tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6001083595175224919.post3054760770986360129..comments2024-03-19T21:34:44.985-04:00Comments on The Tate-LaBianca Homicide Research Blog: William Weston writes....Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger136125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6001083595175224919.post-41938275562256155342018-12-16T19:21:03.743-05:002018-12-16T19:21:03.743-05:00William Weston said...
then the only alternat... William Weston said...<br /><br /> <b>then the only alternative that I can see</b><br /><br />For you it's the only alternative. Not for me. There could be quite a few alternatives but the point is ~ we don't know.<br /><br /><b>I think the conclusion you are expecting us to accept is much more deserving of the declaration of “nigh on impossible.”</b><br /><br />I'm not expecting you to accept that particular conclusion. It <i>could</i> have happened but I certainly don't believe it did. I would agree with you that it would be hugely unlikely, if not nigh on impossible.<br />We don't know how they got there or who they belonged to. We don't know if they were or weren't knocked off a surface during a struggle or by someone running by a surface trying to escape or giving chase.That we don't and never did at the very least suggests that the answer <i>may</i> have lain with those that died.<br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6001083595175224919.post-91957423691885206062018-12-16T10:27:14.265-05:002018-12-16T10:27:14.265-05:00Grim,
The photo and the quotes from the report are...Grim,<br />The photo and the quotes from the report are very interesting. Thanks.<br /><br />In the Sanders book, he says that the ear frames were open and sticking up just as we see in the photo. I can think of no way that the glasses would end up in its upright position like this unless the owner took them off and put them down. For a very myopic person to do so meant that he was afraid they would slip off his nose and accidentally get stepped on.<br /><br />Since you do not accept the idea that Linkletter lost them and declare it to be “nigh on impossible”, then the only alternative that I can see is that someone laid them down after the steamer trunks arrived. So according to your logic, some unknown very myopic person came to the house and put them down on the floor and absentmindedly left the house without ever thinking to ask Sharon, Abigail, etc. to help him find his glasses. I think the conclusion you are expecting us to accept is much more deserving of the declaration of “nigh on impossible.”<br /><br />We cannot accuse the bus driver of fabricating the story of the glasses since we do not have the original letter. I think it is much more likely that Mae Brussell made a blunder when she read the letter. She did not want to read it the way it was because she feared bringing out personal details that she wanted to keep from reaching the public and possibly exposing certain individuals to retribution or loss of reputation - but obviously not Linkletter!William Westonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10569199741225116792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6001083595175224919.post-226136171704410292018-12-14T23:53:31.481-05:002018-12-14T23:53:31.481-05:00William Weston said...
My information on the g... William Weston said...<br /><br /> <b>My information on the glasses being moved came from Helter Skelter, 2001 edition, p. 35 (not p. 33) where it says,<br /><br /> "The horn-rimmed glasses, first observed by DeRosa, Whisenhut, and Burbridge near the trunks, had somehow moved six feet away, to the top of the desk."</b><br /><br />Interestingly, this is commented on in the first Tate investigation report which says:<br /><i>"Two trunks were observed in the same position as described in an earlier portion of this report by the first officers on the scene. No glasses were observed, however, as described by original officers."</i> Elsewhere it states:<br />"A pair of horn-rimmed eye glasses were just east of the east edge of the lower trunk. The glasses were on the floor, glass down, ear frames up, top portion of the frame<br />to the west." The photo in the previous post shows the scene before whoever it was placed the glasses on the desk.<br />However one looks at it, the notion of Robert Linkletter as a participant in the Cielo Drive murders has no evidence to support it and the <i>only</i> thing in its favour is the statement of a bus driver who, let's face it, was hardly a paragon of credibility and who, in order to be right about that, left open numerous cans of worms that didn't ~and with deaths of Linkletter's bro-in-law and sister never could ~ check out.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6001083595175224919.post-78595396680088006602018-12-14T22:00:50.078-05:002018-12-14T22:00:50.078-05:00William Weston said...
I see a color photo th... William Weston said...<br /><br /> <b>I see a color photo third row down. Is that the one? Can you tell me where the desk and the steamer trunks would be in relation to what we see in the photo?</b><br /><br />William, here's a <a href="http://www.cielodrive.com/photo-archive/blood-stained-steamer-trunks-01.php" rel="nofollow">photo</a> taken at the scene on the day the bodies were found ~ evidently before the glasses found their way onto the table.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6001083595175224919.post-67064853929078279762018-12-13T18:41:50.375-05:002018-12-13T18:41:50.375-05:00I think Toschi confessed, but I could be wrong.I think Toschi confessed, but I could be wrong.beaudershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14223387983663922713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6001083595175224919.post-42228081514671202612018-12-13T12:51:57.167-05:002018-12-13T12:51:57.167-05:00beauders said...
