Manson Admits 5 or 6 Visits to Tate Home
Saturday, October 24th, 1970
LOS ANGELES, Oct. 24 – Charles Manson admitted from the witness stand of the Tate-LaBianca murder trial Friday that he had visited the estate where actress Sharon Tate and four others were murdered.
He estimated he had been “at” the residence five or six times but insisted, “I’ve never been in the house.”
Manson was called by the defense to testify out of the presence of the jury in a hearing on the admissibility of testimony of Los Angeles Police Sgt. Sidney J. Nuckles Jr.
Nuckles testified in response to prosecution questions that last March 2 Manson denied ever being at the Benedict Canyon estate.
The officer said Manson made the statement at a meeting attended by the defendant, defense attorney Daye Shinn, Dep. Dist. Atty. Aaron Stovitz and himself.
He said Manson, who then was acting as his own attorney, had requested the session to examine exhibits in the County Grand Jury indictment.
The legal question is whether Manson’s statement, as quoted by Nuckles’ was voluntarily or was a result of a question by Stovitz.
Shinn testified that he thought Manson had said he had never been “in” the residence, not never been “at” it. Stovitz is expected to be called Monday.
On Friday, after Manson said he had been at the Tate estate several times, Bugliosi asked him when. The defense objected but Manson said, “I explained to you, I am absent in time.”
The prosecution produced testimony about at least one visit.
Rudy Altobelli, owner of the $200,000 estate, said Manson was at the guest house of the residence March 23, 1969, asking for a former resident of the front house, Terry Melcher, a record producer and son of actress Doris Day.
The prosecution contends that less than five months later – on Aug. 9, 1969 – the estate, then rented by Miss Tate, was selected as a site for mass murder as a symbol of protest of Melcher’s rejection of Manson’s recording hopes.
Melcher, 28, testified Friday that he was more impressed with Manson’s leadership quality than his musical talent.
He said he twice went to the Spahn movie ranch in Chatsworth in May, 1969, to hear Manson play guitar and sing.
During the first audition, Melcher said Manson sat on a rock, surrounded by his “family” members, who hummed and sang in the background as he talked and sang 15 or 20 songs.
“I was impressed by Charlie’s strength. The obvious leadership he had of those people,” Melcher said.
But, the witness said, he wasn’t impressed enough by Manson’s “average” singing to want to pursue it and sign a recording contract.
By JOHN KENDALL
Thanks Bo for your service
Agreed. This looks like a lot of work! We appreciate it
Given the closeness between Manson and Melcher in 1968, it is reasonable to believe he had been up at Cielo at least five or six times. Deanna Martin testified she had met Charlie at Cielo when Melcher lived there. Mark Lindsay also claimed to have seen Charlie there.
Starviego, hi !
Manson never fessed up as to why he chose the locations which is frustrating. As far as I know anyways. I think there were varied responses in the multitude of parole hearings- which makes it hard to conclude anything.
Manson always talked in riddles, Kim, so it’s not surprising that anything he said is not definitive in respect of why those locations were chosen.
Jim Markham was Jay Sebring’s business partner and protege. Days after the murders, and at the behest of Sebring’s father, Markham began living at the house where he had been a frequent guest: Sebring’s Bavarian-style home, once owned by Jean Harlow and located on Easton Drive in Beverly Hills — just one mile away from the Polanski-Tate residence on Cielo Drive. “I’m living in Jay’s house with raccoons on the roof — it would sound like somebody walking on the top of the house,” he says. “I finally had to move out. I thought I was going to be next. They hadn’t caught Manson. Nobody knew why it happened.”
Five decades later, Markham floats his own theory, one that deviates from the official “Helter Skelter” scenario put forth by Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi: that the cult leader ordered the Tate murders in hopes that it would spark an apocalyptic race war as foretold to him in what he believed were coded lyrics on The Beatles’ White Album.
Though Markham is reluctant to denigrate the memory of Sebring, who was his mentor and after whom he named his son, he claims that the late hairdresser knew Manson and suggests that the murders were the result of a drug deal gone bad — an account that aligns with a once-popular explanation that fell out of favor as the Helter Skelter narrative became dominant. Back in 1969, Sebring was nicknamed The Candyman and was said to have used his salon to peddle drugs to the stars.
“I don’t want to get into the drugs, but I never bought into the race war theory. I believe Manson had gone up to the house” — Polanski was away shooting a movie — “and Manson wanted to sell cocaine and marijuana,” he says. “He showed Jay and Wojciech the product. They were going to buy some of it, but the two of them beat him up at the gate. The next night, Manson sent the Family up [to kill them].” Markham adds, “I’ve lived with that for 50 years. I still believe that.” He declines to elaborate further given that he is still in touch with Sebring’s nephew Anthony DiMaria.
I don’t want to denigrate the memory and legacy of Jay Sebring either but there was something of a dark side to him too, as there is with Polanski, and Sharon’s former fiancé, Philippe Forquet.
Helter Skelter doesn’t stand up to scrutiny as a genuine reason for the murders, in my opinion. Manson may well have convinced his family of followers of the need to start a race war but his real motives remain open to speculation. He manipulated his followers and told them only what he felt they needed to know. Would his followers know if Manson was being paid to carry out a hit on someone? Do you think he would divulge that information to them? Helter Skelter was a smokescreen.
Paul, I definitely agree with you on the HS being a smoke screen for Charlie. Not so sure about the drug deal gone bad as the main motive. I have always believed that the main motive was a bruised ego and hatred of people that had more than him. What ever bull shit he needed to preach to get his minions to kill for him, he did
Paul, Matt
Agree that the HS as a motive was total bullshit. Agree it was bruised ego, narcissistic rage that caused him to pick Cielo. I think he was hoping to kill people in the music industry. Why Waverly though, the proximity to people in that area ? He was just familiar with the area ?
