Friday, March 27, 2015

Playing with Puppets

"Reform suggests that you have already been solidified into a self. You were not. You were barely fifteen. You learn that the brain is not fully formed until you're twenty-five years old, and you wonder, then, what becomes of the mind commandeered before it has learned to follow paths of logic. You were soft as clay straight from the earth. You were reformed before you were formed.”
- Addie Zierman


“The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.”

-Fredrich Nietzsche




Imagine yourself in the following situation: You sign up for a psychology experiment, and on a specified date you and seven others whom you think are also subjects arrive and are seated at a table in a small room. You don't know it at the time, but the others are actually associates of the experimenter, and their behavior has been carefully scripted. You're the only real subject.

The experimenter arrives and tells you that the study in which you are about to participate concerns people's visual judgments. She places two cards before you. The card on the left contains one vertical line. The card on the right displays three lines of varying length.

The experimenter asks all of you, one at a time, to choose which of the three lines on the right card matches the length of the line on the left card. The task is repeated several times with different cards. On some occasions the other "subjects" unanimously choose the wrong line. It is clear to you that they are wrong, but they have all given the same answer.

What would you do? Would you go along with the majority opinion, or would you "stick to your guns" and trust your own eyes?

In 1951 social psychologist Solomon Asch devised this experiment to examine the extent to which pressure from other people could affect one's perceptions. In total, about one third of the subjects who were placed in this situation went along with the clearly erroneous majority.

Asch showed bars like those in the Figure to college students in groups of 8 to 10. He told them he was studying visual perception and that their task was to decide which of the bars on the right was the same length as the one on the left. As you can see, the task is simple, and the correct answer is obvious. Asch asked the students to give their answers aloud. He repeated the procedure with 18 sets of bars. Only one student in each group was a real subject. All the others were confederates who had been instructed to give two correct answers and then to some incorrect answers on the remaining 'staged' trials. Asch arranged for the real subject to be the next-to-the-last person in each group to announce his answer so that he would hear most of the confederates incorrect responses before giving his own. Would he go along with the crowd? 

To Asch's surprise, 37 of the 50 subjects conformed themselves to the 'obviously erroneous' answers given by the other group members at least once, and 14 of them conformed on more than 6 of the 'staged' trials. When faced with a unanimous wrong answer by the other group members, the mean subject conformed on 4 of the 'staged' trials.
Asch was disturbed by these results: "The tendency to conformity in our society is so strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white black. This is a matter of concern. It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values that guide our conduct....
  
Groupthink is a term first used in 1972 by Socialogist Irving L. Janis that refers to a psychological phenomenon in which people strive for consensus within a group. In many cases, people will set aside their own personal beliefs or adopt the opinion of the rest of the group. People who are opposed to the decisions or overriding opinion of the group as a whole frequently remain quiet, preferring to keep the peace rather than disrupt the uniformity of the crowd. Why does groupthink occur? Think about the last time you were part of a group, perhaps during a school project. Imagine that someone proposes an idea that you think is quite poor. However, everyone else in the group agrees with the person who suggested the idea and the group seems set on pursuing that course of action. Do you voice your dissent or do you just go along with the majority opinion? In many cases, people end up engaging in groupthink when they fear that their objections might disrupt the harmony of the group or suspect that their ideas might cause other members to reject them. Groupthink can have some benefits. When working with a large number of people, it often allows the group to make decisions, complete tasks, and finish projects quickly and efficiently. However, this phenomenon also has costs as well. The suppression of individual opinions and creative thought can lead to poor decision-making and inefficient problem solving. A number of factors can influence this psychological phenomenon. It tends to occur more in situations where group members are very similar to one another and is more likely to take place when a powerful and Charismatic leader commands the group. Situations where the group is placed under extreme stress or where moral dilemmas exist also increase the occurrence of groupthink.

       
So.... what are you?

A go along- or A go alone?

What would you do?

I am still trying to figure out how people, back in 69, could be so stupid as to "follow" a guy like Charlie who was; so much older, with an obvious prison background, and who kept asking them to do increasingly hurtful or dangerous things? You think Tex, Lulu, and Katie haven't been asking themselves this question for years? I have read all of them give explanations in parole hearings and interviews over the years. I guess there is some Psychiatry or Social Science behind it, but still. You have to agree that a few of them took it ridiculously far in so much as accomodating what they were being asked to do in the name of fitting in and "looking our for your Brother and Sister".

Even back then, under those circumstances, only a few would cross the ultimate line, while the majority would not. The lengths those few were willing to go to really troubles me.

But lately I have something on my mind which troubles me even more.

After reading articles and terminology, like the ones I pasted above, for the last 7 years about this subject- I can ( almost) start to understand why some of the younger ones back then fell under the spell of no rules and free sex/drugs/rock and roll. Hell, if it wasn't for the filth and the VD- I would have loved to spend a weekend camping at Spahn back in the day. I mean isn't that sort of hedonistic 60's "free-love" lifestyle a little part of what attracts many of us to this case?

But what I can not understand- no matter how hard I try- is why adults, all these years later and with the benefit of hindsight, are still trying to find a way to force themselves into being caught in that spell? I fear not what I can understand. It is the irrational that makes me nervous. The idea of a bunch of troubled, hungry kids following the lead of an older experienced con man is a concept I can wrap my mind around after some understanding of social phenomena . A grown adult choosing to worship and idolize a career criminal who is locked away for life, and used an example to all as a symbol of the worst kind of evil- well that scares me to death...



