Linda Kasabian - Manson (2009) Discussion

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

Without an eyewitness like Linda there would have been no conviction and then they would be back out to kill again.

reply

[–] skin_job 15 years ago

if these crimes werre committed now, with DNA and other analysis advancements Linda Kasabian would be rotting right next to them in jail

How's that?

Whatever you do...don't stare at the midget

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] skin_job 15 years ago

The fact that she deliberately avoided killing someone Manson had ordered her to kill, and risked her life in doing so, and then fled for her life counts a lot in her favor. So does playing a big part in convicting Manson and the others. Sure she made bad decisions. She should've left the family after Hinman was killed, she should've gone to the police sooner when she did leave, etc. But does she really deserve jail time? I don't think so.

Whatever you do...don't stare at the midget

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] davegahan1976 15 years ago

I have heard many people, including the Tate family, say that Linda Kasabian should be in prison with Manson, Susan, Katie, etc. I understand that she was there the first night, and rode along the second. She should have left the family sooner, but it seems that Tanya was "confiscated" almost immediately when Linda arrived, and she had limited access to her daughter. Once the murders began, she wanted out. She just had to bide her time for a bit until she could find the right moment to leave with her daughter. Of course, she ended up leaving Tanya (can you imagine leaving your child with those people, I get chills recalling one of the girls saying "Charlie saw pictures in the living room of children so he went to another house. He said he didn't want to kill kids, but they might have to in the future").

If you read Helter Skelter, it says that Bugliosi's case was weak after Atkins defected. Kasabian was actually remorseful. She said something like "I don't care if I go to prison or not, I have to tell the truth". Could Manson and the others have been put away without her testimy? Doubtful.

Still, as soon as she recovered Tanya, she went home to her mother in New Hampshire, where she was arrested before long. If she was so remorseful, she should have been the one to alert the authorities, instead of Atkins/Howard/Graham.

just my 2 cents...

reply

[–] skin_job 15 years ago

I believe she was remorseful. I also think she was terrified of what the family might do to her daughter if she had gone to the police after fleeing. I might have done the same, it's hard to say.

I think Kasabian was very thankful(and lucky) that the family didn't kill anybody else after she left. If they had, and she could've stopped the killing by alerting police, those deaths would've been on her head.

Whatever you do...don't stare at the midget

reply

[–] ststephen65 15 years ago

I stand by my point. DNA evidence would negate her value as an eye witness. If these crimes were done today, she would be charged and convicted of being an accessory to murder. She drove the killers to and from the LaBiancas on the second night.

reply

[–] jacrainbow87 15 years ago

She was probably scared. And she was probably worried they would hunt her down if she tried to run away. So of course she probably drove them over there so she wouldn't risk her life.

reply

[–] skin_job 15 years ago

DNA evidence would negate her value as an eye witness

That's clearly false. What DNA evidence are you talking about? Her testimony was invaluable in convicting Manson and the others, and helping Bugliosi convince the jury what Manson's motive was in orchestrating all the murders.

She drove the killers to and from the LaBiancas on the second night

That's not true. Tex drove the car to the LaBiancas and stayed there with Katie and Leslie. Charlie then drove Kasabian, Atkins, and "Clem" Grogan to Venice, dropped them off and drove back to Spahn Ranch.

After Kasabian intentionally failed to kill someone she knew in Venice, the three of them hitchhiked back to Spahn.

Whatever you do...don't stare at the midget

reply

[–] ststephen65 15 years ago

The evidence that would place Tex, Susan Atkins, Leslie Van Houton et al at the crime scenes. When you have that kind of evidence at the crime scene that places those people there, it is indisputable. They would not need her to place those people at the cirme scene. They would have rolled on Charlie at that point. I am not saying that her testimony did not convict Manson and the others. History proves that it did.

What I am saying that her presence in the vehicles, the knowledge of what had happened at the Tate's the night before and going with the crowd to the LaBianca's makes her an accessory. She knew they were going to kill that night at the LaBianca's. If it were to have happened today she would have done time. I refuse to accept that this woman is blamless and did not deserve time. But that is the justice system we live(d) in and alhough I do not like it I understand the value of her testimony back in '69. I just think she should shut her mouth and go back under whatever rock she crawled out from under.

reply

[–] skin_job 15 years ago

The evidence that would place Tex, Susan Atkins, Leslie Van Houton et al at the crime scenes

What "evidence" are you referring to? Fingerprints? hairs? What? What DNA did they leave behind that could've been used today?

