Susan Atkins - Manson Follower denied release

Not sure if anyone has followed the story of Manson follower Susan Atkins who has been imprisoned since the Tate-LaBianco murders. She is 60 now and is dying of brain cancer, with one leg amputated and the other paralyzed, and has a few months to live. They asked for an early release so she can live the remaining months outside of prison.

Coincidentally I just finished reading Helter Skelter the book written by the prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi. A bit long but great book. Anyway on the surface when you read the current story and not aware of the history, it is easy to say she should be released in her condition and with a few months to live. However having read the book and her participation - she is the one that killed Sharon Tate who was 8 months pregnant and testified that as she cried to let her live to have the baby, Atkins just kept stabbing her and saying I have no mercy for you. Tate was a random stranger to Atkins and all of the followers. I was aware of the story but until I read the book had not clue of what really happened. Can't imagine what the time was like when all that was going in terms of the trial that last 7 months. And we thought the OJ trial was a circus this seems worse.

Her release has been denied, she will remain in the prison hospital - no release.

BDD,

I read that book when it first came out and yes it was really gripping and gruesome.

I saw the news story on Atkins and they had pro and con commentators as far as her release goes. You're right, she has brain cancer, one leg and is not in good shape at all.

However, they played a clip of her after her capture and she was calmly describing how she killed Tate and how the whole time she was mutilating her, said (and I quote) "I looked her her face and felt absolutely nothing for her" calmly and coldly. I thought then and there, what a refresher course. Yea, let this be part of her punishment. She showed no mercy, give her none.

That being said I do kind of feel for her family (although I know nothing about them. Maybe they're wackos, I don't know). Strictly from that viewpoint, I can see where the family would want her to die at home.

I'll never forget when that happened and how the news showed and described the blood all over the place. Scarey and very shocking.

TIS

Let the victims' families decide on whether she should be released early to die in peace.

The vicitms' families, those alive did - which is a big reason why she is not being released.

I remember a few years after the Manson murder trial, Vincent Bugliosi saying they Manson was not insane but yet, have you seen this guy???? If he wasn't wacko then he is an eerie, creepy, spine-chilling kind of wacko nows. Give me the major creeps.

I remember years and years ago Tom Snyder interviewed him (maybe the first tv interview) on the Tomorrow Show. I swear if I were to run into Manson in a dark alley, I'd have a heart attack for sure...the beatty-eyed slimeball.

TIS

No surprise there. I'm sure the families want to see her die in pieces and not in peace.

She actually received mercy when she received a life sentence. She was supposed to get the death penalty, but when they did away with it, all the death sentences were commuted to life in prison. She's been up for parole numerous times, and has never proven herself worthy of release, even after almost 40 years.

I'm sure that Sharon and Roman would have preferred that Sharon get to live until 60, see their child grow, maybe see grandchildren. To Sharon Tate, 60 would have been a GIFT.

Do the crime, do the time. Brain tumor or not.

I was a little surprised the other day to hear Vincent Bugliosi say in an interview that Susan Atkins should be released, since she is after all bedridden and dying anyway. The interviewer actually bordered on getting into an argument with Bugliosi, who maintained compassion for Atkin's medical condition despite her LACK of compassion while committing the murders as a young, drug induced, brainwashed Manson girl.

I would think at this point her release would be more for her family's sake than hers, since she's got absolutely nothing to gain at this point anyway. Doctors have apparently given her only about 2 months to live so she would either be in a hospital or home w/ hospice care for the remainder of her days. Either way, she'll have a much more peaceful end than her victims were given.

In the end if it were put to a vote, I would opt for the wishes of the families of Sharon Tate and the other, less famous victims.

Apple

I read all about the Sharon Tate murder on Wikipedia a couple of months back, whilst having the house to myself for the weekend. I wished I hadn't.

On the afternoon of August 8, 1969, Manson set his plan in motion. Calling together several Family members, Manson announced, "Now is the time for Helter Skelter." That evening he told three female members of the Family--Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel, and Linda Kasabian--to get an additional change of clothes, a knife, and a driver's license. Manson discussed details of his plan with a fourth Family member, Charles "Tex" Watson before all four piled into an old Ford. As they drove down the driveway of the ranch, Manson stuck his head in the car window and told them "to leave a sign." He said, "You girls know what I mean, something witchy." Although Tex understood his mission fully, the three women knew neither their destination nor that the night was destined for murder.

Forty-five minutes or so later, shortly after midnight on August 9, the group pulled up in front of the Bel Air residence of actress Sharon Tate, famous for her recent role in the movie Valley of the Dolls. Tate shared the home with her husband, director Roman Polanski, who was in London at the time working on his next film project, The Day of the Dolphin. In his absence, two friends were staying at the large home at 10050 Cielo Drive, including coffee heiress Abigail Folger and her lover, Voytek Frykowski. Also in the home that night was hair stylist Jay Sebring, a friend of Tate's.

