I have always wondered about this because it would seem to me from the pictures I have seen that this was the size of a normal house and that he could have easily hid from the killers. In Sanders book he says that maybe Garrestson was left alive as sort of a patsy, to take the fall for the murders. To me this makes no sense but what if he was hiding or he went out back?
I believe that in a much later interview, Garrettson has said that he may have gone out back. I read this in another forum but have not heard the interview myself.
I have heard this too, but then he says he notices the doorknob on the cottage was turned too, so it makes you wonder where he was exactly?
I have read that he went out when he took the dogs out and got scared. Pk once testified that she opened the door and saw a lamp on a table but that was all.
And then he has his story where he saw the doorknob turn too. And I would think that at some point someone would stick to their story.
Why? No one else has. I try to sort out which is a lie and which lie is more believable than the other lie.
I recall Garretson saying he might have gone out back & I also heard Katie say that she didn't check the guesthouse.
She has said that she didn't check it several times. But, at least once, she said that she did but only to just open the door.
Garretson claims in a Tv interview he saw PK chase Abey outside. The door to the guest house was faulty. There was a certain knack to opening it,only aware to regular visitors to the guest house. This could explain why the door although tried,did not open. Why did they not just force a door. And if they were looking for something,then why not look every where. I have always thought that they considered Steven to be the Caretaker,and after killing Steven,they had the Caretaker accounted for. If they were looking for drugs they did`nt look hard in the three hours they were there. Maybe it was people they wanted. Someone told the killers just how many people there should be there,including the Caretaker. Why not climb in a window like they did at the main house. Regardless of the guest house,the killers did`nt seem as interested in it as the main house.
Being that Dean Morehouse lived in the guest house for a short period of time, and that Gregg Jakobson places Dean and Tex good friends, I am sure that the mechanics of the guest house were not lost on the murder crew. Where did you get the information that the door was faulty? Maybe, they were not that interested in Billy G., because somehow he was invovled in this. Billy G., in one of his revised stories, claims that a white van gave him a ride back to the house on the evening of the murders. It is all in the Billy G. section under authors in Bill Nelson MBTS. Billy cannot be counted on for anything,let alone the truth.
I read that Garretson supplied the info on the door handle to the cops,in an attempt to prove his innocence and give a reason as to why he was not one of the victims,regarding the fact that he was the only person left alive and a possible witness and not a accomplice or co-defendant. Sadie was the one i read that said she was sent by Tex to go and search the guest house,either with or without PK. Thinking it was locked ,with the handle not turning properly and Steven already dead ,they just walk away,why would they think someone was there.After all they would just think Steven was the Caretaker and had locked the door before leaving the property. I'm sure Garretson after seeing Abey being murdered,did hide all night until the cops found him that morning.
PK is the one who said she went to the guesthouse. Billy had changed his story so much, that to take anything he says as reality would be like taking that Rosie Polanski was indeed the daughter of Sharon. Being that Billy bought this, and I think married her, should speak for his credibility alone.
Also, if said door handle was touched---where are the fingerprints? If you said they really didnt pay much attention to the guest house, then there would be no wiping of fingerprints. Thusly, I would imagine, that the one who turned the handle's prints would still be there.
The prints would be in blood. It depends on what type of handle the guest house had. And if it did have a handle that did not work properly then most prints would be smudged due to the extra pressure needed and the repetitive motion in trying to turn the handle So many prints would be on the handle,one over another. Commonly used items very rarely provide any real obvious suspect. At most it just places you at Cielo at some time,although it would be hard to explain if you`re prints were there. Even if only one attacker left just one single print on just on object,it only points to him/her being there,it wont aportanate blame or point to the amount of involvement they contributed to. I meant they did not search the guest house or attempt entry.If they were looking for drugs then the large size of the guest house would be a place to look in. I don't know if the point of the door handle being tried or not tried will help much,regardless of prints being found and wiped or not found. Garretson and the killers all have vague memories regarding the murders and its just speculation as to Garretson exact involvement that night.
I believe PK testified at one parole hearing she entered the guesthouse and found no one there. So, if she could leave a bloody print on the door in the main house, one would think there would be on the handle of the guesthouse as well. Wonder if it was ever checked?
Of course, all of this is speculation. We are dissatisfied with the results. We do not believe the story that was told. Isn't that what we are here for?
It would be worth checking out all the print information.its possible rather than probable that there is info that can help once and for all ,end the speculation and we could talk about the facts.
I can't say that I support any of these theories. I simply don't want to exclude one out of hand because someone does not favor it. A theory should be excluded because it has been proven untrue.
