Monday, July 14, 2014

Thesis on Susan Atkins

Whoever runs the website "" 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: