Sharon and friends were home when Tex and the girls came rather than off doing something else, that they would fail to hear the breaking of the fence and the four gunshots that killed Parent, that Sharon and Jay would fail to use their karate training learned from Bruce Lee, etc.

Leaving the dogs in the equation shows that at least Garretson and Altobelli were involved. I agree that they did not have any personal motive to kill Sharon and friends.

The conspiracy to murder Sharon Tate and her friends was much larger than just Manson, the killers, Garretson, and Altobelli. They were mere cogs in a machine. Helter Skelter was an ambitious undertaking involving a much larger group of people. Manson had unexplained sources of income to buy weapons and dune buggies. From whom did he get it from? Wealthy white supremacists who hated Jews and blacks. And Manson was a white supremacist who admired Hitler.

The Helter Skelter plan of starting a black-white race war is not just something peculiar to Manson. The LA Times had a story Nov. 18, 1990 describing Murphy Ranch, that once served as an elaborate Nazi compound in the late 1930s in which white supremacists hoped to create a homeland for the “Aryan master race” using the black man as a pawn to achieve their goal. Murphy Ranch was located in Rustic Canyon, near Pacific Palisades (about a 30 minute drive from 10050 Cielo Drive along Sunset Blvd.). The FBI raided the ranch on Dec. 8, 1941 and a 1978 fire in the canyon destroyed most of the structures. Even though it was in ruins, it was still used as a meeting place for neo-Nazis.

And an LA Times article July 16, 1993 described 50 white supremacists who hoped to launch a race war by killing Rodney King, bombing a black church, and other violent acts. An informant for the FBI put a stop to them.

So if the dream of a black-white race war was still alive among white supremacists in 1993, then we can assume that they were trying to achieve this in 1969 with Manson and Family. So Manson’s Helter Skelter motive must have stemmed from contacts with a whole group of conspirators, among whom were Garretson and Altobelli, who played small, but necessary, roles.

beauders said...

You can't assume William with a subject this serious.

Milly James said...

I'm getting confused. Was Christopher in the guest house with Garretson while the other dogs were apparently found in a closet in the main property? Christopher's lack of barking could be explained by the fact he's under supervision and a guest was visiting. (Parent) But dogs in the main house surely would have put up a right racket? Or were they all being looked after by Garretson? Help!

Mon Durphy said...

Interesting theory but......it didn't happen, Christopher got loose during the mayhem, Atkins said during the killings she looked out the window of the main house and saw a "large hunting dog", Krenwinkel would have talked about confronting a big dog when she went to check the guesthouse, Garretson went and hid and the dogs scattered

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Mon Durphy.
Your style of writing has a certain "RING" to it, so to speak... WHATEVER.

So,
1. How could you possibly know that Christopher-the-Dog got loose during the mayhem?
2. Do you believe everything that Susan Atkins has said?
3. Patricia Krenwinkel would have talked about confronting a big dog?
How did you know that?
4. Garretson went and hid and the dogs scattered?
How could you possibly know that the dogs scattered?
We're you there at Cielo the night when Sharon Tate & the others were murdered?

Mario George Nitrini 111
------
The OJ Simpson Case

Mon Durphy said...

What does Susan have to lose or gain talking about a giant dog outside the window of Cielo?

Mon Durphy said...

My guess is that IF Rudi had been in town during July and August that Bill, Abigail, Voytek would have been out on their asses and Rudi would have let it be known to Roman and Sharon that he was aware what was going on

Mon Durphy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mon Durphy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

God Mirza, do you ever stop?

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Have at it Mon Durphy. EXPOSE ME

No one has a rebuttal for
ROCKY BATEMAN in
The OJ Simpson Case.
I'M NOT LEAVING......

You know who I am?
NO YOU DON'T.......

Mario George Nitrini 111
------
The OJ Simpson Case

Mon Durphy said...

Just curious, where did you hear that the dogs were found in a closet in the main house the next morning? In everything I've read on TLB I've never seen that

Mon Durphy said...

Ever since I first saw the stuff about dune buggies riding around Bel Air as it pertains to this case it's always befuddled me, I know that area is much different now but even in 69 it would seem an extremely strange occurance, there's so much money in that area and with money comes influence and the power to get activity like that stopped, if indeed there was dune buggy activity then there has to be a specific reason not just teens or hippies having fun

katie8753 said...

Nobody is exposing anybody on this blog. I don't know who Rocky Bateman is but Mario is always welcome on this blog!

katie8753 said...

Never heard about the dogs being in a closet either. And I have to agree, Altobelli was out of the country from March 1969 until the killings. How could he have been in on the killings?

Also, I don't know about Dune Buggies in Bel Air. Enlighten me!

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Thanks Ms Katie.
There's nothing to expose me about.
ROCKY BATEMAN was my
Ex-nephew-in-law, and was OJ Simpson's regular Limousine Driver from approximately August of 1993 to June of 1994.

Torque said this:

"Additionally, the police found the dogs in the main house in a closet, on the morning after the murders. Do we know who put the dogs there, and in which closet?"

The BIG question is:
Why were the dogs not barking?

Mario George Nitrini 111
-------
The OJ Simpson Case

katie8753 said...

Thanks Mario! :)

I don't remember the dogs being in a closet. If the dogs were in a closet, how could Christopher attack a cop when they came to the guest house?

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Ms Katie, you're welcome.

Lots of speculation with this.
Lots of questions, but very important.

Christopher attacking the cops.
Did William Garretson let Christopher out of the guest house?
Or,
was Christopher subdued while the murders took place? And then let out?
And no barking from Christopher?
There's other questions also that can be asked about
Christopher-the-Dog.

But, why were the other dogs not barking? A very big mystery.

Mario George Nitrini 111
-------
The OJ Simpson Case

katie8753 said...

BTW who would name a dog Christopher? Sounds like a long moniker for a dog. But what do I know? Do you call it Chris for short?

Well it's thundering here so I guess I'll split. Night y'all!

Dilligaf said...

For what it’s worth, I once had a Yellow Lab named Dave. He just looked like a Dave...

Milly James said...

On refection, all labs have a distinct 'Davish' aspect.

Mon Durphy said...

If anyone is interested there's a second trailer out for the upcoming Tarantino movie, it's set to Neil Diamonds Brother Loves Traveling Salvation Show, there's a scene where they use the genuine Cielo Drive which as far as I know would be the first time in a TLB related movie

beauders said...

I remember something about a dog in the closet, Tate's personal dog Prudence. I also read that Prudence was found under a table cowering with blood on her. The dogs with Garrettson were Altobelli's.

Mon Durphy said...

Thats heartbreaking, there's a pic out there of the Labiancas dog on the bed with Rosemary dead on the floor that's equally as sad

Mon Durphy said...

I remember reading about how Voyteks dumb ass ran over Sharon's other dog, he would have been out on his ass the second it happened

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

You're right Ms beauders.
According to this article
πŸ‘‡
https://people.com/archive/cover-story-my-sisters-murder-45-years-after-manson-vol-82-no-10/
The police found 2 dogs in a closet. The article says it was Prudence & Tom, both puppies.

So, the question now is, did the dogs go into the closet by themselves?
Or,
did someone put them there?

Mario George Nitrini 111
-----
The OJ Simpson Case

katie8753 said...

Sorry I don't believe the dogs were in the closet. I don't think that happened. I really don't believe everything Debra Tate says.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Well Ms Katie, I don't know enough about The Charles Manson Case to know if the dogs were in the closet.
But do think Debra Tate would make a statement pertaining to the cops? saying the dogs were in the closet?

This is a tough one, but very important.

Mario George Nitrini 111
--------
The OJ Simpson Case

katie8753 said...

Why would Sharon put dogs in the closet? Did she wait until Susan Atkins came in the room and said "get in the living room" and then put the dogs in the closet?

That doesn't make any sense. I don't think that Sharon would be thinking about dogs at that time.

The only other explanation is that she kept the dogs in the closet at night or something. That doesn't make sense either. It was HOT that night. Why would she put dogs in the closet to be hot, instead of having them in the house to have a breeze?

That just doesn't make any sense!

katie8753 said...

I've never heard of any dogs in the the closet at Cielo Drive. This is just news to me.

Sorry, don't mean to be a "know it all" but this just doesn't make any sense.

Mon Durphy said...

I think the assumption was either the killers put them in there or they went in there by themselves, either of which is plain heartbreaking but like you I've never heard of them being in the closet

Mon Durphy said...

Debra wasn't in the house after the murders regardless of what she may claim

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Ms Katie, I don't think Sharon Tate put the dogs in the closet. My feeling is someone else put the dogs in the closet, if, they were truly in the closet, where Debra Tate says the cops found them.

So let's say the dogs were not in the closet, where were they?

Mario George Nitrini 111
-----
The OJ Simpson Case

Mon Durphy said...

I'm with you on this I've never heard this, I have seen footage of animal control taking custody of some of the kittens that Sharon had taken in and fed but no dogs in closets

katie8753 said...

(1) Debra was not in the house after the murders.

(2) I've not read or heard of ANY dogs in the closet at Cielo Drive. Not in the police reports. This is news to me.

Mon, the killers did not put dogs in closets. At least they never mentioned it.

Mario, I know that Sharon was interested in taking care of stray pets. I know there were lots of stray cats around the house, supposedly because Terry Melcher had gathered them up to feed them, then split the scene, and Sharon was left holding the bag.

I've never heard of her having puppies or any other dogs in closets. Any dogs she was caring for were out in the yard.

I can't believe that Sharon would put any animal in a closet to die of heat prostration.

And I doubt that the killers would worry about puppies to put them in closets.

Seriously this is the first I've even heard of this closet stuff. When did this revelation first come out?

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Ms Katie,
the revelation(dogs/closet)
I did a Google search and it was in People magazine, September 8th, 2014 here
πŸ‘‡
https://people.com/archive/cover-story-my-sisters-murder-45-years-after-manson-vol-82-no-10/

Mario George Nitrini 111
------
The OJ Simpson Case

katie8753 said...

I know Darlin' you already posted that link to People Magazine. Debra Tate saying things.

Fake News!

Sorry I say that's bogus!

katie8753 said...

What I'm saying is I don't believe everything Debra Tate says.

katie8753 said...

I think this whole thing was atrocious. Sharon Tate had a chance to be a good actress. I think she made a mistake marrying Roman Polanski, because he's a pedophile. But I think she really had a good chance at becoming a good actress.

She was a mediocre actress at best before she died. But I think she might have had a shot. If she had lived in a different era she might have been able to go beyond her looks and just focus on her acting abilities.

That last movie she shot in Italy was pretty good. It was an Italian movie, which always sucks, but she did a good job in the comedy aspect.

I hate interviews with her because she comes across as stupid and egocentric. But I think she would have made a good actress.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Ok Ms Katie. We all have our opinions, and that's what makes this blog so cool, that we can civily discuss, and perhaps come up with an answer.

Maybe someday, Tex Watson or Patricia Krenwinkel will truthfully divuldge more, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that.

Mario George Nitrini 111
-----
The OJ Simpson Case

katie8753 said...

You know Meryl Streep made her debut in Kramer Vs Kramer, but I think that Sharon could have played that part better than Meryl. If those fucking assholes hadn't killer her!

Just sayin'.

katie8753 said...

I agree Mario! Thanks!!! :)

katie8753 said...

I never thought Meryl Streep was any good anyway. She's a nose breather. HA HA!

Mon Durphy said...

Sharon and Dustin Hoffman is pretty hard to picture lol

katie8753 said...

Well Mon, she handled one Jew. She could probably handle another! LOL.

I'd like to see Sharon in Tootsie!

Mon Durphy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mon Durphy said...

It's hard to picture Sharon in any kind of serious dramatic role but maybe if she studied it would be possible, Tootsie I could see

katie8753 said...

I think that if Sharon had been given a good role instead of those silly movies she was in she could have really established herself as a new young talent. I think that Ransohoff guy was hiding her for some reason.

Mon Durphy said...

I think as the 70s and 80s came along and the roles for women got better she would have gotten some good roles other than beach bunny movies or weird devil bullshit, she'd have been a great Dorothy Stratten in Star 80 instead of Mariel Hemingway

katie8753 said...

You know I was thinking the same thing. Sharon would have been great playing Stratten. Or maybe star in a movie like "Fatal Attraction". We'll never know because all she got was crumbs for movie parts.

Mon Durphy said...

Fatal Attraction is an interesting one, did you have her in Glenn Closes role or Anne Archer?

Mon Durphy said...

Her as Michelle Pfieffers role in Scarface would be interesting

katie8753 said...

I was thinking Glenn Close's role. Think of a beautiful woman enticing a married man, which would be good for her because she's beautiful, but then turning psycho when he tries to break it off.

Mon Durphy said...

Yeah I could see that

Torque said...

Mon,sorry I don't have a reputable source on the dogs in the closet in the Cielo main house. I have seen it repeated several times by commentators, but that of course is not proof of anything. It may have originated with Debra.

On a side note, and speaking of dogs, over at cielodrive.com is an interesting picture of the Cielo main house rear porch service area. The door into the house in this photo appears to have a small "dog door" in its lower left panel.

If that is what it is, I wonder if Rudi or Terry Melcher had it installed. Perhaps it was Abigail, who may have had it installed for Saperstein and Tom.

The back yard may have been a good area for the dogs to go out and play, keeping the front yard clear of dog poop, etc. Yet the dog door could not have been the exclusive entrance and exit for the dogs, of course, as Mrs Chapman testified that she cleaned the pups' muddy paw prints off of the other doors.

Mon Durphy said...

