The official narrative says that Charles Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel and Linda Kasabian arrived at Cielo Drive at approximately midnight on August 9, 1969. Watson cut the telephone line and then the murderers drove their car back down Cielo Drive, parked and walked back up to the gate of the Polanski residence.
The Testimony
Here is what the witnesses have to say about the events that
followed.
Atkins:
Bugliosi: What happened next?
Atkins: Then he told us to get our changes of clothes and we
all walked back up the hill and walked to this fence.
Q: Now, when you say "this fence," I see the word
"gate" on the diagram. Did you walk up to the gate?
A: We walked up to the gate but we didn't want to touch it
or go over it because we thought there may be an alarm system or electricity
running through it.
Q: Is there a fence adjacent to this gate?
A: Yes, there is.
Q: On the left and right?
A: Left.
Q: Left of where I am pointing now but it would have been to
your right?
A: That is correct.
Q: South on this diagram; is that correct, assuming that
this is north?
A: Uh-huh.
Q: What happened after you approached the fence?
A: I was told to go over first so I threw my changes of
clothes over the fence and held the knife between my teeth and climbed over and
got my pants caught on part of the fence and had to kind of boost myself up and
lift from where I was caught off of the fence and fell into bushes on the other
side of the fence and I was followed by the other three people.
Q: You say "other three people," you mean Tex,
Patricia Krenwinkel and Linda Kasabian?
A: Right.
Q: What happened next?
A: Then we were going to move forward in this direction.
Q: Toward the residence?
A: Toward the residence, and we saw lights coming from,
apparently, this car.
Q: You say "this car." Are you referring to a
little rectangle here that has "Parent's two-door Rambler, MPX 308"?
A: Right.
Q: Was this car in motion, would you say?
A: I didn't actually see the car, I just saw the headlights.
Q: Did the car appear to be in motion?
A: Yes, it did.
Q: What happened next?
A: Tex told us girls to lie down and be still and not make a
sound. He went out of sight.
Q: Did all three of you girls lie down and stay silent?
A: Yes.
Q: What happened next?
A: Tex went out of my sight and I heard him say,
"Halt."
Q: Did you hear any voice other than that?
A: Yes, I heard a voice say –
Q: Was it a male voice?
A: Yes, it was.
Q: Man or boy?
A: It was a male voice.
Q: What did the male voice say?
A: "Please don't hurt me, I won't say anything."
And I heard a gunshot and I heard another gunshot and another one and another
one.
Q: You heard four gunshots?
A: Yes.
Q: What happened next?
A: Tex came back to us and told us to come on. I saw him go
to the car, which was not parked here. At the time, it was over here. [Referring
to a diagram.]
Q: It was parked closer to the gate than it is right now on
the diagram?
A: Yes, he reached inside, turned off the lights, and then
proceeded to push the car to where it is parked here.
Q: On the diagram?
A: Yes.
Cielodrive.com. Susan Atkins Grand Jury Testimony (Kindle
Locations 411-414). Kindle Edition.
Kasabian at Tate/LaBianca:
Q. What
happened after you, Katie, Sadie, and Tex walked up the hill?
A. We climbed
over --- we climbed over a fence and then a light started coming towards us and
Tex told us to get back and sit down.
MR.KANAREK:
Your Honor, I must object to what Tex said as to Mr. Manson, your Honor.
THE COURT:
Overruled, subject to the same conditions as I have indicated previously. Are
you able to go on, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Yes I am.
And a car pulled up in front of us and Tex leaped forward with a gun in his
hand and stuck his hand with the gun at the man's head. And the man said,
"Please don't hurt me, I won't say anything." And Tex shot him 4
times.
Q. Linda, you
say when you saw the headlights coming, this was after you climbed over the
fence?
A. Yes.
Q. And Tex told
you to keep down when the headlights were coming?
A. Yes.
MR.KANAREK:
Leading and suggestive, your Honor. [He’s actually wrong yet again. It is
leading but not objectionable. Why?]
MR.BUGLIOSI:
This is for clarification, your Honor. I believe she already testified to this.
[He’s right.]
THE COURT:
Overruled.
Q. Did you
actually see Tex point the gun inside the window of the car and shoot the man?
A. Yes, I saw
it clearly.
Q. About how
far away were you from Tex at the time he shot the driver of the car?
A. Just a few
feet.
Q. Was the
driver's side of the car --- were you on the driver's side of the car or were
you on the passenger side of the car?
A. The driver's
side.
Q. Did you
notice anyone else in the car other than the driver?
A. No.
Q. Did you see
the driver?
A. Yes.
Q. After Tex
shot the driver 4-times, what was the next thing that happened?
A. The man just
slumped over. I saw that, and then Tex put his head in the car and turned the
ignition off.
Q. Did the man
slump to his left or to his right, if you recall?
A. Towards the
passenger side to his right.
Q. Okay, what
is the next thing that happened?
A. Tex put his
hand in the car and turned the ignition off. He may have taken the keys out, I
don't know. And then he pushed the car back a few feet and then we all
proceeded towards the house.
*****
Q. Now, did you
climb directly over the gate, or how did you get over the gate?
A. We climbed a
small embankment.
Q. You climbed
over the embankment to the right of the gate?
A. Yes.
Q. All four of
you?
A: Yes
Kasabian at Watson:
Q: What is the next thing that happened?
A: Let's see, we climbed up a small
embankment, climbed through some barbed wire which was part of a fence, part of
the gate.
*****
Q: Once you, Tex, Katie and Sadie went over
the front gate of the Tate residence, what is the next thing that happened?
A: Almost immediately after we all got through
the fence some headlights started coming toward us and Tex sort of said, you
know, "Get down," which we did and the car came right up to us and
Tex had a gun in his hand and there was a man in the car and I saw his face, he
wore glasses, and he said something about, "Please don't hurt me. I won't
say anything." And Tex just shot him in the head four times.
Q: Where were you in relation to this car?
A: Right there, right -- the car was right
here and I was five feet from it or something.
Q: Was the driver of the car fairly close to
you?
A: Yeah.
Q: You were on the driver's side of the car
then?
A: Yes.
Q: Just a couple of feet away?
A: Yes.
Q: And you saw Tex shoot this man?
A: Yes.
THE COURT: I think she said five feet away; is that
right?
THE WITNESS: I don't know the exact feet.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I think I said a few feet away.
What does the physical evidence tell us?
The Embankment
Although Atkins’ testimony is a little confusing, the
embankment is to the right of the gate. The image above shows the embankment
the killers climbed to scale the fence. You can see, here, why they chose to
climb the embankment. It is higher then the fence.
This image is the view from the embankment just at the fence
looking directly towards the gate button inside the gate. The button is barely visible on the
edge of the wall extending from the light pole near the pillar at the end of
the wall. The gate is to the left, out of the picture. This is a pretty good
representation of what Atkins and Kasabian could have seen (of course it was
dark) immediately after crossing the fence from the embankment.
(This image was taken well after the crimes when barbed wire
was added to the top of the gate.)
The view reveals two important pieces of information
relevent to the event. The wall that ends at the gate button extends some
distance from the embankment (to the right) out into the drive. The traffic
lane is quite narrow here. It is a ‘choke point’ and the perfect location for
an ambush. The wall appears to be at least ten feet in length given the width
of the traffic lane. It appears to be about five feet tall at least at the
pillar given the position of the gate button. If the foliage was present that
night Steven Parent’s car would have been completely obscurred by the wall from
this location unless he actually reached the gate button as the killers reached
this location. We know that didn’t happen.
The wall can be seen in this image as well.
The wall is located just behind the gate and appears as a solid dark
area ending at the lighter vertical line (the pillar). This image suggests that
the area in front of the wall from this angle is the logical ‘landing zone’
after the killers climbed the fence. It provides perfect cover and is the
‘natural’ path.
This is another view of the wall, this time from inside the
gate looking out. The car to the right suggests the width of the traffic lane
at this point. The figures suggest the height of the wall and again it appears
to be about ten feet in length. The wall is past the debre where four of the
six figures are standing. (One has to wonder what these guys, except the one on
the wall, are doing.)
This diagram was constructed by me from an arial view of the property probably
taken either late on the 9th of August or perhaps even on the 10th
or later. One police car stands guard. Steven Parent’s car has been removed and
the investigators are gone. My ‘car’ symbol may be a little small given the
size of the police car but its close enough for what I am trying to illustrate.
I assumed Steven Parent parked his car at location #1. It
made sense to me. He would have been largely ‘out of view’ of the main house at
that location and still in the common parking area with the other cars. Those
cars likely would have drawn him to that location. It also seemed to line up
with the damaged fence (where the blue lines meet the fence) on a fairly
natural arc. He could have parked more to the left and next to the Firebird. He
also could have parked at car location #6 and backed straight back into the
fence. This location (#6) would also put his car completely out of sight from
the house.
