As is often the case, Buntline found Carol's photo for us. Does anyone know when she was arrested?
This is the master list of anomalies concerning discrepancies between physical evidence and the more-or-less official narrative.
Thanks for your suggested additions.
The items on this list are fundamental to the events and to the sequence described in the official narrative, but they directly contradict the narrative.
This is at odds with all testimony.
At odds with all testimony.
No version of the narrative unambiguously describes a situation in which she was attacked from behind.
The items on this list raise questions about variations from the official narrative, but are not in themselves contradictory.
Explained as being done by Parent, but without much detail.
Watson has mentioned at least twice that he inflicted cuts on Tate's face as the first wounds; the Noguchi autopsy report and testimony say they are rope burns.
The knife found in the chair had no blood on it, but appeared to be coated with some unidentified substance.
Initial investigators state that they believed that Tate's body had been in some sense handled or moved.
Unexplained in the official narrative.
On close inspection the blood trails on the trunks appear to have been made while the trunks were in a different position than in which they were found.
There was a purple scarf found on the front lawn near Frykowski. This scarf had Sebring's blood type on it.
This will take some digging. I've read about it in the 1st progress report, I think, but not much elsewhere. Blood type is identified simply as "O", no subtype.
Looking at the many available aerial photos of Cielo after the murders, I notice Abigail's Firebird parked considerably further away from the fence than Jay's Porsche. The fence I refer to here is the wood rail fence that separates the parking area from the front lawn. Why?
Looking at a photo of Roman in Life magazine on the Cielo porch a week after the murders, and I see one of the carriage lights on either side of the front door is burned out. Susan Atkins said that after turning out the lights inside the house, there was enough light coming in the windows from outside to carry out their attack. Makes one wonder if one of those lights was burned out on August 8th. Perhaps those lights were left on for a week post murders, and one of them burned out in that time.
Christopher, Rudi Altobelli's Weimaraner, was let out by Bill Garretson, ostensibly unattended. Susan Atkins says she saw a "hunting dog" looking in at her while in the house. I believe this is a true statement, and I believe she saw Christopher. My question is: if Christopher was on the lawn during the attacks, did Tex or Patricia encounter him? How did Christopher make it back to the guesthouse on his own, and unhurt, if he was in the presence of armed killers. It is known that Christopher could sometimes be a mean dog, and at one time even bit Rudi. One would think that he would have barked wildly, and perhaps try to attack at least Tex, Patricia, or even Linda.
I'll try to develop new articles, each of which focuses on one or more of the anomalies. I invite other readers to do the same. As each anomaly is addressed in an article I'll modify the master list to show that it has been covered.
What I may do is to go back to this list, and modify it, adding a hypertext link to the new article that deals with the anomaly in greater depth. The list could then become a sort of reference work with pointers toward supporting (or at least expanded) details.
And partnered with Charlie in drug ventures. I can't even with this dude anymore.
Owsley acid was free and not around for as long as X thinks. His timeline is off. My basic research process is once I catch someone in one lie, they remain a liar.
Anecdotally, I also know LSD cost a buck a hit in bulk in the Midwest during the 90's. Often, the price point was at fifty cents per. At least learn the numbers, X.
Whatever. The greatest hits regurgitation of everything you ever read in Manson continues here. You'll love it if your name is Dupey McDuperson and you have time for an old man's bullshit stories. I can't wait until we know who this cat is for real.
 |
| Owsley on his way to meet X, Chuck Sommers, and Sonny B. |
 |
 |
| Ruth Ann Moorehouse |
The year she marries Edward Heuvelhorst at age sixteen.
Babies.Before diving into something more demanding from the anomalies list, I thought I'd share some of the places I liked when in LA. Others may recognize these, and share with us their own favorites.
Hopefully, it may give others a more detailed view of LA as it was, and to a degree, still is.
Many of these places I just drove by, was never inside of...
This burned down in the 80's, I think. It was on Beverley Blvd, between Fairfax and La Brea.
This is at the Hollywood end of Sunset, as I recall. Never in it.
Near Fairfax and the CBS studios, as I recall. WRT Fairfax, the thing to understand is that it was the heart of LA's Jewish community, and the street, itself, had lots of delis.
So this is real close to that district.
This is interesting. You can see it from 101, as I recall, and in the mid-70s they were remodeling it and I snuck in with the workmen (easy to do; no one gave a damn) and took a lot of photos of the old interiors, which are now lost, like the secret for making Greek fire.
This is in Hollywood, as I recall.
Also visible from the Hollywood Freeway (101).
For those few too young to get the visual symbolism, this was a stack of records as they would appear on a turntable.
This is really imposing, visually, when you drive by it. On Sunset near Laurel Canyon.
It was more fun to see it while riding bikes up from Playa del Rey. Imposing, for sure.
Never went there, but drove by it every weekday the year I went to Southwestern Law School, also on Wilshire.