There were two back doors, I'm assuming you're talking about the one Chapman entered as opposed to the one off the dining room, the problem with the dogs playing back there is there's really no "backyard" just a narrow strip and then the cliff going up the next canyon hill, now there is something of a backyard in back of the guesthouse which they could play in

Mon Durphy said...

I'm going to see if there's a pic of a drawing of the Cielo floor plan, I've always been intrigued with the two backdoors and why no one thought to run out of either

Torque said...

Yes, it was the door that Chapman entered. And true, not much of a backyard there, but I did see a rare view of that area(probably taken in the 80's)looking towards the garage, and probably shot from the area behind Sharon's bedroom. In that view, at least, there's a little more green space, before running into the hillside.

Additionally, concerning the closet the dogs may(or may not have been in), and it being too hot for them: can we really say it was so hot in that house late in the evening, even though it was no doubt beastly hot during the day?

Consider the following: a quick search of the Cielo crime scene photos revealed Steve Parent to be wearing long pants and a long sleeve shirt. He was also wearing what appeared to be thick socks and leather shoes. Voytek was wearing both pants, long sleeved shirt, vest, and boots. Jay was wearing long pants and long sleeved shirt, and boots. He even brought a leather jacket in with him! Abigail was no doubt a little more comfortable in her rather long nightgown, while Sharon looked to be the most comfortably dressed of all, if there was still significant heat at midnight.

Point is, the dogs may have had a specified night place to sleep, and this may have been in a closet. Since I first heard that story, I believed it to be the dressing room in the back of Sharon's bedroom, but of course I can't prove that.

Mon Durphy said...

Why do you think Voytek was fully dressed asleep on the couch? I have my own theory

Torque said...

I personally don't have a theory on this, but I'm willing to speculate. Voytek was calling Witold-K from Cielo, asking him to come up to the house. Perhaps Voytek thought he might show up at some point. Perhaps Voytek was in the habit of receiving people, even while lounging around, with his shoes on inside the house.In fact, when Tex initially approached Voytek on the couch, and Voytek began to wake up, he used a name(perhaps thinking it was Witild-K), and asked him what time it was.

I have also often thought that Jay was almost on his way out of the house, and that perhaps Voytek was going to go with him, thereby explaining why Voytek was clothed and with his boots on.

Mon Durphy said...

My theory is both Voytek and Jay were waiting on Tex and possibly Linda, I think the visit started off amicable then turned the other way when Tex said he had no intention of paying for whatever drugs he got, i think Voytek recognized Tex which is why he asked what time it was as opposed to "who are you?"

katie8753 said...

Actually Steve Parent was wearing a short sleeve shirt. Just sayin'. Maybe in CA when it gets to almost 100 degrees during the day, it cools off at night by 20 or 30 degrees? I personally think that putting animals in closets is cruel. But that's just me.

Maybe Voytek just wanted to lie down on the couch and catch "40 winks" for a while. It's obvious he wasn't ready to head to bed, or he would have been in the bedroom with Gibby while she was reading. What he had in mind for later is a mystery to me!

I've always wondered why someone didn't head out the "back doors". Especially Sharon. There was a back door by the fireplace. But according to Susan, she was "guarding" Sharon while Tex & Pat chased people in the front yard.

Mon Durphy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Torque said...

Katie, yes I stand corrected. I revisited the photos, and Steve is wearing a short sleeve shirt. In the morgue photo he had on a t-shirt underneath.

Concerning the door near the fireplace, it exited to the backyard, with the steep hill directly behind. Of course I cannot know for certain, but I have to believe it would have been extremely difficult for Sharon to run, due to her stage of pregnancy. When the attack began in the living room, I would have to think it was extremely frenzied, and this did not allow her time to think through an escape. On the other hand, of course, Abigail did run out the back through Sharon's bedroom, but that was after a prolonged struggle with Patricia.

Moreover, if she did attempt to flee, there is very good evidence that Sharon made it out to the front step, as her blood type was found there. And at one point, Susan said that she brought Sharon "back to the couch". From where Sharon was being brought appears to be a mystery.

Mon Durphy said...

Susan made another interesting comment during her 1978 parole hearing, when asked if Linda had ever entered the house she said only once but she was outside the rest of the time, the reason I believe her is that it wasn't said as part of a plan to implicate Linda because it was simply brought up and then not mentioned again but it was said so matter of factly by Susan like it was something that happened literally the day before

katie8753 said...

Torque I agree, with all the screaming and stabbing going on at the time, Sharon probably didn't even know what to do. And of course with her being pregnant, she probably wasn't in "fight mode". Her brain probably wasn't functioning.

Mon, you're obviously of the opinion that this was some kind of drug deal gone wrong. I've gotta say, I've never subscribed to this.

I think I've said this before. But if the murders were due to some kind of bad drug deal gone wrong, why wouldn't Tex and the girls tell the cops that? I mean, wouldn't it look better to a jury that you were killing people because of some kind of bad drug deal, rather than just killing people you didn't even know because your "hippy cult leader" told you to start "Helter Skelter"?

Wouldn't it look better to a jury to be "rumbling" with other drug dealers?

Don't you think that if Tex Watson had told his attorney in Texas about this "bad drug deal" that that attorney would have told him to "come clean about it"? Was his name Boyd?

Don't you think that would be on the Tex Tapes???

Just wonderin'

katie8753 said...

Well the Tex Tapes are a void point. Sorry for bringing that up. LOL.

Mon Durphy said...

I think when you look through the homicide report and other documents it's fairly obvious, I'm sure if Aaron Stovitz was still alive he'd tell you the same thing, Vince HAD TO get Charlie for whatever reason whether it was a personal thing because Charlie challenged him or rubbed him the wrong way or because Evelle Younger wanted an example made of what we're percieved as hippies, whatever it was Vince was going to get Charlie at any cost, I'll give you my reasons why I think it was drugs in another post

katie8753 said...

Okay thanks Mon! I'm gonna hit the hay! We'll talk tomorrow. Night y'all!

Mon Durphy said...

Ok not that this is the only thing but per the homicide report Harrigan had flown in from Toronto to meet with Voytek to "discuss an upcoming MDA shipment", does anyone really believe he flew 2000 miles to simply talk about a deal? MDA wasn't even illegal at that point so there's no danger talking about it on the phone, my opinion is Harrigan made a delivery to Frykowski that day, how big or small is anyone's guess but my guess is it was substantial enough to get Tex up there

Mon Durphy said...

Left out the day was Wednesday, Aug 6, two days before the murders

beauders said...

I agree with Katie that if drugs were part of the motive it was because Watson knew the drugs had been delivered and he wanted them. This could be on the tapes and that is why LAPD or whoever has the tapes won't release them, they show Watson was running the show that night, not Manson.

Mon Durphy said...

Of course he knew the drugs were there

beauders said...

Well its over Leslie Van Houten was denied parole by Newsom. This is the end for all of them unless they are applying for compassionate leave as they age and get ill.

William Weston said...