After Tex cut the telephone wires leading to the Tate home, the four scrambled over the fence at the bottom of the property and began heading up the hill leading to the residence. A car pulled up the driveway. Tex leaped forward, stuck his hand through the car window, aimed at the driver's head, and pulled the trigger four times. The first victim in the Tate-LaBianca killings was eighteen-year-old Steven Parent, in the wrong place at the wrong time. While Kasabian waited below by the car, the other three Family members entered the Tate home. Within minutes, the screams began. Watson would later describe the next four victims "as running around the place like chickens with their heads cut off."

In all, the four victims received 102 stab wounds. Sharon Tate was the last to die, knived by Watson while she was held down by Susan Atkins. Atkins said later that she tasted Tate's blood and found it to be "warm and sticky." She took some of Tate's blood and used it to scrawl, on the porch wall, "PIG."

The next morning, a maid arriving at the Tate home left screaming, "Murder! Death! Bodies! Blood!" Within hours, investigators discovered two badly mutilated bodies on the lawn of the Tate residence, those of Folger and Frykowski. Inside, near a couch in the living room, they discovered the bloody pregnant body of Tate and, with a rope around his neck and a bloody towel over his face, Jay Sebring.

Manson, meanwhile, expressed his displeasure with the attack at the Tate residence. Too messy, he thought. He decided to accompany the next Helter Skelter mission, which he scheduled for that very night. In addition to the four Family members from the previous night's mission, Manson was joined by Clem Tufts and Leslie Van Houten. Manson ordered Kasabian to cruise the neighborhoods of Los Angeles, in search for potential victims, before settling on the home of Leno and and Rosemary LaBianca. Watson, Krenwinkel, and Van Houten were the killers chosen by Manson. As they left the car, Manson told them: "Don't let them know you are going to kill them."

Police found Leno LaBianca with a knife lodged in his throat, twelve stab wounds, and seven pairs of fork wounds. The word "WAR" had been carved on his stomach. Rosemary LaBianca was found with multiple stab wounds in her chest and neck. On the LaBianca's living room wall, written in blood, were the words "DEATH TO PIGS" and "RISE." On the refrigerator door was written, "HEALTER SKELTER."

- The Charles Manson (Tate-LaBianca Murder) Trial
by Doug Linder (2002)



During the trial Linda Kasabian testified that Sharon Tate begged for the life of her unborn child but was told by Susan Atkins, "Look bitch, I don't care about you. I don't care if you are having a baby. You are going to die and I don't feel a thing about it."

It's been rumored over the years that Atkins actually cut the baby out of Tate's stomach.

Fuck Susan Atkins. Let her suffer in pain the way she made her victims suffer!

Well, I'll say it. She's going to die anyways, let her the fuck out. It's not like she can even enjoy the time out, she has fucking brain cancer. Has anyone ever watched anyone die of brain cancer? I have, and it's fucking horrible. There is absolutely no enjoyment involved.

Besides, aren't you people down with Christ? Isn't that dude all about forgiveness and shit?

How many people have you watched getting gutted while pleading for their life?

I am not following this case at all, so I have no idea in what state she is in and have no idea how brain cancer patients are in general. So, wouldn't she gain anything by spending her last days with family? I can imagine other people wanting to spend time with family before their death.

I'd bet Sharon Tate did also.

Sure that was not my point SC. I am not arguing in favor of anyone. I don't know enough about the case to take sides. I am just questioning Apple's statement that releasing her is not even doing a favor to her. Whether releasing her is correct or not is not something I am getting into now. What does the release mean to a dying person? To me, it looks like a favor, however short-lived.

See, I'm not easily offended, as you know, and that remark doesn't bother me in the least. But I'm absolutely certain that if someone else stated on this board that they watched a love one die of brain cancer, and I retorted with a wise-ass remark along those lines, I'd get scorned to shit, as I usually do in those instances. A little fucked?

And again, how fucking spiteful can one person be? What's done is done. Tate is dead, and Atkins is on her way out. If she is really in the final stages of brain cancer, she probably can't talk, and if she does, it's very incoherent. She probably doesn't leave bed all day, which after a while would make her quite weak and frail. She probably needs help eating and going to the bathroom. And to boot, it's probably very difficult to look at her, because she probably has one hell of a tumor coming off her head... Or, even worse, it has been operated on, and now it is covered in scabs and bloody muck.

The idea that Atkins would enjoy herself too much to be remorseful outside of prison is ridiculous. She may not even know where the fuck she is, she could be so fucked up. She's probably on liquid morphine, which basically means she has no clue what god damn year it is. For all we know, she is locked in a super introspective re-evaluation of her life right now. But, at least her family, who had absolutely nothing to do with the murders, could feel a little more closure by bringing her home. Imagine if you were in the same scenerio as the Atkins family. Wouldn't you want the same, and wouldn't your intentions be pure?

And about the crimes; are we forgetting Manson basically brain-washed a bunch of kids to begin with? All it takes is one very powerful mind, and a few weaker ones, and you've got the potential for a fucking mess. Politicians do it everyday. Like it or not, Manson was a very smart man; you have to be pretty intelligent to pull off the kind of mind game he did. I contest the same of Hitler. I could never brainwash someone like that if I wanted to, and I highly doubt any of you could. I'm not insinuating that Atkins is not responsible for the crimes, but hey.

Bottom line is, we claim to be better than all sorts of sadistic figures, but it would appear we're just as obsessed with the suffering as they are.

