Online Book - "The Manson Myth"
Authored by J. Howie Harrison
Authored by J. Howie Harrison
“I didn’t do what they say I did. I know what I did. God knows what I did.
And what makes me so mad about it is that I don’t have any god damn
thought in that circle at all. That’s not me. I’m not this fucking clown
that you guys play-acted in this god damn Helter Skelter shit.”
Charles Manson
Table of Contents:
Page 2: Preface
Page 5: What is Helter Skelter?
Page 9: Why Helter Skelter Doesn’t Fit
Page 23: The Drug Connection
Page 36: Who is Charles Watson?
Page 71: False Witness
Paul Watkins & Brooks Poston Page 72
Danny DeCarlo Page 86
Diane “Snake” Lake Page 97
Ronnie Howard & Virginia Graham Page 101
Linda Kasabian Page 105
Barbara Hoyt Page 117
Page 127: Demystifying Susan Atkins
Page 140: Stupid Cupid
Page 162: Bruce McGregor Davis
Page 182: The Bug
Page 195: The Real Race War
Page 207: This Holy Swastika
Page 225: Charles Will Is Man’s Son
Page 238: The Dictator
Page 263: Krishna Venta
Page 277: My Interpretation
Page 290: Words
Page 311: Why Charles Manson is Entitled to a New Trial
Page 315: Charles Manson’s Rap Sheet
Page 319: Playacting with Lies
Page 326: Epilogue
Page 333: Sources
I haven't read this book yet, but from a quick glance, it's seems safe to assume, that it's a Manson-sympathetic work.
=================================================================
Matt Prokes said:
"I'm not even talking about the rule of law.
If you go by that then Mansons guilty since he was convicted and put in prison.
I'm talking about your own sense of what is right and wrong.
Just because something is a law doesnt automatically make it morally right.
Right?
Should Manson serve as much time(or more) as the others even though he did'nt actually kill anyone?
I'm just curious about peoples opinions.
I'm of the mind that Manson should do time but not as much time as the actual killers.
I think somewhere along the way he became a symbol instead of a person and thats the main reason hes still locked way.
Also hes nuttier than a fruitcake..that might have something to do with it as well".
Lynyrd Replies:
There's a million variables here... but in very general terms, I agree with some of what you're saying... not all, but some.
I do agree, that somewhere along the way, Manson did become a symbol instead of a person.
I also believe, that (all things being equal) the person who plunges the actual knife into flesh, is arguably "more guilty" than the conspirator. One could make a pretty good case for that mindset... and, I might agree in some instances.
Here's a few obstacles to my sympathies towards Manson however:
Bear in mind, that Manson has had a heavy hand, in making himself a political prisoner and desensitizing folks to his humanity. There's no doubt that Manson has had lots of help from the media (regarding his image), but he also painted himself into that corner.
Let's face it...
Manson has acted like a fool, from day one. He has sold himself as a symbol, to the public. Manson wants to be viewed as a rebel, an outlaw, a mystic, etc.
Watch all the interview footage. Compared to Manson... Pat, Leslie, Bruce and Bobby have sold totally different images (of themselves) over the years. They've conducted themselves much differently, than Manson.
Fact is...
You can't MAKE someone act like a fool, no matter how many books you write about them, or how you portray them in court.
Manson hasn't waited patiently and obediently for release like Bruce Davis, Boeusoleil, and Van Houten. Manson hasn't used his time productively. Manson wants to be viewed as defiant.
It all started at the trial.
If Manson had simply sat at the trial like a deaf-mute, and instructed his "family" to do the same... Bugliosi's story would have come across to the jury, like a completely bizarre tale.
Bugliosi would have looked like a fool.
Instead, Manson behaved exactly as Bugliosi described him.
Manson WAS the person, Bugliosi had painted... a crazy, bizarre, defiant, leader.
(Which kinda makes one wonder, how far off Bugliosi's assessment actually was).
Manson sealed Bugliosi's case, and his own fate.
As for the conspirator versus perpetrator concept... as I said, I agree at face value.
At face value, it would certainly seem that a perpetrator would be "more guilty" than a conspirator.
But the question becomes:
How "guilty" must a person be, to spend his life in prison?
How much is one life worth?
Manson was linked (legally) to nine murders... nine.
Was Manson "as guilty" as Tex? No.
Was he "guilty enough" to earn "life with the possibility of parole"? Yes.
But in Manson's case, our answers to these questions, don't really matter now.
It doesn't matter, because Manson is currently in a position where he must earn parole, and by no one's standards, has he done so.
My two cents...
I really DO like Manson on some levels. I don't think he's the worst criminal, to ever walk the earth. But, I do believe that he earned his sentence of "life with the possibility of parole"... and, I don't believe that he's demonstrated suitability for parole.
I haven't read this book yet, but from a quick glance, it's seems safe to assume, that it's a Manson-sympathetic work.
=================================================================
Matt Prokes said:
"I'm not even talking about the rule of law.
If you go by that then Mansons guilty since he was convicted and put in prison.
I'm talking about your own sense of what is right and wrong.
Just because something is a law doesnt automatically make it morally right.
Right?
Should Manson serve as much time(or more) as the others even though he did'nt actually kill anyone?
I'm just curious about peoples opinions.
I'm of the mind that Manson should do time but not as much time as the actual killers.
I think somewhere along the way he became a symbol instead of a person and thats the main reason hes still locked way.
Also hes nuttier than a fruitcake..that might have something to do with it as well".
Lynyrd Replies:
There's a million variables here... but in very general terms, I agree with some of what you're saying... not all, but some.
I do agree, that somewhere along the way, Manson did become a symbol instead of a person.
I also believe, that (all things being equal) the person who plunges the actual knife into flesh, is arguably "more guilty" than the conspirator. One could make a pretty good case for that mindset... and, I might agree in some instances.
Here's a few obstacles to my sympathies towards Manson however:
Bear in mind, that Manson has had a heavy hand, in making himself a political prisoner and desensitizing folks to his humanity. There's no doubt that Manson has had lots of help from the media (regarding his image), but he also painted himself into that corner.
Let's face it...
Manson has acted like a fool, from day one. He has sold himself as a symbol, to the public. Manson wants to be viewed as a rebel, an outlaw, a mystic, etc.
Watch all the interview footage. Compared to Manson... Pat, Leslie, Bruce and Bobby have sold totally different images (of themselves) over the years. They've conducted themselves much differently, than Manson.
Fact is...
You can't MAKE someone act like a fool, no matter how many books you write about them, or how you portray them in court.
