MovieChat Forums > Helter Skelter (2004) Discussion > Linda Kasabian

Linda Kasabian

posted 19 years ago by tovenusandback
78 replies | jump to latest

Between seeing the original Helter Skelter, this version, and also reading everything I can get my hands on, I find myself fascinated by Linda Kasabian. Of course, even by her own admission, she wasn't an angel. But she was a silly hippie girl who got caught up with the wrong people, and it's not hard to see how she could have been totally afraid to leave the ranch since they had Tanya and wouldn't let her leave with her.

I just find her to be a tragic character, even more so knowing that she wasn't able to really put her life together afterwards, has had health and drug problems (including drug offenses). Manson himself in his closing statement at the trial accused her of being a media whore, claiming she would reap all kinds of fame and riches from her testimony. Ironically, she sought no fame or forture from this case and tried to live a quiet life with a new name. I think she's done one interview since the trial. Meanwhile, Manson and the other girls (mostly Susan Atkins) DID become media whores, writing books and doing whatever they could for attention.

Anyway, I feel sorry for her (not the way I feel sorry for the murder victims of course...) and I also give her credit for testifying against Charlies and the family that could not have been easy. I would like Linda to know that even though I am not religious I am saying a prayer for her. I hope she finds peace. I know it sounds hokey but I can't help it. I'm glad this movie told the story from her perspective. A lot of the dialogue and events came directly from her testimony (always backed up by corroborating testimony and evidence - that was an interesting thing about her; no matter how much the defense tried to punch holes in her story and depict her as a spaced-out hippie who didn't know what she was talking about, they failed).

I think it's high time Linda came out and wrote a book or something about her experiences. I know I'd read it. Peace to you Linda wherever you are.

[–] LucretiaBorg 19 years ago

I don't think the family of the victims feal this way.
This will never end for them if they keep making movies, documentaries and worst of all, the criminals can write a book about it later and even turn it into a movie.

That they did this the first time, I could understand that. It was very new, hippies on a killingspree and women and even men that follow some weird little, scary man all the way to hell, because there they will end up, if I had anything to say about it.
I remember a documenaty (I'm from Holland) about the women who followed him and were now in prison ofcause, but now they were much older and even wiser. They all were so sorry about what they did. They couldn't forgive themselves, they never wanted to even speak to manson for years.
I do believe they are sorry, a part of them atleast, especially now they're older and cleaner,
and sure, they would probebly not be no thread to society anymore, but it would be wrong to let them go, not only for the families, but also for sick people like Manson, they have to know that this kind of behaviour is not excepted and you WILL pay the price if you do.
I must say, I'm against deathpenelty, but some people are better of dead. What has Manson done for society since his incarseration, did he contribute in anyway, did we learn from him, as a study for serialkillers and massmurderers and psycho's? I don't think so, from most of these criminals we can learn, but Manson is far gone, his mind is mush, he's almost insane, but luckely not legally insane, 'cause then he would be maybe out of the looneyben (?bad grammer?) by now.

About Linda Kasabian. I would be very dissapointed if she wrote a book. Why does she have to make money of a tragedy, she was a part of in the beginning, she was just smart enough to make a deal with the prosicution, but that doesn't make her special in my book, I call that asking for redemption or forgifness and only the victems families can give that to here, not some book!!

"If only the good people go to Heaven, it must be a boring place"

[–] bredlau3 19 years ago

yeah Linda has pretty told her story at the trial, and in an interview on Hard Copy ( I believe it was that show) in the late 80's. I don't think she would have much more to say on it.

[–] tovenusandback 19 years ago

oh, i dont know about that. Putting aside the ethical issue for a moment about profiting from this tragedy (the way Bugliosi has), I'd imagine Linda would have a lot of interesting insight into life on the ranch and the various players. She spent a couple months there and got to know them all pretty well. We know the events as they unfolded in her testimony, but I would think there's a much bigger, interesting story there that we didnt hear about (for those interested in the case, anyway).

[–] tovenusandback 19 years ago

Linda was a part of the tragedy. but she didnt actually kill anyone and she wasn't into this for murder the way the others were. She certainly had questionable judgement at the time, but what could she really have done to stop it? She could have jumped over the fence and screamed for someone to help, and Tex probably would have killed her too. And her daughter was still back at the ranch. She was in a pretty tough spot, she had started to think of these people as family, only to wind up fearing for her and her daughters life. I actually disagree with you. Knowing about the various things that went down (such as Linda taking Clem and Sadie to the wrong door when they were instructed to kill an actor by Manson), I kind of DO think she is special. And none of these things could ever be refuted by the defense, no matter how hard they tried.

I would say her biggest mistake was not going directly to the police when she escaped from the ranch. But when you consider the times (the late 60's) and Linda's background as a wandering hippie, the police are not exactly the most obvious refuge.

Just keep in mind that her testimony against the family was the single most damaging element of that entire trial. No matter what you think of her, she DID help put away four cold-blooded monsters, all the while making a target of herself with the crazy family members still running around on the outside who would probably have slit her throat in a heartbeat if given the opportunity to shut her up.

Her lawyer and even Bugliosi were convinced that Linda would have talked even without a deal. She really did want to tell the truth. It was eating her up. I think it still is eating her up, considering how her life has gone since. In the movie Bugliosi says to her at the end "When all this is over you can have a good life" and she just stares off into space, knowing that she will never escape this.

[–] sljones44 19 years ago

"documentaries and worst of all, the criminals can write a book about it later and even turn it into a movie."

You'd have to look at the time in which it happened. America was losing its moral soul. On the one hand, you could persecute people like Manson, but on the other hand, Vietnam, had surged into its 3rd terrible year and the riots of that summer indicated the ending of "the promise of America"
America would be re-born into Watergate, then that false period of superiority the Reagan era came in 80-88. You know, the illusion of prosperity bringing equality, when instead, the gap between rich and poor continued, while gov't washed it's hands of it. Unlike your native Holland where you have health benefits paid for by the Gov. Manson saw an opportunity to exploit some of the inequalities and "feed the throwaway kids from his garbage dump" I believe one of the Chicago 8 would visit Manson in the jail and feed more support and propaganda, which emboldened "the persecution" angle. Kasabian pretty much beat the rap, but was the lynchpin that Bugliosi needed to win over the jury - blonde, and "misguided", she was the trojan horse for
Bugliosi's victory. For all intents an purposes, it really could have been a mistrial. Both L.A.P.D and Sherrif's Departments had opposing views in the investigation.
Manson started two phases of phenomena - "serial killer" as media phenomena and "cult leader" as dangerous individual. Several other "reincarnations" religious and other wise occured. 1 being Jim Jones (76-77) then, Reverend Moon (77-81) serial killers would include; Gary Gilmore and Ted Bundy during or around that time.
As Bugliosi said; it was "jailhouse" games Manson played on his followers - he was a gangster, and this was a hustle. the media played on it, and the anti-establishment followed. The estalishment had a convenient scapegoat to be used, as it sent youngmen to die in conflict in Vietnam.
Manson was the beginning of the counterculture which turned on society
he turned "love" into hate. Was it the hate that hate made?
History will decide.

[–] laranadtony 19 years ago

Then the family is crazy.Without her truthful testimony and risking her life to tell the story ,the prosecution would have been in trouble.Think about it,they were going to use Susan Atkins testimony and Linda did not kill anyone.Sure,they could have convicted the females but Charles Manson would have never been convicted.

[–] laranadtony 18 years ago

While the family of the victims should not be "grateful" to Kasabian.They should be grateful she testified.If she hadn't,they had nothing on Manson and a very shaky case on the actual murderers.They had the word of a drug hyped sex queen who changed her mind about being a state witness and if you read all the case files ,I think you will find as a part of the deal for the testimony in front of the grand jury,they could not use Susan Atkins testimony as evidence.What did they have to prove anything?
Being the relative of a person who was murdered,I would be thankful if someone who was there stepped forward just so we would know.Right now,we know nothing.

Anyone who watches "Pulp Fiction" should get a phone call in which someone says"seven days"!!

[–] bredlau3 19 years ago

I don't think Susan became a media whore...yeah she did write a book, but from apart from a small handful of interviews she stays pretty quiet. she does have a web site though

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tovenusandback 19 years ago

it's hard to say because they are such different roles. in the first one it's mostly just court testimony with minor flashbacks. Marilyn was ok but sometimes she seemed to overact a little bit. A little bit of phoniness to her acting (but it might just be the production because I feel that way about almost everyone in the 1976 version).

I liked Clea DuVall's understated performance, and it's a meatier role for an actress because we're basically seeing the experience through her eyes and she gets to go from starting to like and trust the family to fearing them to the point where she runs away and leaves her daughter (again, grrrrrrrr, I wish she had just gone straight to the police instead of to her ex-husband. I would have waltzed right in there and said "I know exactly who killed all those people. Get my daughter back and I'll talk.").

Clea did a little better job of playing this lost little hippie girl looking for love and God in all the wrong places. Plus she really looks a lot like the real Linda did at the time.

[–] bredlau3 19 years ago

I would have to go with Marilyn. I think Clea just presented her as too good. Let's face it, Linda wasn't some innocent babe in the woods, she was well into things way before she got into the Family. I don't think Clea looked and ounce like Linda, Marilyn I think looked a bit more like her.

[–] tovenusandback 19 years ago

yes, she was "well into things", but up until her involvement with the family those things were no different than the thousands of other kids who hung out in and around the hippie scene. Sex, drugs, and rock and roll, and commune life. But not murder. Linda was hardly an anomoly. The hippie scene had become de facto "chic" in southern california by 1969. I don't think she had to be a nun prior to the murders to see the nuances in her character.

Anyway, I enjoy your insights, even if we don't agree on everything.

[–] hakelsey2 19 years ago

I have to agree; Marilyn gets my vote; then again, I am a big fan of the 1976 version.

[–] MissJolie 19 years ago

Susan doesn't do TV interviews anymore because the last one she did (can't remember which one it was) turned out differently than she wanted. The show didn't pull any punches with her and her parts in the interview. It also questioned her religious turn too I think, and she was very angry.