They would have rolled on Charlie at that point

How do you know that? All of them were fanatic followers of Manson.

the knowledge of what had happened at the Tate's the night before and going with the crowd to the LaBianca's makes her an accessory

Of course it does. That's why she was offered immunity, because of what she knew and the fact that she never hurt anyone.

If it were to have happened today she would have done time

I doubt that. People in her situation now are given immunity for their testimony all the time. Prosecutors would be fools not to. Given the bizarre and complex nature of the Manson case, Bugliosi needed all the help he could get to convince the jury that the "Helter Skelter" scenario was real, and that it was the motivation for Manson and the killers themselves.

I refuse to accept that this woman is blamless and did not deserve time

I agree that she was not blameless. Under normal circumstances, it wouldn't be unreasonable for her to get jail time, but those were anything but normal circumstances. Do you really think a smart guy like Bugliosi would bother negotiating lengths of jail time with her? He gave her immunity and thanked his lucky stars for a witness like Kasabian.

I just think she should shut her mouth and go back under whatever rock she crawled out from under

I believe the information and insights Kasabian has offered about this bizarre chapter in criminal history is valuable for posterity to access and may help our understanding. Just my opinion.

Whatever you do...don't stare at the midget

reply

[–] NickiDrea 15 years ago

I doubt that. People in her situation now are given immunity for their testimony all the time. Prosecutors would be fools not to.

With all due respect, I'm a criminal defense attorney (US) and immunity is not something that is offered "all the time," especially not in multiple murder cases. I've actually never had (or heard of) a prosecutor offer a criminal defendant full immunity in ANY case. The best I've ever gotten is a "sweet" (so to speak) deal if my client rolls on a co-defendant.

However, in the Manson case, they may have had to offer her some kind of deal. The Family had no reason to flip on Manson because there was nothing tying them to the murders. All the prosection had was Susan Adkins' confession to her cellmate. That possibly could have convicted her, but not the rest of the Family. I don't even see how they could have gotten her confession into evidence. It's a statement of a co-conspirator, sure, but not a statement made during or in furtherance of the conspiracy so the rules of evidence would treat it as inadmissible hearsay. Without the statement or Kasabian's help, I doubt they could have convicted the Family. There probably was DNA and blood evidence because the victims certainly put up a fight when they died, but that was a pretty tenuous science back then so it may have been hard to secure a conviction. Especially for Manson as he wasn't present for the murders.

If this case happened now, they probably would not have made Kasabian such a sweet deal- they wouldn't have had to. DNA evidence is quite reliable in these cases now. It may have taken a while, but they would eventually get caught, especially if any of them had a criminal background. Times are VERY different.

"Proud to be a PD!!!"

reply

[–] skin_job 15 years ago

Ok, "all the time" may be a bit strong, but I found this recent instance after only a 10 second Google search of murder case immunity deals: "Two co-defendants -- Justin Miller, a 23-year-old arrested in Spokane and 24-year-old Brian Weathersby of Lake Forest -- hired private attorneys and quickly reached immunity deals with the prosecution. They were released from jail"
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-story.asp?date=080503&ID=s1391 153&cat=section.idaho

Wasn't Henry Hill also given immunity for his testimony? And he was a suspected multiple murderer!

There probably was DNA and blood evidence because the victims certainly put up a fight when they died

I never saw any reference to blood evidence obtained at either scene in "Helter Skelter", did you? DNA testing aside, they certainly had blood typing back then.

If this case happened now, they probably would not have made Kasabian such a sweet deal- they wouldn't have had to

Even if they could DNA test, all they would have is DNA of Watson, Atkins, Krenwinkle, and Van Houten. But as we all know, Bugliosi wanted to get Manson badly, and stated that any trials and convictions that did not include Charlie would, to him, be a failure.

