I don’t recall the jury needing to be convinced that Manson was a cult leader, they were convicted based on overwhelming eyewitness and physical evidence. Bugliosi just related what Manson and his followers said.
If you read Helter Skelter you know that motive was a huge hurtle for Bugliosi. He had to come up with a reason for what everyone thought was a pointless massacre. Helter Skelter was as much a Bugliosi creation as it was Manson’s. But the murders weren’t pointless nor were they inspired by a belief that the Beatles were sending clues of future race war to Charles Manson. The murders were actually quite rational. The first (Gary Hinman) was a shakedown for drugs and money. Clues were left to make it look like it was done by Black revolutionaries. When Bobby Beausoleil was arrested, the Tate/LaBianca murders were committed to make it look like the cops had the wrong guy. “Crazy hippie cult” was an easier sell to the jury and book publishers.
Then there’s the whole “Manson really hated Terry Melcher” story line. Manson hated lots of people. He knew Melcher didn’t live in the Cielo house anymore. The only reason it was chosen is because Manson had been there before and he could draw a map for Tex and the girls. Familiarity with the house is the same reason the LaBiancas were targeted.
That makes sense. Except Bobby was quite stupid to be driving the victims car with the murder weapon in it.
No amount of copycat killings would prove him innocent.
Recall, though, that Manson didn’t actually commit the murders at the Tate or LaBianca house. The reason it was imperative for Bugliosi to show that Manson was directing things is because, otherwise, there’s no basis to lock up Charlie Manson for the rest of his life.
The whole gang was pretty stupid. Manson as an evil mastermind is another myth perpetuated by Bugliosi.
The cops originally were investigating the Manson group’s Chop Shop operation.
I don’t remember all the details. Susan Atkins was in jail and bragged about the killings to a cell mate. She was briefly offered a deal to testify until they realized her deep involvement. IIRC Atkins was the main person that shifted focus to the Manson cult.
Kasabian (the lookout)was a better choice.
Link to Atkins. She was very dangerous
Yes, that was important, and thus the cult-like nature of the group was important to point out. That it differed from some other cults was unimportant. Charlie’s plan to start a race war wasn’t made up by the prosecution, specifically how and why his ‘followers’ did what he ordered wasn’t so important as to show that they did do what Charlie told them.
He was just another conman and manipulator, and rather drug addled himself. Using the weakest, dumbest societal failures to do his bidding doesn’t seem that impressive but it is what happened and the cult motive was as good as any other to describe how it came about.
I don’t think it was necessary either. I think the public impression was that drug crazed hippies needed no particular motive to kill people. Look at the Jeffrey MacDonald case that followed not long after. The authorities had no problem believing his wife and children had been killed by drug crazed hippies lacking any well defined motive. That was just the kind of thing that drug crazed hippies would do in the mind of the public.
You can’t truly appreciate modern crime and put it into societal context without knowledge of the classics. 
Lizzie Borden, the New Orleans Axeman, the Cleveland Torso Murders, the Black Dahlia, Murder Inc. and so on are part of our national fabric, though I wouldn’t expect grade schoolers to be taught about them.
“Sorry Noah, you missed Al Capone, Ted Bundy and the Hillside Stranglers on the quiz, so no “A” for you.”
Yeah, context is always needed when studying history. And there is more to history than memorizing dates. As someone who reads a lot of history (and minored in it in college), it’s astonishing to me how little useful information I was actually taught throughout the first 12 years of schooling. The past should school you on the present, but I think there is a general feeling of “who gives a shit”, much to teachers’ despair.
Are you addressing my co-worker who learned about the Manson murders in school? She graduated from HS in the late 1980s.
Among other things, she sexually abused her son almost from birth.
My junior and senior year high school teacher wanted us to know one date: The date when Charlemagne was crowned emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. He wanted us to learn the trends, including those affected by religion, and considered the class a success, if we couldn’t figure out his own beliefs.
This thread, among others, reminds me how much history I do not know.
Hopefully not. However I learned about the Green River Killer and Ted Bundy, both who were in the news when I was in school. Active serial killers, especially if you know someone who was a victim (my dad’s coworker lost a daughter to one of them, I don’t remember which), are more “interesting” that those in the history books.
I think there’s a difference between serial killers and cult leaders (or in Manson’s case, just plain old murderers). Serial killers tend to be sociopathic loners, whereas cult leaders like Jim Jones and David Koresh (and arguably L. Ron Hubbard) are deluded individuals who often use a messianic personality to attract and control followers.
Manson wasn’t a plain old murderer. He was a charismatic gang leader who generally left the actual killing to others. Closer to a mob boss than a serial killer. That makes him no less culpable, though.
He actually admitted some years later that he heard “firecrackers” and thought Steve Parent had lit them off. He also heard screams by the pool, but said he thought nothing of it because it was Friday and they often had pool parties on the weekend. Myself, I think he had a pretty good idea what was happening and hid. Can’t really blame him, young kid on his own. I don’t recall if he had a phone in the guesthouse, or if it had it’s line cut also.
IIRC, Bugliosi mentions that Charlie tried the race war thing to get Bobby out of jail, so I don’t see how that’s different from what you say.
Yeah, and those methods are exactly what Bugliosi said. Drugs and love/withholding love, threats. Many of his followers thought Charlie was a Christ-like figure or even Christ himself. Even people that were only involved peripherally, like biker Dan DeCarlo, thought Charlie was Christ. And Charlie certainly did hate black people. Didn’t see many brothers hanging out at Spahn Ranch, did you? He also feared them. That’s what leads to violence and race wars.
A pimp/drug supplier/girl procurer that preached apocalyptic bible verses to them while they were on LSD and he wasn’t. Charlie loved Revelation and loved the idea of him saving the white race. You don’t need to be smart or have a complex theology to run a cult. Just someone with charisma and a bunch of impressionable people. Throwing in religion just makes it easier.
Garretson said he picked up his phone but it was not working.
‘Jack the Ripper’ is cool name, his identity is an enduring mystery, and he’s been represented in movies and television many times. While many people know the name they wouldn’t know any actual details about the man and his horrific murders. The Manson murders happened before most people today were born, no real mystery about the people involved or what happened. Many people may have seen a recent movie centering around those events without really knowing the details of the incidents, or realizing that the end of the movie is depicting something totally different from the actual events. Frankly, I’d rather never hear another theory of who The Ripper was, or any more mentions of Manson at all in popular media.
Our teacher covered them too – this was about, oh, the mid 1990s?