Talk:Tate–LaBianca murders

Dates of murders
The dates of the murders are inconsistent throughout the article ... some mention of August 8 ... some mention of August 9 ... some mention of August 10, etc. Can someone who knows the accurate dates clean this up? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The murderers left for the Tate-Polanski residence late at night, but before midnight, on August 8. They arrived shortly after midnight, so by then it was technically August 9. Same with the Labianca murders---the murderers left Spahn Ranch before midnight on August 9, but the murders occurred after midnight on what was technically August 10.
 * Although the date changes at midnight, many people don't think of the next day arriving until the sun rises. That's why you sometimes hear the Tate murders occurred on August 8 and sometimes on August 9, and why you sometimes hear the Labianca murders occurred on August 9 and sometimes on August 10. 2600:6C5D:5A00:B1D:12:8CFF:FEE0:887E (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Unborn baby
I don't believe the sources back up anyone being convicted of this murder or it being counted as a person. If I'm mistaken, please provide clarity. The lead doesn't even state how along in pregnancy Tate was. This is a very confusing thing to read in the lead of a Wikipedia article. If someone has further information with a reliable source please provide it because you cannot expect a reader to objectively understand this. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, to clarify, we could say eight month pregnant Tate without listing her fetus as a person. However, if is listed separately it needs clarification. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging   for further discussion to hopefully resolve this. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * There are many murders that go without a prosecution. It doesn't make the person any less dead.  As to whether the fetus is a person in the eyes of the law is immaterial.  There are two of you trying to make this political.  Yes, the fetus was not directly killed, but the murder of Tate led to the murder of her child.  The real answer to this is, how do you clarify?  Writing needs clarification isn't clarification.  So clarify.  5 adults and one unrequested abortion?  Of course her late stage of pregnancy horrified the nation.  Of course it was seen as murder of the fetus.  It is just obvious you are one of the people making this political.  5 or 6 people as long as they are identified the correct information is given.  Would you correct a woman and tell her she didn't lose her baby through miscarriage, she lost a fetus?  If I go to Hilaria Baldwin's page, how will that be phrased?  Personally I don't think her pregnancy needs mentioned there because it is repetitive.  The other person demanding it be mentioned there is the other person making it political.  It doesn't need mentioned every time Tate is mentioned.  This is about the murders, not personhood.  Both are insulting to all life lost. This article isn't about furthering agendas.   Alexander R. Burton (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Here are the factual issues that makes me think this needs clarification. The child was not stabbed and survived the murders. So, it was not killed. Right now we are saying it was killed but the facts don't back that up. The autopsy doesn't back that up. The other issue I see is saying it was a person. I'm not sure this is accurate. I wouldn't expect another reader to understand that without clarity either. It died because later because it was living in a dead womb which to me indicates that it was not yet independent from its mother's body. So, maybe we can say that but again without clarity it's confusing.


 * As far as other pages or personal politics, I have no interest in talking about that here because I don't think they come in to play when discussing the facts and clarifying these issues for the reader. I know you're new. So I'll let you know when discussing something on Wikipedia we do our best to stick to the specific topic. If we make things personal, bring in our own subjective beliefs, or discuss other pages we'll get nowhere on this specific issue. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It was not seen as the murder of the fetus because the fetus survived the attack. Please familiarize yourself with this. This is why we need clarity. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You are bringing more into this. Don't patronize me.  What is the logical conclusion one can reach about a living fetus in a dead woman? Would creating a situation that leaves someone without oxygen be considered murder? The autopsy says he suffocated.   How is that not a direct, logical result of killing a pregnant person?  A 8 month fetus being called a person confuses you?  What is the confusion exactly.  Let me help you get this rewritten.  So it wasn't murder of a fetus.  Asphyxiation of a fetus?   Alexander R. Burton (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * According to one of the prominent sources, i.e. Bugliosi, the unborn child was indeed murdered. The Manson family knew Sharon Tate was pregnant, and it was their intention to kill the unborn baby. We must stay true to the cited sources. Antique Rose 00:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Please indent your responses. We need more voices on this to reach a consensus. We would need a credible source to say anything you just said. And again, don't take or make this personal or it's going to make the process a lot harder. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll provide an autopsy report that says otherwise. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I will have to check where but I did just read there was debate on whether to take the child or not. They chose not to. They had to know the logical result, but I think what is there now is something we all can agree on. 5 murdered and a fetus left to asphyxiate. Alexander R. Burton (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Here's Tate's autopsy for starters. Looking for police report as well. http://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Celebs/tate,%20sharon_report.pdf Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't said they did stab or try to cut the baby out. That is what this is about. The didn't murder the fetus with a knife, but they did murder it. They left it in a dead woman. And if I can find the source, they talked about cutting out implying they knew at that stage it was viable. If I can't find it, so be it, but the fetus is an intended victim when one murders an 8 month pregnant person. There is no other conclusion. Any limitation of the article is a limitation of the language. Fetus is not the common term in a celebrated pregnancy. To make dead is to kill, to murder, to slaughter etc. All come with emotional interpretation, but murder and kill both seem in the spirit if not exact in legal terms, but this isn't a legal document. Alexander R. Burton (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I can't argue what their intention was. I don't know how level headed tweaked out psycho killers are. I don't know if they even thought about it. They weren't charged or convicted of that murder though and then assigning personhood to the fetus becomes another issue. Their actions led to the death. But as it is now that's clearly stated. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Would you correct a woman and tell her she didn't lose her baby through a miscarriage, she lost a fetus?"
 * Yes, I would. I have.  I am that passionate, in this climate, about using the correct terminology. 2600:6C5D:5A00:B1D:A82E:7EC0:22D9:A017 (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Either way, "neonatal" means newborn, less than 28 days old. The baby was not born, so "neonatal" is not the correct terminology. Perhaps "(Unborn)" would be more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.52.214 (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Sharon's Treatment & Jay's Subsequent Death
I noticed that the section of the main article which describes how Sharon and Jay were tied by a noose to the rafters of the house seems to be inaccurate, or at the very least it is not sourced at all in the article. All other accounts I have read state that they were only tied together after they had been killed, and that Jay stood in protest when Sharon and the others were harshly handled and tied up. I also read a different source which says that the victims were instructed to lie on their fronts, and Jay protested against this. It seems there are several conflicting sources as to what caused Jay to confront Charles Watson, but I find it unlikely that he would be able to do that with a noose around his neck, tied to a rafter. If someone with more evidence and time to research this could fix the article that would be great, thank you. N2O Calico (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Quincy Jones
A number of celebrities have claimed to have been invited to the "party" at Cielo Drive on August 8, 1969, but for whatever reason, did not go. In fact, no "party" was ever planned and there is no evidence that anyone other than Jay Sebring and Sandy Tennant, the wife of Roman Polanski's business manager William Tennant, were ever invited to the residence that night. It's obvious that these party invitations never existed and are a product of the great notoriety of the murders coupled with either the fevered imagination of and/or attention-seeking behavior on the part of the "invitees". Therefore, I don't see why the word of Quincy Jones, when he says that he "had planned to join him (Jay Sebring) that evening but did not go" should be taken as gospel or why it should be included in this article. 2600:6C5D:5A00:B1D:A82E:7EC0:22D9:A017 (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CALIFORNIA DREAMING, THE GOLDEN STATE'S RHETORICAL APPEALS
— Assignment last updated by Phrynefisher (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)