If someone were to do a show praising her and softening her part in all of the murders, etc than you'd better believe she'd jump at the chance to do another interview.

As far as Linda - highly unlikely she will do a book or get herself in the media. She is very hated by alot of people, even in her town. She has been spit on and everything... don't think she'd want any part in any book or interviews. She may have testified but it doesn't make her a hero in many people's eyes.

::: Erin :::
Sharon Tate: http://lovelysharon.proboards35.com/

[–] tovenusandback 19 years ago

well, I have never and would never suggest that Linda was a hero in the traditional sense. But in my opinion that's what makes her such an interesting character. She was into all this stuff with these people until it escalated and clearly became too much for her. To this day her defense attorney swears that she was desperate to tell her story to the jury EVEN WITHOUT IMMUNITY. Bugliosi seems to agree with that assessment of her.

As far as I understood, the harassment she received from people in her town was a result of them mistaking her for one of the actual killers.

There really are no heroes in this story. it's dark and jaded from top to bottom (with the exception of the innocence of the victims).

[–] LucretiaBorg 19 years ago

I don't often eat my words, but in this case I have to. First a big apology(?) because I wrote about a case, I aparantly don't know as well as I thought and even when I was backreading my first message, I didn't even agree with myself. What I think happened was that I got too upset by someone's remarks about Linda, that I felt the need to be over-critical and some things don't even jive. Sometimes I shoot my mouth of, not that the basic feelings aren't true. I hate people like Manson and my feelings surrounding that was true. Just a bit to 'dramatic', even for me, so again, sorry for that. Now knowing ALL the facts, and not just what you think you know, I don't think she was that bad person I described her to be. More than that, I can't really know what really goes on in her heart, only she does. And if I had to judge her now, I would be much more sympathatic, allthough she's still partly guilty in my eyes.
And being a firm believer that the deathpenalty is a thing of the ancient past, I hope we did learn from his crimes and from every other murderer/serialkiller. Sometimes I would like to kill them myself, but than reason kicks in. (See, here I get emotional again, women......)

"If only the good people go to Heaven, it must be a boring place"

[–] hakelsey2 19 years ago

Dear Camorra,
Bless your heart; don't be too hard on yourself. This is a case that hits hard with many people and stirs up a lot of emotions. I have been studying it for a very long time, and I shed a few tears when Colonel Paul Tate died in May.
The Tate-LaBianca case seems to be one of those things that never "goes away" and that captivates many people. There are a lot of "outstanding" mysteries that we may never know the answer to; one being Linda's response and behavior the nights of August 9&10. It seems like when she first met "the Family", it was a group that was "about love"; then as that summer (of '69) turned violent, she was in over her head. Remember that her daughter Tanya was at the ranch during the murders and Linda feared for Tanya's safety if she (Linda) had fled or run for help. So your're right, I guess that only she (and God) really knew what was in her heart during this whole ordeal...

[–] bredlau3 19 years ago

a sell out? now yes Linda didn't do anything about the crimes, but really what the hell could she have done? run to the nearest house and call the cops? have you ever been to the Tate house? it's not a fast jog to the next house. and by the time she would have gotten there they would already have been dead. Or was she supposed to have taken on Tex, Sadie and Patrica and stop them? come on now.
plus she only attended FIVE murders...she never went in the LaBianca house, just next to it.

[–] hakelsey2 19 years ago

...and; she had "Tanya" (back at the ranch with Manson) to think about.

[–] jake_thy_zombie 19 years ago

"But she was a silly hippie girl who got caught up with the wrong people, and it's not hard to see how she could have been totally afraid to leave the ranch since they had Tanya and wouldn't let her leave with her."

That isn't true. In fact, Manson often didn't hang around 24/7 at the ranch and was on the road a bit. He didn't force anyone to stay.

Why are you afraid of Manson? Just look at 'Tex' Watson! You should dislike him more. Hell, even in his book he wrote like he was better than the victim's families because he was able to forgive himself. And 'Tex' was the one who did most of the killing anyway. He may have even been the one to mastermind it.

[–] bredlau3 19 years ago

who here has said they are afraid of Manson?

[–] jake_thy_zombie 19 years ago

"I would say her biggest mistake was not going directly to the police when she escaped from the ranch. But when you consider the times (the late 60's) and Linda's background as a wandering hippie, the police are not exactly the most obvious refuge."

Don't be naive. She knew that she committed a crime and didn't want to get caught. So many people see her as a victim. Everyone ratted on Manson to save their own a$$.

@ bredlau3 - No one said they feared him but they called him sick. I think they fear a sick thing but what they should focus on is the brainwash. Manson isn't sick. People automatically see him as a weirdo just because he doesn't conform to their expectations. His thoughts light fires in your cities and people ARE afraid of him when they really shouldn't be. He isn't stupid and has a high IQ level. Manson also care about the environment but society didn't want to show you that during his trial. He isn't pure evil and is not the devil. The devil and god is in each and every one of us.

[–] bredlau3 19 years ago

yes manson is highly intelligent, I don't think anyone has ever said otherwise. 'sick' is a relative term. he would be the first to tell you that he is in no way 'normal', and that he's never tried to be 'normal', but then again, how many of us are?
he isn't by far the devil, but I don't think he is a fantastic guy. Most of Manson's environment stuff came out post trial, the whole rainbow and ATWA started toward the mid 70's. Sure he was concerned about it, but that stuff really came out later. and even if he cared about it during the trial, what relevence would it have in the case? absolutly nothing. Manson's thoughts do not light fire in our cities, as he has said. His thoughts don't have any more strength or power than yers or mine. he is just a person, who made some really bad choices. he has no powers, and really the general public doesn't give two *beep* about him. Manson getting his rights or not getting them, getting out or what not will not have an impact on anyone. he has always said if he didn't get his rights, that the trees will die, that all that crap will happen, that we will have our helter skelter. that is a bunch of crap. that's like saying, if i don't win the lottery, well you are going to get sick sometime this year. easy to say, but it's worthless.

he is a joke really, who likes to play the media, give them what they want, he is very comfortable playing the devil. it's a role he has had for over 30 years now. even though he'll turn around and say, I'm not who you think I am, he likes the attention, otherwise he wouldn't do interviews and what not. interview manson, and he'll give you what he gets. treat him crazy, he'll act crazy, treat him like a regular guy, he will be a regular guy. he's extremely predictable.

[–] tovenusandback 19 years ago

jake, I'm usually a pretty cynical person about most people's motivations, and I absolutely agree that Linda knew she had been involved in a crime and did not want to get caught. But I dont think it hurts to put things into perspective; the proper context of the times and what was going with the social choas and the hippie distrust of authority.

I'm not excusing her actions, but Linda did not pierce the flesh of any of these victims. When I compare her involvement to people like Krenwinkle and Watson, relentlessly stabbing people as thuogh they were playing with butterflies, I can find sympathy in her character.

When I read Linda's testimony, about how she was afraid to say no to Charlie, that the first thing that came into her mind when she was crouched down by the car at the Tate house was Tanya's safety back at the ranch, that she desperately needed to tell her story with or without immunity (a claim supported by Bugliosi and Linda's own attorney), I'm inclined to believe her. It seems the jury was inclined to believe her as well, since time after time the defense tried to punch holes in her story on cross with zero success.

But then again, none of us were there and none of us really know what was going on in the deepest recesses of these people's minds.

"Everyone ratted on Manson to save their own a$$."

Well, to some degree, sure. *beep* man, wouldnt you? *beep* A I sure would.

[–] tovenusandback 19 years ago

So anyone who made claims of a creeping sense of paranoia within the group and fearing for their own safety should they not follow lock step was lying? Somehow I doubt that. I know back in the early days Charlie was not the raving maniac character he puts on in latter day interviews, that he was charming and friendly and inspired a deep sense of love in these lost kids, but it seems safe to say that fear played an important role in the energy of the place. The only people who seem to dispute that are folks like Sandy Good and Squeaky, both of whom probably were and still are a few beers short of a six-pack anyway.

Even if the place was as free-flowing and happy go-lucky as you claim, with Manson running a very loose ship, isn't it safe to say that things might have tensed up a bit around August 8-9-10 etc.?

By the way I find Manson himself to be the least interesting character in this whole drama. It's not a question of who I fear more, Tex or Manson. They're both *beep*

[–] bredlau3 19 years ago

I think it was harder to leave Barker than Spahn. I mean Tex left Spahn, before the murders. Sadie would come and go. Bobby too (though he wasn't a full fledge lodger there)But even Bobby said that when they went out to the desert and even at Spahn that things were so bad and desperate.

many family members have said that at Barker they would be threatened if they tried to leave. So I don't think it's a lie.

[–] jake_thy_zombie 19 years ago

I don't think Manson threatened anyone at either ranch. He always said to be strong and didn't want weak people around him. He wanted them to decide. Manson said "You gotta be responsible for your actions. I'm not your leader; I'm not your follower." In the helter Skelter (2004) we see Charlie say "You know what to do" before he gets in his car. That was taken out of context and in reality that comment was over the phone.

And Linda, she's a *****, I think. I have no sympathy for her. She wanted everyone to feel sorry for her so she lied. Sadie has lied to. I think she was really looking for a 'plead of insanity' but her plan just didn't work. The killers and liars have lied about Charlie for there own fame, sympathy, immunity, and/or money.

It's sad that this doesn't affect anyone but that's just how the world is. It's every man for himself and no one gives a damn about their brothers and sisters. God bless Charles Manson, Sandra Good, Lynette Fromme, and all the real people.

"Most of Manson's environment stuff came out post trial, the whole rainbow and ATWA started toward the mid 70's. Sure he was concerned about it, but that stuff really came out later. and even if he cared about it during the trial, what relevence would it have in the case? absolutly nothing."

Wrong. It would have mattered because it would have showed Manson loved our earth. If this was shown people would have seen him as more human. But the media wanted the dark and horrible things only. The bad is easier to sell and people love violence. They want the horrible details for whatever reason. The whole saving the earth deal WAS big in the 60s too. Not as widespread as in the 70s maybe, but it was there. And I'd also like to add that near the end of the 70s that stuff was beginning to die off. I bet Nixon loved that. (He hated hippies).

