Monday, July 14, 2014

Thesis on Susan Atkins

Whoever runs the website "freesusanatkins.net" apparently doesn't believe a murderer should stay in prison for the remainder of time for helping end the lives of 9 human beings. I am very curious to know where this person gets their information from, and why they have the opinion that Susan didn't kill anyone, and deserved to get out of prison back when she had her first parole hearing in the 70's. He/She were also of the opinion that she was a political prisoner. Huh? Funny, but I thought Susan Atkins was in prison for having been part of a crew that murdered 9 innocent people, including a baby that was fixing to be born, and not only that, but taunted her victims, which, in my opinion makes it even worse. By telling the victim/victims ahead of time that "they are going to die" is torture. Nothing more, nothing less.

Here is this person's "thesis" on Susan where he/she sort of puts the blame on Linda Kasabian, as usual.(spelling/punctuation errors included):


My Basic Thesis

If you who don't know who Susan Atkin's is, she participated in what are remembered as the "Manson Murders". She is known for ** laughing and cackling at the relatives of the victims in court ** telling the Prosecutor, the Court, fellow prisoners that she told Sharon Tate "Look Bitch I have no mercy on you, you are going to die " **  painting the word "PIG" on the Tate house door with Sharon's blood ** stabbing and tasting the blood of Sharon Tate ** smothering or stabbing to death Gary Hinman ** changing her version of events to hood wink the ignorant ** and a bunch of other things.

So you may wonder why I support her release on parole. Before I explain I would like to state I think she is guilty of participation,  which she admits totally. I assert however that she didn't kill anyone, has served enough for what she did, and the killers will still be in prison.

Here is my basic position.

In the book "Helter Skelter" by Vincent Bugliosi the head prosecutor of the case, on page 17 the police comment that the vast majority of stab wounds are similar, like a bayonet. This was a point held from the press as a confirmation point to know they had the killer. There were two knifes found in the house, a kitchen knife with animal blood on it and a buck knife found in the in the furniture with no blood on it.

This second knife was Susan's knife. As it had no blood on it, it didn't stab anyone. Also reported in Helter Skelter the buck knife was ruled out because the depths and widths of the wounds couldn't have been made by the buck knife. So Susan's knife didn't stab anyone.

Charles Watson, who did most of the killing, states that Susan did not kill Sharon Tate - he did it.

As for Susan changing the story, she simply may not have a clear memory.

The Coroners report on the stabbing of Frykowski supports the position that Susan didn't stab Frykowski. She tried to stab him during the fight as he tore her hair but apparently missed. By her testimony and Watson's book she hesitated and then Frykowski attacked seeing his chance to escape. What is interesting is she hesitated. She didn't jump right in like some Bride of Chucky. She didn't want to.

In the her book Susan says Linda gave her a knife because she lost hers. The Prosecutor always wondered if Susan had a second knife, stabbed with it, and later threw it away. In her book she says she held Ms. Tate and said "look bitch you're going to die." But in her Grand Jury testimony it is a bit different.

Q. Did you do anything to Sharon Tate at that point? 
A. I went over and grabbed her by the hand and put my arm around her neck. She looked at me and begged me to let me have her sit down and i was told before we even got there no matter what they beg don't give them any leeway. 
Anyway, I went over and put her down on the couch and looked into her face knowing that anything that I would say I was saying to myself, in a sense reassuring myself. I looked at her and said, "Woman, I have no mercy for you." And I knew at that time I was talking to myself not to her.

Notice the comment is directed at herself not Sharon, to reassure herself in her fear, and also self loathing.

A great deal is made about Susan lying, changing the story each time. If you read the details it is true they do contradict. She had a second knife from Linda, she didn't, Tex doesn't report one, Linda says nothing about an additional knife. She was sitting next to Sharon, she was in front. When they drove off to do the crime she remembers waving good bye, others say they heard that she said they were off to kill some Pigs. Each of these are self serving not only to Susan, but also to the person contradicting her. And the worst thing about memory is that the longer you think about something, the less accurate it is.