It wasn't meant to offend. It wasn't a smart-ass remark. You've got quite a chip on your shoulder.

Bottom line is Atkins was guilty of a self-admitted murder. She never showed any remorse. Now just because she's sick we as a society are supposed to forget and let her have some freedom?

I don't think so.

I think Apple's point was that by releasing Atkins it would be a favor to her family. I think we owe it to the victims' families (who have spoken out against Atkins being released) to keep Atkins in prison.

BTW - I didn't take it that you were arguing for or against anything here.

There is no doubt that Manson was an extremely intelligent con man. He was able to take advantage of the times and lead a bunch of homeless kids from the Haight-Ashbury scene of the 60s. Yes, he brainwashed them, through isolation, through constant preaching, and through fear. However, Bugliosi made the distinction between his followers. For example, Linda Kasabian was the driver both nights, yet she never harmed anyone and turned herself in and testified against the Family. Atkins, on the other hand, not only killed, but literally tasted the blood of the victims. And Tate was not her only victim. She had killed before, and had also sexually abused her infant son. This was not some lost little hippie girl who acted solely under the influence.

I think that there probably is no point in keeping Atkins in prison. As LLC pointed out, she's no doubt so physically and mentally gone that it will make little difference to her. BUT it may make a big difference to the families of the victims, and I believe that their wishes should have priority.

It didn't bother me at all, but it was pretty sardonic.


And the family of the soon-to-be victim?

Atkins is going to die a painful death regardless. How much more can you do to satisfy the scornful?

Scornful? Why scornful? I just think that the victims and their families need to be given more rights and consideration in the judicial process than they currently receive. I think that they should have input on whether she's released or not.

As I said, she was sentenced to death almost 40 years ago. She received the ability to see her family, to be alive. That's more than the victims received, and I don't think she should be given special consideration because she's dying. It shouldn't have any impact on her release.

If the parole board had found her suitably remorseful, she would have received her release. Obviously they didn't, so she should stay in prison.

One thing to keep in mind when we are discussing the criminal justice process is that it is government that acts on our collective behalf through through a system that deprives or seeks to deprive one of life, liberty, or property. In doing so, government must develop and apply a process and apply that same process to everyone.

The US and state constitutions were drafted and ratified in part to protect us against the potential ravages of government, not one another. They realized that any one of us could at any time become subject to the criminal justice process and they wanted to insure that there were constraints and requirements placed upon governments to to maximize the integrity of the process.

Now, statutory law seeks to protect us against the ravages perpetrated by individuals acting on their own behalf. To the extent that such laws enhance our feeling of safety and security, they enahnce our emotional, psychological, and economic prosperity.

Thus, I don't see such laws or the processes that stem from them to be a mechanism through which the feelings of families of victims are to be assuaged.

Someone translate the above post for me please!

When you kill someone in a high profile case your screwed.

Some unknown person kills several people, they do twenty years or so and they get out sooner rather then later.

You kill a Robert Kennedy type and you never get out. Doesn't matter if you were some dumb kid on drugs at the time.

That's what Olivant was saying? Thanks Fathersson, that was much easier to understand

His was a nice try, but no cigar.

My post was in response to that part of Babe's post about making the family of crime victims feel better. Statutory law and the criminal justice process are not designed for such a purpose. They are designed to give us a feeling of reasonable security in our Nationa and in our states, our cities, our neighborhods, and in our homes. Without such a feeling, we would probably be too scared to leave our homes and you can imagine the ill effects that would engender.

While we may sympathize with the plight of those surviving family members of a crime victim, our law and legal processes have to remain as objective as possible.

I did not say that we should be making them feel better. I said that the victims and their families should have rights. They seemingly don't, but they should.

What I did say is that the parole board hasn't found any reason to release her and that her illness shouldn't have any bearing on being let out.

Aren't paroles always based on reasons, not actually related to the original crime itself? Like remorse, good behavior etc... Can't illness be included in that list? Illness is again appealing to sentiment. But you can say that it is not connected in any way to the reform of the criminal (if that is the intention of punishment, rather than justice), so it may not be a valid reason after all.

I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that parole hearings are held on a regular basis. If she was denied at the last one, then she isn't eligible for consideration until the next one. And yes, the decision is based on remorse, on the chance that the prisoner will repeat the crime, on good behavior in prison, etc. I have no idea if illness is ever taken into consideration.

Good points. Our criminal justice system has as a large component of rehabilitation of and compassion for an offender. If not, why not place every offender in prison for life or execute everyone?

Babe, you miss my point. The criminal justic system is government depriving someone of life, liberty of property. That's why the US and state constitutions place restrictions on and make requirements of government when they seek to deprive. The drafters and ratifiers of the Bill of rights recognized what a predator government could be. They left it up to legislators to make laws to protect us against each other. Still, governmental processes pursuant thereto have to be fair and objective and evenly applied or we would all be subject to the whim of government agents and institutions.

Rights for the families of crime victims? What should they be? Why should they be? To assuage their feelings, that's all. The Texas Constitution (Artilce I - see below) contains something like the rights you are talking about (perhaps). Those rights contained therein serve one purpose: to assuage feelings. And the objectivity of the criminal justice system is, therefore, compromised by those rights. What rights would you like to see codified?

