"The Blood Problem. No scenario for the murders in any
published account or police report has taken seriously into consideration the
fact that Miss Tate and Jay Sebring were outside the house on the front porch
during the massacre. If you look at the large picture of the front porch that Life published last August you will see incredible amounts of
blood. All this blood is of the two victims mentioned. One supposes that the
true story of what happened at the house on Cielo Drive last August 8th
will come out sooner or later. We have reason to believe that Linda Kasabian
recounted a different, much different, story of what happened there at the
house to at least two people before she was arrested- a story divergent from
her 18 day testimony on the witness stand."
Ed Sanders, Cast Call
For Blood Alley, The Los Angeles Free Press, September 4, 1970
On the morning of August 9, 1969 at 10:00 a.m. officer Manuel Joseph Granado of the Los Angeles
 |
| I think Granado might be in the back with the glasses. |
Granado had a bachelor of arts degree (undefined) and a masters degree in Criminalistics. He had six years experience with SID.
Granado first did a walk-through of the crime scene. This
is when he noted the gun grip pieces in the front hall (that later were kicked
under a chair, see image, below). He then went back and began to collect evidence. He started
with the gun grip because he was afraid the pieces might be lost.
Granado logged each location where he collected evidence that day with his initial “G” and a number. According to his testimony, these numbers form the chronological path he followed as he moved about the crime scene that morning.
 |
| Cielodrive thinks this might be him. |
Granado logged each location where he collected evidence that day with his initial “G” and a number. According to his testimony, these numbers form the chronological path he followed as he moved about the crime scene that morning.
_____
Q: And the “17” is what? Is that just one of your figures?
A: Just a chronological order that I picked up the various
evidence at the scene.
_____
Evidence entries G22-27 are missing from the report he
subsequently submitted to Captain Don A. Martin, Commander of SID (below, right). We
know these entries once existed because during his testimony he identified G25
as a mark on a beam. It tested negative for blood.
[Aside: I count 31 typed blood samples recorded on this
report. If I add the missing G25 and the three ‘not blood’ or ‘insufficient
amount’ results I get 35. Bugliosi says 45. Where are the other 10?]
While collecting blood samples Granado labeled seven
locations, which together form the basis for his 'big mistake':
G4: Blood splatters on front porch next to door, human
blood- type OM (Sharon Tate)
G5: Front door porch near post, human blood- type O-MN (Jay
Sebring)
G-7. Foot print on porch, human blood. O-M (Sharon Tate)[Aside:
several other barefoot prints were also identified in this general location but
were not tested for blood.]
G32: Blood left side of door jam, human blood- type OM
(Sharon Tate)
G33: Blood 22 inches north of edge of porch, and 42 inches
east of edge of porch (front), human blood- type O-MN (Jay Sebring)
G34: Blood on walkway, 28 inches from front porch and 8
inches north of edge of walkway, human blood- type O-MN (Jay Sebring)
G35: Blood on porch (6-18 inches) from south side of entry
(splatters) human blood- type OM (Sharon Tate)
These seven locations place Sharon Tate and
Jay Sebring on the front porch and walkway of the house. The eyewitness say
they were never there.
_____
I would have shot him, but he and Sadie kept rolling and
fighting, so I finally threw myself on him and beat him over the head with the
butt of the gun until it broke, a section of the grip dropping to the floor. He
was enormously powerful, fighting for his life as he dragged the two of us
across the hall toward the front door, knocking over the trunks.
As we staggered out onto the front porch, he kept screaming,
“Help me. Oh God, help me!” I
stabbed him over and over, blindly, the whole world spinning
and turning as red as the blood that was smearing and spattering everywhere.
Finally I shot him twice and he slumped onto the stone porch.
(Charles ‘Tex’ Watson, Will You Die For Me)
_____
Atkins initially tells us she was on the floor in the living
room and saw neither the shooting nor Frykowski going out the door. Then she
changes her story.
_____
PAUL CARUSO: Frykowski was going out, wasn’t he?
SUSAN ATKINS: Yes, but I don’t remember because I was on
the floor.
(Atkins Interview by Caballero and Caruso, December 1, 1969-
thanks to cielodrive.com)
Q: What happened next?
A (Atkins): Then he got away from me. Mr. Frykowski got away
from me. He started running towards the front door which was open and screaming
bloody murder, yelling for his life, for somebody to come help him.
*****
Q: What is the next thing that happened?
A: Frykowski was running and screaming. He got to the door
and Tex hit him over the head.
*****
Q: In addition to hitting Mr. Frykowski over the head with
the gun butt did Tex do anything else to Mr. Frykowski at that point?
A: He was stabbing him as best he could because Frykowski
was fighting.
Cielodrive.com. Susan Atkins Grand Jury Testimony (Kindle
Locations 560-569). Kindle Edition.
Kasabian tells us that she saw Frykowski come out the door, alone.
He made eye contact and then he falls into the bushes at the north end of the
porch. Frykowski is next being attacked by Watson on the lawn.
_____
Q. What happened after you ran toward the house?
A (Kasabian). There was a man just entering out of the door
and he had blood all over his face and he was standing by a post, and we looked
into each other's eyes for a minute, I don't know however long, and I said,
"Oh, God, I am so sorry. Please make it stop." And then he just fell
to the ground into the bushes.
And then Sadie came running out of the house, and I said,
"Sadie, please make it stop." And then I said, "People are
coming." And she said, "It's too late." And then she told me
that she left her knife and she couldn't find it. And while this was going on,
the man had gotten up, and I saw Tex on top of him, hitting him on the head and
stabbing him, and the man was struggling, and then I saw Katie in the background
with the girl, chasing after her with an upraised knife, and I just turned and
ran to the car down at the bottom of the hill.
*****
Q. You will have to speak a little bit more loudly in the
microphone. You say when this tall man first came out the door covered with
blood, he fell into some bushes?
A . Yes.
Q. Were these bushes close to the front door?
A. Yes.
Q. You say he eventually got up and moved to a different
place?
A. Yes.
Q. Tex followed him?
A. Yes.
Q. Finally the man fell down, you say?
A. Yes.
Q. And Tex got on top of him and stabbed him, is that
correct?
A. Yes.
_____
[Aside: I usually skim through the various books when I
write these posts to see if there is something to add. When I did in my
version of Sanders’ The Family I
noticed at page 412 (2002 edition) that he has an image of one of the notes
Kasabian wrote Bugliosi (right). Remember, those notes are things she
‘remembered’ between interviews."At the end of each interview I’d tell her that if, back in her cell, anything occurred to her which we hadn’t discussed, to “jot it down.” A number of these notes became letters to me, running to a dozen or more pages."
Bugliosi, Vincent; Curt Gentry. Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders . W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.
This story- Sadie’s Stroll- appears in that note. It includes this: “Then I looked at the boy in the car and thought to myself ‘oh no, they’re killing the people- I have to do something.’” She goes on to say she ran over “to the hedge” and saw Frykowski. The note is interesting. First, we are supposed to believe this was something that when interviewed Kasabian didn’t remember and only remembered later, when alone in her cell. The part where she saw Parent almost sounds like this is the first she knew he had been shot, while she testified she saw him being shot. Then she places herself at ‘the hedge’. This is not at the “LK arrow” on the walkway.]
The Big Mistake
The seven blood locations contradict everything we know
happened that night. We know Sebring and Tate never escaped the living room.
If Granado made a mistake in typing Frykowski’s blood, then
the Sebring blood evidence reveals a path similar to Folger’s blood evidence
and is consistent with our understanding about what happened that night
according to the eyewitnesses.
G29: The trunks to the....
G2: Gun grip in the front hall to the ....
G5 and 31: Blood on the porch to the .....
G34: Blood on the walkway to the .....
G16: Scarf found in the grass about ten feet from Frykowski’s
body.
[Aside: At the trial Granado testified that he also tested the actual gun for blood and found
type B blood on the hammer and in the metal portion of the exposed grip.
Granado didn’t have access to the gun until December 16, 1969. This actually
lends some support to the argument that Granado didn’t make a mistake as it
places blood consistent with the eyewitnesses on the gun following a successful test, months after the events.]