The other blue lines represent two paths Steven Parent could
have taken to the gate. Again, precision is not necessary although the lines
are probably pretty close.
The red lines represent two possible paths the killers took
after crossing the fence reflecting the fact they either had to enter the
driveway in front of the wall (between the gate and the wall) or behind the wall.
“XXX” is the general area where Watson and the rest would
have been had they immediately seen SP’s headlights after climbing over the
fence as Kasabian claimed at the Watson trial. That is about the location in the picture above that looks towards the wall. This is clearly more
then a ‘few feet’ from any possible location for Steven Parent's car. Therefore, if
Kasabian is right about the distance, they were not at XXX.
“X” and “XX” mark two other locations where Atkins, Kasabian and
Krenwinkel could have been located when Watson confronted Steven Parent. From
these you can identify a myriad of other locations along the two routes. These
locations (“X” and “XX”) however, put the three women close to Watson’s possible location.
The yellow triangle is a representation of SP’s headlights
and the yellow arc shows how they would have moved from top to bottom as he
made his turn towards the gate. In order to avoid being exposed by the
headlights Watson, Krenwinkel, Atkins and Kasabian had to be somewhere
in front of the wall near “X”.
Car location #2 places Steven Parent at the gate button. I believe the
physical evidence makes it unlikely he was there when Watson confronted him.
Why? Looking at the photo above from Cielodrive.com (thank you, by the way) from
inside the gate looking out and the first photo, above, there doesn’t appear to
be any room for Watson to stand next to the driver’s side door and attack Parent. The wall is higher and wider at the end where it forms the pillar about 5-6 feet tall and about
two to three feet wide. The button is beyond the pillar closer to the gate but near the pillar. His
car would be at most about 1-1.5 feet from the button (if not closer) and the pillar so he could
reach it without getting out of the car. The pillar and the gate button, then would largely block
access to the driver’s side window unless Parent was further from the wall and
planned to exit the car to open the gate. Steven Parent would have also been stopped at
that point rendering the command ‘Halt!’ rather meaningless.
Car loacation #3 assumes Watson stopped Steven Parent just before he
approached the gate button. Watson would be at “A” approaching either from the “XX”
or “X”. Location #3 seems to be the most likely scenario, especially if he approached from the cover of the wall from “X”. Steven Parent would have seen nothing until Watson stepped
out from behind the wall. He would not have reached the button (and thus it would also be harder to push the button really fast and 'run'). An approach from “XX” would have exposed Watson to Steven Parent’s
lights well before he reached the car.
Car loaction #4 assumes Watson intercepted Parent before he
reached the button by an alternative route. This second route was chosen because
it is as close as Parent can be to the retaining wall, bushes and trees along the
drive to the right. The image from Cielodrive.com shows there were garbage cans
and other debre (a wagon wheel?) lined and piled up behind the wall along that
side of the drive. These are also visible in the diagram. The witnesses do not
mention these items or climbing through or around them in their testimony. This suggests
they were not in area “XX”.
Location #4 is actually close to where Steven Parent's Rambler was
found the next morning. Given location #4 is also blocked from view from the
street by the wall it is unlikely this was the route Steven Parent took if the killers (or
Watson) did, in fact, push the car back up the drive and behind the wall out of
sight where it came to rest. They wouldn’t have had to do that if he approached
by this route. The configuration of the car’s wheels could suggest someone
pushed the car and turned the wheels sharply to the left to steer it back
behind the wall.
Under any scenario, there is, however, no location where
Atkins and Kasabian could have been within 'a few feet' of Watson and actually
observed the murder of Steven Parent from cover. To be within a few feet they
have to be standing or crouching right next to Watson at either “A” or “B”.
The logical place for Atkins, Kasabian and Krenwinkel
to have been located is either behind the wall at “X” or up on the embankment
“XXX”. The problem with both of these locations is you likely can’t see the
confrontation from either location, if you are crouching or ‘sitting down’, especially at night.
Between “XXX” and “X” I believe the better location is at “X”-behind
the wall. At “XXX” they would not have seen Steven Parent’s car, especially at night. They
also may not have been able to hear anything spoken unless one or both participants
spoke loudly. Steven Parent, at least, did not, by witness testimony.
Conversely, if the three murderesses were sitting or
crouched down near “X” and Watson confronted Steven Parent at “A” (car location #3) they still
would not have been able to see him attack Steven Parent with a knife or stick the gun in
the window and fire four times. At “X” they likely would have heard a good deal
but would have seen very little.
……which is precisely
what one of our two witnesses claimed.
Kasabian places herself within ‘a few feet’ of Watson and
actually sees the attack. Even thenher testimony is not accurate. She doesn’t see the
knife blow.
Atkins
A:Tex told us girls to lie down and be still and not make a
sound. He went out of sight.
Q: Did all three of you girls lie down and stay silent?
A: Yes.
Q: What happened next?
A: Tex went out of my sight and I heard him
say, "Halt."
*****
A: *****And I heard a gunshot and I heard
another gunshot and another one and another one.
Q: You heard four gunshots?
A: Yes.
Q: What happened next?
A: Tex came back to us and told us to come on.
Atkins saw nothing, including the use of a knife but she
heard the gunshots and the conversation. Her story makes sense based upon the
physical evidence. It describes precisely what she could see and hear from near
location “X” if she was hiding as instructed and Watson confronted Steven
Parent at location #3 or “A”. In the midst of the attack Steven Parent may have
cried out after being slashed with the knife if he had time but there would
likely be no telltale sound that would alert Atkins to a knife attack.
Kasabian TLB:
Q. Did you
actually see Tex point the gun inside the window of the car and shoot the man?
A. Yes, I saw
it clearly.
Q. About how
far away were you from Tex at the time he shot the driver of the car?
A. Just a few
feet.
Kasabian at Watson:
Q: You were on the driver's side of the car
then?
A: Yes.
Q: Just a couple of feet away?
A: Yes.
Q: And you saw Tex shoot this man?
A: Yes.
Kasabian claims she saw the whole thing from ‘a few feet
away’. Then why didn’t she see Watson attack Steven Parent with a knife? The logical
answer is that she, like Atkins, can’t describe that event because she didn't see it. How could she have later testified that she saw the young
man wearing glasses in the car, slumped to the passenger side? The same way Atkins did. When she came up
next to the car either before or when Watson (maybe with her help) pushed it backwards. This is the same way Atkins
saw and coldly decribed Steven Parent’s body in her testimony.
That fence…..
Steven’s car caused the damage to the fence pictured below.
The police concluded that the damage occurred as Steven was fleeing the scene
trying to escape his attackers.
First Tate Homocide Investigation Progress Report:
“*****
Officers noted
that the split-rail fence which runs to the north of the garage area was
broken, and that scrape marks appeared, on the curb directly in front of the
split-rail fence. The scrape marks and the break in the split-rail fence
appeared fresh. A search of the undercarriage of Parent's car revealed similar
scrape marks and concrete transfer. The rear bumper of the car also showed
white paint transfer similar to that as on the split-rail fence.
*****
The second theory
is that as Parent left the Garretson residence he observed either part or all
of the above-described crimes. He ran for his car, which was parked somewhere
in the paved parking area of the property. He entered the car, backed it up at
a high rate of speed, struck the curb and knocked down the split-rail fence
previously described. He then turned the car in a westerly direction, and in an
attempt to evade his pursuers turned the car at an odd angle toward the gate.
At this point, he was caught and killed.”
Others have explained the fence by assuming Steven Parent
was either a little tipsy from his one beer or just careless and backed into
the fence while leaving. I even read one comment somewhere where the author suggested
Steven and Garretson must have smoked some pot together. You can’t, however,
explain the fence with just this assumtion. You have to make other assumptions.
You have to assume Steven Parent decided not to go back and
tell Garretson. You have to assume this happened either because Steven figured either
he’d never see him again or that Steven would call him the next day and explain. But
he’s 100’ feet away. Why not just stroll on back and fess up?
You also have to assume Steven failed to tell the people in the house because he wanted to avoid a confrontation or was intimidated like any teenager. This one I can buy and clearly he didn’t because no one was ‘alert’ when Watson entered the home.
You also have to assume Steven failed to tell the people in the house because he wanted to avoid a confrontation or was intimidated like any teenager. This one I can buy and clearly he didn’t because no one was ‘alert’ when Watson entered the home.
There is another possibility but it also requires a lot of assumptions. If Steven’s car was parked at either location #1 or #6 and
he was attacked while starting his car and trying to escape (by someone
wielding a knife) it may have happened exactly like the Homocide Report states.