I propose that the reason for all this variation is she was scared and shocked, and may not have a clear memory. She may have even been scared for herself. After all she was in a room with two people who had just killed.

But the basic outline remains consistent She was told to get some clothes and do what Tex told her. She knew something nasty was about to happen but felt she could not resist. When she saw Stephen Parent shot she went into shock to the point he occurred as a thing (a comment used to show her soulless nature, when it actually shows how normal she is). Once inside the Tate house she did as Tex told her until he told her to kill someone which she refused. This is consistent except for the defense portion of her trial when she was going to die so why not lie just to get away from Manson, her trusted guru that threw her on the gallows to save himself..

She seems to have not killed Gary Hinman, even though she said she did. Her guilty plea doesn't support this -  she didn't go with intent to rob or kill, but changes her story to get away from Manson. Also interestingly while in her guilty plea she states she smothered Hinman with a pillow, the Coroners Report does not mention anything about him being smothered. Neither does the review granted to Bruce Davis, another family member. So despite her guilty plea, she didn't smother Mr. Hinman.

- So it appears she didn't kill anyone.
- The people who run the prison she is she is rehabilitated, has been for years.
- While she did have a deranged past based on her feeling unloved and worthless, she is now loved.
- The people who did kill will still be behind bars.
- The main reason she is still there is the Public memory and hysteria over her from the trial and from the movies. But Parole isn't supposed to be based on movies.
- It is highly doubtful she drank blood as that produces at minimum a horrible stink as your immune system fights with the immune system you just ingested. It can even result in painful cramps. She was not reported as having experienced either of these.
- The only source of these stories was her saying them in Jail and to the Prosecutor. She was warned the weak get abused in Jail, so when she was bothered by the long time criminal's she just made up horror stories based on her past to scare the Lifers. And I think she also did it because her need to tell the truth made it come forth. There was no reason to talk that bluntly and brag so openly, unless her heart wanted it out. But telling lies isn't worth life in prison.

So if she apparently didn't kill, and the murderers are still in jail, the only thing her staying in prison serves is our need to punish her.

But without her there would have been no Grand Jury, no Linda Kasabian coming forward, no names of the participants, no solution to the case.

She was heartless in her laughing at the court, but she was really laughing at her own sense of pointlessness. Plus watching the Prosecution in comparison to what they had offered and taken back, that may have caused her to laugh.

But she has paid for all that, more than many people who have murdered, except she didn't.


NOTE: We will not be responsible for feelings of nausea, and/or projectile vomiting caused by reading such crap: http://freesusanatkins.net/






36 comments:

AustinAnn74 said...

I know a lot has been written as of lately about these killers being political prisoners, etc., but I just am of the opinion that they are/were (as in SA's case) in prison for several convictions of murder, and most definitely are in prison for a good reason. I wrote this post a few months ago, by the way, but my opinions haven't changed.

Suze said...

No guessing what your opinions are Ann! LOL...

Donna Nelson said...

I don't believe Susan personally killed anyone either with her own hand. Yes, I believe she stabbed Voytek in the legs. And of course, she was present for the murders and she held Sharon Tate while she was murdered; of course this constitutes murder in the eyes of the law. So she was appropriately charged.

AustinAnn74 said...

Right, Suze!!

Robert Hendrickson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

I have no objection to Susan Atkins now being released.

I think it's time.

The others? They can all rot behind bars for all I care.

Suze said...

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...
I have no objection to Susan Atkins now being released.

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

LOL. Too funny Michael!

LuluLuv said...

That is interesting. But I do feel they are political prisoners. As for the quoting of Susan saying to Sharon "Bitch idc about you or your baby" Yes it is awful, and they all died horrifying deaths. But they were brainwashed. I know a lot of ppl will NEVER understand that, or open their minds enough to see a different perspective other then "may they all burn in hell". Geez even Bugliosi in 2009 refused to oppose Atkins receiving a compassionate release. Most of us (but obviously not all of us) have learned a lot since the 60's about the dangers of cults, drugs, etc etc, and while we still don't approve of their actions but can at least understand they were not just cold hearted murders out to kill folks for fun.

