People like Star and her ilk claim that Manson was unjustly convicted, he should not be in prison because he killed no one. Their protests to Manson's incarceration appear to be at odds with his own wish to stay in prison. Why do folks like Star champion a cause that even the "cause" does not want for himself? I do think that Manson enjoys being a twisted martyr to those that worship him. He enjoys the fame that the murders have brought him. It's a fame that he could not have achieved by becoming a recording artist because he would have had to really work at it, and let's face it, Manson is a lazy person who never worked for anything in his life.
And, maybe, just maybe, Manson's desire for fame and martyrdom was a part of the underlying motive for the murders in the first place, kind of a sub-motive that nobody knew about but him.
Of course he's not. He's never even attempted to do anything the board looks for (vocation, trade, NA/AA, victim's outreach, etc).
Even if he was in for lesser charges, he would have maxed out and never have gotten an early parole because he did not attempt reform at all.
Ah, the young & clueless love to root for the so-called underdog. How in the HELL does this girl know Manson is innocent? Why, because he told her so? Those days of him running through the damn woods naked with a flute are long gone. If he were released, she'd be taking care of a geriatric.
This is a SMART post DEB !
NOW - Look at the photo carefully. See the two prison "gofers" behind "the" KING. One even has his hand touching CHARLES MANSON - so HE will, at least, have something to tell his Grandchildren.
The other, well, HE has some years before HE will even become aware that HIS greatest claim to justification for being on this earth - is to guard the MAN right in front of HIM.
Almost ALL of us, are born with only one mission - that is to fertilize the earth. CHARLES MANSON is different - in that HE realized HE was willing to do WHATEVER was necessary to become MORE significant that just FERTILIZER.
Right NOW, there are several young men from America and England who are joining-up with ISIS.
And NORMAL folks can NOT understand WHY they would give up all the wonderful THINGS they get for FREE in a Socialist Society. BUT that is only a CLUE / ANSWER to one of LIFE's greatest mysteries - WHY don't most of us UNDERSTAND things ?
Maybe because UNDERSTANDING, in a certain societies is considered a "dirty old nasty thing."
Deb, excellent find on the Manson pic! I haven't seen that one.
I remember that interview. Always wondered what was up with the hair style...
Innocent is a strong word.
Manson NEVER said he was innocent, never will.
He is not innocent. He shot Crowe, cut Hinman, was at the Shea event, helped with Miriam DeCarlo, robbed and stole (by his own words), and did "a lot of things they never got me for..."
If anything, she should be using the words "not guilty of the crimes he was convicted of."
When you are at trial, they determine the defendant 'not guilty', not 'innocent'.
I always assumed the hair style was a religious Eastern thing... but Michael Channels said that he did it because of the scarring from his face burns. He said that growing hair in that area is painful for Manson.
Not sure if that was his opinion, or of Manson told him that.
Cuntry, your kind of splitting hairs with the innocent thing.
1. not guilty of a crime or offense.
2. not responsible for or directly involved in an event yet suffering its consequences.
that is a fun pic of Manson back in his carefree days-back when he could still remember why the Queen got her horses in Kentucky and had three stripes on her hat. Now he can't even recall the former addresses of his future enemies.
What Star probably doesn't realize is that she would never know Manson if not for the murders.
Channels would know, Cuntry. Actually now that you mention it I vaguely remember something about his burns being the reason.
What about these burns in his head? I know nothing of it sorry
Chris, it happened back in '84. Bizarre story. He was torched by a Hare Krishna. Here's a LINK
I love ya but confess to rarely if ever being able to figure out what the hell you are talking about.
Charlie was unique because of his ambition to be more than fertilizer??? Didn't Charlie portray himself as a "half-assed nothing"?
With all due respect, you seem to recreate history in your head while your head is bonking noggins with Lucy In The Sky.
Statements like "understanding, in certain societies, is considered a "dirty old nasty thing" just makes no sense whatsoever.
But then again, your hero endlessly preached "no sense makes sense". You seem to have bought that nihilistic hogwash hook line and sinker.
Should we take him out back and shoot him?
Charlie portrays himself as a "half-assed nothing" when it suits his situation.
"Oh, I couldn't have done that - I ain't got no education."
"I'm just dumb old hick, I had no clue what was going on."
But we know better. With or without an education, Manson had a pretty good thing going on when he was trying to at least be as "straight" as he could be.
Anyone rolling in 1969 with $30,000 (as per many associates), cars being given to him left and right, taking what he needed, is not a half-assed nothing.
What I meant about innocent as opposed to "not guilty of the crimes he was convicted of" was that innocence implies he did absolutely nothing wrong, was an innocent bystander who was essentially framed.
Not guilty of the charges means that the charges against him were unjust, however he may have been guilty of some things that he was not charged/convicted of: aggravated assault, attempted murder, assault with intent to do great bodily harm, arson, grand theft, grand larceny, statutory rape, forced rape, possession of illegal firearms, robbery (though he was convicted of robbery), destruction of private/state property, and so on.
What I was saying is that it would sound a lot better to nay-sayers if she said "Charles Manson is not guilty of those murder charges" and explain why, rather than simply saying "Charles Manson IS INNOCENT!"
Not guilty does not mean that charges filed were unjust. Rather, it means that the prosecution were not able to prove their case to a legal standard. If a jury has found a determination, it has already been legally established, by the court, that sufficient evidence existed to justify the filing of charges.
I agree Cuntry Trash that Manson was no omnipotent Svengali as Bugliosi sold to the public. He was however guilty of many of the things you mention, plus a many more, certainly.
