Sunday, January 18, 2015

Manson's First Post-Conviction Interview

Manson's first TV interview following his conviction (8/18/75). The Associated Press interview first aired on KTVU in San Francisco. Manson says they could have gotten off had they had the chance to make a defense, which Nixon prevented with his statement. He blames his lawyers. He originally wanted to present their own case because they knew the truth of what happened and why, but public opinion didn't want to hear that.







23 comments:

chatsworth charlie said...

Wow, never seen Charlie this lucid, almost like a different person.

Matt said...

That's likely because he wasn't baited by the interviewer with "Charlie, do you feel any remorse?" and other button-pushers that would send him into the classic "You want a show? I'll give you a f*cking show!" mode that he does so well.

The Ron Reagan interview is another example of how lucid he can be of you show him respect.

Mr. Humphrat said...

I agree he does seem quite lucid and that's a period of time I hadn't seen him in and the way he looked was really different-kind of depression-era skinny. As far as the content of what he was saying it seems to me he had plenty of chance to be rational and defend himself in court. He even got to make a statement to the court without the jury present and he only talked in the abstract without specifically addressing his involvement or lack of it. I think he contributed massively to his own conviction by his court antics and by the antics of the girls which probably would have made a juror feel that he certainly was manipulating them just as Bugliosi said.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Thanks for the great find! Very cool.

Charlie Troll said...

During the heyday of his TV interviews, he was being subjected to Guantanamo bay-like treatment and was used as a guinea pig for anti-psychotic drugs. After the Aryan Brotherhood slipped rat poison in some Tang of his, he started to really decline mentally and refused to bathe, his nails grew long and was just out of his mind. He didn't start acting crazy during the trial until it became clear to him that he was pretty much fucked, which was early on. The verdict was in before the trial even started.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Back in the day, acting "crazy" around COPS kept you alive. NOW it will get you killed.

BUT what most folks can't comprehend is the fact "If you can't afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you."
OF course, IF you want a lawyer of YOUR choosing, you gots to pay for it / him YOURSELF.

GEE Wizz Batman, that sounds like the Judge is your friend - doing you a big favor.

YES Robin, that's why I'm Batman and you're the Bat Boy

HellzBellz said...

http://www.aparchive.com/search?startd=&endd=&allFilters=&query=charles+manson&advsearchStartDateFilter=&advsearchEndDateFilter=&searchFilterHdSDFormat=All&searchFilterDigitized=All&searchFiltercolorFormat=All&searchFilteraspectratioFormat=All#allFilters=21,

Here is another part of that same interview. I hope the link works

Cielodrive.Com said...

Comments like, Charlie didn't start acting up until he lost his pro per status, are code for, Charlie isn't crazy, he's just really stupid.

Cuntry Trash said...

I really wish I could find the complete thing.

Cuntry Trash said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Krissy Deen said...

I find it interesting that in this interview he uses the terms " us" and "we" and talks about "our" defense- but later on in interviews he usually ( from what I've seen and read anyway) talks about the others doing what THEY wanted to do and how he wasn't personally involved.- I had no control over the "kids" at the ranch, they did their own thing, I never ordered no one to do anything, etc...but here he seems to connect himself to them. Just an observation on my part. I think Manson obviously does hold some of the responsibility for the seven TLB murders but will never understand why so many people fear the name Manson but don't even know who Tex Watson is. Regardless, I would love to know what " their" defense if they could have all put one on together would have been.

Matt said...

Cuntry, Hellz is correct. There are other shorter clips up there. Some contain content not included in this video.

Cuntry Trash said...

The entire interview was over 45 minutes, though. I have transcripts from some of it and it seemed like a pretty cool interview.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Krissy I noticed the same thing that he used "we". I was wondering if he meant he and the girls or he and attorney(s)
I saw a little clip with some other material thanks to Hellz' link. It must be raw footage since they only show the back of the reporter's head.
Does anyone think it was to Bugliosi's benefit to try Tex separately? I know I had some reason for thinking that but I can't remember why. Also, if Tex had been tried at the same time do you think he would've carved the x in his forehead? Or do you think him not carving it shows he wasn't under Charlie's influence?