Mrs. Humphrat said...

I agree with LuluLuv,
They were all "brainwashed" or in the grip of group hysteria which subsided once they were removed from that environment. Only a very few of the larger group remained devoted to Manson and the group's ideas after a few years.
Still, the guilt weighs heavily on the main ones involved, especially Tex, Katy, Bobby and whoever really participated in Shorty's murder.
I think Leslie should be released as somewhat of a bistander. And it was right that Linda got immunity.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

Mrs Humph, are you kidding? Somewhat of a bystander?

Yup, poor Lulu just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time;, namely, she just happened to be inside a house on Waverley that she had just illegally entered. Then she just happened to be bystandering around while she helped overpower the terrified residents, and she was a bystander who happened to be vaguely present when her own hand took a knife and stabbed it repeatedly into a woman's possibly living body. Then she returned to Spahn and innocently bystandered around while failing to make any effort to contact the authorities or leave the Family.

Poor Leslie. Why, she's virtually a political prisoner! I mean, just look at the photos from the trial and you can see the genuine remorse just oozing from every pore of this mostly innocent bystander.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

LuluLuv

'But they were brainwashed. I know a lot of ppl will NEVER understand that, or open their minds enough to see a different perspective other then "may they all burn in hell".'

They were brainwashed, willingly. And that's an important distinction. They could have left at any time. Others did. They could have refused to kill. Others did.

And, believe it or not, it's possible to HAVE an open mind and yet STILL place such value on human life as to believe that spending your remaining years looked after and fed in a federal institution is a relatively SMALL price to pay for helping to savagely end the lives of seven innocent people and inflicting such emotional agony on their loved ones.

equinox234 said...

I have tried to send the following link to both Matt and Deb, but am getting no response, so I will copy it here.

It's not relevant to the thread, but I wanted others to see it. It is a short interview in the UK Daily Mail with Star's father.

http://dailymail.org.uk/news/1525578/Charles-Mansons-father-in-law-relives-moment-daughter-Afton-Burton-said-she-was-marrying-killer.html#.U8UOoJRdXIU

Matt said...

Hey equinox, we got the link, I've just been tied up with traveling and Deb has jury duty. It is very much appreciated as are all contributions.

HellzBellz said...

@ LuluLuv ,, But they were brainwashed. ,, I personally do NOT believe Manson had the Power/Aknowledge to ,Brainwash, a number of people in such a degree that they got out to kill. It takes a lot of excperience and aknowledge of techniques to even ,Brainwash/Program, 1 individual to do so. Armys and Gouvernements spends loads of $$$$ to achieve things like that.....And then there is a Hobo called Charles Manson, who ,Programs, a whole bunch of young people to kill.....No, I think it just takes some common sence to know that is Impossible. And btw, IF one does believe the story ,Do whatever TEX says, then it must be TEX who has this powers......

william marshall said...

Hey Matt it's been a minute haven't talked since right before the trip please email me Still ajerseydevil
When I went in for hernia surgery 6/19 they found Cancer Have another surgery scheduled for end of July early August hopefully to remove the rest
Would love to hear about the trip
God willing I'll still be around to go next year Hello to Patty and Doc sending best wishes from the Jersey shore

ElComadreja777 said...

I still think Kasabian should be behind bars with the rest.

AustinAnn74 said...

Yesterday evening, I went back, and looked at the crime scene/morgue photos again, and just cannot believe people think that they should be released. I guess I will never understand. Their victims had more holes in them than a pin cushion. Their faces were slashed open. Their EARS were even stabbed. I just cannot understand why so many people think it is time for them to be released. I respect everyone's opinion, but I just don't share it. Frykowski's morgue photo looked so awful, that I had nightmares about it the first time I saw it. It looked like something from a Halloween store, or a horror movie. What they did to those people was beyond evil. It was almost as if they were attacked by some kind of supernatural force. I've never seen crime scene photos THAT bad. I've seen a lot too.

equinox234 said...