But again, you have to make assumptions. Neither witness describes the attack
on Steven Parent happening this way and no one subsequent to the trials did
either. It is an intriguing idea, however-especially given the blood evidence- Watson
runs out of the house to help someone stop Steven Parent from getting away, everyone counts heads and makes a dash for the doors
when the guy with the gun is gone. This scenario does make the use of the gun, contrary to Manson's orders more of a panic situation. But this scenario has to assume everything
in the official narrative is wrong. Atkins lied and Kasabian simply parroted
Atkins. As we will see, the later part
of this assumption is possible.
Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
The fence, to me remains a mystery. I see no simple explanation that does not involve a host of assumptions.
Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
The fence, to me remains a mystery. I see no simple explanation that does not involve a host of assumptions.
And about that
knife….
Watson attacked Steven Parent with a knife. The autopsy
report confirms a defensive wound.
Remember, neither witness saw this incident happen. We know it did but where did Watson get the knife?
Kasabian TLB:
Q. Were there
any knives or guns in the car, Linda?
A. Yes, there
was.
Q. How many
knives and how many guns?
A. There were 3
knives and one gun.
*****
Q. Did Tex then
drive off?
A. Yes.
Q. Were there
any knives in the car at that point?
A. Yes.
Q. How many?
A. Two knives
and the gun.
*****
Q. What about
the knife which you brought to the ranch, the folding Buck knife?
A. That wasn't
there. That was the knife Katie --- excuse me, Sadie --- left behind.
*****
Q. You may
continue, Linda. You drove off and what happened?
A. Then Tex
told me to wipe off the prints from the knives.
Q. The two
knives?
A. From the
knives, the two knives. Yes.
Kasabian Watson:
Q: Were there any knives or guns in the car?
A: Yes.
*****
Q: How many knives were in the car?
A: Three.
Q: One was the knife that you had; is that
correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And there were two other knives in the car?
A: Yes.
Q: And who had those two knives?
A: Sadie and Katie.
Q: Did you see any knife on Tex's person?
A: No.
*****
Q: What is the next thing that happened?
A: I don't know, we were driving up hills, up
and down, winding, and then he told me to throw the knives out and I did.
Q: You say the knives. Are you referring to
the two knives that were in the car?
A: Yes.
Q: You started out with three knives that
night.
A: Yes.
Q: And you ended up with two knives?
A: Right.
Kasabian
consistently says there were three knives when they arrived at Cielo Drive and
two knives when they left. She reports throwing two knives out of the car. There
is no fourth knife and Watson does not have a knife.
A fourth knife
doesn’t make sense. Why would Watson order two of three murder weapons wiped
for prints and thrown out the window and keep his own knife? In case the police
pulled them over? A keepsake?
Atkins:
Q: Did you and the others take anything with you when you
left the Spahn Ranch on the evening of August the 8th, 1969?
A: There was a rope in the back seat of the car when I got
in there. There was a set of bolt cutters in the back seat of the car. Tex had
a gun. I had a knife. Linda had a knife.
Katie had a knife, and to my best knowledge I believe Tex had a knife. You will
see why I am not sure whether he had or not, but it makes sense that he did.
Q: All three of you girls had a knife; is that correct?
A: Yes.
*****
Q: What happened when you reached Mulholland Drive?
A: All we did was drive along and all of the weapons except
for one weapon, I believe it was my knife, was handed to Linda who was sitting
up in the front seat along with the gun and we drove along the road until we
came to what looked like an embankment going down like a cliff with a mountain
on one side and a cliff on the other.
*****
Q: To your knowledge, then, she threw the bloody clothing –
A: Yes.
Q: -- away?
A: Yes.
Q: And what else, again?
A: All of the weapons except for one knife.
Q: The gun and the knives?
A: Yes, I knew on the way down the hill that I had lost a
knife.
Cielodrive.com. Susan Atkins Grand Jury Testimony (Kindle
Locations 679-680). Kindle Edition.
Atkins is less clear whether Watson had a knife. She is
admittedly unsure and bases her belief on what makes sense- in other words what
follows: Watson wields a knife during the crime and she sees it. She does place
all of the weapons in Kasabian’s hands before they were thrown from the car but
never identifies how many knives Kasabian had before she threw them from the
car.
Krenwinkel, per Kasabian, borrows Kasabian’s knife later in
the story after the murder of Steven Parent. I suppose you could assume from
this that Watson borrowed Krenwinkel’s knife before they climbed over the fence
or just after, thus disarming her for some unexplained reason. Perhaps it was
in response to seeing the headlights of Steven’s car and Manson’s possible admonition
to not use the gun. But then Watson didn’t hesitate to use the gun. And neither
witness apparently saw Watson borrow Krenwinkel’s knife.
Borrowing Krenwinkel's knife is only one of two ways Watson could have attacked Steven Parent with a knife. The other is if Watson had a fourth knife and Kasabian is wrong about the number of knives she threw out of the car. (I am relying primarily on the testimony of these two witnesses but in Watson's book, I Will Die For You he also identifies only three knives and never mentions having a fourth or borrowing a knife. He does admit attacking Steven Parent with a knife.)
From the testimony of the witnesses alone Watson didn't and couldn't have attacked Steven Parent with a knife. So who did? Kasabian, perhaps, standing 'a few feet' from Watson? She could see the entire assault if she was standing at "A". And she does go out of her way to disarm herself later in the story.
In the end this event takes another jab at Kasabian's credibility. The physical evidence does not appear to support her statements. Maybe to be more fair I should say the physical evidence more closely supports Atkins' testimony.
Returning a moment to the jury instruction:
Borrowing Krenwinkel's knife is only one of two ways Watson could have attacked Steven Parent with a knife. The other is if Watson had a fourth knife and Kasabian is wrong about the number of knives she threw out of the car. (I am relying primarily on the testimony of these two witnesses but in Watson's book, I Will Die For You he also identifies only three knives and never mentions having a fourth or borrowing a knife. He does admit attacking Steven Parent with a knife.)
From the testimony of the witnesses alone Watson didn't and couldn't have attacked Steven Parent with a knife. So who did? Kasabian, perhaps, standing 'a few feet' from Watson? She could see the entire assault if she was standing at "A". And she does go out of her way to disarm herself later in the story.
In the end this event takes another jab at Kasabian's credibility. The physical evidence does not appear to support her statements. Maybe to be more fair I should say the physical evidence more closely supports Atkins' testimony.
Returning a moment to the jury instruction:
In evaluating a witness's testimony, you
may consider anything that reasonably tends to prove or disprove the truth or
accuracy of that testimony. Among the factors that you may consider are:
How well could the witness see, hear, or
otherwise perceive the things about which the witness testified?
*****
How reasonable is the testimony when you
consider all the other evidence in the case?
Did other evidence prove or disprove any
fact about which the witness testified?
*****
Has the witness engaged in other conduct
that reflects on his or her believability?
Was the witness promised immunity or
leniency in exchange for his or her testimony?
Do not automatically reject testimony
just because of inconsistencies or conflicts. Consider whether the differences
are important or not. People sometimes honestly forget things or make mistakes
about what they remember. Also, two people may witness the same event yet see
or hear it differently.
If
you decide that a witness deliberately lied about something significant in this
case, you should consider not believing anything that witness says. Or, if you
think the witness lied about some things, but told the truth about others, you
may simply accept the part that you think is true and ignore the rest.
Our natural tendency when confronted with Atkins as a witness
is to disbeleive her. We should. She changes her story. Her lack of true
remorse or feelings for her victims is readily apparent not only in 1969-71 but
in the ways she decribes them in her first book, Child of Satan, Child of God.
Her only concern is for herself. This becomes quite evident in her second book written 40+ years after the crimes, TheMyth of Helter Skelter. Here her goals are clearly to take one last jab at Bugliosi and his book and set out her arguments for the unfairness of her circumstances when compared to Kasabian. By the way in that book she mentions her victims by name a total of 54 times. 49 of these are Sharon Tate. Of course she is also trying to prove she didn’t stab Sharon Tate. Voytek Frykowski gets two mentions and the rest, one.
Her only concern is for herself. This becomes quite evident in her second book written 40+ years after the crimes, TheMyth of Helter Skelter. Here her goals are clearly to take one last jab at Bugliosi and his book and set out her arguments for the unfairness of her circumstances when compared to Kasabian. By the way in that book she mentions her victims by name a total of 54 times. 49 of these are Sharon Tate. Of course she is also trying to prove she didn’t stab Sharon Tate. Voytek Frykowski gets two mentions and the rest, one.
That said, as to the murder of Steven Parent, Atkins’
testimony is closer to the objective evidence, again, then Kasabian. She tells
the tale ‘best’.
63 comments:
Dreath this was a very detailed and interesting series of posts...
I cannot add anything to it lol but I have two observations to make about some of the related content of the post.