The above discussion regarding a bad drug deal has gotten me thinking about the Second Homicide Investigation Progress Report which said that Harvey F. Dareff, a hippie who was a drug user and a car thief, went to the Tate house that evening either “to possibly buy or sell some form of narcotics.” With him were Bobby Jamison and James Steven Williams both of whom were also drug users and car thieves. All three were considered to be suspects in the Tate case. I find it interesting that both Ed Durston (Diane Linkletter’s boyfriend) and a friend of Bobby Jamison, Jimmy George, were present when Diane lept (or was pushed) to her death from a sixth floor apartment, with Durston in the apartment and Jimmy as the onlooker on the ground.

Bobby wrote the following on his blog “Benedict Canyon is where the Tate Murders occurred some time later, which is why I'm mentioned on the Manson site along with Harvey Dareff. We had been in the vicinity prior to that event."

The above points should be compared to what Garretson said about the hippies who drove him back to the house from the Sunset Strip.

On the Manson family Blog Max Frost makes the following comments about the incident.

"It’s important to note that he [Garretson] definitely added some dimension, as to what really happened that night, by sharing the story about the van full of hippy types who had picked him up on his way back from Sunset. Although I have not read Nick Shreck's latest book, I am privy to the section where he claims the Cielo Drive property was under FBI surveillance that same night due to all the drug activity supposedly going on there with Wojciech. I can't say whether that's true or not but, like anything else, it is possible. Assuming for now that it is true, what better way for undercover agents to disguise themselves and fit in than to do it as hippies and keep a close tail on everyone coming and going from the house? Garretson told me he got spooked by these people and told them to let him out far before they had gotten anywhere near Cielo Drive. They told him it was ok, they could take him further. The further up Benedict Canyon they drove, the more he tried to get them to pull over and let him out while they continued to assure him it was ok. When they finally reached Bella (directly opposite the long, shared, private drive leading to the house), after turning onto Cielo, he boldly told them that this was it, he definitely had to get out here. Their response was "It's ok, we are going to the same place you are." They drove him all the way to the house, parked, got out with him, and started asking him who the cars there belonged to. "Who's car is this? Who's car is that?" One of them even went into Sebring's Porsche claiming it was his "friend's car" and he was going to "play a trick on him."

It seems to me that among the hippies in the van whom Garretson saw were Dareff, Jameson, and Stevens. Dareff might have actually gone up to the house to deliver drugs while the others waited in the van.

I have wondered why Sharon and Jay did not use their karate skills on Tex and the girls. If Frykowski joined them, the three might have put up a good fight, which might have been fatal to Manson’s Helter Skelter plan. The possibility that they had consumed dugs that left them awake but lethargic might have been the reason for their failure to resist. The drugs that Dareff delivered might have been poisoned.

Perhaps as Beauders suggests, they drugged the dogs too.

William Weston said...

On the same Manson Family blog, a poster named David commented on Max's post that the hippies in the van might have formed a scout team.

“The scout team almost feels to me like we forgot to put on our 1969 hat. While pay phones were a lot more common in 1969 as I think we all know, the crew certainly needed something to communicate back to Spahn what they saw pretty quickly, given they didn’t have a cell phone.

Garretson testified he returned home that night at about 10:00. The killers arrive at Cielo at about midnight. Google maps says the trip from Spahn to Cielo is 40 minutes but Tex got lost, per Atkins, and Kasabian testified it took about an hour. The eyewitnesses (and you know how I feel about them) said Manson approached them about an hour after dinner or between 10-10:30. So, unless they found that pay phone pretty quick there appears to be a timeline problem with the ‘go/no go’ message. Certainly, it can’t relate to the ‘now is the time for HS’ spoken allegedly at dinner.”

I agree with David's suggestion that the hippies in the van were a scout team that set the stage for the murders at midnight. I don't agree that they did not have enough time to find a pay phone. The distance to reach the Sunset Strip where pay phones could be found was not far. The gas station where Tex and the girls filled up was about eight minutes or less from the Tate house.

Mon Durphy said...

I remember reading that post by Max and thinking the same thing, probably Bruce and some of the girls scouting the scene, it would be stupid to just go up there sight unseen, Bill told Brian Davis how the story happened on his show a few years ago, my question is why no mention by Bill of the story at the time of the murders but I think he may have received a visit from someone posing as an attorney when he was brought in telling him to keep his mouth shut or else, he told Brian he had 2 different "attorneys" show up at the station one claiming to be "a friend of Rudis" and then the other lawyer Tarlow

katie8753 said...

Those damn FBI agents pretending to be "hippies"! You can't trust anybody with long hair, beards, burned draft cards and surfers crosses!

katie8753 said...

You know, speaking of the phone at Spahn's Ranch, who paid the bill for that? George? He couldn't even see. And believe me, if you didn't pay the phone bill, it got cut off by Ma Bell.

And back then, there was only ONE phone in the house. That means if someone is on the phone, it rings busy.

So if anyone was on the phone, nobody can get thru.

And, we have what, 15 or 20 single females at Spahn's Ranch, all waiting on calls, and they're not fighting over the phone day and night?

I can just see it. The phone rings at Spahn's Ranch. "I'll get it, it's for me". "No I'll get it, it's for me". "You always say it's for you, it's for me". "You just wish it was for you, it's my boyfriend calling". "I will tie this phone cord around your neck".

And Charlie yelling "shut up all of ya! It's for ME!" HA HA.

William Weston said...

Maybe there was no need to call Charlie at Spahn Ranch, as “David” suggests. Tex and the girls were already on the road by then. According to Tex, p. 68, they had left Spahn “a few hours before,” which I take to mean sometime before 10:00, perhaps 8:00 or 9:00. Tex said they missed a turn-off and went all the way into Hollywood, then turned back on Santa Monica Boulevard and then on Sunset Boulevard to Benedict Canyon Drive. Apparently some of the time on the road was taken up trying to recover from a wrong turn, but the remaining time was probably spent waiting for the go/no go message at some pre-arranged spot. Perhaps if they were on Sunset Blvd., the scout team people could have delivered the message personally without having to use a pay phone.

beauders said...

Katie I don't think the women were fighting over the phone remember all of them except Van Houten was in love with Manson. They wanted Manson's attention, not anyone else's.

katie8753 said...

I know Beauders. I was just being silly. :)

Destroyer of Opinions said...

There has been a lot of talk of the OJ Simpson case here. Let me give you a parallel of the OJ case with the Manson case: the tactics of both Bugliosi and Johnnie Cochran. Both of them used ludicrous theories to draw attention away from the real killers—Bugliosi with Helter Skelter and Cochran with the LAPD framing theory. I’ve always stood by the copycat theory and the notion that Linda and Ted has much bigger roles than Charlie ever did. I also think that the Helter Skelter theory makes Cochran’s LAPD framing theory look credible.

beauders said...

Oops Katie I took you seriously.

Destroyer of Opinions said...

Meant to say TEX in my post.

Mon Durphy said...