It is much better to go here than the Hollywood Bowl--which itself is a fun place to attend a concert.
This was/is a Japanese restaurant. It was once a private residence, which is mind-boggling when you consider that it's located just off Franklin. It is just about as Hollywood as you can get.
Pix...
This is the very best place for prime rib I've ever been to! Near the old Beverley 14 Cineplex, as I recall.
This is actually visible from 405, in Inglewood. The sign completely boggled my mind when I first saw it when I was about 9 or so.
Never been the same, since...
Ah, lucky 13. How appropriate!
Very strange place. When I first saw it in the 70s it was very run-down. Later it was abandoned and reputedly druggies and their ilk lived in it. Someone inside started a fire in it and it burned down in the 80s, I think.
Very, very spooky place to drive by--it was HUGE, right in the middle of Hollywood, on Hollywood Blvd, I think. Visually imposing, even when it was a wreck.
Here's the story, with pix:
In conclusion, seeing these again, one of the main things to stress about LA, and what made it so much fun for me, was that it was whimsical as hell. Did not really give a damn what you might think of it; it seemed happy being LA.
Ella Jo Bailey testified for the People that she had known Manson since 1967 and travelled extensively throughout the southwestern United States with him, Mary Brunner, Patricia Krenwinkel and Lynne Fromme, and that they moved to the Spahn Ranch in 1968 where she met Davis and Beausoleil.
Several times during May and June 1969, Manson talked to Bailey and others about "going out" to get money to buy dune buggies to go to the desert to live. In July of 1969 Manson talked to several members of the family about the need to get money and names were discussed of various persons from whom they could get money. Hinman's name was discussed and the fact that he owned a house and stocks and bonds.
On July 26, 1969, Manson told Bailey and Bill Vance that he wanted them to go to Hinman's house and persuade him to join the "family" or sign over all of his property and automobiles. Vance said he had better things to do and walked away. That night at about 6 p.m. Bailey saw Manson talking to Beausoleil and Davis. Beausoleil had a knife (People's exh. 18) and Davis had a nine millimeter Radom gun (People's exh. 30). Subsequent investigation by officers established that Davis had purchased the gun under an assumed name. Bailey saw Brunner and Atkins dressed in dark clothes. Bailey saw Brunner, Atkins, Beausoleil and a fourth unidentified person drive off in [71 Cal. App. 3d 14] a ranch hand's car which was driven by the fourth person. Davis was still in the parking lot.
 |
| Michael Channels |
Friday, Grim called Nikolas Schreck's The Manson File Myth and Reality of an Outlaw Shaman a "modern day fairy tale." Yesterday, Michael Channels discussed Schreck in this video. My ears perked up when Channels echoed Grim.
"This book is like Alice in Wonderland to me."
 |
C'mon down to Honest Harry's today and drive home tonight in style! |
 |
| Manson Blog. Former home of filmmaker Robert Hendrickson. RIP. |
 |
| The Who at Monterey 1967 |
Bon soir, friends. I'm watching the Mr. X saga unfold on Allegra Lansing's YouTube channel. Mr. X mentions he was the drummer in a band that played at The Monterey International Pop Festival in June 1967.
I have no doubt that many of you who visit this forum find one of the most compelling things about the Cielo murders to be the remaining anomalies--the mismatches between the hard evidence and the testimony or related narrative. I would like to create a list of agreed-upon anomalies that is composed of two parts: major anomalies and minor anomalies. I then invite additions to the list. Once we've settled (more or less) on the items, I'd propose to create an article to deal with each one separately, in some level of depth, or maybe in logical groupings of a few that are closely related. We can then poke at the presented scenario(s) and try to create a hierarchy of the likelihood of each version of the scenario that evolves.
I expect that this will be a collaborative effort to help clear as much of the fog surrounding the events at Cielo as possible. I will not explore personalities other than how they might have directly affected the events.
We are never really going to know what happened, and we all know that, but I think that using a collaborative effort we may tighten things up a bit.
I'm working from the following assumptions for this exercise:
There are many incompatibilities between the two assumptions, and these create the anomalies I'm addressing. I'm seeking to narrowly define the possibilities, or even to resolve some of the anomalies to within perhaps 90% certainty. In some cases the narrative may have to give; in others, the evidence.
Here goes...
1) Blood evidence at the doorway/porch.
2) Towel on Sebring's head.This is at odds with all testimony.
3) Stab wounds on Tate's back.At odds with all testimony.
No version of the narrative unambiguously describes a situation in which she was attacked from behind.
1) Broken guard rail.
2) Marks on Tate's face.Explained as being done by Parent, but without much detail.
3) Knife found at the scene with no blood evidence.Watson has mentioned at least twice that he inflicted cuts on Tate's face as the first wounds; the Noguchi autopsy report and testimony say they are rope burns.
4) Moving or rearranging some of the bodies.The knife found in the chair had no blood on it, but appeared to be coated with some unidentified substance.