A crime victim has the following rights:
(1) the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice process; and
(2) the right to be reasonably protected from the accused throughout the criminal justice process.
(b) On the request of a crime victim, the crime victim has the following rights:
(1) the right to notification of court proceedings;
(2) the right to be present at all public court proceedings related to the offense, unless the victim is to testify and the court determines that the victim's testimony would be materially affected if the victim hears other testimony at the trial;
(3) the right to confer with a representative of the prosecutor's office;
(4) the right to restitution; and
(5) the right to information about the conviction, sentence, imprisonment, and release of the accused.

This is an interesting topic for a different discussion. Here, we were discussing Susan Atkins and whether she should be released to die at home with her loved ones. Personally, I vote no.

SB, if the victim had no family, would you be ok with her release?

She needs to stay right where she is.

No, I wouldn't, svsg. She was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole, and she had her parole hearings. For whatever reason, the parole board didn't find her worthy of release. Because she became fatally ill since that hearing should have no bearing on her release date.

This debate comes down to assessing why we have a criminal justice system. Is it to deter crime, or to administer punishment, or exact revenge, or to rehabilitate people, or a combination of all of those? Which of those purposes does the continued incarceration of a dying inmate satisfy?

Probably a combination of all those things.

The administration of an effective and fair criminal justice system requires a dispassionate approach. While our sympathies for victims of violent crimes might might affect our view of punishment, it is important to know that considering the murder victim's family members' opinions on the imposition of sentence or possibility of parole is as unfair as allowing the criminal's family to determine sentence and parole. Both have passionate feelings and therefore should not be determiners of sentence. Nonetheless, both parties have a right to speak at sentencing about the defendant and victim, but their opinions of sentencing would add an emotional element that could disrupt the integrity of the process.

It is also important to note that in criminal cases, the prosecution is not brought by the victim, but by the State or Commonwealth (The People). That said, while the families of Sharon Tate and Susan Atkins have the most interest in the outcome of the parole hearings, they are perhaps the least equipped people to make such a determination as their opinions are no doubt enflamed by their passions.

I don't know whether Atkins should be paroled, but I think the decision should rationally evaluate the gravity of her offense (including heinous features), contrition, rehabilitation, what she accomplished or did in prison, and capacity for commiting other crimes.

Well said Kly.

Good. I'm glad she'll rot in there.

Hey DJ's visiting.

Liberal bastard.

Meh, I think that we should let Manson and Sirhan Sirhan out so that they can enjoy the chocolate rivers and gumdrop skies that we have been unfairly depriving them of for far too long!

If we let the victims and their families control these aspects of the judicial system, we wouldn't have justice, we would have revenge. It would not be a fair and constitutionally supervised system... not that it particularly is now. It would be chaos. It's human nature to feel as if you're owed something and to want revenge, but you can only go so far before there are more important issues and ethics at hand.

Some of you may want to surf on over to the Innocence Project: http:\\www.innocenceproject.org

It provides plenty of reasons why we need to keep the the administration of justice as objective as possible.

Sounds a lot like the opening of "The Godfather".

Revenge is good.

Yes, that was exactly my point. One of the internet pieces carried a photo of two of her female relatives in tears, I believe it was her sister & niece. Her family is pleading on her behalf as she is probably in no shape to do so.



Right again. Look, all families stated their case on behalf of loved ones who can no longer speak for themselves. One side got their wish, the other did not. Susan Atkins will die in a hospital and probably get all the care she needs and be kept as comfortable as possible right to the end. Even though 39 years have passed and 'what's done is done' (as one brilliant poster states)...Ms. Atkins still gets a far better deal and far more compassion than HER victims received.

Apple

It could be a combination, except for the 'revenge' part.
As Don Corleone would tell you, revenge and justice are two different things.

True, it's pretty complicated in this day & age. In the case of Susan Atkins and her co-defendants, we have a criminal justice system to administer punishment for a crime so horrible it is still legend almost 40 years later.

The 'continued incarceration of a dying inmate' satisfies justice. After all, her original death sentence was commuted to LIFE in prison. That means the rest of her life in prison. I will try to have a little more compassion for her than she did for Sharon Tate & her unborn baby. But I still don't think she should be released.

Apple

Meh, they should bring back sparky. At least it would give me something to watch while I eat my popcorn.

Well said Apple.

I remember back in the 90's, one of the other Manson Family members, Patricia "Katie" Krenwinkel was supposed to go up in front of the parole board, but chose not to. I think that it was Barbara Walters who was interviwing her, and she told Barbara Walters that she decided NOT to go in front of the parole board because she herself felt that she did NOT deserve to be released. She said that as the years went by and she matured and grew older and had all that time to reflect on what she had done, she realized that what she partook in was so dispicable that she didn't even deserve to live, PERIOD.

-------------------------------------

"I sat in a courtroom with a jury and watched with others. I saw a young woman who giggled, snickered and shouted out insults, even while testifying about my daughter's last breath, she laughed. My family was ripped apart. If Susan Atkins is released to rejoin her family, where is the justice?"

