Video interview of TLB first responder LAPD Robert Burbridge:
"The only wound I could see on Sharon Tate was right in her pregnant belly. It was a big gash... like an avulsion cut... It's like they were almost going to cut the baby out of her, that's what it looked like."
It appears to me that there is indeed a large, deep, horizontal 'avulsion' cut across Sharon's belly, filled with blood. Also, there appears to be a shorter vertical slash through the middle of the horizontal cut, as though an 'X' was cut into the flesh of the belly.
Greg King, Sharon Tate and the Manson Murders, c. 2000 pg243
Time magazine 8-15-69: "..there was an X cut on her(Tate's) stomach."
Also note the puckering and swelling in the flesh along the borders of the horizontal cut. This suggests the wound was inflicted while Sharon was still alive.
%20Photos%20Only%20THE%20MURDERS%20OF%20AUGUST%20'69.png)
Though this prominent and clearly visible cut mark is not mentioned in the autopsy report of Sharon Tate.
Nor is it marked on the autopsy diagram.
Tate Autopsy Report
'There are four stab wounds on the chest. ...others labeled #5 through #16 are described in a subsequent report.'
So why the discrepancy? Was it because the avulsion cut suggests it was done for the purposes of removing the baby from the womb, as Burbridge suspected, and that the prosecution did not want to go there, for whatever reason?
====================
The only possible reference to the avulsion cut on the frontal autopsy diagram is a 'stab wound #5'. Oddly, there is another 'stab wound #5" marked on the rear view of the autopsy diagram.
Was this the coroner's roundabout way of letting us know that there was something hinky about 'stab wound #5'? Or did The LA County Coroner's Office suffer a bout of "sudden-onset amateur hour" syndrome?
51 comments:
Surely there's better rabbit holes to go down than this one.
This wasn't the only falsification of the autopsy report. They hid the results of the tox screen for THC and cocaine, and were unable to estimate time of death because they didn't dispatch coroner's technicians to take body core temperature tests until it was too late.
Love you guys but a heads up that there would be bloody photos might be appreciated by some. I’m OK, but others might appreciate it.
What exactly was fabricated? They didn’t test for those drugs. They didn’t hide it from autopsies. In fact to counter that why did the hide it from Tate’s and Sebrings, but not Folger and Frykowski over MDA found in their systems.
Next, that does not look like a cut. It looks like blood clotting after running down the front of her stomach.
And last but not least, Folger and Frykowski were in direct sunlight thus their bodies were heated. Medically speaking even if your dead for hours, and exposed to the heat, your body temperature is still going to be high. This happens when you’re alive too. It’s what leads to heat stroke or other life threatening emergencies.
For Tate and Sebring, will have to look to see if the temperature of the inside of the house was to determine if the body temperature is accurate.
Star, have you seen these actual photographs or are you basing your conclusions on these low resolution png files?
I have only seen the photos on the net, as they are shown in the thread above. And clearly, they show a deep cut, not dried blood.
Star, there is nothing clear about those particular versions of those photographs. They're low resolution and extremely compressed. Compression creates artifacts and artifacts distort photography to a point where it's completely unreliable
"Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left."
Many thanks to you both, Cielo and James, for schooling amateur anomaly spotters. This sort of nonsense is also very prevalent in the field of JFK Assassination studies, specifically the issue of the Zapruder and other films and photos taken by witnesses. Some people are always trying to claim they made a "breakthrough" in both TLB and JFK without possessing the necessary background and credentials to make a credible case.
"Tell a man something he already knows, and he will thank you for it. Tell him something he doesn't know, and he will hate you for it." -- proverb (sigh)
There are HQ photos and they are consistent with the autopsy report, and by that I mean you can tell that is not a X nor was I where the baby they tried to cut the baby out.
Next, the media reported all kinds of misinformation. For example, when listening to news reports from the Labianca’s, one reporter said Death to Pigs, Rise, and Helter Skelter were written on the refrigerator. And we know that clearly not true.