What brings the majority of us here is not any beliefs that Manson was innocent. He most certainly wasn't. As Dilligaf says, the court believed enough evidence existed to justify the filing of charges.
If Manson hadn't been so impressed with the attention he was receiving from the media he might have been able to squeeze his ego through the courtroom door and hence received a "fair" trial.
No one to blame but himself.
OK Leary Listen-up. When I was about 6 or 7 years old, I mowed lawns and saved up enough money to by a brand new top of the line Shwin bike. My friends and I rode our bikes down to Thrifty drug store - went inside and sat at the lunch counter for french fries and a coke. Sure enough, when we left to get our bikes - my new bike was gone.
I spent a couple of days pouting and hating WHOEVER took my prized bike and even went on a mental trip trying to imagine WHO might have done the evil deed. But I NEVER stopped trying to UNDERSTAND people who STEAL and do other unkind acts.
So when I met Charles Manson, I knew HE was the kid who took my BIKE, but I UNDERSTOOD him and HE knew I was the kid HE took the bike from.
He is NOT my hero, I just understand HIM, but in our society - because I UNDERSTAND him, he is assumed to be my hero. WE live in an adversarial culture. By LAW when you marry the one you love, you become a LEGAL adversary to your spouse.
I simply CHOOSE to UNDERSTAND people and IF it doesn't make SENSE to YOU, but it makes SENSE to me, well then, in our society WE look to see who is driving the newest car and HE is the person WHO KNOWS BEST. But that doesn't make SENSE to me.
Seems like it's just so much easier to LOVE to HATE!
I think Mr. Hendrickson just explained why many of us are interested in the Manson case, the family, the crimes. I try to understand.
Matt thanks for the link. It seems Charlie doesn't tolerate the "chant and be happy" mood anymore. Anyway, that was indeed bizarre, i didn't know he had that many burns.
About shaving his head because it would hurt to grow hair because of the burned skin. I just ask myself : How much would shaving hurt then, strange story.
Owh....and somebody ever thought of Mansons free walk outa the courtroom after being ,Not Guilty, and just going back to Spahn or The Desert and just pick up dayly life as it was before.. without the convicted Girls and Tex. No they just could not let that happen I think
Here is a question a lil outa topic, and more for my Fellow Europeans. We the public,are not so much interested in guys like Anders Behring Breivik who slaughtered 69 young people in their teens and some in twenties, shot them all on a little summercamp island dressed up like an Officer And bombed the Gouvernment Building in Oslo hours before that. But we dont have a Breivik Blog here....and there are no public Breivik Interviews on Television,Media et al.Is it realy the Murders wich make the Manson Saga so WorldWide spread Famous... Why is that ???
Hans, I'm not European but I'll put in my opinion. The Manson murders were one of the first of their kind which included multiple women as murderers. They were also seen by the public as hippies who, as you know, were suppose to stand for peace and love.
I and most other people do believe that the right people were convicted of having committed the murders but the way they were all tried in court seemed a bit shady. I think both the prosecution and defense were at fault for that. I'm pretty sure if the trials were to take place today that it wouldn't be a repeat of how the Family was tried back in 1970/71.
Which leads me to why I think that these murders are so popular even though they are solved. There are still too many questions that haven't been answered and most of those questions revolve around the motive both personal and collective for the murders.
Hoy Deb, Yes you right, about the hippy aspect on all of this, they were supost to spread the love and flowers... At the time a thing that came to Europe too. My parents were kinda hippies.But not Hardcore , I think that was particulair American. I am born in 66 so a lil too young to understand what happened in the world back then. what I do (think)I know about MansonSaga is based on info that was available here..and ofcourse I am not the guy that believes just anything they show/tell me. I was interested in the era I grew up and was born in and researched....you cannot miss or go around that part of American History about the sixtys and then Manson....Here in Europe that is just 1 and the same thing.
I think its indeed the whole mistyc,cultural thing that makes MansonCase for us Europeans who ARE interested, just interesting. And ofcourse for me also the absurdness of Trails and all revolving around that. At the time. For me personally also because of the Beauty of Sharon Tate,but that is a ,Men, thing I guess
Sorry Robert, hero was a bad choice of words. But it does seem you give Charlie a whole lot more credit for his power and talent than most folk are comfortable with. And I do think that frustrates you.
But then you were there so I do respect your perspective.
My difficulty in understanding your points comes mostly from my feelings that they contain a whole lot of conjecture and I have trouble connecting the dots.
I do like your bike story, but need to ask if Charlie stripped it and turned it into a Schwin dune buggy.
by the way, I don't own a car. So my opinion is clearly meaningless.
We're good Leary, but as you mention, the word "hero" is a sticky one. My father was the the only real hero I ever knew. He literally saved me from the arms of a bear, when I was about 5 years old.
BUT then look at the Bernard Crow "kidnapping" of Rosina Kornor. CHARLES MANSON "saved" her.
Of course, that does NOT make HIM a "hero". EXCEPT maybe in the eyes of ROSINA.
At best, my mentioning of the incident makes ME a smart-ass, BUT it should also shine some light on other aspects of the Manson Case.
Like how come Manson did NOT call the cops and report a KIDNAPPING. The cops could have stormed the house and the media could have reported a TRUE Black against White major incident. That could have ignited Charlie's so-called RACE WAR. So was CM just stupid OR was Bugliosi"s BLACK & WHITE race war claim really just BS.
I simply try to show the OTHER side of the equation. AND of course that will always make some folks uncomfortable.
Ah, the 'other side of the equation'. Not many folk have the courage and/or talent to hang out there as you do Robert.
And that makes you a hero in my book.
Post a Comment