I was quite surprised when I read that Manson is a digital guy from his jail cell, keeping up his own website- but I can’t find it. Any help?
:rolleyes: Thanks a bunch, but I don’t really see why it’s that funny- it’s not at charlesmanson.com or something. How would I know that the guy calls himself charlie?! He helped kill 9 people, he should never be allowed to be called by a diminutive name.
Ted Bundy killed dozens, and everybody called him Ted.
That website isn’t the one that’s his anyways- he used to run one called ATWA, or something. Anyways, I was hoping to find something like a daily Manson blog where he talks about how he feels about current events, kinda like how everybody suddenly cared about his opinion of the Heaven’s Gate Cult back in the mid 90s or something.
Admit it, that would be kinda cool- Manson chats about his favorite Idol contestant.
The ATWA site closed some time ago. See my response to your identical question in the “Cafe Society” forum.
Honestly, I hope that he doesn’t have access to the Internet.
The one you’re thinking of wasn’t directly run by Charlie. It was started by Sandra Collins Good, an ex-Manson Family member who has remained devoted to him, and a man named George Stimson. The current site has a disclaimer at the bottom saying that it is not associated with Goode (sic) or Stimson:
His website (the archived copies are linked to at the other post) is administered by Sandra Good. She’s an interesting character in an evil and barking mad sort of way; one of the best educated of Manson’s followers (the best educated was Mary Brunner, who like Sandra is a mid-Westerner and also like Sandra gave birth to Manson’s son) and almost surely rewrote Manson’s insane rambles before posting them to his site. There are several interviews with her on the net: they describe her as very sweet seeming, somewhat lonely, and then transcribe interviews in which she calmly states that stabbing a pregnant woman a dozen times is nothing compared to what we’re doing to the environment (and somehow the two are connected).
Good’s son was raised by her relatives. Manson’s son with Brunner, now named Matthew Roberts (original Valentine Michael), is the lead singer of New Rising Son .
Correcting my above post: Matthew Robert is not Manson’s son with Mary Brunner but with a teenager from near where Brunner grew up. She was impregnated when Brunner, Manson and some other family members visited Brunner’s family for a few days. Some pics if you’re interested in resemblance.
Well, that’s one of the more interesting sites I’ve come across lately. I spent a couple of hours plowing through it, and I have no idea if any of the facts are correct. The whole site is surreal, to say the least.
-
I had the idea that Manson was not convicted of 1st degree murder, but only of conspiracy, because he convinced others to commit the murders, but didn’t physically do so himself. Was I wrong?
-
The U.S. Supreme Court nixed the death penalty, even for a short time? Is that true?
Yes, but nobody called him Teddy.
The ones that lived. The ones he killed coincidentally all called him Theodore.
Spend more time in the Pit. It ain’t Manson, but you’ll probably get a good idea of how he feels about the Bush administration and the war anyway. 
I believe you are, indeed mistaken. Court TV’s Crime Library is one of numerous easily located sites which state that Manson was convicted of both murder and conspiracy even though he was not convicted of personally killing anyone.
Well, since this has veered into IMHO, I’ll add:
No, it wouldn’t. Not in the least. People should stop thinking anything about this living POS is in any way “cool.” He avoided the much-deserved chair; let’s resist the urge to make him some sort of pop celebrity.
<<No, it wouldn’t. Not in the least. People should stop thinking anything about this living POS is in any way “cool.” He avoided the much-deserved chair; let’s resist the urge to make him some sort of pop celebrity.
>>
Now that’s definitely opinion. I really hate this stigma against being fascinated with murderers because it somehow “glorifies” them. I think, as a society, it’s important to study our evil (though I’m not sure I’d use “evil” for any American serial killer… There are only a couple of people I would put THAT serious a label on) as well as our good. I don’t condone his crimes, but I’ll admit I’d love to have a conversation with him, but that may be the psychologist in me talking. I guess I’m just interested in what makes people tick.
As for “Charlie,” don’t blame that on the media. That’s what his followers often called him, and I think he would have said something if it bothered him.
I don’t think it’s so much that people find murderers like Manson fascinating and interesting-because, let’s face it, they’re so strange that we wonder what makes them tick.
But to say it would be “cool” somehow implies that there’s something “cool” about Manson himself.
Good point. It just sometimes seems that people who are fascinated by them (Like me, which is why I took issue) are grouped in with those who do think they’re cool. I’m particularly fascinated with Susan Atkins because she was perhaps the most malevolent of his followers, yet she’s a major bible-thumper now. How does THAT transition happen? (And I don’t just mean “finding God,” she’s very preachy about it.)