The Number of Mistakes
The first problem encountered is the number of errors
Granado has to make for this evidence to be a mistake. Granado had to make a mistake at least seven times (and I would argue nine).
This translates to seven out of thirty-one samples (23%) of all blood tested and seven
out of eighteen type O blood samples (40%). Add the ribbons and the scarf and it is 50%. The number is actually
higher because of the subtypes.
The M-N-MN subtype of Sebring is the same as Frykowski (MN). So that needn't be an error. That still leaves four locations (Sharon Tate’s M subtype) where Granado also had to
make a mistake during the M-N-MN subtyping. So, all told, we have eleven to thirteen errors. That is a lot.
Possible Errors
Possible Error #1: Delay in Testing the Blood Samples
Granado was testing the blood months after the crimes.
_____
Q: And when did you make your examination of these samples?
A: The week immediately following and several months
thereafter.
_____
At the Watson trial Granado was clearer on this issue.
_____
Q: And when did you make your examination back at the
office?
A: Some of them I started the following day and others I was
still running tests several months afterwards.
_____
Could this be the culprit? No
First, remember the gun. Most of these seven locations are mentioned in the
First Homicide Investigation Progress Report as having been typed. Many of the
seven locations were typed and subtyped by the date of that report. More
importantly, as Naguchi testified (below), blood can be typed (but not
necessarily subtyped) years after the event. That is an accurate statement.
Conclusion: Not the error.
Possible Error #2: The Chain of Evidence
Forensic procedural manuals, textbooks, training literature
and protocols all stress documenting everything the forensic investigator
does by video tape if possible (today). Documentation is critical. (John Schiro.
Forensic Scientist, Louisiana State Police Crime Laboratory, Collection and Preservation of Blood
Evidence at Crime Scenes, Crime Scene Network)
The error would go something like this: Granado collected G32
from somewhere other than the front porch door jam and either mislabeled the
location or switched two sample locations.
One clue to this error would be locations where type B blood
is ‘out of place’ because Granado switched the actual locations. Example: G32
is really from location G26 (let’s assume G26 is near Tate’s body) and G26
appears as type B in the report. Alternatively, there should be locations
identified where no test was performed. Example: G32 is really from G26 but
there is no typed blood from G26.
There is, perhaps, an indication this error may have occurred.
That comes from the homicide report and the missing entries in his memo to
the SID commander.
____
Blood around area of Polanski's body and Sebring's body and
rope which they were tied with, type O. (First Tate Homicide Investigation
Progress Report, emphasis added)
_____
Granado has no record of samples from 'around the area' of Polanski or Sebring if he did take them. Evidence
items G22-27, however, are missing from the blood report, above. Granado testified that
G25 was the beam. Since the “G” numbers are chronological and G25 is the beam
and G28 is the rope G26 and G27 logically could be in the living room at the bodies of Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring. G21 is
from Parent’s car which suggests to me G22-24 may be outside and further away
from the house (the garage?) or that at some point in the sequence the location shifts to the
living room. But without knowing what the missing evidence was there is no way
to say for sure. This could account for five, but not seven, errors.
Conclusion: Unable to determine, but I’ll say unlikely due
to the number of errors involved.
Intermission
Before moving on to other possible errors you need to have
two pieces of information.
Naguchi’s Testimony
Naguchi testified as follows on cross examination.
______
______
Q (Kanarek) **** In a week could you still tell that blood
type?
A (Naguchi). We should be able to tell blood type, yes.
Q: And what time period, could you give us some sort of time
period, let’s say, ordinary Southern California type atmosphere, minimum amount
of rain, and so forth, what would the time period after which you could not
tell the blood type was?
A. Well, if a blood stain has sufficient quantity we should
be able to tell the blood type of the A, B, O system. If it dried without
chemical changes I would say we should be able to tell even though it had been
dry for many years.
Q. I see. Now, what happens, Doctor, if blood of different
types mixes? Does that interfere with the analysis?
A. Yes.
[Aside: why on earth is Kanarak asking Naguchi these questions? These are
the questions he should be asking Granado, who testifies, next. He doesn’t.
Or at least I would add: "Kanarek, ask the next damn question!"- “How does it interfere?”]
______
ABO Typing
This is how ABO blood typing works, the only test Granado had to work with in 1969. With dried blood, it is a little more complicated then described below, but this is close enough for this post.
Granado sets up two test tubes. He places the same sample
from the crime scene in each one. He then takes a known sample of type A blood
from the lab and places it in test tube A and a known sample of blood type B in
test tube B. He waits thirty minutes or so. The results are then apparent to
the naked eye and can be confirmed by a microscope.
He is looking for clumping. Here, to the right, test tube
B shows clumping. That happens when type B blood mixes with
type A blood. Test tube A shows no reaction. Granado knows he has type A blood.
If he gets the opposite result he has type B.
If both clump (left) he has type AB.
And if neither clumps it is type 0 (lower right).
The images are good representations of what Granado
would actually see with the naked eye.
(Corey Harbison ABO Blood Type Identification and Forensic Science (1900-1960), Embryo
Project Encyclopedia, 2016)
Possible Error #3: Blood Transfer
It is well documented that this happened. Several police officers tracked blood out
onto the porch and even kicked the gun grip under a chair while Granado was
present at the scene. It is also a certainty blood was transferred due to the
movements of the murderers. But does this account for the seven suspected blood
samples?
In a slightly different form this theory was also Bugliosi’s theory
at the trial: our seven, suspect, blood samples were ‘cast off’ blood from the
killers or their weapons carried from Sebring and Tate in the living room to the
front porch. Bugliosi even had Granado circle an area in a photo to show where
he collected the sample from a larger bloodstain to make his point.
Bugliosi’s theory says drops of Tate/Sebring blood fell into
these seven locations (where Frykowski’s blood was located) and by some
miraculous accident when Granado collected samples from the larger bloodstained
areas, with pinpoint accuracy, he accidentally took his samples from those precise
locations. Then, when he tested them he obtained a type O result, seven times.
Granado would have to pull off this feat seven times,
each time collecting a transferred drop from a larger area of Frykowski’s
blood. He would also need to get a subtype of M on four samples.
The eyewitnesses say
Sebring was attacked in the living room, first. His blood could transfer in the
ensuing ‘chase’ of Frykowski. But how does Tate’s blood get onto the front
porch?
One possible explanation is that Tate’s blood was
transferred by Atkins when she wrote ‘Pig’ on the door. The door to the Polanski
home, however, was open not closed when police arrived. That would suggest any
cast off from the ‘Pig’ writing should be in the front hall, not on the porch.
____
Q: Before you entered, did you notice whether the front door
was to the Tate residence was open or closed?
A (Wheisenhunt): The door was open.
*****
Q: All right, now, before running outside of the kitchen
door with your purse did you notice whether or not the front door was open or
closed?
A (Chapman): It was open.
*****
Q: I show you People’s 103 for identification and direct
your attention to the front door of the Tate residence. You will notice it is
open. Was the front door open when you arrived on the premises?
A (De Rosa): Yes it was.
_____
That really leaves Atkins and Watson, leaving the house, as
the mechanism to transfer Sharon Tate's blood to the front porch.
That doesn’t mean the victims’ blood couldn’t have been
mixed. It was, and that is what Naguchi is alluding to at the end of his
testimony (where Kanarek drops the ball, again). If two types of blood are mixed
(remember, we are pre-DNA by twenty years) any blood typing of that blood is unreliable
if you know it is mixed.
This issue comes up, frequently, in exoneration cases of
convicted rapists (by DNA) today. The concept, there, is known as ‘masking’. If
more of the victim’s blood type is present in the fluid the smaller amount from
the assailant will be hidden from the ABO test- masked- making the test
unreliable. The concept should be explained to the jury. (Vanessa Meterko,
M.A., Strengths and Limitations of
Forensic Science: What DNA Exonerations Have Taught Us and Where to Go From
Here, Virginia Law Review, Vol.119, 2017)
That means our seven suspect samples are, indeed, ‘unreliable’.
It also means we can’t say Frykowski’s blood is not also at the seven
locations.
