Monday, November 23, 2015

Fireworks at Susan Atkins '85 New Year's Eve Hearing!

Susan Atkins must have flipped her "wig" when she appeared at her 1985 parole hearing, sporting her shoulder-padded power suit & permed wedge hairstyle, after her attorney introduced some odds/ends to the parole board members while stating his numerous objections:

Eugene Epstein, attorney for Susan Atkins at that time was sent a copy of a letter originally mailed to Ron Koenig, who happened to be the good, ol chairman of the California Board of Prison Terms. The copy was sent by the "Acting Executive Officer" of the board of prison terms named Gilbert Sawseeto. Guess who sent the letter? Guess what the letter was about? The letter itself was dated December 3, 1985, which was a few weeks before Susan's parole hearing, which happened on New Year's eve (December 31st) of 1985. The letter was from the governor of California, at the time Mr. George Deukmejian, in which he "asked" the board to deny parole for Bobby Beausoleil, Susan Atkins and Charles Manson. In summary, the letter stated, "As Governor, and as a private citizen, I ask the board to deny parole in these three cases. These inmates represent a continued threat, to the safety of our community" He went on to say, "It is our duty to insure that these people remain behind bars for the rest of their natural lives." 

Susan's attorney highly objected to this letter and went further by stating, "This is a violation of his powers as Governor of the State of California! It's in excess of jurisdictional powers under the laws of the State of California. And what is happening here is the Chief Executive of the State of California is telling you gentlemen, without having reviewed any of the materials that I gathered before you, that this parole should be denied. The Governor’s power under California Penal Code states this: the Governor had no discretion to grant or withhold a parole release date. Nowhere in the statutes is there a provision for the Governor to share the Board’s power to grant or withhold parole in the same manner he shares the power to revoke. It would therefore seem to follow that there is no statutory authority for the Governor to grant or withhold a parole release date. Neither is there any such inherent authority for him to rescind such datePenal Code Section 304(1) and Penal Code Section 5077, says “The Governor, not the Board, has discretion as to granting a pardon. On the other hand, the Board, not the Governor has discretion in fixing petitioner’s term and granting or withholding parole. And I suggest to you gentlemen that the effect of Governor Deukmejian’s letter is to affect this process of whether or not to grant or withhold the parole of Susan Atkins. But here the Governor has done something significantly different when he tells you that your duty – YOUR DUTY is to ensure that these people remain behind bars for the rest of their natural life. That’s the Chief Executive of the State of California saying those things to you, gentlemen. And I suggest to you that it infects these proceedings in a way that can’t be remedied."

In answering this embarrassing situation, board member Jauregui completely denied that Governor Deukmejian was writing in his official position as governor, but simply as a concerned citizen. He thought that he had every right, just like any other citizen to do so. Of course, this was total & utter bullshit. Says Board Member Jauregui: "Well, he's not urging us. He's just giving us his opinion. Nobody's going to urge us, you know, whether he's Governor or not, whether we're his appointees or not, that doesn't matter to us." This dragged on for quite a while, with board member Jauregui trying to cover their asses by saying that the governor was just a concerned citizen, etc. Attorney Epstein had a hell of a comeback, though. He told them "I suggest to you that he's writing you that letter on the stationary of The Governor of the State of California and he says to you-he's writing it to you as Governor! After much bickering back & forth, the board member sheepishly said, "Well, we weren't going to use it anyway." He comically tried to state that they weren't going to consider a letter from their boss anyway! This was the funniest thing of all. They weren't going to use it? WTF? How could he have said that with a straight face? I'm not suggesting in any way that Susan Atkins deserved to be released, because I don't think she did, but damn they were really full of shit!

The next little tidbit was concerning the depressing facts surrounding the circumstances of Susan's little boy and how she came to lose him. From what I gathered from the parole hearing transcript, Susan met the father of her child in New Mexico when "The Family" was traveling on their fart infested bus. His name was Bruce White and he was a college student from the University of New Mexico studying physiology. He left college and traveled with the Family on the bus, and eventually ended up living with them in Topanga Canyon. Susan claimed to have known him about a month before they moved to Spahn ranch. He impregnated her, then left shortly after finding out Susan was pregnant. He knew she was preggers, but didn't know he was the father (how did she even know?) The parole board asked her if he left because he knew she was pregnant and she stated, "no, he left because he just wanted to go back home." She then told the board that he left when she was three months pregnant (no sense makes sense). She eventually gave birth on October 7th, 1968, describing the birth to the parole board, "We were at the back house at Spahn's ranch when I went into labor and there were a lot of people there involved in playing music and smoking dope, marijuana, taking drugs, and I went into labor, and that was the night my son was born, those people were there. Mary Brunner, Catherine Share and Ella Bailey actually assisted with the birth. Manson was there and assisted in some manner, but mostly the women helped." The child weighed only 2 1/2 pounds at birth and a doctor came the next morning, supposedly to exam the child. Susan had the baby for a year and he was taken away from her when she was arrested. She went on to state, "I found out the courts had granted temporary custody to a foster home and the foster parents went to the courts and asked that his name be changed, and I was very grateful to learn that his name was changed to a decent name." At the time of this parole hearing, the child was 17 (in 1985). He was adopted when he was four or five. It took the courts approximately two & a half to three years to find a home that would take him. Susan closed out that part of the questioning by stating, "If he looks for me and wants to know who his mother is, I hope that he will find me." Sad, very, very sad!

