31
One of the better medieval astrologers who is sometimes overlooked is Abu Ali Al Khayyat (c. 770 ? c. 835). James Holden translated his work The Judgment of Nativities and it is available from AFA. Looking at Sheppard?s Jupiter we see it is in domicile, in a nocturnal chart with one tight aspect, a sextile to Venus in Aquarius in the second. Al-Khayyat tells us:

?But if it (Jupiter) is in his own domicile in a diurnal chart, he (the native) will be fortunate, and rich, beloved also and powerful among kings and princes. But if the birth is nocturnal, he will be the contrary of what we have said. For he will be obliged to acquire his living daily, and he will say those things that are not and never were, and he will have connection with religious men, or he will be a leader in law or religion.?

This is quite a bit to draw from a single placement, and, as is typical with the medieval writers, it is an extreme example. I have Jupiter in Sagittarius in a diurnal chart and if I?m beloved and powerful among kings and princes, I haven?t noticed. What is interesting is the emphasis on sect. Jupiter is a diurnal planet. Sagittarius is a diurnal sign (Pisces is nocturnal), but being placed in a nocturnal chart not only denies the good things promised by Jupiter, it reverses them. So the native is unfortunate, and unbeloved by the powerful people in society. But also notice that the things associated with Jupiter, whether the native will have them or not, are wealth and nobility. Sheppard was well off financially, but he had to ?acquire his daily living? as opposed to being independently wealthy.

Of course looking at Sam Sheppard?s chart and knowing his story we cannot help but be struck by the phrase, ? ? he will say those things that are not and never were,? particularly with Jupiter opposing his 7th cusp. Jupiter is also on the malefic fixed star Antares that Robson associates with self destructive behavior. Despite the greater benefic being in domicile, this does not appear to be a particularly healthy ascendant ruler.

Tom

32
.
.

I'm glad you brought this chart back to the forefront. I finally took time to really analyze it more closely and this is what I come up with:

As I had written before (which you did not agree with Tom), I do not believe he had a part of fortune but in fact it became the part of MIS - fortune in his 4th, being in the sign of Pisces. This is further indicated by it being opposed by the Moon, which is moving to MC to show scandal and misfortune in the 4th. Moon is in Virgo: Mercury is in its detriment and fall in Virgo. This gives even a worse placement for the POF when being opposed by the Moon.

The moon has just separated by only a couple of degrees in its sextile to the Strong Mars in Scorpio 12th when it opposed the Part of fortune. Then Mars is willingly trining this Part of MIS-fortune in 4th. Mars also rules his 5th house of passion = Heat of passion crime perhaps which accounts for the poor planning in the whole affair.

Mars in Scorpio is very overpowering and its urges - depending on its house placement, can be hard if not impossible to ignore. (I speak from experience having it in Scorpio in my 9th which compels to an obsession with 9th house matters, astrology, law, higher powers, what is fair, etc.)

Mars in Scorpio says: I will not be ignored! as the villainess played by Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction said. For him, it was in his 12th. His 12th house of self-undoing may just have been too strong for him to resist. This would seem confirmed by the other factors listed above.

At first glance, you'd never think such a thing might happen to someone with Jupiter in Sag. on the ASC. But Jupiter was also Squared by the South Node in Pisces, sign of 4th and North Node sign of 10th. The nodes are in the 3rd and 9th, lower and higher mind. Mercury and Jupiter are also not getting along here when looking at their placements. Jupiter is in its fall in Mercury's placement and Mercury is in its detriment in Jupiter's placement. South node is in Pisces, North Node in Virgo. Jupiter sits on ASC and squared both in the houses of lower and higher mind. Nodes can lead to crisis and disaster when placed badly and hit by negative aspect as they are here.

Then look where Mercury - who plays such a dominant role in the chart is located: the 2nd house - what he produces in life. It is also his name/reputation 10th ruler. What is produced by his reputation and name is 11th house and is where Mercury?s dispositor, Saturn, is placed. Saturn squares the part of Substance and Saturn is Lord of Substance, in his lower mind third house! Part of Substance is used when the Part of Fortune is unusable in the chart. Here, both are unfortunate.

