You are on page 1of 6

Manson Murders

http://web.archive.org/web/20030402171238/www.mansonmurders.co...

02/06/03

1 van 6

29-01-2010 12:34

Manson Murders

http://web.archive.org/web/20030402171238/www.mansonmurders.co...

This article has been amended since the original publication of it due to an exclusive telephone conversation with Chief Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi on Saturday, July 24, 1999. was the caretaker on the property where Sharon Tate and the others were murdered. He resided in the guest house and was in the employment of Mr. Rudy Altobelli the owner of the land. Talk has always indicated he was going to be terminated in his work assignment but Sharon Tate intervened on his behalf when she told the property owner she rather liked the young man and that he had caused no problems. Garretson claimed at the time that he heard nothing, saw nothing, and was so shocked when the police drug him across the lawn in hand cuffs to see the bodies that he could not even identify the body of Folger. He misidentified the body of Voytek left on the lawn just a few feet from the body of his lover and financial supporter, Miss Folger. Garretson did not see the two bodies inside the residence. Garretson was taken right past the white car where young Steven Parent was murdered but did not indicate he knew him either. I have interviewed William Garretson several times over the past ten years. He granted me a tape recorded exclusive interview for my last book Manson Behind The Scenes which was published in March of 1997. He expanded his story, changed his story and gave me a world exclusive. What did Garretson say? He was stimulated into remembering what happened as he listened to the Turning Point piece that aired for the twenty-fifth anniversary of the case in 1994. He told me he heard footsteps. He heard the door handle move. He froze in the hall by the bathroom. Then he said he went to the closet window but did not open the curtain because, "A voice told me in my mind not to open the curtain" so he saw nothing. What did he say after my book Manson Behind The Scenes (March 1997)was published? Garretson told me he actually heard voices, they were of Tex Watson and Pat Krenwinkle over the body of Gibby Folger. He also heard "Heavy breathing" he supposed to be the heavy breathing of Watson as he butchered Gibby Folger to death. He also told me in a subsequent telephone call that he heard the four gun shots. Not wanting to sound judgmental, I offered the fact that the women in the house by the front gate also heard the shots but rolled over and went back to sleep. What is Garretson to say Sunday night on the E Channel? I am receiving e-mail messages, phone calls and a long conversation with author Greg King that Garretson now claims to have seen Folger running across the lawn with Pat chasing her! He is suppose to say he SAW her being stabbed!

2 van 6

29-01-2010 12:34

Manson Murders

http://web.archive.org/web/20030402171238/www.mansonmurders.co...

I just can't buy it! Not for one minute. Greg King interviewed Chief Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi for a rather long time and it was the opinion of the masterful prosecutor that Garretson was not telling the truth to me when he expanded his story. Bugliosi told King it was a custom in law enforcement to accept the first statements made following an incident as truthful. The subject has not had time to rehearse a story, consult with other people, or get a pat story down for police interviews. Besides, Garretson passed a lie detector showing he had no knowledge of the murders and that he did not cause the deaths. Based upon an exclusive interview with Vincent Bugliosi today, I have amended this paragraph. In my limited understanding of the law, it seemed that Garretson should be culpable if he actually saw one of the murders and did nothing about it. That assumption although logical is incorrect. Here is what Mr. Bugliosi had to say about it: "...it makes it a felony not to report a felony, but it is not the law in this country. Under accessory after the fact, the knowledge that a crime has been committed, you would have to give some kind of aid to the perpetrator, some kind of aid, other than being silent, you would have to take steps to help the perpetrator evade or avoid arrest and detection. So this is old common law. Let me give you an example. They are trying to find a way, as you know Bill, to get this guy involved in the gambling casino, the murder of that little girl, and the seeing of it is not the important thing because we know he saw enough to know that a crime had been committed. If you have knowledge that a crime has been committed, you have a duty at common law to report it. They are trying to come up with some theory to bring this guy in and they can't. It shows that he had knowledge, which apparently he did and I have not followed it closely, but apparently he knew that this guy had done this. He hasn't said a word about it and they can't proceed against him." (William Garretson) So it doesn't sound believable. He has told too many stories and I think he has lost his credibility. I interviewed Garretson in depth and you know he gave me that old story about the stereo being on with the decimal set between 4 1/2 and 5, and I had test conducted so now he is coming up with all these other stories. I find it very unlikely that he saw anything. Bill, I've got to run. Good to talk to you and keep up the good work.

It would also make William Garretson no better than the person who stabbed those victims! So, why would he say this -- if in fact he is on tape having said it, and the promotions running for E Channel are honest -- then what could be his motive? Money? No. Garretson should not have been paid by the producers of E Channel. They, like other media outlets, boast to all who will listen that they do not pay for

3 van 6

29-01-2010 12:34

Manson Murders

http://web.archive.org/web/20030402171238/www.mansonmurders.co...