Dave Toschi became discredit... beauders said...<br /><br /> <b>Dave Toschi became discredited on the Zodiac case and was taken off the case when he wrote a Zodiac Letter and tried to pass it off as the real thing</b><br /><br />Wasn't it that he was suspected of writing Zodiac letters but never confirmed ? I thought it was just general letters he wrote pretending to be other people but saying how great Dave Toschi was.<br /><br /> William Weston said...<br /><br /><b> No, it has not been verified. Sometimes you have to rely on a single source for information. If it is credible, then we should accept it</b><br /><br />Sometimes you do. But it seriously depends on the actual information. Someone saying that a particular person is a white supremacist or member of such a group is different to an actual member of that group making the claim.<br /><br /> <b>The strongest point in favor of Vigil's credibility is that David Toschi admitted to Mae Brussell that he had the name Robert Linkletter as the Zodiac as early as 1971. That he never cleared him as a suspect and refused to do so does not detract from Vigil's credibility</b><br /><br />Some Police suspected Roman Polanski was involved with the Cielo slayings. To this day some conspiracy theorists still think so. Are they credible ?<br />Police thought Bruce Davis was responsible for the murder of Joel Pugh in London in December 1969. Bugliosi thought so, Steven Kay thought so and English Police thought Davis was in London at the time, but couldn't verify it. Pugh's death was officially recognized as a suicide yet, people still think Davis did it, even though there is no record of him leaving the USA, entering the UK, leaving the UK and re~entering the USA. There were whispers from Family members about doing a hit in England. Are they credible ? Are the American LE that thought Davis did it ?<br />When push comes to shove, Marie Vigil seemed to have an awful lot of dynamite information for a humble bus driver and I do not think she is at all credible. Saying Robert L's brother in law's suicide was murder isn't so wild. Saying that he was a witness {along with Diane Linkletter} to the events at Cielo <i>is</i>. Of course, both John the bro-in-law and Diane were dead by the end of 1969 so they could never be questioned about whether or not Marie Vigil was talking out of her pants. That John died 3 weeks before Cielo scotches Marie Vigil's credibility at a stroke but the "explanation" that when Mae Brussell was reading out the letter that she conflated what she was reading leads to the obvious equation that if <i>that</i> was true, the slaughter was planned well in advance, before Sharon Tate was even back in the USA. And once again, brings out the that hallmark of the conspiracy theorist, of how one thing leads to another and before you know it half the perils of the western world are suddenly connected to one Robert Linkletter.<br /><br /> <b>Also we know that the staff of the Redwood City Tribune checked out her story with a telephone interview. So she must have passed some journalistic test for reliability, in order for them to have the confidence to go ahead and print the article on the front page of their newspaper</b><br /><br />Since the very first newspapers were put together, loads of them have been taken for a ride by someone that seemed utterly authentic. Papers want stories and yes, they may well do some checking up but bottom line is that they want stories. There were publications in the aftermath of Cielo that got away with saying Sharon Tate had had her breasts slashed off or that had her baby ripped from the womb. In the same way that just because someone is a politician, priest, teacher, police officer or lawyer doesn't automatically mean that they are beyond reproach, someone's stories being printed in a publication is no innate guarantee of its veracity.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6001083595175224919.post-188005488509838242018-12-12T21:02:24.866-05:002018-12-12T21:02:24.866-05:00Dave Toschi became discredited on the Zodiac case ...Dave Toschi became discredited on the Zodiac case and was taken off the case when he wrote a Zodiac Letter and tried to pass it off as the real thing.beaudershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14223387983663922713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6001083595175224919.post-82132866863115316982018-12-12T13:33:11.128-05:002018-12-12T13:33:11.128-05:00Grim said,
Vigil also said that Linkletter belong...Grim said,<br /><br />Vigil also said that Linkletter belonged to a white-supremacist group called the International White Guard<br /><br />She also said his Dad, Art, did too. Did he ? Has that been verified ?<br /><br /><br /><br />No, it has not been verified. Sometimes you have to rely on a single source for information. If it is credible, then we should accept it.<br /><br />The strongest point in favor of Vigil's credibility is that David Toschi admitted to Mae Brussell that he had the name Robert Linkletter as the Zodiac as early as 1971. That he never cleared him as a suspect and refused to do so does not detract from Vigil's credibility, given police obfuscation in the Zodiac case. <br /><br />Also we know that the staff of the Redwood City Tribune checked out her story with a telephone interview. So she must have passed some journalistic test for reliability, in order for them to have the confidence to go ahead and print the article on the front page of their newspaper.<br />William Westonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10569199741225116792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6001083595175224919.post-54602220714850823632018-12-11T13:26:38.738-05:002018-12-11T13:26:38.738-05:00William Weston said...