5) Glasses near the trunks.Initial investigators state that they believed that Tate's body had been in some sense handled or moved.
6) Blood trail on the trunks.Unexplained in the official narrative.
On close inspection the blood trails on the trunks appear to have been made while the trunks were in a different position than in which they were found.
I'll look for replies and compile suggestions for about a week, then publish the resulting master list and get started soon thereafter. I'll construct and propose an initial hypothesis, and we can beat on it to see if we can make it stronger. Other readers, after viewing the list, may want to take one of the items and create a hypothesis to present: that would be great, so far as I'm concerned.
In creating these lists I'll be the final arbiter as to what is included.
Some years ago, David did an excellent, in depth seven part series that explored the evidence at the Cielo crime scene. I recommend looking at it, or re-reading it. We'll cover some of his points, perhaps coming at them from different angles.
A Look at the Evidence, Part 1
Any suggested additions? If so, please reply.
My dear neighbor, Tobias, mentioned in another thread that a new episode was posted to George Stimson's Goodbye Helter Skelter Youtube channel. I thought I'd drop a link and see if anyone wants to share their exegesis with me.
There has been much discussion about who designed and built 10050 Cielo, and to a lesser degree, who was the first owner/occupant. The questions then often spill over onto a similar, but smaller, house located at 10048 Cielo, commonly referred to as "the twin house".
Using the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety website, it's possible to get some definitive information on the date of the initial application for both houses, which includes a very broad description of the project, its estimated cost, the name of the owner, the architect, the engineering firm, and the general contractor. You can also see what buildings, if any, were on the lot at the time the permit was issued. Using this information you can work up a decent framework, and based on that, do a reasonable job of filling in the blanks and drawing some informed conclusions.
Here's the master application for 10050.
Master application for twin house:
Interestingly, when most of the permits were issued, the owner listed for both properties is the same, M. M. Landon, and his/her address, 9012 Olympic Blvd., is the same as the address for the general contractor, J. F. Wadkins Corp. Since Wadkins' mother-in-law was named Minnie May Landon, this implies that the contracting company had some form of insider interest in the two lots at the time of construction; notation on the application for the twin says that it's the first house in Section 10.
Michele Morgan, the French film star for whom the house was supposedly built, appears as "owner" on only one document, the permit for the swimming pool, which was done by a separate contractor. I think it's reasonable to consider that she may have become interested in the lot, possibly before the twin house was built, and consulted with Hawes, the architect, for a design. She may have then committed to the purchase conditional on construction. Alternatively, the twin was built from the contractor's design (it's a simple house), and Morgan liked something about the twin and commissioned Hawes to design a larger, more fully-featured house up on the view lot, using the style of the twin as an inspiration.
But the sequence may more likely have been as described, below.
Arthur W. Hawes, the architect of record, may have been approached by Wadkins, the builder/developer, to design a house for the 10050 site. This was to have been the showcase and main profit center. This design was unofficially adopted as the basis for the scaled-down version at 10048. There are some sound, though not definitive, reasons for this. The contractor had not apparently built much of anything else, and hence would not have had much design experience to draw upon. By working with an established architect on the main project, 10050, he could then freely "copy" the design and leverage Hawes' experience. (Incidentally, Wadkins died at age 48, two years the after 10050 was built.)
The master application for the twin house pre-dates the master application for 10050 Cielo. All related building applications for the twin also pre-date the corresponding building applications for 10050 Cielo. It's reasonable to assume that the twin house was built first.
Here follows a timeline of applications:
NOTE: Given the above timeline, the twin house was likely completed ~6/1/41.
So far as the attribution of Hawes as the listed architect of 10050, there is to my eye, at least, supporting evidence in some of the design features for the McClintock-Swedlow house, built from a Hawes design in 1940, the year before both 10050 Cielo and the twin were built. In particular, the LR has some close similarities in exposed beams, location of the fireplace, type of windows used, and relationship to the entryway.
There is some level of similarity in the use of windows in one of the BRs; it's similar to the 10050 guest BR.
My best guess at this point is that Wadkins was relatively new to residential construction, having worked for the telephone company for a number of years. Wadkins resumé. He may have ambitiously raised money to purchase at least two lots in a new tract, and foresaw exploiting the better one, 10050, as the main profit opportunity, and engaged Hawes to create a marketable design. Wadkins may then have scaled down the design himself and built the twin--mainly in hopes of selling it first so as to be in a more solid cash position to proceed on 10050. This apparently did not happen, because it looks as if Morgan saw the 10050 lot, or even the early stages of construction, and committed to it in some fashion, ordering a swimming pool, a BBQ shelter, and detaching the garage before she took ownership, or just after, paying $32K for the property.
It was reported in the LA Times of 11/23/1941:
Those wishing to drill deeper into the building/repair history of the two houses can use the LADBS website and request additional documents.
