Charles Manson

sherbetbizarre

Special Branch
Joined
Sep 4, 2004
Messages
3,825
Likes
2,138
Points
169
If you can be bothered with conspiracy theories, here's an interview with someone who's written a book:
Charles Manson was the Loch Ness Monster

Basically, Manson didn't work alone and had associates in authority. Because this kind of crime can never just have happened on its own, there always has to be some conspiracy involved, right?
Ha... ordered!
 

Floyd1

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Apr 2, 2019
Messages
433
Likes
699
Points
93
It was I guess a very summarised version of the now many years in the writing monumental book The Manson File – my copy of which he kindly autographed

He re-called how he first got insight into the “real” Manson story in London when he met the actor Ferdy Mayne who had worked for Polanski on the Fearless Vampire Killers.

His version then is then very much based on a lot of what was known at the time amongst the Hollywood inner-circle augmented by many years piecing together corroboration & communicating with Manson in prison & gaining his trust. It demystifys a lot of the “cult” angle & completely rejects the idea of Helter Skelter as any sort of actual motive.

This de-bunking however in no way lessened the rather gripping fascination of the story – which he recounted for well over 2 & a half hours with no notes, no hesitation or repetition & with a considerable weight of plausibility & authority.

In person his presence reminded me a bit of Yannis Varoufakis & in the course of his reflections professed what seemed to me quite sincerely held Bhuddist beliefs.

So basically the Family’s criminal exploits boiled down to one word – drugs.

Drugs was both the catalyst for the violence & the common factor that brought together the Hollywood elite & the underground – in particular Jay Sebring who was acting as Hollywood’s “candyman” whom all the major figures in that society dealt with. Hair salons are (still) a great front for distributing illicit shit to a well heeled clientele.

As such the Tate incident in particular forms a continuum to the Family’s previous violent confrontations with Gary Hinman & Bernard Crowe. There are probably 6 or 7 scenarios as to the LaBiancas but they maybe owed money to the Mafia

Tex Watson had been ripping off other people involved in the drug scene for money / drugs. The Tate atrocity was meant to be a big score – esp of a fresh batch of LSD. Word was out that this batch was available & many figures ( some of whom have dined out on the story of how they could have been at the house that night for a “party”) were planning to go round to sample it – including Steve McQueen. He mentioned that Steven Parent was in on it & he believes he let the Manson crew into the property.

Also in that milieu was Polanksi’s hanger-on Voytek Frykowski who was trying to go into business as a dealer in the drug MDA with little rich girl Abigail Folger providing the seed-money to fund his efforts

Linda Kasabian was basically a drug dealer who orbited in Manson's milieu, not a family member as such.

Watson & Atkins were freaked out on speed – hence the atrocious violence meted out. Sebring liked kinky sex & quite possibly had contact with Susan Atkins amongst other hippie-chicks. This was examined as a motive early on in the case.

Various parties cleared Sebring's dwelling of the evidence of his narcotics side-line before Police arrived & also visited the Cielo Drive site before Police arrived on the scene

Straight Satans acted as strong arm / hit men for the Mafia

Helter Skelter myth was constructed as a veil over all the above & Bugliosi put on the case to make it stick.

Scientolgists created the "fake news" of the involvement of the Process Church – as picked up by the Ed Sanders book in order to deflect negative publicity about Manson's contcts with Scientology whilst in Prison & to damage a rival organisation.

Manson's beliefs basically that of the uncompromising criminal code of honour, Scots-Irish feuding background , Christian upbringing – with no time for “Satanism” as such. He compared him to the character in Herman Hesse's Demian

As a celebrity with a following he was victimised in prison & extorted for money

There was more…wish I’d thought to switch my phone to record although it might have gone into meltdown before events finally concluded.
Yes, I think Bugliosi's book is full of a lot of crap. What are your views on William Garretson?
 

Floyd1

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Apr 2, 2019
Messages
433
Likes
699
Points
93
The flaw in this argument is that the lawyers who make numerous appeals are the same ones who make this argument, so it's kind of a self -fulfilling prophecy.