Charlie Manson is not a martyr. He is not Christ on the cross. He was not framed, or misjudged. He was not denied a defense, or the right to represent himself. He is not a environmentalist. He is not a loving guy, or a person who cared much at all about anyone outside of what they could do for him. Not then, and not now either. You can keep on telling yourselves that if it helps you get to sleep at night, but like Tippy Phileau once told me: "All the tellin' in the world just ain't going to make it so"

Charles Manson is a very, very bad guy. Not the most Evil man alive. Not the most dangerous man alive. He never was. As far as "Serial Killers" go- he is way over-rated. But still overall in the big picture of things, he is still a really bad person. What makes him a little more dangerous to me, than your average scumbag, is that he is an inspiration to many other jack-asses out there who are very troubled anyway, and need to find something dark enough to fill the void in life they are lacking in some manner or another. Charlie's legacy through the years, and to this day in my opinion, is that other unstable people become worse potential problems as a result of associations, and fascinations with him. Tex Watson in 69, and the modern day fanatics who still cling to the Manson gospel are far more likely to cause arbitrary trouble and damage then Charlie was then or would now in my humble estimation.

Charlie had a poor childhood. Charlie had a missing father and a drunk absentee mom.

And, so do thousands of other people in our society year after year unfortunately. Is that an excuse for anyone else to do the things Charlie did? ( Don't worry an itemized list coming shortly)

Come on people. You gotta do better than that. Don't you want to be better than that? Stealing as a kid to eat is very sad. Having parents who are not around, or who dont really want you is very hard too. Really difficult stuff. But we all personally know many people who had it that way, and even some who had it worse. Some of them get over it and go on to be o.k.- and others end up in trouble. We all know that no matter what breaks people get- some take advantage and others make excuses. Coming from bad circumstances is not a life-long free pass to do whatever you want. It wouldn't be an excuse if someone who hurt a person you care about used it I bet...

But- Excuses can be a godsend when others keep making them for you, and really isn't that what all this is about?

Then and now? Those who want you to believe how tough Charlie has always had it. So unfair life has been to him... He had it really, really bad right?

Hmmm

Let us please remember it wasn't during his childhood, when Charlie got really extra ugly. That happened after he had just spent 15 months of as about as much fun as a guy could ever want to have. He had spent his time traveling around to all kinds of cool places with a bunch of girls who gave him whatever he wanted. Directing nightly orgies, others cooking his meals, being washed and bathed, getting high and having multiple chic's do your bidding as you want. Not really the type of things which would make me pissed at the world. He was playing music with some really important people. He was calling all the shots. He never had to get a job in all of that time to pay of any of this. He never had to take an instruction, or have a responsibility he didn't want in all that time. He got to play boss and top dog to a group of people who wanted to do nothing but work for him and please him. I know there are quite a few people out there reading this who wish they had life so bad.I mean what was it about his life that sucked so bad at that point he needed to start stealing and hurting other people?

The real and honest truth is that it was because when it came time to start paying for things he could no longer get for free- he didn't want to do so. He didn't want to work. He wanted others to do it for him. When people would no longer give to him- his only choice was to start taking. And that should show you how much he cared or loved everyone back then... He starting playing people he had spent time with against each other. He had them start taking from each other. Is that your idea of a caring guy?Anything is yours is mine and what is mine is yours is very convenient when you bring nothing to the table...

So here is where you tell me all the things I am saying that Charlie never did. Charlie didn't do this and Charlie didn't do that. Wah,Wah,Wah,Wah it starts to sound like Charlie Brown's teacher lol.

OK- so lets just do a quick review of what we know Charlie did do- just for the record:

Shot Crowe, gave drugs to minors/had sex with minors, rape, assault, sodomy, stealing, pimping, beating women, beating children, kidnapping, check forgery, car-jacking, participated in Gary's murder, and-if nothing else in TLB- he tied up the Labiancas and contributed to murder. 3 times he walked away and left other human beings for dead. Do you not get that? Where is your line if this did not cross it? All the things he did that people pooh-pooh, or brush off. He had no regard for human life. This doesn't even include his involvement in Shorty's death.

What is it about this resume that makes a person decide this is a guy I just have to get to know?

 I guess that if the first two pieces at the top of this post can explain how a smart young person might get caught up in something like this, I should try understand how people who are not as bright could do so as well. But, again, I would think people should have the benefit today of knowing what those back in 69 did not about the person in general, and the benefit of not being caught up in that particular moment, or the benefits that went with the trouble.

 What do they see in Charles Manson?

 There is no redeeming value to Charles Manson. They speak of him and Truth. There is no "truth" coming from a person like this. He says whatever to whoever he needs- to get what he wants. He hurt people and used people and he did it selfishly, and with impunity until it finally went too far. People got hurt. Lives were lost and serious damage was done forever to many innocent people. Then when he was finally called to answer for his actions, Charlie chose, instead, to make a circus and mockery of the entire process. His antics and need to have all attention on himself caused the grieving families of the victims to suffer further pain while having to watch him, and his other co-defendants; laughing, smiling, and showing off for the spectators and cameras. He and his "family"  blaming and taunting people who were no longer around to defend themselves. Shameful I say!

Then he says he never got a fair chance in the first place...

This is your "Truth" ?

 After all the excuses some will make for him, and for the excuses to associate with him, wouldn't it just be honest to look at what it is inside, and be honest about what it is in them that needs these type of relationships? If it is a Darkness they seek, and Charles Manson gives them that, why not just say it is so? Be honest about what they get from Charlie.

 Because it is obvious to me what Charlie gets from them. They are out there spouting his nonsense.

He still gets to pull strings.

After all this time, he is still doing his favorite thing- Playing with Puppets.

Finally, let me simply ask this: Do you ever think about the people he hurt, or the lives he helped destroy? Does it matter to some at all that so many people were hurt?  I have a hard time understanding, but I want to. Tell me if there is a good answer, and I will listen. I do not understand why people chose to follow the devils and demons???


                                      When the world is filled with so many Saints





73 comments:

Senor Robot said...

It seems to be that you're putting him on a pedestal to observe from notions that stem more from your personal stuff than from the situatiohn at hand.

Has he ever claimed to be a good guy? As far as I know, he's of the opinion that he's not a good guy who "held the line of nice guy". Then, why, hold a non-good-guy to your standards of a good-guy?

When you say he's not this and not that, what are you trying to get across? He's not a card carrying environmentalist. He's not Al gore. I believe he was a car thief who liked to plant fig trees. I also remember something about a little monkey whom he fed on ginger bread.