1. Even from the pictures it is hard to tell how narrow the street is winding up to the gate at Cielo. I was never inside- but when I went up to the gate there were cars parked on street. There was so little room that we couldn't turn around to leave. We literally backed all the way down Cielo to the intersection. I imagine the area just inside the gate leading up driveway was not much wider...
2. Susans second book was just as you describe it, although I did find it a little more believable than some of her earlier accounts of things. What is more interesting to me than Susan's second book though was her second husband. Talk about blurring lines. I am absolutely amazed at what he was able to accomplish in life coming from where he started, and even more stunned at what it was that finally motivated him to chase his full potential. If there is anything at all that should push you to the ultimate limits inside yourself its to lust over a jailed murderer....
But I digress. This was painstakingly detailed and thorough Dreath. Very Well Done!!
Thanks, Saint
"The fence, to me remains a mystery. I see no simple explanation that does not involve a host of assumptions."
From the looks of it Parent must have smacked that fence pretty hard. Did the intruders ever mention hearing the noise of this collision?
Startiego said: "Did the intruders ever mention hearing the noise of this collision?"
No and it had to have been kind of loud given he also ran his undercarriage over the cement curb:
"Officers noted that the split-rail fence which runs to the north of the garage area was broken, and that scrape marks appeared, on the curb directly in front of the split-rail fence. The scrape marks and the break in the split-rail fence appeared fresh. A search of the undercarriage of Parent's car revealed similar scrape marks and concrete transfer. The rear bumper of the car also showed white paint transfer similar to that as on the split-rail fence." 1st Homicide Report.
But then again, timing is everything- Parent seems to arrive near the gate button just when they get there too. If he hit it, stopped, got out and said 'Shit!'- looked at the damage, pondered what to do, decided to split and got back in and drove off it may have happened when they were still walking up the hill- ah assumptions.
I still find it interesting that Tex (after just killing his first victim) had the presence of mind to turn off the car, put it in neutral, and push the car back away from the gate. Not to sound morbid, but likely Steven Parent was gurgling and aspirating all while Tex (calm and cool headed) went about the task at hand. It wasn't a part of "the plan" and yet he executed flawlessly.
As well, a .22 caliber pistol isn't quiet. In a busy, loud city, I could understand 4 rapid gunshots being masked by other noises or someone thinking "maybe it's firecrackers". But up in a secluded canyon a few hundred feet from the front door of the victims is something completely different. If I were Tex, I'd be pretty worried the victims heard the gunshots and would be on alert.
Either Tex did a LOT more mental preparation, or maybe this wasn't his first rodeo.
FAO: Dreath
(this is off topic because the way my ex BF Matt has things set up people never know about comments on older posts. This is in reference to something on last actual posting ((French Delusions do not count))0
It is my understanding that committing perjury in a capital case is in itself a capital offense. It has been my understanding for decades of researching this and from the time I was an imaginary disbarred attorney from Hawthorne California. Since you are a lawman are you in fact saying I am wrong? I would hate to be wrong but love to know the truth.
Col Scott,
Wrong? Sort of- how's that for a lawyer answer. Here is a link: http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-128.html
(I don't know how to make it actually a click and link thing.)
Like I said you are right under California Penal Code section 128 if the perjury results in a conviction and an execution or an innocent person. I don't know what happens if any condition is missing: the innocent gets 'life'. I believe this is the only way to get death.
PS: If I comment somewhere I always click the 'follow up' button below- ok, I found that about three posts ago and have done it since.
AstroCreep said: "I still find it interesting that Tex (after just killing his first victim) had the presence of mind to turn off the car, put it in neutral, and push the car back away from the gate. "
I actually went over to a 'classic car showroom" about this as I had an issue with the car being found in second gear pushed backwards. They had a 65 Rambler parked out front (or so I was told when I stopped- I just saw the Rambler). I wanted to find out if it was possible to push an automatic transmission car circa 1966 backwards in second gear.
Answer I got: Yes, and it still is. In fact they looked at me like I was from another planet. Now, what was cool about that car was sitting in the driver's seat (which the owner allowed me to do). I am convinced but can't prove from that, that the car could not be at the gate button given the window.
I also found it unlikely (in my opinion- no science) that the knife blow and the gunshots did not happen at precisely or nearly precisely the same time. Steven's arm had to be raised in a defensive position when both occurred- which makes me question how that could happen from one assailant.
Is the white vehicle shown in the photo on this thread
http://www.mansonblog.com/2013/06/whos-damn-car-was-it.html
supposed to be Parent's Rambler? Is this the same vehicle seen in the fourth photo on this thread (the one where you can only see the trunk/rear of the car)?
Starviego,
It seems it should be the same car. I can't imagine who else would be there.
It's the same car
About the knife: Patty said she didn't have a knife, and ask Linda for hers. So Tex had a knife and a gun when he approached Steve Parent. And he cut the screen after the murder. When he used the knife, on Parent I can only assume before he shot him. He may have knifed Parents hand that was protecting his head, so he could shoot there.
The location of Parents car: I would think it was right where the button and pillar are. In the photo taken from the embankment at the gate,( looking at the the light pole, pillar button area). Look on the other side of the driveway. The landscape comes out into the drive way, narrowing the drive in that one spot more then anywhere. Could be why Tex moved the car out of the way. It would be in the way to come on in, and more so leaving. This spot is the only spot that the car would be in the way.
Also would explain why the gun shots where not louder. If the gun was inside the car window when fired, most the sound would be inside the car. And outside the window was Tex's body and the pillar. So the sound was absorbed mostly there in that location, and the remainder of the sound possibly travel down the side of the hill behind the main house, toward the guest house. Bypassing making any noise inside the main house.
I've read a lot on this case, but have never commented before. Thank you all for sharing what you do.
AstroCreep said...
Either Tex did a LOT more mental preparation, or maybe this wasn't his first rodeo.
There's a third choice (although I lean towards he had previous experience). Psychopathic people feel no empathy or guilt.
Welcome aboard Tuckerp.
Thanks Dreath for another great post. Again I have to study the words and photos carefully to educate myself about the layout there-so many misconceptions in my mind about that. For some reason I didn't know about that little wall and the debris by it. I pictured the girls hiding in some bushes.
One note: as opposed to most commenters on this site I've never felt a lack of remorse from Susan Atkins, at least once she had a few years to clear her mind of the drugs and the influence of the group. I didn't read her last book though.
I don't think she got any more remorseful I just think she got a little more honest with herself and believable personally :)
But not much lol
For a long time, as a side interest, I've wondered about the scenario that payed out between Tex, the women and Parent. Of particular interest, how Parent's car hit that fence like that prior to his murder. It just didn't add up to me nor did the knife and gunshots regarding exactly what happened.
In these photos (link), of which many if not all of you have already seen, there are more pics to supplement those in Dreath's good write-up. We can see the supposed final resting place of Parent's car, the damaged fence in the background in one or two pics, the gate and fence, etc. -- overall they helped give me a better 'spatial' sense of distances and the area of encounter.
http://murdersofaugust69.freeforums.net/thread/68/crime-scene-photos-graphic
I concocted a dubious theory that Tex approached Parent as he was driving out and used his knife first to keep it quiet. Parent lifts his left arm in a defensive position and receives a knife wound. In his shock and panic he puts the car in reverse and does some fuzzy maneuvering that results in hitting the fence. In the excitement Tex either runs after him or waits for Parent, still in obvious panic, to drive back down whereupon Tex uses the gun this time. There's only one hit to the head and that's the cheek, not cranium. The rest are in the arm and chest area.
There's also a possibility that one of the women did the initial knife attack resulting in Parent's wild car maneuvering and then Tex decides he better take care of it. Somehow the car winds up in the position we see in the pic (if it hasn't been moved by the police to drive further in themselves).
Or we can accept the 'normal' scenario that somehow Parent's driving skills failed him and he hit that fence pretty hard maneuvering around to get out prior to the encounters, then Tex makes an initial attempt with the knife followed by the gun shots (the other way around wouldn't make any sense).
But I have serious doubts with this last one -- being of roughly Parent's age group myself I remember if anyone had a car at that age, which was rare, they (car) were well taken care of, even fawned over, and I don't recall seeing any autopsy reports of excessive alcohol or drugs (although he may not have been tested for everything). Also, using the knife and then the gun, all in one fluid motion, unless there was a struggle between the two, seems kind of funny to me. I mean, if Tex intends to knock the guy off and isn't too worried about the noise then why bother with the knife ?
Well, just my foggy morning ramblings .....
Robert C,
Thanks for the link. If I had remembered that I would have 'borrowed' some of these images. The hearse leaving Cielo illustrates how narrow that space is near the short wall at the button (and part of why I don't think it happened there).
