Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Anthony DiMaria's Response to Rolling Stone story on Manson

Below is a letter that Jay Sebring's nephew, Anthony DiMaria, sent in response to Rolling Stone story on Manson. It is republished with permission from Restless Souls.

mansondirect.com
On June 15, 1970 Rolling Stone featured Charles Manson on it's magazine cover. Sadly, the narrative following the massacres on the nights of August 8th and 10th, 1969 holds firm approaching four and a half decades- Manson and his clan are sensationalized, glamorized as anti establishment pop celebrity icons, while their eleven victims remain trivialized and vilified to fit the sexy packaged formula of good old true crime mass murder. The Tate - LaBianca killings have become a massive source of interest and profit for countless news/tabloid organizations, books, TV/film companies, TIME, LIFE and prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi.

It is painful and disturbing to see that the Rolling Stone piece by Erik Hedegaard (December 5, 2013) is yet another example of how horribly the victims are disregarded, even slandered ( "Sharon Tate wasn't a movie star. Even now, nobody's ever really heard of her, even though she was supposedly killed by Charlie Manson, the most famous guy in the world. And that's the only reason anybody knows who she is. And still nobody knows who the fuck she is") while Mr. Hedegaard presents Charles Manson in a reverent, mystical light, "I will never know or understand why when Manson rested his hand on my arm it felt so good, not passively good, but actively... it's a presence."

Apparently, Mr. Manson has the same impact on Mr. Hedegaard as he had on Vincent Bugliosi's wrist watch when it stopped suddenly upon Manson's telepathic powers as depicted in Bugliosi's 1974 television version of "Helter Skelter".

It is curious that Mr. Hedegaard would omit from Manson's interview what the interviewee said he would do to a random baby ("he says something truly awful about what you could do to that baby, worse than you could imagine"), yet the author printed Manson's abhorrent slander of one of his victim's ( Sharon Tate's) character, " She compromised her body for everything she did. And if she was such a beautiful thing, what was she doing in the bed of another man [Jay Sebring] when that thing jumped off? What kind of shit is that?"

So the narrative continues and everyone wins. Charles Manson is back in the spotlight as mystical boogeyman, fascinated consumers satiate their appetites- while an author and his employers line their pockets with cash.

But for eleven people who lie in their graves, the blood letting continues... this time at the hands of Erik Hedegaard and Rolling Stone magazine. 






17 comments:

Max Frost said...

I wonder how he feels about all times Tex was allowed to procreate while being locked up.

AustinAnn74 said...

This makes me feel guilty for even being interested in this case. I'm shrinking, like Fred Flintstone.

Heidi S said...

Once again, I agree with Ann. I like to think we are curious about this in a purely scientific or sociological way. And the victims must never be forgotten.

Matt said...

Without interest in the case, the victims would fade away too, I'm afraid. My objection to RS sensationalized it and focused on perpetuating some mystique about this man that doesn't exist.

We honor the victims wherever possible. That's why we have so many Sharon Tate videos & photo collections. With Sharon it's easier because she was so highly photographed.

If anyone has photos of the other victims, or even stories, tidbits, etc we are more than eager to help get eyeballs on them.

Panamint Patty said...

Mystical boogeyman, indeed. It was a ridiculously stupid article. Patty is still feeling the disappointment...

starship said...

It certainly must be some kind of awful life sentence to serve: being the relative of a victim in a sensationalistic crime which has become fodder for so much pop culture type entertainment.

That said, it becomes part of our history, and as such becomes fair game for any number of depictions be it serious or comic or even parody.

So yes, in the midst of all the things about this history that can be so easily mocked and laughed at and made fun of, it's good to always remember that at least 11 people lost their lives.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Maybe we need some kind of new Federal regulation that inhibits "stories" that infringe upon victim's relatives RIGHTS. It could even include a clause that out-laws prosecutors from fabricating tall stories about NOBODYS in order to create dragons and "dragon-slayers" for a conviction.

ColScott said...

11 victims?

Panamint Patty said...

im counting ten: Gary, shorty, la biancas, tate massacre =5 plus baby Paul. who is the 11th?

Dooger said...

It's rolling stone. Either Manson or Beiber - I choose Manson.

Panamint Patty said...

Ur not a Belieber, D?

Michael Nagle said...

Could 11 be Ronald Hughes?

Matt said...

My guess was that he includes baby Paul & Hughs.

CarolMR said...

Sometimes Baby Paul Richard is included in the victims. He should be.

Suze said...

Agreed. The hand on the arm bit was an eye-rolling reach. I was hugely disappointed in the article. As Manson said, for the public consumption.

1nonbeliever said...

Minimizing the victims accomplishments and existence was way over the top and wrong of the Author.

But many people know the name Charlie Manson, unfortunately because of his actions, not many know the name Sharon Tate or Rosemary LaBianca, I think this was the idea the Author so poorly and inconsiderately tried to express.
.
Rolling Stones did a article, suited to THEIR customers base about a crime. They didn't elect Charlie "man of the year"
It sucks to be a victim
It sucks to be a victims relative
But It would really suck to be kept in the dark about real life events that happen and affect society.

Panamint Patty said...

:D