I find it interesting that you call him an over-rated "Serial Killer". Whom would you say is underrated? No one has, in any serious context, ever called him a serial killer. Of all the books that have been published, you can create any fantasy idea of what the perspective on Charles Manson is. He's a serial-killer-hack-musicician-environmentalist-neil-young-bothering-mother-punching-leary-annoyer-from-HELL! But what's the point?

My degree is in continental law, but i'd still like to brainstorm with the disbarred and barred figures around here. I am of the opinion that he in no way should be serving the amount of time he is. I'm all for accessory to murder, attempted murder, bodily harm and so on but he did not get a reasonable trial in any objective sense.

Some of the troubled kids you speak of were volatile in their own sense. Susan Atkins wasn't, from what i gather, a creature of reason. And look where she ended up. If you seriously believe that Tex and Katie are some sort of victims above others, I'd say your blame placement-meter is a bit skewed. You are upset because the guy didn't start to work, pay taxes and so on? He never did that to begin with. He started stealing as a kid. That's who he is. Shame on him! He's tax avoiding son of a bitch who even so has more placed on his shoulders than he objectively should have. Why are you perpetuating the ideas that make him into this thing that you so despise? As neil young said on the beach: walk on!

AustinAnn74 said...

Saint, I've never read a post I agree with 100% until now!!! Great post!!!

Robert Hendrickson said...

Here's what scares ME ST. YOU assert that "HE (Manson) was NOT denied a defene, OR THE RIGHT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF."

I was there in court when some guy, cloaked in a BLACK robe, apparently pretending to be a Judge - DENIED one Charles Manson the RIGHT to REPRESENT himself in Court.

Thus, the only Honest in Truth reasonable Conclusion is: either YOU or I am a LIAR.

Of course - ME being a liar isn't so bad, cause who the fuck cares, BUT if YOU intentonally lied to a young and vulnerable girl named "ANN" to get HER on your side - Well, ain't YOU just like the EVIL Charlie Manson YOU hate so much ?

"Seems like every person eventually becomes the MAN they hate the most,"

Matt said...

I guess Ed Gein is kinda underrated.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

Saint C, I applaud you for putting that out there. I totally respect the honesty of your convictions and the uncompromising way you state them.

Until very recently I would've agreed with you 100%. Now, maybe 85%. What changed? Well, for one thing I realized that Bug wasn't the paragon of virtue and integrity I had previously thought him to be. (That said, his book on the JFK assassination is monumental). And I did start to wonder just how much Manson was screwed over legally.

As Robert asserts, he was denied the opportunity to conduct his own defense. But even so, do I think it would've made the slightest difference to the outcome? Not at all. I actually don't think Charlie is half as smart as he thinks he is. He might have slowed the trial down even more successfully than Kanarek managed to, but on the other hand he might have grandstanded himself right into a guilty verdict in nothing flat.

And anyway, ultimately, who screwed up Manson's defence? Manson did. Why? So that he could be Jesus?, so that he could go back where he felt at home and spend his life whining about having been denied justice? so that fools would take him for a martyr? I don't know. Maybe just because he really did feel himself above the judgment of society.

As to the bigger question - why some people feel so drawn to him, I don't think there's one simple answer. He's perhaps the most interesting living link to an era that embodied (or so it thought) possibilities of change that have been almost completely frustrated and corrupted. Because he is unchanged, unbowed, still the same man, he seems like a piece of living history, like a fly trapped in amber a thousand years ago. But that's maybe a bit grand. Maybe it's closer to the truth to say he was always a one-trick-pony and a stuck record.

Personally I think there is a perfect storm of ingredients that meet in Manson: his era, the American love of the outlaw, the wild west, Hollywood starlets, LA noir, sixties counterculture, cults and gurus, and many more ingredients.

And most of all, sadly, because we have abandoned the desert fierceness of God's love and replaced it with something so safe, so bland, so homogenised and artificial, we have made darkness more alluring than ever. We made God so family-friendly and so safely contained we got bored of Him and like to flirt with His opposite.

Not that Charlie is the Devil. He's just a broken human, a failure who caused great harm to a handful of people.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

Matt, if your comments were any more laconic I think my head would explode.

St Circumstance said...

Mr.Hendrickson Sir:

2 things

With all due respect- I know you were there and I was not. So please tell me if I am wrong. Was Charlie denied the ability to represent himself by the judge, or was he given that ability- only to have it taken away when he misused it?

Because it furthers my point that people make an awful lot of excuses for him if we are going to say he was "Denied" when in fact- he was simply not allowed to do it exactly the way he wanted in disregard for the rules. would anyone else be??

I mean I know we never think about the victims families rights- but how long and through what did they have to endure him going off in every possible direction until they could have there day in court?

but you were there, so if I misunderstand the way it went down- I will stand corrected..

which brings me to my second point:

I would never intentionally lie to young Anne :)

lol

aMy said...

This is such a well written piece. And Addie Zierman's quote nails it for me. I can certainly relate to it and it does give pause for thought when it comes to CM.
Initially I was drawn to this case when I realised what could have been at that ranch. There's that gut feeling of 'Man, how could they eff up what could have been Utopia...how did it all get so out of control so rapidly??' But of course we know of many contributing factors now...
And yeah, it's hella fun playing armchair psychology with the psyche of Manson, Atkins...Clem still has me guessing...

Underworld Pope said...

