The "Sadie" Enigma...Part II
On page 37, Atkins states, "...And he and I got in a fight and all I remember is swinging with my arms and I had a knife in my hand. And I was swinging and I know I stabbed him. I don't know where I stabbed him."
Will the real Sadie Mae Glutz please stand up! OMG! In recent interviews, hearings, and in her latest book, Susan now "swears" she stabbed no one; that after she lost her knife, she just "froze" - is her word. The cop's daughter in me is screaming that Golden Rule...the Initial Statement is always the most accurate! A wholly dissimilar statement was made by Susan in the Grand Jury testimony in '69 and here in her '78 parole hearing regarding her admission to stabbing Voytek. She certainly DID stab Voytek; there is NO denying that.
What still lingers are the questions, WHEN did she stab Voytek? and WITH WHAT? as forensic tests done on HER LOST Buck knife by the LAPD lab found no traces of blood.
Soooo, does that mean that ,
a) she borrowed Tex's or Katie's knife with which to stab Voytek? or
b)the LAPD lab had erroneous blood-trace findings? or
c) she had possession of Linda's Buck knife PRIOR to what was previously testified? or
d) Sadie carried TWO knives, instead of one, into Cielo that night?
I "get" that time nor tide wait for no man and that memory can falter but you'd think Susan would be able to remember IF she stabbed someone, wouldn't ya? Her waffling on the salient points makes me fear that, yes, indeedy-do, she MAY have even stabbed Sharon as well. And my psyche is not yet ready to believe that a Mother of a 10 month old baby could stab another Mother-to-be. Can psychopathic behaviour be THAT cruel? I'm going to repress that thought for a moment while I nervously sip my coffee...
On page 37 & 38, Atkins states, "I went over to the woman that was pregnant, and she--God--she asked me for mercy, and she begged for mercy, and I told her I didn't have any, and that she was going to die. And then Tex came back in and he said, 'Kill her.' And I said, 'I can't.' And so...he did and we left."
"He did and we left"...pretty much glosses over those last minutes of the living, breathing Sharon Tate, doesn't it. We know from testimony taken from Pat Krenwinkel that those last few minutes were NOT that swift nor simple. There are about 3-4 missing minutes where all 3 killers were in that living room with Tate BEFORE she was killed and NO ONE can remember or refuses to admit just exactly what went on in those unaccounted for minutes. It was NEVER as simple as "he did and we left" and 16 stabs - no matter how fast they are executed - still take time. Regardless of who wielded the knife, all THREE - Sadie, Katie and Tex - witnessed this pregnant woman's demise. And I suspect that it was not as simple nor as neat nor as easily forgotten as these poor-excuse-for-human beings would have you believe.
If you accept that Sharon's body was NOT moved after she fell to the floor, then, the blood smearing definitely shows indications of a struggle. That the smearing of her blood over her abdomen and legs probably resulted in the thrashing Sharon most definitely did, to hinder her killers from stabbing her unborn child. Her's, like Voytek's and Gibby's, was not an easy death. It's no wonder that those missing minutes have never been detailed by any of the three. It would be too excruciating for the killers to relive and unbearable for us bystanders to read...
On page 40, Presiding Member Rushen asks, "At the time that you went there [Cielo], though, you knew that Melcher was not there?
Atkins responds, "I didn't know anything about the house. I didn't even know that it was Terry Melcher's house at the time we went. I was just told to go with Tex and do whatever Tex said to do."
This is a complete prevarication on Susan's part; as it was independently corroborated by Catherine Share, that Sadie and her had taken Dennis Wilson's Rolls up to Cielo one day, to visit either Melcher OR Deane Moorehouse (as Deane lived in the house for some 5 months after Melcher moved out but before Roman and Sharon moved in) and the two of them had swum naked in the pool that afternoon. And even if I decide to reject this story out-of-hand, it is difficult for me to believe that Charlie had never mentioned where Melcher lived and that Tex, who had been up there on numerous occasions, had never mentioned that house to Charlie's girls at some point. Sadie most definitely new the existence of that home. She most definitely would have known that Melcher had moved out when it became known that Deane Moorehouse had moved in. And if Ruth Ann, his daughter knew, then The Family knew. Period.
On the same page, when asked by Presiding Member DeLeon, who had gone to Cielo that night, Atkins states, "Pat Krenwinkel, Tex Watson, myself, and Linda Kasabian was told to stay outside and watch. She came in only one time."
