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.