Who isn't whoever they have to be to get what they want? You can call Charlie a "con" who told people whatever they wanted to hear. But who doesn't? The same waitress who greets you with a smile and a wink only wants your tip. Leave one and you're the best person in the world. Don't leave one and she tells your co-workers what a cheap asshole you are. It's OK for cops to dress and pose as hookers and drug dealers to trap people and then fine or throw them in prison. But those are the "good" guys, it's OK. There is a value to Manson. He holds a mirror up to society's face and puts to the question their black and white thinking and divisions of "good" and "evil" that have served NO purpose whatsoever except to create a neurotic society. To belief in so-called "right" and proper way of life is also what causes people to turn into Ted Bundy when things aren't "right". Gave drugs and had sex with minors? Hhmm..ok. Let's beat up Charles Manson for that. But then let's pay $100 a ticket to see Kiss, Zeppelin, etc. Let's call Hendrix and all the other rock stars who did the same "legends", "icons", etc....we'll excuse them for it, but not Manson. A lot of those so-called "minors" were into "free love" and dropping LSD before he even tried it. Who else are good guys? The priests who collection plates you fill, while they molest your kids? The prison mind is but an inverted reflection of the so-called "straight" society mind. He is a product of the US prison system and so-called "good guys". The "good guys" who beat kids with leather straps for being "bad". Who turn their eyes to rapes. Who create laws for profit. What is the difference between robbing somebody with a gun and robbing them with a signature on a piece of paper? To most, Charles represents true freedom and outlaw mentality. We're all born in the world and this world really is just as much mine as it's yours or anyones and who owns what on paper and what is "right" and "wrong" really are just illusions in the mind of somebody else. We live in a world that believes in GOD, but tries to claim ownership over the world.

St Circumstance said...

Pope My Brother..

how does a guy who has spent 80% of his life behind bars represent "True Freedom" ?

I would have paid more than 100 bucks to see Zeppelin. I just had to pay almost 4 times that for Neil Diamond

I am married- what are you going to do?

Underworld Pope said...

You sit around and wonder why people side with him. Look in the mirror and ask that. You want to live according to divisions of "right" and "wrong", then that's a reality you'll get. You can't have heroes without villians. Reminds me of Geraldo and those other fools, acting shocked and wondering why and how young people are sending letters to Charlie. Well, if it wasn't for idiots like him, those kids wouldn't even know who he was and the same people who shun that, make money and use the fact to scare a dumb society with foolish ideas like "Charlie still has followers". The bad guys hold you up. They get used to make money and guys like you hold them up and say "He's bad!" to establish yourself as rightous and good. The guys on the other side have been around long enough to know the good guys usually want to flaunt their "good guy" badge because they got something in their closet they feel insecure and guilty about.

Underworld Pope said...

It's a mindset and a spiritual state. He's only in prison because we live in a world of laws that built them. Let's not kid ourselves either, it's not because we need to keep society safe. It's because crime is an industry and they need jobs. Those prisons are usually where the so-called "bad" is bred. He doesn't represent freedom, only because some guys with badges and titles put him in a cage? Your definition of freedom or lack thereof being defined by who is in jail and who isn't, is screwed up. It's distorted. Let's break it down. What freedom do you really have? In your mind the ability to slave at a 9 to 5 job and spend money "freely" at stores is freedom. Your only "free" because you been a good boy and only do what society says is right? Your mind is in prison.

Underworld Pope said...

I'M FREE! (because I've done as I'm told).

Underworld Pope said...

See what I'm saying. Zeppelin beat a girl with a dead fish and HEY MAN! THAT'S GOOD 'OL WILD ROCK N' ROLL DECADENCE! Then that rumpkin englishment runs off with an underage girl. Hey, that's cool. Everything Charlie did in his life is used as example of what a monster he is. But when it comes to society acceptable "heroes" and "icons", it's OK.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Throughout my life I have been disturbed by conformist behavior which I have found in both "conformist" environments and "nonconformist" environments. In classrooms, on juries, in Berkeley. As Frank Zappa once said to a shouting audience member complaining about the police, "everyone in this auditorium is wearing a uniform and don't kid yourself." When someone like Charlie achieves such a status in his surroundings social pressure to conform to his views is massive.
Thank you Saint.

Matt said...

ST, you touch on some interesting points. One was the psychology of Manson’s motives. Here was a child/man who was betrayed by the most important woman in his live - his mother. In my opinion that drove his demons. He goes on to use women to the fullest AND he used those women to whore themselves out for him to bring useful men into the fold. If a young man didn’t have something he could use - and freely give it to Manson - the pussy was cut off and they left. What a classic emotional victory for a soul tortured by female abandonment.

Plus, it was actually GETTING HIM SOMEWHERE! He could almost taste success when he was meeting rich and famous people and and trying to call the shots while recording in top notch studios.

BTW, who the hell is Tippy Phileau? LOL.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Hey Matt great insight into Manson it seems about abandonment by his mother and controlling the pussy, cutting the men off when they had nothing more to give. I like your analysis of how that was playing out his abandonment issues. BTW I Googled Tippy Phileau as you probably did and it only refers back to a blog by one Saint Circumstance. So I'll just imagine her to be Tippy Hedren and Phil Phileau's love child.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Dear Mr. ST: "He (Manson) was NOT denied a defense OR the RIGHT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF."

Those are YOUR words and now "ANN's" also - NOT mine ! Did you LIE when you posted them ?

That is the question !!!

BECAUSE you and ANN make up almost 50% of the MansonBlog's insiders, YOUR answer can reveal just what this BLOG is really about. Folks just babbling about shit OR significant / truthful information being shared.

BECAUSE the RIGHT to represent oneself is a US Constitutional Question, that issue is the only one that reaches to the level of a Federal question in the MANSON case. It is also the only issue that Charles Manson can claim as truly controversial and a VIOLATION of a US Constitutional Amendment.

If YOU and ANN don't get the significance of YOUR claim that Manson was NOT denied the RIGHT to represent himself, then YOU just don't GET the importance of the Tate / LaBianca / Manson Case at all.

Just think about this: NOBODY who blogs here even bothered to ever look-up the COURT Record for a copy of the "ORDER" that denies Charles Manson his RIGHT to Represent himself.

So what's the REAL point - for even visiting this site ? To discover some TRUTH ? Please.....

Matt said...

Funny, Hump. Yes I googled it too and this post was all that came up.


Matt said...

RH, isn’t the Sixth Amendment created to ensure each citizen a fair and impartial administration of justice? That said, to grant (what seemed to the court to be) a raving lunatic Pro Per status in a Capital murder case would be tantamount to just handing him a noose. As it turned out, he “proved” the court correct by turning the trial into such a circus that the defense considered it a better strategy not to offer a defense and continue the spectacle.