This statement is a bit disconcerting to me. Is this one of Freud's famous "slips" at work here? Or am I reading too much into her sentence phrasing? Was Linda actually INSIDE the Tate house and not just at the front door when Voytek stumbled out on to the porch? This would make sense given that Susan says she stabbed Voytek BEFORE he escaped out the front porch but obviously NOT with her own knife as the LAPD lab test results revealed.. But that scenario stirs up a whole new rats nest insofar as Linda Kasabian's complicity in the Tate murders. (I'm beginning to think that my coffee isn't strong enough for all this!).
If you think about it, IF Tex had wanted Linda as a lookout right from the start, she never would have been the one to go around the back of the house to look for a way inside. And since we know it WAS her who did this act, it flows that most likely all FOUR of these killers initially entered the Tate house. And Linda and her knife would have been present in that living room for Sadie to grab and attack Voytek after hers was thrown into the chair during her scuffle with him.
It's my guess, that when Sadie asked for Linda's knife and Linda SAW what was transpiring, that she fled without Tex's permission and that was WHY Tex was so miffed at her on the way home. Do you not agree?!
NEVER underestimate the value of Initial Witness Statements! Even if they are 31 years of age! You can read all the New & Improved books out there on Manson you want but if you really seek the unvarnished truth, drop those rumour rehashing expensive diatribes and go back to the horse's mouth, so to speak. 31 year old statements can be VERY revealing...
On pages 41 & 43, Atkins states, "Each one of us was given a knife and two changes of clothing....But when we got back to Spahn's Ranch, Charlie was very angry because we didn't go to the houses on the rest of the street. We were told to go to every house on the block and kill everybody."
"Two" changes, huh? Verrryyyy Interesting, doncha think? There was EVERY INTENTION of going down Cielo Drive and doing away with EVERYONE who lived on that road. I guess the moral of that story is "Be careful who your neighbours are!" The remaining, burning question has to be WHY did they stop at Tate then? Was Tex afraid people could have heard the screams and gunshots so a speedy escape was necessary? Because, honestly, I can't buy that they were too tired, or Katie's hand hurt, or Sadie's scalp ached or they were too shocked by their actions to continue. It ALSO makes sense WHY the four of them carried their changes of clothes up to the gate and not just leave them in the car. That act always puzzled me; but NOT if you were planning on doing the old switcheroo in the bushes after each house on Cielo was hit; then it all makes sense, right?
I guess we'll never really know why Tex and the girls cut and ran. All can be known for sure is Thank God they did!
Further on page 43, when asked by DeLeon, what drugs had been ingested prior arriving at Tate, Atkins states, "Methedrine crystal and cocaine, combination of the two."
Well, I'm no chemist, but I'm sure that had a bearing on why every victim was stabbed so many times - the hyper kinetic repetition of a single act - in this case, the act of wielding a knife blade up and down, over and over, before your mind realized what your body was doing. And it has always been the overkill amount of stab wounds which has amazed me. And yet, supposedly, Katie never ingested any drugs prior to the Tate/LaBianca killings, so who exactly are the monsters in this picture then? Tex and Sadie for their drug-induced overkill stabbings or Katie for her oh-so-sober attachment to murder? (Yep, coffee is just not going to cut it for me with these questions!)...
On page 53, Hearing Representative Del Pesco asks of Susan, "Were you given any instructions on how to use your knives?"
Atkins reply, "(Inmate shakes head.)" [Indicating a No response]
I keep noticing a pattern with Susan - the non-verbal response when she doesn't really want to answer a question. Now, to be fair, this non-verbal way of responding could just be her way to express her embarrassment in all this but, again, my cop's daughter's nose is itchy and not buying what she's selling. From everyone and anyone who was out at Spahn's in the days preceding Hinman/Tate - from Danny DeCarlo, to Al Springer, to Shorty Shea, to even testimony from the various Manson girls - there was and always had been weapons training sessions and target practice. So for Susan to be denying this, in my mind, and I'm sure the Parole Board's mind, is to demonstrate how very little she ever deserved parole when even the slightest fact is denied.
And on page 54, Susan, when asked this question by DeLeon, 'but as you stated, you did not actually at any time kill anyone--"
INMATE ATKINS: "That's right."