In both cases the blood collection was the stuff of the Keystone Cops, taking vials of blood home with you, entire pools of blood skipped over and not typed, just ridiculous

Destroyer of Opinions said...

True, MD

katie8753 said...

Well Mon & Destroyer, if you think Tex & Linda were in charge of the Cielo Drive killings, then how and why were they in charge of the Hinman, LaBianca & Shea killings?

Destroyer of Opinions said...

The book Crucified: the Railroading of Charles Manson gave me all of the answers that I need.

Destroyer of Opinions said...

That book states that Linda chose to go to the LaBianca residence because she’d stopped there before.

katie8753 said...

Really, when did Linda stop there before?

Destroyer of Opinions said...

Katie, my question to you is: isn’t Bugliosi’s Helter Skelter theory much more preposterous than Cochran’s LAPD framing theory?

Destroyer of Opinions said...

Let me find it in the book Crucified: the Railroading of Charles Manson.

katie8753 said...

Answer my question first. Then I'll answer yours.

katie8753 said...

Well I'm running out of time. Linda didn't go to the LaBianca House. She went to the house next door. Harold True's house. We all know that.

Now, explain why that had anything to do with anything.

Destroyer of Opinions said...

Kasabian herself told Bugliosi that she parked in front of the LaBianca residence in the summer of ‘68 to attend a party of Harold True’s.

Destroyer of Opinions said...

It would’ve given more credence to the copycat theory, being that Linda hoped to get Bobby Beausoleil freed.

katie8753 said...

Okay thanks. We'll talk tomorrow.

Destroyer of Opinions said...

Will do.

katie8753 said...

The LaBiancas weren't living in that house in the summer of 1968.

Destroyer of Opinions said...

I didn’t know that, but Michael White said that Linda made that house a target.

katie8753 said...

I personally don't think Linda was in charge of anything. I think she's a scumbag, but I don't think any of these killings were masterminded by her.

There are several authors that write books saying that Manson was innocent and was railroaded. Manson's actions during his trial were of his own volition. Bugliosi didn't make him shave his head, carve his forehead, lunge at the judge or disrupt the trial for months. Manson did all that on his own. And the fact that the girls copied everything he did was visible proof to any jury that he had control over them.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. If Manson had shown up every day for trial dressed in a nice suit and just kept his mouth shut, I really think that Bugliosi would NOT have been able to prove to the jury that he was guilty of these murders.

I mean, compare this trial to OJ's trial. OJ just sat there day after day and didn't say a word unless he was asked to. Do you think that if OJ had done all the things that Manson did during his trial that he would have been found not guilty? If he had shown the jury first hand that he was quick to violence?

Manson's attorney should have nipped all that behavior in the bud. But knowing Manson, it was probably pretty much impossible to control his behavior.

katie8753 said...

Check this out:

http://www.lsb3.com/2012/12/crucified-railroading-of-charles-manson.html

Destroyer of Opinions said...

Katie, I think I’ve seen that post and have read some of your other posts. I agree that if Manson had kept his cool, he would’ve bettered his chances of an acquittal or mistrial. Imagine if Johnnie Cochran represented Manson.

But anyway, you’ve mentioned that you don’t completely believe the Helter Skelter theory, which is reassuring. The people who do believe that theory are sheeple.

katie8753 said...

Of course I don't believe the Helter Skelter theory. That theory is ludicrous. And if you'll research Bugliosi, he admits he didn't believe it either. He used it to convict Manson.

I know there are lots of people out there who have their own theories about these murders, people who write books, people who don't, people who just like to comment on blogs.

We will never know the whole truth. That's just a fact. Charlie's gone, and the others will probably never tell the whole truth. So all we have is conjecture and opinions.

My personal opinion? I think that Charlie was definitely involved in these murders, and he "ordered them" because he needed money.

Maybe "ordered them" is stretching? But I do think Manson was in charge of most of the people at the Ranch, including Bobby B. I think Hinman was killed because Charlie wanted money. He wanted money to get to the desert. Why? Not because of the "Race War" but because he thought his time was running out in town. He wanted to disappear.

Why was his time running out in town? One thing was the drug dealers were coming down on him for bad deals. i.e. Bobby B.

Bobby claims he sold the SS some bad drugs that he bought from Gary Hinman. I don't believe that. I think he bought them somewhere else. That's just what I think. I think that Gary was on an upward swing and trying to get away from drugs. But Manson heard that Gary had (1) received an inheritance, (2) owned his own home and (3) Had lots of stocks and bonds.

Manson wanted Gary's money. Gary had been a friend of "the family" for years. I guess Manson thought "he owed them".

Bobby ended up killing Gary. I don't think Manson told him to do that. I really think that Manson just wanted his money. Just my opinion.

But now Manson has this murder on his head and he's gotta figure something out. He tells Tex to go and kill and get money. And he tells the girls to do what Tex says.

This is where it gets dicey. If Charlie wanted money, why not go rob a bank or a gas station? Why go kill people.

So now we're back at square one.

Destroyer of Opinions said...

I’m glad you think that Bobby Beausoleil was a huge part of the Hinman and TLB killings, because I agree. My most recent position on this has been the copycat motive. I don’t think that position will change any time soon.

katie8753 said...

You know DOO, I'm just giving my opinion. You're entitled to yours of course. That's why these blogs are fun to talk on and debate.

In that book, "Railroading of Charles Manson", those first 2 letters of Charlie to Kanarek to me spoke more loudly than anything else he said.

He was asking for Squeaky to send him money. A man who lives off a woman is not a man.

katie8753 said...

I think that Bobby B. made the decision completely on his own to kill Gary. I don't think Charlie told him to.

In fact, I think that Charlie just wanted Gary's money. Period. I don't think that Charlie wanted for a minute for Gary to get killed. Even though Charlie showed up and cut Gary's face. I think he was trying to scare Gary.

Of course, you can't scare someone to give up what they don't have. And Gary didn't have any money.

This is probably one of the only things I think that Charlie is NOT guilty of.

Destroyer of Opinions said...

One question, Katie: do you think that Bugliosi used the same tactic (to get Manson convicted) that Johnnie Cochran did (to get OJ acquitted)?

katie8753 said...

Well DOO, you're talking apples and oranges. Two different types of cases.

Johnnie Cochran was trying to get OJ off because of "racisim" due to Mark Fuhrman being a confirmed "racist", and of course, Fuhrman was part of investigating this case and providing evidence. He accused Fuhrman of "planting evidence" to frame Simpson.

Bugliosi wasn't using "racism" to try and convict Charlie. He was using a term that someone else told him that Charlie preached about. "Helter Skelter". The only people who would buy into that term would be drugged-out hippies.

But you have to remember, as I pointed out, the 2 defendants acted differently in court. And when you're in court, it's a small room, and you can't miss much. And the jury in the Manson trial didn't miss a thing.

In fact, the jurors in the Manson trial received "death threats". In fact, even when the case was over, the LAPD guarded the jurists for months later because of death threats levied against them.

The jurors in the Simpson case did NOT receive death threats.