But ‘masking’ also suggests something interesting. The higher quantity blood type should appear during the test. (Meterko, supra) This
means when Granado found type O blood at these locations there was far more
type O blood in his sample then type B. According to the official narrative,
that is backwards.
The way this error can provide an explanation for our seven suspect samples is if Bugliosi is correct. Granado would need to collect a mix of the transferred
type O blood and a lesser amount of type B from each location. The type O blood in the sample then
‘masks’ the type B blood. If this happened it could explain all of the suspect
samples.
There is a problem, however: how could Granado have accidently pulled this off seven times? The problem is illustrated by the footprint. How did Atkins track the O blood across the walk in greater quantities then type B and then how did Granado collect the O type blood out of that mix?
There is a problem, however: how could Granado have accidently pulled this off seven times? The problem is illustrated by the footprint. How did Atkins track the O blood across the walk in greater quantities then type B and then how did Granado collect the O type blood out of that mix?
Conclusion: This is the scenario that best explains the
errors but it requires a lot of extraordinary coincidences.
Possible Error #4: A Testing Error
Bugliosi wanted to identify whose blood was located
at each location and show the movements of the victims. He was also attempting to corroborate Kasabian. But Granado can’t really do that. All he can really say, for example,
is that G35 could be any one of several million people, including Jay Sebring. Because of this, Bugliosi stays away from asking questions about procedure, protocols or
testing techniques. He also does this because he has blood at the wrong place. The defense.....well, they
were incompetent. Only one person ever asked the critical question: Judge Alexander
at the Watson trial.
_____
The Court: I have a couple questions I would like to ask.
Maybe I was mistaken listening to your testimony. You say on the pathway
outside the house you found blood O with a sub type MN; is that correct? The
early part of your testimony.
A: Walkway. Okay.
Q: The walkway?
A: Yes.
Q: Am I correct in that?
A: Yes; O MN.
Q: O MN. The only bodies outside the house were those of
Abigail Folger and Wojiciech Frykowski; is that correct, sir?
A: That is correct.
Q: Neither one of them has O with sub type MN; is that
correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: Can you account for the O MN blood type outside the house
when the only bodies outside of the house were Wojiciech Frykowski and Folger
and neither one of them had O sub type MN?
A: Unless one of the two O—the O MN bodies had at one time
been outside bleeding and brought back in. [I believe a ‘not’ is missing here at the start of the last answer.]
_____
Because of DNA by the end of the 1980’s no one cared about ABO blood typing at crime scenes so finding helpful research is difficult. In fact, since the advent of non-human reagents the procedures used by Granado were no longer used even when ABO blood typing occurred.
In 1977 a grant was given to the Forensic Sciences
Foundation to run a study on crime lab proficiency (Joseph L. Peterson et al., Crime Laboratory Proficiency Testing
Research
Program, Natl.
Inst. L. Enforcement & Crim. Just. 1978). Several hundred labs were given a
series of
tests and asked to submit their results. The tests included ballistics, paint samples, finger prints, hair blood stains, etc. As part of the study, and as part of a promise of anonymity, the ‘codes’ identifying which lab had performed how on which test were destroyed [Aside: given the results, probably so defense lawyers couldn’t access the information]. Both Naguchi’s office and LAPD’s SID (Wolfer) participated in the study. Granado moved on to the FBI shortly after first trial. The overall results were abysmal.
tests and asked to submit their results. The tests included ballistics, paint samples, finger prints, hair blood stains, etc. As part of the study, and as part of a promise of anonymity, the ‘codes’ identifying which lab had performed how on which test were destroyed [Aside: given the results, probably so defense lawyers couldn’t access the information]. Both Naguchi’s office and LAPD’s SID (Wolfer) participated in the study. Granado moved on to the FBI shortly after first trial. The overall results were abysmal.
The 1977 study included two ‘blood tests’. Test #3 required
the lab to type and subtype a blood stain just like Granado. Test #8 required
the lab to determine if two blood stains could have originated from the same
source. Granado couldn’t and didn’t attempt this in 1969. The results appear to the
right.Test #3 statistically supports the argument that Granado didn’t make a mistake. The error rate is only 3.8% for typing blood which is good. However, the detail on the testing reveals an interesting piece of information.
_____
Type MN blood was reported correctly by 15 of 25
laboratories attempting this system. This represents 60% of the attempts.
*****
All of the laboratories attempting the MN typing used the absorption
elution method [used by Granado]. Each of the 9 laboratories reporting type M had also used the absorption elution technique in the ABO typing [used by
Granado], and had correctly typed the stain as type B. The Project Advisory
Committee concludes that the errors may well be attributable to considerations
other than technique. MN antisera is widely held to be treacherous, and the erroneous
results may possibly be attributed to poor antisera.
_____
This means the M-N-MN sub-typing (used by Granado) had an error rate in the
study of 40%. The reason was the antisera. The antisera if not used carefully
can have two impacts N antigens can bond with M cells from the actual bloodstain making the
bloodstain appear to be subtype MN. Alternatively, the antisera can 'destroy' the 'N' aspect of the MN cell making it appear to be 'M'. (Robert Shaler, Phd. et al, MN Determination in Bloodstains-Selective
Destruction of Cross-Reacting Activity, National Institute of Law
Enforcement and Criminal Justice, May 1977)
This could explain the odd coincidence that every victim
except Sharon Tate was subtype MN. It also means Granado’s subtype results are
likely wrong (or at least there is a 40% chance each one is wrong). It also
means the O-MN blood found on the porch and elsewhere could be type
O-M and that, at least, places Sebring back in the living room. Of course it also means the O-M blood could be O-MN.
This possible error potentially makes all seven samples (and others) Sharon Tate’s blood. For example, if you believe the official narrative, given the order the victims were killed, it is more likely the greater quantity of blood on Watson’s hand when he left the scene would be from Sharon Tate, the last victim, not Sebring, the first. This error may explain why Sebring’s blood appears to be on the gate button. MN sub typing clearly was not very reliable.
This possible error potentially makes all seven samples (and others) Sharon Tate’s blood. For example, if you believe the official narrative, given the order the victims were killed, it is more likely the greater quantity of blood on Watson’s hand when he left the scene would be from Sharon Tate, the last victim, not Sebring, the first. This error may explain why Sebring’s blood appears to be on the gate button. MN sub typing clearly was not very reliable.
The second test, #8, suffered a 71.2% error rate but this
test was to determine whether two bloodstains could come from the same source.
Granado couldn’t and didn’t attempt that in this case.
[Aside: After 1977 proficiency testing continued under the study and the
results continued to be abysmal into the 1990’s (Randolph N. Jonakait, Forensic Science: The Need for Regulation,
Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, Vol.4, 1991)]
The explanation offered in the 1977 report for the various errors
included: lack of training and education, problems with reagents, poorly equipped facilities,
overworked staff, underpaid staff, lack of protocols, bias and lack of staff, turning the investigator into a ‘jack of all trades’. All of these, arguably,
apply to Granado. Bias- he knew the detectives believed Sharon Tate’s body had
been moved and that may have influenced his results.
[Aside: It is too bad the lab ‘codes’ were destroyed. It would
be interesting to see how Wolfer’s lab faired.]
Conclusion: There is no solid evidence of this error in part
because no one asked the right questions at either trial. Statistically,
however, it is highly probable Granado’s M-N-MN subtyping is wrong. I don’t
think there is enough evidence to say his ABO typing is wrong (as in ‘the wrong
type was identified during the test’). Possible Error #5: Frykowski is type O-MN
Granado typed the victims’ blood from the morgue, first. If
he made a mistake in typing Frykowski then the Sebring blood evidence reveals a
path heading out the front door. However, the coroner also typed Frykowski’s
blood and concluded it was type B. It is also much easier to type ‘wet’ blood
versus dried bloodstains.
Conclusion: Not the Error.
Possible Error #6: Almost all of the above
This may be the best explanation if mistakes were made. Each
of the seven suspected blood samples could result from one or more different
errors. The problem I keep running into is: it is seven errors. We are also saying
at the same time Granado made this mistake he got all the type B blood right. There
is one potential explanation for this outcome. The best explanation for that
outcome is the error of transferred blood (mixing types) as described by Bugliosi because the type-B
locations do not suffer from blood transfer. But that takes me back to the
footprint.
