Tuesday, November 18, 2014

This Is An Open Wound

I'm not sure why this video stopped working, but here is a DIRECT LINK

Got it streaming again, but I'll leave the link just in case. Now, back to work...








24 comments:

Vera Dreiser said...

"This is an open wound"...that I'm gonna suck on like the Vampira I am if it sells a few more copies of my shitty book.
"What does the Tate Family think...?"
Alisa (clears throat, looks like a deer in headlights): Well I spoke to Brie this morning (who, like YOU, never even knew Sharon).
And the Manson Family was the "center of the hippie movement"?!
Please.
You're just as much a vulture as the exploiters the CNN anchor was condemning.
Shame on you. Go back to Cat's page and answer those questions about the fabrications in your book that made you disappear like Bruce Davis in a sewer a few years ago.

xreles said...

This Vera person sure is a grumpy/bitter old hag...what gives?

Max Frost said...

Question:

Why is Staman claiming that "Charles Manson took Sharon's life"?

I read her book and it seemed very clear to me that Doris Tate put the blame on Tex and even implied that Manson was not as guilty as he was made out to be.

DG Lane said...

Max, I haven't read Restless Souls since it came out 2 years ago, but I don't recall Statman ever saying that Doris Tate thought Manson was innocent?

I think Doris held Watson and Atkins more responsible than Manson for Sharon's murder because they were the ones to hold Sharon down and stab her, but I don't think she ever gave Manson a get out of jail free card? In fact, I seem to recall that Doris Tate's point. reiterated in Restless Souls, was not so much to take away Manson's responsibility but to not let the physical killers i.e. Watson and Atkins get away with the "Charlie made me do it, poor pitiful me" BS they cried during parole hearings.

And again, I can't give you the exact quotes off the top of my head, but it seems to me that Statman quoted Doris Tate from interviews in which she states, Charles Manson killed my daughter? Maybe I'm wrong.

I personally think Statman called it right. She first stated that Manson was convicted of the most savage murders in the annals of crime and then said he took Sharon's life.

In the eyes of California law Manson DID take Sharon's life. Due to the fact that Manson was convicted of conspiracy, he is legally (no matter what spin we can put on it) as equally guilty of murdering Sharon Tate and all of the victims as the ones who actually plunged the knife, shot the gun, or bludgeoned the victims. It's why he was sentenced to death, because in the eyes of the jurors, Manson killed those victims. If they had found him any less culpable because he wasn't there at the commencement of the murders they could have given him life.

Matt said...

xreles, you said it better than I could have. Let's leave it at that.

Cindy Lee said...

Welcome back Robin Olson, er, Vera. One word for you: Troll.

Below is the Wikipedia definition for a Troll. Learn it, know it, and accept it as your own.

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response (or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion).

This sense of the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, but have been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families".

Panamint Patty said...

Pro victim, pro Manson, it doesn't matter. Vera will troll them.

Robert Hendrickson said...

I suppose Statman is now the official media spokesperson for the Tate Family, BUT the TATE massacre was NOT a "personal" attack on Sharon Tate. Isn't anyone reading Dr. Dave's writings ? Didn't Statman or the present news media folks EVER hear of the Vietnam War ? Even the LAW says it's "the People of the State of California" VS Charles Manson." NOT the Tate Family VS the MANSON Family.

NOW look at the "MANSON Marriage License POST." Everyone has an opinion about an old geeser hooking-up with a young good looking girl, BUT no where do we see the word LOVE mentioned. I know many folks don't see any "connection" between the Tate LaBianca Massacre and the Vietnam War, and most of us apparently don't see any "connection" between LOVE and MARRIAGE. That's because the TIMES they are a changing. BUT "Star" says she is in LOVE with Manson. So we think that makes her "crazy." YES - YES - YES !!! As Squeaky says in "MANSON" - "Love makes YOU "Crazy."

How about "for LOVE of brother (Bobby)"

Mr. Humphrat said...

I agree with DG Lane. The law regards Manson guilty of murder through his conspiracy roll. Especially for the LaBiancas, driving the car, stopping at the scene, going in the house, choosing who goes in the house, knowing perfectly well what was done the night before. In what other trial would he not be guilty of conspiracy?
Still the words the media chooses in describing his roll make you shake your head. They imply he was actually physically doing the killing.

Matt said...

Hump, is it my imagination or did you used to be MRS. Humphrat?


Max Frost said...

DG Lane,

I didn't say that Doris said Manson was "innocent" nor did I say she implied he should have a "get out of jail free card."

If I can find the time to dig through Statman's book and cite a reference, I will.

The fact is, law or no law, Manson didn't take Sharon's life. To cite the law, trial, and jurors as being a legitimate reason to make that statement is a joke, and not a funny one - we all know what a ridiculous circus the entire Bugliosi/Helter Skelter/Trial of the Century was.

You can nail Manson as an accessory to Hinman and LaBianca because he was in both places not long before they were murdered. But you can't nail him for Cielo simply because he supposedly told someone to go there and kill them.