The new year's eve hearing went on in the normal fashion, with them going over her childhood, what she did for work in San Francisco (waitress, topless go-go dancer at the Galaxy Club in North Beach, drink slinger in an after-hours club and a "professional" of the various, uh, nightly "arts." They didn't come right out and ask her if she was hooking, but it's pretty obvious she was. Next up, they started discussing her mental health evaluations. She was furious that a non-board certified, prison psychologist named Dr. J Hamner administered a test on her called a MMPI test, which stands for Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Afterwards, the doc wouldn't release her results to her, which, supposedly was a violation of her rights. The doctor claimed it was "confidential" and actually put the results in his own, personal file, which is illegal. Susan's attorney tried to force the prison officials to hand over her records and they wouldn't budge. He also tried to get a continuance of the hearing, but they wouldn't allow that either. In other words, she was f*cked. The non-board certified psychologist did not write a favorable report about her. He stated, "There are no indications of psychosis of severe psychological disturbances. Susan was logical, oriented in all spheres, and relatively cooperative during the interview. She remains a somewhat emotional individual whose internal dynamics are controlled through intellectualization. MMPI suggests anti-social traits remain strong." After reading this in the room, the board members told Susan & her attorney that they weren't going to use that information anyway, even though they DID end up using it against her. To counterbalance what Dr. Hamner had to say, Susan was evaluated by another doctor of her choosing, which didn't sit well with Stephen Kay. This doctor was none other than Dr. David E. Smith of the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic. As you all know, Dr. Smith also did a study (Case Study of the Charles Manson Group Marriage Commune) on the Family way back when they were active at Spahn ranch. Stephen Kay objected to Dr. Smith's evaluation of Susan by stating, "The first thing I would like to point out, is that I commend the attorneys for including Dr. Smith's biography, because it shows that he is not qualified to testify to the things in his report. He is not a psychiatrist. He is not a psychologist." Mr. Kay's objections to Dr. Smith went on & on. Was he qualified? I don't know.

Lastly, during this weird hearing, the board, for some insane reason, questioned Susan about her sexuality. Maybe I am wrong, but I didn't know a prisoner's sexual history was a factor in parole. Board member Jauregui started this line of questioning by stating, "We've avoided this question and I've looked at this packet and realized that your mother died when you were 13. the confrontation you had with your brother, drugs and then, I, I gather this thirty years experience working the field as a peace officer and there's no doubt that your sexual freedom, it was there, and that you were not only probably using, but you were also being abused continually somewhere; men were using you. And that was probably part of your down-fall also. It's obvious, if you have any experience dealing with people out on the street, just by reading your packet, that it's there and it's been there and it's been a big part of your problem and I'm wondering, can you make a statement regarding that problem that you had?"  Susan answered pretty honestly, "It's taken me a very, very long time to come to grips with the way I feel about sex, the way I feel about men. Probably for the first time in my life, these last three years-almost four years since my marriage-I don't need outside approval from a man to feel good about myself anymore. In my education, the ability to carry a job and work and be productive has given me a tremendous amount of self-satisfaction. And my concept of myself today is totally different than what it was four years ago. Dr. Jimakis had said I had a needy type personality. Well, I worked very hard on that in group therapy and came to realize, no, I don't need a man's approval. I don't need to be told, in essence, I love you and I'm just going to follow right along with Sue. If, perchance, I, in the future, have a relationship with a gentleman, there's going to be a long period of friendship and there'd be-from my point of view, better let me know that he sees me, the person, and not just what I can offer in a sexual manner, because I'm not into that anymore; I don't need that. It just-It feels good to be free from that. It feels very good. I see sexual relationships and interpersonal relationships in a much more healthy manner; I know what they entail. And if one comes along, fine, but I-I am not looking for one. I am not looking for one."  Note: I guess she changed her mind and jumped back up on that pogo stick when she married James Whitehouse (and his mullet), huh?