To me, they're 2 very different arenas.

Case in point, Casey Anthony was found not guilty. She was as guilty as the day is long. But she sat there day after day and didn't say or do anything. That speaks volumes to a jury.

I'm telling you, Manson convicted himself with his own actions. And nobody told him to do that. He did it because he wanted to. Period.

katie8753 said...

Bugliosi didn't really have any real evidence that Charlie was involved in these murders. It was all hearsay and conjecture. And if Charlie had not acted like he did in court, he probably would have walked.

I'm not saying Charlie was not guilty. I think he's guilty as sin. But he was smart enough to not get involved in the "dirty dealings". He pushed the dirty work off on other people. But when push came to shove, he was too egotistical to just keep his mouth shut. And in the end, that's what did him in.

Night y'all!

Mon Durphy said...

The OJ case in my opinion was fruit of the poison tree, you can't have as many things wrong in a case of that magnitude and then tell a jury to disregard all if it and find the man guilty and if you do watch a city burn for a week, remember we're talking not even 3 years post Rodney King

Destroyer of Opinions said...

Very true MD. That case was the perfect storm.

Destroyer of Opinions said...

Katie, I think in a general sense—both Cochran and Bugliosi used preposterous theories to achieve their means.

katie8753 said...

I agree DOO. I don't think they were "made up" theories, but a theory premise that was expounded upon to achieve the final outcome. i.e., I do think Mark Fuhrman was a racist, but I don't believe he planted evidence to frame OJ.

And I don't think the motive for these murders was Helter Skelter. I think Bugliosi latched onto that crazy motive because that whole case was crazy.

Personally, I think the motive for these murders was that Manson thought he killed Lottspoppa and for the first time in his life, he was scared of what would happen to him and his "family". I think he wanted money to go hide in the desert, and money to get more weapons and supplies. I do think he told Tex to go to several houses and get money. Do I think he told Tex to kill everybody? That part I'm not sure about. We have to include the factor that Tex was pretty nutty by that time. Either because of drugs or maybe he just had mental problems before he ever got to CA.

I don't believe in the copy cat theory.

katie8753 said...

But then again, Manson knew Tex killed at Cielo Drive, and enlisted him again the next night to go to the LaBiancas. So Manson had to know that Tex would kill again. That part, to me, makes Manson guilty of conspiracy of murder, even though he wasn't involved in the killings.

William Weston said...

I think I missed something in the above discussion. I get that Bugliosi used the Helter Skelter theory to explain why Sharon and her friends were murdered. What was Johnnie Cochran's theory of the motive behind Ron and Nicole deaths? Was it also helter-skelterish?

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

William Weston.
Johnnie Cochran's main theory, as is F. Lee Bailey's theory, is that Nicole Simpson was mistaken for Faye Resnick.
(Columbian Necktie)
Supposedly, Resnick owedπŸ’°money to drug dealers.
πŸ‘‡
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/09/us/simpson-s-lawyer-hints-slayings-were-mistake-by-drug-dealers.html?

The big problem is neither the late Johnnie Cochran nor F. Lee Bailey had/have a rebuttal for ROCKY BATEMAN'S "ROLE" in The OJ Simpson Case.
I even legally challenged
F. Lee Bailey on one of my blogs back in 2011.
πŸ‘‡
https://blogmyspacecommariognitrini111.blogspot.com/2011/01/mr-f-lee-bailey-my-legal-challenge.html?m=0
Of course F. Lee Bailey never responded to me.
HE CAN'T & WON'T......

Mario George Nitrini 111
-------
The OJ Simpson Case

katie8753 said...

Mario, do you think that is right?

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

No Ms Katie, drug dealers DID NOT kill Nicole Simpson & Ron Goldman.

Mario George Nitrini 111
-------
The OJ Simpson Case

katie8753 said...

Yeah I agree. Those murders were way too messy for drug dealers. Those wounds were personal.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

You're right Ms Katie
("Those wounds were personal").

Ok Ms Katie. I have 2 scenarios on who killed Nicole Simpson & Ron Goldman, and it's based on information & evidence I "know" about, and information & evidence that I have not yet made public.

1st scenario:
OJ Simpson killed Nicole Simpson & Ron Goldman, and someone helped him do it. A lot of it is based on what I "know" about OJ Simpson's regular Limousine Driver, and my
ex-nephew-in-law, ROCKY BATEMAN, and the "HAPPENING'S" that "surround" ROCKY.

2nd scenario:
Mark Fuhrman did it and someone helped him.
Please go to YouTube, and in the YouTube search engine, put

Mark Fuhrman alibi
(It's a YouTube video)

Bob Fusco, who I have had correspondence with, nailed Mark Fuhrman. Fuhrman testified about being at a Police Protective League Get Together, the weekend of June 11th & 12th, 1994. How can Mark Fuhrman be in 2 places at once on June 12th, 1994, at approximately 10:40pm, right around the time Nicole Simpson & Ron Goldman were killed?
HE CAN'T.
Why did Fuhrman LIE about that?
Also, that Police Protective League Barbecue? It was NOT held on Sunday, June 12th, 1994, like Fuhrman testified to. It was held Saturday evening, June 11th, 1994.
So Mark Fuhrman commits more perjury in the OJ Simpson Case Criminal Trial, and no one calls him on it?
SOMETHING REALLY STINKS.....

Mario George Nitrini 111
------
The OJ Simpson Case

katie8753 said...

Why would Mark Fuhrman kill Nicole? Did he know her?

Is your nephew the driver that took OJ to the airport that night?

I've read that OJ's son is the one who killed Nicole & Ron, but that's probably just media gossip.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

From what I know & read, oh yes, Mark Fuhrman knew Nicole Simpson. Several reports & media articles about that.

Rocky Bateman DID NOT drive OJ Simpson to the airport that night. That's a conspiracy in itself.

Complete & utter NONSENSE. Jason Simpson DID NOT kill Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.



Mario George Nitrini 111
------
The OJ Simpson Case

Mon Durphy said...

Yes because what is the best way to collect money on a drug debt especially from a woman who is more than likely relieving alimony and child support payments of probably 25k a month combined? Let's kill her yeah that makes sense! Lol

Mon Durphy said...

I'm sorry, I thought Mario's theories were I outer space on TLB but my Lord, Fuhrman kills Nicole and Ron? Nicole mistaken for Faye Resnick and killed over drug debts? This sounds like the babbling from the inmate of a state mental hospital lol

Mon Durphy said...

OJ killed Nicole over jealousy and his not wanting to pay alimony and child support, most of the time a murderer case comes down to Occums Razor, the simplest most obvious suspect is the murders, OJ had the most motive and opportunity, he not only didnt want to keep paying 20 something grand every month from an ever dwindling career and income and when he goes to Bundy Dr to talk about it he sees a 25 year old white man fifty times better looking than him and he flies into a rage, he has oportunity because he knows the surroundings the entrances and exits, whether there's guard dogs, he knows her schedule, etc....he's as guilty as the day is long

Mon Durphy said...