Manson hasn't waited patiently and obediently for release like Bruce Davis, Boeusoleil, and Van Houten. Manson hasn't used his time productively. Manson wants to be viewed as defiant.
It all started at the trial.
If Manson had simply sat at the trial like a deaf-mute, and instructed his "family" to do the same... Bugliosi's story would have come across to the jury, like a completely bizarre tale.
Bugliosi would have looked like a fool.
Instead, Manson behaved exactly as Bugliosi described him.
Manson WAS the person, Bugliosi had painted... a crazy, bizarre, defiant, leader.
(Which kinda makes one wonder, how far off Bugliosi's assessment actually was).
Manson sealed Bugliosi's case, and his own fate.
As for the conspirator versus perpetrator concept... as I said, I agree at face value.
At face value, it would certainly seem that a perpetrator would be "more guilty" than a conspirator.
But the question becomes:
How "guilty" must a person be, to spend his life in prison?
How much is one life worth?
Manson was linked (legally) to nine murders... nine.
Was Manson "as guilty" as Tex? No.
Was he "guilty enough" to earn "life with the possibility of parole"? Yes.
But in Manson's case, our answers to these questions, don't really matter now.
It doesn't matter, because Manson is currently in a position where he must earn parole, and by no one's standards, has he done so.
My two cents...
I really DO like Manson on some levels. I don't think he's the worst criminal, to ever walk the earth. But, I do believe that he earned his sentence of "life with the possibility of parole"... and, I don't believe that he's demonstrated suitability for parole.
I wish Manson the best in the here-after, and I sympathize with his rough up-bringing.
It's a sad story, all the way around. There are no winners here. No one wins... the victims, the murderers, the conspirators, or the public. But, at the end of the day... I believe Manson is right where he belongs.
Why? Well... that's another 12 pages, and I'm too tired right now. LOL
Weigh-In Folks!!
It's a sad story, all the way around. There are no winners here. No one wins... the victims, the murderers, the conspirators, or the public. But, at the end of the day... I believe Manson is right where he belongs.
Why? Well... that's another 12 pages, and I'm too tired right now. LOL
Weigh-In Folks!!
103 comments:
Josh asked me to post this E-Book weeks ago, but I was having technical difficulty with the 333-page PDF format. Today, Matt Prokes resolved those issues, and the book is now available to all.
Thanks Josh!
Thanks MattP!
I think the guy who put it together is named Jackson Howard.
No idea if thats his real name or not.
This thing about the mugshot being doctored to make Manson look shorter is way off. If you take a full body mugshot from this perspective, the scale is not even throughout. For example, the space taken up between the 0 to the 1 foot mark, would be about half the size of the space taken up between the 5 and 6 foot mark.
THANK YOU!!!! This is good, and far cheaper than Nicholas Schrek's book. They reach about the same conclusions from what I recall. What made me think to bring this to your attention Lynyrd, was all the talk about Tex a little while ago. I think this and the Schrek book offer interesting counterpoints to Helter Skelter and the Family.
Very Cool!!! Should be a good discussion piece. Hope you're all havin a great day.......PEACE
Whoever wrote this DID invest quite a large deal of time for research and such, much thanks to whoever you may be!!
Hi Cielo,
Thanks for the information.
I honestly haven't read a single page of this book, so I'm completely ill-equipped to join you, in conversation.
All I know from quickly skimming threw it (2 minutes total), is that it's likely a Manson-sympathetic work... and oddly enough, I couldn't find an author.
That's all I've got. LOL
This E-book has 333 pages.
If the contents were printed in a regular hard-bound book... this document would be closer to 100.. maybe 150 pages tops.
The print is large... there's little print on each page... and some "pages" are almost entirely consumed by photos.
A person could probably plow through this E-Book in an hour, if they were so inclined.
Maybe I'll give it a shot tonight, or tomoroow.
Starship...
You feel like reviewing 100 pages of Pro-Manson stuff? LOL
MattP...
Please check your email.
Thanks.
Regretably, I don't have the time to read this whole thing now but I was struck by the inherant dishonesty of the second paragraph.
We all accept that Manson was not at either TLB scene as the murders occurred. But there is strong circumstantial evidence he was at Cielo later that night which makes him complicit. And HE WAS at both the Hinmann and Shea murder sites.
Painting Charlie as an innocent babe is just way to much spin.
Isn't it weird that nearly a half century after the murders we are still playing the "he said/they said" game.
Manson swears he didn't give 'killing orders' for either Cielo or Waverly and the other participants say he did. It is a Dante's Inferno to have to chose between Charlie Manson and Tex Watson as to who is telling the truth, but based on cooberating testimony any reasonable person would have to conclude that Manson is either flat out lying or through some delusion psychosis has been able to convince himself he wasn't responsible for the TLB killings. It is an amazing piece of psychosis if he really has convinced himself of his innocence.
Does anyone really believe that if Charlie and Stephanie had just continued driving north and never returned to Spahn that the TLB victims would have died?
I've spent way to much time contemplating this, and honestly have tried to give Manson the benefit of the doubt, but it flat out just ain't possible.
Sorry Charlie.
Leary I agree. He was at Waverly Drive too.
I wouldn't take credit for writing this either.
So was Clem.
I think the author meant when the prosecuted crimes went down that Charlie was not present, while he is continually billed as a mass murderer and serial killer by the amss media. I don't think this work is "sympathetic" it more just tears down the larger than life Manson image. Gives another viewpoint into the madness that was created from this case. SO many questions..... very interesting stuff.
I think after all this time "he said/they said" games are all thats left really.
I also think that that Watson and a few of the others would have ended up in prison with or without manson having been in their lives.
One argument the apologists fall back on is that Manson never killed anyone. the real question is one of personal responsibility.
Should he be held responsible because the others were weak minded?
For example if i tell you that you should kill john smith and you're dumb enough to go do it who is 'guilty' or 'responsible' for the actual crime?
You,Me or both of Us?
Revatron... LOL!
Are you saying that some things are written anonymously for a reason? : )
check out the Alabama Shakes on youtube if you are into some soul singing.
Matt, most definately would have liked to have seem Medina and Calley and others held more responsible for My Lai. In my book ordering death is the same as committing it.
The question for me is how Charlie is able to maintain his "I didn't kill anyone" mantra. What would be the motive? Maybe he still dreams of being viewed as a prophet down the road.
Hell, if we get a Mormon in the White House and blacks get educated to the LDS attitude and position on the black race, we may just have that race war Charlie was so certain was coming.
Matt I love your insight.
>>>Matt said: For example if i tell you that you should kill john smith and you're dumb enough to go do it who is 'guilty' or 'responsible' for the actual crime?