I'm not sure legally or morally, if looked at honestly, can/should Susan make such a claim. Isn't the mere fact of ALLOWING someone to die demonstrate your direct hand in their murder? Will we ever know how much those stab wounds to Voytek's body by her own hands affected his ability to sustain life? Will her utter lack of care and compassion not be directly linked to the fatal conditions suffered by Gary? And will we ever know for sure who really put that pillow over his head? Or who inflicted the fatal stab wounds in Sharon's chest?
No, I think her temerity alone in absolving herself from the deaths of these victims is cause enough to keep her behind bars. At the very least, if she ever bothered to come to grips with her actions, she would have to answer that question with a "I don't know." And I believe she is just too self-centred and too self-serving to ever even do that....
To Be Continued...
I "get" that time nor tide wait for no man and that memory can falter but you'd think Susan would be able to remember IF she stabbed someone, wouldn't ya? Her waffling on the salient points makes me fear that, yes, indeedy-do, she MAY have even stabbed Sharon as well. And my psyche is not yet ready to believe that a Mother of a 10 month old baby could stab another Mother-to-be. Can psychopathic behaviour be THAT cruel? I'm going to repress that thought for a moment while I nervously sip my coffee...
On page 37 & 38, Atkins states, "I went over to the woman that was pregnant, and she--God--she asked me for mercy, and she begged for mercy, and I told her I didn't have any, and that she was going to die. And then Tex came back in and he said, 'Kill her.' And I said, 'I can't.' And so...he did and we left."
"He did and we left"...pretty much glosses over those last minutes of the living, breathing Sharon Tate, doesn't it. We know from testimony taken from Pat Krenwinkel that those last few minutes were NOT that swift nor simple. There are about 3-4 missing minutes where all 3 killers were in that living room with Tate BEFORE she was killed and NO ONE can remember or refuses to admit just exactly what went on in those unaccounted for minutes. It was NEVER as simple as "he did and we left" and 16 stabs - no matter how fast they are executed - still take time. Regardless of who wielded the knife, all THREE - Sadie, Katie and Tex - witnessed this pregnant woman's demise. And I suspect that it was not as simple nor as neat nor as easily forgotten as these poor-excuse-for-human beings would have you believe.
If you accept that Sharon's body was NOT moved after she fell to the floor, then, the blood smearing definitely shows indications of a struggle. That the smearing of her blood over her abdomen and legs probably resulted in the thrashing Sharon most definitely did, to hinder her killers from stabbing her unborn child. Her's, like Voytek's and Gibby's, was not an easy death. It's no wonder that those missing minutes have never been detailed by any of the three. It would be too excruciating for the killers to relive and unbearable for us bystanders to read...
On page 40, Presiding Member Rushen asks, "At the time that you went there [Cielo], though, you knew that Melcher was not there?
Atkins responds, "I didn't know anything about the house. I didn't even know that it was Terry Melcher's house at the time we went. I was just told to go with Tex and do whatever Tex said to do."
This is a complete prevarication on Susan's part; as it was independently corroborated by Catherine Share, that Sadie and her had taken Dennis Wilson's Rolls up to Cielo one day, to visit either Melcher OR Deane Moorehouse (as Deane lived in the house for some 5 months after Melcher moved out but before Roman and Sharon moved in) and the two of them had swum naked in the pool that afternoon. And even if I decide to reject this story out-of-hand, it is difficult for me to believe that Charlie had never mentioned where Melcher lived and that Tex, who had been up there on numerous occasions, had never mentioned that house to Charlie's girls at some point. Sadie most definitely new the existence of that home. She most definitely would have known that Melcher had moved out when it became known that Deane Moorehouse had moved in. And if Ruth Ann, his daughter knew, then The Family knew. Period.
On the same page, when asked by Presiding Member DeLeon, who had gone to Cielo that night, Atkins states, "Pat Krenwinkel, Tex Watson, myself, and Linda Kasabian was told to stay outside and watch. She came in only one time."
This statement is a bit disconcerting to me. Is this one of Freud's famous "slips" at work here? Or am I reading too much into her sentence phrasing? Was Linda actually INSIDE the Tate house and not just at the front door when Voytek stumbled out on to the porch? This would make sense given that Susan says she stabbed Voytek BEFORE he escaped out the front porch but obviously NOT with her own knife as the LAPD lab test results revealed.. But that scenario stirs up a whole new rats nest insofar as Linda Kasabian's complicity in the Tate murders. (I'm beginning to think that my coffee isn't strong enough for all this!).