Hi Ann,

Those who participated in the murders were a bad lot before they hooked up with CM. CM seemed to bring the very worst out in people who were already in trouble with the law.

Regarding the crime scene and mortuary photos, yes, they are particularly gruesome. The victims were butchered, not just killed straight by, say, a single gunshot. Do you notice that there is no autopsy/crime scene photo of Gary Hinman, due no doubt to the terrible state his remains must have been in after lying a week in a California heatwave and been eaten by maggots. The only photo I have seen is the one of the blood stained pillow against the wall.

The bizarre thing is that the various killers turn up for their parole hearings believing they have a right to walk, and give no thought to the hellish state their victims were found in.

Because inmates can't use the internet, they probably haven't seen the crime scene/autopsy photos. I think it would be an idea to shove the photos under their noses at the Parole Hearings just to remind them of what they did.

It must be awful for the victims' families to be able to see online their loved ones at the crime scene.

As for Susan Atkins and the other Manson women, their ignorant behaviour in the courtroom added insult to injury. They may have been young, but they were still adults who knew what they were doing.


bobby said...

Also Bugliosi was no Saint. He was accused of using his office to harass a milkman who delivered to his house and also beating a married woman he had an affair with, though he denied this.

Maybe the Col. created this site.
LOL

Mrs. Humphrat said...

I know Tex and Sadie did bad stuff before CM, but I don't remember reading that Katy, Leslie or Linda had any history of crime.
When I said Leslie Van Houton was somewhat of a bystander at the crime scene I guess I'm trying to get across she was there because she was doing what she was told to do; she was not independently motivated to be there. She had no desire to participate in the stabbing. She was instructed to do it and hesitated. I believe someone like her was trapped in a situation of fear and coersion.
I believe Manson is the only thread that holds these people and these crimes together. He was the driving force in all of them. Tex was dangerous, but he was Manson's tool. Without Manson you don't have any of these killings taking place. I don't know if Tex would have ever killed without meeting Manson. I can't say.

equinox234 said...

Hi Mrs Humphrat,

Regarding being in trouble before meeting Charlie, Bruce Davis was known to the police.

On the subject of Leslie Van Houten, she had asked to go along to the La Biancas that night. I don't know if you have seen the LVH interview on YouTube where she starts by saying "we knew people were going to die". Therefore, the subject of killing had taken place before leaving Spahn. LVH had the mens rea for murder and was art and part complicit.

Tex is strongly suspected of having murdered an old man in Olancha in late 1968. He was identified by the victim's neighbour when he (TW) later appeared on tv in connection with TLB. There were two girls with him (unidentified) but no suggestion that CM was the guiding factor. It appeared to be a robbery and sadistic killing. Tex seems to have had the makings of being a serial killer all along. He was also involved in drugs before meeting CM.

Mrs. Humphrat said...

I'd forgotten she asked to go along. That makes a difference.
As to the murder in Olancha, a man identified Tex from the TV news which could mean he was really the killer or the witness made a mistake which is common. I read the car involved had Indiana plates, which, to me, is more food for thought. Did Tex steal it or was it someone from Indiana at the crime scene.
As to the Tate murder, when the group returned to the Ranch, Charlie met them and asked 'do you have any remorse?' No indication from any witnesses that he was in any way surprised murders took place. When Katy said 'Charlie, they were so young' He said "Shut up and follow Tex"
And when Tex woke up Voytek he said 'who are you?' which makes the case for them having a drug connection weaker.

Matt

bucpaul2812 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bucpaul2812 said...

What a sloppily written "thesis"! I could forgive the odd typo, but was this being submitted as a genuine piece of academic writing??

I'm still amazed Charlie chose Sadie to go that night, considering how he was supposed to be so good at "reading" people I thought Charlie would have had reservations about Sadie, considering how indiscreet she was. Didn't Charlie have issues with her to begin with, i.e. introducing clap to the Family and having relations with people who weren't, by definition, Caucasian? I would have thought he'd be able to spot a potential blabbermouth a mile away.