Then Saturn trines south node in Pisces in third as well. He applied his efforts and his name and reputation in such a way to produce nothing good. Mercury makes no applying aspect in the same sign and so Saturn does its work. And what/who is Lord of Saturn? Mars, strong in Scorpio, ruler of his own house, that house being 12th of self undoing. Mars being in the 12th, ruler of his own house means HE rules it, not some secret enemy. He was his own worst enemy. Mars would not allow another to come in and control matters of his own house.

Finally, Mars had just recently passed over Saturn (its last conjunction) and brought with it in life the nature which such combination produces: Mars/Saturn combination will bring the native into contact with violence and death at some point in their life whether by their own doing or someone else?s. Here, it is HIS doing. His Mars, His 12th ruler, king of his house of self undoing. The out of sign Square to Saturn by Mercury in his lower mind 3rd and ruler of fate 10th, is the final nail in the coffin here.

I?ve no doubts about it after finally studying it. I am with Deb on this one. Sam Sheppard brutally murdered his wife.

RC

33
Hi RC,

Lots of good stuff here.

As I had written before (which you did not agree with Tom)
You will find that in this area, you will have a great deal of company.

Mars in Scorpio is very overpowering and its urges - depending on its house placement, can be hard if not impossible to ignore.
I like this and I think it gives us some real food for thought. Let's put aside the house placement for the moment. Mars in Scorpio is passion, it is or can be obsession. Mars is very strong in Scorpio, but Scorpio is a feminine or receptive sign. Mars in Scorpio is likely to represent passive aggression more than the overt actions of Mars in Aries. Furthermore planets in domicile are strong and unless seriously afflicted, well behaved. Mars in Libra is far more likely to cause harm or represent an evil act than is Mars in Scorpio.

What happens to planets in the 12th house? The stock answer is that they have a difficult time "getting out." This Mars then is suppressed, not that suppressed Mars can never emerge. It is just more difficult. But whatif it does? It's a strong Mars in domicile - comfortable in his surroundings. We might wonder if his excessive drinking wasn't the result of trying to keep his Mars in check. I just don't see this Mars as particularly malefic, while admitting the 12th house placement to be problematic.

But Jupiter was also Squared by the South Node in Pisces, sign of 4th and North Node sign of 10th.
I've never found aspects to the nodes to be of much value, except partile squares, and here Jupiter is over 4 degrees out of perfection.
Finally, Mars had just recently passed over Saturn (its last conjunction) and brought with it in life the nature which such combination produces: Mars/Saturn combination will bring the native into contact with violence and death at some point in their life whether by their own doing or someone else?s.
Mars last aspect was to the Moon. His last conjunction was to Saturn, but in Libra, the sign of Saturn's exaltation and Mars' detriment. I don't know whether that would affect your analysis or not.

I?ve no doubts about it after finally studying it. I am with Deb on this one. Sam Sheppard brutally murdered his wife.
One of the supreme ironies of this case is that after all the appeals and all the trials, Sheppard was acquitted, but a subsequent jury determined he (actually his estate, he was dead by this time) was not entitled to compensation for wrongful conviction. What they are saying is that his guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt, but that doesn't mean he didn't do it or that he was wrongfully convicted. This is what the first jury should have found. I think he was wrongfully convicted, but I'm not 100% sure is innocent of the crime. This is what makes the case so interesting more than half a century after the verdict. It is, as I'm sure more than one observer has noted, the Lizzie Bordon case of the 20th century.

For those who are not familiar with that one, in the 1890s in Massachusetts, a husband and wife were found brutally murdered with an axe in their home in separate rooms. The only person home was the husband's daughter, Lizzie Bordon. The murdered woman was his second wife, his first, Lizzie's mother, had passed away. The trial was sensational, as it appeared that the only person who could have killed them was Lizzie, yet there wasn't a shred of physical evidence to tie her to the crime.

