The Tate-LaBianca Homicide Research Blog

Manson utilized "Helter Skelter" as a means to an end.  Bugliosi ALSO utilized "Helter Skelter" as a means to an end.  Both men knew full-well that "Helter Skelter" was nothing more than a tall tale.

The question becomes:
Which man accomplished a better outcome by cultivating and manipulating "Helter Skelter" for his audience?  The answer to that question, should be self evident.

Having said all that:
The fact of the matter, is that WAY too much emphasis is placed on "Helter Skelter" in-general.

I don’t believe the jury bought into "Helter Skelter".  Fact is... they didn't have to.
(It should be noted here, that the prosecution doesn't even have to present a motive).

The jury convicted Manson, because they were convinced that Manson was NUTS... and the leader of this group.  That’s all they needed.  More specifically… the jury was convinced that Manson conspired to these murders... and beyond that… they most likely didn‘t care "why".

Look:
Bugliosi could have told the jury that Manson was completely crackers and communicating with space ships... and the jury STILL would have convicted Manson.
In fact… ANY motive theory that depicted Manson as “crazy, dangerous, and in-charge“, would have worked... because the jury was already convinced of those three elements, based on the defendant’s own actions.

Let's face it... Manson convicted himself.  The trial was a circus.  “The family” was acting like fools inside the courtroom, and out.  “The family” demonstrated to the world, that Manson was their leader.  The shaving of heads... the carving of "X"'s... the year-long sidewalk vigils... the crawling across town on hands and knees... (need I continue?)...  collectively convinced the world that these people were NUTS… and Manson was the "head nut"!  Manson even lunged at the judge.  As I said... "crazy, dangerous, and in-charge".

Bottom line:
The jury was convinced that Manson "saw to it" (if you will) that people were killed, and that's all they cared about.  They didn't give two shits about WHY a crazy man wanted people dead… they just wanted to see him behind bars.

Bugliosi convinced the jury that Manson was in-charge (with a lot of help from Manson)... and THAT'S why Manson is in jail.  The "Helter Skelter" motive wasn’t a big factor.  “Helter Skelter” was much more useful in the sale of books, than it ever was in the courtroom.
If anything, the jury convicted Manson in spite of "Helter Skelter".

I’m personally convinced that Manson was the “ringleader”… and my opinion has ZERO to do with “Helter Skelter” or Bugliosi’s book.  I could care less about Bugliosi’s book.

I’m personally convinced of Charlie’s “leadership role” as a result of viewing countless hours of film footage, photos, and transcripts.  I’ve inspected these types of media with my own eyes and ears.  I've drawn my own conclusions, with my own common sense.

I've been everywhere the grass grows green... and I don't need Vincent T. Bugliosi, to tell me what time it is.  Manson was a 34 year-old hardened criminal, dealing with suburban kids... primarily females.  It doesn't take a genius to figure-out who was at the top of that totem pole.

C'mon folks...
How often do you see women crawling across town… and holding a (one year) "sidewalk vigil" for a “follower”???

I give the TLB jury the same credit.  I believe the jury saw through to “the truth” with their own five senses.  “Helter Skelter” was a small factor in their verdict.

Here’s where it gets a bit hazy.  The next logical question becomes:
If you jail the right person, for the right crime(s)… does it matter if the premise (or motive) presented by the prosecution may have been inaccurate?
I mean (as a juror)… if you know someone is guilty… does the prosecution have to present the correct motive to you, for you to vote guilty?

Dilligaf could certainly answer that question, better than I… but my personal guess, is No… it shouldn’t matter.  As a juror, you’re voting on the defendant‘s “guilt” related directly to the crime at hand… not on the prosecutor‘s ability to guess accurately at “motive“ or “motivation“.

Legalities aside… from an ethical standpoint… I suppose the answer to that question, relates strongly to how much of a “purist” one is.
Personally… I’d rather see a guilty man convicted despite an inaccurate motive presentation by the prosecution, than see him walk free on a technicality.
The prosecution doesn’t have a crystal ball… and remember, at the end of the day, they don’t have to present a “motive” at all.
Again… (as a juror) you’re voting on the guilt/innocence of the defendant in regards to the crime(s) specifically… not the legal skill of the prosecutor in determining motive.

I’m sure the TLB jurors are sleeping very well at night these days… and, I really don’t think they care what Manson’s “motive” was.  (The jurors who are still alive, that is).

How anyone can possibly watch the “sidewalk vigil footage”… see the girls’ famous “crawl”… listen to the testimony of various “family members”… watch Hendrickson’s films… read the transcripts… witness Lynn and Sandy’s fanatical life-long devotion… and STILL remain unconvinced that Manson was the “ringleader”, is beyond my personal comprehension.

The “Slippie” conspired… he played his cards poorly during the trial (because he couldn‘t swallow his pride)… and now he’s in jail.  End of story.