Manson may put on a crazy act during his paroles and interviews but he is just being what society has made him out to be. He knows he isn't getting out. And even though he has 'put on an act' some of the time he STILL tells the truth. Manson has never changed his story and continues to speak the truth. It's a shame that people aren't as interested in the truth as they are in the lies.

[–] bredlau3 19 years ago

no manson has changed his story from time to time. at times he said he didn't go inside the Labianca house, then at time he does say it.

yeah I know that in the 60's the enviroment stuff was big, I am just saying that manson's ATWA didn't come about until the 70's. But the trial was a murder trial and not about saving the earth. I am not saying Manson was ALL bad. Murder is murder, regardless of the reasons behind it. I know that Charlie didn't kill, though he is quite capable of it. Again though there didn't have to be any motive presented in the trial. I don't buy the Helter Skelter motive as the complete truth, I think it's true for some of the people involved but not the real reason. still it doesn't matter, they still did it, they made that choice. Even if Manson DID order them to do it, all they had to do was not do it. they made that choice. Manson has admited to maybe being an influence on them in a few interviews. but it doesn't matter

Manson knows what he is doing, he is no idiot. I have said that he only gives what he gets. one of the problems though when he does try to tell the truth, is that he gets caught up in the 'act', and starts off telling stories in such a roundabout way, that even if he is getting to the point of the acutal question, he rambles and talks in riddles that the average person can't read between the lines and hear it.

[–] jake_thy_zombie 19 years ago

"I know that Charlie didn't kill, though he is quite capable of it."

So by that thought anyone capable of murder should be locked up. Well let me tell you that every single person on this planet is capable of murder and we have all murdered and injured whether you wanna believe that or not.

"Again though there didn't have to be any motive presented in the trial."

Motives convince juries and can sometimes get them to believe the Prosecution. I sure as hell wish I was a juror then, knowing what I know now, so I could say 'not guilty.' Sadly, someone probably would kill him if he were to be released. Ironically they would become what they hated and they would just be a reflection of what they thought Charlie to be.

[–] DharmaKarma 19 years ago

Wow, how sadly misinformed you are! Manson and the rest are not, have not, and will never be good people. Murder, assault, theft, and drug dealing to not equate to people of high moral standard. The fact of the matter is that Manson used drugs to control his sheep, most of them don't ever recall seeing him injest drugs, but he ceratinly kept his followers plied with them. These were people with serious problems, just the type someone like Manson preys upon to manipulate. As Squeaky said herself, people that had it together weren't staying at the ranch. Manson's role model was Hitler, he preached about racism, not about the environment. The nut was convinced that the Beatles were speaking to him on the White Album. You say that Susan Atkins and the others have lied. About what? They were willing to take all the blame for Manson concerning the murders. He may have not actually killed anyone, but he did send them out to do it. Manson doesn't speak the truth, he has no integrity. He is nothing but a manipulative coward. He saw how big Leno LaBianca was compared to him and sent in his crew to do the dirty work. He was frightened of Col. Paul Tate. When Vincent Bugliosi stared him down he started to tremble. If Manson is so innocent, why did he enter the LaBianca home to tie them up? Why did he return to the Tate house to see what they had done and rearrange the bodies and moved Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring's bodies to the porch, only to move them back inside because he thought soemone was coming and didn't want to get cuaght? What about the death of Shorty and the others he himself claimed to kill? And for this you proclaim his innocence? Who are you, Sandra Good?

[–] jake_thy_zombie 19 years ago

"Manson and the rest are not, have not, and will never be good people. Murder, assault, theft, and drug dealing to not equate to people of high moral standard."

1. Manson didn't kill anyone or order anyone to be killed.
2. Manson's assualt charges happened moreso when he was younger, at least to my knowledge, except when he cut off Hinman's ear.
3. They did steal but that doesn't necessarily make them bad. Many have stold things from people. Heck, the very country you live in was robbed from Native Americans.

"The fact of the matter is that Manson used drugs to control his sheep, most of them don't ever recall seeing him injest drugs, but he ceratinly kept his followers plied with them."

That is a lie. And they has all tried drugs BEFORE they went with him anyway. Maybe it is you who is misinformed.

"These were people with serious problems, just the type someone like Manson preys upon to manipulate."

Everyone has problems. And anyway, Manson didn't manipulate them. He may have influenced them but I don't think he influenced them to kill. Manson said it perfectly with, "Those children that come at you with knives are your children. You made them what they are."

"As Squeaky said herself, people that had it together weren't staying at the ranch."

Yeah. They didn't stay because they had somewhere else they could stay. But the people at the ranch could treat eachother like family when their families didn't want them or they had no where to go. I think they were satisfied with where they were at and if they weren't they could leave.

"Manson's role model was Hitler, he preached about racism, not about the environment."

Wrong. In fact, most of the people that have hurt Manson have been white. Also, he has befriended many black people while in prison so what does that tell you? The Nazis in there threaten him for it all the time.

"The nut was convinced that the Beatles were speaking to him on the White Album."

Wrong again because he didn't like the Beatles as much as Bugliosi lets on. In fact, Manson saw them as teenie boppers. He has also said that the way some think of punk music today is how he thought about the Beatles. Sure, he listened to the Beatles but I've read his favorite musicians were Frank Sinatra and Willie Nelson.

"You say that Susan Atkins and the others have lied. About what? They were willing to take all the blame for Manson concerning the murders. He may have not actually killed anyone, but he did send them out to do it."

Susan and the others do lie and Charles Manson didn't order the killings. They pretend to be born again Christians or whatever. It's all BS. And Charles Watson actually lets on like he's better than the victim's families because he has forgiven himself.

"Manson doesn't speak the truth, he has no integrity."

You're thinking of the media; not Manson.

"If Manson is so innocent, why did he enter the LaBianca home to tie them up? Why did he return to the Tate house to see what they had done and rearrange the bodies and moved Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring's bodies to the porch, only to move them back inside because he thought soemone was coming and didn't want to get cuaght?"

Sure he did those things but he has always said that he isn't a snitch so he wouldn't have told police after the children told him what they did. Instead he went to the scene. Maybe he had to see it to believe it. You don't know. And then when he took them to the LeBianca's? Tying someone up is not first degree murder.

"What about the death of Shorty and the others he himself claimed to kill? And for this you proclaim his innocence? Who are you, Sandra Good?"

He didn't kill Shorty. He said that he cut his body up real bad and buried the body parts all around the ranch. HOWEVER, Shorty's body was found INTACT. I think he was just pushing the "I'm crazy" gimmick and the real murderer didn't get charged with it.

[–] DharmaKarma 19 years ago

Wow, you take actual recorded facts and blatantly disregard them. The man admitted to more than one murder! The media didn't distort anything, you have. You never did answer one question: are you Sandra Good?

[–] bredlau3 19 years ago

I never said that because he was capable of murder that he should be locked up.

I find it interesting, your arguments are always pushing the fact that we all have problems. yes we all do, but this is a board about the manson movie and it turns into a manson family discussion, not a discussion on us.
that's a typical reaction to an argument or an accusation that kids from about 5-12 have. bring someone else into the problem cause they are bad too,

it's a bit silly and all.

[–] tovenusandback 19 years ago

"Who are you, Sandra Good?"

LOL. I just laughed out loud when I read that. I was starting to wonder about that myself. The thing I find so interesting about that (and part of the reason why I could never get on the pro-Manson bandwagon aside from the obvious reasons) is that even if I put myself in the shoes of sympathic Manson fans and try to see things from their perspective, I can see how they might be skeptical of the media and skeptical of some of the witnesses (going so far as to call them liars) but EVEN STILL, Manson is not a figure to be admired. Even when you strip away the media sensationalism (that Manson himself has helped cultivate), Manson just isn't worthy of this kind of praise. All of the games he has played and continues to play deem him void of integrity. I wonder why pro-Manson folks just can't see that.

[–] tovenusandback 19 years ago

"It's sad that this doesn't affect anyone but that's just how the world is. It's every man for himself and no one gives a damn about their brothers and sisters. God bless Charles Manson, Sandra Good, Lynette Fromme, and all the real people."

This is the interesting thing about the pro-Manson slant and also one of the reasons this whole case is so interesting; mixed up in the madness and the *beep* THERE IS SOME TRUTH TO THE THINGS MANSON SAYS AND THE THINGS HE SHOWS US ABOUT OUR SOCIETY (such as what you said above about "how the world is").

But it loses a lot of it's punch coming from people like Manson, Good, and Fromme, because there's just too much *beep* coming from them too. Sandy and Lynette are clearly NOT stupid women. I had read several of their interviews and they have some very interesting things to say about the world/society/politics/war/pollution/etc. Thing is, there are PLENTY of other people in the world saying the exact same things, and they haven't had to resort to the same lengths these people do to get their messages across. There are activists, artists, musicians, writers, poets, filmmakers who are saying these same things, and they aren't resorting to RIDICULOUSLY SILLY LENGTHS such as pulling guns on Presidents and sending death-threat letters to corporate bigwigs - when you get to a certain age in life, you realize that these kinds of stunts do NOTHING to further one's agenda, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Indeed, they serve to discredit one in the eyes of those who might otherwise pay attention were other avenues of communication pursued.

I mean, look where they are now. Lynette is still in jail. Sandy's growing organic vegetables somewhere and trying to sell them to the folks in her town who are terrified of her, she abandoned her own child, let someone else raise him. For someone so concerned with the welfare of children, that seems kind of odd. Is that really someone to admire and to call "real"? I would be willing to bet you that when Lynette and Sandy look back on their lives, they probably wish they had gone about things differently so that they could have REALLY made a difference, instead of becoming mere objects of public curiosity and fear.

[–] tovenusandback 19 years ago

but then again, an argument could be made that people like Sandy Good and Lynette Fromme are merely remaining loyal to Manson and to each other and their "cause" because that's really all they have in their lives. It might seem "real" to some people, but it might just be all about a tenuous grip on the only thing they feel they have going for them.