The two about 2/3 down of the officers talking shows the short wall fairly well. They also show the fence damage just above the head of the officer on the left. Given that view.....
If they pushed the car backwards to avoid being seen from the road they did a crummy job. Those pix are from near the road and you can see the car, worse the car at an odd angle/location.
Also if the fence damage is there wouldn't they have seen Parent's headlights a lot sooner then 'as he approached'.
I'm not sure your theory is any more dubious then some others. Atkins didn't see anything so where the attack occurred is really unknown to her. Watson 'disappeared'. Maybe he began the attack over there and it was a moving attack.
I have also had a hard time reconciling the autopsy report given the location of the wounds and the watch (on the back seat) with one attacker. But that's just me and I'm no medical examiner.
His blood alcohol was .02 at 162lbs that's one drink but post mortem blood alcohol tests are not very reliable hours after death if the temperature is high.
The car was a graduation present so I agree with you on that part 100%.
And thanks to all for the kind comments.
Thanks Robert C for the link. Interesting photos. Can you or anyone tell me about the third photo under the heading of Telephone Polls? The man's hand is coming in from the right and touching a wire. Where would that pole be located?
thanks again.
Mr. Humphrat,
I believe that is the same gentleman (who seems to be on a ladder or something) at the same location as in the fourth photo in the post.
Mike McGann
got it thanks.
Its not hard to get lead in different directions. When those who where there keep telling the same story and changing it.
Linda testified that after Parent was murdered, Katie ask for her knife, and she gave it to her. This was at Parents car and before entry of the home. Tex was cutting the screen.
Linda says in the current affair interview that Sadie came out of the house, and said she lost her knife ( which was found later where it had fell into a chair cushion) And ask Linda for her knife, so she gave it to her.
How can she be so right about everything, when she contradicts herself. How did Linda give her knife to Katie, and then a minute or two later give her knife to Sadie?
Tuckerp,
Here's little more fuel for your fire.
Kasabian claimed at trial that she climbed the fence with the knife with the taped handle and gave that knife to Krenwinkel when Krenwinkel approached her at Parent's car just before the murders began.
Atkins on at least on occasion when she first discussed the murders claimed she climbed the fence with the knife with the taped handle and kept it until she lost it- although she was not completely sure which knife she lost- she never mentions Kasabian and claims after Parent's murder Kasabian was nowhere to be found until they returned to the car to leave.
Geez, I hear ya. Its possible that when Parent was backing up he caught a glimpse of the gang coming over the wall. Distracting him just long enough to think "What is that? Is that somebody or people climbing over the fence" Crash into fence, oops!
It may explain also why he said "I won't tell anybody"
Tuckerp, you're hitting on something I've basically always thought: when Steve got back to his car after leaving the guesthouse, he had to have heard the killers down by the gate. It must have taken them at least a full minute for all four of them to climb over the fence on the embankment. And as the killers have consistently have said, they saw the headlights of Steve's car almost immediately after scaling the fence.
So what happened? I think Steve got to his car, heard some kind of activity down at the gate, got somewhat panicked (he was really in an unfamiliar place he shouldn't have been), threw the car into reverse, from likely either position 1 or 6, hit the fence in his panic and continued on towards the gate. As well, I've always thought what is known about his words seemed a little 'prepared', as if he was expecting to engage someone based on the activity he heard of Tex and the girls as they were scaling the fence. Four people scaling a fence is going to cause an amount of noise, especially in the dead of night, and Steve heard it to some degree.
"I'm your friend".
"Don't hurt me".
"I won't tell anybody".
Seems a little prepared for me, but he was scared.
Otherwise, it's kind of strange that Linda said she saw the shooting of Steve, but it could be because she decided to watch Tex and his actions, while Susan decided to bury her head and not make an effort to watch. I don't necessarily find anything sinister about the testimony any of them gave, only that Linda may have been closest to Tex and was able to look around the wall to see Tex shoot Steve, whereas the other two were further back and not in a position to actually see the shooting. I never thought any interpretation was wrong, just a result of general human inconsistencies.
Z F I agree. This from the first progress report about Parent.
" Parent has an arrest record as a juvenile for burglary. The chief object of attack
during the five burglaries he was caught at was electronic equipment.
He served two years in the California Youth Authority program. He was
described as having both sadistic and homosexual tendencies by a
probation officer."
Sadistic doesn't fit a fine groom clean cut all American looking young man we see. Busted on five burglaries. I believe this is in part shores up has you put it "prepared" .
Not that any of what I posted from the progress report is to diminish the memory of the young Mr Parent in any way. He had his entire future ahead of him. And fell victim to a horrific event. Just trying to understand exactly what could have been going through Parents mind at the time. I think "prepared" really is the best word to describe it.
Reading the progress report on Parent makes me think selling a clock radio to a random acquaintance at midnight might fit his personality.
Dreath said...
Atkins......never mentions Kasabian and claims after Parent's murder Kasabian was nowhere to be found until they returned to the car to leave
She does in "Child of Satan...." though. She mentions her a few times after the Parent murder ~ twice inside the house.
Mr. Humphrat said...
I pictured the girls hiding in some bushes
For a while, so did I. Maybe it's because Tex said he told them to get into the bushes.
In "Child of Satan...." Susan says that she flattened herself to the ground which explains why she heard rather than saw. But it's not contradictory for Linda to say she saw Tex shoot parent. Neither is it particularly odd that no one saw Tex go at Steven Parent with a knife. He says he had one in his left hand and as has been pointed out, he cut the window screen and stabbed Jay Sebring. I know he was a lying hyena at his trial but for what it's worth, he says Charlie handed him a gun and a knife. Wherever the knife was on him and however he got it, he had one. Thinking about it, no one recalls him shooting Wogiciech Frykowski, yet even if no one saw it, they "should" have heard it.
But no one did.
I think that Bugliosi tried to bring order to a situation in which order played very little part. It was more jazz {improvised} than pop {repetitive and rehearsed} but lawyers need as much concrete solidity as is possible, hence all the sounds heard that were brought into the equation, the Parent clock time, the arrival time of the killers even though it was patently obvious not one of them had the slightest idea of any time.
It's really rare for two people's stories to match at every point, even when they're friends. Even a number of biblical narratives that relate the same incidents have discrepancies and they're supposed to be true. In a way, Kasabian's actions could be strangely consistent with that of someone who has seen, actually seen, a murder, especially by someone she's made love with. When she ran away from Spahn, she claims she did not know the LaBiancas had been killed. The Saladin Nader incident told her that killing was on the agenda, but if it's true that she did not find out about the LaBianca deaths until October, then she ran away primarily because of Cielo. That's where she saw killing take place.
Grim,
I tend not to put much stock in what was written in the books not for the usually stated reason-they want to get out of jail so they follow the 'party line'-but because of the way eye witness memory works.
Tuckerp said: " He [Parent] was described as having both sadistic and homosexual tendencies by a
probation officer."- from the Homicide Report
Steven Parent's sexual orientation has been debated quite a bit. I personally don't believe the claim (not that it matters one lick). I've found no evidence of any sadism and have to wonder how a 'probation officer' is qualified to diagnose that. From what I have found Steven likely broke into a number of schools around El Monte and stole a bunch of minor electronics, a TV, some clarinet reeds, a small amount of change, some ice cream bars, etc. He likely spent his sophomore and junior years in detention- he doesn't appear in the HS yearbook those two years. Nothing to support 'sadistic'.
Here is what his prom-date, Tina Hather, posted at Find A Grave:
"Steve, it is nearing the 40th anniversary since you were taken from my life. I think of you often and have fond memories of my senior prom and staying out all night. God had a plan for each of us, taking you and leaving me behind to carry on with my life. I often wonder if we would have gotten married and had children and grandchildren and where life would have taken us. Love always, Tina"
Dreath said...
I tend not to put much stock in what was written in the books not for the usually stated reason-they want to get out of jail so they follow the 'party line'-but because of the way eye witness memory works
Yeah, I can dig that, especially in this series of gripping posts where you've been examining the evidence.
I can't really ignore what has been said by the killers subsequent to incarceration because then, that really only leaves a mono~dimensional reading of matters which is kind of unsatisfactory. Also, it's hard to ignore, for example, Tex saying that he lied at his trial, which he wasn't saying until he'd been in the slammer for 8 years. If he lied at his trial, did he lie about Charlie telling him to kill, given that was a major part of his testimony ?
That said, taking into account their post incarceration stuff is also fraught with danger and apparent contradiction and doesn't necessarily make anything much clearer. I love the puzzles and putting bits together.
Steven Parent's sexual orientation has been debated quite a bit. I personally don't believe the claim. I've found no evidence of any sadism and have to wonder how a 'probation officer' is qualified to diagnose that
I agree. It's a one off statement with nothing I've ever seen that remotely backs it up or expands on it. The probation officer is never named either.