Given these facts, I belie...William Weston said...<br /><br /><b>Given these facts, I believe the police found out who the glasses belonged to and for whatever reason decided to protect his identity</b><br /><br />Your article on the Zodiac killer makes certain claims, some of which you've not shared here. For example, Marie Vigil, the woman that wrote to Mae Brussell said that Robert Linkletter "probably" murdered his brother in law who {officially a "possible" suicide"}, along with Diane his sister, were witnesses to the murders at Cielo. Bit difficult given that he died on July 15th, some 3 weeks before. The explanation proferred is that it was meant that Diane and John the bro-in-law were witnesses to the <i>planning</i> of the Cielo murders. <br />Robert Linkletter is also said to have been involved in both the murders at Cielo <i>and</i> Waverly. You are in effect saying that the police let go free someone who should have been jailed and executed for at least 7 murders. Deliberately and <i>knowingly</i>.<br />In trying to explain one pair of glasses, suddnly we have a whole load of murders and suicides and drug sales "or" purchases" and that web gets larger and larger and larger ~ one of the hallmarks, really, of the conspiracy theory.<br /><br /> <b>Unlike you, I am not content to leave the glasses as an unresolved mystery</b><br /><br />In 1969/70, you'd have been right. However, once the supposed perps had been identified and their various stories listened to, if no significance was attached to the glasses, like no significance was attached to the towels found, and if one of the perps actually stated they knew nothing about the glasses and they had been making statements against their own interests, then unless something significant in the evidence showed up that indicated another perp, it would have to remain an unresolved mystery. Unresolved by no means equates to important.<br /><br /><b>The Woodland Hills woman (Marie Vigil) gave us not only the identity of the owner but also identity of the optometrist</b><br /><br />Actually, she doesn't. She states <i>"Dr. Ohta must have prescribed them"</i> and later <i>"Also I believe Dr. Ohta must have prescribed those glasses that were lost the night of the Tate murders"</i> which is a whole other ball game, certainly not a sure fire "I know this for a certainty" statement. <br /><br /><b>If that fundamentally changes the angle of the case, so be it</b><br /><br />If it did, I'd agree with you. Even 49 years later. <br /><br /> <b>Vigil also said that Linkletter belonged to a white-supremacist group called the International White Guard</b><br /><br />She also said his Dad, Art, did too. Did he ? Has that been verified ?grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6001083595175224919.post-17781246785547686092018-12-11T13:25:58.978-05:002018-12-11T13:25:58.978-05:00William Weston said...
I see a color photo thi...William Weston said...<br /><br /> <b>I see a color photo third row down. Is that the one?</b><br /><br />Maybe it's the way our respective pages are laid out. On mine, it's the 4th row and next to a B&W of Squeaky and Sandy.<br /><br /> <b>Can you tell me where the desk and the steamer trunks would be in relation to what we see in the photo?</b><br /><br />They would be in the view of the photographer but not in the photos themselves, if the photographer was taking the photo from the entryway of the living room. <br /><br /> <b>You said you cannot explain how the glasses got into the house</b><br /><br />I can't explain how anything got into the house, towels, glasses, rugs, cups etc. The point being that anything in that front room could have gotten there by any number of routes. Earlier, I said something like I wouldn't be surprised if one of the inhabitants of the house had seen the handles on the glasses somewhere, liked them and wanted to get a similar pair done so they borrowed them. I'm not at all suggesting that <i>was</i> the case, just that the glasses are being made to seem far more of a mystery than they actually are, given the outcome of the investigation and the fact that no one involved has ever mentioned a fifth assailant.<br /><br /><b>and from the others who tried to offer an explanation (such as leaving a false prop to deceive the police) I am not satisfied</b><br /><br />The problem is quite straightforward. Significance has been attached to the glasses because in the absence of any new leads or news at the time, the Police announced them as a new lead and the press, a 'breakthrough', even though the cops had had them since the first moments they arrived in the house. One could take the same approach with the fingerprints collected. How do we know for an absolute certainty that the bearer[s] of some of the prints that couldn't be identified weren't part of the slaughter ? So because the glasses have been given this 'after hours' significance, unsatisfactory explanations become the order of the day. Manson did what he often did after the murders when he was challenged directly ~ he both said things directly and