Have efforts been (request of family, etc.) made with modern forensics and technology to reexamine information that was taken (and documented) from the crime scene (Tate residence) and victimes. For example liver temperatures of victims, blood or DNA on the buck knives, the clothing of the killers (blood, sweat, skin cells, hair samples). Obviously the outcomes don't change but a clarity about sequence of events and possibly converge on motive(s) (Helter Skelter, copy cat killings, drug transaction gone awry, thrill killing, etc.). Thank you Joe
I don't know, but I can see a lot of reasons it wouldn't have happened since the appeals. Foremost - Legally it's case closed and the Prosecution scenario won so that's the legally authoritative one (it stands regardless if all details or even the big picture is reality). So there would be no justice reason for the State to reexamine evidence at quite a cost to taxpayers. That's not a thing victims can ask for, as the evidence is not theirs and wasn't gathered for their curiosity or use. And it would not be in the interests of the State either to initiate reexamining of evidence in case inconsistencies are found - this could expose them to both embarrassment, and maybe legal risk. At the appeal stage or some time after that Atkins found out her knife was bloodless - leading her to question if she actually had stabbed Voytek - or instead had missed. Reexamoning would likely only happen (guessing here - ask Diligaffe) if some new facts presented that threw doubt on the guilt of a party and their lawyer was successful in thereby seeking a review of salient evidence that could clear them - in light of new info. For example Texes identical twin comes forward and claim he did it not Tex but Tex saved his life by not ratting him, so his counsel may seek to go back to look at if new tech can match the partial fingerprints on the gun to Mr Twin. Leading to a pardon or whatever the US equivalent may be... presumably. IMO it's not forensic evidence that would clarify motive - but consideration of the facts the Judge prevented exploration of in the trial eg Manson prevented from questioning about the drugs found in the Tate house - and consideration of the fact that Bernard Crowe gave two different dates for the shooting of him, one pre ?Tate or Hinmann, the other (whilst standing next to his minder the Prosecutor, after. IMO they colluded to switch dates to strengthen the HS motive versus some credible alternatives. Your q is interesting given that I just asked a colleague, with more distance than myself from the subject matter to do a belated SA forensic psy assessment, giving a view to legal sanity verdict based on material I've gathered that was not available to the Court at the time e.g. reports about her behaviour from later books interviews with those present at Spahn, and new science and studies about the rare psych diagnosis that she received in '70. He declined to even do an unofficial off the record "just for interest" one, due to a few issues like that info gathered not close in time to an offence can be less reliable. However, he did make extensive comments going to 10 pages which lead me into new avenues of inquiry. Just based on info I provided he thought her much mad, a tad bad, and wasn't up to first degree level but likely (dependent on more info I couldn't furnish) ought to have still been convicted, of something like manslaughter and (based on local sentencing norms) sentenced to a secure psych facility indefinitely, possibly for life, to receive care rather than punishment. I thought that was harsh, but the guy is trusted as objective.
Thank you for your responses. After reading your comments it does seem the case is closed (as per the DA, prosecutor's office) and won't be reopened. The "facts" (body temp. of liver, blood in the house, Atkins buck knife, clothing thrown out the window by LK, participants reports) don't necessarily converge on truth about how events unfolded at the Tate residence. In Coming Down Fast, Bruce Davis' quotation (Ch. 13) "The crimes are just the fruit of the tree.... etc." hits the nail on the head. BD should know, there are crimes that happened and he is a suspect without direct connection. There are quite a few out there that would want to know more about the factors (behavioral, emotional, and cognitive) leading up to and occurring during the homicides. I'm hoping one day the truth(s) will emerge. Apparently, without additional evidence or legal reasons the reevaluation and possible reinterpretation will not occur. Joe
I don't believe legal outcomes and victors always define history. Courts do get it wrong, rapists get off, case facts as accepted on record can be wrong, innocents are convicted. The accepted or mainstream view in future will have a lot to do with any consensus that can be reached - as reflected in films and literature and media and academic papers and even the Truth about TLB website content. In fact its content and the dialogue that occurs here may be seminal in helping piece it all together. Historians have a duty to consult multiple sources in their analysis of what likely "went down" and should do so with a bit of time distance (now is good or afte any further death bed memoirs such as Susans) - as after dust settles is a better time to assess. We'd all be saved a lot of trouble if CM would just level with himself and us. A 303 down his gullet might help but I'm not sur we can organise a trip to the Bay.