And then there are sometimes when I think maybe they just wanted attention. All the hamming it up for cameras, shaving their heads, threatening tv news reporters that "if you dont stop spreading lies you too will be killed!", staying loyal to Manson, becoming "Nuns", etc. Sometimes I think these were just lost little girls with nothing to hold onto and not enough love in their lives, so they wanted attention any way they could get it. This just happened to be a way that presented itself. Most of the other loyal family members grew up and distanced themselves from the scene. But in their days of loyalty, they just wanted attention. I notice that when I watch the 1973 Documentary "Manson", it seems like Sandy, Lynette, Nancy Pitman, and Catherine Share ultimately didn't seem to even KNOW what their message and agenda was. It always seemed like when they were trying to pin it down, despite their enthusiasm, it would get lost in some wavy haze of babble and nonsense. Again, they were like kids who were acting out but they really weren't sure exactly why. A general, non-specific rage against the world for their own unhappiness? I think the fact that most of them, both in and out of jail, distanced themselves as they got older supports this idea that their cause and mission were less than specific and "real", right down to the exact reasons for the murders themselves. Then again, maybe they were just beaten down by the society they hated and they caved, no longer feeling the strength to remain loyal.

One last thing; when you hear the Pro-Manson "everything Buglioso, the witnesses, and the media said were lies" line from Sandy and Lynette, you HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND that you are only hearing one perspective. Manson, and life at Spahn Ranch probably meant and were perceived as different things to different people. Sandy Good wasn't everywhere at all times during the Spahn days, so she isn't 100% qualified to counter someone else's experiences with the family and with Charlie. She was also not present during the two nights of murder, and thus is not qualified to counter the claims of people like Linda, etc. no matter WHAT she says.

Plus, you might recall how Sandy tried to pin some things on Linda during the "Manson" documentary interview. "Linda had been to the Tate house before and knew the layout, so they got in the car and Linda drove them to the Tate house." That wasn't true. Linda had been to Harold True's house (near the Labianca home) but she had never been to the Tate house. I believe this was part of the strategy the defense was using at trial to shift blame from the killers to Linda, with Catherine Share testifying as such (or it might have been during sentencing). Share later admitted they completely made up that story about Linda's complicity; It was a lie. Sandy and Lynette were not as "real" as you think. They were perfectly willing to lie for their own agenda.

Anyhow Jake, I do find the views of those with a different perspective to be interesting, so thanks for the opportunity to explore this.

[–] jake_thy_zombie 19 years ago

"that's a typical reaction to an argument or an accusation that kids from about 5-12 have."

I think I have displayed some knowledge and to come and make a comment like that is just flat-out stupid. People will say I have NO argument but what kind of an argument do you have if you say, "He's just some snot-nosed kid who doesn't know didily-scwat." You don't know who I am. This isn't the first time I've heard, "He's just some dumb kid" or whatever. People like that need to wake up.

"Who are you, Sandra Good?"

No, I might be some 12-year-old kid. What do you think? Think what you will and hopefully you'll learn.

"Manson is not a figure to be admired."

I don't admire him. Manson has said before that he doesn't want to be admired. Then of course he has also played the "I'm crazy" act but he IS telling you the truth when he says he doesn't want to be admired. In his position it would be kind of hard to not get caught up in the lies and not want to put on an act for people some of the time.

"All of the games he has played and continues to play deem him void of integrity. I wonder why pro-Manson folks just can't see that."

Yet the media, every witness, and Bugliosi has played games. Why do you think they hve anymore integrity? Why would you believe Bugliosi over Manson? In Bugliosi's Helter Skelter book he says 30-some other murder COULD HAVE been done by the "Manson Family." People believe that just be he MIGHT HAVE been responsible. Manson is playing the act that the Establishment has created. Why can't any of you see that?

"Sandy's growing organic vegetables somewhere and trying to sell them to the folks in her town who are terrified of her, she abandoned her own child, let someone else raise him. For someone so concerned with the welfare of children, that seems kind of odd."

You are a fool to say this. Don't you think it hurt to give her child away? I'll bet that it did and I think she did it so her child could have a slightly normal life. She probably didn't want other people staring at him and having to carry his mother's burden.

"Is that really someone to admire and to call "real"? I would be willing to bet you that when Lynette and Sandy look back on their lives, they probably wish they had gone about things differently so that they could have REALLY made a difference, instead of becoming mere objects of public curiosity and fear."

They believe that ATWA is our survival and that anything should be done to protect it. It's almost like self-defense when you think about it. People don't understand a nice tap on the shoulder. Beat them over the head and you'll see you have their attention. Violence breeds violence.

"I believe this was part of the strategy the defense was using at trial to shift blame from the killers to Linda, with Catherine Share testifying as such (or it might have been during sentencing). Share later admitted they completely made up that story about Linda's complicity."

So in other words, Catherine Share is speaking for other people; Sandy and Lynette. How canyou speak for another person. Why does Catherine saying that they made it up make it true? Only they know the truth but if you want to believe they made it up just because Catherine said so then be my guest.

[–] tovenusandback 19 years ago

You are a fool to say this. Don't you think it hurt to give her child away? I'll bet that it did and I think she did it so her child could have a slightly normal life. She probably didn't want other people staring at him and having to carry his mother's burden.

Either that or maybe she was just incapable of growing up and being a mother to her son. Since you're not Sandy Good (as you said), and I'm not Sandy Good, all either of us can do is guess based on past and future behavior. Sandy has pretty much proven by her actions that she's not a responsible, mature adult able to function in society and be productive and trusted. A life of crime (as was surrounding the members of the family both before and after the murders), is telling. Sometimes I think she just comes off as a perpetual adolescent, a spoiled brat throwing a lifelong temper tantrum. I wonder if it's a coincidence that she came from a well-to-do-stockbrokers family in San Diego. And by the way, you call it a "burden". Sandy asked for all of it. She could have changed her life at any moment. And why would she want her son to have a "normal" life, when "normal" in Sandy's eyes represented "corrupt, Establishment, etc., etc.,..."?

They believe that ATWA is our survival and that anything should be done to protect it. It's almost like self-defense when you think about it. People don't understand a nice tap on the shoulder. Beat them over the head and you'll see you have their attention. Violence breeds violence.

This I think sort of speaks to her immaturity. That kind of guerilla warfare works in some countries like in south america or the middle east, etc. Ruling classes are overthrown all the time via force. Here in the U.S. it just doesn't fly. You beat people over the head and you'll see you have their attention, but it isn't the kind of attention conducive to getting an important message out to the world. It's the kind of attention that makes the person doing the beating into kind of a joke, a circus freak (in the eyes of the world) - not someone taken seriously at all. Do you think Timothy McVie and the Unibomber were successful at pursuading people to take their messages seriously? Not on your life. They've simply become objects of scorn, fear, and curiosity. There are environmentalists operating within the law that have had more of an impact on the air, water, trees, and animals in one week than ATWA has ever had in 30 years.

So in other words, Catherine Share is speaking for other people; Sandy and Lynette. How canyou speak for another person. Why does Catherine saying that they made it up make it true? Only they know the truth but if you want to believe they made it up just because Catherine said so then be my guest.

Well, we're all doing some conjecture when we discuss the Manson people. Share, Pitman, Fromme, and Good were putting up a completely united front during the time of the trial. Share came out later and said that those statements about Linda's complicity were lies meant to take some heat off the defendants. She had nothing to gain by protecting Linda. None of the jailed killers in their post-trial stories have ever denied Linda's story, have ever shed an ounce of doubt on Linda's testimony - indeed they've only backed that testimony up - and they have had NO REASON whatsoever to protect her or deny her culpability. Why are YOU inclined to automatically dismiss what Catherine Share said while still buying Sandy and Lynette's story? Just because they're still loyal to Manson? Seems to me the core family revealed itself to be a house of cards that collapsed as time went on. Just because Sandy and Lynette are the only two remaining loyal members doesn't give their words anymore credence than those of the various member who have moved on. These girls had stockpiles of illegal weapons and claimed on film that they would physically "chew the necks off" of anyone who tried to destroy their little girl-group. If they would go to these kinds of lengths, what on earth makes you think they are somehow above LYING to get what they want?

I would be interested to know where you are getting your information, because I sincerely find your perspective to be interesting. We are all reading the same articles, the same interviews, the same books, the same websites, watching the same films, and then coming to our own conclusions based on "the evidence" (for lack of a better word). Unless you actually *ARE* Sandy Good, you don't have any more details, facts, or inside knowledge about these people than anyone else has access to. You are engaging in the same conjecture in your pro-Manson stance that you're accusing "the Establishment" of engaging in from an anti-Manson stance.

[–] bredlau3 19 years ago

"I think I have displayed some knowledge and to come and make a comment like that is just flat-out stupid. People will say I have NO argument but what kind of an argument do you have if you say, "He's just some snot-nosed kid who doesn't know didily-scwat." You don't know who I am. This isn't the first time I've heard, "He's just some dumb kid" or whatever. People like that need to wake up."

