The kid in the previous post is the houseboy who was in quarters on the premises. He heard nothing.
Jump to content
Posted 04 February 2019 - 02:13 AM
I thought I had found the only defender of Manson on the planet yesterday. Nicholas Schreck who has been updating his book on Manson for a couple of decades. Unfortunately while claiming Manson's innocence he defends the official story otherwise . He doesn't go anywhere near Polanski. Not surprising since his wife is Jewish and he may be Jewish himself.
Edited by Marmoset, 04 February 2019 - 09:58 AM.
Posted 04 February 2019 - 10:16 AM
Click on the thumbnail in the previous post
Actor Christopher Jones . His Wikipedia entry does have one sentence that mentions his 1969 affair with Sharon Tate. It has been edited by the Wikipedia editors.
Jones career evaporated after this affair.
Posted 05 February 2019 - 09:47 PM
Polanski was and probably still is a nasty piece of work. His version of Macbeth I understand was rife with unnecessary and very graphic violence. While directing Faye Dunaway in the movie Chinatown he pulled off a lock of her hair. When Sharon refused to have an abortion he went to London and had an affair with Mamas and Papas singer Michelle Philllips.
Posted 06 February 2019 - 04:25 AM
No tears at this point
By Richard Alleyne
12:01AM BST 19 Jul 2005
Roman Polanski, the film director, philanderer and fugitive from justice, broke down yesterday as he described his shock at being accused of seducing a beautiful Swedish woman while on the way to the funeral of his wife.
Polanski, 72, who has lived in Paris since being caught in an under-age sex scandal in America in 1977, was said to have made his advances at a restaurant just days after his pregnant wife, the actress Sharon Tate, was slaughtered by the Charles Manson clan in 1969.
He said it was an "abominable lie" to say that he put his hand on her thigh, as alleged, and told her that he would make "another Sharon Tate" out of her.
The filmmaker, whose credits include Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown and more recently The Pianist, said the allegations, made in 2002 in the American magazine Vanity Fair, whose editor is Graydon Carter, were "the worst things ever written about me".
He made the comments to the High Court in London yesterday where he is suing for damage to his reputation.
In a British legal first, he was allowed to give evidence via a live video link from abroad, to avoid any chance of being extradited to the US. The jury heard that Polanski was working in London in August 1969 when his 26-year-old wife was killed with four friends at their home in Bel Air, California.
The article, celebrating the 40th birthday of the Manhattan restaurant Elaine's, claimed that Polanski stopped off in New York on his way to the funeral.
Quoting the author Lewis Lapham, the story said Polanski tried to seduce a young Swedish woman, to the horror of diners.
"The only time I ever saw people gasp in Elaine's was when Roman Polanski walked in just after his wife Sharon Tate had been viciously murdered by the Manson clan," Mr Lapham was quoted as saying. He said he was with a friend and "the most gorgeous Swedish girl you had ever laid eyes on" when Polanski asked to join them and began "inundating her with his Polish charm".
"I watched as he slid his hand inside her thigh and began a long, honeyed spiel which ended with the promise, 'And I will make another Sharon Tate out of you'."
The magazine has conceded that the event could not have occurred on the way to the funeral because Polanski took a direct flight from London to Los Angeles. But it claims it must have happened just after the funeral and stands by the details. It also says that Polanski, being a fugitive from justice, has no reputation to damage.
Posted 06 February 2019 - 09:59 AM
Roman Polanski‘s suit against Vanity Fair (see Monday’s MobyLives news digest) continued in London yesterday with author and Harper’s Magazine editor Lewis Lapham admitting he made the comments that prompted the suit, and saying he stood by them. As Mike Collett-White reports in a Reuters wire story, Lapham said he was dining with a friend and his girlfriend, a Scandinavian model named Bette Telle, at Elaine’s restaurant in New York when Polanski appeared. According to Collett-White, Lapham testified, “Mr. Polanski pulled up a chair between myself and Beatte Telle and began to talk to her in a forward way … began to praise her beauty, romance her. At one point he had his hand on her leg and said to her ‘I can put you in the movies. I can make you the next Sharon Tate.'” Lapham said, “I was impressed by the remark, not only because it was tasteless and vulgar, but also because it was a cliche.” Telle’s then boyfriend, financier Edward Perlberg, said Telle told him a similar story afterwards. Said Perlberg, “I though this was generally creepy. I think the words that he was a twerp, or to that effect, were used.”
Posted 06 February 2019 - 10:06 PM
We have two candidates for the murder of Sharon Tate and the others at Cielo drive in Beverly Hills in August 1969. Sharon Tate was eight months pregnant with Roman Polanski's unwanted child or possibly a child fathered by Sharon's former lover Jay Sebring who visited her and was murdered with her. Sharon had while pregnant had sex with upcoming actor Christopher Jones. She also smoked tobacco, pot and possibly opium when pregnant. The candidates are the ruthless and sadistic and well connected Polanski who had put pressure on Sharon to have an abortion. And a powerless ex con musician with no motive at all. Who do you arrest try and convict ? There is no hard forensic evidence connecting the musician or his associates to the murders. Polanski kept delaying his return to LA despite the impending birth of his (?) child and the entreaties of his wife. In a really just world you would arrest Polanski. In the real world you arrest the powerless expendable musician, fabricate or plagiarise a ridiculous motive and sentence the musician to death.
Posted 07 February 2019 - 12:13 AM
Irv kanarek, Manson's lawyer:
It wasn't a difficult decision to take the Manson case. My purpose was to fight legally admissible evidence, and the amount of that was scant. His guilt was based on a few hearsay words, inadmissible in court, that he supposedly told this guy to do a number on the Tate residence. No question he was legally innocent. And, more than that, he was actually innocent. There was no evidence connecting him to those murders.
The newspapers, the magazines, the motion pictures got people all excited – Manson as the embodiment of human evil. Charlie wasn't a monster. When you look at the legally admissible evidence, you come to a very different conclusion. Just looking at him from objective considerations, he's a personable person.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users