then at other times played word games {"I wanted to see what my children had done", "I had to watch out for my horses"}. Many may wonder what the significance of pointing out that the glasses found didn't do what he claimed they do, that is, start fires. It's simple. In trying to demonstrate that he left the glasses as a false clue, "he" {for this is from the Emmons book, which Manson decried much of the time}, he provides context by saying he and his buddy used to start fires with it. By being totally wrong about the former, it cancels out the latter. Charlie and the Family, if one looks at many of the things they said <i>after</i> the event, tended to try to take the sting out by providing their alternative explanations which, naturally, arose out of what already existed {eg, the drug theory, the copycat theory}. The glasses are one of them.<br /><br /> <b>What are the facts?</b><br /><br />All the facts you state are true. All the facts could <i>point</i> to a murderer. So in order to determine if there's any substance, one must look hard at what is known <i>to</i> be true, factual or verified. That's a big job. Well, it is for anyone trying to prove Robert Linkletter was one of the killers. I'd say it was nigh on impossible.<br /><br /> grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6001083595175224919.post-84982206895709728192018-12-10T15:10:54.367-05:002018-12-10T15:10:54.367-05:00Grim said,
It's the colour picture on the 4th...Grim said,<br /><br />It's the colour picture on the 4th row down. If you put your specs down, you'd know where and you'd locate them forthwith.<br /><br /><br />I see a color photo third row down. Is that the one? Can you tell me where the desk and the steamer trunks would be in relation to what we see in the photo?<br /><br />As for my explanation, I admit there could be a difficulty in regard to the sparse furnishings of the room. In trying to understand the case, I am using abductive reasoning, or moving toward the simplest or best explanation, given a set of observations or facts. You said you cannot explain how the glasses got into the house, and from the others who tried to offer an explanation (such as leaving a false prop to deceive the police) I am not satisfied. If someone can propose a better explanation to account for the facts, I am willing to discard my own.<br /><br />What are the facts?<br /><br />They did not belong to any of the victims or to Tex, Pat, etc.<br />They belonged to a man.<br />He was short-sighted.<br />The lenses were shatter-resistant plastic. They had heavy, amber-colored, tortoise-shelled rims.<br />Scratches were observed on the lenses, indicating he was both an active man and a careless man.<br />Fingerprint smudges were on the glasses but no blood stains.<br />When the forensics people came in, the glasses were on the desk. DeRosa said they were originally on the floor near the trunks, six feet from the desk.<br />They were customized to fit his ears, the left side being higher than the right.<br />Despite an extensive search, involving sending flyers all around the country neither the owner nor the optometrist who had prescribed them had ever been officially identified.<br /><br />Given these facts, I believe the police found out who the glasses belonged to and for whatever reason decided to protect his identity. <br /><br />Unlike you, I am not content to leave the glasses as an unresolved mystery. The Woodland Hills woman (Marie Vigil) gave us not only the identity of the owner but also identity of the optometrist. If that fundamentally changes the angle of the case, so be it.<br /><br />Vigil also said that Linkletter belonged to a white-supremacist group called the International White Guard. It was a white-supremacist group that killed Nicole Simpson and framed OJ. Same pattern in both cases: white woman gets killed with the blame put on the black man. Check out the book Blood Oath by Steven Worth and Carl Jaspers.William Westonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10569199741225116792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6001083595175224919.post-67794263353815687972018-12-09T23:04:27.573-05:002018-12-09T23:04:27.573-05:00The 3 Stooges know how to change evidence of murde...The 3 Stooges know how to change evidence of murder:<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2st-lA1p-pQkatie8753https://www.blogger.com/profile/00353364961453501063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6001083595175224919.post-37239881002619911402018-12-08T21:09:38.105-05:002018-12-08T21:09:38.105-05:00Manson in his own words knew every rat, every cock...Manson in his own words knew every rat, every cockroach in every sewer in Los Angeles and no one from that ranch went back to that house.It was all rumors Damm the logic let's look at the effectAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09922621303419465718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6001083595175224919.post-84201855324643623262018-12-08T18:27:00.842-05:002018-12-08T18:27:00.842-05:00William Weston said...