I will always be fascinated with this…
I think we need to concede to the fact that Charlie had lifelong struggles with the truth. Even as a child, he was remembered as being a mischievous imp with a tendency to prevaricate. After all, how many times in his life did he try to pawn his misdeeds off upon the shoulders of others? Isn’t that lying? He flat out lies about not having been in the Cielo house. He was once seen sitting on the floor of the kitchen, during Melcher’s residency, blocking the refrigerator. Basically acting like the freaky dude he was!
Everything said about HS being a smokescreen and revenge being the real motive is most likely true. But in choosing those particular locations, I think terrain had a lot to do with it as well. Charlie no doubt realized that the remoteness of 10050 would work well as a staging place for murder. Who would hear the screams? Same goes for the residence on Waverly Drive, which is set far back from the street and a good distance from the neighboring houses on either side. He wanted his “children” to be safe and unhindered in their assigned tasks. The Hinman bungalow was also conveniently located in an isolated section of Topanga Canyon.
This does, however, raise an interesting question about the proposed venue on Venice Beach. The intended victim lived in an apartment. Pretty risky business considering the proximity of other occupants. One wonders if Charlie had any special instructions to address this perplexing problem. But, alas, this is all pure speculation. Will we ever really know what was going through Manson’s warped mind?
SEAN K. said, “Everything said about HS being a smokescreen and revenge being the real motive is most likely true. But in choosing those particular locations, I think terrain had a lot to do with it as well. Charlie no doubt realized that the remoteness of 10050 would work well as a staging place for murder. Who would hear the screams? Same goes for the residence on Waverly Drive, which is set far back from the street and a good distance from the neighboring houses on either side.”
Bugliosi contended that the murders at Cielo were related to the address and not specifically who was inside the house. So we have a key element of Helter Skelter is ‘location, location, location’. I’m not sure that the location is as relevant as commonly accepted. There is an allegation that a failed attempt was made on the night before the Cielo Drive killings, at Jay Sebring’s Easton Drive House.
Sharon, Abigail and Wojciech Frykowski spent the evening of 7 August at Jay’s house, where they had a meal then settled down to watch a movie on Jay’s recently installed cable TV. Suddenly the cable TV went dead and there was a flash of bright light and the courtyard floodlights came on. The wiring had been installed by the son of Jay’s solicitor (Paul Greenwall?), who was working summers as an electrician while he studied to become a lawyer himself. Jay called Paul and asked him if he could take a look at the problem but he was on the point of leaving on a date and, as it was already 9pm, he couldn’t make it but promised he would come another time. Movie night was abandoned and Sharon and Abigail were taken back to Cielo then Jay and Frykowski went out to a club.
On the Sunday after the murders Jay’s solicitor told Paul to go to Easton Drive to collect a suit for Jay to wear at his funeral. While he was there he went behind the house to have a look at the wiring and discovered it had been cut in the same way wires had been cut at Cielo. This was all recorded in police interview but never used in the case.
If location wasn’t the reason for the killings at Cielo Drive then it points to someone being a specific target. Maybe Manson was being paid to carry out a hit as John Todd asserts?
In one of the videos of Sharon, she is reading Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP0eSYc1WOI
“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?”
Lewis Carroll
I think that there were two different reasons why Cielo was chosen. One is that the location represented rejection and people that had what he wanted. The second is that when he went to the house to find Melcher and saw Sharon and I believe a photographer or the property own, the person with Sharon said that Melcher did not live there anymore and kicked Charlie off of the property.
Matt- I agree totally
MATT & KIM : I respect your views although I’m far from convinced that it’s that simple. It’s a plausible explanation but I feel there’s more to this.
When Manson arrived at Cielo, on March 23, 1969, Sharon was in the house preparing for a photo shoot with her personal photographer, Shahrokh Hatami, who was outside setting up his equipment. Manson asked Hatami for Terry Melcher. Hatami didn’t know who Terry Melcher was and said he doesn’t live here any more. Manson proceeded to the guest house where he was confronted by Rudy Altobelli who told him to get off the property. Hearing an altercation, Sharon appeared briefly at the front door and she saw Manson and he saw her.
This happened the exact day before Sharon was to fly out to Rome to begin shooting, what would be her last movie, Thirteen Chairs or 12 + 1. Altobelli, coincidentally, was also on that flight to Rome and Sharon asked him who the creepy little man was.
Was it coincidence that Manson turned up on the day before she would be away for several months? Was asking for Terry Melcher simply a pretext to cover why he was there?
If Manson was angry at being kicked off the property by Altobelli and intended to kill all the occupants at that address, why did he wait until Sharon returned from London, several months later?
It doesn’t stack up for me. There’s more to this than meets the eye. He didn’t know who she is, did he, or maybe he did and was checking her out, familiarising himself with his future victim?
I’ll have more to say later, but that’s all for now.
Search
Recently Added to the Archive
3/05/73
2/28/73
2/27/73
2/24/73
2/22/73
Thank you for your generous support
In the two decades since CieloDrive.com launched, we have disclosed over 80 thousand pages of case documents, obtained and restored thousands of original photographs, as well as releasing numerous hours of investigative audio recordings. As we forge on, we remain focused on our efforts to lobby law enforcement agencies to disclose the entirety of their case files. Thank you for your support, without it, our common goal would be unattainable.
Updates
The Family
Victims+
Archives+
Trials+
Tate - LaBianca Murders
Gary Hinman Murder
Hinman / Shea Murders
Parole+
© 2023 CieloDrive.com