It probably happens in a number of cases but this one just happens to have so much about it that could mean anything, something or nothing at all {glasses, Sadie shitting, Parent's report etc}.
Dreath, thanks for sharing Tina Hather's posting on Steve's site. It's nice to see a little tribute to him and add some dimension from someone who loved him.
You are welcome Mr. Humphrat.
I was once going to do a post about Steven and collected a number of comments there about him in his younger days. Unfortunately, when I reached out to some people, including Mr. Gerrold, they did not respond.
You can find them there in the 2009 timeframe.
Grim said....
"Yeah, I can dig that, especially in this series of gripping posts where you've been examining the evidence."
Thank you. Means a lot.
I visited the cul de sac and the gate in 1983, I don't remember any barbed wire. That doesn't mean it wasn't there, I just don't remember seeing any but, I would bet money that it wasn't on the top of that gate when I was there in 1983.....
Doc,
The images in the post claim to be from "the seventies". I have seen others with barbed wire above the actual gate that seem to be from the same timeframe (yellowish background). I certainly can't confirm the shot- I 'borrowed' it.
I found the perspective of the shot interesting. I had never seen that angle before.
The distance suggested to me the killers were not there when they saw Steven's headlights. It's too far away. The angel suggested you couldn't see the parking area from there.
It also suggested to me that if Steven had actually reached the gate button there was insufficient room for Watson to attack him there (versus ten feet further back).
And that said to me: the women couldn't see the attack as they were likely behind that short wall. But again, to me.
Great post Dreath. My only point was that the barbed wire may have been installed in 1983 or after.....
What I don't understand is did Tex Watson have a knife in one hand and a gun in other hand? I have never been able to figure out this part of the night because I'm not sure how this worked. No one who was there remembers Tex Watson having a knife. But a knife wound ended up on Parent's body somehow . . .
Nonymous,
Here is what Watson says in his book: "The driver of the car had to stop and roll down his window to push the button for the automatic gate, and as he did so I stepped forward out of the shadows, gun in right hand, knife in left, commanding him to halt."
I personally have a problem with the 'books' because of the way eye witness testimony is 'altered' with the passage of time. I am sure many here will disagree with me.
And 'no' neither of the witnesses closer to the event mention a knife: Atkins at the grand jury in December 1969 or to her lawyers on December 1st and Kasabian in July 1970. Even Bugliosi finds this odd in his book: "Yet neither Susan nor Linda saw Tex with a knife at this point, nor did either recall the stabbing."
Parent had a defensive knife wound on his left palm from between his middle and ring finger to his wrist that severed his watch hurling it into the back seat.
Really awesome post, very well thought out, one thing i never hear mentioned with regard to the Parent situation is the blood in the garage next to Sharons rented Camaro, the blood is clearly visible in a picture but apparently was never collected and typed, whos was it and why was it there? According to every eyewitness report ive ever heard neither any of the victims or killers ever went in or near the garage yet the blood is there, the most logical assumption would be Steve Parent because according to testimony he would have been the only person in that area
What is your theory as to how Steven sustained the knife wound?
My guess is that Rudi would have taken it down at some point, its pretty unsightly in Beverly Hills and would make the property unwelcoming to legitimate visitors and would make the place hard to sell when put on the market
Parent got cut standing up, he was nit in his car when his hand was sliced, if police would have collected and typed the blood in the garage theyd have seen it was Steves
This post is wonderful. I'm on a bit of a Kanarek binge after listening to Cat's interview with him. Thanks for providing a bit of insight.
PART 1
An excellent article. I'd like to add a few ideas here, belatedly.
The location of where parent parked when he visited Garretson is not *really* important, but just to get some resolution in my mind, I'd slightly favor location #6 in the diagram. This is because that Parent, as a fairly clean-cut average American boy of the time would be reluctant to park in a way that would block the egress of any of the other cars he could see, including any cars that may be parked behind the closed left-most garage port.
He could park somewhat closer to Folger's car (a bit to the left of #1) and still feel fairly sure that anyone from the main house who wanted to leave could do so unimpeded. So my current guess is he may have pulled far enough forward to see that he'd block egress of the other cars, or any in the closed garage, so he then backed around and pulled into #6, or in some other similarly out-of-the-way spot.
This really doesn't matter much.
The next aspect *could* affect the timing of his arrival and hence of the crime.
Working from memory--which at age 71 is getting flaky as hell--I think I recall that Garretson said, at his polygraph interview, that Parent commented on the attractive women visible thru the window of the main house, as he walked along the walkway to the guest house. While it would be possible to see Folger in the guest bedroom, which had large windows facing the view, if Parent meant that he saw both Tate and Folger, they'd probably still be in the LR, and he'd see them thru the windows there. He could not have seen anything in Tate's BR.
Since Folger was in bed but not asleep, and so was Tate (talking to Sebring) when the intrusion happened, Parent might have seen Tate and Folger in the LR a considerable (30 min?) before the entry. This would mainly tell us about the possible length of his stay, but not a lot about the time of the intrusion.
(BTW, I am not at this point convinced that the time recorded on the clock radio as either "12:15" or "12:17" is definitive enough to use to set the timing of Parent's departure. If Garretson had independently testified that the clock had been plugged in, had the correct time set, and it was unplugged as Parent left, it would be more valuable, but there are too many uncertainties as it is. If Garretson testified to this, I'm not aware of it.)
So far as the stated reason for Parent's visit, to try to sell a clock radio, or to retrieve it from Garretson, this rings odd to me, but the actual reason for the visit does not seem to me to have any substantive bearing on the criminal events.
So now we are to when Parent leaves, is stopped and to me inexplicably says something like "I won't tell...", before being killed.
First, the longer I think about your idea that, at the moment that Parent was backing around from either #1 or #6, he saw something odd or threatening at the gate, and it distracted his attention to the point that he backed over the restraining cub and broke part of the fence, the more likely it seems. It explains BOTH the reason for breaking the fence, and Parent's odd "I won't tell...".
Now that I think about it, if Parent was parked at #1, he may well have begun to back out with his headlights off, to avoid shining into the house and disturbing the occupants. He wouldn't know which rooms might be occupied. Nor would the intruders have seen his headlights even if they were on, since they'd be pointing towards the house at that point.
If he was parked at #6, he likely would have turned his lights on immediately, and the intruders would have seen him at that point. However, if at #6 he may have seen the possible activity at the gate as he got to his car, sat in it quietly, then decided to start the car and leave as quickly as he could, backing into the fence with his lights still off, the tuning them on to find the gate button.
END OF PART 1
PART 2
As Parent's car approached, he would have to have his lights on in order to find the gate button. He may not have been sure exactly where it was, if this was indeed his first visit to Cielo. He may have had to approach the button near the wall slower than he otherwise might have, had he been more familiar with the location of the button.
This would give Watson and the others a bit more time to see him and to arrange themselves quickly.
Now we have to guess whether Parent found the button, stopped, and Watson jumped out at him shouting "Halt!", or some other related and reasonable sequence occurred.
I think it was you that indicated that if Parent had reached the gate button before stopping, there'd be little room (maybe none) for Watson to approach him closely at the driver's side window. Working from this, and from the idea that Parent may have slowed to search with his headlights for the button. Watson might have jumped out in front of the car, gun in right hand, knife in left hand, quickly, forcing parent to either stop or run him down.
Once stopped, Watson pointed the gun and walked quickly around the side of the car to the open window (probably because a) it was a warm night, and b) to access the button quickly when he found it), and that's when Parent spoke.
Now the defensive wound on the left palm appears to most like be from an upward lunging cut from a knife which by circumstance hooked on the wrist band of Parent's wrist watch. The watch's location on the back seat is consistent with a likely slicing arc from a knife, held with a thrusting grip, in Watson's left hand. My guess is that Watson, when at the open window and hearing Parent's plea, raised the gun to fire into Parent's exposed face, Parent got his left hand up reflexively to protect his face, and Watson lunged out with the knife to parry his hand away, for a clear shot. The lunge likely first encountered the watch strap, cut thru it and then cut deeper into Parent's left palm. This was a deep cut, and the force needed to first cut the strap AND cut to the bone would be considerable. Watson, a former high school athlete of considerable talent, was physically capable inflicting of this sort of wound.
It would be good at this point to know what material the watch strap was made of, to help judge the stoke that apparently cut the watch free and inflicted the would.
At this point I would speculate that it was most likely that the palm wound, defensive in nature, was the first blood drawn in the attack, with as many as 4 shots following quickly.