Instead of the scenario I ... William Weston said...<br /><br /><b>Instead of the scenario I proposed earlier - that Manson and his partner went to the Cielo residence to retrieve glasses that were lost during the struggle - I have an alternate explanation</b><br /><br />You do seem inordinately keen to ascribe some meaning to the glasses that brings in a whole new, almost case-changing angle to proceedings.<br /><br /> <b>Manson and his partner went to the house to check on the crime scene and make changes to enhance the Helter Skelter aspects such as the towel over Sebring's head</b><br /><br />Firstly, were there any well known examples of Black Panther or Black Muslim murders that carried a recognizable M.O ? Towels over someone's head don't particularly scream "Black Uprising !" <br />Secondly, this brings us full circle to the anomalies of Manson's words about going to the crime scene. Emmons says he told him he went. Sanders says one of the defence lawyers told him he went. Stimson, his latest biographer, says catagorically, Manson did not go. Manson told Rolling Stone he did not go.<br />So we're back to square one.<br /><br /><b>In the course of moving heavy objects (the steamer trunks?), Linkletter put his glasses down to keep them from slipping off his face and possibly getting stepped on. When he went to get his glasses he forgot where he put them</b><br /><br />I don't buy either of those. Especially the former. One must keep in mind that the wearer of these glasses needed them for clear sight. While it's true that glasses can slip off while one is lifting or doing something physical, equally true is that almost every wearer of glasses learns to adapt accordingly and rarely is it a problem.<br />One must also keep in sight that this was a murder scene.<br /><br /><b>He could not do a thorough search because it was getting near dawn and they needed to get away</b><br /><br />Purely by chance earlier, I came across a <a href="https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/photos/1969-tate-murders?mediatype=photography&phrase=1969%20tate%20murders&sort=mostpopular" rel="nofollow">photo</a> of when Peter Hurkos the mystic or clairvoyant or whatever he was, is in the front room shortly after the murders, trying to pick up the vibes of what happened there. One look at that room and you can see that it would be almost impossible to lose a pair of glasses in there. It's the colour picture on the 4th row down. If you put your specs down, you'd know where and you'd locate them forthwith. And get the heck away from those corpses.<br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6001083595175224919.post-74058134455181041542018-12-01T11:14:41.315-05:002018-12-01T11:14:41.315-05:00Grim said
"unless one believes the Robert L...Grim said <br /><br />"unless one believes the Robert Linkletter theory. And to believe it, you have to ignore the reality of not a single Family member in 49 years ever mentioning him, forget about being involved in murder, I mean just mentioning him at all as having been part of their number or even a friend."<br /><br /><br /><br />I have been thinking about what you said, Grim, and you raise a valid point. I now agree with you that Linkletter was not with Tex, Pat, etc. when they did the killings.<br /><br />Instead of the scenario I proposed earlier - that Manson and his partner went to the Cielo residence to retrieve glasses that were lost during the struggle - I have an alternate explanation.<br /><br />Manson and his partner went to the house to check on the crime scene and make changes to enhance the Helter Skelter aspects such as the towel over Sebring's head. In the course of moving heavy objects (the steamer trunks?), Linkletter put his glasses down to keep them from slipping off his face and possibly getting stepped on. When he went to get his glasses he forgot where he put them. He could not do a thorough search because it was getting near dawn and they needed to get away. Perhaps he hoped that if the police found them they would not take them seriously as a clue. As it turned out, they publicized it as a major breakthrough.<br /><br />This explanation fits better with Walkers testimony of what Atkins said "Wouldn't it be too much if they found the person that owned the glasses. The only thing they were guilty of was dropping a pair of glasses there."William Westonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10569199741225116792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6001083595175224919.post-77631614956881102492018-12-01T01:07:03.322-05:002018-12-01T01:07:03.322-05:00Thanks William I don't buy your theory but I&#...Thanks William I don't buy your theory but I'll look it up.beaudershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14223387983663922713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6001083595175224919.post-75810306367177937652018-11-30T13:13:03.757-05:002018-11-30T13:13:03.757-05:00There is a website that has some information on Li...There is a website that has some information on Linkletter and the glasses lost at the Tate house. It is www.zodiackilleridentified.comWilliam Westonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10569199741225116792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6001083595175224919.post-66670603577547766022018-11-26T17:21:37.175-05:002018-11-26T17:21:37.175-05:00Excellent discussion about the mysterious glasses ...Excellent discussion about the mysterious glasses by all. It's been a difficult item of research for years to understand. But I have to especially point out the contributions here by Grim. In my opinion his analysis is on point and his logic rock solid. I feel I have a much more clear understanding of the glasses than I did previously.