You,Me or both of Us?>>>
If someone pays someone to kill another person, then that person is accountable for murder or attempted murder. So I think it would be the same for someone who tells someone to kill another person.
The only difference is that money didn't cross hands. The result is the same.
Or maybe that would be conspiracy to commit murder. Dill what do you think?
I'm not even talking about the rule of law.
If you go by that then Mansons guilty since he was convicted and put in prison.
I'm talking about your own sense of what is right and wrong.
Just because something is a law doesnt automatically make it morally right.
Right?
Should Manson serve as much time(or more) as the others even though he did'nt actually kill anyone?
I'm just curious about peoples opinions.
I'm of the mind that Manson should do time but not as much time as the actual killers.
I think somewhere along the way he became a symbol instead of a person and thats the main reason hes still locked way.
Also hes nuttier than a fruitcake..that might have something to do with it as well.
Matt, Manson is still controlling people. Remember the young girl and old man with "x"'s cut in their foreheads and their locks cut off? Wasn't too long ago. And they admitted they did it for him.
Don't you see that he was controlling the "sheep" then and he's still doing it for the "weak minded".
Susan said in her Grand Jury Testimony that the girls were "Sheep". I can post that testimony if necessary.
I could go into miles and miles of comments, but I'll leave it at this.
When Charles Manson left Terminal Island in 1967, he started gathering a herd of girls. Why? Because he's a pimp. He pimped them out to get men to join his tribe. The only way to entice them was with pussy.
That's the truth, anyway you look at it.
The only myth I can think of is why people think Charlie is innocent.
is the mormon church still racist? i know they have at least one black member--gladys knight.
Sorry Katie, I don't agree with you...Charlie is not still controlling people...he's in prison, max security.... What do you suppose he did? Held a knife to those two and ordered them to shave their heads and carve an x? "They" pursued him, they visit him in jail, he didn't go round them up.. "They" have minds of their own----what kind of minds I really don't want to know....they remind me of wannabes ...now that's a scary thought...
Beauders, I believe Eldridge Cleaver became a Morman too after he left the Black Panthers... :)
You have to admit though Kimchi, the fact that Manson would even suggest carving and shaving to his friends in 2012, is kinda weird to say the least.
It doesn't speak well of his judgement.
That of course, is assuming Manson actually DID suggest those things to them.
They say he did... but, who knows.
Maybe it was their own idea.
Any 70+ year old man with common sense, would certainly advise against such bizarre actions, with his friends.
Heck...
A man of any age with common sense, would certainly advise against such bizarre actions, with his friends.
I still think that says more about the people(Star and Graywolf)who carved their own heads than whoever might have suggested it to them.
If I tell you to jump in front of a moving train and you do it does that make me guilty of something or does that make you stupid?
I agree with Matt. I also agree with kimchi. Manson's been in prison for AGES now. Star found him, Grey Wolf found him (again). TONS of people write to Charlie. I think it's missing out to write all of them off as crazy. I've met many people who "sympathize" or see another side to the Manson saga and (though there are quite a few insane people involved in all of this subject matter) they are amazing and wonderful people (again, for the most part).
By the way (just to throw this out there) I don't believe in murder or the sue of violence :)
Josh,
I am not sure what you mean when you say you do not believe in murder. Perhaps you could explain? Do you believe that there is no such thing as murder, or that murder is neither good nor bad? Please help me to understand your perspective. Also, what is "sue of violence?"
H AH AHA HA HA HA HA HA.
Kimchi said: Sorry Katie, I don't agree with you...Charlie is not still controlling people...he's in prison, max security.... What do you suppose he did? Held a knife to those two and ordered them to shave their heads and carve an x? "They" pursued him, they visit him in jail, he didn't go round them up.. "They" have minds of their own----what kind of minds I really don't want to know....they remind me of wannabes ...now that's a scary thought...
Listen to this Kimchi. Might jog your mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWuXmfgXVxY
Helter Skelter. LOL.
I don't believe in the use of violence nor do I condone murder. I was typing and my fingers became jumbled.
Murder is bad
Helter Skelter doesn't satisfy me so I keep looking in different ways and at different angles.
I truly enjoy all the insight and opinions here, I've been reading for a long time. Lynyrd's done an awesome job here!!!
KIMCHI!!!!!!
Matt said:
"I'm not even talking about the rule of law.
If you go by that then Mansons guilty since he was convicted and put in prison.
I'm talking about your own sense of what is right and wrong.
Just because something is a law doesnt automatically make it morally right.
Right?
Should Manson serve as much time(or more) as the others even though he did'nt actually kill anyone?
I'm just curious about peoples opinions.
I'm of the mind that Manson should do time but not as much time as the actual killers.
I think somewhere along the way he became a symbol instead of a person and thats the main reason hes still locked way.
Also hes nuttier than a fruitcake..that might have something to do with it as well".
There's a million variables here... but in very general terms, I agree with some of what you're saying... not all, but some.
I do agree, that somewhere along the way, Manson did become a symbol instead of a person.
I also believe, that (all things being equal) the person who plunges the actual knife into flesh, is arguably "more guilty" than the conspirator.
One could make a pretty good case for that mindset... and, I might agree in some instances.
Here's a few obstacles to my sympathies towards Manson however:
Bear in mind, that Manson has had a heavy hand, in making himself a political prisoner... and desensitizing folks to his humanity.
There's no doubt that Manson has had lots of help from the media (regarding his image), but he also painted himself into that corner.
Let's face it...
Manson has acted like a fool, from day one.
He has sold himself as a symbol, to the public.
Manson wants to be viewed as a rebel, an outlaw, a mystic, etc.
Watch all the interview footage.
Compared to Manson... Pat, Leslie, Bruce and Bobby have sold totally different images (of themselves) over the years.
They've conducted themselves much differently, than Manson.
Fact is...
You can't MAKE someone act like a fool, no matter how many books you write about them, or how you portray them in court.
Manson hasn't waited patiently and obediently for release like Bruce Davis, Boeusoleil, and Van Houten.
Manson hasn't used his time productively.
Manson wants to be viewed as defiant.
It all started at the trial.
If Manson had simply sat at the trial like a deaf-mute, and instructed his "family" to do the same... Bugliosi's story would have come across to the jury, like a completely bizarre tale.
Bugliosi would have looked like a fool.
Instead, Manson behaved exactly as Bugliosi described him.
Manson WAS the person, Bugliosi had painted... a crazy, bizarre, defiant, leader.
(Which kinda makes one wonder, how far off Bugliosi's assessment actually was).
Manson sealed Bugliosi's case, and his own fate.