The Footprints
Part of the evidence discovered that morning was a series of
footprints that ran from near the front door easterly off the porch towards the
grass.
_____
“Continuing toward the porch, three bloody footprints were noted. All four of these prints are blood type O and indicated the person was moving east from the porch.
Continuing onto the porch in a westerly direction, two
bloody barefoot prints are noted. Both of these prints are blood type O and are
also pointing in an easterly direction.”
(First Tate Homicide Progress Report)
_____
Again, adding to the mystery, Granado’s blood report only
identifies one of these footprints (G7) and fails to record the other five
mentioned as type ‘O’ in the report.
There are no bloody barefoot prints noted in the front hall
but the images clearly show blood there. That means whomever left these stepped
in the blood on the porch, not in the living room.
Here is what Atkins says about the footprints:
_____
Then I threw the towel back into the room and left. To get
out of the door, I had to step in blood with one foot, so I hopped on the other
foot down to the grass and wiped my bare foot back and forth several times.
Slosser, Bob; Atkins, Susan. Child of Satan, Child of God
(p. 143). Menelorelin Dorenay’s Publishing. Kindle Edition.
_____
We can ignore her. We know this statement is completely inaccurate (surprise!)
for two reasons. She didn’t have to step in the blood to exit the house and
because she left several footprints.
The footprint is transferred blood from the doorway to the
walk. It is blood moved from G32 (in all likelihood) to G7 by Atkins as she
left the scene. And this blood sample, I believe, is the most compelling
evidence that Sharon Tate was on the front porch. To exclude G7 you have
to assume that Granado made one of the above errors (as to the and subtype) two times in connection with what is really the same blood sample.
The Violet Ribbons
G43: Violet colored ribbons found on side of door near blood
splatters, human blood- type O.
If our seven suspect samples are wrong, it seems that this
too has to be wrong unless someone carried these out the front door and dropped
them. No one mentions this act and explaining ‘why’ this would happen is difficult.
The more likely scenario is they fell there and no one saw that happen.
If we had an image of the ‘ribbons’ it would be helpful. I
couldn’t find one. This is the one time Granado didn’t subtype the type O
blood, which may suggest this is one he tested months later. Since this is G43
it is one of the last items Granado addressed, which suggests to me it ought to
be in a picture. It is not mentioned in either trial.
If Sharon Tate was on the front porch these could from
Sharon Tate’s hair.
The Scarf
G-16. Violet colored scarf found on grass area between body
of Frykowski and pathway to front of house, human blood. O-MN [Aside: notice they match the ribbons]
This too, it seems, has to be the wrong blood type if the
official narrative is right. Again, I have never seen an image of the scarf.
Either the blood type is an error or someone carried this to the yard for some
unexplained reason. Again, I have to ask 'why' this would happen?
There is some suggestion in the trial that G16 is actually
the same object as G43 from Granado’s testimony (below). I do not think it was.
It is fair to ignore the subtype. We know that could easily
be an error. Despite the eyewitness
(Atkins) this could be what was used to
write ‘Pig’ on the door which means she never threw anything back in the room but dropped it as she left the scene. The scarf as the writing instrument makes more sense
than either towel. Neither towel is described as having sufficient blood on it. The beige towel, according to the SID report, has blood 'spots' and the yellow towel, well, judge for yourself. [Aside: in a previous post I stated that I thought the yellow towel was used. I no longer think that was the case.]
_____
A: ***** Next I move to G16, which appeared to me like a
violet colored scarf with violet ribbons. This scarf was stiff and appeared to
have material that appeared to me to be blood, and I took this to the lab and
analyzed it. I found it to contain human blood type O, subtype MN.
This was near the body of Frykowski on the front lawn of the
residence and approximately 10 feet from the sidewalk leading to the residence.
____
I set out to prove Granado’s mistake, not to vindicate him.
I don’t believe I did either.
I believe it is likely that he didn’t make the ‘big mistake’. I believe the evidence says it is more probable then not that Sharon Tate’s blood is on the front porch and that she was there. I think it is also possible that she could be there either with or without Jay Sebring because of the likelihood the MN subtyping is erroneous. And frankly, I don't think he was.
I believe it is likely that he didn’t make the ‘big mistake’. I believe the evidence says it is more probable then not that Sharon Tate’s blood is on the front porch and that she was there. I think it is also possible that she could be there either with or without Jay Sebring because of the likelihood the MN subtyping is erroneous. And frankly, I don't think he was.
I can see two ways Sharon Tate could be on the front porch.In one scenario little of the ‘official narrative’ has to
change.
It starts with Atkins and Watson both attacking Frykowski as he fights his way towards the front door. The broken gun grip in the front hall, the additional blood in the front hall (right) and the evidence Atkins stabbed Frykowski several times in the back document these events. Perhaps Sharon Tate followed Frykowski (or was near him) because Krenwinkel and Folger were blocking the other obvious exit from the living room. Remember, the fight between Atkins and Frykowski started in front of the couch and heads towards the chair at the north end of the room thus blocking access to the third exit from the room (below).
Frykowski then moves to the porch falling into the bushes at the north end. This act separates Frykowski from his attackers for a few moments. Frykowski's attempted escape leads away from actual help, which is down the driveway, because the
presence of Kasabian blocks his best route. He would assume she is another foe coming to aid his attackers (and perhaps she was).
Then practically everything described by Atkins can happen. Atkins is commanded by Watson to get Sharon. Without a knife she gets her in a head
lock. Her conversation with Sharon ensues. She was then attacked by Watson while
Atkins held her. Her body
was either subsequently carried back into the house to stage a hanging- hanging
her with her apparent ‘lover’ or Atkins walked her back there while wounded, in a bizarre way honoring her
request to sit down.
I admit I reach this conclusion, in part, because I don’t
believe Sharon Tate would ‘freeze’ (some do and your arguments are certainly
valid). I also acknowledge one of the reasons I believe she didn't is anecdotal, relating to an incident involving my pregnant wife twenty-eight years ago and
how she responded to a far less life threatening, yet still potentially injurious situation. Put simply, I believe Sharon Tate would have fought like hell to save her unborn child or as my wife put it at the time 'she became a she wolf'.
The second possibility is Kasabian did 'hear' something, Steven Parent leaving, and that sent Watson after him before he could escape ("I won't tell anyone."). With only Krenwinkel and Atkins in the living room everyone makes a break for it and Watson returns in time to meet them at the front door. But this version says the official narrative is completely wrong.
The second possibility is Kasabian did 'hear' something, Steven Parent leaving, and that sent Watson after him before he could escape ("I won't tell anyone."). With only Krenwinkel and Atkins in the living room everyone makes a break for it and Watson returns in time to meet them at the front door. But this version says the official narrative is completely wrong.
The second reason I believe Sharon Tate was on the front porch is, to me, this fact: all seven (I would argue nine) of these samples have to be errors for Granado to
be wrong.
In concluding he must be wrong we also start with the assumption Granado made these errors because we choose to believe the eyewitnesses. I started there.
In concluding he must be wrong we also start with the assumption Granado made these errors because we choose to believe the eyewitnesses. I started there.
Comment after comment here, however, asks the question ‘when will they
[the killers] tell the truth about what happened’. That is a legitimate
question. The most innocuous issue, a bloody barefoot print on the
walkway that is irrefutable, results in yet another inaccurate explanation
from the one who left them there. Of course, she also claims she only stabbed
Frykowski in the leg a few times.
So why would they not tell the truth about Sharon Tate being
on the front porch? I can think of two pretty good reasons:
(1.) If they did they would have to explain why they moved
the body. Moving her body to attempt to hang her from the rafters with Jay
Sebring (his body obviously was at least ‘staged’ for that) is pretty damn sick. You decide how that might impact their
trial or parole chances. As to the trial aspect, look at Kasabian’s self-serving comment, above. She already had immunity and was still trying to distance herself from 'them'.
I believe hanging the victims was part of the plan. I can’t imagine why you would bring 43’ of rope in one piece to tie up the victims and instead put the rope around three (and maybe all four) of their necks and then use a towel to tie them up.