- Paul Tate (Sharon Tate's father )

Yes, that was exactly my point. One of the internet pieces carried a photo of two of her female relatives in tears, I believe it was her sister & niece. Her family is pleading on her behalf as she is probably in no shape to do so.



Some of ya'll are fogetting that comparing the action one takes against someone else with the action that government takes against someone is comparing apples and oranges. While justifiable action taken by an individual is a consummation devoutly to be wished, action taken by government must be justifiable or we are all in peril. Susan Atkins is supposed to get a far better deal because it is government that provides the deal.

Remember, the Founding Fathers inveighed against the potential oppressions of government, not against the actions of individuals. It was the actions of government which they constraned through the provisions of the Constitution and, later, through the provisions of the Bill of Rights.

Everybody slow clap...LET HER ROT.

Yeah, because dying a slow painful death in a prison hospital where no one cares about you is a lot different than dying a slow painful death in a room where no one cares about you.

Well...if you're going to bring the Founding Fathers into it that's swell. But also try to keep in mind that in the time of the Founding Fathers, Atkins, Manson and the whole gang would've been probably been hanged the day after their trial ended.

Good point. In those days, the right to a speedy trial meant the jury met in the am, the hangman crew in the pm.

I'm sure that she'll be kept medicated to minimize the pain. She'll die surrounded by her loved ones, or at least be allowed to say her goodbyes to them. She'll have time to make her peace with her past before she dies.

That's certainly better than being held down and knifed to death while you plead for your life and/or the life of your baby, all time being told by your killers, "Shut up, bitch."

As for the families having or not having input, I understand the idea of it destroying objectivity. However, during sentencing, the families of criminals are allowed to plead for them. What does that do to objectivity?

I truly believe that too often the rights of defendants are trampled. However, I think that we too often forget that crimes have victims, and that those victims should have rights, too.

No cigar Apple.

The strong abolitionist movement that laid down its roots at this time resulted in changes to various state judicial proceedings, criminal laws, and punishments. By that time the states already had a sophisticated system of judicial appeals that precluded the "probaby" that you refer to.

I believe she already has made peace with her past. The Susan Atkins website (last updated 2005) is pretty interesting.

http://www.susanatkins.org/

But that doesn't mean I think she should be released.

Oh, and olivant...strike that 'probably'...they would've been hanged the VERT next day.

Apple

I think I would be more impressed with that website if the author had bothered to spell the names of her victims correctly. It's "Tate-LaBianca", not "Tate-Labiance".

Yes, I noticed that too.

However, it's pretty obvious that whoever built the website was far more devoted to Ms. Atkins and her 'accomplishments' than to what she did that got her incarcerated.

The crime itself is treated as more of an 'honorable mention' than anything else. It's clear they couldn't ignore it but wanted to turn the focus to all the 'other' things Atkins has done.

Apple

Wasn't she also convicted of killing Gary Hinman? I notice that he didn't even get a mention on the site.

It was all about Susan, Susan, Susan. The site claims that without her testimony Manson never would have been convicted. Um, she gave that testimony to the grand jury, and then recanted before the trial. Yes, she seems properly remorseful. Suuuure she was.

Well, if my reference precludes "probably", then it definitely precludes "would've."

I think you're all just really miserable and thirsty for blood.

I rape children, too.

You ARE a child.

lol, you stole my words SB.

You're a very nosy fellow, kitty cat. Huh? You know what happens to nosy fellows? Huh? No? Wanna guess? Huh? No? Okay. They lose their noses.

Isn't that a bit off-topic? sigh

Yes, it does portray her to appear almost saintlike, which is of course absurd. Whatever good she's accomplished while in prison does not change what she did to get there.

Leslie Van Houton is another Manson girl who's been bucking for parole the past 20 years. I'm not even sure these people could live normal lives outside of prison, they've been there so long not to mention the high profile nature of the crime. Like the line in 'Shawshank Redemption' about not being able to make it on the outside because you're 'institutionalized'.

Of this would not apply to the bedridden and terminally ill Atkins but still, denial of her release was justified.

Apple

In Texas we have a Board of Pardons and Paroles that consists of seven members appointed byt he Governor and approved by the Texas Senate. In addition there are about 15 commissioners that operate in groups of three distributed among geographic regions of Texas that actually hear petitions and process paperwork. The Governor cannot grant a parole wihout the recommendation of the Board.

I don't know how it operates in your states, but they all seem to have the same criteria in common and are largely subjective. You can't predict how someone will act in the future and you don't know if someone is authentically remorseful.

Neither of which is (or should be) a consideration in this particular case.

While we 'don't know' if Atkins is 'authintically remorseful', it's not too difficult to predict how she will act in the future.

She lies in a prison hospital because of something she already did. She is being punished for a homicide she committed 39 years ago. Despite the fact that she won't be committing any more homicides, and despite her current grave condition, the State of CA has decided she will remain there until she dies.

Yay, State of CA.

Apple

Well, what is or should be considered then?

She was up before the parole board in 2005 and denied parole. Her next hearing date was set for 2009. In my opinion, she wasn't found worthy of parole, for whatever reason, and her illness should have no impact on that. If she is still alive in 2009, and the board decides to release her then, that's fine. It doesn't sound like she will be, but you never know.