Tall on accusation, short on fact
Unrelated to topic but thought it worthwhile to mention: Witold K.,the artist friend of Voytek Frykowski, died today at the age of 92. I don't know this for certain, and I have no idea if he ever mentioned it to friends in private, but I tend to think that Witold was quite aware of Voytek's dabbling in drug trafficking and may well have had some valuable inside information regarding what might have led to the Cielo Drive murders that he never revealed, at least not publicly. Another person connected, albeit rather tangentially, to the TLB case gone.
Oh no, he was a fixture here in Denver and his gallery was very successful and closed a few years ago in the Cherry Creek neighborhood. I met him a few times but never in a situation I could bring up his connections to this tragedy
Sixties, BourneCO, yes it appears Witold-K passed away on March 12. I did make contact with him a couple of years ago on his social media, and spoke specifically about Voytek and Abigail. He said he had photos of them, but that he did not intend to publish them, at least not at that time.
He was for me a most interesting person, who lived long, travelled far, and saw much. He moved back to Poland just a few years ago after living in Denver for a long time.
His passing has removed yet another person who had very close association with Abigail and Voytek, and great knowledge of the lives of many people within the constellation that is TLB. The American flag draped over the sofa at Cielo was a birthday gift to him- along with a bottle of Dom Perignon-from Abigail and Voytek. I know I speak for many when I say he will be missed.
I encourage people to check out a film about Witold-K's life, "On The Edge," made in 2023. He was very active as an artist and made many public appearences until recently. Also, if intrested in some of what Witold-K had to say about his time in LA in 1968-1969 and at Cielo, check out my post here on this blog from March 22, 2022, "Abigail Folger: LA Woman".
In my last correspondence with Witold-K about Abigail and Voytek, he said, "they will not be forgotten."
I'm not generally prone to speak ill of the dead, but from all my many years of studying and reflecting on the TLB murders it seems an inescapable conclusion that Voytek was a total scumbag. It's a tragedy that Abigail wasn't able to break off her relationship with him (though she apparently was beginning to make an effort in that direction) prior to August 8th-9th, 1969.
I've seen pictures of a young Witold K and he always reminded me of Adrien Brody. RIP, Witold.
The missing information in the Autopsy Report about this avulsion cut joins other unexplained discrepancies surrounding the Cielo crime scene, discrepancies that cannot be reconciled with the official version of events:
--The large quantity of blood of Sharon and Jay on the front porch
--Multiple reports of gunshots and screams occuring from the scene at 3:30am to 4am, hours after the killers fled.
--Parent's knocking down of the fence cross rail with his car, which officially had nothing to do with his murder just seconds later.
Hi all, just thought i'd tell you that the house Dennis Wilson rented, the Will Rogers property, burned down during the fires this year.
This is false. PLEASE STOP POSTING BULLSHIT
Star, you’ve made your case regarding this cut. I’m not sure why you feel so confident about this, or many of the other things you’ve suggested in the past.
From what you’ve presented, I’d say you have one man’s recollection (Whisenhunt) and that’s about it.
Your photographs don’t support your case. Even as poor quality as they are, if you take the color photograph into any kind of graphics editor you can use the eyedropper tool to identify the colors. On what you claim is an “avulsion cut” it’s all about the same color with the exemption of one small dark spot. That dark spot is in the location of wound #5. Same size too.
@CieloDrive.com...He feels confident because he, like many amateur researchers of TLB, wants to feel like he's discovered something in this 55 year old case that nobody else has. You and I both know this is all about feeding the ego and trying to establish himself as some kind of super expert in "TLB Land". You are probably too nice to say the things I've been saying and that's fine, but I have no reluctance or hesitation in calling out this kind of behavior.
"When you can't attack their facts, attack their motivations."
In recent years it has become acceptable to question Bugliosi's acts, methods, and ethics. But why would we automatically assume Noguchi was any cleaner? This thread is about reporting on another red-flag anomaly in the autopsy report. You can take it or leave it. I don't care.
Your motivations, like many another TLB bandwagon-jumper and shameless attention seeker, are blatantly obvious. You might not care about my reaction to your supposed "breakthrough", but I care about facts, and your original post here has been totally demolished and debunked and revealed as baseless speculation. If there's one thing this story doesn't need any more of, it's speculation by Manson fanboys with no qualifications to speak with any authority on medical/scientific/criminology-related issues.