As for the conspirator versus perpetrator concept... as I said, I agree at face value.
At face value, it would certainly seem that a perpetrator would be "more guilty" than a conspirator.
But the question becomes:
How "guilty" must a person be, to spend his life in prison?
How much is one life worth?
Manson was linked (legally) to nine murders... nine.
Was Manson "as guilty" as Tex?
No.
Was he "guilty enough" to earn "life with the possibility of parole"?
Yes.
But in Manson's case, our answers to these questions, don't really matter now.
It doesn't matter, because Manson is currently in a position where he must earn parole, and by no one's standards, has he done so.
My two cents...
I really DO like Manson on some levels.
I don't think he's the worst criminal, to ever walk the earth.
But, I do believe that he earned his sentence of "life with the possibility of parole"... and, I don't believe that he's demonstrated suitability for parole.
I wish Manson the best in the here-after, and I sympathize with his rough up-bringing.
It's a sad story, all the way around.
There are no winners here.
No one wins... the victims, the murderers, the conspirators, or the public.
But, at the end of the day... I believe Manson is right where he belongs.
Why?
Well... that's another 12 pages, and I'm too tired right now. LOL
It's an interesting observation that Manson became a "symbol", as our friend MattP states.
In today's media we see celebrities attempting an image change regularly, to garner fresh coverage. But I think Charlie is one of the very few persons who could be labelled a true shape-shifter.
Someone who stirs something up in the psyche of all who observe him, that harks back to figures in dark tales of old, myths and legends.
I'm thinking this might be so rare that we only witness it a couple of times in our lifetime. Another who springs to mind is John Lennon. As many physical faces as psychological facets. Perhaps nature and nurture combined creates these rarities, who are then set on a path to glory, or infamous deeds, or both.
Self-recognition may well compel these "special" types to sermonising, gathering a flock. Changing the world.
Manson is certainly a completely different beast to the others convicted in this tale, that's for sure. And the only candidate for making into a symbol.
Calling that collection of deluded ramblings a "book" is a monstrous insult to Johannes Gutenberg.
Now for why insane and deluded ramblings, simply recall that Bobby Beausoleil was not arrested until 6 August. So there was simply not enough time to discern how much incriminating evidence, if any, that the police had in their possession. And so, in comparison, Helter Skelter is genius as motive when compared to killing seven more folks when the one you want to save is going down for murder owing to bloody palm print, fingerprint, bloody shirt, knife, and the victim's Fiat.
Lastly, for our Chuckie loving apologist author, try read up, specifically, Hinman's autopsy report, since the Chuckie-inflicted wound is described as:
This wound is possibly fatal.
And, nitwit, no one believes Chuckie, or anyone of them, well, most of them. Certainly not about any bad drugs here, since the folks who found Hinman dead were some of the folks in the group he was in, the one dedicated to ending one's drug addiction. Little bit hard to end your addiction when you're selling drugs, doncha' think? So perhaps you might refrain from disrespecting the dead and save your abuse for the psychotic who actually deserves the abuse, in heaps, and heaps, and heaps. His name is Chuckie.
Lastly, not that I'm Mr. Saunders biggest fan, but he does report that scumbag Bobby told him that was all about money and nothing whatsoever to do with drugs. Was only later that Bobby came up with that drugs story, which by the way, well, what did the nitwit author claim? Susan, etc., only changed their stories after... So did Bobby, dumbass... Since all they care about is their parole, and so in scumbag Bobby's case, what's better, you killed a drug dealer or you killed a pacifist who was kind enough to allow folks down on their luck to crash at his pad? And so I can only hope that scumbag Bobby leaves the prison in a casket. And since Chuckie is quoted as following along with the same lame story, Chuckie leaving the prison in a casket as well.
Sorry, almost forgot, but since nitwit author made the point that Susan was a "motor mouth" (to use scumbag Bobby's words), well, guess what Susan has never said? Susan never said that Gary Hinman was a drug dealer. And so scumbag Bobby just can't get over the fact that Susan always allowed her warmth for the late Gary Hinman to overcome any desire to help scumbag Bobby avoid responsibility for his murder.
For yet one more, always ask the obvious question, here being: if Bobby sold the bikers bad drugs, in what fashion were they ultimately reimbursed? Bobby was driving the Fiat when arrested, so that's out. The VW van was sold to a Mr. Arneson, who wasn't one of the biker gang. So no one made good with any biker gang for bad drugs, so the story was and is horse feces. As is the rest of the piece in question.
I've just spent about 1 hour reading this book. It will take much longer than that to slog through it. I may finish it, I don't know.
First, I have no idea who the author is, that's a pretty big red flag. This is a case where people like William Garettson claim to have seen 3 eyed babies.
Second, "the author" seems to rely heavily on statements made by former Manson family members, including Susan Atkins. She changed her story may times, as did many other people.
Finally, from what I've read, this person seems include all the well known theories and ideas about the case, but doesn't really combine any facts to make one particular theory more plausible than the next.
Sunset, well said. I agree.
Lynyrd you said what I was going to, but now I don't have to. Anyone who says Manson didn't get a fair trial is either delusional or doesn't know the facts. Just like you've said many times, Manson could have just sat quietly in the courtroom and he would have gone free. But he had to have his antics to get attention and direct his followers to do the same. The jury wasn't blind. They could see how he controlled all of them...the girls in the courtroom and all the people on the sidewalk. They were doing and saying just what he told them.
>>>Matt said: If I tell you to jump in front of a moving train and you do it does that make me guilty of something or does that make you stupid?>>>
Matt I'm just curious. If you told someone to jump in front of a moving train and they did, would you feel bad about it? Manson doesn't.
Sure i would but at the same time would it be my fault that the person did'nt have common sense enough to know that jumping in front of a train would'nt be very smart.
Now if the person was mentally challenged or batshit crazy thats another story.
And if Manson had sat quietly in the courtroom and minded his manners do you still think he should have to serve as many years as the actual killers?
Just on what he was charged with.taking away the courtroom antics.
Matt I really think that if Manson had sat quietly in the courtroom, cut his hair, shaved and worn a suit he never would have been convicted. He would have walked free. I don't think the jury would have believed anybody that said Manson was in control of everyone. It would have been way too hard to prove.
Just my opinion.
Lynyrd, why do you wish Manson the best in the here-after? Lots of people have rough upbringings and don't conspire to commit murder. And you say there are no winners - not the victims, not the murderers...How can you compare the two? The murderers are not winners because they chose not to be winners. They chose to kill. The victims had no say in their fates.