Not for me to say, since I wasn't on the committee that had to make the decision on whether or not to release her.

Possibly the testimony of the families on BOTH sides, possibly the fact that she was not even up for parole, this was simply a plea for an early release. Possibly the heinous nature of the crime itself. Maybe all these things put together.

Look, the reality here is that (most likely) none of us on the BB took a part in the ruling that Atkins remain in a prison hospital. What we've all been posting here is our opinions...no matter how smart or knowledgeable we want to try & portray ourselves to fellow members (who probably know better, anyway).

So you can ask all the questions you want, and second guess the State of CA and enlighten all of us as to how things are done in YOUR State.

In the end, the decision has been made
by people who know far more than we do andlike it or not there are TWO main issues stated in this thread that are fact:

1. Susan Atkins is a convicted murderer.
2. Susan Atkins is going to die in prison (where she belongs* ).



* Opinion only, of course

Well, thanks for your permission Apple allowing me to enlighten you. I have always had a well of compassion for the ill-informed and for those who have no basis for portraying themselves as smart or knowlegeable let alone being smart or knowledeable. I'm happy to help you Apple. You can call on me anytime that you are bereft of knowledge.

Oh, you have a well of something, allright!!!

Proof positive that this thread has pretty much run its course.

Gotta go...been looking for enlightenment in all the wrong places!

Apple

I see not much has changed around here in my absence...:D

Oh, sorry.

LET'S BURN ALL CANCER PAITENTS AT THE STAKE! THEY AREN'T REAL PEOPLE! THEY LACK HUMAN EMOTION! FUCK CANCER PAITENTS!

I hope I don't get banned for using all caps.

You REALLY need to take a chill-pill. That reply you quoted from Sicilian Babe had nothing to do about cancer. It was in reply to a rather crude remark that was deleted.

I really don't see anyone here saying that convicted criminals who have cancer are to be treated differently, but since you seem to keep bringing up that point I would question "why"? Yeah, maybe someone who was imprisoned for a relatively minor crime and had terminal cancer should be released early as an act of compassion, but I cannot, and will never, see why a convicted murderer should be given special treatment because they're dying of cancer.

Seriously dude, drugs are not the answer.

Susan Atkins finally died. While she had a very sad childhood, she made her own choices, and ultimately suffered the consequences.

Susan Atkins dead at 61

thank god! hope she enjoys hell

Boy, that says it perfectly hu? I'll never forget how damn "cold" and uncaring and unrepentent she was.

On the other hand, a part of me, feels for her family who wanted her to die with them. I know, I know. Looking ony thru parents eyes, I feel for them, NOT for her.


TIS

i really would like to find out if her mind was messed up before LSD or after.

I hope her victims are enjoying Heaven!

her victims are wishing they had more time on earth...i know sharon tate's baby would had loved to live it's then being up in heaven.

so, now who is left of the manson family?

A great many of them are still alive. Even though the murders were committed 40 years ago, with the exception of Manson, the family members were mostly in their teens and twenties. Of those convicted in the Tate-LaBianca killings, I think that Susan was the first to die. I also believe they're all still in jail.

What saddens me the most is that Sharon Tate grabbed so many of the headlines. Few people today remember Wojciech Frykowski, Gary Hinman, Shorty Shea, Steven Parent or Rosemary and Leno LaBianca, their lesser known victims. Abigail Folger, Jay Sebring and Sharon were all famous, so I guess it's natural that they got the lion's share of the media attention.

I often think of poor Steven Parent, who went to the house that night to try and sell a clock radio to the caretaker, and ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was just out of high school, and he was quickly forgotten in the media circus that followed.

The fact that one of the random victims was a beautiful starlet, married to a famous director and about a week away from giving birth certainly served to further sensationalize an already incredible mass murder. But in all the times I've seen the story discussed or profiled over the years, I never thought of the other victims as being 'forgotten'.

I've seen that photos of the bodies, both at the scene and during autopsy, have been released. For many years, murder scene photos of the victims were whited out in silhouette. (Unfortunately, my curiosity recently got the best of me.)

I believe it was Susan Atkins who did the job on Sharon Tate. Atkins mentioned later that she briefly considered cutting the baby out of Tate's body. Anyone who could so brutally murder a visibly pregnant woman, pleading for the life of her child, and then write 'PIG' on a door with that woman's blood...deserved to die in prison. No matter how sick she was.

What many people forget is that the Manson gang had been sentenced to die when the death penalty was abolished, thereby commuting them to life in prison.

i still wish they were put to death...not by lethel ejection, but maybe hanging or old sparky or maybe shooting range...and i believe everybody who killed and have no soul should get those three.

Read this book:






No need to hope. All in Heaven are experiencing joy!

Read this book:



interesting...i should check that out. one of my interests is reading up psychological of serial killers. also i am reading helter skelter.

However, it's somehow been equally fitting knowning that Atkins, Van Houten, Krenwinkle & Watkins have grown old in prison, been able to sober up, escape Charlie's grasp, think about and live with what they did, pleading for their freedom every few years and having to face the families of their victims.