St Circumstance said...

Mr.H- no shit I really have much respect for you, and do not wish to engage you in any manner. I have total respect for the fact that you were there and I as not

Here is where my lack of blogging experience makes me sound sarcastic and not sincere- but actually I am only good at being honest so here it goes with no intent to sound sarcastic or arrogant:)

I want to learn from you and talk you you, but I came of age in the 80's in New Jersey, not California in the 60's. I don't get your "code" or double talk whatsoever. If that makes me unintelligent or lesser in your eyes- I will have to live with that. Maybe I am not hip enough? If you want dialogue with me- I am telling you now- I cant speak in tongues.

All I know is what I see and read. If I am wrong about a fact I laid out it was not intentional.
The last person who was scared me enough to lie was my father, and there has never been or never will be anyone again who I will be that worried about not pissing off :)

So to ask again- Where I am lying to people on purpose??

what is factually not correct about the following?

" It is this court's opinion, a sad and tragic mistake that you are taking this course of action, but I can't talk you out of it. Mr. Manson you are your own lawyer"

That was a ruling right?

"When Manson appeared before judge dell on the 28'th, he was still complaining about the limitations on his pro- per privileges"

"On Feb.16, Keene heard Manson's motion for a change of venue""

There are more I could dig up- but this should be sufficient to make my point which is this...

I read, and believe that Charlie was given the right to defend himself and he abused it, so it was taken away.I believe that is not the same thing as being denied in the first place. If there is some documentation, or if you say you were there and heard otherwise, that I am wrong- please let me know and I will correct it...

But Its not nice to say I would intentionally lie to people. This is a fascinating case to me for many reasons, and I am interested in learning how and why something like this happens.

But at the end of the day- I don't give enough of a shit about any of them to jeopardize my integrity.

So we can agree, or disagree and maybe I am right, or maybe you are. But if I got something wrong- which I am still not sure I did- it certainly wasn't in an attempt to fool Ann or trick anyone else.

Cielodrive.com said...

There is a sound clip on this page, which is a press conference Evelle Younger held when he tried to get the Supreme Court to remove Irving Kanarek. In it, Younger touches upon the issues the court faces when deciding on pro per.

candy and nuts said...

rh your footage especially of charlies vest gives you props nice you are here

St Circumstance said...

I'm not butthurt over it though lol. :) I promise

candy and nuts said...

st sometimes people overthink and attempt to explain the obvious

St Circumstance said...

Your right candy! I suck at that. Anne if I'm wrong I am sorry lol I never meant to betray you :)

candy and nuts said...

saint sometimes 1
plus 1
is 3 you just gotta accept it like why charlie is what he is

candy and nuts said...

people who lived and knew charlie et al when he was free will never have the same truth when he inside prison imo

Doc Sierra said...

St C. I grew up in California in the 60s and 70s. The mind set was so different you couldn't imagine. There was a lot less political correctness and most people spoke their minds. I don't remember very much peace and love. I lived in Oakland the racial problems were on the news almost every day. The Radicals are who I remember the most. The Black Panthers, The Hells Angels, the Berkeley Radicals, The SLA. Those were violent times. What I'm getting at is that our belief systems and opinions are based on what we experience. Especially the things we experience when we're young.....

St Circumstance said...

Hey Doc. I don't disagree :)

AustinAnn74 said...

Hey, I am not some ignoramus that has to be brainwashed or lied to! Why can't people have their own opinions nowadays without someone blowing their top? Oy vey!!

St Circumstance said...

I agree! You should be able to agree with me whenever you want lol. I just never thought of it as me lying - so wanted to cover my bases :) I do dig you so...

Cielodrive.com said...

I thought it was a good post St. You and Ann are all good in my book

St Circumstance said...

Thanks Cielo- you know- my best posts couldn't have happened without your site. Its an amazing read. Really filled with great stuff to learn.

is it your or your'e site? I keep forgetting lol

anyway- I respect the hell out of RH- even if trying to understand him is the equivalent of trying to decipher Yoda after 4 bong hits- but hey- maybe its just me. The guy literally made the movie I have watched a million times. He was at the actual place- in the actual day. He is the very definition of what I have spent my whole life thinking is "cool". He was actually at the one spot I would travel to if the Hot Tub Time Machine ever landed in my back yard, and I was given one shot...

I just do not feel like I was lying about anything...

:)

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

St, sorry to be so British about this, but are you basically saying...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plZRe1kPWZw

Doc Sierra said...

St C, whether I agree with you or not on some matters I always find your posts interesting. I missed you when you were gone.....

St Circumstance said...

I know you rider Gonna miss me when I'm gone ... Lol. Thanks Doc. I don't always agree with me either. But I am stubborn so I just fight for my opinions anyway. It's the type of charm that to grow on some people a bit at first lol.

Doc Sierra said...

China/Rider. One of my live favorites. Don't worry St C, no one "wants to run you out in the cold rain and snow".....

St Circumstance said...

Michael I have no problem with the British. However until they send Polanski back in handcuffs I would rather not speak about the French :)

Doc Sierra said...

St C, I've seen the GD many times and I've seen them do many amazing things but one time not sure where or when it was drizzling and they played a bunch songs about the rain and then as the rain stopped and the clouds parted and the sunshine broke through. Then they started playing Here Comes The Sun. It could've been the acid.....

Senor Robot said...

What i don't get is this. Your post is a barrage of questions, some of which seem to be hypothetical. I responded in kind, thereby providing my answers to some of the questions and in turn offering some questions to you. You chose to answer none of mine. What you, to me, seem to be doing here is fishing for a consensus. What about me? I need, want and crave your view on the non-good-guy-good-guy-standard, underrated Ed Gein, troubled Tex, the universal duty to cease avoiding taxes and so on. I really don't see the point in your spending time on the blog post and then avoiding actual dialogue. Unless, like hinted in my previous comment, your purpose was to create a straw manson to peck for some non apparant reason. Let me into the fold! Love me! I am friends with everbody! I have opinions on Manson too!