Two things are necessary to prove a murder in court: intent and opportunity. Motive is not required, but juries like it so prosecutors try to provide it. Lizzie had opportunity, but no one could prove intent (if a credible witness saw her swinging the axe, that would be evidence of intent). Sheppard's case was identical in that respect. Lizzie had motive. She hated her stepmother and with both her and her father out of the way she and her sister inherited a substantial amount of money. Sheppard had no strong motive, although the prosecution argued he was having an affair and wanted his wife out of the way. In other words he may have proved motive, but that is irrelevant.

Unlike Sheppard, Bordon was acquitted, but doubts linger to this day. If she did do it, how did she manage to avoid getting so much as a drop of blood on her clothing? [One possibility is that she committed the crimes in the nude, washed herself, got dressed, and then "discovered" the bodies] Sheppard should have been acquitted, too. His story may have been fantastic, but the system requires that the state prove his guilt. He does not have to prove his innocence. The bulk of the state's case rested on two facts: his wife was brutally murdered while he was in the house, and he had a girlfriend, i.e. he had motive and opportunity - but where is the intent?. This does not mean he didn't do it, but it does mean he should have been acquitted, just like Lizzie Bordon. We would all like him to be guilty because it feels better knowing we imprisoned a man who may have been wrongfully convicted, but did it. Oh well we goofed, but so what? He got what was coming to him.

Thanks for sharing all your work RC.

Tom

34
Tom wrote:Hi RC,

Mars in Scorpio is passion, it is or can be obsession. Mars is very strong in Scorpio, but Scorpio is a feminine or receptive sign. Mars in Scorpio is likely to represent passive aggression more than the overt actions of Mars in Aries.
Tom


Scorpio, feminine, is more about re-acting than acting. Mars likes to act however so you have an inherent struggle there.

But Mars will bide his time and not act unless pricked. But then pushed into Re-acting, by whatever the thing might be, he can be relentless, if unchecked and if Saturn is in play, then there is a violent re-action.

I first read of this saturn/mars combination and the tendency to expose one to a violent act involving firearms in George Llewellyn's book (A-Z). (Here there was a blunt object used as a weapon rather than firearm though wasn't it?) I have since seen it to be true. He was an amazing astrologer and very very under-rated IMO.

What was Sam Sheppard re-acting to?? We could dig into that some more. Her pregancy, her affair - if that was true that he thought she had one... both are 5th house matters.

RC

35
What was Sam Sheppard re-acting to?? We could dig into that some more. Her pregancy, her affair - if that was true that he thought she had one... both are 5th house matters.
This goes to motive, and the assumption is that he must have had a motive in order to kill her and if we discover the motive, we will have pinned the guilt on him. If Mars is sufficiently nasty, motive is all that is required. But this isn't true. All the motive in the world does not equal guilt. Kennedy conspiracy buffs do this, too. They line up any and all people, groups, etc that they believe had a motive to kill Kennedy and if they are satisfied with motive, then, in their minds, guilt naturally follows. However this is not logical. Any of us could have motive to see a particular person dead, but if that person ends up dead, it does not follow that we killed the person.

As bizzare as Sheppard's alibi is, it is not as bizzare as what would have had to take place if he were guilty. The Sheppards and another couple were having drinks the night of the murder at the Sheppard's house after dinner. Sam, who worked long hours that day, fell asleep. The other couple left while he was sleeping. The other couple testified that there were no harsh words, no arguments, no snippy comments of any kind between the Sheppard's that night, but Marilyn did confess some marital difficulties that night.