I wasn't saying that YOU are a dumb kid. if you would have read it and understood it, then I think you would have figured out that's not what I was saying. I am not saying you don't have an argument at all, I actaully enjoy debating it. I was saying...that type of response...to push the blame onto another thing is a typical 5-12 year old defense. nothing to do with yer intellegence or knowledge. but that above statement didn't help yer argument against what YOU thought I said. I am saying that especially in the Manson family, most of them all, when questioned about the killings, didn't it bother them, they gave the response "what about the thousands that died in Vietnam?" or now charlie will say "what about the oceans dying, what about the seals dying, the air"...what I am saying it's a way to not face the actual problem. now if Manson had anything to do with the killings or not, (not what I am debating here)...that kind of argument is saying...'because someelse does it, then it's ok that we do it" No it's not ok. murdering is not ok. it doesn't matter what someone else does, it matters what you do, and what you choose not to do or to do. and when Sandra was questioned about it, she said "right on" and then something like she thought about sharon tate and the baby that was dead, and then realized that she was pregnant and she has the baby. That's absurd and is a poor way of dealing with it. yes I know she didn't kill anyone. but the whole one life dies, another starts is all nice and tranquil and stuff, but it's no excuse for taking a life in murder. (I am not about to debate the difference between murder and killing)

Manson said he doesn't want to be admired..sure lots of times, but he does and everyone knows that. if he didn't he wouldn't do interviews, he wouldn't put on the act, he wouldn't do anything like that. he has even said that sometimes he gets caught up in the act and the drama of being the #1 evil man. (which is far from the truth....not THAT many people know about him when it comes down to it...certainly not as many as he thinks.) but you would have to be blind to know that he wants attention. he's NOT telling you the truth about that.

the 30 other murders (no they don't add up to that, I think the total is around 25 or so) they aren't only in Helter Skelter..and he doesn't say that they were commited by them, no, but some of the murders were of family associates, and commited in very similar ways ( I actually think Bruce Davis is far more responsible for some of these if anyone is) but no that doesn't mean the manson family killed them. those cases will never be solved, but it doesn't help when Susan and Charlie brag of 30+ murders.

the Linda did it theory is completely made up. none of the girls even mentioned it before the trial, during the penalty phase, it was during the scentencing phase that this absurd theory came up. and it was clearly shot down in court, where each girl that got up and testified that Linda said to do it, made so many clear mistakes that it wasn't even funny. it's absurd.

one of the girls, I am not sure if it was Catherine or Ouish, even went to go as far as saying Leslie was in the Tate house....that's how absurd it was. if you want to talk about lies....

"So in other words, Catherine Share is speaking for other people; Sandy and Lynette. How canyou speak for another person. Why does Catherine saying that they made it up make it true? Only they know the truth but if you want to believe they made it up just because Catherine said so then be my guest. "

that argument is poor. I am not saying everything the witnesses, the lawyers and everyone has said is true, just because they said it, but then again...just because Charlie, Lynette and Sandra said something...does that make it true as well?

[–] tovenusandback 19 years ago

Yup. You seem to have a really good grasp on the history, Bredlau. It's entirely likely that life at Spahn Ranch and life with Charlie Manson meant different things to different people depending on their perspective. Sandra Good, in her lucid moments (because some of the time she clearly does seem out to lunch), probably always viewed Charlie through rose-colored glasses. But just because that was her experience doesnt negate Paul Watkins experience, or Barbara Hoyts experience, or any of the many other people whose description of Charlie and family life differ from Sandra's. Of course there's probably some half-truths and sensationalism involved, but the idea that ALL of these people were lying for profit, intimidated, and/or bought off by the prosecution is completely laughable.

No, Charlie probably wasn't the devil incarnate. But he probably isn't the innocent, misunderstood martyr that Sandra Good (and Pro-Manson people) paints him to be.

[–] jake_thy_zombie 19 years ago

"And by the way, you call it a "burden". Sandy asked for all of it. She could have changed her life at any moment. And why would she want her son to have a "normal" life, when "normal" in Sandy's eyes represented "corrupt, Establishment, etc., etc.,..."?"

When I say burden it's kind of like Jesus Christ's burden. He went against the Roman's and they made him pay. Now I ain't saying that anyone in the Manson family is God and I personally think Jesus was just a martyr too, but Jesus could have changed his life, right? However he didn't because he fought for what he believed in. And having a "normal life" doesn't necessarily mean succumbing to the "corrupt Establishment."

"There are environmentalists operating within the law that have had more of an impact on the air, water, trees, and animals in one week than ATWA has ever had in 30 years."

Then why are so many trees being cut down in South America? Why are trees that have been around perhaps since the time of Christ being cut down? Why is the threat of Global Warming on the rise? Why are Plankton, which are a food source that all ocean life depend on, dying?

ATWA isn't like any other environmental organization either. There are no "money people" involved in ATWA. It's non-profit and for the good of everyone that wants to live. It's a constant reminder to love Earth but no one will listen. No one wants to listen. The big corporations want more money and people like Bush still refuse to see the problem.

"Why are YOU inclined to automatically dismiss what Catherine Share said while still buying Sandy and Lynette's story?"

Why do some people prefer to think Manson is guilty and not innocent?

"If they would go to these kinds of lengths, what on earth makes you think they are somehow above LYING to get what they want?"

I didn't say they were but consider this. The media has lied plenty to get what it wants hasn't it?

"I am saying that especially in the Manson family, most of them all, when questioned about the killings, didn't it bother them, they gave the response "what about the thousands that died in Vietnam?" or now charlie will say "what about the oceans dying, what about the seals dying, the air"...what I am saying it's a way to not face the actual problem."

How has he not faced the actual problem? He has said countless times that he never killed anybody or ordered anyone to be killed. Secondly, the death of ATWA is an actualy problem in my opinion. You may not care about life but their are other people that do.

"but the whole one life dies, another starts is all nice and tranquil and stuff, but it's no excuse for taking a life in murder."

Never said it was but it doesn't change that death IS an illusion.

"Manson said he doesn't want to be admired..sure lots of times, but he does and everyone knows that."

The murders were NOT done to jumpstart Helter Skelter and ALOT of people think they were. Does that make it true? No. Saying that "everyone knows that" doesn't make sense to me because that isn't true.

"if he didn't he wouldn't do interviews, he wouldn't put on the act, he wouldn't do anything like that. he has even said that sometimes he gets caught up in the act and the drama of being the #1 evil man... but you would have to be blind to know that he wants attention. he's NOT telling you the truth about that."

He likes the attention sometimes but really wishes people weren't so gullable. He wishes people knew the truth and wanted to know the truth but they don't listen to him and he doesn't think he'll ever get out. So what he does is alternates between the the truth and the picture the media painted for him.

If he REALLY liked getting caught up in it all 100% then why is he mad about some of the books out about him? Why is he upset about all the lies? There are so many lies and he hates them deep down but can't change them. He doesn't enjoy playing the part all the time because that's not the truth.

"those cases will never be solved, but it doesn't help when Susan and Charlie brag of 30+ murders."

Nothing could help Charlie. That's why he lied. He's already in for the eight murders he was convicted for and never actually committed. He refuses to say he did something he didn't do. So when he goes up for his parole and tries to explain that he didn't do them like he's said many other times, people look at him and say, "He has no conscience." If they believe that then what more harm could it do to say you were involved in 30+ murders. It wouldn't hurt him more to say he killed 4 or 5 hundred people.

I'd also like to say that you should check out his interview with Geraldo if you can. Throughout the interview he tries to get Manson to say something crazy but Manson refuses! That just goes to show you that there are times where he tries to NOT "play the crazy act."

[–] tovenusandback 19 years ago

"Then why are so many trees being cut down in South America? Why are trees that have been around perhaps since the time of Christ being cut down? Why is the threat of Global Warming on the rise? Why are Plankton, which are a food source that all ocean life depend on, dying?

ATWA isn't like any other environmental organization either. There are no "money people" involved in ATWA. It's non-profit and for the good of everyone that wants to live. It's a constant reminder to love Earth but no one will listen. No one wants to listen. The big corporations want more money and people like Bush still refuse to see the problem."

I've said it before and I'll say it again: ATWA has not really done ANYTHING to solve the problems of the environment. I never said any environmentalist organizations have FIXED all the worlds problems. Of course there are still loads of problems. But strides have been made, some that would be virtually unthinkable even 10 years ago, and ATWA cannot claim credit for any of them. You're right, ATWA really ISN'T like any other environmental organization. It's not really ever been much of an organization at all. It's not really ever been much of anything except an idea that almost no one has heard of. Good and Fromme are off in La-La-Land with their possibly self-serving revisionist stories about life with Manson, meanwhile there ARE legitimate organizations actually HAVING AN IMPACT on the environment.

ATWA is not special; The environmental issues that ATWA claims to be concerned about are nothing that other organizations aren't concerned about and actually trying to affect. You wouldnt even know about the trees in South America, or Global Warming, or the Plankton if it weren't for these other organizations. Believe me, Sandra Good is not responsible for the theory of and study of global warming. It's not a bad thing that ATWA doesnt survive. It doesnt help the environmentalist movement one bit that Good and Fromme have jumped on the bandwagon while simultaneously keeping their Manson act alive. If they really cared, maybe they'd drop the name and scatter into productive use of their time in terms of saving the environment. But it seems that Manson's ego, and Good's ego and Fromme's ego and this little pseudo-spiritual trip they're on are more important than the environment.

Do you honestly think ATWA has a chance of ever becoming anything but a joke when they insist on publishing images of Sharon Tate's dead body and referring to her as a "rich, evil piggie"? Yeah, that's gonna go over real well with the world they're trying to enlighten. It's like they're still using the lingo of the 60's and are incapable of moving into the 21st century with their activism. They just come off as hopelessly out-there, misguided, and downright sadistic.

Repeat: ATWA is not special. Other organizations and activists are actually DOING the work that ATWA just whines about. Have these other organzations stopped Global Warming? No. Are they trying? Yes.

[–] bredlau3 19 years ago

I have the Geraldo interview. I watched it when it was on. I never said that he is always putting on an act. If you have read any of my posts on here, I know Manson is sane. I have always said that, he is highly intellegent and he knows exactly what he is doing. No in the interview he does put on the act. Watch the Tom Synder interview ( I actually transcribed it all on Charliemanson.com). The Geraldo interview is great comedy. Almost all his interview are comedy. when he doesn't put on the act, a lot of what he says makes sense, which people don't want to know. But I've seen almost all the Manson interviews, so you don't have to suggest them to me, maybe to the others. But the Geraldo interview is a perfect example of how not to interview manson. don't start off attacking him. Even the Synder interview starts off calm and only goes astray when they get into the murders. Manson gives what he gets, I have alway said this.

"Nothing could help Charlie. That's why he lied. He's already in for the eight murders he was convicted for and never actually committed."

well there goes yer theory that Charlie never lies....and anyway it's 9 murders. No he didn't commit them, and it's debatable if he had anything to do with it, influence, or not (even he is back and forth on this one) but in the state of california at least, consipiracy and acessory to a murder carries the same scentence as a first degree murder. those are the laws, I didn't make them, but that's how they are. That's how he was convicted. and no he doesn't refuse to say something he didn't do. he goes back and forth, he has on going into the LaBianca house, and a few other things. depends on what mood he is in.