It's been said the reason Gypsy wasn't chosen to go either of those nights was because she wasn't lithe enough. I can't help but wonder if Sandy would have been chosen had she not been held on the credit card fraud. I also wonder why Brenda wasn't chosen, I would have thought she was much more hardcore than Sadie and, if directed, even more ruthless and effective a killer than Katie.

equinox234 said...

Matt (Mrs H),

I am not criticizing what you have said, merely thinking out loud here. When Patricia said, "Charlie, they were so young, why therefore did she go back for the second night if the first night's 'activities' troubled her?

There is so much of this case that doesn't make sense, but I think when we discuss it, we try to look at events from a logical perspective, and the problem may be that The Family didn't necessarily act logically.

Max Frost said...

Mrs. H, you are referring to Krenwinkle's 1994 interview with Dianne Sawyer (Pilot episode of "Turning Point") in which she claimed to have said "Charlie...they were so young" to which he replied, harshly, "Go with Tex."

That's the only mention of such a conversation which means it probably never happened. Charlie's reply was "She might've said that but I might've been so stoned I don't 'member."

She made herself look ridiculous indeed by the way she claimed to have delivered that line. If she was THAT traumatized then it makes no sense why she would continue the next night with such glee.

I don't see any of them returning to the ranch with an "oh shit what have we done?" demeanor. I think for them it was like little kids coming home from their very first trip to Disneyland.

equinox234 said...

This is off-topic, but I wanted to bring it to the attention of readers who may have missed it. BobbyB has contributed to an e-book on the subject of love and forgiveness (don't throw up everyone!!). Here's the link:-

http://www.loveliveforgive.org/bobby-beausoleil/

bucpaul2812 said...

“From peace arises love, from love arises compassion, from compassion arises forgiveness.”
- Bobby BeauSoleil, Composer & Musician

Thanks for the link, equinox!

Honestly, this new age "rationale" seems to parallel the religious conversions Bruce, Susan and Tex collectively bought into. How? In the respect that if you give yourself over to some "higher power" or in Bobby's case, artistic pretension as a barometer of the soul, you can move on. I guess it's a survival mechanism of sorts.

Considering how Gary Hinman was a devout Buddhist, listening to Bobby blithering on about compassion, peace, sensitivity and forgiveness is unpalatable, to say the least.

Max Frost said...

It's 45 years later. Do you think its possible Bobby has evolved and may be sincere?

Remember, he wasn't a bloodthirsty serial killer like Tex. He didn't go there with the intention of killing Gary but unfortunately it turned into that. If he intended to kill him he could've just did it and gotten it over with rather than negotiating for what, two or three days?

equinox234 said...

Hi bucpaul,

Good post! I also find it ironic that BB murdered a musician/music teacher, and then he makes a living of sorts behind bars out of being a musician himself!

Hi Max Frost,

after all BB has endured in prison over the last 45 years, yes, he might be sincere in those thoughts, but I wish he would just tell the truth about GH's murder. Was it about drugs, or simply money? He has changed the story so often that it is no surprise that the Parole Board gets so pissed with him.

服部半蔵が痛い!!! said...

You can't convince me Sadie didn't stabbed sharon at least once

D. Jones said...

Does anyone have the text from Tex Watson book of the events that happened at Sharon's house? I would love to hear his story. I've only heard Susan Story of what happened in the house.

Matt said...

D. Jones, you may want to start here:

Scroll down to The Myth of Helter Skelter. The entire unfinished book is there.


D. Jones said...

Thanks Matt! Do you know where I could find what Tex wrote in his autobiography about what happened the night of the murders? I also would like for you to make me a post because I don't know how to make one but I have a question that I would love to ask the group and to hear their responses. Thanks I'm advance.

Matt said...

His book can be downloaded here as a PDF:

Will You Die For Me?

If you have a question, just ask in the comments section of the most recent post and people will answer. Since it's Saturday evening you might as well wait for Monday when we post again, that way your question will get more eyes.


D. Jones said...

Thanks Matt