And I’m beginning to see myself as, possibly, your real issue.
nm
It was presented during the penalty phase. And, in fact, Manson himself objected to it. I’m actually not sure if there is a relaxed evidence standard during the penalty phase, and it may in fact have been improper testimony, but I was just providing examples of “testimony” in support of Manson’s presence at the 2nd crime scene. Tapu seemed to be under the impression that nobody ever said that at the trial, and it was all invented out of whole cloth.
[QUOTE=Tapu]
You can certainly characterize me that way if you wish. It’s no reason to accept everything you’ve ever been fed, all your life, about this particular event in history. Maybe I’m just an idiot.
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t there a rule against calling someone an idiot in this forum? 
I’m happy to be a skeptic; I started the thread because, due in part to your own comments, I was shocked to discover that there were those out there who challenged the official story. Not because “the official story” is automatically sacrosanct, but because I had never encountered any reasonable basis to doubt its veracity. Unfortunately, though, I haven’t heard or seen anything from you to give me pause. All you seem to have is just general “disbelief”.
Forgive me for thinking that a person who has blogged about the murders would be full of arguments and persuasion in support of their side. All I seem to get from you is just a general disdain for “the establishment”. Is it because Manson ruined “hippie-dom”? He made it scary to hitchhike? He exposed a dark side to communes espousing “free love”?
Look, although I wasn’t born until the late 1970’s, I consider myself hippie-friendly. I have no objection to hallucinogenic drugs, orgies, or communal living. I happen to think that a lot of the hand-wringing in the trial about LSD is in fact overblown.
But Manson was a real psychopath, and he really did manipulate and abuse a bunch of wayward young people, including by orchestrating several murders. I, for one, will do a happy dance when he’s dead, and that’s something I would almost never say. He is no clown - he’s a sick, demented, heinous individual, and his crimes are some of the worst I’ve read about.
If you fail to make your case for Manson here, don’t you also fail there?
I don’t know what to say to you, man. I can’t really “fail.” I’m saying, there might be interesting ways to look at the Manson Family Murders as Societal Myth. If you say, “Nuh-uh,” I don’t really “fail.”
The interesting discussion, for me, is not about murder. It’s about how these particular murders have become a construct rather than a set of facts. It’s got psychological, sociological, media, legal, etc, etc, aspects to think about. You know what? I bet I should have just put A DIFFERENT TITLE title on it!! (In Defense of Manson was a rhetorical trick, or more a “catchy” headline." It references my casual observations that most people have no idea that Manson wasn’t convicted of a murder.)
Evidence seems to indicate otherwise.
Okay, I was trying to make it easy on you.
Starting with whatever set of documents you regard as the “official version,” find and explain one contradictory fact you can back up with verifiable evidence.
Since you had (and, I assume, read) fifty-odd books on the case, wrote a blog, and are passionately defending your position, I assume that coming up with that one fact should be quite easy.
I don’t think that’s an issue in contention. The question isn’t whether Watson committed the murders. It’s whether he instigated the murders or carried out the murders at Manson’s direction.
Tapu, I’m willing to listen to alternative theories and consider them. But so far, all you’re offering as evidence seems to be the assumption that the official story must be false and therefore an alternative explanation has to exist.
How do you know this? If the real story is lost…how do you know what it is? What is the foundation of your claims?
This: all we are given are declarations, but no evidence.
This was 46 years ago. Sadly, I read about much more deadly violence several times a week (mostly in war zones). There is no reason to suppose someone to be generally ill-informed does not know about Charles Manson.
I only know one side of the story, the one I got from reading this book:
Author Jeff Guinn did give me the impression that Manson was an unusually dangerous criminal.
I don’t know how to make clear the *point *of my blog piece. And I’m not inclined to try to back up definitively any particular claim or set of claims I make in it. I’m sorry. I have failed all of you. I wish I could give back the time you wasted reading the post. I really mean this. I shouldn’t have shared it here–now or before.
Maybe you should rethink your blog. If you can’t convince the people here in a message board dialogue, how do you expect to convince readers of a blog in a one way conversation?
Yes.
Stop acting like a martyr. You raised a topic and people are asking questions about it. That’s all.
You’ve seen Gary Hinman’s murder attributed to Manson because Manson was the mastermind and a participant.
See also:
It’s been suggested that the timing of the Helter Skelter operation, along with writing things in blood at the other crime scenes, was an attempt to get Beausoleil off by throwing the blame for Hinman’s murder on Black Panthers, with the idea that Beausoleil couldn’t be guilty of killing Hinman since he was in jail at the time of the other two attacks.
It’s also possible that the timing was because Manson shot a black drug dealer who he thought was a Black Panther. (In fact, the dealer, Bernard Crowe, was not a Panther and didn’t die.) Manson set up guards at his camp because he thought “Blackie” was going to come and retaliate.
But regardless of other events, Manson was talking about his stupid race war for months before that event, so who knows.
Bottom line: any attempt to suggest that Manson was simply an innocent bystander will require actual hard evidence.