END PART 2
PART 3
Now, the car's engine would still be running, and since it was an automatic transmission (I'm almost sure), it would very slowly creep forward, because in all likelihood, when Parent stopped, he was in Drive, and he stopped by putting his foot on the brake, holding the car in place, like when at a Stop sign. Once his foot was off the pedal, or the force was off the pedal, the car, at idle speed, would tend to creep forward. At this point Watson reached in over the steering wheel and turned off the ignition.
Watson said this, and also added that he pushed the car back, more out of sight of the gate, to the spot where it was found, with Parent still in the driver's seat, the next morning. To reposition the car, however, Watson would have to move our of Drive and into Neutral, then cramp the steering wheel toward him, and push the car back. This implies that the lot of 10050 Cielo is fairly level. Watson would then need to push the selector to Park, or the car might roll. I believe the car was found in Park the next morning. As with most automatics of the era, it could not have been pushed forward of backward while in Park.
The car's lights likely would have still been on, otherwise it would be hard for Watson to see the gear indicator (D-L-N-R-P). So he probably turned off the lights after he had moved the car.
At this point there should have been Watson's finger prints anywhere he touched the car, and most certainly all over the wheel and the gear selector lever. My recollection is that there were none, which implies:
a) gloves;
b) an immediate wipe down;
c) a wipe down by Kasabian on the way out;
d) a wipe down by Watson or the females as they left;
e) a wipe down by a subsequent visit by a mysterious visitor prior to the arrival of the police; or
f) the police simply muffed it.
There is no mention in any version of a thru d; e seems absurd on the face of it, when judged in context, and maybe f comes into play; I don't know.
END PART 3 - COMPLETE
Thank you for writing these comments, Shoegazer. I know it's been said before but I don't see how Tex could push that car uphill by himself, especially holding a gun and a knife. It's a small point to make and possibly he handed them off or set them down and maybe the meth and adrenaline gave him super human strength but it's still a chore with the grading and Parent's body being in the way. I also think it'd be tough to stab and shoot someone a split second apart at close range even with the Buntline's light recoil. It'd be dangerous for Tex's safety for him to hold the long barreled pistol in one hand and shoot it immediately while pulling the knife hand to safety. He'd have to be good with both hands and most people aren't. Certainly not civilians with no training outside of Karate Dave's desert karate school (joke). Yana the 5g witch must've been involved in that attack, at least at the beginning of it. I can't see it any other way.
I can't disagree with parts #1 or #2.
The point of this post was to attempt to get answers to a couple of points that have come up now and again:
1. Why/how did Parent hit the fence.
2. To some degree timing but looking at the post in isolation you don't see the posts around this time, especially a very good one by Matt that discussed that issue.
3. Try to provide an explanation how Krenwinkel and Atkins only heard the shots and Kasabian saw the shots.
On part 3 I have a couple of points.
When I wrote this I took a little drive over to an 'antique auto' place near my home and spork with a couple gentleman there. Aside from learning more that I ever thought I'd know about a 1966 AMC Rambler I learned the a couple of other things.
The car had an automatic transmission. I believe that is also in the police report or the trial testimony.
The ignition was in the 'off' position the next morning and the lights were off, the engine was cool.
It was found in second gear, not park. This led me to ask the gents if it was possible to push it 20' +/- in gear. I was told yes but it was 3-1 that Watson could not have done so alone.
'Yes' I agree there should have been fingerprints on both the hood of the car, the door frame, and the steering wheel. All of these areas were dusted the next morning and came back with nothing. I don't recall if Parent's fingerprints were on the car.
The fingerprint issue has long been used as evidence that Manson returned to the house later that night/morning in part because of the absence of a-e in the testimony/tapes/parole hearings. Kasabian, if I recall correctly was a bit uncertain whether she actually saw Watson push the car. While this isn't helpful because I can't remember where I read it someone once said they all pushed the car. Atkins testified that Watson pushed it alone.
From this I actually reached the conclusion, when taken together with the difficult spacial issue at the button that Parent was stopped much closer to where the car came to a rest and not at the button or even near the button. Again, to my frustration at the Grand jury Atkins corrected the location of the car. VB shows her a picture of it the next day and she says something like 'it wasn't there, it was over hear' and VB says closer to the gate and she answers 'Yes'. Where 'over here' was would be interesting.
Atkins also testified that Watson turned off the lights right after the shooting and just before he pushed the car.
There was human blood on the outside of the door handle which was not described in detail and not enough to type the blood. This could be cast-off (but there noe described on the door itself) or it could be something else such as telltale evidence of someone wiping down the car on the way out, leaning against the door to reach inside, for example.
The wrist watch is described in the Property Report as a "Wristwatch-'Lucerne' Man's w/m- broken stretch band."
Good stuff....
A bit more, if you have time.
It was found in second gear, not park. This led me to ask the gents if it was possible to push it 20' +/- in gear. I was told yes but it was 3-1 that Watson could not have done so alone.
This is still consistent with having put the car in N to push it and then moving the selector to something other than N, because that would be sufficient to make the car relatively immobile, which is what they'd want. Any gear other than N would do, actually.
Likely the transmission was of the type that the gear selections were D (high)-D2 (low)-N-R-P. Specific labels would be unimportant, the important thing is that when stopped they put it into something other than N, which makes a lot of sense. From the photo on cielodrive.com, the selector appears to be floor mounted, between the bucket seats. To see the selector Watson would have to lean pretty far in, I think.
The fingerprint issue has long been used as evidence that Manson returned to the house later that night/morning in part because of the absence of a-e in the testimony/tapes/parole hearings.
Having read something you wrote somewhere, I think you're familiar with the general area of the westside canyons and the Valley and vicinity. I seldom went much north of Sunset except at Sepulveda Canyon (405).I lived at Playa del Rey at first, then later San Pedro. We spent a lot of time in the Santa Monica/Century City/West Hollywood area for dining and entertainment, ate at Yamashiro, Lowry's, etc.
I've driven Mulholland several times and drove I-5 & 101 as they run thru the Valley, and Ventura Blvd as it goes west (it is the Valley version of Sunset). So I'm not familiar with the routes from Santa Susana, but my general opinion is that given the stop to wash blood off, the stop for gas on the way back, finding Manson "dancing around naked on the boardwalk" at Spahn, explaining to him what happened, then him thinking about it, then the drive back, not knowing if there was police activity there or not, realizing it was a trap to be down there at the end of the cul de sac *if* the police arrived after you went up there, knowing full well that there had been screaming and shots fired, it seems LUDICROUS to think he would have gone. It would be barely possible time-wise, and simply foolish to do. Risky as hell.
Looking at the street maps, if he drove by the most direct route, Benedict Canyon Dr or Beverley Glen Dr , he'd not be able to see police activity until he got past the house. Then he'd have to go back up, taking more time. The more I think about it, the sillier it sounds.
if I recall correctly was a bit uncertain whether she actually saw Watson push the car. While this isn't helpful because I can't remember where I read it someone once said they all pushed the car. Atkins testified that Watson pushed it alone.
In my opinion, entirely do-able. I have done this myself, often. I had cruddy cars in college and had to push them myself on occasion.
An odd question that bothers me: if Watson had a gun in one hand, and a knife in the other, then attacked Parent, where did he put the gun and the knife when he reached in to turn off the car and move the gear selector? Where were they when he pushed the car? Not sure how well the area was lighted, but it seems like handing them to someone would be the best thing to do.
I see this same problem popping up during the attack, too; chasing hitting and stabbing Frykowski, etc. Does he carry something in each hand as he bludgeons Frykowski on the head, for example? If he attempts to grapple with Frykoski, it seems like he can't hold both the gun and the knife.
Shoegazer,
Having been to the site if there was police activity to preserve the crime scene the cars would have lined up outside the gate, like they did and likely all the way down Cielo, which is little more than a one lane street and not very long. It is a 3 minute walk. I would estimate that it would be hard to make a three point turn on Cielo it is that narrow.
That said, it is ludicrous. The trip from Spahn to Cielo by the most direct route existing at the time cannot be done in less than 45 minutes and IMO that would have bene pushing it (and 'yes' I mean in light or no traffic). I once penciled it out and if I recall I estimated any such return, given everything you mention and some prep time at Spahn and the 'questionable' proof of the 1:00 a.m. hose bib encounter, put Manson arriving at Cielo shortly before 4 a.m. Sunrise was at 6:10 but it would be getting light per the Framer's Almanac at about 5:45.
Shoegazer said: "where did he put the gun and the knife when he reached in to turn off the car and move the gear selector? Where were they when he pushed the car? Not sure how well the area was lighted, but it seems like handing them to someone would be the best thing to do." (and the rest from here)
You just hit on one of my pet issues. He can't. Nor can he push the car or toss the rope over the beam and loop it around the necks of Sharon and Gibbie. While they are perhaps minor issues to me they all suggest that he didn't do all of these things or at least we are missing something.
