Being trying to track down the 2nd homicide report on the LaBiancas...Bugliosi mentioned it in HS, and said Manson was at that point mentioned as a suspect.. It hasn't come to light yet...any ideas on how to see if it exists and how to get it?
It has to exist as it would be a follow up to the initial report, most likely by the detective assigned. You can bet your bippy that in such a high profile case, it's in existence in some form. It would not be lost in the sauce, no matter what they say. You could file a FOIA with the lead agency - LAPD FOIA= Freedom of Information Act. I would contact whatever their equivalent of central records was and ask re the procedure. There should be a fee involved. Different agencies have different policies re the release of reports, info, etc. In a case as old as this, privacy issues for the victims protection, etc. should be different. Certain info will be blocked out. You should never be able to get a copy of a current or recent case for those issues, plus compromising the intelligence in the report. Notice I said should not. Again, I don't know LAPD's policies are. Obviously I'd say the records haven't been sealed since alot of them are all over the internet. But different rules can apply to such a high profile case. Let me know if I can help you walk through it.
I will let you know and the answer right now is yes, please. I think that the report is dated in October, and isn't that way before Sadie and Kitty started talking? I could be mistaken there, and it could be after, thusly the listing of Charlie as a suspect...he was number 11, and I would be interested in seeing the other suspects. (not saying he didnt have anything to do with this, just the reasoning behind it). Also, I have copies of a few of the polygraph tapes, but I really want to get Joe Dorgan, Suzanna LaBerge, Frank Struthers Jr., and the elusive Tommy Harrigan. (who was also represented by Caruso). Would the procedure be the same for that as the report? If the fee is anything like the autopsy report fee of 155.00 for the Steven Parent report, then these ought to be a good chunk of change.
not much, but found this.... "LaBianca Homicide Report" of October 15, 1969, listed eleven suspects. The surprise wasn't with the inclusion of the LaBiancas' adult son and daughter, but rather with the final suspect named to the list. That name was Charles Manson." Tate Homicide Progress Report" of October 22, 1969, listed numerous suspects.
The First Homicide Report I think lists addendums to the first report around the 15 of October.. So this must be a seperate report.. To get to the eleven: 1)William G. 2) Tommy Harrigan 3) Pic Dawson 4) Frank Struthers 5) Susan Struthers 6)Charles Tacot 7)Joe Dorgan And if I add Manson to the list I get 8...I am trying to see who the other three might have been.
It would have the same case number. So if you have the original, you would ask for the follow up detective notes/reports for case #xyz. I'm sure there is a ton of them for this case. I know the report you're talking about. Different agencies call them different things. Sounds like Lil may have located it. Listing the family as suspects is normal, as they have the most to gain from the crime. You usually look at them first. No prob, cats. Let me know.
I remember the first report very well - I typed it - and there was no mention of Manson. In HS, Bugliosi clearly states that Manson is listed at the very bottom of a report (2nd ?) as a suspect. Any chance that the bottom of the first report got cut? Just asking.....
Since the Bug mentions a 2nd report, I am assuming (I know I know) that one exists...the bottom of the first Labiance reports does list the addendums to the first around the same date. I wonder if this is indeed what he meant? But the first report does list suspects and indeed the list does not include Manson.. This is something I find puzzling. And I am still trying to find a date of Sadie and Kitty talking---October seems early, but it could be.
ecnivb, Truly impressive!! Would you care to elaborate? Of course, protecting your privacy comes first. Not all suspects could be mentioned in the initial report. As you develop leads and discard others, the follow up would reflect that. My interest would be what was the catalyst for his name being on there? I'd love to ask the detective assigned. Could you clarify what you mean by cut off? Do you mean intentionally or in the copy?
I have a paper copy of the report and it doesnt look like anything was cut off from it, it looks complete.
[quote author=bbm link=topic=3060.msg25389#msg25389 date=1215591645] ecnivb, Truly impressive!! Would you care to elaborate? Of course, protecting your privacy comes first. Not all suspects could be mentioned in the initial report. As you develop leads and discard others, the follow up would reflect that. My interest would be what was the catalyst for his name being on there? I'd love to ask the detective assigned. Could you clarify what you mean by cut off? Do you mean intentionally or in the copy? [/quote] All I was asking is this: Is there a chance that the copy I have is incomplete? Or is there a second report that nobody has access to? BTW I don't have a source that I can't identify. And the fact that I typed the report here isn't that impressive. ;D
Ok, I wasn't sure if you meant intentionally or inadvertently. Under the discovery rule, all documentation would be available to the defense during the trial. So any amendments to reports would have to be explained. I would think that in such a high profile publicity case you would be extra careful to do everything right. So the defense would have it to, as would the prosecutor's office. Bugliosi was more impressed with the professionalism of the LaBianca detectives, so I am inclined to think it was done correctly. Manson's attorney would (should) want everything which portends to his client = exactly how and why did my client's name appear as a suspect? Remember its his job to discredit the prosecutor's case so he would have turned it inside out looking for improprieties. I'm sure it exists.
[quote author=Lilmagil link=topic=3060.msg25366#msg25366 date=1215553779] not much, but found this.... "LaBianca Homicide Report" of October 15, 1969, listed eleven suspects. The surprise wasn't with the inclusion of the LaBiancas' adult son and daughter, but rather with the final suspect named to the list. That name was Charles Manson." Tate Homicide Progress Report" of October 22, 1969, listed numerous suspects. [/quote] You could try this person "ripper1". They seem to know a lot and authored the above. http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/Goin-Crazy-With-Charlie-159383.html (a fellow canuck who was logged on the attached site just yesterday.)
There is a memorandum from the LASO that Kitty spoke to the cops (LASO) on or about October 12-13, 1969 and implicated Susan in Gary Hinman's murder as well as telling the cops that "Susan had been in a fight where she stabbed some guy in the legs and he had pulled her hair.
E - I was responding to this query by Cats This is something I find puzzling. And I am still trying to find a date of Sadie and Kitty talking---October seems early, but it could be.
[quote author=Jean Harlow link=topic=3060.msg25454#msg25454 date=1215794793] E - I was responding to this query by Cats This is something I find puzzling. And I am still trying to find a date of Sadie and Kitty talking---October seems early, but it could be. [/quote] Sorry, I will shut up now! :-[