The hearing was closed by a statement made by the courageous Doris Tate. I say courageous, because she was able to go to the prison and sit in the same room with that abominable, wretched woman and not completely break down & attack her. She stated, "I'm here today to-I am representing my daughter and her unborn son. Words cannot express the pain and suffering that this woman has put my family through. Susan Atkins and her so-called "family" sentenced my daughter and her baby son to death with-without cause. She begged for her life and the life of her child. Susan Atkins' reply to this was, "SHUT UP, YOU BITCH, YOU'RE GOING TO DIE." And I'm sure it was just in those tones. What compassion did this woman have for my daughter's begging? None. Today, I see no remorse for what she has done. And after their dastardly deed was done, Susan Atkins then proceeds to partake of Sharon's blood. I live with these screams and these beggings for her life daily. Sharon was sentenced to death without a fair trial or without a jury. I was sentenced to life in prison without any possibility of parole, and I say to you: Should Susan Atkins' sentence be any less? I have approximately 350,000 signatures against Susan Atkins' release. And may I present to the board, 2,883 more? I would like for my daughter to be home today and I would like to know what her career-how it would have gone along today. What might it be today had this woman not interfered with her? But most of all, I see no remorse in anything that these four hours have brought to this panel. I thank you for listening to me. And may God be with you to make the decision that has to be made." Gulp. That was heart-wrenching. I don't know how Mrs. Tate read that, but she got through it and till the day she died, made damn sure the trash that was responsible for her daughter's (and grandson's) death never saw the outside of a stinky, cold, ugly, loud prison. She did her job and did it well.

As a final Austin Ann thought on the subject matter, I have to say that I am not surprised in the least bit about what that governor did, however, I don't think his letter writing was necessary. It was wrong, I know, and violated the hell out of her rights to a unbiased panel, but made no difference either way. What parole board would of released her or any one of her crime partners? None! I really don't think people, nowadays, grasp the enormity of what these people actually did. The human suffering and physical (and mental) pain they caused is beyond description. It cannot be put into words. So many people were murdered and in such a brutal, bloody way, then afterwards, the families of the dead were left to wander the earth, with their loved ones' murder playing in their minds day in & day out. Susan watched all six human beings die. She saw Gary Hinman gasping for breath & choke, because of the stab would to his heart. His lungs probably filled with blood, so he not only was stabbed, and sliced in the face, but he suffocated on his own blood. Do you realize how scared he must of been while laying there? Then, she saw from a short distance, Steven Parent be shot. Did that horrify her? Nope, apparently not. Next, she saw Jay Sebring shot down, then stabbed over & over again, while she did her own amount of stabbing on Wojciech Frykowski's legs while he screamed for help. Ever present, she again, gazed, slack jawed, while Tex Watson plunged a huge bayonet into Abigail Folger's abdomen, causing her intestine to partly be exposed and, of course, she gleefully assisted Sharon Tate, by leading her to the couch to sit down, while putting her in a choke hold, so her beast companion could begin his stabbing frenzy into a PREGNANT WOMAN! If Susan stabbed or didn't stab Sharon, it doesn't matter. She was there and she very much participated. She wasn't revolted in the least bit by blood spilling, people screaming horridly & begging for their lives. Afterwards, when they got caught, she bragged, laughed, sang and acted like a complete lunatic at the trial. And people wonder why she didn't leave prison alive. FIN


Robert Hendrickson said...

Well ANN: You got ME at:

"She remains a somewhat emotional individual whose internal dynamics are controlled through "intellectualization." ANYONE know what that actually means ? It means SHE had the ability to express "emotion," BUT also had the rare ability to rationize / intellecturalize complex situations. Susan Atkins actually did become like (Charles Manson).

Unfortunately, or otherwise, in our society, ONLY a woman is supposed to be "emotional" and ONLY a man is supposed to be a rational "intellectual."

Thanks for the "zonkeroo" ANN

Mr. Humphrat said...

I am disturbed by the photo of the boy, who seems to have blood or something under his nose.
Also, the Col. a while back stated Susan Atkins helped stab Sharon Tate-then I read more recently that the coroner thought there were two different knives which penetrated her. I hate even writing about it, but it's made me wonder if she really did participate in the stabbing. Not that it matters in the sense that she helped and in the sense that it was so long ago and there's more important things to put my energy into.
Thanks Ann.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AustinAnn74 said...

I'm feeling way too sick to bicker & argue with anyone. I have a cold. I'm sorry, dawes, if you didn't like the posting. It's just a blog, dude. Take it easy....