<br /><br />If indeed not a plant, I've often thought the glasses to be an accident of the living room confrontation. For instance, perhaps they were laying under the sofa for a long time, and when the fighting began, they were kicked out and into the open. I say this because, when I look at the Life magazine photos of Roman in the living room a week later, the seat cushions of the sofa are pulled back, and there's all manner of stuff underneath them. Could be Mrs Chapman did not clean under there, and if so perhaps she did not clean under the sofa, thereby missing the glasses?<br /><br />I've also entertained the possibility that the glasses were on top of the desk, and when Susan went to look for Voytek's wallet there, she inadvertently pushed the glasses onto the floor. But of course she did not attest to this.<br /><br />Of greater significance to me, at this point, is the knife in the chair. If someone returned to Cielo, could they have missed it's presence?<br /><br />Of greater significance yet, to me, are the following: the lights found on in the house the next morning by the police, when the killers said they had previously turned them off; the exact item employed to apply Sharon's blood to the front door(more likely the purple scarf found in the front yard, as opposed to the bath towels found in the living room); and of course the blood type analysis. If the analysis is not wrong, we have at least Sharon on the porch, and perhaps Jay, as well. Yet how can this be? (For an excellent discussion on this, I would direct the reader to David's analysis over at the Manson Blog. Sorry, I don't have a direct link).<br /><br />Speaking of glasses, Susan said Abigail was reading with a pair of glasses on, when she looked into Abigail's bedroom. I have found no indication in the Cielo or Woodstock property reports that Abigail's glasses were taken into evidence. Moreover, the photos of that bedroom at CieloDrive.com don't show her glasses on the night stand or anywhere else in plain sight.Torquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00444301737391992929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6001083595175224919.post-26204543065614646832018-11-26T13:40:20.796-05:002018-11-26T13:40:20.796-05:00Grim,
My information on the glasses being moved c...Grim,<br /><br />My information on the glasses being moved came from Helter Skelter, 2001 edition, p. 35 (not p. 33) where it says,<br /><br />"The horn-rimmed glasses, first observed by DeRosa, Whisenhut, and Burbridge near the trunks, had somehow moved six feet away, to the top of the desk."<br /><br />Check out Google books and you should find it thereWilliam Westonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10569199741225116792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6001083595175224919.post-16888322437488526562018-11-25T23:15:50.541-05:002018-11-25T23:15:50.541-05:00William Weston said...
I got the information reg...William Weston said...<br /><br /> <b>I got the information regarding the glasses moved six feet to the top of the desk from Bugliosi p. 33</b><br /><br />My edition is the Penguin 1977 edition which is only 3 years after the book came out and nothing is mentioned there about the glasses being moved. I specifically quoted Burbridge because he was the officer that was actually in the house and he testified under oath that he didn't move anything. <br /><br /> <b>In the same book, Bugliosi said DeRosa was in charge of securing the crime scene until the investigators got there, p. 35. This of course contradicts DeRosa, who from the testimony you quote said Burbridge was in charge</b><br /><br />Well, DeRosa was charged with securing the scene until others arrived. That doesn't mean that he stayed there in person, which is what I thought you meant. He delegated the actual task to Burbridge. Mind you, he doesn't say Burbridge was in charge.<br /><br /> <b>This does not let DeRosa off the hook as far as his credibility is concerned, for all you have done by quoting the Burbridge testimony is to widen the circle of guilt to include Burbridge</b><br /><br />The circle of guilt ? Nothing was shown to have occured where those glasses were concerned. When all is said and done, the only reason I've been showing some of the testimonies is to provide answers to some of the points that were raised about blood, prints, struggles leading to dropped glasses and the position of the glasses. It's not particularly important ~ unless one believes the Robert Linkletter theory. And to believe it, you have to ignore the reality of not a single Family member in 49 years ever mentioning him, forget about being involved in murder, I mean just mentioning him at all as having been part of their number or even a friend.<br /><br /><b>How convenient for the owner of those glasses that a person who could provide information on his identity would be wiped out along with his wife, two sons, and his secretary on October 19, three days before the glasses would emerge in Walker's courtroom testimony</b><br /><br />If true, yes. But there is no way that it was known who would be testifying when. All kinds of things happened that meant people testified at different times or were brought forward or delayed, things like not showing, bench warrants, chambers conferences, debating admissiblity, illness etc.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6001083595175224919.post-80697000937872674752018-11-25T23:15:03.905-05:002018-11-25T23:15:03.905-05:00"I just like the sound of instrument !"