I was amazed watching Leslie Van Houten being interviewed by Larry King years ago. Repentant as she was I couldn't fathom how this soft spoken, middle aged woman really felt she had paid sufficiently for what she did to Mrs. LaBianca.

Apple

well with them i am kinda in the middle with because of the LSD and the mind control they had. with charles though i want him in death the most. i mean really he considers jail a home to him (before the murders he spent half his life in jail).

That's exactly what Vincent Bugliosi said. That to have Manson spend the rest of his life in prison was like sending him home, not a punishment at all. Unrepentant, completely narcissistic, never at a loss for words blaming the rest of the world for everything. It's a wonder anyone tries to talk to him even to this day.

I remember Geraldo Rivera making a fool of himself trying to interview Manson some 10-15 years ago. Geraldo tried so hard to outsmart the guy and Charlie saw him coming at every corner, then led him around another corner. That is/was Manson's gift and it's tragic that he used it for evil. He did control all those young people back in 1969 (except for Linda Kasabian), but they still had to pay for what they did.

Apple

An excellent book. After reading Helter Skelter I realized how brilliant Vincent Bugliosi really was as the prosecutor in that case. If I were a criminal law or justice teacher, Helter Skelter would be required reading for my students.


I am glad that Susan Atkins was never granted parole. That would have been a grave injustice. When their initial death sentences were overturned by the change in the law to life sentences, they should have been given those life sentences WITHOUT the chance of ever getting paroled. Should have been life in prison - NO PAROLE.

It's unimaginable that people like Charles Manson could have easily been let back into society!




You said a mouthful TIS!

Linda Kasabian testified that after Susan Atkins licked Sharon Tate's blood from her hands she said "Wow what a trip!"


Looks to me that Atkins died a peaceful death compared to how Sharon Tate died :



WARNING : PRETTY GRAPHIC CRIME SCENE PHOTO

I've also read "The Family", which talked about how The Family evolved. The author went way back to when Manson was a student of The Process and Scientology, and borrowed heavily from both to form his preachings. The book talks about Manson and Mary Brunner, which was the beginning, and then Susan, and the others all joining in. They were all outcasts, and it was sad how desperately they all wanted to be loved, even Charlie.

There were plenty of Family members who didn't kill for him, though. Linda Kasabian, Kitty Lutesinger, Barbara Hoyt, Danny DeCarlo, and so on. And then others did it without a thought. Bugliosi theorized that certain members just had murder in their hearts, and Charlie brought it out in them.

There were several children at the ranch. Most went to private adoptions, but Charlie and Mary's son was raised by her parents, and has publicly acknowledged his parents.

i feel bad for the kids of knowing who there parents are, and how they ended other lifes.

also too is the woman who shot at ford still in jail or has she died?

2002 interview of Susan Atkins by Diane Sawyer (rebroadcast on a 2006 GMA segment).

While her remorse and repentance are evident and no doubt sincere, it is astonishing that she had even the slightest hope of ever being released...and this was BEFORE she got sick.

Also note the brief snippet of Diane's interview w/ Charles Manson. Bad though he is, what stands out is his very clever (and not completely incorrect) statement that he didn't make 'them' do anything they didn't want to do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwqooUe0wC0&feature=related

I have never read any of the books about the murders. My question is does anybody know why they chose Sharon Tate to murder?

It was a random hit, the killers had no idea who was in the house and didn't care. Interesting, though...that upon seeing one of their victims would be a very pregnant woman did not give them the slightest cause to turn away.

I did hear that the initial 'Helter Skelter' plan was to target specific famous people, such as Frank Sinatra...

if i read right the manager of the beach boys basically pissed manson off by not offering him a contract or something like that. he found the place he lived at, but a few months before that he rented the place out to roman polanski, and his wife sharon tate.

Terry Melcher, a record producer and the son of Doris Day, lived at Cielo Drive as a tenant. The house was actually owned by Rudy Altobelli, a talent manager. I do believe that Dennis Wilson introduced Manson to Melcher in the hopes of getting Charlie's music sold, but Melcher had no interest. The last time Melcher saw Charlie, he was living in the guest house and Sharon was already at the main house. Charlie showed up there looking for Terry, and Sharon sent him down to the guest house, where Melcher curtly dismissed him.

Charlie chose the house because he knew that famous people lived there and hoped to draw attention to Helter Skelter with their grisly deaths. Although he didn't know the residents, he and Sharon had actually come face to face that one time.

Interestingly...

Polanski Arrested, Faces Extradition for Sex Crime

Those Manon followers should be denied release. I believe one of them was let go, and another just died of brain cancer.
I read somewhere that before the Tate killings one of the
things the "family" would do was break into people's houe in the middle of the night and rearrange all the furniture.

You are right that Manson has this "gift" to control people, but let's face it anyone can make Geraldo Rivera look stupid.

that is what happend to the labianca family before they were murdered.

al capone even fooled rivera, and he has been dead for 40 years

You must be referring to Linda Kasabian, who went along on both nights, witnessed at least 2 of the murders at the Tate house but didn't actually kill anyone herself. She was granted full immunity for her testimony against Manson and the others and never served a day in prison. (Did anyone see her on Larry King last month?)