This discussion has taken on an odd "So who ya gonna believe? Me, or your lying eyes" vibe.
Bugliosi and Noguchi were two different people, for one.
Voytek never got to the point of "dabbling" in drug dealing, he just talked about wanting to do so. There's no "there" here . . .
Very much unnecessary.
This is a silly conspiracy theory post that lacks even basic logic. There was no "prosecution" in place at the time this autopsy was done. We are months removed from the suspects even being identified at the time of this autopsy, so there is no "cutting the baby out" narrative to even try to cover up at the time these documents were created. Silliness.
Guys, guys, It's Starviego.
'Nuff said.
The 14400 Sunset Blvd. house survived the Palisades Fire; see this Hollywood Reporter article from Jan. 14, 2025.
It’s amazing how anyone who deviates from the “official narrative” gets shot down in flames on here. The comments about “band wagon jumpers” and “attention seekers” are so insulting and disrespectful. Is this supposed to be a discussion forum or is it just an echo chamber for the self appointed “experts” on here to slap each other on the back about how right they are about everything?!! And why is anyone a “Manson fanboy” because they challenge a particular narrative. Oh and while I’m at it, referring to the first police officer on the scene (who by any measure might be considered an expert witness) as “one man”s recollection” seems dismissive in the extreme. What are you all afraid of?!!
Speculator Said:
It’s amazing how anyone who deviates from the “official narrative” gets shot down in flames on here
No offence, but that statement shows just how little you have been around here over the last 10 or so years, or just how much you see what you want to see, despite the evidence to the contrary all around you. The "Official Narrative" {and you can take your pick of about 4, for there is no one "official narrative" in reality} punches above its weight against the onslaught of a whole slew of alternate theories, all of which are actually quite easy to debunk - and have been regularly debunked over the years. But that doesn't stop the likes of Starviego still knocking out his conspiracy theories. This one's cousin, twice removed, has already been tried before. It's old hat.
There's a place for speculation and discussion, but whatever is speculated on has to be based on some kind of evidence, not what the speculator wants to be true.
Is this supposed to be a discussion forum or is it just an echo chamber for the self appointed “experts” on here to slap each other on the back about how right they are about everything?!
Some people love to "discuss" but don't appear to like it when others discuss back with a different {and backed up with evidence} viewpoint, especially when that viewpoint appears to indicate the prosecution was right. Oh, we can't have that now, can we ?😛
referring to the first police officer on the scene (who by any measure might be considered an expert witness) as “one man”s recollection” seems dismissive in the extreme
If he was such an expert witness, then why did he not recount his evidence in court ? Why wait until 40-50 years later ?
For the record, Noguchi did mention the stab wound {#5}. He said it was "in the upper portion of the right side of the abdominal area" and that it was fatal. And it is on the autopsy diagram. And that #5 on the back, he explains that it should have been #13.
This, Speculator, is why some people get short with some of the cockamamie crap that gets thrown into the discussion and passed off as some kind of amazing evidence of some dodgy goings on.....when by a little bit of research, one will easily discover there is no mystery at all.
What are you all afraid of?!!
Fake news achieving the same status as the truth and verifiable facts.
Grim- well at least you’ve improved on your “guys guys, it’s Starviego. Nuff said” remark- so thank you for taking my comments on board! And I’m not in the least suggesting I agree with the content of the original post. My issue was that if people disagree they should respond with their own reasoned argument regardless of how spurious they think the post is - as opposed to insults and dismissive barbs. As for the police officer and his testimony - well no doubt he had his prosecution briefings ahead of the trial! Who knows! I’ll turn it on its head and ask you - why do you think he said what he did on the video? I’m sure you’ll no doubt say he just wanted his 5 minutes of fame, attention seeking, was he in shock, maybe slow onset Alzheimer’s,! who knows. I mean let’s just ignore the fact that he did see first hand what neither you, me nor anyone else on here did, on that morning when he entered Cielo. I think you tend to overlook the notion that the prosecution purely want a guilty verdict but that doesn’t necessarily always have to to include the truth! Pesky inconsistencies and anomalies to be avoided at all cost!
"I’ll turn it on its head and ask you - why do you think he said what he did on the video?"