Let me explain.

An appellate lawyer sees a legal issue from the trial that was decided unfavorably to his client. The process is that he (or she) makes a legal motion for mistrial or dismissal, which the trial judge denies. The lawyer then goes to the state appellate court where the issue is argued. If the decision is unfavorable to either side, it will go to the state high court. Unfavorable decision for the accused. Then to the US Supreme Court.

The next step is the federal district court for the jurisdiction of the trial court, then to the US court of appeals for the circuit of the trial court. Then the Supreme Court of the US once more.,

The issue finally being settled once and for all, the lawyer for the accused takes another legal issue and the whole process is repeated and then another issue, ad nauseum. What these appellate lawyers are trying to do is make it as expensive as possible so they can make this argument.

Please note that they are not doing this for personal profit, they are doing it because they want to see the death penalty done away with and this is one way to do it; by making it as expensive as possible. In short it is not greed that motivates these lawyers; it is idealism.

But even at this point the prisoner's legal options are not exhausted, for once the courts have made their final decision, the executive authority can be approached. This could be the state governors or the President of the US. A commutation can still be had, but quite often, this approach fails.

The law then takes it's course.

Strangely enough, the issue is often not decided on whether the accused is factually guilty; in the overwhelming majority of the cases, they are, but whether certain things should have been admissible as evidence. The accused may argue, for example, that a key piece of evidence should not have been allowed. They might argue that the weapon the accused used to kill with was improperly allowed or a confession was illegally obtained. Police in this country (and presumably the UK as well) don't often make this kind of legal error; they are too careful. And they are getting better about following the legal guidelines.

With these procedures and protections for the accused in place, miscarriages of justice sometime do happen, but they are not commonplace. Such cases as Derek Bentley and Timothy Evans in the UK come to mind and some question the guilt of these two men.

Another case where many people thought was an innocent man hanged was the A6 killer James Hanratty, but I understand that evidence has since come to light confirming his guilt.

Still and all we must be careful, as one of the strongest arguments against the death penalty is that it is irrevocable.

'Oops!!' somehow doesn't cut it if an error is made.
Why are you so sure that Lawyers are idealistic and not greedy?
 

Floyd1

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Apr 2, 2019
Messages
433
Likes
699
Points
93
What I meant was the belief that the actions of the law-breaker are no less moral than the actions of the law-enforcer. Or conversely, that the actions of the law-enforcer have no more morality than those of the law breaker.

An illustration, if I might: an armed robber is about is about to kill his victim and a policeman happens upon the scene before the murder can take place. He shoots the robber and saves the life of the victim. There are those that would say that the officer's killing the robber was as immoral as what the robber was about to do, and there was no moral basis for the robber being killed. After all, he was a human being with a family, he was good to his dog, and circumstances forced him into crime, etc. If they believe, as a few do I imagine, that the state or it's agents should never kill, then what this policeman did was wrong. That is one example of moral equivalency.

Or that the state cannot ethically do anything to force anyone to do anything. As in imprisoning a criminal. But, in fairness, you seem to have conceded this point.

I think our basic difference concerning state actions seems to be one of degree: in other words, where is the line drawn? For myself, I think that the death penalty is warranted in limited, rare instances, whereas you do not.
How would you decide in which incidents the death penalty was to be used? If somebody shoots someone they are to be executed, but if they stabbed them, not? Or vice versa? Would you have executed Sirhan Sirhan for (allegedly) assassinating RFK?
 
Last edited:

Cochise

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
4,908
Likes
4,465
Points
159
August 9th will mark the 50th year (I refuse to put anniversary) of Sharon Tate's murder. She was 8 months pregnant and just 26 years old.

And now, I've just read the following on the BBC. Nothing ever changes.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48814571
I was brought up to protect women. I know today's women don't think they need protecting. What causes some men (throughout history) to hit, maim and kill women? I can almost understand rape more easily - hormones are very powerful things.