On the other side of that, you could nail Manson for being an accessory to Cielo by proving he went there later that night and manipulated the scene - something the genius 'Dancing Clown up on the Wall' Bugliosi never bothered to look into.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Matt, yes I did begin my Mansonblog life as Mrs Humphrat. I thought maybe nobody paid attention to the change. When I started here I used my late wife's ID of Mrs. Humphrat not seeing at first how to change it on my computer to something else. I figured if I changed to Mr. Humphrat, you could see I was probably the same person. I am really a man.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Max does The Dancing Clown Upon the Wall in the song refer to Bugliosi?

Terrapin said...

Vera's comment may be harshly worded but i don't think she's wrong.

Ever since Liz left (why did she leave anyway?) this place has become very clique-y with all the same people saying all the same things and attacking anyone who disagrees with them, all the while sucking up to RH.

And yes, before someone else says it, if i don't like it i should leave blah blah blah

Max Frost said...

Yes I believe it does, Mr. H.

Wasn't there a drawing that Manson did of Bugliosi included in HS?

DG Lane said...

Max, how can you say that law or no law Manson didn't take Sharon Tate's life? Until CA changes its law he is absolutely guilty of conspiracy of murder which holds the exact penalty as committing murder. You can't throw law out the door. and say, gee he didn't really take a life cuz he wasn't there. Should that hold true for the man who mentions that he wants his wife dead but happens to be in another state when the person he conspired with to murder her kills her?

If two people conspire to commit a robbery and during the commencement of the robbery one of them, let's call him person A, shoots and kills a human being, both A & B will be responsible for that death because maybe if person B didn't go with person A, perhaps person A would not have gone and the murder never occur or any number of scenarios.

Until you rally about and get Manson's sentence overturned or get CA's law of conspiracy changed, we the people find him guilty of murder in the 1st and sentence him to death for taking the life of a human being, one of which happens to be Sharon Tate. End of Story.

CA's Penal Code:
When they conspire to commit any other felony, they shall be punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as is provided for the punishment of that felony. If the felony is one for which different punishments are prescribed for different degrees, the jury or court which finds the defendant guilty thereof shall determine the degree of the felony the defendant conspired to commit. If the degree is not so determined, the punishment for conspiracy to commit
the felony shall be that prescribed for the lesser degree, except in the case of conspiracy to commit murder, in which case the punishment shall be that prescribed for murder in the first degree.

Matt said...

Terrapin, I'd be interested in you showing us an example of any clique on this blog "attacking" anyone for "disagreeing". I'm pretty sure you cannot.

Also, no one sucks up to anyone. I myself treat RH with respect because he was there on the ranch with the Family, he is my elder, and because I'm fond of him.

Max Frost said...

You're mistaken DG Lane.

You need PROOF to convict someone of conspiracy.

The scenario you use about the wife being murdered while the husband is out of state doesn't apply.

Why?

Because cases like that are only successfully prosecuted with much more than circumstantial evidence - he said, she said, etc.

Cases like that usually have recorded phone calls, paper trails, surveillance pics/video, etc.

No such evidence exists in the Cielo case.

Is your name Dilligaf?

Haven't seen him around lately and your name doesn't ring a bell...

Max Frost said...

Charles Manson didn't take Sharon's life.

To say he did is giving 100% credence to Bugliosi's wild and officially unsubstantiated "conspiracy theory."

Yes, unsubstantiated. Threats and intimidations by the typically crooked, corrupt American prosecutors don't equate to credible testimony.

No, Manson is NOT innocent.

But to claim that he is responsible for Sharon's murder is nothing more than typical American sensationalism.

It sets a very dangerous precedent - one that ALL Americans should be appalled by.

crash said...

If Charlie is guilty of murder because he was part of a bigger conspiracy, how does his sentence compare to others in the same situation? how many people involved in a conspiracy for murder, who werent physically present at the scene spend 50 years and eventually life in prison? is it comparable to what others get or out of line?

DebS said...

Crash, Manson has committed so many infractions while in prison that even if he had a determinant sentence he would still be in prison. He has done nothing, zero, nil, zilch to better himself while in prison. It's pretty obvious by his actions and words that he does not want to be released.

crash said...

I understand that Deb, he has been nothing but trouble, thanks. But I just wonder how many people who have been convicted of the same charges manson was convicted, through the conspiracy laws, were sentenced to death? later commuted of course. Just curious what the going rate was for those convicted of murder who were never on the scene. .

Mr. Humphrat said...

I wondered why Squeeky was released after having escaped once and another time seriously assaulted another prisoner.

Charlie Troll said...

People only believe what the "eye" of any law finds when it suits their cause. In the "eye" of California law, OJ Simpson was innocent. So if you want to accept the court's findings about Charlie, you have to accept that too. Same goes for any state. Casey Anthony was found innocent too, I guess that makes it so.