Robert Hendrickson said...

I would agree with YOU Dawes on ANN's "extra" words, BUT that is ANN and SHE is the one who donated her time and energy to provide something of value to those who might appreciate her "work.":

BUT, she also likes to make a pile of SHIT for folks like ME who will dig through HER crap to FIND the diamonds buried inside. ME - I lick my fingers and smile at the GEMS I discover. WE humans LEARN very little from those we agree with, BUT mucho valuable stuff from OUR adversaries.

Love to Learn and Learn to Love and soon you won't even "smell" the shit ANYMORE.

Manson Mythos said...

Gee, another post from Ann about how awful The Family was. As if we haven't already heard. I guess as long as we are reminded, we could keep the pity parade going, thus always have the convenient soap box around to stand on when we feel down and want to vent by reminding the world how bad Susan Atkins was (or in the case of California...politics).

Although in some ways it is important. I have to roll my eyes and shake my head when I see the media portray Atkins and Tex Watson as "all-american" kids and the girl next door. All the shit they accused Manson of turning them onto, they were doing when he was still in jail mentality living in a world where girls hardly kissed on the first date.

He would not be who he is today...WITHOUT them, not the other way around.

HellzBellz said...

I.M.H.O: NOT anny murderer/murderess on this Planet should be ,Paroled, Like IF one TAKES a life, then you lose ALL Freedom at least.Not only Atkins,Krenwinkle,v.Houten,Watson,Beausoleile,and Manson should be in discussion.... ALL of them !!! Lets forget about Parole for Murderers & Murderesses. The right to Freedom just simply doesnt excist annymore just from the same minute/second on, theyr Victims blew their last Breath

Manson Mythos said...

Public opinion is worthless in this case. Van Houten can't be kept behind bars because some paranoid old fat woman who watched too much A Current Affair is afraid a senior citizen with an X on her head is going to crawl in her window and stab her. Leslie could hardly stab somebody when she was a teen, let alone now as grandma with arthritis.

By law, they became eligible for parole. Therefor it should be in the hands of the board and they are going to do what they want, when they want it.

BUT I will say that based upon the fact that people who have done, what I consider to be just as bad if not worse than some of those convicted in the TLB have been let loose.....then there is something going on that's out of balance.

Farflung said...

Presently there are about 19 States which DON'T have the "Death Penalty". Really?

Even with the intervention of Rose Bird, Californians still have 2nd Amendment rights to protect hearth and home. Same in those States which claim to have abolished the "Death Penalty".

If Jay or Leno happened to be armed, and dispatched their intruders with some hot lead it most certainly been categorized as "Justifiable" in California, and those who claim to be free of using death as a punishment. The Family has lucked out on numerous fronts, yet they continue to be portrayed as being treated unfairly. Weird.

AustinAnn74 said...

I have an idea! From now on, anyone who doesn't like what I write can simply skip over any future postings I do on this blog from this point forward, that way you can avoid my rehashing. Dig on that!

orwhut said...

Farf said, "Jay or Leno". Combine those two names and you get a car guy.

Farflung said...


Yet another example of just how all things 'Family' have but one degree of separation.

Anonymous said...

AustinAnn74 said...
I have an idea! From now on, anyone who doesn't like what I write can simply skip over any future postings I do on this blog from this point forward, that way you can avoid my rehashing. Dig on that!


Ann, I always enjoy your posts as do many others who come on here, and also those who read the site, but perhaps don't comment.

BTW, how did you manage to catch a cold in Texas? It's supposed to be hot (unlike here in Scotland where it is continuously raining). Get well soon!!

Patty is Dead said...

We at Mansonblog have multiple styles and viewpoints. Ann is admittedly on the far side of our spectrum but Patty always reads and enjoys her posts. Love u sister

ColScott said...


Behind the scenes Robert reached out to me via my fiance Matt ( which is odd because Robert has my email, but I digress).

He knows less than nothing about copyright law. Thinks he has the copyright on the words spoken by his interview subjects. Thinks that California Law applies to Copyright which is a strictly Federal statute. Thinks because someone wrote the music for him he doesn't need music licenses. Several dozen issues with his way of thinking.

Despite the well known ignorant haters on here, I love Robert. I have met him and Toby four times and every time I thought was a blessed event. I think his films are genius and he deserves recognition. He deserves some of that sweet sweet streaming money. But he has to actually own the copyrights and be able to prove that. Think about it- if you owned something that was worth real money would you fuck around with it and not release it if you could?

MHN said...

Col, that was so convincing I almost forgot you are a robot and not a real human. Remarkable.

Sincerely, Ignorant Hater. (And by the way, I prefer "pig-ignorant hater" thank you.