...<b>"I just like the sound of instrument !"</b><br /><br />That should read "I just like the sound of the instrument !" <br /><br /> William Weston said...<br /><br /><b>You quote Sgt. Dolan who said there were no fingerprints on the glasses. Yet according to a UPI story, at Helder's press conference he said there were fingerprint smudges but no identifiable ridges that investigators could use to trace the owner</b><br /><br />Sgt Dolan was one of the fingerprint men. When called to the LaBianca scene the next day, he was able to ascertain that there were areas where prints had been wiped ~ a detail later confirmed by the killers. He was no novice. So yeah, I quoted him. Dolan examined the glasses. I'm less interested in what Helder or UPI had to say when put up against someone with direct involvement in a particular matter. Investigators say things in press conferences that are different to other things being said or not always altogether accurate. There's a really good example of this on Cielo's site with the Aaron Stovitz interview. <br /><br /> <b>This meant that they were not enough fingerprint details to do a search through fingerprint records to find the owner, but there were enough to determine if any one particular suspect had handled them</b><br /><br />We don't know that, but I did acknowledge that had it been today with DNA technology, it may have been a different story. <br />As an aside, in Bugliosi's book, on my page 28, he states, when talking about pieces of a puzzle, "<i>The horn rimmed glasses - negative for both prints and blood - did they belong to a victim, a killer or someone totally unconnected with the crime ?"</i><br />Remember, finding 25 sets of prints doesn't necessarily mean 25 separate people.<br /><br /><b>The testimony you quote actually confirms Kanarek's suspicion that the LAPD ruined a key piece of evidence to protect the identity of the owner</b><br /><br />No it doesn't. Kanarek chose to read into every single witnesses testimony supposition, intrigue and a "let's get Manson" conspiracy. The reason he pursued this line of reasoning regarding the glasses was to discredit Linda Kasabian's testimony. He tried to have her struck off as insane, a liar, a drug fiend and he said these things openly and continually. He was trying to sow doubt on her story and one of his ways of doing this was to try to put it across that because the wearer of the glasses hadn't been identified, that person was still at large which meant that Linda wasn't telling the truth. <br /><br /> grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6001083595175224919.post-88776566547448647292018-11-25T22:02:31.547-05:002018-11-25T22:02:31.547-05:00katie8753 said...
Playing an instrument takes... katie8753 said...<br /><br /> <b>Playing an instrument takes dedication and endurance, with participation and practice EVERY DAY</b><br /><br />That's true but I'm too old for that ! I remember reading about how young sitar players in India dedicate their lives to their instrument and how it takes them many years to master and live in obedience to their teacher and I thought "I just like the sound of instrument !" I don't want to master the double bass or sound like an expert jazzer, but I do know what I want and how to get there. I definitely need to practice for a few minutes most days, just to get the hands strong and the fingers flowing and the mind watered.<br /><br /><b>eventually, you will get to the point where you actually like hearing yourself play</b><br /><br />I reached that point in the early 90s. I tend to approach instruments in a slightly unconventional way because recording is more an interest and focus for me. I have an idea in my head of what I want each instrument to sound like and it's never something I can't do {unless it's one of the instruments I can't play, that a friend can}. <br /><br /> <b>don't make it years apart that you venture into practicing</b><br /><br />It was mainly because of space. My wife's pregnancy with our 2nd child back in 2004 coincided with my discovery of sampled and virtual instruments and it was a way of killing two birds with one stone, have the instruments in the computer, get rid of the cello, tambura, sitar, double bass etc and create room for the new child and the growing one in our small house. However, I tried so many different avenues and just never found a good double bass sound so back in 2012 I bit the bullet and just bought an actual one. Now that I've cleared a lot of stuff, I can get back to it.<br /><br /><b>approach it every day and just envision where you want to be with it!</b><br /><br />For me, musical instruments are a means to an end. I like to create pieces and the things I can play or that friends can play get me there. An instrument to me is like a computer ~ there's tons you can do with a computer and IT is growing and changing all the time, but I'm only interested in what I'm interested in. My scope is small, but enjoyable and shall we say, functional.<br /><br /> William Weston said...<br /><br /> <b>The testimony you quote actually confirms Kanarek's suspicion that the LAPD ruined a key piece of evidence to protect the identity of the owner</b><br /><br />Irving was the original conspiracy theorist !<br /><br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6001083595175224919.post-21312774085153459602018-11-24T10:39:06.415-05:002018-11-24T10:39:06.415-05:00Grim,
You quote Sgt. Dolan who said there were no...Grim,<br /><br />You quote Sgt. Dolan who said there were no fingerprints on the glasses. Yet according to a UPI story, at Helder's press conference he said there were fingerprint smudges but no identifiable ridges that investigators could use to trace the owner. This meant that they were not enough fingerprint details to do a search through fingerprint records to find the owner, but there were enough to determine if any one particular suspect had handled them. The testimony you quote actually confirms Kanarek's suspicion that the LAPD ruined a key piece of evidence to protect the identity of the owner..<br /><br />I got the information regarding the glasses moved six feet to the top of the desk from Bugliosi p. 33. <br /><br />In the same book, Bugliosi said DeRosa was in charge of securing the crime scene until the investigators got there, p. 35. This of course contradicts DeRosa, who from the testimony you quote said Burbridge was in charge. This does not let DeRosa off the hook as far as his credibility is concerned, for all you have done by quoting the Burbridge testimony is to widen the circle of guilt to include Burbridge..<br /><br />You said, "let's assume for a moment that they were Linkletter's glasses. So what?"<br /><br />You got me there on that one. I have to admit I cannot think of an appropriate answer to your question.William Westonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10569199741225116792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6001083595175224919.post-22245561787064657512018-11-23T20:46:12.587-05:002018-11-23T20:46:12.587-05:00Grim said:
The instrument in the pic is actually ...Grim said:<br /><br /><i>The instrument in the pic is actually a double bass. I don't play that well either but I just love its earthy, woody, hollow yet full bodily tone. I've not played since 2012 and prior to that, I hadn't played since 2003. So I'm trying to build up my hand strength. I did a 2 hour session the other day and it was like doing WWF. Such is the price one pays for being self taught and untrained.</i><br /><br />Playing an instrument takes dedication and endurance, with participation and practice EVERY DAY, no matter what you play. It does make your hands ache and your back hurt, but eventually, you will get to the point where you actually like hearing yourself play.<br /><br />Keep at it, and don't make it years apart that you venture into practicing, because the only way to master it is to approach it every day and just envision where you want to be with it!katie8753https://www.blogger.com/profile/00353364961453501063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6001083595175224919.post-24787993345332481202018-11-22T23:54:01.026-05:002018-11-22T23:54:01.026-05:00William Weston said...