No, I'm not advocating rape or defending rapists - just saying I find their motivation at least kind of understandable. Although even there I'm told rape is more about power than sex.

I guess a lot of human behaviour is just confusing to me. Sorry, that's kind of a disjointed post, but I have anger about so-called men who hurt women and I don't know how to resolve it.
 

Floyd1

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Apr 2, 2019
Messages
433
Likes
699
Points
93
I actually think that if Sirhan Sirhan and James Earl Ray had been executed they'd have killed two innocent men, but I guess that's for another thread!
Back to the 'Manson' case, it is not as cut and dry as most people think, in my opinion.
 

Frideswide

Fortea Morgana :) PeteByrdie certificated Princess
Staff member
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
9,491
Likes
9,681
Points
284
Location
An Eochair
No, I'm not advocating rape or defending rapists - just saying I find their motivation at least kind of understandable. Although even there I'm told rape is more about power than sex.
You are one of the Good Guys @Cochise :)

Doesn't research overwhelmingly suggest that the motivation for rape is display of power? not to do with sex.
 

Cochise

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
4,908
Likes
4,465
Points
159
You are one of the Good Guys @Cochise :)

Doesn't research overwhelmingly suggest that the motivation for rape is display of power? not to do with sex.
Thank'ee ma'am ;)

I'm pretty certain serial or stranger rapists are all about power. I'm not so sure about the situation where someone (one or both parties) have too much to drink in a social situation and things go wrong. In that case I think its hormones plus alcoholic misjudgement. Doesn't make it any less serious though.
 

escargot

Disciple of Marduk
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
25,157
Likes
20,367
Points
309
Location
HM The Tower of London
During my MA in Criminology I read many research papers about rapists. One researcher had taken the trouble to interview offenders in prison. Their focus was on the Crimewatch-type opportunist 'stranger' attack, where a man grabs a woman he doesn't know to assault and rape.

A striking finding was that when the victim fought back, there was more or less 50/50 split - say 52/48, can't remember which way round it was - between the attackers who'd be discouraged and those who'd find the resistance a challenge.

So based on that, I'd feel it's worth shouting and attracting attention if someone grabs me, if I possibly could, as I'd have at least an evens chance of being released. YMMV.
 
Last edited:

gerhard1

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
855
Likes
833
Points
94
Why are you so sure that Lawyers are idealistic and not greedy?
Not quite what I said. In the case of the death penalty, I think that opposition to the death penalty is a prime motivation. The argument is often made like I said earlier, that the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment. I believe that the lawyers involved in death penalty appeals want to make the process as costly as they can so that they can make this argument.
 

gerhard1

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
855
Likes
833
Points
94
How would you decide in which incidents the death penalty was to be used? If somebody shoots someone they are to be executed, but if they stabbed them, not? Or vice versa? Would you have executed Sirhan Sirhan for (allegedly) assassinating RFK?
That was the case in the UK for a time when the death penalty law was modified in the late 1950's. The current laws in most US states have a specific set of circumstances where the prosecution can ask for the death penalty. Depending on the state in question, these can be a murder for hire, multiple homicides, murder of a witness, policeman, fireman or judge, Under federal jurisdiction, espionage, or treason are death penalty crimes as well.

If the death penalty is sought and a conviction is obtained, there is a penalty phase where the prosecution and the defense present aggravating vs mitigating factors and the jury decides if the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating.

Please note that this is a very rough outline of the US legal situation.

As Sirhan; yes, I would have had him executed. In my mind, there is no question that he shot at Kennedy; the only issue is whether he acted alone.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
48,087
Likes
19,561
Points
284
Location
Eblana

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
35,309
Likes
21,132
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar

Lord Lucan

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
1,062
Likes
2,505
Points
154
I'd invite her around for a cup of tea and a sticky bun.
It would appear that Zak Bagans of Ghost Adventures fame has purchased the property. I'm on my phone and in a hurry but there are lots of stories online so it shouldn't be too hard to find a link.
 
Top