The Garretson Enhancement [MansonMurders.com Backup]

7/27/2019 The Garretson Enhancement [MansonMurders.com Backup]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-garretson-enhancement-mansonmurderscom-backup 1/6

02/06/03

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

n 6 29-01-2010 12:34



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 bodiesthat 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-mailmessages, 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!


n 6 29-01-2010 12:34



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 policeinterviews. 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 hadknowledge, 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 torun. 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


n 6 29-01-2010 12:34



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 bebelievable 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, statementsintended 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 atelevision 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


n 6 29-01-2010 12:34



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 Kingtold 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 theproducer 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.


n 6 29-01-2010 12:34



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 readingmy e-mail and publishing my updates I went out for a few hours. When I returned home therewas 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 bereproduced or transmitted in any way. Interesting! His fax was dated July 22, 1999 and sent tome at 15:44 July 23, 1999. My! How formal and legal we get after we get what we want. Heexpressed 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 mayhave made if he indeed did see Folger fleeing. Once again, I have left a recorded message atthe home of William Garretson and he has failed to respond.


Documents

The Garretson Enhancement [MansonMurders.com Backup]