DeRosa was the officer... William Weston said...<br /><br /> <b>DeRosa was the officer in charge of securing the crime scene until the investigators arrived</b><br /><br />Actually it was Burbridge that secured the crime scene. DeRosa and Whisenhunt took William Garretson to the Police station.<br /><br /><b>Yet he allowed the glasses to be moved six feet from near the trunks to the top of the desk. If he could not be trusted to keep the crime scene secure, how could he be trusted regarding the disposition of any particular item of evidence?</b><br /><br />From the trial:<br /><br />BUGLIOSI: Were you present when Officer DeRosa and Officer Whisenhunt took Mr Garretson off the premises and transported him to the Police station ?<br /><br />BURBRIDGE: <i>Yes sir</i><br /><br />Q: Did you remain on the premises ?<br /><br />A: <i>Yes sir</i><br /><br />Q: Why did you remain ?<br /><br />A: <i>To preserve the crime scene</i><br /><br />Q: Did you alter anything at all at the crime scene ?<br /><br />A: <i>Did I alter anything ?</i><br /><br />Q: Did you change anything, move anything around ?<br /><br />A: <i>Nothing</i><br /><br />Where did you get that he allowed the glasses to be moved ? I'd like to see the context that such a statement appears in.<br /><br /><b>His statement therefore that the glasses were “in plain view” loses credibility and cannot be used to refute Lt. Helder’s statement to the press that the glasses were lost by a killer at the house</b><br /><br />I think Lt Helder's statement stands as it stands. It is the first impression at a crime scene by an experienced officer that knows nothing about what has taken place at the scene other than there were 5 murders. I wouldn't mind betting that as soon as the perps were actually identified and rounded up, he thought no more of that initial statement. Why ? Because a plausible explanation with tons of corroboration had emerged and his impressions no longer held water.<br />But examined in the cold hard light of day, his original observation is full of holes. Those glasses were in plain sight. They were in such plain sight that DeRosa actually saw them almost as soon as he entered the house. He saw them <i>before</i> he saw Sharon and Jay. You can't get plainer than that. Only a total moron and utter idiot would drop and leave glasses at a murder scene that were in such plain sight, especially if they needed them. Susan's knife they had to leave because they did not know where it was and no one would have thought to look where it was eventually found. Tex, Pat and Susan couldn't have missed those glasses and if there was a perp there that had dropped them and needed them, they wouldn't have missed them. But of course, there wasn't.<br />If those glasses had actually been found on the table because one of the original 3 officers at the scene moved it, if anything, it's Helder's statement that would have no credibility. He'd be commenting from something he <i>could not have seen himself and therefore known</i>.<br /><br /><b>If the glasses were not lost, as you contend, but just happened to be at the Tate house before the killings, then you need something else besides DeRosa’s testimony to support your argument</b><br /><br />That's what I've been giving you throughout this thread.<br />Manson may well have gone to Cielo and planted the glasses as a false clue but like the premise of this thread, there's so much against such a notion, not least the fact that his two statements used in support of the idea contradict each other. And that's before we even get to Atkins.<br />I've never pretended to have the answer to the glasses and have long called it one of those mysteries we'll never know the answer to. But one thing I <i>am</i> absolutely sure of is that if they did belong to Robert Linkletter, it wasn't because he was one of the Cielo murderers or was present during them. In fact, the issue of them belonging to Linkletter only becomes an issue if one tries to shoe horn him in as one of the perps and that's what I wholeheartedly dispute. Let's assume for a moment, that they <i>were</i> his glasses. So what ?grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.com