St Circumstance said...

Lol. Ok. For one- I don't ever defend Tex or Sadie. I just think it's easier to understand why someone would get involved with Charlie then than it is now- but that doesn't excuse what they did in any way. I think they should all stay where they are forever. Also- I was trying to point out, in fairness, that while I don't think Charlie is a good person in any way, I dont think he is personally as dangerous as some make him out to be. So, the underrated comment was meant to be a concession that I get he isn't as bad as the general public. Finally, it is hard for me to understand how someone with a law degree, and who knows the case, can feel that way about Charlie's trial. The only thing unreasonable was Charlie and the codefendants behavior. The point of my post is commentary on a subject that has been on the blog lately. I am not a professional writer so sometimes I go all over the place. Again :) it is a subtle charm that may take some time to grow on you.

SusanB said...

I need a muscle relaxant. Lol. What a blog!!

Matt said...

Senor Robot said...

Let me into the fold! Love me! I am friends with everbody! I have opinions on Manson too!


Thank you for the laugh, Senor Robot. Cracked me up...


Senor Robot said...

St circumstance. There are probably people who masturbate backwards AND have law degrees, the first thing being something i can't understand, so don't make too much out the second thing. As, stated above. I'm not formally schooled in common law, and certainly not familiar with relevant case law in California during the 70's. I do not disagree with the eventual outcome of the case, given what the court took as facts. With that being said. Helter Skelter (the book) will bring you full circle, where you seem to be, since it operates within that frame. Then there's nothing to see here at all. Me, I do disagree with the given facts.

Matt, happy to oblige. Only trying to give back to the community.

AustinAnn74 said...

I need a muscle relaxant too and possibly some sort of opiate after a visit.....just kidding....or am I?

Matt said...

Senor Robot said...

Helter Skelter (the book) will bring you full circle, where you seem to be, since it operates within that frame. Then there's nothing to see here at all. Me, I do disagree with the given facts.


I too, disagree with ST on the ultimate motive for the TLB murders. I think it was a label made up be Paul Watkins and seized by an opportunistic Vincent Bugliosi. In a filmed interview Catherins Share said that she never heard Manson use the words Helter Skelter, "Never. Not once", I believe is the way she put it. As close as she was to Manson I'd think she would have at least heard him use the term one time if it were true.

The HS story is then backed-up in multiple parole hearings by every one of the convicted killers not named Manson because in order to have a shot at release they must accept the courts findings as fact. So, the myth is perpetuated over and over again.

I have no problem with disagreeing with ST or anyone else. Disagreement and thoughtful debate are healthy. It took passion and dedication for ST to write the post. It's just that since I first read Helter Skelter (around 1976-77) I have never been able to put to rest in my mind that the story just isn't quite right.



St Circumstance said...

Robot Sir...

The given facts of the case, nor Helter Skelter were the point or focus of my post.

It was to ask why people who have the benefit of time and knowledge could still chose to go to such lengths to befriend a career criminal. It was to show that in my opinion and readings, that the kids back in the day had a much more explainable reaction to a set of circumstances- than a modern day adult does to make such a poor choice of associations.

In my opinion :) Which I thought I did a pretty clear and specific job of laying out

the rest of it and masturbating lawyers was not my intended a subject matter,so I leave it to others...

It is a pleasure to meet you though. You are obviously well thought out and spoken, and I am sure you will bring wit and insight to the table.

It wasn't my intent to respond to any comments- normally when I have a forum to get my complete idea out there- its fair to hear what others have to say- either for or against- my posts. But I did feel the need to answer to the thought I was lying to anyone on purpose.From there it seems to have segued into a back and forth with a few people and I should not have left your comments out once I did start responding as it was the first and one of the most critical.

maybe fairly?? Anyway- my apologies and thanks for taking the time to read and comment

:)

St Circumstance said...

If we do want to go down that road..

(Only briefly- I am the defending Brackets champion and I am winning again- gotta go watch hoops today)

I do not think Helter Skelter was the motive for TLB. But I have not seen proof of anything else to disprove it either. There were quite a few people who said Charlie spoke about H/S besides Watkins. It was painted in a door at Spahn, and it was left printed by one of the killers at one of the crime scenes..

All I have ever said is it wasn't "made up" by Bugs.

How important it was is another story. But it was not invented. maybe manipulated or exaggerated.

When I see more proof of something else- I promise not to be stubborn

lol

I always thought probably it might have had more to do with relationships from Charlies music associations gone bad than a Race war or whatever else H/S was supposed to mean actually.

But I dont know, nor want to argue about it at all :)

That is for another post and another time

Robert Hendrickson said...

FIRST: Senor Robot - YOU raise an important POINT ! BUT there is NO POINT to ME "posting any comment" here.

I don't need to join ANY fold. I don't NEED any more LOVE.. etc.

SECOND: The ST gifted "YOU ALL" with an opportunity to SEE yourselves (as it were) as YOU really are (as others SEEyou). All I did was invite YOU to excentuate your TRUE selves, in order that YOU would be even more recognizable.

Are YOU a "alone" thinking kinda guy OR a "tag along." READ the St's POST carefully.

It's ALL about "conformity" in society. AND he made it so easy for YOU to chose and reveal just WHO you really are. Most of us can "agree" with most ALL of HIS diatribe, to some extent. BUT - MANSON "was NOT denied HIS right to represent himself."

Sorry ANN and even MATT - He gottcha ! YOU agreed to "go along" AND thus HE (the ST) made HIS point.

The prosecutor Bugliosi got HIS witnesses to "go along" with HIS Helter Skelter story.

Charlie Manson got HIS minions to "go along" with HIS story.

LBJ got HIS flock to "go along" with HIS story (the commies are going to get us, if we don'tget them first)

OUR school teachers got us ALL to "go along" with THEIR stories.

AND our Parents - boy did THEY have a string of stories for us impressionable young'ns

So is the ST some kind of mental genious OR just another dufus. Kinda makes you thing about: Who is the real MANSON?