"death is an illusion"..ok that's an age old theory. fine on paper, but tell that to someone who looses someone that they love, especially when they are murdered. it's no illusion to them.

""Why are YOU inclined to automatically dismiss what Catherine Share said while still buying Sandy and Lynette's story?"

Why do some people prefer to think Manson is guilty and not innocent? "

here you were presented a question but failed to answer it directly. that is part of what I was saying about the 5-12 year old defense. just answer the question first and then you can present another question.

"How has he not faced the actual problem? He has said countless times that he never killed anybody or ordered anyone to be killed. Secondly, the death of ATWA is an actualy problem in my opinion. You may not care about life but their are other people that do."

I am mainly talking about the family members when asked about it, basically asked about how could their friends murder. they beat around the bush. people, or at least people who are actuall familar with the case, know damn well that Charlie never killed anyone. the ordered part is debatable. listen...what the heck are you trying to say "you may not care about life but their are other people that do" when did I say I didn't care about life? the ATWA problem, yes it's a bad thing, yes. what are you really going to do about it though? it's very easy to spout off things about it all, but when it comes down to it, are you going to give up your electricity, are you going to give up your car (if you have one), the bus, your tv, your computer, your books? anything that harms the air, trees water and animals? are you going to do it? if you even listen to Manson talk about it, and support it you have to go 100% other wise it's not going to work. sorry but that's the way it is. get back to the horse, live off the land. try it out, and let me know how it goes. do you have the time to research all the products that you use to see what harm they are causing? if you do, then more power to you, cause you sure wouldn't be on this computer typing away, using the electricity, from power plants that are polluting the air if you really stood behind ATWA.

he himself has even said he likes getting caught up in the act sometimes...if he said it, then by golly it must be true, right? I wish people weren't so damn gullable as well, but what can you do?

[–] jake_thy_zombie 19 years ago

"Why are YOU inclined to automatically dismiss what Catherine Share said while still buying Sandy and Lynette's story?"

"Why do some people prefer to think Manson is guilty and not innocent?"

"here you were presented a question but failed to answer it directly. that is part of what I was saying about the 5-12 year old defense. just answer the question first and then you can present another question.

I didn't fail to answer the question. I tried to answered your question with a question. Anyway, I'm not dismissing what Catherine said but I'm not getting behind it either. I don't know if I buy Sandy's and Lynette's story but maybe I'm more inclined to believe them.

well there goes yer theory that Charlie never lies....

I don't think I said he never lies per se. What I said was that he has never lied about not having anything to do with the murders except for the time when he talked about the 30+ other murders. And I already explained that. The man was put away for murders that didn't happen when he was around. He wasn't at the crime scenes. If they could put him away for that then what harm would it be to say he committedother murders? It's all part of the game that the media created. Manson just took the ball and ran with it. However, there are plenty of other occassions where he's said how he really feels.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: ATWA has not really done ANYTHING to solve the problems of the environment.

How can it when no one will listen? And try not seeing ATWA as an organization because as I've said it isn't like an organization. ATWA is Air, Trees, Water, Animals. ATWA is the Earth. It's not ATWA's fault for the destruction. It's everyone, including myself. To save it everyone needs to work together and not just one person can do it alone. Not even 100 people could do it alone. Not 1000. Not 10000. EVERYONE. ALL IS ONE and WE need to be ONE. Sadly, it'll probably never happen and will just remain a nice idea.

Repeat: ATWA is not special. Other organizations and activists are actually DOING the work that ATWA just whines about. Have these other organzations stopped Global Warming? No. Are they trying? Yes.

Global Warming won't ever stop. It'll just be slowed down. In order for it to stop MASSIVE changes need to be made in the way we live and no one wants that. Those massive changes will be what ATWA wants.

[–] bredlau3 19 years ago

"The man was put away for murders that didn't happen when he was around. He wasn't at the crime scenes. If they could put him away for that then what harm would it be to say he committedother murders?"

ok, wrong, and Charlie has already admitted to it. He and most likely Brenda went back to the Tate House after the murders (yes technically it was after the murders were committed so NO he wasn't there when they happened) but he did go back and move things, most likely Sharon Tate's body. He was at the LaBianca's house, he and tex went in and tied up the LaBianca's, then he split. so again, no he wasn't there for the actual murders but he was at the crime scene, the crime started right then and there the moment Charlie and Tex entered the house uninvited. He was at Gary's house, AND sliced his ear. He was present when Shorty got killed. so..please research a little before you say that. But no he didn't actually Murder anyone...

"How can it when no one will listen? And try not seeing ATWA as an organization because as I've said it isn't like an organization. ATWA is Air, Trees, Water, Animals. ATWA is the Earth. It's not ATWA's fault for the destruction. It's everyone, including myself. To save it everyone needs to work together and not just one person can do it alone. Not even 100 people could do it alone. Not 1000. Not 10000. EVERYONE. ALL IS ONE and WE need to be ONE. Sadly, it'll probably never happen and will just remain a nice idea."

that's a bit of a cop out....if you actually believed in it, you would do something about it, and if you are then more power to you. you don't sit around and wait for people to listen you go out and do something. saying not one person can do it, yes that's true but that shouldn't stop you from trying if you are actually behind ATWA. All is one and we need to be one...again a nice fairy tail, like you said it probably won't happen and remain a nice idea, especially if people like you, who praise ATWA, don't do anything about it cause you are just one person.

"Global Warming won't ever stop. It'll just be slowed down. In order for it to stop MASSIVE changes need to be made in the way we live and no one wants that. Those massive changes will be what ATWA wants."

including you? I find it interesting you totally avoided any of my comments on what you actually need to do for ATWA if you actually believe it, are you ready to give up everything? if not, I would suggest not supporting something you can't give yerself all to.

[–] jake_thy_zombie 19 years ago

ok, wrong, and Charlie has already admitted to it.

And yet he has also said he never killed anyone or ordered anyone to be killed. You disregard this just because he said he was involved in 30 or so other murders. You can believe what you want, though. And about him going to the Tate house after the killings. I think I already explained what I thought about that but anyway, I think Charlie went to see what the children did because he wanted to see it for himself. He probably moved the bodies around but that doesn't make him a killer.

that's a bit of a cop out....if you actually believed in it, you would do something about it, and if you are then more power to you. you don't sit around and wait for people to listen you go out and do something. saying not one person can do it, yes that's true but that shouldn't stop you from trying if you are actually behind ATWA. All is one and we need to be one...again a nice fairy tail, like you said it probably won't happen and remain a nice idea, especially if people like you, who praise ATWA, don't do anything about it cause you are just one person.

How is it a copout if even you yourself admitted it couldn't be done alone? You talk alot fo about trying but you don't agree with Good and Fromme when they tried. Nonetheless, I will try but one person can only do so much. That IS a fact. If I could put the O-Zone back and fix everything I would.

are you ready to give up everything? if not, I would suggest not supporting something you can't give yerself all to.

I don't think supporting ATWA means to "give up everything." If you're supporting something you are gaining. Don't suggest to me to not support it no matter what. Even the so-called Family weren't following ATWA 100% but they respected it and tried.

[–] bredlau3 19 years ago

I don't disregard that. I've never said he killed anyone. please show me one place where I have said it. AND I said the 'ordered it' is highly debatable. don't confuse me with someone else. The problem with him going back to the house, is he now says when the killers came back and told them what they did, he said "what'd you tell me for" and acts like he shouldn't have been told because he didn't want to be involved. there is a loop hole involved. I would love to hear what you have to say about that.

look, I never said just because he said he killed 30 people it was true. jesus christ. I said it didn't help him at all.

just because I admited it couldn't be done, which was in agreement to you, I am not preaching about ATWA. I will be the first one to say I am not giving up anything. I am just saying if you truly are into MANSON'S ATWA...then that is what HE says MUST happen. I am not talking about trying. I am talking to you who is spouting off about ATWA. and the so-called family..if you are refering to the class of 68-70...despite what you think, ATWA was created in the mid 70's, like I said before yeah sure they were concerned about things, but that whole ATWA and the order of the rainbow didn't come out til later. so how could they have followed it 100% back then.

it's a cop out to find reasons for not doing something if it means something to you. I mean if you are really behind something. unless its illegal or something like that. but just cause others won;t if you don't then nothing will happen. fact of life. (yes I am aware of all the complications so please don't try to go on about them.

[–] tovenusandback 19 years ago

and the so-called family..if you are refering to the class of 68-70...despite what you think, ATWA was created in the mid 70's, like I said before yeah sure they were concerned about things, but that whole ATWA and the order of the rainbow didn't come out til later. so how could they have followed it 100% back then.

My take on it from the various things I've read is that concern for the environment was just one of many different EXTREMELY VAGUE ideals that existed within the group around 68-70. VERY VAGUE. The war in Vietnam was another one. No different than tons of other hippie communes in the 60's. These were all things they talked about while sitting around campfires at Spahn getting high and having sex, but they weren't central to the existence of the group. Just reasons to hate piggies and feel justified in their reclusivity. Good and Fromme (mostly Good) seem to have this revisionist history (i.e.: ATWA was central to the groups existence even back then) which no one else connected to the family seems to support.

It's almost like the murders happened, and THEN many of them tried to apply some of these issues to their justification for the murders (Katie: "That's one less man who will be sending his son to war.") after the fact. And not very well I might add. The interviews with the non-jailed girls such as in the Manson documentary are less than convincing when they try to establish coherent, specific reasons. They're all over the place. Do you ever get that sense?

[–] bredlau3 19 years ago

yes, I don't think many of the family members actually knew the real reason why these people were killed, I don't think we will ever find out the complete story, not that it matters, because 11 people are dead (12 if you count Hughes...not saying he was actually killed by the family or if it was and accident) So in their way of dealing with it, they have to cover up and make excuses.

