Do you want to have feelings based in reality or based on a fantasy about how things went down?
-FrL-
The debate was the trial and she is not contesting the outcome. She was convicted as part of a group who went on a murdering rampage. Whether she physically plunged a knife into Tate is irrelevant to the crime(s).
And much like three weeks ago, the burden is on you to prove the above.
I would dearly love to know what makes you think she’s innocent of these crimes. I don’t suppose you have a cite or anything?
What.
The hell.
Are you talking about?
-FrL-
Explain to me why you think I think it is relevant to the crimes?
I said its relevant to the question whether your sentiment is based in fact.
-FrL-
You know what, forget it. People when talking about this kind of thing generally make a decision to go into stupid mode.
I don’t know why I bother talking in such situations.
-FrL-
From you:
Bolding mine.
I’m sorry, were you playing some sort of weird devil’s advocate game or something?
Our sentiment is based upon the outcome of the trial.
Where’s the supporting evidence that even begins to make her guilt, and the resulting sentence, debatable? (sorry if this has already been provided earlier in this thread but I’m not going to bother to read back through to try to find it). Seems to me if there was such a thing some attorney would have already jumped at the chance to place themselves on the front page with a successful appeal.
Ahhh…
Now that you point it out, that’s not the best way for me to have put it. I think she does indeed count as guilty of the crime of murder just for having been there and for having been part of the whole murder activity.
But my point is she may not be the one who actually performed the killing.
She has since said it was Tex Watson who actually performed the killing, and he himself has corroborated this claim.
(I said this, in fewer words, in post 115.**)
So anyway, my point is, if you’re going to be all “Boo evil bitch!” towards her, it should be based on what actually happened. Now, I think what actually happened does support a sentiment of “Boo evil bitch”* but I haven’t implied otherwise.
-FrL-
*Though I also think subsequent events since the murder should mollify this sentiment somewhat.
**There, though, I said all the co-conspirators have corroborated the claim, but now that I think about it I’m only aware of her and Watson having said anything about it.
I haven’t read this thread from top to bottom, so forgive me if somebody has already mentioned it . . .
. . . but let us not forget that she was a young, abused, minimally educated girl who was tripping at the time. Moreover, the very existence of Manson’s demon-like control over her and her “sisters” is evidence as to the potency of his “mind control” or “brain washing” or whatever you want to call it. This control-cult aspect of the crime was not appreciated at the time of the trial. It was only some years later, after we heard about the Reverend Moon, Scientology, etc, that the potential power of the cult over the individual became apparent. If similar events and circumstances occurred today, I would bet that some leniency or mercy would be forthcoming as a result of her being used and abused by the cult. (And, by the same logic, she should be allowed to die outside the prison. She sounds like she’s got less than a few weeks left)
Are today’s gang members caught up in drug related and/or turf wars shown leniency just because they belong to a gang?
She can spend those few weeks looking out from between bars.
:dubious:
Actually, now that I think about it,
:dubious:^(∞-1)
Oh, I get it. She didn’t actually kill an eight month pregnant lady. She just held her down. You know, to calm her or something, and Tex Watson just came along and killed her with a knife. That Tex! You just never know what he’s gonna do during an armed home invasion. It’s all part of his quirky charm.
Or do you think she just stood by and watched? And then decided not only to lie and brag about a crime, but confess to a grand jury?? Please tell me you’re pulling my leg.
I’m guessing it involves stupid mode. (Bolding mine)
I’m sorry. I’m completely confused now. What do you think I am trying to say?
To help, I’ll quote myself from my last post:
Also:
Can you explain how what you just said makes sense in the light of what I just quoted from myself?
-FrL-
I always thought that what happened showed the horror that group think (the cult stuff) could be. Add drugs to it and lack of positive interpersonal skills and any of us could be a killer. I’d like to think not, for I am not these people–I can’t step into their shoes (not that I want to), but still. Who knows what we would all do–you can say categorically that you wouldn’t, but given all those aspects, who really knows?
I don’t think she’s innocent and I don’t think she should be exonerated. As a taxpayer, I’m a bit tired of paying for her–and I’d rather not pay for her very expensive dying process. But I don’t see releasing her, either-to where? For what? And I think it would be a slippery slope of releasing convicted murderers (of course, some of those murderers have been wrongfully convicted, so that adds a certain layer to all this, no?), which would not be good. In short, it’s a complicated issue, the resolution of which is neither simple or easy. And on the fatuous statement, I’ll go back to MPSIMS, where I belong… 
Ditto.