Sorry about the 2 or 3 grammatical errors there, I type on my phone and sometimes my brain gets ahead of my fingers lol

Mon Durphy said...

It was OJ, I've never been surer of any case I've ever seen, he came about an inch from cutting that woman's head off that's a passion killing, that's a YEARS of hatred and bitterness killing

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Well there you go Mon Durphy,
AKA dave1971
AKA susanatkinsgonorrhea
AKA rudywebershose
AKA Lou Gehrig
trashing me AGAIN.

You have MO IDEA what REALLY went on in The OJ Simpson Case & Saga.
You can't even get your facts straight. You said:

"In both cases the blood collection was the stuff of the Keystone Cops, taking vials of blood home with you"

WRONG AGAIN MON DURPHY in The OJ Simpson Case.
Philip Vanatter took the vial of OJ Simpson's blood back to OJ Simpson's Rockingham estate/home, NOT to his/Vanatters home.

Mario George Nitrini 111
-----
The OJ Simpson Case

Mon Durphy said...

My only question is did he go over there with the pre meditation in mind to kill her or was it a heat of anger case from him catching Goldman on the scene

Mon Durphy said...

I wasn't talking about Vanatter I was talking about another guy, I don't remember his name

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Mon Durphy,

Can you please point-out WHO took a vial of OJ Simpson's blood home with them?
Thank you

Mario George Nitrini 111
-----
The OJ Simpson Case

katie8753 said...

I've gotta say, I think OJ did it too for the same reasons. He obviously had a temper because he beat Nicole up when they were married. I think the day of the killings their daughter had some kind of recital that he attended, but afterward Nicole and her family had planned to go to dinner and he was politely told to "get lost".

He was probably tired of paying for Nicole to run around with other men and whatever else she was doing, hob-nobbing with the Kardashian trash.

Yeah, it would take someone really personally involved and extremely pissed off to pretty much cut her head off.

I think Ron was like Steve Parent, just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Mon Durphy said...

Add in the glove, mainly black jury 3 years after Rodney King and the LAPD bumbling the case and it's a free OJ

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Ms Katie,
I do respect you opinion on who you think killed Nicole Simpson & Ron Goldman.
There's a lot to The OJ Case that people don't know about.

According to Rocky Bateman, and what he told me was:

in the winter near Christmas time in 1993, OJ was furious with Nicole about a Diamond Bracelet that he bought for her as a Christmas present.

Mario George Nitrini 111
-+--
The OJ Simpson Case

Mon Durphy said...

You see Mario the reason no one takes you seriously is that you throw out these things like he was furious about a diamond bracelet but don't say why or what the context of the comment is, for instance if he gave her the bracelet and she sold it for drugs or gave it to some guy she was screwing to sell then I'd be pretty furious too

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

As usual Mon Durphy,
YOU'RE WRONG AGAIN ,AS USUAL.....
How do you know that
"no one takes me seriously"?
YOU DON'T.....

For your information Mon Durphy, or whatever your name is,
LOTS OF PEOPLE TAKE ME SERIOUSLY...
Go ahead and contact
The Los Angeles District Attorneys Office,
The LAPD
The DOJ California
&
The FBI Los Angeles,
and ask them about me pertaining to
The OJ Simpson Case & Saga
The Charles Manson Case & Saga
The Murder of Biggie Smalls
& More......

And there is no doubt in my mind, you Mon Durphy, are going to be the next MR KNOW IT ALL after this character
πŸ‘‡
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QKeirXHmP4M

Did you ever find WHO took OJ Simpson's vial of blood home?
I'd bet the farm in Las Vegas you didn't.

Mario George Nitrini 111
------
The OJ Simpson Case

katie8753 said...

Maybe he gave her the diamond bracelet to try and get back with her, then she told him to get lost but kept the bracelet. That would get his motor running.

Hey Mario, do you know Kato Kaelin? Is he as weird as he appeared on TV?

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Ms Katie,
That's exactly what I was trying to point out to you. Very perceptive on your part Ms Katie.
(Getting OJ's motor running)
According to ROCKY, OJ Simpson at Christmas time 1993, was VERY unhappy with Nicole....

I do not know Kato Kaelin. I can tell you this, after me asking Kaelin about ROCKY BATEMAN on Twitter, Kaelin blocked me. Kato Kaelin for sure, is NOT telling all about what he knows pertaining to The OJ Simpson Case & Saga

Mario George Nitrini 111
------
The OJ Simpson Case

katie8753 said...

I watched the OJ trial in the 90's. It was on TV. Kato appeared to be a simpleton, but I couldn't be sure if it was an act or not. I couldn't make up my mind if he was lying for OJ or he was just a doofus.

He was living in a guest house or something on OJ's property. That was never really made clear why OJ would have a guy like that living on his property. That struck me as odd.

He claims that he and OJ went and got a hamburger around 8:30 or 9:00 that night. Then they went back to his property and OJ went in his house and Kato went in his. It struck me as odd that they would do a "drive thru" to get hamburgers, and then return and eat them in separate locations.

I think he said he and Nicole were good friends. I haven't followed this case so it's kind of hard to remember all the details.

I just remember that Marcia Clark seemed to be in over her head with this case. OJ had the money to hire "power house" lawyers, and he had quite a few.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Ms Katie,
the story that most people know, yes, you're right, Kato Kaelin was friends with Nicole Simpson, and lived with her, supposedly as friends. OJ Simpson, as the story goes, was jealous of Kaelin, and invited Kaelin to live at Rockingham, per Nicole's request.

I took it watching Kaelin on the witness stand, he was trying to make OJ Simpson feel at ease with his (Kaelins) testimony.

Marcia Clark asked Judge Ito to declare Kato Kaelin a
"hostile witness."

The hamburger run?
I believe was also a drug purchase run.

Mario George Nitrini 111
-----
The OJ Simpson Case

katie8753 said...

Wow! A drug purchase run? Kato really struck me as a "magic lollipop" kinda guy! He reminded me of a 60's type hippy.

I just thought it was weird for a "man", living in a big estate, to rent out a guest house to another "man". Did he need the rent money? That sounds kinda gay to me.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Ms Katie,
that's just my opinion about the drug run with what has been told to me pertaining to Kato Kaelin.
I have no proof.

Kato Kaelin was staying RENT FREE at OJ Simpson's Rockingham estate.

Mario George Nitrini 111
-----
The OJ Simpson Case

Destroyer of Opinions said...

Katie, you bring up Manson’s behavior during the trial. Have there ever been any movies that focused on just the Manson trial? I know of one—Helter Skelter in 2004—which was trash.

katie8753 said...

DOO the Helter Skelter movie from 1976 was pretty good. Steve Railsback played a creepy Manson pretty good.

There have been LOTS of trashy movies about this case.

Mon Durphy said...

I'd suggest something even better which is to read the trial transcripts, go to cielodrive.com and for a few bucks through patreon you can read them

Mon Durphy said...