The only reason I tend to believe more of what the convicted killers say, is (with the exception of Susan) Tex, Patrica and Leslie have now all taken full responsibility for their own actions. But they still say that Manson 'ordered' it. I don't think it's a ploy to get out of prison, they have grown up, realized what they did, how wrong it was, and are accepting their part in it. They know they didn't HAVE to do it. It was their choice to do it. Susan on the other hand is a gigantic liar, and changes her story, more than Bobby changes his. Now she is saying she didn't stab anyone.

[–] jake_thy_zombie 19 years ago

The problem with him going back to the house, is he now says when the killers came back and told them what they did, he said "what'd you tell me for" and acts like he shouldn't have been told because he didn't want to be involved.

First of all, where did you get your info. Secondly, if he said that then I don't blame him. I wouldn't want to be involved either.

look, I never said just because he said he killed 30 people it was true. jesus christ. I said it didn't help him at all.

But nothing will help him. He is being held captive for murders he didn't committ. I don't think anything he does or says could hurt or help him because most people think he's at fault anyway.

I am not talking about trying.

Trying is alot better than not caring. At least I don't stare at the dirt and not care what goes on around. Telling me I shouldn't try isn't right.

Look at it this way. There were many people fighting for civil rights of black people. Not all of them were members of the Black Panters or NAACP. What if you told them they shouldn't try if they aren't members of those groups? And today even. Gay people are fighting for civil liberties. Do you have to be Gay to want them to have their rights? No.

.if you are refering to the class of 68-70...despite what you think, ATWA was created in the mid 70's, like I said before yeah sure they were concerned about things, but that whole ATWA and the order of the rainbow didn't come out til later

That isn't what I read but when it was created doesn't matter TOO much. And even you said "they were concerned about things."

it's a cop out to find reasons for not doing something if it means something to you.

When I was younger I wanted to be an astronaunt. Then I learned about radiation. I guess when I changed my mind about it that was a copout.

Now I am really concerned about ATWA. I don't know how to make a windmill and use one as an alternate energy so I must be copping-out.

I don't want to ride a horse to work everyday because someone might steal it as they are easier to steal than a car. The horse could even just walk away. Since I've come to this conclusion I must be copping-out again.

I could go on an on. Finding reasons for not doing something is not wrong. I don't think the fear of getting run over on a highway whiel I'm on a horse is an excuse.

Tex, Patrica and Leslie have now all taken full responsibility for their own actions. But they still say that Manson 'ordered' it.

Well then they aren't taking full responsibility for their actions if they say he ordered it. Just because they've grown up doesn't mean a thing. It IS a ploy to get out. They're looking for sympathy I think.

[–] bredlau3 19 years ago

"First of all, where did you get your info. Secondly, if he said that then I don't blame him. I wouldn't want to be involved either."

this is in practicall every book written about Manson, pro or against, many interviews with Manson himself. I am very well read on both sides of the issue, please don't question me about my sources, if you actually read all sides you would know where this info came from.

"Trying is alot better than not caring. At least I don't stare at the dirt and not care what goes on around. Telling me I shouldn't try isn't right."

I never said you shouldn't try. I am saying TRY by all means, if you are really concerned because if you don't then nothing will happen. Please show me where I said you shouldn't try. that's absurd.

the cop out thing, I am refering to your ATWA argument. IT seems that you don't really want to get behind it 100%. I am not accusing you of not caring about ATWA, it's all fine and dandy if you do, but that's something, that I believe, if you are going to support, it's something you should go all the way with. I am talking about ATWA alone. and basing it off of things Charlie has said about it.

"Well then they aren't taking full responsibility for their actions if they say he ordered it. Just because they've grown up doesn't mean a thing. It IS a ploy to get out. They're looking for sympathy I think."

no they take full responisbilty for their part in it. they know they didn't have to do it. looking for sympathy...now you are getting into a debate about what Prison is for. is it just house bad people, or is it a place to rehabilitate them (sorry for my spelling). can people actually grow to understand their crimes, and have remorse? sure I think some can, some can't. The killers, they are the ones that did it. They put the knives in, the bullets in. it's been over 30 years, and most of them have changed, become model prisoners and have full remorse and understanding of what they did, how it affected people, how wrong it was, what their part in it was. saying that someone ordered it doesn't mean they aren't accepting their part. that's like saying the SS gaurds, just because they were part of the third reich, and under Hitlers 'orders', they didn't have to run tests on the jews and slaughter them. they chose to do it themselves, be it out of fear, or their own sickness but they chose to do it. BUT maybe they wouldn't have if the thought wasn't put in their heads or the orders put there.

I don't think Patrica is looking for sympathy. She hardly ever goes to her parole hearings, nor does she really feel she should get out. Susan is really the only one looking for sympathy.

[–] hakelsey2 19 years ago

Hi Bredlau3-
Question for you; did you contribute the "privacy act" memos to Mark Turner's website? They are very interesting.
I just finished watching the 1976 version on TV LAND; was disappointed that it was not the un-cut version--but from what I remember of it, it is more graphic and does not "change" any names (Steven Weiss, Ronald Hughes, etc...).
I also noticed in the "trivia" that the actual Tate and LaBianca homes were used in the filming. Although the Tate "grounds" looked actual, the residence did not; was wondering if you caught that.

[–] bredlau3 19 years ago

no I didn't, I did contribute the Tom Synder interview to his site though.

I haven't really noticed those details about the 76 version, I'll have to watch it again.

[–] hakelsey2 19 years ago

Bredlau,
My apologies; I was confused--so sorry! I did remember seeing (what I thought was) your name somewhere on that site late last night.
On Mark's site, look under "Miscellaneous", then under "Documents" (I think). It has 2 sections of "FBI Freedom of Information//Privacy Acts".

[–] tovenusandback 19 years ago

Hi hakesley2, is the uncut version hard to find? Do you know if it's out on DVD anywhere? I think the only version I've seen is the long version, but it did have a lot of substitute names.

[–] bredlau3 19 years ago

I thnink the dvd that is out is the complete 2 part uncut version, I haven't seen it on dvd though, but I thought it was the complete. It's strange how they change the names, I know some are changed to protect the innocent or stuff like that, but why was Bruce Davis's name changed to Cisco Budge? and why was Zero called Boots? never understood that. Even Squeaky and Sandy were changed...maybe it was due to the trouble they were both in at the time of the movie? not sure

[–] hakelsey2 19 years ago

Hi Venus,
I think that it is now available on DVD, and I believe that the video stores carry it.
Actually, the un-cut version IS the "long" version; if you saw it (the censored version) on TV LAND last night, the "run-time" was 240 minutes, but that included all the commercials.
The verison last night left out some VERY good scenes that are shown on the un-cut, uncensored version. I won't be specific in case you want to see it; I do not want to ruin it for you. But, I had not see the 1976 version in a while and was disappointed that it was the "cut" version last night. My guess is because TV LAND is mostly a wholesome, "for the whole family" channel, and the un-cut version does not delete the "adult" language, among some other things.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jake_thy_zombie 19 years ago

Manson had no real concern for the environment, he was a musician that couldn't cut it, plain and simple.

If he couldn't cut it then why on earth did someone with a good knowledge on the music business, Denis Wilson, put his song on their record? Denis says now that he "didn't have a musical bone in his body" but that is completely BS and he knows it. Anything to get in the spotlight again for 10 seconds.

Where is your hard core, factual and concrete proof of his innocence? I'd love to see it.

There isn't any hardcore evidence to support his guilt either. However, it is my opinion that the murders occured because Jerry Sebring ripped Tex off when he didn't give him his drugs. The main reason for the murders was to create copy cat ones so Bobby might be released and Tex was already mad at Sebring so he came to Ceilo Drive first.

he man has been placed at EVERY crime scene. He was at the Hinman house, was at the Polanksi house and the La Bianca's. Funny how someone who is so innocent managed to be at all the crime scenes

ALL of the murders happened when he wasn't around.

Oh, and FYI, Manson sells locks of his hair shaped into swastikas from jail. A little more Natzi than environmentalist, don't you think?

The Swastika is an old symbol that was used before Hitler used it. It's a symbol for strength, peace, and good luck. I think the symbol's origin dates back to something like 3000 BC. (Also, in case you don't know, Manson is not predjudice. In fact he befriends some of the black people in prison.)

And another little bit of something for you to chew on, most of the people he associated with are in prison for some sort of violent act.

So if someone you know committs a horrible crime then you're guilty to? Sounds like what you're saying.

[–] bredlau3 19 years ago

"If he couldn't cut it then why on earth did someone with a good knowledge on the music business, Denis Wilson, put his song on their record? Denis says now that he "didn't have a musical bone in his body" but that is completely BS and he knows it. Anything to get in the spotlight again for 10 seconds."

two songs actually. the reason he 'couldn't cut it' was due to the fact that he wouldn't conform to the studio people. Meaning doing the sessions by their rules, which are recording standards. Manson's music isn't bad at all really, he is a good writer, some of the music itself isn't spectacular, but it's not awful. I have heard worse and better.

"However, it is my opinion that the murders occured because Jerry Sebring ripped Tex off when he didn't give him his drugs. The main reason for the murders was to create copy cat ones so Bobby might be released and Tex was already mad at Sebring so he came to Ceilo Drive first."

who is Jerry Sebring? and plus where did you get the information about Tex being ripped of by Sebring? I have been studing the case since I was about 11 years old and this is a completely new one. most evidence points to if anyone at the Tate house was actually a target it would have been Frykowski. The copy cat motive, I think it's part of the overall picture, one of the many pieces to the puzzle. One problem is the copy cat motive didn't come out until the penalty phase of the trial. but Tex has admited that it was PART of the reason. One problem is that if it was really a copy cat motive, to get Bobby out, if that was the SOLE reason, why did they go to Beverly Hills, to a rich house, when Hinman wasn't wealthy? interesting.

manson has said he is racsist down to the bone. he is and even though he befriends black people in prison, he bad mouths them just as much.

[–] tovenusandback 19 years ago

Yeah, one thing I will say for Manson is that I do believe he had some talent. I haven't heard a ton of his stuff, but what I have heard reveals (to me at least) an somewhat underrated songwriter (underrated for good reason, obviously). The man could throw together a catchy diddy. Sometimes I find myself unwittingly humming "Never Say Never To Always". The Manson Family Sings version. Kinda light, fluffy, slightly cornball late 60's stoner guitar pop - a common sound for the late 60's, that sound that became like the precursor to some major 70's acts like The Eagles and Fleetwood Mac.