I’ll add only that once Atkins’ version of events came to light it became the narrative for everyone, including Bugliosi, and everyone, ever since and Ms. Atkins is anything but a reliable source.
I believe hanging the victims was part of the plan. I can’t imagine why you would bring 43’ of rope in one piece to tie up the victims and instead put the rope around three (and maybe all four) of their necks and then use a towel to tie them up.
I’ll add only that once Atkins’ version of events came to light it became the narrative for everyone, including Bugliosi, and everyone, ever since and Ms. Atkins is anything but a reliable source.
(2.) Giving the killers the benefit of a doubt, maybe they
can’t emotionally or psychologically accept the fact that they tried to hang the victims. I'm not sure I could. It would be easier to say ‘I hid by the guest house until it was
over’. Then, I don’t have to accept responsibility and don’t have to 'embrace' what I
did.
I would like to acknowledge the substantial contribution made to this post by Bo at Cielodrive.com. Bo probably deserves partial credit on all of my posts but on this one especially.
I would like to acknowledge the substantial contribution made to this post by Bo at Cielodrive.com. Bo probably deserves partial credit on all of my posts but on this one especially.
Pax Vobiscum
Dreath
137 comments:
Seems like all this blood tracking could use another round of Tex revisited corroboration (but unlikely). Also Krenwinkle and Kasabian but less so.
"As to the trial aspect, look at Kasabian’s self-serving comment, above. She already had immunity and was still trying to distance herself from 'them'."
I'm not sure this is accurate. She was still a defendant in the case until she was about half way through her cross examination by Kanarek. To his credit, Kanarek argued repeatedly that leaving her in limbo where she was promised immunity but still a defendant incentivized her to tell the "truth" that Bugliosi wanted to hear. The prosecution argued that she enjoyed a de facto immunity despite the fact that she was still named as a defendant, but I think it's clear the game they were playing there. The fact that they eventually did present an immunity deal that the judge signed didn't necessarily fix the problem, because - as Karanek also argued - it is only natural for a person once they have testified to remain committed to their answers regardless of the intervening immunity agreement.
My impression from reading what is available of Kasabian's testimony is that she is not a reliable witness and had every incentive to lie in order to assist the prosecution and distance herself from the coconspirators.
I'm not that familiar with the blood map of Cielo Drive, but it seems to me that if Sharon Tate was injured enough at the front door to bleed profusely and was then taken back to in front of the couch in the living room there would be a substantial amount of blood on the floor between those two areas. Was there? Also, why would Sharon attempt to escape through the front door when she knew Charles Watson was right there killing Voytek Frykowski? Wouldn't it make more sense to try to get out through the kitchen exit?
George,
There is, in fact, blood at other locations between the front door and the living room- enough to be 'bleeding profusely'....I don't know. Some police officers described it as 'blood was everywhere' and, ion course, they helped track it there. Unfortunately, there are no really good images, or reliable descriptions by LAPD that I could find. I would point out, however, that if Abigail Folger was stabbed in the midsection by Watkins in the living room, as described, there isn't that much blood from her trailing out the back door.
But frankly, as to all your questions- I don't know and/or I can't disagree.
David --- I don't know if this is will help but there's a 'blood map' at this link of the Tate house that you might want to post for discussion. Of course I don't know how accurate.
http://2ndofficialtate-labiancamurdersblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/sharon-why-didnt-you-flee.html
The second official blog...now there's a blast from the past! Patty loves her some Ms Burb.
At this link are a few blood pics and further down the same blood map plus another with a few pics. Warning this page also has pics of the murdered - not for children or the squeamish.
http://archive.is/SuD8d
Robert C,
I have seen these. They are a little incomplete but not bad. They are taken from the report to Captain Martin the SID Commander by Granado. If you compare them you can track the G#s with the locations on the first map (the second was created from the first) and if I recall when I did that there are a couple missing or combined and I think the O-MN at the north end of the porch is not accurate (that is the area Granado didn't take a sample).
I tried to make my own map from Granado's testimony but since Bugliosi had him testify from a diagram (adding G#s) it isn't really possible. 'The next one G35 was here, in this area."
If you look at some of the crime scene photos like the one near the bottom, there, you can see blood that is not listed anywhere- like those spots on the front hall floor, and, of course, there are those G#'s missing from the report.
In an interview with the LA Times after he retired Galindo, who had the unfortunate job of guarding the crime scene overnight said he had a hard time finding a place to stand because of the blood. McCann in a similar interview said 'blood was everywhere'. Contemporary articles quote officers as calling it a 'battle scene' and one said you 'couldn't move for the blood'. Now, it could all be hyperbole.
SAG said " Why? All he would do is lie again "
If you mean my comment about Tex, what I had in mind is not another generic Tex rundown of what happened but a specific confrontation with him about the blood map as in things like you said this but how did this blood and type get over here and etc. There's a chance our 'christian' reverend might actually be able to more fully explain who was where when.
And keep in mind Tex is the only person alive I know of who was at, witnessed and participated in nearly everything at Ceilo. Within him he knows almost everything that happened that night in detail regardless of any blackouts, too-painful-to-recall or I was stoned senseless stuff.
Yes, he could try to mess with the truth even though he'd be confined by the blood evidence questioning but I think he could still clarify much of what this thread is focused on.
Robert C,
Watson certainly "could". And it might be on those tapes- one way or the other. I put 'could' in quotes because as I have researched these posts I have come to the startling conclusion [sarcasm intended] that the truth is a rather elusive thing when it comes to the eyewitnesses.
I personally, at least would like a crack at all three who are still around.
I was reading Atkins's grand jury testimony earlier today because last week I was listening to an interview with Kanarek where I thought he had said this was the closest thing to the truth.(although when I listened again he said he thought she was in the house with the rest of them, so maybe I misheard). Whether or not that is true, I was surprised in how it corroborated Kasabian's claim that she never entered the house. In fact, if I read it correctly, she says Kasabian ran away early and they didn't see her again until they went back and found her hiding in the car. I don't know why she would make that up to protect Kasabian Maybe Kasabian's testimony isn't fabricated to make her less culpable, but rather to make it seeem like she witnessed more than she actually did so that she was a more valuable witness for the prosecution.
To clarify. When I said Kanarek thought "she was in the house" I meant Kasabian not Atkins who we know was in the house. So not sure why Kanarek would say he thought the GJ testimony was closest to the truth.
Because if she doesn't get that golden ticket, she hangs with the rest of them whether she was in there as Kanarek believed or whether she was hiding in the car. So as she discusses the case with the prosecution, she starts to "remember" this great evidence they can use to convict her coconspirators. So maybe it was really "I thought oh God they are killing these people so I got the hell out of there and hid in the car". But she adds everything else because then you have someone actually testifying to seeing the others in the act which is powerful evidence.
Peter said: "Maybe Kasabian's testimony isn't fabricated to make her less culpable, but rather to make it seeem like she witnessed more than she actually did so that she was a more valuable witness for the prosecution.."
'Sadie's Stroll' which is my shorthand way to describe that event that begins with Frykowski falling into the bushes and includes the 'Sadie make it stop' comment is really only corroborated by the broken bush, which I used to believe made Kasabian's tale more probable then not. How I missed this Sanders' page with several posts [clears throat] is a mystery.
If Buglioli is correct that these notes were not things that came out in the interview and given what we know about how he interviewed witnesses then IMO it is highly suspect that Kasabian saw this as described and also highly suspect she returned for the reason stated.
How on earth could you not remember that event when asked what happened and only remember 'later'? To me, if Bugliosi's statement in HS is accurate her description at worst is fiction or at best highly unreliable.
It goes like this:
VB: I have this picture of a broken bush. What can you tell me about that?
LK: I don't remember that?
Later.....
VB: The jury is going to want to know why you went back to the house and didn't run to get help.
LK: Well, I, I was in shock. I don't see that right now. If I flash on it.....
Later....
VB: Well, if you think of anything write it down.
Sorry Suze. I was trigger happy. I thought you were SusanSTD.
Or not...