Manson was not as crazy as most people think he is. The Helter Skelter theory was a cover for what really happened. He told his followers that one day they would rule the world after a race war but that was mostly just to bind them to him so he could have followers that would do whatever he wanted.
The group needed money to buy drugs and food and was running low so he had Watson steal 2,000 dollars from a black drug dealer they knew. The drug dealer started threatening Watson to get the money back and claimed he was affiliated with the Black Panthers. This frightened Manson who devised a plot to have Watson kill the drug dealer. They met with the drug dealer but Watson chickened out and Manson shot the drug dealer. After this Manson become paranoid about the Black Panthers coming after him. He starts to talk more the upcoming race war and the need for violence so his followers will be ready in case the panthers come for him.
He then hears about Hinman receiving an inheritance and takes several of his followers to get the money from him. They kidnap and torture him to try to get him to give them the money but he will not and they kill him. They stage the scene to make it look like the Black Panthers did it so they will have to deal with the police instead of coming after Manson. The staging fools no one and one of Manson’s followers is arrested.
Manson is now freaked out that his follower will testify against him and he comes up with the idea to make it seem like other houses of the wealthy are being broken into by the Black Panthers so the police will let his follower go. He tells his followers to go to the Tate house and kill everyone there to start Helter Skelter. He is worried about how some of the victims almost get away and so goes to the next house himself to tie up the victims before they are killed. None of the killings do anything to get his follower out of jail or put heat on the Black Panthers, he and his followers are arrested for car theft which scares him even more and so he takes his followers and they move out of LA after killing a ranch hand who Manson thought turned them in to the police.
The crazy Helter Skelter stuff was just what he told his brain washed, drug addled followers to get them to kill for him. The actual motive for the murders were more pedestrian, money and to keep out of prison.
Well… it all comes down to whether or not you think Manson believed what he was telling his followers. Like all “prophets,” I’d bet the truthy-truth lies somewhere between really believing all that race war crap and utterly cynical manipulation for his benefit.
It may have been cynical manipulation because there are people who get off on manipulating others, sometimes right up to the Manson/Jones level.
Tapu, I hope you don’t think I’m piling on, but you are woefully ignorant of the facts of this case.
Yes, he was. Under California law, if a person is part of a conspiracy, then they are directly responsible for the crimes of their co-conspirators. When Tex Watson shot and killed Steve Parent, every member of the group was guilty of first degree murder. Including Manson. The challenge was proving that he was part of the conspiracy despite his not being physically present at the scene. If you think that not being physically present is a key distinction, you’ve just absolved anybody who hires a hitman.
Manson was also found guiltyof first degree murder in the deaths of Shorty Shea and Gary Hinman. As before, by being found guilty of conspiracy, he was concomitantly guilty of the crimes of his co-conspirators. If you insist on parsing this distinction, then do you also think that Al Capone (or, say, Adolph Hitler - that’s right; I went there :D) was railroaded?
You seem to be under the impression that Bugliosi believed that Manson stopped his watch, because he told the story in his book. Bugliosi was talking about how creepy Manson was, but he chalked it up to coincidence. This was a man who wrote a book challenging the evidence for God; Vince Bugliosi did not believe in magic.
You’ve utterly ignored the testimonyof Linda Kasabian, the Prosecution’s star witness, who testified for 18 days.
And the testimony of Barbara Hoyt. And Juan Flynn. And Ronnie Howard. And Gregg Jackobson. And I could go on.
The trial lasted 9 and a half months, and was (for its time) the most expensive trial ever, but you think the only evidence against Manson was an instruction to do something “witchy”??
I don’t think you are even looking at my cites. They are newspaper accounts from the trial that were written at the time it took place. Many are from Mary Neiswender, a reporter for the Long Beach Independent Press-Telegram, who once talked with Manson on the phone, and later exchanged letters with him. These aren’t embellished stories with loads of spin; they are quotes from witnesses, attorneys, and judges. Sure, all reporting is subjective, but this is live, on-the-ground stuff, not some propaganda commentary about the meaning of what took place.
Speaking of reporting, I have a question about statements on your blog. (And, to all reading this, I am the one who has brought it up far more than Tapu, although I only found it because she linked to it on the original thread regarding Bugliosi’s death; I don’t think she’s aggressively promoting it):
In your discussion of Tex Watson, you say that he
Where does that come from? From Watson’s own website (which is operated by others; he doesn’t have access to a computer, but writes content on paper and mails it to the people who maintain it), he says that he can’t profit off of his ministry and recommends that donations be given to other charities. I’m not saying that I take his word over yours, but I’m just wondering what your source is?
I think this is an excellent synopsis, and makes a lot of sense. It doesn’t invalidate the argument that Manson was preaching Helter Skelter nonsense to his Family; rather, it explains why he was doing so.
Even now, 45 years later, he’s never mellowed, repented, or shown any sort of remorse. I’m inclined to believe he never believed his own rhetoric, and was just engaged in cynical manipulation, but I’m not sure if his ongoing behavior supports or invalidates that belief. He’s still as mean, narcissistic, and delusional as ever.