If you think about it, IF Tex had wanted Linda as a lookout right from the start, she never would have been the one to go around the back of the house to look for a way inside. And since we know it WAS her who did this act, it flows that most likely all FOUR of these killers initially entered the Tate house. And Linda and her knife would have been present in that living room for Sadie to grab and attack Voytek after hers was thrown into the chair during her scuffle with him.
It's my guess, that when Sadie asked for Linda's knife and Linda SAW what was transpiring, that she fled without Tex's permission and that was WHY Tex was so miffed at her on the way home. Do you not agree?!
NEVER underestimate the value of Initial Witness Statements! Even if they are 31 years of age! You can read all the New & Improved books out there on Manson you want but if you really seek the unvarnished truth, drop those rumour rehashing expensive diatribes and go back to the horse's mouth, so to speak. 31 year old statements can be VERY revealing...
On pages 41 & 43, Atkins states, "Each one of us was given a knife and two changes of clothing....But when we got back to Spahn's Ranch, Charlie was very angry because we didn't go to the houses on the rest of the street. We were told to go to every house on the block and kill everybody."
"Two" changes, huh? Verrryyyy Interesting, doncha think? There was EVERY INTENTION of going down Cielo Drive and doing away with EVERYONE who lived on that road. I guess the moral of that story is "Be careful who your neighbours are!" The remaining, burning question has to be WHY did they stop at Tate then? Was Tex afraid people could have heard the screams and gunshots so a speedy escape was necessary? Because, honestly, I can't buy that they were too tired, or Katie's hand hurt, or Sadie's scalp ached or they were too shocked by their actions to continue. It ALSO makes sense WHY the four of them carried their changes of clothes up to the gate and not just leave them in the car. That act always puzzled me; but NOT if you were planning on doing the old switcheroo in the bushes after each house on Cielo was hit; then it all makes sense, right?
I guess we'll never really know why Tex and the girls cut and ran. All can be known for sure is Thank God they did!
Further on page 43, when asked by DeLeon, what drugs had been ingested prior arriving at Tate, Atkins states, "Methedrine crystal and cocaine, combination of the two."
Well, I'm no chemist, but I'm sure that had a bearing on why every victim was stabbed so many times - the hyper kinetic repetition of a single act - in this case, the act of wielding a knife blade up and down, over and over, before your mind realized what your body was doing. And it has always been the overkill amount of stab wounds which has amazed me. And yet, supposedly, Katie never ingested any drugs prior to the Tate/LaBianca killings, so who exactly are the monsters in this picture then? Tex and Sadie for their drug-induced overkill stabbings or Katie for her oh-so-sober attachment to murder? (Yep, coffee is just not going to cut it for me with these questions!)...
On page 53, Hearing Representative Del Pesco asks of Susan, "Were you given any instructions on how to use your knives?"
Atkins reply, "(Inmate shakes head.)" [Indicating a No response]
I keep noticing a pattern with Susan - the non-verbal response when she doesn't really want to answer a question. Now, to be fair, this non-verbal way of responding could just be her way to express her embarrassment in all this but, again, my cop's daughter's nose is itchy and not buying what she's selling. From everyone and anyone who was out at Spahn's in the days preceding Hinman/Tate - from Danny DeCarlo, to Al Springer, to Shorty Shea, to even testimony from the various Manson girls - there was and always had been weapons training sessions and target practice. So for Susan to be denying this, in my mind, and I'm sure the Parole Board's mind, is to demonstrate how very little she ever deserved parole when even the slightest fact is denied.
And on page 54, Susan, when asked this question by DeLeon, 'but as you stated, you did not actually at any time kill anyone--"
INMATE ATKINS: "That's right."
I'm not sure legally or morally, if looked at honestly, can/should Susan make such a claim. Isn't the mere fact of ALLOWING someone to die demonstrate your direct hand in their murder? Will we ever know how much those stab wounds to Voytek's body by her own hands affected his ability to sustain life? Will her utter lack of care and compassion not be directly linked to the fatal conditions suffered by Gary? And will we ever know for sure who really put that pillow over his head? Or who inflicted the fatal stab wounds in Sharon's chest?
No, I think her temerity alone in absolving herself from the deaths of these victims is cause enough to keep her behind bars. At the very least, if she ever bothered to come to grips with her actions, she would have to answer that question with a "I don't know." And I believe she is just too self-centred and too self-serving to ever even do that....
To Be Continued...
Comments