Re-reading Ms. Burb's "Sharon, Why Didn't You Flee," I was intrigued by Ms. Burb's question to Jay - why didn't he take down Sadie, with her flimsy buck-knife, right then and there in the master bedroom and flee with Sharon out of the French doors? He was an expert in karate. Certainly he could have fought off Sadie.
Another excellent addition to an amazing series of posts 🍻
Breaking news...the Candy Cat strip bar in Chatsworth where Sadie used to dance has closed. It's the end of an era.
"the Candy Cat strip bar"
Oh the humanity! Is it too late to get it on the National Register of Historic Places?
Certainly a philanthropist will swoop in to purchase, preserve and convert it to a museum. It's the only right thing to do!
Somebody call the Colonel. He's a tit so he will fit right in.
Tomorrow the judge issues his decision regarding the tapes. What's it going to be?
Bo Emerson says even if the judge decides to release the tapes there will be a long series of appeals so it will be a long time if ever before we get to hear them.
Hard to believe a strip bar could go out of business
Thank you Saint.
Yes, this has been an awesome run of fact-based posts. I get excited each time I see David working on one. I can't help it, I'm a TLB junkie...
It's my pleasure to read and compliment...
cielodrivecom said...
Hard to believe a strip bar could go out of business
When someone like Susan is your working talent, it's hard to believe it ever existed as a strip bar.
Granado's blood map to me is an open book. It could be just about anything. I find it difficult to come to any hard conclusions about his work on the Cielo property.
Yes another great job, David. I feel more educated but no more decided about what may have happened with the blood evidence on the porch.
I hope the judge decides to release the tapes.
Mr. Humphrat said: "I feel more educated but no more decided about...."
You know, I assumed Granado was wrong and set out to prove that Granado was wrong. I figured out pretty quick he'd really have to be a moron to screw up the A-B-AB-O typing so that led to other possibilities.
But, I can't disagree with your comment, at all.
For me, the hardest fact to get past is Sadie's footprint(s) (obviously). Those mean he screwed up 'location A' but also then screwed up 'location B. Location B that is, really, 'location A' moved to 'location B'. I just can't see how that mistake could be made and that led me to my conclusion.
The second possible explanation is nearly identical to the sequence Schreck presents in the second edition of The Manson File.
That they were in the process of either arguing or typing up the victims when Steve Parent walked past the house and saw what was taking place. Linda yelled for Tex (and possibility cut his hand) when he reached his car and Watson ran out and shot him. He then went back to the porch where Sharon Tate and Sebring were. Sebring made a move on ans Tex shot him before stabbing Sharon on the porch.
The part people find really wild is that he presents Voytek and Folger being killed later in the night, on a second trip. They were left there tied up with Voytek wounded.
I don't remember if he has Tex delivering all the fatal blows right there, or wounding her and then dragging her inside.
Thanks for the great read David...dam i love this blog...the info and fascination never seems to end..Im also very happy to not have to read STDs bile anymore..onya matty😆
Back atcha Penny!
Thanks, Penny
I just finished listening to 3 hours of a manson podcast...funny and fairly accurate. ..last podcast on the left its called..check it out if u havent already... more manson stuff for the true tragic 😨..like myself.
Live update from today's hearing...Leslie is not in attendance due to a broken kneecap. Barbara Hoyt and Catherine Share are there.
Thank you for the update.
No problem. Now Patty is being told that Babs is not there but wrote a letter that will be read aloud.
1- Why the hell would Gypsy be there? Is she fucking kidding?
2- Make sure you get autographs
Wish I was a fly on the wall. Share I believe is there in support of Leslie. Hoyt of course is there to speak against her claims, by repeating things she read in The Family.
Selfies. With duckface.
Quack quack
ColScott said...
Why the hell would Gypsy be there? Is she fucking kidding?
I noticed in the transcript of Pat's June hearing that at some point, the board commissioner said that a number of ex Family members had been contacted to see if Pat's lawyer's case of IPB could be substantiated and went on to mention conversations with Leslie, Clem, Tex, Babs, Bruce and Gypsy on the subject, which I thought was interesting. All the conversations {and an additional letter from Tex} took place between January and March of this year. They even tried to interview Charlie but he refused to leave his cell.
It would seem that there is some sort of attempt to get ex Family members involved in some kind of support role; perhaps it's been felt that Babs has been pretty effective in playing a part in keeping some of the others inside.
Were the bloody foot prints thought by detectives to be one of the killers? And could they tell if it was female? And the fact that a killer would have bare feet, did that point them towards any profile, like "hippy killers?" If anyone knows, maybe this was discussed previously.
And does anyone know if detectives would do crosschecking to see if there were records of a victims blood type through hospitals or donations or family?
Mr. Humphrat,
The police did not express an opinion on the footprints, noting only that they led east from the front door. I have never seen anything identifying the footprints as 'female'. Sharon and Abigail were both barefoot but Abigail went the other direction and it is Sharon's blood. The closest they come in the report to 'hippies' is the narcotics angle.
And I can say 'no' they did not crosscheck the blood type. Both the coroner's office and SID would determine blood type from the victims, as was done here.
Remember they didn't even 'connect' PIG. Today if we heard someone talk about pigs we would likely think 'police' and some might say 'establishment' but the Tate detectives seemed to have missed that clue. Then again, during his interview with Jakobson Bugliosi doesn't understand 'ripped off' and assumes it means something like 'dismembered'.
On the outside. Which is more than most of them can say.
Okay my bad I assumed Gypsy would be there for the Man
Patty an actual selfie with Gypsy would work too
Broken kneecap? Five year denial!
www.yahoo.com/news/manson-follower-hearing-young-age-during-killings-164707622.html
"Share was not involved in the killings, but served prison time later for armed robberies. Police said she also was involved in a plot to break Manson and other family members out of prison, though Share denied that. She said the plan was to help a boyfriend's brother get out of jail."
It is generally acknowledged that the Hawthorne shootout was part of a plan to free Charlie. Has anybody ever heard of Gypsy's new version?
One of the guys who took part in the shootout was asked a few years ago about it and flat out said it had nothing to do with Manson at all.
Manson Mythos said...
One of the guys who took part in the shootout was asked a few years ago about it and flat out said it had nothing to do with Manson at all.
Interesting. Do you have any details?
Do you think there is any chance that one of the murderers will tell the complete truth about what happened the night of the murders? Charlie decided on the narrative at the time of the trial, I am sure. Is is okay to tell the truth now. It may even help them make parole.
I hope not because then we have nothing more to talk about.
"The judge began reading some 300 pages of transcripts of the recordings to see if there was information relevant to Van Houten's case. Ryan said there were at least eight references to Van Houten in the 85 pages he had a chance to read before the hearing."
Based on this statement from the Star Tribune article, I tend to think he's going to giver her access to the tapes.
Does anyone know the docket number for this proceeding or if the briefing on the motion is available?
If he does, the judge will release them to Van Houten's attorney. It does not mean WE will get to hear them. The most you could hope for is that any information useful to them would come out in hearings. But it will only be relevant to Leslie and her role in the crimes. Everything else will be kept under lock and key.
If somebody had the ambition or cared, I'm sure those transcripts could be obtained through improper methoods and leaked. If only we had an Assange type interested in the case.
One interesting bit here. Is that the judge was told there was no investigation into other murders. No investigation into "them". He did not state there is no information in regards to other murders, just no investigation into them.
I suspect Watson DID discuss other stuff. Not to say Charlie or the Family were involved in anything, but I think there could be some stuff involving motorcycle clubs.
Next to who shot Zero and why, the tapes thing is the most incomprehensible to me. It's making the 'authorities' look worse than the bad guys.
"Manson Mythos said...
If he does, the judge will release them to Van Houten's attorney. It does not mean WE will get to hear them."
Don't be so sure about that
Is there anything about why Rosemary was wearing a dress in the Tex Tapes? Or why Lenos car was parked on..This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hahaha!... funny the way you've put it. Well all that would remain for me to think and talk about is how that little guy got that much of girls and boys living the crazy and thug life in that ranch? Maybe it was just for the drugs and a "relative" freedom. And the interesting thing is that a lot of us in this blog would have liked to join them...
Cielodrive said: "Don't be so sure about that"
Insider information? Want to share?