ColScott said...


Just Pig. The show fits.

Manson Mythos said...

I will say that Manson is worthy of a much better treatment. It's deserving of a Criterion Collection release and it would serve to combat the amount of trash that is being put out about the case.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Why can't Robert hire a copyright attorney who can do all the legal work in exchange for a little of the profit? I can't blame him for not knowing about copyright law-not in his or my aptitudes.

beauders said...

Did anyone notice that Atkins testified that her son weighed 2 1/2 pounds at birth? There is no way a child that size would survive in a hospital in 1968 let alone the filthy, horse shit strewn Spahn Movie Ranch. Why did she lie about that of all things?

beauders said...

Also Atkins looks a little on the psychotic side in her power suit picture.

Anonymous said...


Ann, I was particularly impressed with your final paragraph which highlights the extent to which Atkins was present and watching the murders, starting with Hinman and onward. It's easy to forget that she saw 18 year old Steve Parent getting four bullets.

I find it distressing to look at the photograph of her little boy who looks in such an unkempt state with blood under his nose. I agree with Beauders regarding the debatable birth weight. Apart from the fact that 2 1/2 pounds is a premature weight, any decent doctor would have insisted that a baby under 5 pounds be admitted to a hospital's premature baby unit.

It is difficult to say whether when the boy grew up he would have wanted to meet her on discovering her identity. I am hard pushed to think what possible benefit there would have been for him listening to Susan's excuses for her irresponsible behaviour. If it became known that Susan was his mother, it could have been disastrous for him and any family he may have had. At the very least, he would have had Bill Nelson on his case!

Anonymous said...

I think that the blonde kid with the crap under his nose is actually Pooh Bear. The only picture that I've seen of Zezo is the one with Ruth Ann holding him and he was dark haired and dark eyed.

Anonymous said...

@ColScott - The eBay lawsuit is an enlightening read, especially for anyone who thinks that Robert may be faking any part of his persona. Even in that instance, he refused to provide the necessary info to prove his Copyright and Intellectual Property claims. His explanation as to why, sounded not unlike the kind of conspiratorial stuff that he writes on here. Robert also legally represented himself when he could have easily gotten a lawyer to represent him on a contingency basis. How Robert didn't see all of those things working against him is beyond me.

Robert said in the "Recent photo of Lynnette Fromme" thread that Squeaky assigned use of the Family's music to Merrick International Pictures and then Merrick re-assigned them to Robert. He also said this :

"Squeaky ALSO gave over to Merrick / ME the actual RAW "recordings." I, in turn, "produced" (added musical enhancement) to some of those songs / music for "use" in "Inside the MANSON Gang."

Is this correct? Robert not only owns all of Manson's studio recordings from the 1960's, but also has the right to use them ad infinitum via Squeaky/Merrick International Pictures/Merrick? LOL

The second paragraph of Dawes post (above) addresses the absurdity of all of this.

Chris B said...

What about Grogan? He was paroled in 1985ish. Almost anything that could and has been said about those convicted can be applied to him also.

During LaBianca like Atkins he never got out of the car, but unlike her he didnt receive the death penalties.

So, like Beausoleil he was only in for one murder. However like him it was also regarded as a torture murder.

He remains a choice-favourite as the go-to crazy family member, but since his release has been a model citizen.

Atkins mouth always caused her problems. In the later hearings she was always trying to right old wrongs regarding her old statements.

I have sympathy for her, and if paroled she may have escaped her notoriety and lived quietly. But she, to use a Spanish expression, dug her own grave with her teeth.

Without the application of the Manson Family brand (largely invented by Atkins) there may well have been more parolled over the years. As they grow older and weaker the brand grows ever simpler and stronger.

The parole panels, guards, etc are now made up of exclusively of people who only know them by the brand. Were she alive the board would be questionning her about the truth behind the Aquarius storyline about her stealing a replacement baby for Brunner.

As to the first question, Atkins was dangerous because she was willing to experience anything and intellectulize it removing the right and wrong. As Beausoleil said of the Hinman dying infront of her she was sort of just interested in it as something to see happen.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Hey Folks, it's ANN's "post" and some of you are just trying to "piggyback" on HER hard "work." I know, I've done it TOO. So I'm a BAD guy also - I get that. BUT this constant "convoluting" of what others actually say is getting old and boring. ZIGGY: the Ninth Circuit court Of Appeals found that Judge Kelleher in the Hendrickson vs eBay case "Blew it."

I didn't APPEAL because HE also addded, in his Decision, that IF a service provider like eBay facillitates an "infringement" AFTER receiving a compliant DMCA notice it will be liable for "willful" infringement, which carries Tripple statutory damages. AND I "used" that decision to WIN other cases.