Carol,
I cannot, and will not, speak for LS, but I interpret his statement as it is not his role, nor position in life, to wish ill someone in the hereafter, that it does not benefit LS, nor the recently departed. That it is the role of whatever Spirit, God, or Entity that one believes in. I may or may not agree with the statement, but I can understand it...
Matt said:
"And if Manson had sat quietly in the courtroom and minded his manners do you still think he should have to serve as many years as the actual killers?
Just on what he was charged with.taking away the courtroom antics".
My premise, is that if Manson had played his cards correctly at the trial, he may have ended-up with a lighter sentence.
He certainly would have made Bugliosi's job more difficult.
If Manson then played his cards correctly while in prison, he may have stood a chance at parole.
So, he victimized himself, to an extent.
He exacerbated his own prison sentence.
-----------------------------
But to answer your question directly:
"do you still think he should have to serve as many years as the actual killers?"
Yes, I do.
In this particular set of circumstances, Yes.
I think if one man, kills one person... and another man conspires (with him) in the killing of that one person... all things being equal... the guy who does the actual killing, deserves to serve more years, than the conspirator.
(It's a one-to-one ratio).
But here... we have several dead bodies.
The numbers are radically different from a 1:1 ratio.
Beausoleil was charged in the killing of ONE man.
Manson (on the other hand) was linked as a conspirator in the deaths of NINE people... and ultimately was charged with first degree murder for all of them.
Beausoleil actually killed one man.
Manson conspired in the deaths of nine.
Beausoleil = one murder.
Manson = conspirator to nine.
I believe Van Houten was charged with two murders (even though she only stabbed Rosemary), as was Davis.
(2:9 ratio)
You see Matt... it's not exactly apples and apples.
It's apples and oranges.
Also...
Let's assume for a moment, that the Pro-manson folks are correct.
Let's assume that the Cielo event was 100% Tex Watson's gig.
Charlie ws innocent, and got implicated by de-railment.
You still have Charlie culpable regarding 2 LaBianca's, Shea, and Hinman.
That's four people.
Not to mention Crowe (who Manson was never prosecuted for).
OK... Crowe survived, but Manson blasted him at point-blank range and left him for dead.
So Yes.
I personally believe that Manson's sentence was just, assuming he did conspire in regards to these multiple murders.
Also of note:
Manson was granted the opportunity for parole like all the others, and effectively burn't that bridge himself.
I think Manson's sentence was just, and accurate.
Thanks Dilligaf.
Carol said:
"Lynyrd, why do you wish Manson the best in the here-after? Lots of people have rough upbringings and don't conspire to commit murder. And you say there are no winners - not the victims, not the murderers...How can you compare the two? The murderers are not winners because they chose not to be winners. They chose to kill. The victims had no say in their fates".
Hi Carol.
Dilligaf summarized my thoughts, quite well.
I certainly never intended my statement to be viewed as a comparison, between the perpetrators and victims.
Certainly, I have MUCH more sympathy for the victims, than I do for the perpetrators.
That goes without saying.
These two groups (the perpetrators and victims), and my related empathy, are not even in the same ballpark... or universe.
I have a small level of sympathy for all the perpetraors, except Tex.
Try as I might, I can't muster a single ounce of sympathy for that guy.
You'd have to be a saint, to muster sympathy for that guy... even in regards to the here-after.
Bottom line:
When I say sympathy... what I mean, is that... I hate to see a completely wasted life.
I'd much rather these criminals had chosen different paths, and made good things happen in society, and with their lives.
It's a sad, pathetic story, all the way around.
But certainly, they made their own beds... and the idea of comparing the killers with their victims, is simply absurd.
Thanks Sunset for taking the time, to read this book.
Any input or feedback, is greatly appreciated.
I should probably read it myself at some point.
After all, it is my blog. LOL
I just haven't had a chance.
I am on page 2 and have already found a mistake .... "In fact, WATSON himself has admitted that he did not find out about them until months later."
That's funny since Watson was there both nights
I was once told by a career criminal that the mark of a good con man was that he believed half of his lies. The mark of a psychotic con was he believed all his lies. Guess which one Charlie is.
If you looked at the thread over at Liz's about the ten strangest quotes of Manson, it reinforces the rather obvious observation that Manson is a different dude. I'm not trying to be flip, the point is how different.
I am curious, when Charlie says I could kill you and it would be like going to the drugstore, we believe him, right? When he says 'maybe I should have killed four or five hundred, then I woulda felt I really contributed', we believe him, right?
So when Manson goes on his God rant, proclaiming that he is Jesus and can see all and lives a hundred years in a day and so on, do we believe him. I mean do we believe THAT HE BELIEVES that jive? That he truly believes he is some kind of supernatural force?
Simply put, when Charlie does his God rant do we think he is just doing an act or does he truly believe that stuff.
Is that how he is able to maintain his charade of "never having killed anyone".
"I don't have to murder someone," Manson told the interviewer. "I just think it."
No offense, but fuck the guilt or innocence debate. Charlie Manson CANNOT be let out because he remains a delusional psychotic sociopath.
And like Lynyrd, I like the whacko on many levels too. He is always entertaining and provocative. My kind of fella, minus the murders of course.
by the way, off topic but related in the sense of delusional liars...
I met Lance Armstrong several times and always thought he was one of the most arrogant elitists I ever encountered. It will be fascinating to see how he and his P.R. team try to spin and save face. I don't think it can be done. This isn't like a politician who got caught in an affair. Armstrong posed himself as the face of cancer survivors while at the same time being one of the biggest cheats and liars in American history. And to think, just a year ago they were seriously talking about running him for the senate in Texas.
Armstrong just may have an ego and psychosis to match Charlie's.
I agree Leary... Lance sucks.
I hate cheaters.
Cycling ROCKS!
My favorite cyclists of all-time:
Jacques Anquetil (Monsieur Chrono)
Eddy Merckx (The Cannibal)
Bernard Hinault (The Badger)
Laurent Fignon (The Professor)
Greg LeMond (LeMondster)
The thing is, Leary, Manson is too often quoted without context.
That often is, that CM is being ironic, sarcastic and combative because he sees it as being interviewed by the very media that helped create and perpetuate the Crazed-Cult-Killer/HS myth...hacks that make more money from the killings than he ever could have ripped-off. And now want him to perform his act (again) for the cameras.
Certainly some kind of sociopath though. ALWAYS whining about what happened to him...with not an ounce of sympathy for the victims, or the plight of his accomplices.
My favorited cyclists:
Kenny Roberts
Evel Knievel
Sonny Barger
Oh, wrong kind of cycles. Eh, never mind.....
LOL!
AHahahaha
You're right, Cease, but how much context does "maybe I should killed four or five hundred" need?