interviews. They are honest legitimate journalist. Publicity? No. Garretson has always told me he would not go on camera. No way. Garretson has always maintained a low profile and is very private by nature. I have interviewed his previous wife -- actually there is more than one of them -- and I was told that Garretson never ever discussed the murders with her. Not even once! All I can say about the hyped up so-called exclusive of The E Channel is that to be believable they should have polygraphed Garretson during his story enhancement. They have the resources, the attorneys and the ability to do so. I did not have any of those resources so I taped his statements and wrote an accurate accounting of his words in the book. How did E Channel contact Garretson? During the first face to face meeting with the producer Brent Zacky and his side kick Dan in Costa Mesa, California, they asked me about Garretson. I told them I was not his agent, he had always been kind to me, and he lived in Ohio, was in the telephone book, and they could use my name to speak with him if they needed to. I also told them that he had no desire to go on camera. The E Channel, according to a telephone call I received yesterday from a friend and a Grand Jury member of another county, actually used wording directly from my book cover..."The only person alive on the Tate property breaks his silence" as a promotion. If that is true, and I did not hear it, then the E Channel is proving to be a real low class operation and filled with abusive relationships, statements intended to deceive, and poor judgement. But, and I say but, if any of this is true I was warned by several people not to work with them. What did I contribute to the show? I sold them photographs to be used during the piece from my interview with Doris Tate in 1990. It was not a pleasant task since the producers were very slothful at staying in touch. It was only after Greg King encouraged them to make the purchase that had been promised that I received a call from Dan. I went to the E Channel building in Los Angeles. Having committed to the purchase of all 19 photographs which had never before been seen on a television show, they lowered the number to..."We only need 4 or 5 for the show" which surprised me. They assured me that this web site would be promoted as part of the deal. Absolutely! When it was all said and done, they drew up the contract for "7" with no additional money being paid. They also have the rights to 30 seconds of each parole hearing included in the contract. Another little trick often used by the media is the statement..."Well, it is too late to dub them now, so can you leave them over night?" I never do that and the reasons are obvious. Some person can copy all 19 of the photographs and I will not be paid for them. I have asked for proof that no person, including the producer, was allowed to copy, duplicate, use, or in any other way take advantage of the three television video tapes and the entire 19 photographs from the high
4 van 6 29-01-2010 12:34

Manson Murders

http://web.archive.org/web/20030402171238/www.mansonmurders.co...

quality television video. There has been no response. I left the tapes because of my health complications and the diabetes problems of stabilizing my blood sugar. Previously in my careers I have been gifted at negotiations and have always enjoyed the skirmish. Just that drive to L.A. and back, the contract, and the request to leave my tapes, was a difficult and negative impact on my health. Garretson. I just can't buy it. The E Channel. So far, they are proving to be one of the thorns in the television business and certainly not a rose. Example. Brent called Greg King two days ago to inform him they needed to change his book title. King was told it could not fit on the screen. That is false. I have worked in edit bays for years. I produced, edited, and hosted 30 weeks of one-half hour television shows and all you have to do is use two lines, shrink the font, or indent the second line. I mean after all, a book title is a book title. Why do I have a policy of not promoting a show or magazine before it is made public? It is because I do not know what they will do with the information. Will they be accurate? Truthful? Honest? Will they care about the victims or their remaining families? Usually they do not. Greg King is so frustrated with the media that he penned the article I published last night. Who do I believe will be on the program? Greg King, William Garretson, Sheila Wells, the agent for Sharon Tate, Bugliosi and Stephen Kay. One last observation. I received an e-mail message showing the wording of The E Channel promotions. It stated that Sharon Tate and four of her friends... Sorry, Steven Parent never knew Sharon Tate. They were not friends. He was there to see Garretson. It is a misrepresentation of the facts of the case. I spoke with Janet Parent about that sentence last evening. She was not surprised, yet angered. "And they wonder why we won't talk to them?" E has promised to show this web site address and give the proper credit for the origin of the photographs. Greg King told me to not count on it. "You will be lucky if they show it even though they promised to do so. I am so fed up with the producer that I do not even want to talk to him. I have no idea how they will treat me on the piece." The producer does not return my calls. Garretson, for the first time in ten years does not return calls to either me or Greg King. The E producer promised other materials to both King and me, he seemed to have left them at home and they have never been mailed to either one of us. And there are others contacted by the E producer who will not talk to Greg King. Funny how things work. I sent the producer an e-mail and a fax more than two weeks ago. I stated that it is not my resources, my materials, photographs or video tapes that has value. It is my word. Brent chooses to dishonor his word.

5 van 6

29-01-2010 12:34

Manson Murders

http://web.archive.org/web/20030402171238/www.mansonmurders.co...

I know, if I keep telling about the behind the scenes with the out of control and unchecked media they will not hire me for consulting. That risk my friends is worth it. Somebody has to tell the truth.
This article was published for the first time at 2:00 P.M. PST on July 23, 1999. After reading my e-mail and publishing my updates I went out for a few hours. When I returned home there was a fax from the E Channel producer, Mr. Brent Zacky. He defended his actions and threatened me that his fax was the property of E and that the faxed letter could not be reproduced or transmitted in any way. Interesting! His fax was dated July 22, 1999 and sent to me at 15:44 July 23, 1999. My! How formal and legal we get after we get what we want. He expressed hope that I would like the final product. We shall all see this weekend. This article has been amended in one paragraph relating to what violation Garretson may have made if he indeed did see Folger fleeing. Once again, I have left a recorded message at the home of William Garretson and he has failed to respond.

6 van 6

29-01-2010 12:34

Related Interests