At the outset it is easy to pass off certain actions to Watson because he is not there to defend himself and until he found God denied remembering doing much of anything. Later he assumed responsibility for it all. But I have always been left with a nagging feeling he didn't do all these things wielding a gun and a knife.
For example I do not believe he stabbed Frykowski until he went out to the lawn. I believe he was wielding only the gun. To me the explains using the gun as a club. If he had a knife why not drop the gun and use that. I believe it was Atkins who was stabbing Frykowski as he fled for the door. Frykowski IMO went down somewhere near the door, perhaps just inside or in the doorway and that is when Watson turned to Gibbie, then engaged with Krenwinkel (and perhaps assisted to some degree by Sharon).
Somewhere between bludgeoning Frykowski to the ground and the hallway to the pool Watson acquired a knife and one theory I have pondered is that it was Krenwinkel's knife, that she lost it during her melee and he picked it up. But.....no tapes....no possible answers, just opinion.
Ultimately I'm OK with the fact that we'll never have definitive answers. Naturally, I would prefer it if we did, but this won't happen in my lifetime, and likely never will happen. That leaves us to speculate, which is interesting.
One of the easiest first triages is to throw out what is very unlikely to have happened in favor of answers that are more economical--Occam's Razor stuff, then examine the resultant hypothesis and test it. Then swap out one significant variation and test the whole hypothesis again to see if is is as strong, less strong, or stronger.
Just keep working thru the variables that way and you can get some fairly satisfying results, but of course none will be definitive.
WRT Atkins stabbing Frykowski initially, I can buy into that. I spent some time with the autopsy report and the various testimony and I can see a way that Frykowksi made his initial break and was turned in such a fashion that it was reasonable to think that Atkins, wielding the knife right-handed, in a hammer grip, got him a number of times in the right back. At that time he grappled with her, and I can also see that if he was behind her, if she could turn about 45 degrees to her left, she could have also inflicted the leg wounds.
Shoegazer said: "WRT Atkins stabbing Frykowski initially, I can buy into that."
Unless we are missing a knife the 3/4 inch wounds to Frykowski's back have to have been made by the knife found at the scene. they are too deep to be either of the other two weapons identifiable from the reports. If we accept that Atkins lost her knife at the scene then A+B= C. Or or you prefer, Occam's Razor. That is the simplest explanation.
PS: I didn't mean by my comment via e-mail that the subject had run its course. I meant that part. I don't know if you brought your next here but just an FYI.
David,
If we're talking about that side-discussion a couple of weeks back, I've got another section queued up ready to send, if this is of interest. It has annotated drawings and photos so I can't post here as a comment. I can email, however.
I do realize, however, that a lo of the stuff I'm coming up is re-inventing the wheel; a lot of other analytical people here have already thought of it. At best, my stuff has value, if any, as an independently run test, uninfluenced by other readings/opinions here. So in some cases, I'm independently replicating earlier findings, and of course, I'm learning a lot.
Let me know.
Send it.
Why his glasses are in the living room near Sharon Tate's steamer trunks, if he was with William Garretson?
They are not his glasses. he was wearing his glasses when found.
According to WHAT? What report states he was wearing his glasses? There are two lists of items: One is a list of items found in Steven's car, including the watch found in the back seat. NOTHING about glasses. There is another report of his personal items including clothing, shoes, socks, etc. NOTHING about glasses. So, where are you getting this information that "he was wearing his glasses when found?"
NONE of this "testimony" explains the stab wound in Parent's left hand. At all. Also, when "Tex" shot him, why didn't his car keep driving? Did Parent put the car in "Park" before he got shot? It was found next morning with the key "off" and the console shifter in "2nd." In that state, it could have been pushed out of the way (why? Supposedly, the killers did not arrive by car. Unless the real killers DID. Were they ALREADY there, and had to push Steven's car out of the way in order to LEAVE?) If he had to put the car in "Park" and get out to find/reach the open button, then that might explain why it didn't drive into the gate on its own after he got shot. And maaaayyyybe how he got stabbed in the hand. But of course, Bugliosi doesn't try to figure out what happened. He just wants the publicity for his book, so he needs a Halloween story to sell. Another thing that never gets explained is, how did Sharon/Jay's blood get on the inside gate button? Was it on Steven's hand? But his hand was bleeding from a stab wound, and his blood type was B/MN. The blood on the inside gate button was type "O" (no subgroup testing.) Did one of them run to the gate, trying to escape, and get caught and dragged back? If the killers had their blood on his hands as he left, then why didn't he leave any bloody fingerprints at the scene? Again, Bugliosi didn't care about what really happened. He was writing a TV movie of the week (literally.) Now, the glasses found next to the trunks look EXACTLY like the ones Parent is wearing in the known photos. His blood type was found on the trunks. Was he caught by Frykowski trying to burgle the house (he had a record for burglary. And that .22 Buntline was stolen from a house in his neighborhood after he got out of juvie) and and he got cut struggling with Frykowski and drop the gun? Did Frykowski take his gun away from him, chase him out to his car, and shoot him? According to ALL the witnesses in the neighborhood, there were four shots fired about 11:45 (thirtyish minutes after he supposedly left Garretson's house...where was he? What was he doing, if he wasn't sneaking around inside the house?) and then THREE HOURS went by until screams and three more gunshots were heard between 3:30 and 4:00. So, what happened during those THREE HOURS? Did Frykowski call his good buddy and partner in amateur crime, Pic Dawson, and ask him what to do? Somebody left the door open, and the wrong dogs came home. Did Pic call a "cleaner" and send him over to 10050 Cielo Drive? Did that situation go from bad to worse?
Blogger TheStonesUnturned said...
A bunch of stuff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, you are all over the place like a mad womans dinner.
4 shots fired at 11.45? Since when?
Parent burglarising the house and shot by Frykowski?
And Steve's glasses were found...guess where? On his head.
I think you skipped your medication.
Also, yanno. Punctuation.
I'm continuing to have another look at these excellent posts, hence this late comment. One thing I did not see discussed in this post is the fact that the bug light on the garage was on. In fact, it was still on when Mrs Chapman arrived on Saturday morning about 8:30am.
Why I think this is relevant is that that light most likely illuminated the parking area. If one looks closely at photos of the garage, an exterior light is clearly visible on the side of the door of the above-garage room. Depending on the wattage of the light, this may have illuminated this area of the garage fairly well.
This may be important in that the killers may have been able to see Steve before they ever saw his headlights. Moreover, Steve could have thereby also seen the killers as they entered the property.
In the trial of Manson and the girls( I think), Bugliosi asks Linda about a light on the garage. I don't have immediate access to the trial transcript, but I'd like to know if the bug light was the light in question, or if it was another light. Perhaps it was a flood light on the front of the garage. Either way, there was undoubtedly some illumination of the parking area on the night of the murders
That's an excellent point.
This has strong credibility, since it was reported by the LA Times delivery man who came by at between 4:30 and 5AM, which would still be dark.
I've not yet seen a clear picture of where the bug light was located, but the most likely place would be at the extreme end of the garage, up the stairs near the above-garage room. Looking at the pictures I have links to, I can't see it, and if there, it probably is, as you say, beside the upstairs door, serving to light the landing so that someone who went up there after dark could unlock the door.
Ah, OK. Now I think I see it. It appears to be a floodlight, maybe paired, just about at the last step of the stairs to the above garage landing. It is from a photo of the location of Parent's car.
If this is more-or-less correct, there'd be a fair amount of light out there.
I haven't posted here in about 2 years. Taken as a set of verifiable facts and trying to align them with all versions of testimony is very intriguing. My gut feeling is that the official story, as per Bugliosi, is not far from the actual event. I think he wanted an understandable scenario for the jury and hence he simplified it, and I now have doubts that Manson ordered the killings to initiate a race war. I think it was probably more spontaneous than that--whimsical, almost.
Too, after an interim of two years, thinking on it occasionally, I do believe that some very serious errors may have been made in collecting blood evidence. I do not think that parts of the blood evidence are reliable, but that some is.
Alternatively, the killers were so drenched in blood that it dripped from them in locations that are wildly inconsistent with any reasonable actual scenario. This is consistent with deciding to stop and wash themselves off.
Just a good way to spend excess mental energy!
I also tend to believe that Parent may well have parked *beside* the garage, directly under the light, rather than directly next to Folger's Camaro, right in front of the house. This is because he was basically a sort of nerd, I think, aspiring to a connection with glamour, and so would have lacked the confidence to pull up to the very front of the house, thereby attracting the attention of the occupants.
So, you know, he may have serendipitously actually been inside of his car, before starting it, dome light unilluminated, when they came over the hillside, near gate button. It would explain why he is reported to have said, "I won't tell" just before Watson shot him.
Post a Comment