As you say, "who knows?" But this exchange does call to mind an aged Linda Kasabian stating that she rifled dead Steve Parent's body to locate and steal his wallet on the orders of Tex. People get old, people misremember things and sure, people make wild shit up in pursuit of a little attention. Witness the older Bill Garrettson and his wild claims.
P.S. I wonder if the prosecution interviews with this first officer are posted somewhere? That might clear things up a bit.
Speculator Said:
Grim- well at least you’ve improved on your “guys guys, it’s Starviego. Nuff said” remark
Speculator; Starviego has been around for a few years now and we spar from time to time. He makes no secret of the fact that he sees himself as a bona fide conspiracy theorist and is almost hell-bent on proving that the CIA {or is it the FBI ? Or the LAPD ? or LASO ? Or someone other than Charlie Manson} are ultimately responsible for these murders. All the evidence says that such a notion is trash par excellence and as such, he will get regularly called out. Every so often he makes interesting claims, but in reality, his posts no longer inspire deep conversation and discussion. No offence, but it's sometimes like listening to a flat-earther. 🪐What can you say to someone that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, believes that the earth is flat ? 🌍
My issue was that if people disagree they should respond with their own reasoned argument regardless of how spurious they think the post is - as opposed to insults and dismissive barbs
Hey, come on Spec, you know me. I've been doing that for 10 years here {including with you a few times since we first clashed sword in early 2019} and on other sites. My views on the alternative theories are nothing new, nor should they come as a surprise. I don't insult people, but I do sometimes have a sarcastic laugh at some people's expense. Star is a big lad, he can handle himself pretty effectively.
He has to ! 🤣
As for the police officer and his testimony...he did see first hand what neither you, me nor anyone else on here did, on that morning when he entered Cielo. I think you tend to overlook the notion that the prosecution purely want a guilty verdict but that doesn’t necessarily always have to include the truth!
But your point there has a fatal flaw to it. It could only help the prosecution case for there to be a huge gash across Sharon Tate's body that indicated that maybe the killers tried to or at least were thinking of removing the baby. So to hush it up would be kind of stupid. That helps the defence and as you point out, they wanted a 'guilty' verdict.
Why did Robert Burbridge say what he did ? I haven't a clue. But one thing I do know. Scores of people over an almost 60 year period have stated a load of horseshit in regards to this case. From neighbours {Seymour Kott} to police officers {Burbridge, Preston Gillory} to witnesses {June Emmers and a whole host more} to friends {Dennis Wilson} to family {Debbie Tate} to lawyers {Stephen Kay} to associates {Vern Plumlee, Cathy Gillies} to killers {Tex, Bobby, Pat and Susan} to their buds {the Family} to actors {take your pick - there's loads} to parole officers {William Cavanaugh} to random guys driving their car at night {"I saw the killers driving near Cielo at 3am !" "I'm the guy that was driving the sports car !"}.....the list goes on. One could almost write a book on the number of people that have something to say about some aspect or another of the case. And the one thing they all have in common is the secret and dramatic revelation they happen to have. "I saw the big gash across Sharon's belly !" "I heard the screams no earlier than 2.30am !" "I was due to be at a party/gathering/get-together at Sharon's that night !" "I was one of the main suspects !" The list really does go on. So when you ask why a cop should say he saw something that, having seen good, clear photos of the body in question, are clearly not there, well, people are strange. You get the same thing with the Kennedy assassination. Maybe Robert Burbridge was a flat-earther ! 😩
Grim - well as I said before, I’m not saying I’m a proponent of the points raised in the original post but it’s good to debate. And often the wilder theories can be thought provoking. I do believe there are a lot of anomalies and things left unexplained in this case. Most (if not all) of which were inconsequential as far as the verdicts were concerned but anomalies nonetheless. So thank you for your own points well made and equally thank you to Starviego for his/her. Or they even :-) !
Grim said: "For the record, Noguchi did mention the stab wound {#5}..... And that #5 on the back, he explains that it should have been #13."'
Grim, do you have a link to that part of the autopsy report?
Starviego Asked:
Grim said: "For the record, Noguchi did mention the stab wound {#5}..... And that #5 on the back, he explains that it should have been #13."'
Grim, do you have a link to that part of the autopsy report?
This is the best I can find, but on page 8709 of the trial transcript, that's where Noguchi mentions his error. He does so without any prompting.
Speculator Said:
often the wilder theories can be thought provoking
I've never denied that. I absolutely agree. In fact, I would go so far as to say that they're so thought-provoking, that they demand looking into. And having done that numerous times on the various theories, I can confidently say that they all rely on not really being looked into, and on one just taking the theory setter at their word, kind of like the Family and Charlie wanted people to do, back in the day. Because when examined under a searingly bright light, they all collapse under the weight of their own folly.
I do believe there are a lot of anomalies and things left unexplained in this case
I agree. The Sharon/Jay blood being found in a place that the killers never said they'd been or no one hearing Tex shoot Wojciech or remembering Tex with a knife approaching Steven, being three real biggies. But they're not insurmountable and they don't change the outcome.
I think that many cases have lots of anomalies. I read Bugliosi's 1600 page tome on the Kennedy assassination through the last ¼ of last year and the number of anomalies in that event are mind boggling. But none of them change the outcome.
The anomalies are sometimes fun and useful to discuss, but I find so many people have been looking for smoking guns for so long that any anomaly is almost automatically given the status of "Game Changer" !
Shame on you guys for turning this into something it isn’t. You do better work than that. There was no avulsion cut which is why it’s not on the autopsy report. What you’re seeing is stab #5 bleeding out across the stomach. You can easily see that from a clear photo from the crime scene. There is also a pic from Sharon’s autopsy that shows this stab wound and no other cuts on the abdomen.
Jane S said:
Shame on you guys for turning this into something it isn’t
Which "guys" would that be, Jane ? I only see one guy that has pushed the line that you are critical of.
Wrong about that but what did burn down was Doris Day’s house that Melcher and Candace stayed at that supposedly had the spy glass stolen from.
You’re right that only one person posted this but the others that run this site do such a good job on their research that I wouldn’t expect to see something so outlandish on here.
I guess some of us value free speech on this site. I might think Star supports a lot of conspiratorial nonsense at times, but I think he should be allowed to air those views. There is always the equal freedom to tell him he's talking tosh and get in some points one might want to air.
Part4 of the released FBI documents:
pg165of551: "From the inception of this case, Los Angeles Police
Department(LAPD) officials placed a "secrecy lid" on their investigation and they have furnished the press media with the very minimum of information. For example, no details have been furnished the press regarding the mutilation of the victims nor have toxilogical results of the victims been made public."
This article is dated Oct 12, 1969. Why did the LAPD not want to talk about mutilation of the victims nor tox screen results for the victims a full two months after the murders? If the bodies were not mutilated(like Leno's body), why not just say that? Methinks they were hiding stuff.
"Methinks they were hiding stuff."
Well sure, of course they were hiding stuff. At the time. The fact that "Healter Skelter" was left on the Labianca fridge was not released at the time, either. If that had been, the murderers would likely have been identified far earlier than they were.
But we're far past the 4th quarter of 1969 and most of the "stuff" is no longer hidden. The suspicion you share here would have made sense in October 1969, but it's rather silly at this point in time.
Time of death was discussed in volume 69, pg. 8921-8934 of transcripts. Noguchi says three methods were used (lividity, rigor mortis, and liver temp) on all 5 victims at Tate residence. He estimated time of death from 8:25 pm Aug. 8 to early morning hours of Aug. 9.
Not only that, stuff not given to the press, and therefore, for public consumption, doesn't necessarily qualify as hidden. And even if it was hidden, hidden from whom ? And for what reason ? The fact is that once trial came around, none of that stuff was "hidden" and all Starviego's conspiracies ultimately lead one up a blind alley. The bottom line is that he's trying to prove by stealth that what happened didn't happen {he's not alone - Sharon's Mum never believed the Charlie Manson angle either, so she was actually in step with many followers of this case that downplay his control of these murdering youngsters, partly because she thought it meant they had a get-out clause and weren't taking responsibility - which really is not true} the way LE put out that it did and that somewhere along the line, the CIA were somehow complicit.
Post a Comment