I never would have thought that this was a controversial topic, but over in this thread (which concerns the death of Vincent Bugliosi, who obtained a conviction against Charles Manson and his followers for the brutal murder of Sharon Tate, Jay Sebring, Wojciech Frykowski, Abigail Folger, Steven Parent, Leno LaBiance, and Rosemary LaBianca), Handsomeharry and Tapu both advanced the position that Manson wasn’t really a ringleader for the crimes, and was essentially “framed” by the prosecutor.
Harry, referencing an unnamed website he read, claims that Manson sent his followers over to Tate’s house (which had previously been rented by Terry Melcher, a record producer who failed to fulfill his promise to Manson to record his music) to “either kick his ass/rob him, so they’d have dope money, or something”, but hadn’t intended for them to commit heinous murder. In Harry’s words, he was “framed”.
Tapu, citing her own blog (located here), says that Manson was a “Boogeyman” that “was created by the U.S. establishment of the 60s-70s, using the powerful and rising tool of media” to “frighten the masses and turn them against the counter-culture.” In this telling, Manson doesn’t really deserve to be in prison (“Charlie may deserve to be in prison (thought I don’t know what for by now…)”), and Tex Watson (one of the members of the Family, and a participant in the killings) is the real mastermind behind the crimes. Manson is merely “a clown” who’s only involvement is an instruction to the killers to “do something witchy” before they embarked on their murderous spree.
I’m frankly shocked by these arguments. All I can find online, in “support” of Manson’s innocence, are some wacko websites that come from very questionable sources (such as the girl, nicknamed “Star”, who had planned on marrying Manson a few years ago).
Now, admittedly, the real information relating to the murders is quite bizarre. Manson was preaching about “Helter Skelter”, which was a race war between Blacks and whites, which would result in Black people winning. Once victorious, though, these Black people would turn to Manson to lead them (since, in his racist mind, they were Black and therefore incapable of leading themselves). To survive the race war, the Family would have to hide out underground in the desert, in some sort of heavenly paradise (where, for example, a bunch of different types of fruit would all grow on the same tree).
The murders were intended to start this race war, since Black people weren’t getting the message (despite Beatles songs like “Blackbird” and, naturally, “Helter Skelter”, which either predicted, or called for, the start of the war). Basically, Manson wanted some horrible deaths of wealthy establishment types to be blamed on Black people (such as the Black Panthers), thereby starting the riots that would lead to his rule.
And, it is also true that Manson didn’t kill any of the victims himself. He sent his followers to the Tate house; after the brutal slaying, he brought them to the LaBiance house the next night, where he took it upon himself to tie up the victims before leaving his followers to commit the murders.
I agree, then, that Manson’s motives were completely irrational and his involvement was really like that of a Mafia Don who kept his distance from the dirty work. But, under the law, his leading a conspiracy to commit murder makes him directly culpable, and there is no obligation for a motive to be proven in order for a conviction to occur. The strange circumstances of the case by no means exonerate this horrible person, and he deserves all of the punishment he received (if not more so; he was actually sentenced to death, and this is one of the rare times when I am disappointed that a death sentence was commuted).
Do you believe that he is not responsible, or that his role was overblown? I can’t believe anybody would think so, but posts on the Dope tell me otherwise.