Unfair? Sharon Tate's sister sure thinks so...however Bugliosi has stated that without Kasabian the prosecution would've had no case. I think it was as fair a trade as they could get.

did she turn her self in right a way? if not she should had been in jail for at least year or something like that. but, yea it is a fair trade. then again how could she be there, and not kill. she got the same treatment as susan, and the others.

Linda Kasabian was located and arrested just along with the others. Unlike the Krenwinkle, Atkins & Van Houten who giddily stood by Charlie, Linda was the one who was willing to talk.

yea i think she should had jail time...but at least a year or so.

Well...full immunity is full immunity.

Actually, Susan did talk. She talked to her cellmates when she was in jail on other charges. When they turned her in, she made a deal with Bugliosi for her testimony. She testified in front of the grand jury, and then recanted. Bugliosi, who had discovered Linda by then, was actually relieved that he could take the deal with Atkins off the table. He found her sickening, and preferred to deal with Linda, who hadn't actually, you know, stabbed anyone.

Right, so...Linda Kasabian was the only one willing to "talk".

Meaning...testify. At trial. Sing like a bird. Under oath.

And if it wasn't for Susan's big yap, who knows when they would have connected the murders to this obscure little commune on a remote ranch. Whatever else she did, Susan did connect the dots for the prosecution, which led to the arrest of Manson, et al.

Has anyone seen video or pictures of the other men in the family, like Clem, Tex or Bobby? Bobby looks scarier now than when he was first arrested. I guess 40 years in jail will do that to you.

Didn't she invent some diet that requires one to eat no carbs?

True.

Thank goodness for Susan's bodacious brag to her cellmates, and thank goodness THEY turned stool pigeon on her and got the ball rolling.

Still though, without Kasabian's testimony it's quite possible the whole gang, including Charlie, may well have been found not guilty and walked out of that courtroom, free to kill again.

Apple

No question about it Apple. At first all Bugliosi really had was mostly circumstantial. However, once Kasabian agreed to testify, her testimony wound up corroborating that circumstantial evidence.

Tex Watson and Patricia Krenwinkel's fingerprints were found at the scene. And while this evidence, by itself, could be considered circumstantial, Kasabian's testimony putting them there corroborated the fingerprint evidence because it was totally independent of the physical fingerprint evidence.

Her testifying that they were there corroborted (supported) that physical evidence.

As I've said in a previous post, Bugliosi and his team were brilliant in how they pieced the evidence and that case together using the testimony of one person to support what was mostly circumstantial evidence.

Bugliosi was able to convince a jury to convict a man of murder who physically did not partake in those murders. He was able to convince a jury that Manson was as guilty, if not more guilty, than those who physically committed those murders.

And let's keep in mind that this was back in 1969 when the most powerful weapon that law enforcement had was the aability to lift a fingerprint.

A brilliant prosecutor.

I remember a year or two after OJ Simpson's criminal trial, Bugliosi did a few interviews claiming that he would have succeeded at getting OJ convicted.

Hindsight is 20/20 and I never did get to hear Vince explain in detail how he would've accomplished this...but I'll bet he's right.

(Of course the prosecution didn't so much lose that case as pretty much give it away...which Bugliosi would not have allowed to happen.)

Apple

Apple,

I felt the same way as you did about the prosecution dropping the ball on the OJ case. Felt very strongly that they blew it big time. But after reading Chris Darden's book, I no longer feel as strongly about their blowing that case as I originally did. Do I think that they could have done a better job than they did? Absolutely. But after reading his book I cannot lay all the blame on Darden and Clark. There was a lot of behind the scenes politics that went on with Gil Garcetti and the prosecutor's office. Not to mention the bullshit that Judge Ito allowed to go on with the defense and in that courtroom in general.

If you haven't read Darden's book, I highly recommend that you do. An excellent book!



"IN CONTEMPT"

Point taken. So then (and I know this is gearing FAR from the original topic)...having read Darden's account do you feel that Bugliosi despite his skills could also have been powerless to overcome the Garcetti/Ito shenanegans that doomed that case?

Apple

I've read several books on the case. Darden's was particularly well written, but who knows what the truth is. I do believe that the biggest culprit was "Judge" Lance Ito. If there's any justice in this world, he's working as a short order cook on Mott Street today.

I agree about Ito...from his weepy speech in defense of his wife to his starstruck meetings with celebrities in chambers, he lost his grip of that courtroom very early on and never really got it back.

As I said, I do not TOTALLY excuse Darden or Clark for Garcetti's tying their hands and for Ito's irresponsibility as a judge. Some blame does lie with the prosecution, but for the most part I believe that the majority of it lies with Ito.

Bugliosi may not have allowed some of things that took place in that courtroom to take place.

For instance, how in the world did ITO alow OJ Simpson to make a statement from his seat, in that courtroom? How in the world did Clark and Darden not lose their minds when that was allowed?

I believe that once Simpson was allowed to make a statement in the courtroom, Bugliosi would have used it as an opportunity to force him on the stand to be cross examined.

Who knows.

My apologies for taking this discussion about Susan Atkins off topic. Perhaps we should continue this in a new topic.

that topic should be made when o.j is out of jail...