You can't parole someone who says half the stuff Charlie has. It just goes against all the standards.
As stated, I like Charlie in many ways, but he is exactly where he needs and deserves to be. No question.
I do honestly believe that Charlie honestly believes he cannot be guilty of murder because God can't be guilty of murder and Jesus cannot be guilty of murder (though millions have died in his name) so Charlie cannot be guilty of murder.
Dilligaf... what was that joke you told about about a year ago? LOL
It was something about an indian chief naming his kids after animals outside his tee-pee?
That was a scream! LOL
Oh yeah, Leary. Charlie was never ever gonna be paroled, and like you say is where he deserves and needs to be. I don't recall there being any support for MattP's idea that CM should do less time than the actual knife & gun wielders.
Hi Sweetstink!
>>>I am on page 2 and have already found a mistake .... "In fact, WATSON himself has admitted that he did not find out about them until months later."
That's funny since Watson was there both nights >>>
I saw that too. I think the author meant to put "Watkins" instead of "Watson". Which is obviously a mistake.
The punchline you are looking for is: "why do you ask, Two Dogs Humping?"
It is interesting when you combine Charlie's quote at the top of this thread with his great quote about Ted Bundy.
"Bundy is a rumpkin, Bundy's a poop butt, Bundy's his momma's boy, Bundy is out there trying to prove something to his own manhood, that's got nothing to do with me, I don't roll around with poop people like that. I stand with people who can stand with themselves".
Charlie was clearly insulted to be linked with Bundy. And the quote on the top seems to indicate a similar feeling, that the whole Helter Skelter thing is beneath him. We know how Pat and Leslie and Tex feel about Charlie's attitude. It sure would be a treat to hear how other Family members feel about Charlie putting himself above it all and claiming no responsibility for TLB.
LOL!
Yes Dilligaf... that's it!
>>>Leary said: "Bundy is a rumpkin, Bundy's a poop butt, Bundy's his momma's boy....>>>
Charlie said that? Poop Butt?? LOL.
Cease2 said:
"I don't recall there being any support for MattP's idea that CM should do less time than the actual knife & gun wielders".
Hi Cease2.
Allow me, to speak for MattP for a moment.
I believe (and correct me, if I'm wrong)... that the law (at that time in Cali) specifically stipulated, that conspiracy to murder, carried the same sentence as murder.
I'm pretty certain, Matt realizes that fact.
I think what Matt was wondering, is if folks agreed with the law.
Specifically... Matt was wondering, if we personally agreed, that a conspirator should serve the same sentence, as a perpetrator.
I think Matt wanted our personal opinions, irregardless of the written law.
Bottom line: His question was hypothetical.
To answer Matt's hypothetical question, for myself:
I believe (in Manson's case) the sentence and law, were just.
I believe (in Manson's case), his conspirator's sentence, should indeed, equal that of the actual perpetrator's... due to the multiplicity (is that a word?) of Manson's infractions.
The sheer number of murders, which Manson conspired to... (which was nine on record)... elevates him, to the same status of culpability (in my personal estimation), as a person who physically murders only one man.
This is all hypothetically speaking, of course! LOL
(If Manson had conspired to only one murder, I may be swayed to feel differently about the hypothetical question)
It comes down to one's philosophical structure. Some believe that a person inflicting the actual harm is a greater danger, thus deserving of a greater punishment, I believe the opposite.
There is nothing more inspirational, motivational, or even more dangerous than an idea. An idea is a plan, which implemented will take you to you desired destination, if implemented properly.
In this case, it appears to be broaly accepted that most of the convicted had the ability to murder within them, but, would the crimes have been as brutal, as savage? Hard to say. However, when someone has an idea, and cxan then manipulate those who surround him to carry out the idea, even to the point in which they believe that it has become their own idea, that initial person is much more dangerous, therefore, much more culpable. It can be argued that throughout history, we have been exposed to many so called architects that have lead to the deaths of millions, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, I could go on for there are so many more, but, without their ideas and manipulations, millions would have lived. In this case, while the death rate was mush less, the initial idea was just as deadly and dangerous.
Thank You, Dilligaf.
Heres the root of what I said.
'Should Manson serve as much time(or more) as the others even though he did'nt actually kill anyone?
I'm just curious about peoples opinions.
I'm of the mind that Manson should do time but not as much time as the actual killers'
I was playing Devils Advocate to some extent but I do feel that at the end of the day The person who does the physical act of killing someone is guiltier than the one who tells him to do it.
One is suggestion the other is action.
Thats just My opinion.Its not right or wrong its just my feeling on the subject.
Others have made very good points(Mr dill and L/S)on the other side of the question and I value their opinions as much as my own.
But I did'nt say that Manson did'nt get a fair trial under the law or that he was'nt guilty of anything or even that he should be paroled because as L/S has stated more than once his behavior doesnt warrant release.
I do believe that if he had'nt acted like a wingnut during the Trial and in the Years since that he might be out now...I also believe that in his heart of hearts hes happy where he is,Its what hes used to, its where hes spent most of his life.
The other thing I talked about is Manson becoming more of a Symbol than a Person.
Thats another important reason that he'll never go free.
I don't really know how that happened.The argument can be made that a lot of that is his own fault for playing up to that image during the trial and in the years after but the media has certainly been complicit in helping that along.
Look at it this way:if Tex Watson were released tomorrow there would be outrage for sure but if Manson was released it would be front page news worldwide and the talk of every news outlet on tv...even though Tex is the one who has real blood on his hands.
Since I'm in such a Hypothetical mood this week heres another question.
Who would you rather have living next door to You today.
Manson or Watson?
I'm not talking about Manson with all the wacky hangers on like Star etc. just Manson by himself.
Again I'm just curious.
Thank You, Matt.
I respect your opinion.
Bear in mind, that after the death penalty was overturned, they were all given the opportunity for parole.
So, it's not inconceivable, that a conspirator could be paroled before a perpetrator, by board members in agreement with your stance.
I believe, that the parole board should view each case and situation, individually.
However, in Manson's case the point is moot, because as everyone agrees... Manson began burning bridges immediately... and he never stopped.
He'll never be released.
I agree, that Manson doesn't really want to be released.
I've always believed, that his supporters are more interested in his release, than he is.
I'll have to address your second post (and hypothetical) tomorrow.
Peace...
I'm now up to page 117 in the book at the top of this page. I'm pretty sure the title is "The Manson Myth" by Jackson Howard. I can't find out anything about Howard.