So if Sam killed Marilyn, he would have woken up after the company left, and gone upstairs where she was already in her night clothes. Perhaps she thought it was a good time to confess an affair (one for which no evidence exists), or confront him with his, or ask for a divorce etc. Whatever, he flies into a homicidal rage, battering his pregnant wife's brains in with a blunt instrument that happened to be in the bedroom, but maintains the presence of mind to keep quiet while doing it so as not to wake his son who was sleeping less than 30 feet away, thereby exhibiting a combination of uncontrollable muderous passion and premeditated killing. He somehow comes across some blood that is neither his nor Marilyn's and places it on his pants to establish an alibi that will not help him until DNA is discovered and used in court years after he dies. Despite not planning the murder he throws a cigarette butt into the bedroom toilet that he happened to be carrying around since neither he nor Marilyn smoke. He takes a blunt object, possibly the murder weapon* and inflicts an injury to himself in such a position that it is nearly impossible to be self inflicted, nearly kills himself doing it and falls into unconsciousness. Then he wakes up and hides the murder weapon where it will never be found even though he never left his property, along with the object he used to hit himself, if he used something other than the murder weapon. He figures he can cover up all this with the story of fighting off a bushy haired stranger, which, despite its utter implausibility, makes more sense than what the prosecution will argue.

He either killed her in a fit of passion, which is not first degree murder, or he planned it, and the bushy haired stranger is all he could think of after all this careful planning. We can't have it both ways. Sam Sheppard may have killed his wife, but if he did, no one has yet to figure out how he did it with the known facts. Speculation without evidence is useless; it only goes to opportunity, which we know he had. Motive and opportunity are not enough. This case, as goofy as as the defendant's alibi is, leaves plenty of room for reasonable doubt.

Tom

*If he murdered his wife, the injury to his head had to be self inflicted unless there was a conspiracy of some kind, and there is no evidence to support that, although F. Lee Bailey, Sheppard's lawyer offerred that possibility in 2000. Therefore he would have either used the murder weapon or something else. If he used the murder weapon there would have been some of Marylin's blood on his body transferred from the weapon; there was none. So he must have hid the murder weapon then used something else on himself and ultimately hid that. Obviously all of this is senseless.

36
Your arguments against his murdering her all sound logical. But murders don't always make sense and are not always planned as well as they could be. He looks rather cold blooded to me.

If he bludgeoned her, the child would not necessarily have heard anything. Rather than shouting, he could have been seething between clenched teeth, his anger possessing him like a demonic entity, his jealousy uncontrolled (or whatever it was), and with a barely controlled but low tone, he accuses her. She sais something back that further enrages him :twisted: and he reaches for the nearest object, silencing her forever.... With one blow she was knocked unconsious, without the chance to utter a word or scream, the only sound, the thud that would silence her forever, fierce enough to kill and yet not awake a sleeping child next door. He then proceeds to stage the scene.

(Scene fades to black... Francis Ford Capolla, where are you? )

So much for my screen writing skills...

I am not anywhere near as familiar with the case as you are. Only looking at his chart and that 12th house Mars and the Saturn and Mercury placements. I just don't think any secret enemies would get past his own worst enemy - his own 12th ruler. Its too strong and had last conjoined Saturn before birth.

But having said that, if I were on a jury, and the evidence were presented properly, (perhaps with you arguing the case) I could vote to acquit.

But I'm not thinking like a lawyer now, just judging the chart. They don't always agree with what we present to the world.

RC

37
But I'm not thinking like a lawyer now, just judging the chart. They don't always agree with what we present to the world.
This is a valid point on several levels. We can look at a chart and perhaps find valid things that are not generally known or in the public arena, and conversely I've seen astrologers "find" things in a chart that are manifestly untrue. For example two well known American astrologers were battling it out in the pages of The Mountain Astrologer Magazine over the significance of I think Pluto, found in some chart or other, in the meeting between Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby that supposedly took place prior to the Kennedy assassination. Small problem: there isn't a shred of evidence that they ever met. There are claims galore but they tend to fall into the category of one conspiracy author quoting another neither of which has any evidence of the meeting. Yet two astrologers pointing out this that and the other thing in the chart or charts as proof, mind you, that something that did not happen happened. There is also an all too common belief among mundane astrologers that the cosmos arrange themselves in order to validate their beliefs. We have to be careful.