Sigh . . . I’ll give it a shot.
and then when I called you on it, you backpedalled and came up with what you quoted above, but wait:
I don’t blame you for being completely confused. You seem to be holding down two entirely different views. She isn’t guilty of killing anyone (although she bragged about it and confessed to a grand jury), but she is guilty of the crime of murder. Or maybe she is guilty of killing someone, but it’s debatable, although debatable isn’t the best way to put it. And plus Tex Watson corroborated her story, and this seems to mean something. What it means, I don’t even pretend to understand.
Look, enough with implying or not implying, OK? What are you trying to say?
I said it. You even quoted it. Post 129:
People here quoted the “stop screaming” line from Tate, and expressed condemning sentiments based on the view that she had in fact uttered that quote while murdering Tate by stabbing her with a knife.
I am pointing out that it is debatable whether she stabbed Tate, and so debatable whether she uttered the quote while stabbing her.
The reason I say it is debateable is because she has since said she wasn’t the actual stabber, that it was Watson instead–and Watson has corroborated this. The impression I have from having read some articles on this is that the matter is considered debatable.
Meanwhile, I have clarified I do not think this in any way exhonerates her of guilt for the murder. First of all, legally, I think you can be guilty of murder even if you’re not the peron who performed the killing act. Second of all, morally, of course you’re guilty if you’re taking part willingly in murderous activities.
So I have not brought these points up in order to exhonerate Atkins. Rather, I have brought them up because I notice people are basing sentiments on beliefs that are debateable. As I said, generally, we want our sentiments to be based in fact.
Again, as I’ve already said, I think the actual facts* do support sentiments like those expressed here. I just assume people would like those sentiments actually to be based on those facts. If one feels, for example, glee at Atkins’ fate, that is fine and dandy, but I assume one would like one’s glee to be about something that actually happened and not about something that didn’t actually happen.
-FrL-
*The facts as I see them:
Maybe Atkins stabbed Tate, maybe she helped Watson do it. It is not clear which is the case. But in either case she did something inexcusably evil–and neither would be more excuseable than the other–and in either case, afterwards, she showed incredible disrespect for the victim of the crime and for the victim’s family.
I think these facts support negative sentiments toward Atkins.
Atkins cheerfully admitted to killing Sharon. She bragged about it to an inmate, and then she confessed to a grand jury. The only one who corroborates her repudiation is one of a very small number of people who might actually be crazier and more evil than she is.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s not debatable. She killed Sharon, and that’s a fact. Sharon is dead as a direct result of Atkins’ presence.
I agree. Beyond the fact that she confessed twice (cooberating her own confession) it’s irrelevant who did the stabbing. She is guilty of the crime as a participant.
Fantasy?
There’s nothing fantasized in the description of how she died. Just google *Sharon Tate crime scene *and you can find the unedited photos all over the web. Atkins confessed to the murder multiple times, then— how odd for a prisoner— remembered she was innocent, but nobody disputes she was present, that she did not even attempt to stop the carnage, to get away from the murderers, or to turn evidence against them even when she was safe from their reach and there was ample incentive for her to do so. And then there’s the Gary Hinman murder, the Labianca murders, and whatever other murders she was present for (and the “young/gullible/drugged” thing doesn’t hold water- Linda Kesabian was young/gullible/drugged and did not participate in the killings/intentionally misdirected them from one victim/ran away from the family as soon as she could/turned herself into police/cooperate fully with the prosecution and investigation even before being offered immunity).
Ah, and there’s the charming little fact of Atkins fellating her infant son, Zezozece Zadfrack Glutz, and encouraging other members of the Family to do so (source: HELTER SKELTER). It’s quite an accomplishment when sexual molestation of infant is an offense you’re not even prosecuted or investigated for because it’s a pale shadow of your other crimes!
Watch her parole hearings on YouTube. She makes herself out to be as big a victim of Manson as Tate/Labianca/etc. (No dear, nowhere close- pity.)
There’s no fantasy in the above. I wish there were.