ColScott said...
I assumed Gypsy would be there for the Man
I would've been very surprised if Gypsy were there for the Man even if she is an establishment upholder these days. Leslie said a while back that Gypsy had written to her apologizing for ever having brought her to meet Charles Manson.
Robert C said...
Next to who shot Zero and why, the tapes thing is the most incomprehensible to me. It's making the 'authorities' look worse than the bad guys
How so Robert ?
CrisPOA said...
Maybe it was just for the drugs and a "relative" freedom. And the interesting thing is that a lot of us in this blog would have liked to join them...
That "relative freedom" has long sounded utterly boring to me. I wouldn't want to go more than a day without a good shower or bath and it wouldn't be in a creek, I wouldn't want to eat out of date food out of a dumpster no matter how ecological it might seem, driving all over the country is way overrated and there's no drug I couldn't have gotten my hands on if I really wanted it. And I like to watch telly on my own with my feet up where I can quaff whatever drink I want and knock back all the chocolate my system can take and I wouldn't want to have any Tom, Dick or Harriett turning up whenever, not to mention the noise of 30~40 people. I'm afraid I've always liked my creature comforts !
Cielodrive said:
"Don't be so sure about that"
I think one day we'll get to hear those tapes. Tex waived any say to what happens to them over 40 years ago. Whoever would have thought we'd hear Susan or Leslie's December '69 tapes thirty years back ?
Ziggy said: "Is there anything about why Rosemary was wearing a dress"
Homicide Report: "She was attired in a nightgown and peignoir."
Webster's: Peignoir-a woman's loose negligee or dressing gown
A (Katsuyama): It is a photograph of the remains of Rosemary La Bianca as I first saw her with the pillow case over her head, the electrical cord around her neck, a nightgown and what appears to be a light housecoat, and the way it appeared prior to the removal of all the articles of clothing.
A (Granado): G-17 were a solmon-colored short nightgown ****
Q: Was this article allegedly from Rosemary LaBianca?
A: Yes.
A (Granado): G-18 appears to be a housecoat, blue in color with white stripes.
Q: From Rosemary?
A: Yes
A (Galindo): Oh, she had on a—I guess it is pronounced a peignoir. And she had on a bathrobe.
What dress?
Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders
By Vincent Bugliosi, Curt Gentry
"Rosemary LaBianca was lying face down on the bedroom floor, parallel to the bed and dresser, in a large pool of blood. She was wearing a short pink nightgown and, over it, an expensive dress, blue with white horizontal stripes, which Suzanne would later identify as one of her mother’s favorites."
Bugliosi is never wrong.
Ziggy,
I think you put your last comment on the wrong post. That said you certainly make me have a good laugh now and again.
You also said: "Bugliosi is never wrong."
And Manson never lies.
David said...
Ziggy,
I think you put your last comment on the wrong post
I thought he was having a laugh at the expense of Suzy STD. I thought it was funny, anyway.
Susan VD said...
minus Charlie the right people are in jail, actually Linda should be too but thats the way it goes
I'm reminded of an ancient biblical story in which King David knocks off a soldier's wife and gets her pregnant. To try and cover up, he gives the soldier special leave and tells him to have a grand old time and get into the clinches with his wife. But the loyal soldier refuses, asking how can he be making love with his wife while his comrades are at battle. So David gets the leader of the army to put this guy at the front of the battle in the hope the enemy will kill him, so the leader does and he ends up dying in war and King David marries the dead guy's wife.
But God sends someone to let him know exactly what he thinks of it all and what he thinks of it is that David murdered the loyal soldier. According to your argument, David would be innocent because he a]killed no one and b]didn't actually tell anyone to kill the soldier.
Now, whether one holds the David/Bathsheba/Uriah story as truth or myth, what's interesting is that thousands of years ago, human beings held that it wasn't necessarily the person wielding the blow that was the only one seen as guilty. You keep saying "minus Charlie" but really, one can't hold Cielo and Waverley as two separate crimes. It occurred to me the other day that in a funky kind of way, Nicholas Shreck, by making Cielo a drug crime {and involving Charlie in it as MM pointed out} and by pushing the "Rosemary LaBianca as LSD overlord of Los Feliz" line to the max, makes the two crimes even more of a conspiracy than the original and as such, sinks Charlie yet again.
Almost however one plays it, the alternatives sink Charlie and as such, don't leave you anywhere to turn.
i think Linda was more involved than she says
Well, so far, no one has ever put forth any coherent case to demonstrate it. Brenda and Sandy's 1970/71 attempts to do so weren't even laughable.
As much of an unreliable entity Susan was, what was interesting was that in her last tome that she concocted with her hubby, the best she could do where Linda was concerned was to try to show that she did everything Linda had done.....
Pax Vobiscum said...
Put simply, I believe Sharon Tate would have fought like hell to save her unborn child or as my wife put it at the time 'she became a she wolf'
I would entertain that thought had it not been to the porch she supposedly ran to.
Grim said: "I would entertain that thought had it not been to the porch she supposedly ran to."
Grim, I know you are an 'official narrative' kind of guy but I would beg to differ. First, multiple studies have found that in crisis people frequently act based upon the patterns of their lives- they go the direction they have always gone or where they expect some result based upon their experience. The living room door was seldom used unless that fringe out there had wine in it. In fact deviating from that is the exception.
The human reaction is also flight or fight. Not sit down. And like I said anecdotal but she didn't sit down.
Then I would add the course of progress of the Frykowski-Atkins battle. It starts at the chair that blocks access to that door- the red arrow- and then moves past the trunks to the front hall blocking access to that door- the kitchen route- and then to the porch.
You are assuming her movements were not contemporaneous with Frykowski's and they would logically have been so but followed after or proceeded him. If they all broke and ran with the shooting of Sebring (because I do not believe he was on the porch) they would be effectively moving together. In times of stress (combat) participants 'cluster'. They bunch. And move together. See, Archeology, History and Custer's Last Battle, Richard Fox and the studies cited there.
We are talking about seconds and human reactions.
Of course we are also speculating.
PS: I know Ziggy was being funny. In a lawyer way, so was I. I just think his follow-up post about MGN111 (the one that broke me up) is over on the Polanski post by mistake.
"Diseasey Sue" said...
Nice story, too bad its all a fairy tale, thats all the bible is, someday youll wake up and realize it
I just knew that would be your angle rather than address the actual point being made.
David said...
You are assuming her movements were not contemporaneous with Frykowski's
I'm assuming that her movements were contemporaneous with Frykowski; it's for that very reason that I don't believe that if she was fighting for her baby's life and "became a she wolf," she would have followed the action.
Aside from Sebring and Leno LaBianca, if the killers are to be believed, every one of the other victims over the 2 nights attempted some kind of evasive action, be it the promise to remain silent, the flight away from the assailants or the swinging with the lamp. It just strikes me as something of a contradiction to ascribe the description of the she wolf to someone that ran straight to the one place that the killers were actually killing when they could clearly see that this was so.
It could have happened that way though.
We are talking about seconds and human reactions
True. That's long been my take on it. And as much as people go into "flight or fight," people also freeze or feel totally helpless.
That said, I've long wondered how Jay Sebring allowed himself to be brought into the main room by Susan Atkins although again, people are people and it's always easy to assume what a person should be able to do under certain circumstances.
Susannotgonnabehereanymore,
That's funny 'David' is me.
Grim, we can agree to disagree. What I learned from this post is there is no logical explanation for Sharon's blood on the porch except that it is, indeed, her blood. How she got there- pick a theory. All are good. But to say 'she froze' to say 'so therefore it's not her blood' simply ignores the evidentiary problem.
Unless you buy Bugliosi's theory that Granado, with pinpoint accuracy, plucked type O 7 times out of type B and did so twice with the same source- once with a 'goobered' footprint transferred from another O pool- Sharon was on that porch.
You decide how she got there.
Ain't that the truth...minus the stabby murder part 😬
I think Linda was even less involved than she testified to. I think she made stuff up to make her testimony more valuable to the prosecution to ensure her immunity. I think when the others went into the house, she split. Linda was a scammer; a liar and a thief. She knew enough to get her ass out of there.