I agree Katie, I think that movie being the one closest to the actual events, alot of the real locations were used as well as the real killers car driven both nights, Railsback did a good job as Charlie, his performance was a bit over the top in a few places but overall it's the best one I've seen, one thing I'd like to see is someone get Charlie's Appalachia/West Virginia accent down

Mon Durphy said...

Watson's trial transcripts are free over there by the way

William Weston said...

OJ was innocent of murdering Ron and Nicole for at lest two reasons.

1. The limousine driver was OJ’s alibi. Allan Park arrived at OJ’s Rockingham residence at 10:25 with instructions to pick up OJ at 10:45. Although Park saw a dark figure enter the house at 10:55 and spoke to OJ a minute later on the intercom, he did not see OJ driving and parking his Bronco at a spot close enough where it would have been impossible for Park to miss it. The Bronco appeared at that particular spot after Park and OJ departed to go to the airport and found by the police the next morning. (The dark figure was probably OJ who came out of the house, unseen by Park, and then went back in, now seen by Park, probably having gone back inside to retrieve something.)

2. The blood samples collected at the crime scene tested positive for EDTA, a blood fixer (anti-coagulant). EDTA is used in laboratories to preserve blood samples collected from people having blood tests. The presence of EDtA was crucial to the defense argument that the evidence was planted.

Thus the jury was right for finding OJ not guilty.

William Weston said...

Getting back to the Tate case, considering the coming and going of Bill Garretson on the night of August 8 and how hippies gave him a ride back to the house, an interesting synchronicity occurs with Sharon and her friends having dinner at the El Coyote Restaurant. They left the restaurant between 9:45 and 10:00. Abigail spoke to her mother around 10:00. It is about a twenty-minute drive from the restaurant back to 10050 Cielo Drive. The earliest time of departure to go to the restaurant is tied into the delivery of Abigail’s bicycle by Dennis Hurst. According to Sanders, p. 197, Hurst arrived sometime between 6:30 and 7:00. According to Bugliosi, p. 85, the time was between 7:30 and 8:00. I was wondering if anyone can settle the discrepancy.

katie8753 said...

That's kind of late to be delivering a bicycle. Did they have to be there for it to be delivered?

William Weston said...

Dennis Hurst said he saw Jay Sebring answer the door.

katie8753 said...

William what difference does it make when they went to eat? They still got killed around midnight.

I wonder why Tex & girls climbed over the wall to get into Cielo Drive. Tex had been there many times and knew all you had to do is push the button on the gate.

Mon Durphy said...

I believe Folger bought it at around 2 or 3pm an the store owners son was the one who did the deliveries, my bet is that the only reason he agreed to deliver it as late as 7 is that they knew she had money and would be a future customer

Mon Durphy said...

I think I remember reading he saw Sebring drinking something out of a green bottle like a 7 up or a regular Heinekin beer

Mon Durphy said...

Katie my guess is that because it was close to midnight that the electric on the gate would have been activated even though the fence wasn't electric, all the times Tex had been there in the past had been earlier in the day

katie8753 said...

Mon, what difference does it make what time it is? I think it was established that Melcher didn't have any alarms, and neither did the Polanskis. Anybody could push that button and open the gate.

Mon Durphy said...

Only when it pertains to the fence being electricuted, of course now we know it wasn't but theoretically IF I had a house with an electric fence as a responsible home owner I'd disable it during the day in case any kids in the neighborhood touched it

katie8753 said...

But the gate was powered by electricity. That doesn't mean it will electrocute folks. It just means it opens and shuts electrically.

It's the same thing as electric lights or an electric doorbell. You don't get electrocuted by turning on a light or pushing a doorbell, unless there's a live wire and you step on it when you're standing in a puddle of water.

That doesn't make any sense.

beauders said...

The only thing I find interesting about OJ is that he and Nicole knew a guy named Glen Rogers, a future serial killer who was convicted of two murders and suspected of three more. He is called the Casanova Killer and the Cross Country Killer. A documentary titled, "My Brother The Serial Killer" claims that it was Glen Rogers who killed Nicole and her friend. He could have done it at the behest of OJ.

Destroyer of Opinions said...

On the subject of OJ, Bugliosi did a documentary in the late '90s called OJ: 100% Guilty. The thing reeks of hypocrisy.

Mon Durphy said...

Yeah I remember hearing that, for some reason I thought it was Tommy Lynn Sells but now I remember it was the guy you mentioned

William Weston said...

katie8753 said...
William what difference does it make when they went to eat? They still got killed around midnight.

I think it makes a big difference. With Garretson gone to the Sunset Strip, and Sharon and her three friends gone to a restaurant, that meant that the place was empty for a lengthy period of time, perhaps an hour and a half, long enough for a scout team to plant bugs, grab photos or documents with potential blackmail value, switch drugs for more lethargy-inducing versions of the same drug, seize any guns on the premises, etc.

katie8753 said...

How would that "scout team" know that Sharon and her friends were going out to eat?

Mon Durphy said...

Probably when they watched them pile into either Folger or Tate's car, they probably figured if all 4 of them were leaving they'd be gone for a little while

Mon Durphy said...

They didn't search very hard, they missed Romans .45

William Weston said...

If Garretson was part of the conspiracy, he might have seen them leave and simply placed a call. Then he himself left to go to the Sunset Strip. Sanders said he left at 8:30. Another way to find out comings and goings was by binocular surveillance. 10050 Cielo Drive had a great view of Los Angeles, but it also could be observed from many surrounding places. Also a permanent tail team could have watched for cars coming in and out of Cielo Drive and followed them.

William Weston said...

Romans 45 was probably taken while the four were at the restaurant, and then put back for the police to find, probably during the second visit with Manson and the mysterious stranger.

katie8753 said...

But how did they know they would be gone for quite a while? Maybe they were just running to the 7-11 to get some snacks.

I don't understand all this conspiracy stuff. Who was conspiring to do what? If the point was to kill them, why didn't they just go over there and kill them when they were home instead of spying on them to see what they were doing?

BTW Mon, I think it would be hard for them to all "pile in" any of the cars. A Porsche, Firebird or Camaro don't really have a back seat. Sharon would have to sit in front since she was pregnant, which means 2 of the other 3 would have to get in back. Maybe they took 2 cars??

Mon Durphy said...

Maybe, point being is IF there was a small group watching the house and they saw everyone leave it would be easy to get in the house and do whatever but I don't think whoever was watching actually went in the house, i think they went back down the hill and down to Sunset and called the ranch and let Tex know everyone was gone then they saw Garretson walking and offered him a ride back up the hill, think about the following infamous statement, "now is the time for Helter Skelter", how did Manson know that? Why not Saturday night, the next week or the next month? He knew because whoever was watching the house called and told him

katie8753 said...

But if everyone was gone, how was it the "Time for Helter Skelter"?

Why were these "people" watching Cielo Drive?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 294   Newer› Newest»