AND I never claimed to "own" Charlie Manson's music, BUT have the RIGHT to "use" it. There is a difference like the government "owns" you and your property, BUT it lets you "use" it. Or like YOU own your "brain" BUT you let Charles Manson live in it.

I've said before, ASK George Stimson to tell YOU what Sandy G. signed, but NO one wants to hear that "silent" fuck-you response.

So DAWES & ZIGGY and even the Col - all you are accomplishing with dissing on ME is to make sure NO past manson Family member EVER gets involved with telling THEIR story on this or any blog-site.

AND Charlie - He's just smiling at ALL the "shit" that the outside world puts on itself. EXCEPT he's actually laughing out-loud at ALL the Muslim "shit" finally comeing to fruition.

Anonymous said...

christopher butche said...

".. have sympathy for her, and if paroled she may have escaped her notoriety and lived quietly."

Christopher, do you really believe she would have wanted to live quietly? My recollection of her from the point of arrest, and throughout the trial, was that of a female who was proud of her appearance and figure. Additionally, she couldn't keep her mouth shut. She seemed to think that these murders bestowed upon her her rightful place in the spotlight. Add into the mix her lawyer husband who may have spoken out to the US media.

On the other hand, I don't understand why out of the female members of the Family, Susan remains a more reviled figure than Pat Krenwinkel who, at the end of the day, wielded the knife manically over two nights.

Anonymous said...

@Robert Hendrickson - By "owning", I was referring to you possessing the original reel to reel tapes from Manson's recording sessions at Gold Star. I interpreted that as what you were saying when you said that "Squeaky ALSO gave over to Merrick / ME the actual RAW "recordings.". I wasn't aware that those tapes were part of your very impressive Manson collection.

And I'm not "dissing" you, Robert, but your view on copyright is a little skewed. Or is possession is nine-tenths of the copyright law? Mr. Humphrat made a good point - why don't you hire an attorney specializing in copyright to work this out for you? Don't you think that not having legal copyrights might hinder your ability to sell your collection in the future? It certainly reduces the value of it.

Unknown said...

I'm working on a review of the Manson Family Vacation. Charlie's CD lie is shown and played in the movie. I assume they had to get permission to use this as well??? The people who made the movie had an obvious awareness of Star, Greywolf and ATWA. I wonder if they had any cooperation or participation from anyone connected to Charlie? Would they need it to simply play a couple of songs and show CD cover?

Anonymous said...

@st circumstance

Hi, hope things are getting better and better for you. I haven't watched 'Manson Family Vacation' so far, but will do so and look forward to reading your review.


Unknown said...

:) equinox

Unknown said...

By the way...

Yeah for Austin Ann and Doris Tate
Booo Susan Atkins.

Unknown said...

I am not arguing for or against parole with anyone any longer. At this point we all have our opinions and I have learned I won't change anyone else's.

But when they refused to allow Susan to even die at home when she couldn't even lift herself out of bed- that should have ended the parole debate for THIS group forever. Fair or not it's pretty clear that parole just isn't going to happen in their cases.... That decision had to have hit a few of the brighter ones pretty hard....

Farflung said...

"That's for a jury to decide." Weelllllll....

The only thing a jury decides (in my viewpoint) is acquittal. When a jury votes to acquit, that's it (feel free to use that mneomic in your daily life). No reviews or opinions to debate, the defendant is irreversibly free.

Not so much when a guilty verdict with a death penalty is handed out.

First a mistrial is declared when an assistant DA asked one wrong question (accidentally).

Then a judge overturns the jury's death sentence, while triggering parole eligibility since California didn't have LWOP at that time.

Then the same DA writes a letter to the parole board strongly recommending release. Because the convict supplied a map to a gravesite of a man he denied killing. What an odd incentive program.

MRobertsIsNotMansonsSon said...

Atkins said in Child of Satan, Child of God that Tex and Sandra Good drove her to the foster her son was taken to where she bragged she crawled in the window & creepy crawled to the refrigerator to get formula- then escaped with him. On her website in "The Myth of Helter Skelter" she tells another completely different story- that a group of men took her to the home and while the foster parents were distracted ordered her to kidnap the child. Both stories written after supposedly becoming a "Christian". That's what sad about her and her son- not that he finally got as far from her as possible! Jame Whitehouse (who ran her and probably wrote) her website has remained silent on this.

Manson Mythos said...

I think there is a much bigger reason for the media hoopla surrounding this case. Something that goes beyond just selling stories and advocating victims rights. There is a lot of protesting too much on the legal system of California and even victims families. Certain points (selling points?) are stressed too much. It's as if there is something lurking behind the case that a lot of people do not want uncovered, something that could change the entire way we look at it. I think it was made clear to all those involved and even the convicted know they better play ball. I think the presence of people like Kay over the years wasn't so much to speak against their release, but rather for damage control and to make sure there was no straying from the official narrative.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Here's the deal ZIGGY: Try typing in "Robert Hendrickson copyright" into any major search engine. If that is too difficult try to understand this:

The "words" of an "interviewee" in a documentary or any other form of media expression belong to the interviewee, UNLESS the "work" is "made for hire." Then the "words" (work) are copyrightable by the "employer" NOT the person who actually spoke the "words." When Tom Cruise makes a movie for Paramount, HE is the "employee" and Paramount is the "employer." When Paramount Pictures hires someone to "produce" a movie for them, the "producer" is an "employee" - just like the kid fliping your hamburger at McDonald's is an "employee." AND Paramount is the "employer" who is thus the legal copyright claimant in the "work" performed by the prooducer.

BUT I think where the Col got confused is: HE took the typical example of a newsman interviewing a "person on the street" but NOT employing that person to perform the "work." In such a case neither the newsman nor HIS news station has ANY copyright claim to the "words" spoken by the person being interviewed. BUT the TV station (employer of newsman) may have a copyright claim to the "words" spoken by the NEWSMAN - only.

TRUE story: Most all the news "footage" taken by the LA TV stations in the 1960's, 70s went up for sale in one big lot - because THEY could NO longer legally "deal" with it. They had NO releases OR employee - employer relationsips with the persons in the films. Someone actually tried to SELL all the footage for $1,000,000, but they ended up donating it to UCLA.

A guy named Dr. Martin Luther King actually took a somewhat similar case to the U.S. Supreme Court where the High court determined that HIS "I have a Dream Speech" was copyrightable by HIM personally. He had NO employer so HE owned the "words" There is NO legal distinction between documentary, fiction, nonfiction, etc. ONLY whether the "work" is created in the context of "work made for hire" OR created by an "individual." An "employer" is actually considered the AUTHOR in a "work made for hire." AND such is the case with the MANSON "work."

BTW: I have ressurected the files under

Jenn said...

Saint asked " Would they need it to simply play a couple of songs and show CD cover?"

To show the cover, no. To play songs, absolutely. They would need permission of/make payment to the owner of the copyright.

Unknown said...


Jenn said...

I did just a bit of research. The current owner of the rights to the Manson LIE songs is ESP-Disk, a record company with an interesting past. I don't believe that they are presently making recordings, but they were well known at one time, especially in the free jazz genre. They had Ornette Coleman and other luminaries. They are still in business, releasing existing material. One of the acts that they had back in the day was The Fugs. Does the name Ed Sanders ring a bell?

The owner of the label has been accused of not paying royalties to his artists.

You can get the LIE album from ESP-Disk. They also own the publishing to the songs, according to the Harry Fox Agency. So, if you want to perform, record, or put a version of Garbage Dump, Look At Your Game Girl, etc on YouTube and such, you will owe money to or you must receive permission from ESP-Disk. Video syncing of material (i.e. Robert's stuff) can be quite a different matter, and I'll look into that ownership later when time allows. Peace, y'all.

Unknown said...

Nice lol

Robert Hendrickson said...

Now you're a talk'in JENN;

AND boy would I welcome a Federal Lawsuit where I could CALL Mr. Manson, Ms Squeaky and the rest of the GANG as witnesses.

Go ahead Charlie: Make MY day !

Robert Hendrickson said...

For ME there are TWO very possible "undercurrents" that have never been explored, other than by ME. ONE is the Mi Lai

Massacre in Vietnam, which if the "Love and Terror Cult" Story had NOT taken center stage, the massacre of old women and children by American soldiers would have destroyed America's squeaky clear image FOREVER. Thank GOD we have some really smart cats like the CIA for damage control.

AMD "two" is the Manson Family's claims / understanding concerning the "Nation of Islam" (Muslims) over 45 years ago. Especially where we have several world leaders TODAY that STILL just don't "get-it."

BUT we got the REAL "3 stooges" making a come-back. Putin, Obama and the Frenchman. Like it's going to be Vietnam all over again.

Manson Mythos said...

Behind the "3 stooges" is Israel. Regardless of who is in office, Islam IS going to rise and the left and right are both being played. Since the division of minds about the issue is what they want. It leads to finger pointing and blame and when enough people team up and gang up on one side and blame them for something, it's easy to set the wheels in motion and strip them of their right to say anything. This entire mess I believe is about once and fall all slowly invading and ethnically cleaning the middle east.

If the USA really is funding ISIS to attack Europe and the United States, so they then have the excuse to kill and destroy them...sound familiar?

What if back in 1969, "the establishment" was trying to redirect the wrath of the black man onto the hippies at Spahn Ranch? Because they were poor, criminals, drug users, runaways? Why would there be stand down orders on Manson at the time of the FBI's sneaky plots to turn rival black organizations against each other?

What if the murders were the result of the Family, re-redirecting it back to the source? Had this come out...oh boy, Helter Skelter would be on in California and could you imagine if the counter culture and people suddenly saw the killers are soliders fighting a war that was being aimed at them? If blacks and hippies found out that was happening, it would be pretty ugly.


brownrice said...

Hi Robert, you do know that the Nation of Islam and Islam in the rest of the world are two very different things, don't you? The so-called "Black Muslims" (particularly in the 60s) embraced a racially-based belief system that had very little (if anything) to do with what actual Muslims believed (or believe now). They were an entirely US-based phenomenon. This was all pretty well known throughout the rest of the world back then. To assume that there's some kind of lineal connection between the two 50 years later striikes me as kinda mis-guided.

Manson Mythos said...

To a white American though, Islam is Islam no matter how you slice it and both are a threat to HIS way of life and they are similar to each other that he is a common enemy.

Bob Abooee said...

Right on Ann

Sun Dance said...

"In 1967, according to Manson himself, he befriended Black Muslims in prison. He admitted that he learned a lot about Islam.

During Manson’s murder trial, he expanded further on this:

The Black Muslims —- they know the way, they’re ahead of us. Fifty years ahead. They are way ahead of the Black Panthers, dig. They know what’s happening. And I turn them on because I’m the only white guy in here that knows Mohammed. They got things going on in the sewers that you wouldn’t believe!

Even Paul Watkins, the key witness against Manson, stated that Manson spoke about the Muslims, not the Panthers, when asked about what Manson had said regarding this impending race war.

Then the Black Muslims would come out of hiding and wipe them all out. By sneaking around and slitting their throats.

About the same time, Manson spoke to his attorney substantiating this testimony against him:

The sword of Mohammad will swing back and chop off the heads of the whites, because the Whites have done it to the Mohammedans which was a love civilization."

ZuluGhost said...

+This point of view of never, ever giving the Muslim middle east agency, never giving them credit for the ability to make their own decisions, constantly asserting they do not have the ability to articulate and put into action their own desires and goals that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Americans or Jews Or Europeans, that they basically can't do anything but act as the dupes and puppets of America and Israel, is the most laughably Western-centric, narcissistic, asshole American viewpoint anyone can possibly have.

MHN said...

@ ZuluGhost - amen to that. So true, well said. And even our response to their atrocities is laughably solipsistic: we always get responses along the lines of, "If we start hating then we give ISIS what they want. I won't give them the satisfaction of my hatred" etc etc. All of which assumes that ISIS shares our basic worldview, our indexes of behaviour, our ethics.

ISIS, A-Q et al don't give a flying rat's balls whether we hate, whether we love, whether we are tolerant or intolerant, whether we are racist or not racist. They don't care about that crap one iota. That crap is why they're winning (to the extent that are winning).

They don't 'want to turn us against each other', they don't want to 'make us suspicious of each other'. They do want to establish in the Middle East a strict sharia caliphate, a political state where the law of Allah is the only law, where there is no room for compromise with modernity, or with alternative ways of life - ie personal freedom and responsibility, or democracy. They want to implement Muhammed's vision of an Arabian Peninsula entirely free from non-muslims, establish a political religious state, and use it as a base from which to destabilise the great satan and his European crusader lapdogs.

They don't give a dying monkey's tits about our emotions, our thoughts, our feelings, or how progressive we are. And apologies to Americans (I love your country very much indeed), but when your 'President' says that coming together for a Paris climate change conference is the strongest possible rebuke to the ISIS murderers who slaughtered so many a couple of weeks ago, I just don't know whether to laugh or cry.

It's about war, and power, and god. It's about conquest and domination. Only a dying civilisation of narcissistic cretins and ignorant overgrown babies could possibly witness what we are seeing now and think that it's in any way about our own intolerance, or about being haters, or insufficiently inclusive.

Making a man kneel down, alive and fully conscious, before sawing through his neck with a knife and removing his head, is the ultimate rebuke to a culture that sits in front of a keyboard fretting over microaggressions while the world burns.

Roger said...

I know this is an older article but I enjoyed it very much I don't know what all the negative comments are about