I think the blood in the garage is significant. That could have been a path to escape for Sharon and Jay. They could have been forced to return to the front door after Steve was murdered. I just can't believe Sharon would have been able to just sit there and wait....
There was too much blood out front for two of them not to have been injured there at least.
I think your Steve theory is very likely. I too feel he was shot as he tried to escape. His statement, if true, by the killers account indicated he did in fact see something.
Why did Gibby and Voytec receive such brutal , horrible deaths? Are you more drug theory or Helter Skelter theory? There is valid evidence for both or a combination of both to some degree. 😬
Are SAG and Truth Seeker one and the same ?
If it is he will reveal himself sooner than later, Robert...
David said...
How she got there- pick a theory. All are good. But to say 'she froze' to say 'so therefore it's not her blood' simply ignores the evidentiary problem
I've never argued that it wasn't her blood.
Truth Seeker said...
I think your Steve theory is very likely. I too feel he was shot as he tried to escape. His statement, if true, by the killers account indicated he did in fact see something
That being the case, why would the killers say that's what he said ?
Robert C said...
Are SAG and Truth Seeker one and the same ?
The very first sentence leads me to say no as he seemed to accept in a recent thread that there wasn't blood in the garage.......but maybe it's one of his disciples.😲
Nope, I am not sag. I am new to the blog. I will be happy to read the thread regarding blood in the garage. Thanks and sorry I had no idea.
No offense Truth Seeker...
No offense taken! Thanks, and please be gentle with me until I learn more about your group! Lol
Truth Seeker, welcome to the blog.
Truth Seeker said...
I am not sag
You didn't sound like the State's Attorney General !
I am new to the blog. I will be happy to read the thread regarding blood in the garage
It can be found here, if you haven't already.
Welcome and enjoy.
Why did Gibby and Voytec receive such brutal, horrible deaths?
Do you not, under the particular circumstances of each, think that Steven, Sharon and Jay received horrible brutal deaths ?
Are you more drug theory or Helter Skelter theory?
My stance is that HS is way more plausible both in terms of the actual evidence {which is both solid and circumstantial} and in terms of the psychology {ie, Charlie's prophecies and the mindset of the Family and the times} that gave rise to it.
There is valid evidence for both or a combination of both to some degree
I've just never been convinced of this. For a while, I thought that a combo of HS and copycat might make more sense but there's too much against the copycat to give it legs.
It's easy to see why the Police initially went with drugs in 3 of their 5 theories. I think I probably would have under the circumstances. But I find little to substantiate it, especially once the early druggie suspects are eliminated.
I don't dismiss HS for the reasons most people tend to, because I can see that people can have all kinds of reasons for being involved in murder {especially when you don't regard it as murder} and I don't think a person[s] has to be insane to think there's going to be the kind of situation that the Family apparently thought would arise and then take what is seen as the necessary action. Just look at ISIS and before them, Al Qaeda or Jonestown.
David said...
Grim, I know you are an 'official narrative' kind of guy
Yes and no. There are aspects of the ON that I don't go with at all. For example, the notion that that all the perps were drug free on Cielo night. Now, I generally believe much of what Linda said about that night, but she lied about that. The ON has Sadie as only stabbing Frykowski's legs but keeps her from any possibility of having stabbed him anywhere else ~ of which there is reasonable doubt. Equally, the ON has her as stabbing Sharon Tate ~ of which there's doubt for that.
I think it's pretty clear from all the murderers' descriptions of that night that there's never going to be a definitive and unshakable chronological narrative of what happened.
If I may comment,
1- I have studied each autopsy repot and it was quite clear to me that a "buck" knife caused the stab wounds to Voytec's legs.
It was Tex's bayonet type knife that caused the wounds listed as fatal. His knife was sharp on both sides and no flat side was
Indicated on the chest wounds of the victims. There was no indication a buck knife caused any of Sharon's stab wounds.
2- We have no way to prove if there was drug use that night by any of the murders. We only have their testimony regarding
that. Which has little credibility in my opinion. They were arrested long after the time of the murders.
We will forever be left to ponder the sequence of events. 🤔
Grim said: " I think it's pretty clear from all the murderers' descriptions of that night that there's never going to be a definitive and unshakable chronological narrative of what happened. "
TS said: " We will forever be left to ponder the sequence of events. "
Unless we can get our hands on Tex, Linda and Patricia, fill them with truth serum and threaten with prods to get the truth out. :-)
Right now if there's corroboration between the testimonies of the four then that's as close as we can come outside of intelligent presumptions based on the evidence.
Please read all autopsy reports, note the depth and shape of each stab wound. You will be able to see the ones made by the buck knives and the ones with the double sided blade used by Tex.
It looks to me like Voytec and Gibby were likely expired before Sharon and Jay. This is also based on the autopsy reports and body temps when they were examined. The one that puzzled me the most was Steven. I think he was likely left for dead 1st. Perhaps since he was so young and in apparent great health, he may have expired more slowly. His body temp indicated his body had not reached the outside temperature as the others did. Voytec and Gibby were in very poor condition. The two of them had fly larvae in their hair when found. ☹️
No one deserves to die the way these victims did.
Suzyintheskywithdiamonds said...
Even the official narrative now is that Susan didnt stab Sharon
When did that change ? Susan spent much of one of her parole hearings {I think it was '93} telling the board she didn't stab Sharon. Why would she do that if it wasn't an issue ? Even in her last hearing {2009} before she died, when she was so out of it that she couldn't take part, it was part of the court record that was read out and given as one of the reasons for the objection to her getting parole.
Robert C said...
Unless we can get our hands on Tex, Linda and Patricia
I don't think even a truth serum would help with Tex and Pat because I don't think they remembered even back in 1969. Tex has long been just a repeater of information and Pat has long been incoherent when it comes to Cielo.
Grim said: " I don't think even a truth serum would help with Tex and Pat because I don't think they remembered even back in 1969. Tex has long been just a repeater of information and Pat has long been incoherent when it comes to Cielo. "
Hence truth serum should help with the cobwebs. But I'm roughly the same age as Tex and Pat and my memory of 1969 is crystal clear. Also, a striking event tends to be memorable in most people's minds long after.
I saw a Pat interview about 5 days ago on youtube where she clearly states what happened and who did what **within her view**. I don't recall how old the interview was except she looked to be in her 60's.
Truth Seeker,
My view on Frykowski's wounds is here:
http://www.mansonblog.com/search/label/Susan%20Atkins?updated-max=2017-05-08T00:04:00-04:00&max-results=20&start=3&by-date=false
The notes are indicated on the written portion of the autopsy reports. On the right side of the page about the larvae. It is only noted on the two victims laying on the lawn. The only thing we can know for sure are on the written reports by credible persons. IMHO
BTW, much of the actual reports may not have been available or fully understood by the layperson. With the Internet and forensics available in more recent years.
BTW.. I love lawyers!! 🤓
At some point during Kasabian's testimony, Kanarek actually makes a motion to have Kasabian administered sodium pentathol.
New to the forum.
1) Does anyone know if any of the intruders were left-handed? Tate's posterior wounds, many of them, might well have been made by a left-handed assailant as Tate fled.
2) Given that the blood evidence shows no B-type blood in intermediate locations between the LR and Frykowski's final position on the lawn, this seems to imply that he not not seriously wounded until he was well onto the lawn.
I realize that there are questions about the accuracy of he blood evidence.
New to forum.
The eyeglasses...from the evidence photos, they seem to me to have possibly been laying on top of the rightmost trunk, falling to the floor as the two trunks dominoed, left to right.
Opinions? Alternative ideas?
text watson testimony... 2021....REASONS OF THE CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONER: And Sharon is probably nearby, where all these murders are happening, is that right? Because there was the other --
INMATE WATSON: She was back -- back -- back in the living room of the house. So SHARON TATE was on the porch...!..
LG NICO...from germany ;)
Too bad that the discussion will not be continued. The exact course of the crime is still unclear. I would be very interested to know if Sharon Tate got the stab wounds in the back and legs on the porch or in the living room. Tex Watson knows the truth and I hope at the next hearing he will finally tell the truth. LG Nico
Post a Comment