Whatever you do...don't stare at the midget

reply

[–] caliblueocean129 12 years ago

I don't agree with that. Even with DNA evidence, prosecutors still want and sometimes need a witness who can tell it like it was, tell the STORY. In modern times she still could have testified for immunity, with or without DNA. Plus, DNA is sometimes very much debated in courtrooms. It's not always the cut and dry CSI television evidence we've been trained to think it is.

People in the 60s were mingling. There was talk the killers had been in the house before, hanging out, swimming, smoking weed. Their DNA would have been there. Not incredibly easy to prove that Watson, Atkins, Krenwinkel DNA was there because they were killers.

Fingerprint and spots of blood, parties, DNA mixes.

Even today, Linda Kasabian would be a prosecutor's dream. She was a prosecutor's dream in 1969, having never killed anyone, and having left the family right after the murders.

reply

[–] Petronius Arbiter II 11 years ago

"However, in the Manson case, they may have had to offer her some kind of deal."

Emphasis mine-- yes, they did. Linda Kasabian herself wasn't adamant about getting full immunity. But her attorney certainly was. Linda wasn't stupid. If her attorney told her to hold out for full immunity before telling them anything really useful, she was for damn sure going to do what he said.

From what I know of the forensic evidence and the shoddy way it was handled by the LAPD, even with modern DNA techniques it would have been impossible to make a solid case against anybody but Tex Watson, using forensic evidence alone. And even with Watson, only maybe. The prosecutors absolutely had to have a more reliable witness than Susan Atkins. A substantially less guilty witness than Atkins was also a big plus.

"I don't deduce, I observe."

reply

[–] AmyJolamb 8 years ago

The fact that she deliberately avoided killing someone Manson had ordered her to kill, and risked her life in doing so, and then fled for her life counts a lot in her favor. So does playing a big part in convicting Manson and the others. Sure she made bad decisions. She should've left the family after Hinman was killed, she should've gone to the police sooner when she did leave, etc. But does she really deserve jail time? I don't think so.

I totally agree with you. It took guts to what she did.

~For beautiful eyes look for the good in others, for beautiful lips speak only words of kindness~

reply

[–] caligirlbr323 9 years ago

Also she was pregnant. She was in her second month or so when this happened. Not eating right or enough food, and I'm sure she wasn't getting enough sleep, taking drugs, being scared! Could you imagine? And having a two year old to think about too. I think she was remorseful, and under the circumstances she did the best she could do. She refused to murder, so I don't believe she is guilty like the rest of them. She was scared and had to go along with things to a point so she wouldn't be killed.

reply

[–] capablecarl 9 years ago

She would have at least gotten a reduced sentence, if not full immunity had this occurred today.

A testifying accomplice who can provide background (that will convict someone who did not commit, but ordered murder) is a vital witness. It's unlikely that any of them would have been convicted without her testimony.

reply

[–] AmyJolamb 8 years ago

It was sickening see her descirbe the beautiful "lovemaking" and "orgies" that she participated in while a Manson follower.

I agree it's gross but that is what happened in the group or cult. She was telling what happened. Most anyone aware of just a little bit about the Manson family is aware that this went on. So if you don't want to hear it don't watch it.

~For beautiful eyes look for the good in others, for beautiful lips speak only words of kindness~

reply

[–] HorrorFanatic24 8 years ago

It's sad but without her the murders would have continued.

reply

[–] terrywatt69 8 years ago

I don't think that's necessarily so.

Keeping in mind that Susan Atkins was Bugliosi's initial "star witness" and had already testified to the Grand Jury. The indictments had already been handed down, the defendants (including Kasabian) were already under incarceration and their identities were already known before Atkins repudiated her Grand Jury testimony and thus negated the terms of the deal she had made with the District Attorney.

Bugliosi could have just as easily referenced Atkins' Grand Jury testimony at the trial, or Watson's psychiatric interviews he made while incarcerated prior to his trial (where he provided details of the murders), and still made the case. It would have been more difficult, to be sure, and I'm not denying that Kasabian was certainly a preferable witness to Atkins or Watson.

However, the idea that without Kasabian's testimony Bugliosi had no chance of getting convictions is a bit of a stretch.

reply