I also think Paul Watkins and Brooks Poston were pretty talented guys. The music of theirs included in the 1973 documentary is kind of interesting. "Do you ever wonder what you're living for? are there other worlds to explore?"

It's sad that these people didn't all have different fates.

[–] bredlau3 19 years ago

yeah I am always catching myself singing Never Say Never To Always. Some of his melodies are good. Again nothing spectacular, but it's not awful, there's some crap on the LIE album, but there are good songs. Cease To Exist is good, Look At Your Game Girl, Eyes Of A Dreamer, Never Say Never To Always, Your Home Is Where You're Happy those are the best ones. Never Do Any Thing Illegal has some good guitar work (I think it's Bobby) "Ego Is A Too Much Thing" interesting but kind of crap, Mechanical Man...ugh...interesting song though. I Once Knew A Man is utter garbage though, can't ever get through that one.

Paul & Brooks had some good stuff..I guess Brooks still plays around.

Haven't heard any of Bobby's stuff, other than the Kenneth Anger stuff.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bredlau3 19 years ago

Bobby is interesting. The Anger connection is very strange and interesting to read into. Not as much info is out there on Bobby, the main books that are out there about the Manson Family. The one with the most info is The Garbage People (this is now under a different name). The problem with Bobby, is in his trials, his story changed a lot. from Manson sliced gary, then manson didn't do it, to manson wasn't ever there that Bobby sliced his ear. he has his reasons for doing this I guess. I don't know if he was ever 'loyal' to Manson, I mean as far as others, and he wasn't always at the ranch. I think the connection between Manson and Bobby was more on a musical/spiritual level. They both admired each other.

It would great to read a book about what he has to say. Gypsy is also supposidly writting a book about her life. (I've heard she had a pretty colourful life prior to Manson) Oh I own Ramrodder. See it once, but that's all you need to see. very bad soft core porn...tries hard to be a Russ Myer movie but fails in every aspect. I mean the only appeal to it now adays is that it does contain two Manson family members, but that's about it to it's attraction. I have no idea how it did when it came out......you should watch The Invocation Of My Demon Brother, it's got Bobby as well. he's been in a few other movies.

and if you can read the Capote interview with him...bobby wasn't in a good mood that day.

[–] hakelsey2 19 years ago

Bred,
I agree; I never figured that out either, and I had wondered who Cisco was--thanks for the info.
Now, if my memory serves me correctly, I do not think that they changed the names in the "un-cut//un-censored"; version. Again, I was disappointed in TV LAND'S broadcast this weekend--- so many important scenes were left out; Manson under the sink cabinet, the old lady in the dog pen, the full conversation of Susan and Ronnie Howard (including Susan's brief go-go dance), and a "split second" glimpse of each of the victims. I will say though, even the censored version made me want to sleep with the lights on.
To another subject. In one of your statements you were addressing Manson's reply of the Cielo Drive murders as being "too messy". My thought on this is that after Tex told Manson that there was a lot of panic and that the victims were running around, that maybe that might not have been Manson's vision for the "tableau"--in other words, maybe Manson had wanted all of the victims to be closer in proximity; grouped together in one room for the "shock element", instead of "scattered". Also, with Tex's account, Manson might have concluded that 2 of the victims nearly escaped (Abigail and Voyteck). Then again, the LaBiancas were in separate rooms...so, not quite sure.

[–] bredlau3 19 years ago

well, the original TV version was a two part show, two different days. I have that one, taped off of tv years and years ago. for a long time there was a shortened version that was on VHS, the two nights condensed to a regular length movie. It left out a lot. But as far as I know I wouldn't see why the names wouldn't be changed in the uncut version as it would have to be completely different or redone scenes. I think they changed the names of some of the people due to the problems and trials they might have been having during the time of the movie. but I wonder why the defense lawyers names were also changed. Irving and Ronald were different names as well.

The part about the bodies being too far apart. I don't know. supposidly Manson told people a few days before that there will be murders and killings with people dead on the lawns. Who knows really.

[–] hakelsey2 19 years ago

Bred,
I noticed that and am perplexed also. I can see them changing young Steven Weiss' name, but the defense attorneys? Maybe to protect them due to all of the threats from "Family" members?...
One thing---I think that Manson et al going back to Cielo drive is totally illogical, don't you?

[–] bredlau3 19 years ago

I believe that he or at least someone did, but that's just me based off of what I have researched and read about.

[–] hakelsey2 19 years ago

Bred, right; I have seen it in several sources as well. But, moving Sharon to the front porch and then back to the living area---I just find that extremely hard to hard to believe.
Maybe you are right; maybe Manson did go back and hence his reply of "...last night was too messy." There seems to be a lot of outstanding mysteries to this case.
When you have a chance, look at the charliemanson.com web site. You may have seen this update, and I am sorry, I do not know what subject it is under in the table of contents, but it is a painting//sketch called "Sharon Tate and her friends before the moment". It is captivating; the artist's style seems so "pure and clean", except for Tex's weapons and the fore-knowledge of what is about to happen---I have never seen anything like it.

[–] bredlau3 19 years ago

yeah I don't know about actually moving Sharon, it's hard to say...I mean not that it matters, she was killed. But most of the theories point to her being moved.

I'll have to check out that sketch..

[–] melissa2673 19 years ago

Dennis Wilson died in 1983. How can he say "now" that Manson had no talent? Manson has only one talent. He has the ability to manipulate people. Anyone that thinks he is innocent is way off base.

[–] bredlau3 19 years ago

I think if Dennis said that it was years later after his association with Manson, and probably cause he was scared and wanted to further himself from the whole drama and tragedy. But obviously Dennis felt Manson was talented, otherwise he wouldn't have had the Beach Boys record 2 of his songs, they needed songs yes, cause Brian wasn't writing anymore really, but he felt good enough about the 2 songs that Manson wrote to include them.

Also he refered to Manson as the Wizard.

Manson had talent and still does, his music is actually not bad.

[–] bredlau3 19 years ago

where is the privacy act part?

[–] tovenusandback 19 years ago

I think you are completely misunderstanding what Bredlau is saying re: "trying", doing it 100%, cop-out, etc.

My feeling on the subject is that the things you listed do not make you a cop-out per se. However, if you are going to support a philosophy and this nebulous ATWA "organization" (for lack of a better word), an organization whose "About Us" homepage implies that Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring were piggies who do not deserve sympathy because they "represent" the establishment, and meanwhile you yourself (and Sandy Good, and Cyane, and all those ATWA wingnuts) are utilizing technology that is made available to you via that establishment, then you are engaging in the ultimate in hypocrisy. One could argue that YOU YOURSELF "represent" the establishment in the same vein that Tate and Sebring did. You're using a commerically available computer, you're on IMDB, a commercial website, a symbol of the "establishment". I'm guessing you have a job or go to school. One could argue that YOU represent the "establishment" in one's eyes, and justify coming at YOU with knives.

Why does Sharon Tate represent the system anymore than you do? Where do you draw the line? Does it have to do with how much money one has in one's bank account? Is there a cut-off point where you suddenly go from being not a part of the establishment to "representing" the establishment?

I hope someday you eventually come to recognize that Sandy Good is an imbalanced attention-seeking baby and the ATWA folks are not a worthy cause to support, and you'll get yourself involved in something that really has a positive impact on the world and on the environment.

[–] DharmaKarma 19 years ago

Manson had no real concern for the environment, he was a musician that couldn't cut it, plain and simple. Where did the murders occur? At the place that Mulcher once resided in. Where is your hard core, factual and concrete proof of his innocence? I'd love to see it. The man has been placed at EVERY crime scene. He was at the Hinman house, was at the Polanksi house and the La Bianca's. Funny how someone who is so innocent managed to be at all the crime scenes. Oh, and FYI, Manson sells locks of his hair shaped into swastikas from jail. A little more Natzi than environmentalist, don't you think? And another little bit of something for you to chew on, most of the people he associated with are in prison for some sort of violent act. Being an environmentalist doesn't equate to murder.

[–] laranadtony 18 years ago

Listen to me Jake.I am not going to come down on you but I will tell you.I went through the Charles Mansonitis thing too.After reading the ridiculous writings in "Helter Skelter",I decided to get another point of view so I read "Manson The Man" and quite frankly,it was Manson himself who changed my mind about him being a political scapegoat.
First of all,while it is true that he killed noone,he thought he had killed someone until they showed up in the courtroom alive.And he had no qualms about killing the man and the man was black.
Second,he admits that he has done some really dispicable things in the past as far as his criminal history.
Third and most important,he had total influence over these people,we know that and he knows that.If he did not tell them to go out and kill,he darned well could have told them not to and they would have listened to him.They had been listening for months.
I used to say he was done wrong because he was the only man in history to get the death penalty for being an accessory(his not being at the tate house and all).Charles manson had no hangups about dying or killing.That is very dangerous.
In conclusion,I think Charles Manson is a man who got a lousy start in life and it followed him.Ever cliche that could possibly plague a person has plagued this man.Bad mother,early crime,drugs,a bad judicial system,etc.He had a lot of mental issues but he is where he belongs.Sad to say............

Anyone who watches "Pulp Fiction" should get a phone call in which someone says"seven days"!!

[–] LucretiaBorg 18 years ago

Jake should be ashamed of himself. Neo-nazi-redneck.
I don't think I need to say much more then that.
Manson loves nature??? *beep* he's just a little man, with a big fear, living in the real world. He grew practually up in jail and that's the only place he knows how to function and he told this himself, so don't think we're all stupid in thinking he's a psychotic *beep* just because he didn't do the killings himself.
The only reason he got the sentence that he did, was his own doing, behave like a monster, they'll tread you like one and be honoust, that's what he wanted, just like he wants to stay in prison (he doesn't even make an effort to get out), scared little rabbit!!

Hell, Marilyn Manson is even scarier than Charlie, lol.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]