Mr. Humphrat said...

Just reading an article about this interview by Stan Atkinson of KTVU who had covered the whole trial and contacted Charlie directly for the interview. One part says "After the Manson interview was shown, Atkinson received a threatening call from Squeaky Fromme"

Charlie Troll said...

Anyone who knows anything about the case knows the Helter Skeleter motive was a white washed simplification of what really went down that even Manson himself had invested interest in keeping secret. The difference between Watson and Manson is that Manson was poor and didn't have a well off family with political ties. It looked better for him to just go along with the script of being a brainwashed zombie rather than a butcher who killed for financial reasons and drugs and of course there is the fact Tex knows what the true motive was. Manson's stubborn adhering to the criminal code of silence of course did him in too, but stupid? No. What could he have done against a DA who managed to get the jury cleared out on the grounds they might be hypnotized and then Tricky Dicky declares him guilty. How would you play that hand, sugar plum?

Cielodrive.Com said...

Oh, I don't know sugar plum. How about behaving in a way that doesn't reinforce everything the Deputy District Attorney is saying about you. Manson's wasn't the first and certainly wont be the last high profile murder case. Loads of media does not guarantee a conviction. All it takes is reasonable doubt. Manson may have been dealt a bad hand, but he sure played it even worse.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Interesting: Just a couple of weeks after this interview Squeaky did the deed on Ford. A few months later the Ban was lifted on "MANSON" the movie, and Stan Atkinson interviewed me in front of one of the theaters in Frisco where "MANSON" was opening. Maybe someone can find THAT interview. Makes me think there are many interviews I did while going around the country with "MANSON." There are also many interviews Bugliosi did while promoting his book.

In Cincinati, on a famous night time radio talk show we ran over the time slot by more than an hour. People were actually stopping their cars to call-in at a telephone booth. (NO cell phones existed then)

In LA on a famous radio music show, we even played some of the Family's original music made for the film.

Cuntry Trash said...

I will admit that the true motive was not the motive presented by the DA, but i really did not matter. They were all going to be convicted. Manson being guilty via conspiracy and directly in the LaBianca and Shea cases mean that Manson was going to prison for life, if not the gas chamber.

And the jury being evacuated because Bugliosi feared Manson would hypnotize them is a freaking myth... stop parroting Nikolas Shreck.

Manson testifying to an empty room is actually standard practice. Manson was given the option to testify to a jury and he actually declined. He said (paraphrased) "I have said what I wanted to say..."

Sorry, but there was no way Manson was not going to be convicted. He played a part even if it wasn't the part the DA says, it was still a part. And that makes him guilty via conspiracy, which means what? He faces the same charges as his coconspirators.

If you get into a car, going to rob a store, knowing there will be a robbery and you stay in the care you are still guilty of murder if the ones who went in kill the clerk - even if you had no idea they were going to.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Ah,: To be stupid OR not to be stupid, that seems to be the question. If a "teacher" is stupid, is the "student" not stupid for listening to the teacher? If the "student" is stupid, is the "teacher" not smart for getting well PAID to babysit the student?

Even "smart" people do "stupid" things, BUT when they lose ALL the their money - they are "stupid" forever - or at least until they get "smart" again. Seems "smart" and Money go together like a bird and its feather.

Maybe Charles Manson is saying: "If I had the "money" I could have afforded to hire a Beverly Hills attorney and things may have turned out differently."

Duh


beauders said...

Robert a book containing transcripts of people interviewing you should be your next project.

58f7f4b8-1dd6-11e4-a6f1-df825d6e9554 said...

My take from Bugliosi's book is that the case against Manson was won on a thin legal edge and he was proud to have won a prosecution that any lesser would have failed to win.

Mr. Humphrat said...

I'd love to see the Stan Atkinson interview with Robert H. not to mention the entire Manson interview.