It is one thing, as you have done, to look at Sam Sheppard's chart and come to the conclusion that he is guilty. At this point there doesn't seem to be any way to definitively prove that you are right or wrong. You argue what you see - fine. It is quite another to state, without proof, that guilt is incontrovertible and therefore what you see in the chart must be this or that, which is what the two astrologers cited above did without evidence. Faith is fine in religion; we need more in court.

With one blow she was knocked unconscious, without the chance to utter a word or scream, the only sound, the thud that would silence her forever, fierce enough to kill and yet not awake a sleeping child next door.
And this is what probably happened except that it does not fit the typical husband-wife fight scenario. I don't know if you are or ever have been married, but when married couples get into a good fight it doesn't begin with a blow to the head with a blunt instrument. It escalates. Sarcasm becomes anger, becomes verbal abuse. Voices get louder and louder. It usually doesn't get worse than that but when it does the physical abuse begins after all that - not before. Recall Sam Sheppard has no history of violent behavior.

Now if there were an intruder, he would likely subdue his victim first without saying a word. His rage would be held in check sufficiently to try keep from drawing attention to his actions. He probably would have made enough noise to at least wake Sam, which is what Sam claimed.

This scenario has problems, too. Serious problems. So the intruder decides to break into the house using a key (no forced entry), or perhaps the door was open, to do what? It would take a pretty brazen thief to do that, but it is not unheard of. Perhaps he thinks everyone will be asleep or maybe all the lights are off so he comes in goes upstairs and rapes and kills Marilyn. Did he say to himself earlier, I think this is a good day to go rape and kill Marylin Sheppard? Yes yes this is motive, but in this scenario we have opportunity and intent, and if the guy was caught red handed we wouldn't need motive, but this makes no sense without an outside perpetrator.

What makes even less sense is that no one woke up regardless of who did it. Marilyn fought for her life. She may have bitten her killer and drew blood (which could explain the small spot of blood on Sam's pants). But none of this is satisfying. The jury wasn't satisfied either so he was convicted of having an affair, and sentenced to life in prison.

As for Mars last conjunction to Saturn indicating death - I'm still alive. I haven't killed anyone either - never even made a plan, and Mars and Saturn are in my 12th (Leo). Better watch it. ;-)

Tom

38
Tom wrote:

As for Mars last conjunction to Saturn indicating death - I'm still alive. I haven't killed anyone either - never even made a plan, and Mars and Saturn are in my 12th (Leo). Better watch it. ;-)

Tom[/color]
How close is the Mars to Saturn? Llewellyn was talking of conjunctions. And it doesn't mean YOU will do the deed but that you may come into contact with such an action, for example witness it. It depends on how placed in the chart. I'll post that example later. Don't have the book nearby right now. But have seen it in any people who had that combo.

Getting back to facts of Sheppard case, some of the assumed *facts* should not be taken as firmly established. For example, his sleeping on that couch. How do we know he was sleeping when the people left? He may have been hoping they would leave and awake. We don't know for a fact he was asleep when any of this happened.

Of course I am aware that my feelings on the chart could be dead wrong. (excuse the pun) I would never acquit or convict anyone based on my astrological analysis (or anyone else's) if I were on a jury and were allowed to have a laptop with my astrology software in the jury room. I am not that confident in my abilities at understanding the planets. If I were, I'd be placing bets on today's football games! :lol:

RC

39
How close is the Mars to Saturn?
Saturn 18 Leo; Mars 26 Leo; ASC 29 Leo. If we use the five-degree rule Mars is in the first. Now I just realized this situation may be different since both Mars and Saturn are retrograde. I looked at the ephemeris and it appears as though Mars last conjunction was with Saturn in Leo when both were direct. Mars passed Saturn then went Rx, but would not conjunct Saturn Again. When you find the reference, please give the edition. A to Z has been around a long time.
For example, his sleeping on that couch. How do we know he was sleeping when the people left?
It doesn't matter much. The visiting couple said he was asleep when they left. There is no reason to doubt it, as it makes no difference. He could have just as easily stayed awake after they left, said good bye waited for them to be long gone and then killed her. Marilyn was found in her night clothes and he never changed according to witnesses who saw him the night before. So for what ever reason, she got ready for bed and he didn't.

The purpose in mentioning his early sleep is to establish that there were no harsh words between them prior to the company leaving. If I recall this correctly The Sheppard's and another couple went to dinner at the home of a third, I think the home of the mayor and his wife. After the two couples left, they stopped at the Sheppard's for drinks. Sam went into another room to sleep. If he faked it to establish an alibi, it was a goofy one.

Here is another tidbit: students of the crime who think he did do it or was involved pose a conspiracy (ahhh what would life be without conspiracies?). They claim (without evidence) that Marylin was having an affair with the mayor and his wife came over and confronted Marylin (after she was in bed?) and killed her. Sam, being a good buddy of the mayor's helped cover up the crime to protect they mayor's wife. I find this preposterous, but (ahhh what would life be without "but?") it was noted that the mayor and his wife had a fire in their home fireplace that night. They said it was cold. Other's said they were burning bloody clothes. After all, who has a fire in the fireplace on the 4th of July weekend? Cleveland is not that far north.

All of this of course is pure conjecture, and admitedly fun to play with. I'm not much on conspiracies, particularly one that requires me to believe that Sam Sheppard would cover up the murder of the mother of his child and carrying another to protect his friend's wife. 'Oh she killed my wife? Sure I'll help protect her. What are friends for?"

Have a good one.

Tom

40
Tom wrote:
How close is the Mars to Saturn?
When you find the reference, please give the edition. A to Z has been around a long time.Tom[/color]
Hi Tom,

Any A-Z edition after 1972 should have same page. I have two of the reprints after 72 and both are same.
Page 589, "I once shocked a client, when after looking at his natal...."

Also of interest here would be page 393 on Mars in 12th. There was another section but haven't found it yet.


RC

41
I have the 1981 edition and page 589 is in the index. Could you please give me a heading or section or chapter of your reference. If I recall 1972 was one of the better editions.

Just so you'll know, Llewellyn George was a student of John Hazelrigg who was a student of Luke Broughton. In other words he had a good pedigree. He was a tireless supporter of astrology, astrologers, and astrological organizations. Holden gives his dates as 1879 - 1951, and in the following line lists his date of death as July 11, 1954. The latter is probably correct, and the former simply a typo.

I hope you can narrow down the reference. A to Z is one of my favorite astrology books.

Tom

42
Tom wrote: I have the 1981 edition and page 589 is in the index. Could you please give me a heading or section or chapter of your reference. If I recall 1972 was one of the better editions.

Tom
I'm surprised at that. My book's table of contents starts at page 791. Its not big print so I wonder what they've left out of the later editions?

We are talking of A - Z Horoscope Maker and Delineator, A Textbook of Astrology?

The quote I'm speaking of is from what my book lists at top of each page heading

Part V. Additional Studies The subsection is:
The Fourth Trigon of Houses: Fourth - Eighth - Twelfth.

Looking in the table of contents, it is listed under "Trigons, Triplicity of Sign... and Trigonal description of the twelve houses" which starts at page 581 in my book, so about 8 pages after that section begins.

If your book doesn't have that section, let me know.

Tom wrote:
Just so you'll know, Llewellyn George was a student of John Hazelrigg who was a student of Luke Broughton. In other words he had a good pedigree.

Tom
Thanks. I didn't know that. I'll have to look for some of their work if I don't already have it. But as I had just told Deb the other day when looking for more on him, I am one of his biggest fans. I had PM'd her to ask if she knew of any books he'd written on horary since she seems to know everything that's out there ever written.

He has a bit on horary in this one so I know he did a lot of horary readings during his life but its just bits of it here and there in the book and I have been blown away by some of his analysis at times, both natal and horary.

RC