AND the issue of Manson's "DENIAL to represent HIMSELF" ? It may hold the answer.

Suze said...

Thank you, Mr. H. Now I more clearly understand your point. It's really something to think about. As I've heard here before the ambiguity of reality can be quite subjective. The sheeple then perpetuate that reality, whether or not is is REAL or not.

Thanks saint. You gave me plenty to think about.

St Circumstance said...

any time Suze :)

Mr. Hendrickson Sir- I am much closer to Dufus- trust me please on that.

what I really am is just a mirror. whatever peoples opinions or feelings are- I just reflect back at them what they project to me.

so to figure out what I am - all you really have to do is look inside yourself.

But really- I haven't figured out exactly...

nahhh jsut kidding :)

You are, honestly, one of my heroes- please keep posting your wisdom and experiences as they are fascinating myself and many others, and I promise to keep trying to figure your comments out.

Happy Sunday All-

Senor Robot said...

St Circumstance. The reason i mention motive is because what he is, did and does is interwoven. I will now compress and reword your post, mainly to illustrate how it came across to me.

"Charles Manson is a bastard. A bad bastard. It even rubs off. There's no excuse for that. Even less so when the behavior gets real ugly. If I were living like Caligula, i'd be happy. He wasn't happy. He didn't pay for things. That's not caring. When people say he didn't do certain things, they whine. I laugh out loudly at that. Now i'm going to tell you what he did. He did horrible bad things. Why do you have to know him? He has no redeeming value because he is so bad. He does things. Do you ever think about the things he did?"

Matt. My introduction to the whole thing was backwards. I'm not from the states, which was the only place where alot of the books were available. Apart from getting transcripts, I had to contact, to me, foreign used book stores and try to get them to send books to me, which meant i couldn't be choosy. I first got Susan Atkins Child of Satan, Child of God. In it, she embraces Helter Skelter only to seperate herself from it in parole hearings. During the later years of her life, she obviously was of the opinion that she was trapped in the myth. You can see similar slidings, in either direction, in most of the individual stories. That caught my interest. It's really odd that rather than being a chain of events that can be objectively pinpointed, Helter Skelter is some sort of universal theory of everything that only becomes solidified after the fact. The term obviously had some sort of use (a night club in the desert, the trailer door, the illiterate graffiti and so). All in all, though, things simply don't make any god damn sense.

Jemima Puddleduck said...

Matt

[with the utmost respect0

Whatever Gypsy may have said on that occasion about never having heard Manson mention 'Helter Skelter' will have to be balanced against (at least) writing on walls and fridges and also the picture at [img]http://www.lsb3.com/2013/03/the-map-charles-watson-drew-of-spahn.html[/img] and other places drawn by Tex. The words would seem to have been in the air.

But more tellingly, Catherine Share herself said [in a 2009 documentary called Manson, for Cineflix Productions et al] that:

[i]When the Beatles’ White Album came out, Charlie listened to it over and over and over and over again. He was quite certain that the Beatles had tapped in to his spirit, the truth — that everything was gonna come down and the black man was going to rise. It wasn’t that Charlie listened to the White Album and started following what he thought the Beatles were saying. It was the other way around. He thought that the Beatles were talking about what he had been expounding for years. Every single song on the White Album, he felt that they were singing about us. [b]The song "Helter Skelter" — he was interpreting that to mean the blacks were gonna go up and the whites were gonna go down[/b].[/i]

Who ya gonna believe - Catherine Share or Catherine Share? We learn early to cite scripture for our purpose.

A quack to any friends I may have here from the depths of Patagonia.

Jemima Puddleduck said...

sorry for the [nonconvertible] html in the above post

Jem

Mr. Humphrat said...

Jemima and Robot I like your posts. It seems to me that people opine a lot as if Bugliosi made Helter Skelter up when obviously Manson was really caught up in the idea of it and was getting other people wrapped up in it too. It just seems like it was part of the picture, part of the perceived motive on the part of the killers. Other parts were to some extent: Tex's drug-fueled state; Bobby in jail, maybe Charlie worried Bobby would start to snitch because they weren't getting him out fast enough; maybe Charlie angry at Tex and wanting him to get his hands bloody just as Charlie had done for Tex; some anger at rejection by the music industry.
Wasn't Bugliosi's main job to convince the jury that Charlie controlled everyone to such an extent they never would have murdered without his order or perceived wish? Did he really have to convince the jurors of Helter Skelter as the motive?

Senor Robot said...

Conspiracy was proven. In which those involverd were considered equally responsible. It's this wierd thing in criminal law were you get tagged with the actions of your associates. Even going so far as not having to personally fit the requisites for the crime in question. Motive is secondary and did go all over the place. Everything apparently hinged alot on Linda Kasabian and Paul Watkins.

beauders said...

Charisma can be bad and it can be good. For every Nelson Mandela there is a Charlie Manson. For every Martin Luther King there is a Jim Jones. The Manson kids bought into what Manson was preaching because he could read them and give then what they wanted. A lot of them did have "daddy issues," (such as Atkins) or "mommy issues"(such as Watson) and Manson had the insight to play to this. Manson's followers today are pretty scary. They are not like Star, who is obviously "star struck." They are racists, Nazi's, and gore fiends. I would say these people are naturally drawn to darkness, and who's no darker than Manson? I too am drawn to darkness, even though I am harmless, I just like to study it. We haven't had a Hitler type in office yet(Robert, I bet you see LBJ as a Hitler though don't you? I was born in 1964 so I don't recall the man, but I have learned a lot about him through you). People attracted to the dark , like the kids that shot up Columbine should have stuck around they would have loved 9/11, and I believe they also were attracted to Manson. Manson though didn't always come across as dark, he attracted young hippie types, knowing who had that darkness in them and who didn't. TJ couldn't kill (he saw enough of that in Vietnam most likely) but Mama's boy Tex could. Manson could read this in people.

Matt said...