Interesting are his sources. He mentions and quotes books written by Watson, Watkins, Atkins, Nelson, Statman, and others. I've read most but not all. He talks about and quotes the Paul Crockett interview on Star City Radio. I'm pretty sure I seen in the credits, the name of a TLB blog (not this one) that I won't mention.
The book started out slow, but it's getting better the more I go along. Some typo's are annoying, they have apparently mistaken "Watson" for "Watkins" twice.
There are some interesting stories and he makes some good points, some I was unaware of. Of course I have no idea if they are true or not.
So far I wouldn't consider it a "must read", but it has some good info. The books talks about WAY too many theories and relies too heavily on what Manson people say. I will probably try to finish it though.
(((((((((((!!!!!!!------BOB------!!!!!!))))))))))
Where you been Bro??!!!!
Thanks Sunset!!!
You ROCK!!!!!!!
B*O*B*B*Y!!!!! So good to see you!!! A KISS blown your way. SMOOOOOCCHHHH! :)
>>>Matt said: Who would you rather have living next door to You today.
Manson or Watson?
I'm not talking about Manson with all the wacky hangers on like Star etc. just Manson by himself.
Again I'm just curious.>>>
Matt just my opinion, but I don't think Manson will ever be alone. He will always have a menagerie around to see to his needs.
Is he more dangerous than Tex? The jury's still out on that one. :)
I read that the "book" is credited to Jackson Howard too...whoever that is...
Hi bobby! You have been missed!!!
Dill thanks for your insight and knowledge. Your legal expertise is invaluable. Thanks so much for taking the time to explain your thoughts!
Sunset, you are incredible! I know that you have shared with us that you were in prison, but I can't even imagine that. You are so intelligent and articulate. Much appreciated!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219938/Are-dozens-Manson-murders-solved-LAPD-seeks-tapes-serial-killers-disciple-bid-crack-decades-old-killings.html
Extra! Extra!
Read all about it!
Thanks Mr. P. They actually mentioned this on CBS This Morning today. I can't believe the Manson Family is still getting on the national news after all these years.
I doubt if Tex said anything incriminating about himself, but who knows if he talked about other people. I'll bet Bruce is squirming about now. He probably has no idea what's on those tapes.
Holy crap, a real possibility of an Act II in the Manson saga, forty odd years after the fact. What a trip if there were to be investigations and subpoenas that brought folk like Nancy and Mary and Ruth Ann and others out of the woods.
Man, I hope there is some real fire on those tapes and not just a bunch of smoke.
Bobby I was thinking the same thing. The LAPD could just make copies and give them back. What difference does it make?
Just a guess here, but if the police don't possess the tapes would they then not be admissible in court. or more accurately, what they heard on the tapes be not admissible if unaccompanied by the actual tapes?
Mr Dill???
Would it be just like hearsay evidence?
But Bobby is right, something fishy about Tex being so willing to let LAPD listen to them. It makes one pessimistic there is any real substance on the tapes.
Leary,
It would not be hearsay, but yes, you are correct that it would lead to huge evidentiary issues. You have a 40 year audio tape of which we do not know the audio quality. You have to rely soley on someone's listening and interpreting what they heard. Both of these are areas that would be challenged by defense counsel.
We do not know what the outcome will be. We do not know if it will lead to a body discovery, or to the ability to make an arrest of a cold case. What we do know is that any case that may arise as a result of these recordings, will not result in a quick resolution, but we should not let that deter us, as any cold case closed is good for society and good for a family.
Hi Dill!
>>>You have a 40 year audio tape of which we do not know the audio quality. You have to rely soley on someone's listening and interpreting what they heard. Both of these are areas that would be challenged by defense counsel.>>>
Would these tapes have been transcribed? That would clear up any audio difficulties...or would it?
Leary, I would love to be a fly on the wall for these Manson folks who got off scot free and are trying to live a "normal" life. Will they someday get that knock on the door with an arrest warrant? After all these years.
Would that even affect Grogan? Are there other murders he was involved in?
The list of perps is endless.
I just wonder how many people are now sitting on pins and needles awaiting the outcome of the disposition of these tapes. People who were never charged with anything who may have been involved in murder or covering up of murder. Burying bodies, hiding or burning evidence.
We know all the "love of children" is a crock of baloney, so what else were these people capable of? Even sweet girls like Ruth or Kitty?
I just finished "The Manson Myth".
One thing that struck me is the sources Howard used. Star City Radio, online blogs, YouTube videos, books by family members, things I'm all pretty familiar with. However, he did mention several books I haven't read, and apparently, he's talked to Manson, he said he talked to him just before his last trip to the "hole". He also mentions correspondence with Manson, Davis, and Watson.
The glaring negative about this book for me was that he tried to cover WAY too much info and theories in a single book. The 40+ year saga of the Manson family and it's multiple members, is too much to try to cover in a single book in my opinion.
He did have some interesting theories (although there were several I considered dubious), and his knowledge of the case and people involved was pretty comprehensive.
Most regulars of these blogs won't find much if anything new in that book. However, there were 3 or 4 stories I was unfamiliar with, but I haven't been following this case as closely for as long as many people have. On a scale of 10, I'd give it maybe a 7.
Excuse my sense of humor here, but Backporch Tapes captured a video of a cockroach running over the shoulder of the NBC reporter doing the story of the Tex tapes last night...LOL...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKMFrwCeklA
No, it's not doctored, it's real!!
Kimchi, maybe that cockroach is Susan Atkins reincarnated and having her last laugh because she wasn't rehabilitated and she's back to her old self. HA HA.
Could be Katie, ya never know...
Kimchi,
I was watching the news live when that happened last night, it was definately an "ew" moment...
Katie,
I do not think that the tapes have been transcribed yet. If the LAPD is successful in obtaining posession of the tapes, yes, a transcription most certainly would occur, but not until posession is gained.
As far as Grogan, it would be no different than any other suspect on newly acquired charges, but not for anything related to the Shea homicide.
Now, the challenge will be, if information is garnered from these tapes, an arrest is made, the tapes withstand an evidentiary challenge, you are then faced with either a trial, or a plea. Either way, do not expect long sentences to be given 40 years later. Reference Kathleen Soliah (aka Sara Jane Olson), on the run for over 25 years. Both the sentences for Conspiracy, and subsequently, for murder, were a result of a plea, which reduced her time. Add to that, the sentences were concurrent, not consecutive, and she ended up spending less that a decade behind bars. The SLA was as big a story, and threat to society, as was the Manson murders, but over time, the demand for punishment seems to diminish. I personally do not agree, but then I never had the corner office making such decisions. That being said, I would welcome seeing Gypsy behind bars, as well as many others. Catherin Share, to me, is like Watson, only she has re-invented herself on the outside, spinning stories to which she was only a bystander. I'm not buying it...
Ooh Mr. Dill, you are so right!! I had forgotten about the SLA late trials... as I call them...
But there were no unsolved murders involved with those, correct?
Debra Tate is claiming 12 buried at Barkers....have no idea where she's getting that number, but I'm not an insider to the case...
Dill thanks! I thought all tapes were transcribed. I used to do transcribing back in the 70's. Well, what do I know?
I agree, the punishment might not be that harsh, but that's for a judge or jury to decide.
Yes I agree, Gypsy should be behind bars. But even more...Mary should be. She helped kill Gary and never got punished for that.
Kimchi that Debra Tate stuff at Barkers. That's pushing the envelope. As much as I like Debra, I think she needs to take sleeping pills and dream. Oh...maybe she already did.
I've been researching the black panthers and white panthers....didn't know there was such thing until recently...
The Manson tribe sure used their "philosophy" or verbiage... I am going to read up on the SLA....wonder if there's any similarities... Just thinking out loud...
Kimchi, if interested in the SLA and the "late trial", I highly recommend the documentary DVD, "Guerrilla: The Taking Of Patty Hearst" ...if you haven't already seen it.
Great doc, with bonus footage of said "late trial".
here's 100 Lynyrd!!!! You're psychic man!!! The "family" used tons of Panther verbage. I believe that Debra Tate and the cops are stirring the pot and adding pressure to get those tapes released. I kinda found it odd (ok, maybe funny too) that they decided to interview Deb in some parking lot in the dark. 12 bodies now? If she's heard all this info, why not say anything til you're hangin out in some parking lot in LA at night with your news crew buddies? I think that's the first I've heard of 12.....anyone else ever heard that number thrown about? The most I think I've ever heard is 3, right?
I finished the book too and agree 100% with Sunset's review. I enjoyed reading it allot more than I thought I would.
The book does effectively raise the thought of Manson being more of a third-base coach than the manager of TLB. Sorry for the baseball analogy, but that is clearly what Charlie wants. In order to buy into that construct believing three things seem necessary to me...
1. Watson's actions were much more self-motivated that HS theorizes.
2. Linda was much more of an instigator and all-around evil scumbag than HS allows.
3.Robbery and/or drug burn revenge dwarfed the race war theory as motive.
It really is not hard to buy into those three perceptions.
And what the hell, it gives us something to talk about.
This was never meant to be a book or released. It is only a package of info I copied from many sites and words I hi-lited in many books over many years. Much of it was lifted from sites intentionally because I liked what they had to say. What was put in here was all of one-tenth of what I had saved up over the years. It was put together and some others was gracious enough to edit it and someone else made a cover for the book. There's no real author because all of this information was, if you want to use legal definition, plagiarized as a resource. I'm not out for anything but to have this for people to read. I had a good amount of people asking me to do this and I did it. I have seen two other people credited as the author and it is partly true since things they wrote were included as well as a hundred more.
Hi Mr. Harrison... glad to make your acquaintance.
Thanks for visiting our blog.
I'll have to give your compilation a read, when I get the chance.
I don't generally like to post books without reading them first (for obvious reasons)... and secondly, without locating the author.
However in this case, Josh (one of our regulars) had asked me weeks ago, to post your work ... and since I wasn't sure how to go about locating the author... and reading the book myself is realistically weeks away... I figured, what the heck... I'll just post it.
It doesn't seem any harm was done.
I apologize for any inconvenience.
I've updated the main thread, to indicate you, as author.
Feel free to join us in conversation, anytime.
Thanks Again, for stopping by!
Peace!
Spot on leary, I agree with you on the work. and Thank you for putting this together Mr. Harrison. It's good and thought provoking and makes a more rational reasoning for all this craziness. Hopefully more of these works will surface in the future. The holy grail might just be that book that the girls were rumored to be working on before Squeaky went after Ford.
A Sonny Barger reference? By Diligaf no less!
We should talk...
Katie, both Charlie and the girls and others have made it clear how the Family was gathered. Charlie knew how to listen. In every way, but especially emotionally and sexually. He didnt just jump on a girl and bang away at her. He understood most girls are pretending when they say that's good. He listened, he observed and as Susan said "He gave himself completely" As Juanita said "He was very tender, the most phenomenal lover I ever had".
And the girls were hurting from their home treatment, where nobody listened to them "Get in the background" as they put it. This goes for the men too, but more for the girls. Charlie let them talk and paid attention. He didnt pretend to listen, and nod and then suddenly say "Hey, you got great eyes, or nice tits, or how about a sandwich", he actually listened. He treated them as people, not objects. He gave them love, and real attention, and wonderful sex, just imagine. It's not easy to come by. How many times I have sat with a man, and he's done all the bloody talking, never listens to a word I say and when I say I must leave, explodes with "that was a waste of an hour!" It's horrible to be treated like that. It really upsets me. It makes me feel like an object, like me, I myself, I don't exist, i'm just a collection of fleshy bits and a hole.
I can see I'd have liked Charlie. And when we like people we want to make them happy and share: what the girls could share was their housecleaning and cooking and the guys could share car mending and stuff. It wasn't the design of a pimp. A pimp figures this stuff. He targets. He looks for 'new game'. Try finding a book called Silky, A year in the life of a pimp. Very eye-opening, and not like Charlie.
The biggest tragedy is the loss of Charles Manson. he had a lot to give, a philosophy to share. And he was driven to bitterness and violence by law enforcement which would not leave him to live in peace, and he also found himself in a hippy society where the rules of behaviour had been rapidly crumbled away by drugs and experimental living. Destroying everything they'd been raised to believe in the name of freedom, but not replacing it all with other standards, only the 'drop out, do what feels good' one. Look how very very fast the violence began in Haight Ashbury. Police, drugs, hippy freedom: altogether, a bad atmosphere to start pushing a man who had a lot of hidden rage but who had tried to offer love and peace, as everyone says he did in the early days. Who is responsible for turning Charles Manson bad?
I've gotten to the half way point in this book
It's well worth reading be prepared for technical difficulties though it's frozen up
Several times but hey you can't beat the price of admission
I'm trying to knock the book into shape so I can print it, bind it and have it on the bookshelf alongside the others.
I'm up to the "Who is Charles Watson ?" chapter. Thus far, I've not been particularly impressed; the author jumps around like they can't keep their mind on the one thing they're talking about at that time. I've come across quite a bit of inaccurate information too.
But it is useful because there are snippets of info here that are collected in one place.
The book does feel like too much is being crammed in but these are early days yet....
Post a Comment