Hi Jempud,

There is no reason to preface anything with “with the utmost respect”. I never feel disrespected when someone disagrees with me :)

I’m familiar with Watson’s map. But, as I said earlier he knew he had to accept the court’s findings as fact. Bugliosi “proved” that Helter Skelter was the motive. This map as drawn later in prison and Tex was (and is) doing and saying all the right things to back up the “fact” that Manson was an evil Svengali who brainwashed him into slaughtering people. If it were drawn before he turned himself in I might feel different.

Yes, Manson listened to the White Album over and over. He ascribed meaning to the lyrics and compared them to his own life. I did the same thing when I was young. Probably all of us did. I just don’t think it was the main pillar of the motives for TLB.

Matt said...


Senor Robot said...

All in all, though, things simply don't make any god damn sense.


EXACTLY!

Also, to me Child of Satan, Child of God was just Susan's attempt to sell herself as a true born again Christian, designed to win favor from parole boards. Nothing more, nothing less. Her unfinished book written towards the end of her life to me more accurately conveys what the truth was (from her perspective).



Senor Robot said...

Matt. I wouldn't suggest reading any of the books as an honest recounting of events. Some of the third party books, like Desert shadows, come close if you ignore the obligatory rewording of Helter skelter. Atkins first book seems to be a mix of game plan, broken personality, vanilla ice cream and what have you. The question becomes if her later distancing from Helter skelter also is vanilla ice cream game plan what have you. I personally feel that she became more honest with age. Shere seems to have moved closer to Helter skelter with age. Why, i don't know. Perhaps ascribing to Helter skelter becomes a way of removing yourself from all the baggage that comes with Manson. Atkins was too hands on for it to work.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Beauders: Why do YOU think I'm the only one who mentions LBJ, JFK or the Vietnam WAR ?
Anyone else figured it out YET ?

Matt said...

Because of his genital dominance?


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

On 9 August 1964 President Johnson ordered some pants from Joe Haggar of the Haggar menswear company.

LBJ: Now the pockets, when you sit down, everything falls out, your money, your knife, everything, so I need at least another inch in the pockets. And another thing - the crotch, down where your nuts hang - is always a little too tight, so when you make them up, give me an inch that I can let out there, uh because they cut me, it's just like riding a wire fence. These are almost, these are the best I've had anywhere in the United States,

JH: Fine

LBJ: But, uh when I gain a little weight they cut me under there. So, leave me , you never do have much of margin there. See if you can't leave me an inch from where the zipper (burps) ends, round, under my, back to my bunghole, so I can let it out there if I need to.

JH: Right

LBJ: Now be sure you have the best zippers in them. These are good that I have. If you get those to me I would sure be grateful

JH: Fine, Now where would you like them sent please?

LBJ: White House.

leary7 said...

Saint, are you living a clean life or something? Your post is PHD stuff, very thought provoking, as proved by the passionate debate it creates.

In all the interviews Charlie has done, did anyone ever ask him directly what his defense strategy would have been? Is there any indication whatsoever that it would have been anything different than the old 'blame society' song.

Does not the entire "reality" of TLB hang on the two conversations that took place between Charlie and Tex, the first on their walk before Tex et all headed off to Cielo, and the second presumably after tying up the LaBiancas.

Now that has to be scripted by Dante, does it not - choosing between the honestly of Manson and the honestly of Watson.

For most TLB observers, the cooperative accounts tilt the vote towards Tex. Could Charlie have convinced a jury otherwise? I'm guessing not many would take that bet. Funny, I am writing this as an acoustic version of Seal's "Crazy" is playing.

leary7 said...

honesty, sorry

Jemima Puddleduck said...

Mr RH - YOU get me just a LITTLE confused.

It is GOOD that you were at Spahn in the LATE 60s/early seventies. But many were, is that not the CASE.

You are not THE only one who mentions LBJ, JFK or the Vietnam WAR but others don’t go ON as much as you about IT.

What is THERE to figure? The trees outside my GARDEN are bare but I know they will BEAR fruit.

Jem

beauders said...

Robert, I would assume that serving in Vietnam hurt you horribly as it has so many other vets.

beauders said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mr. Humphrat said...

58 that LBJ clip is one of my favorites.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Beauders and Jem: I actually meant why LBJ, JFK & the Vietnam War BUT NOT Nixon.

It seems, as soon as Nixon took over in early 69, LBJ and JFK were long past history.

Something happened when HE took over - it was like "Let the REVOLUTION begin."

AND of course, the "establishment" had to go on the offense and ultimately ATTACK the "dirty, smelly - hippies."

I did NOT go to Vietnam, BUT I know - on an airplane - going there was just like a JEW in a box car going to a summer camp to DIE. I would love to get-over the Vietnam WAR, but the trouble with ME is - I did. My friends came back in body bags, BUT I didn't. Instead I lived to realize what that WAR was really about AND what the MANSON Family "rebellion" was all about.

YES "many numbers" LBJ was just another DUFUS, who found himself in a position of ultimate authority via a really fucked-up political system. Thank GOD, he finally realized the NATION would be better off - without HIM.

Was NIXON any better - of course NOT !! AND as any international lawyer can tell you: GUNS are the only "peacemaking" tools that actually WORK -when it comes to adjudicating "revolutionary" ISSUES.

THUS, it should be rather obvious that Helter Skelter was the Prosecutor's "story" of a Black and White American revolution - in order to entertain an ALL "conforming" herd of WHITE "tag-along" sheep.

Matt said...

RH, I agree. The sad thing to me is that there were tag-along sheep on both sides. By 1969, protest had become "fashionable". Flowers replaced bows in otherwise straight-laced girls' hair. Bell-bottoms replaced straight legs even for nerdy guys.

Then, bullets flew and bodies dropped at Kent State. The fashionable tag-alongs dropped their flowers and bell-bottoms en masse and it gave the appearance that the revolution had no backbone. The majority of Americans were not enraged by those shootings in part - and in my opinion - because of the TLB murders. Hippies were to be feared. It was perfect cover for a US Government in crisis.


AustinAnn74 said...

Thank you, Cielo!!