Monday, September 2, 2019

Jason Freeman Compelled to Give DNA

In the continuing saga of settling Charles Manson's estate the judge overseeing the proceedings has answered Michael Channels motion to have Jason Freeman's DNA compared to Charles Manson's DNA to determine whether or not Freeman is Manson's grandson.

Michael Channels


There have been a few court hearings over Manson's estate since we last visited this subject.  The past couple of court hearing have Channels submitting a motion to have Freeman's DNA tested.  The judge said that he would need to explore whether or not it was possible for the court to demand DNA from Freeman.

Freeman has declined to voluntarily produce a DNA sample but said he would, if the court ruled that he had to submit his DNA.

Jason Freeman


I think this might be a precedent setting decision by the judge because the decision does not cite any previous cases on the subject of DNA.  But I will let our resident attorneys weigh in on that aspect.

Here is a transcription of the judge's decision-

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Probate Division Stanley Mosk Dept. - 9, Stanley Mosk Dept. - 9
17STPB10966
In re: Manson, Charles M. - Decedent
August 30, 2019
8:30 AM

Honorable Clifford Klein, Judge
Janelle Brooks, Judicial Assistant Not Reported, Court Reporter
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Ruling on Submitted Matter

The following parties are present for the aforementioned proceeding:
No appearances.

Out of the presence of the court reporter, the Court makes the following findings and orders:

The Court having taken the above captioned matter under submission on Thursday, August 22, 2019 hereby rules as follows:

Motion to Compel DNA Testing

Ruling on Submitted Matter:

SUMMARY:
This case concerns the estate of Charles Manson. He was admitted to state prison in 1971 and died on November 19, 2017. His estate is now at issue.

Charles Manson Jr.’s, a.k.a. Charles Jay White, statement that he was one of Charles Manson’s children is notcontested in this case. Mr. White predeceased Manson, dying in Colorado in 1993. Jason L. Freeman states he isthe son of Mr. White, and thus the grandson of Charles Manson. This petition alleges that that the decedent died intestate, that Freeman is an heir and is entitled to Letters of Administration. Freeman nominated Dale Kiken to
act as administrator, per Prob. Code § 8465.

Michael A. Channels filed an Objection to the Petition. On January 22, 2018, Channels filed his own Petition,seeking to probate a will allegedly executed by Manson in 2002, which expressly disinherited his sons as well as any other known or unknown children, and which purportedly give his entire estate to Channels.

This motion concerns an allegation by Channels that Freeman is not the decedent’s grandson. The motion is to compel Freeman to undergo DNA testing. The decedent’s DNA is reportedly available from the Department of Corrections or the Kern County Coroner where the autopsy was conducted. There is no evidence that a sample of the DNA of Charles Manson Jr./Charles Jay White, Freeman’s alleged father, is available.

Although White does not appear as the father on Freeman’s birth certificate, a 1986 default family court judgment of the state of Ohio provides that it is “ORDERED ADJUDGED, AND DECREED” the Defendant Charles Jay White aka Charles Millis Manson, Jr., “shall be, and hereby is, determined to be the natural father of Jason Lee Freeman.” The court order stated that White was served by “certified mail”, but does not indicate there was any postal documentation that he received the mail, nor that he received the notice of the court’s judgment. White resided in Texas and did not appear in the case. Court records do not indicate what contacts White had in Ohio, although this court presumes the Ohio court had legal jurisdiction. There is no record that this order was ever enforced, that the child support payments ordered were ever collected, that Mr. Channels was served with notice of this proceeding, or that he appeared. This raises the question of whether this Court is bound by the default judgment of paternity.

Basic intestate succession law provides that the estate of a deceased person shall, if the deceased is unmarried, pass to their children, or to the issue of their children. (See Prob. Code § 6400 et seq.) Parenthood is thus relevant to establishing intestate succession. Probate Code § 6534 provides for how a parent-child
relationship may be established for purposes of probate:

For the purpose of determining whether a person is a “natural parent” . . . :

(a) A natural parent and child relationship is established where that relationship is presumed and not rebutted pursuant to the Uniform Parentage Act (Part 3 (commencing with Section 7600) of Division 12 of the Family Code).

(b) A natural parent and child relationship may be established pursuant to any other provisions of the Uniform Parentage Act, except that the relationship may not be established by an action under subdivision (c) of Section 7630 of the Family Code unless any of the following conditions exist:

(1) A court order was entered during the parent’s lifetime declaring parentage.

(2) Parentage is established by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has openly held out the child as that parent’s own.

(3) It was impossible for the parent to hold out the child as that parent’s own and parentage is established by clear and convincing evidence, which may include genetic DNA evidence acquired during the parent’s lifetime. (Prob. Code § 6453.)

Per section 7636 of the Family Code, “the judgment or order of the court determining the existence or nonexistence of the parent and child relationship is determinative for all purposes except for actions brought pursuant to Section 270 of the Penal Code.” (Fam. Code § 7636). Family Code § 7646 does provide that a
judgment establishing paternity may be set aside or vacated based upon genetic testing in some circumstances inapplicable to the facts in this case.

Per section 5604 of the Family Code, “a previous determination of paternity made by another state, whether established through voluntary acknowledgment procedures in effect in that state or through an administrative or judicial process shall be given full faith and credit by the courts in this state, and shall have the same effect as a paternity determination made in this state and may be enforced and satisfied in a like manner.” (Fam. Code § 5604 [emphasis added].) A default judgment for paternity in Ohio would therefore have the same effect as a valid judgment of paternity in this state and would therefore hypothetically be determinative under Family Code § 7636. However, while Fam. Code § 7636 provides that such a judgment would be “determinative for all purposes,” Prob. Code § 6524 simply provides that a “natural parent and child relationship” may be established pursuant to the Family Code. Moreover, despite the “full faith and credit” language of Fam. Code S 5604, case and statutory law requires the judgment of paternity to have been valid and the alleged father to have been given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. “If a valid judgment of paternity is rendered in Ohio, it generally is binding on California courts if Ohio had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, and the parties were given reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard.” (Estate of Griswold (2001) 25 Cal.4th 904, 922 [emphasis added].) If the Ohio judgment was “void” then under C.C.P. § 473(d), the Court may “set aside any void judgment or order.”

ANALYSIS:

Channels argues that the Court is neither bound by nor should give full, force, and credit to the Ohio default judgment, because the Ohio court lacked jurisdiction over White and that White was not sufficiently notified and given an opportunity to be heard. It has not been established that White actually received reasonable notice
and an opportunity to be heard and had a fair opportunity to litigate the issue. Even if White was present or received notice, Channels was not present, did not receive notice, and thus argues that he should not be bound by a court decision that had no foreseeable relevance to an issue of heirship in a future estate proceeding in California.

Although the Ohio court found “that service [had] been properly completed by certified mail,” for purposes of res judicata for the probate proceeding in California, actual notice cannot be presumed. A subsequently enactedOhio statute requires proof of actual service (Ohio Code section 3111.06 (B). This was a default judgment that was not contested. As White lived in Texas, and apparently ignored the judgment if he learned of its existence, he may have been indigent and seen no reason to travel to Ohio to contest its validity and to incur the further expense of retaining an attorney. Regardless of the actual blood relationship between the parties, White may have felt it unnecessary to contest such an issue, especially when the child support order might never be enforced against him.

In addition, had Channels or any other possible heirs received notice of the Ohio hearing, they may have decided that the relationship between White and Freeman was important for purposes of inheritance. This would be different than a court hearing to enforce the child support obligations against another person. Channels never had any notice or opportunity to contest the relationship of Freeman for purposes of intestate succession. This does not make the default judgment void for purposes of family support. However, applying this nebulous default judgment against a nonparty to the family support case could defeat the purpose of California’s intestate succession laws.

The question of the disposition of the remains of the decedent was litigated in the Kern County Superior Court. Kiken argues that the decision of the Kern County Court to release the remains to himself is res judicata on the issue of paternity. The issue in the remains proceeding involved the validity of the various wills submitted in the case, rather than paternity. The court’s finding was that “No sufficient probative evidence was provided to this court to refute Freeman’s claim.” This court does not find this limited ruling to constitute res judicata on the question of whether Mr. Freeman is the son of Charles White.

The recently enacted California Family Code sections refer only to DNA testing to establish a parent-child relationship, rather than establishing a grandparent-grandchild relationship. Although there is no explicit legal authority to require DNA testing with grandparents, the DNA of Mr. Freeman’s purported father, Charles Manson Jr., is not available. It is also impossible to consider evidence that either Manson as the grandparent or Charles White as the parent held out the child as that parent’s own due to the grandfather’s life imprisonment and Charles White’s death in 1993. Technically speaking, parentage of Freeman could be established by genetic DNA evidence acquired during the parent’s lifetime, as such evidence from the decedent Charles Manson most likely would have been acquired during the lifetime of Charles White. If one considers a broader definition of “parentage”, the word is defined in American College Dictionary, Third Edition, as “descent from parents; lineage”, and lineage is the precise issue in this probate case. However, this technical construction should not be required as the legislative intent to permit DNA testing to determine the identity of a parent would logically be expanded to include grandparents.

CONCLUSION

The Court is not bound by either the Ohio court’s judgment of paternity or the Kern County Court’s decision as to the disposition of the decedent’s remains. DNA testing may provide probative and relevant evidence. The motion to compel DNA testing of Jason L. Freeman is granted.

83 comments:

orwhut said...

Does anyone know why Jason won't voluntarily submit a DNA sample?

Robert C said...

Not for sure but guessing since he already won the race for Manson's estate, and because he may not be 100% sure he's really blood related, there was no reason for him to push the matter any further unless court ordered.

orwhut said...

That makes sense.

DebS said...

Freeman has not "won the race for Manson's estate". That's what all of these hearings are about, who gets the rights to Manson's worldly goods.

What Freeman "won" was the right to Manson's mortal remains, his body. That issue was settled in Kern County because that's where Manson was living, at Corcoran prison, when he died.

The fight for Manson's estate is taking place in Los Angeles County because it was decided that LA County was his place of residence before he was incarcerated.

Panamint Patty said...

I can't wait to see what happens next!

Robert C said...

Ok

Orwhut -- Not for sure but guessing since he already won the race for Manson's mortal remains, his body, and because he may not be 100% sure he's really blood related, there was no reason for him to push the matter any further unless court ordered. ;-)

Unknown said...

What could Manson possibly own... His estate? The man was incarcerated for decades and he owned nothing when he went to prison in 1969. Right?

Unknown said...

His estate? What possibly could Manson own... The man was incarcerated for decades and he had nothing when he went to prison in 1969. Right?

DebS said...

Besides the personal items that were at the prison there are music rights. Freeman seemed to think that if he was granted the estate that he would basically own Charles Manson's name and could be paid for the use of the name in any commercial venue be it film, TV, books, magazines etc. I'm not sure if it's true that he could exact a fee for those purposes.

We posted an image of the will that names Michael Channels as his inheritor-

https://www.mansonblog.com/2018/01/sorting-out-issues-behind-mansons-estate.html

Take a look at the will and the post.

DudeOnAlude said...

Because he has zero redemption Manson?

Fiddy 8 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fiddy 8 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fiddy 8 said...

At least Star didn't get the reamins to stuuf him for a museum

Unknown said...

There will always be someone interested in the worst of humanity.

DebS said...

There are a lot of someone's that are interested in this topic, Unknown. Though hardly any comment. We have had over 7,500 views today alone and the day is not half over! I suspect is because we have a transcription of the judge's ruling.

Unknown said...

Charlie paid his debt he's square with the house now . He's not the worst of humanity.

Unknown said...

I always assumed music rights. When SST was gonna issue Vacaville recordings on vinyl that was a big deal, though it’s been 30 years...

Quirkyone said...

Interesting how this is playing out. The idea that everyone should just walk away and shun everything Manson related. No estate etc... Next of kin etc... Strange how eben after he's gone there's controversy. Again I remind you Charlie never actually killed anyone himself that they proved.

Unknown said...

I have to agree with one commenter what could Manson have that somebody would actually want? Also he wasn't that great of a musician. Although he didn't actually kill somebody, just a thought of any kind of murder is enough to make me want to question it. Is there actually any monetary gain from Manson's estate? It's odd that there are people fighting over this man's estate. I hope the outcome is what everybody wants.

Matt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt said...


He was present at the Hinman scene. He sliced his ear nearly off and told Bobby he knew what to do. He tied the LaBiancas up and left them to be slaughtered. He was also present at the Shea murder. He was equally culpable in all four of those murders. To say he never killed anyone is just ignorant.

Ncblogme said...

Well with a world full of different kind of people out there and some of them being cult related let's call them cult followers who would pay a pretty penny for anything that had to do with Charlie mason and life history so any papers things with his signature anything like that could bring big money to the person who owns them that's why he out to get the stuff that was left behind plus whoever was saying about Charlie name is right that could also bring him money with the music rights and all that but either way it's still interesting to see how all this turns out

Out of Many, Me said...

DebS I looked at the will you have posted for Channels. It's heavily redacted because it's fake. Does Corcoran have this will on file? Why would it need to be mailed to the warden's P.O. Box if it was issued by the prison? On the backside, in the lower, redacted, right-hand corner is Michael Channel's signature, where he also wrote the date, Feb 10, 2002, a whole four days before the will was even drafted. Which is really odd considering Channels knew nothing about it until it arrived in the mail. Even odder still is that the will states everything was discussed with him prior to it being written..

Love to review said...

Which is why I will never understand why he was imprisoned for life!
If that happened these days he would have not spent life in prison.
He may have made a suggestion regarding the killings, that didn't mean they all had to go kill everyone. That was THEIR decision!

DebS said...

Out of Many, Me said...
DebS I looked at the will you have posted for Channels. It's heavily redacted because it's fake. Does Corcoran have this will on file? Why would it need to be mailed to the warden's P.O. Box if it was issued by the prison? On the backside, in the lower, redacted, right-hand corner is Michael Channel's signature, where he also wrote the date, Feb 10, 2002, a whole four days before the will was even drafted. Which is really odd considering Channels knew nothing about it until it arrived in the mail. Even odder still is that the will states everything was discussed with him prior to it being written.
---------

I can't answer your questions. It's a matter for the court to decide. Some things just have to run their course and this is one of them. Neither your nor my opinion matter at this point.

Robert C said...

** Unknown said: "The man was incarcerated for decades and he had nothing when he went to prison in 1969. Right?"

Wrong

** Unknown said: "Charlie paid his debt he's square with the house now . He's not the worst of humanity."

Wrong. Charlie's not square with anyone or anything and never will be. And he is among the worst of humanity.

** Matt said: "To say he never killed anyone is just ignorant."

Correct.

** Love to review said: "Which is why I will never understand why he was imprisoned for life!"

Neither will I. He should have been executed as soon as his trial ended.

** SAG said: "He didn't kill anyone, zig zag your way around it all you want, "present", "tied the", "he knew what to do" is not murder".

Two of the greatest mass murderers of all time, Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin -- no evidence they actually personally murdered anyone (?). But Manson did attempt murder on Lotsapoppa and by all accounts actively participated in Shorty's death.


** SAG said: "I've never seen more of a fuss made over one little East Kentucky hillbilly moonshiner in my life"

Very stereotypical in an ignorant way. You should see the moonshiners I've encountered in northern California !

** Quirkyone said: "Again I remind you Charlie never actually killed anyone himself that they proved."

They never aimed for or bothered with proving he killed anyone personally. They didn't need to. He was an accessory to several murders which in California meant ... murder.

Jeff Harper said...

That you know of.

Dan S said...

If it happened today he would be on death row for real

DebS said...

What does Manson's guilt have to do with this topic?

beauders said...

In my book Manson should have spent the remainder of his life in prison for having sex with fourteen year old's and raping Danny DeCarlo's wife.

Dan S said...

Slicing Gary's ear in a torture robbery murder would alone qualify for a death sentence. One thing no-one seems to mention is that they were all sentenced to death. People always say, "o this murderer or that murderer got out on parole; no one spends so much time in jail for a single murder," etc. But it's a fluke they Weren't all gassed or if it was a present day sentence an interminable wait on death row and a lethal injection

Fiddy 8 said...

When people say he never murdered anyone in person, well maybe, but I like to point out he sure tried to murder Lottsapoppa in person.

Fiddy 8 said...

The death penalties that werecommuted to life were not some talky talky lawyer's :::waves::: flukey loophole. First California Supreme Court overturned all capital cases, then 6 months later the U.S. overturned it for all states.

Dan S said...

Could be considered justifiable homicide to rescue someone

Dan S said...

The timing was a lucky break for the convicted. They were given death sentences. Hey if they were in Norway they'd be serving 10 years in a furnished apartment and complaining they weren't given an upgrade to their PlayStation 2

Dan S said...

Sorry i know i always talk about the sale old sh#t and not the topic. How about a Maury Povich reveal of the DNA. If i was freeman and i got a negative result: "Manson is not the father!" I'd be doing the hallelujah dance.
I saw one where they tested 4 guys and none of them were the father. They made a circle and were jumping up and down, dancing with their arms raised in total ecstasy while Maury was consoling the disappointed sobbing land monster, telling her, "Don't worry, we'll test more guys."

Peter said...

In your dreams.

AustinAnn74 said...

CM was a very bad person, deserved every second he spent behind bars, etc., however, I find it highly disturbing that this so called "grandson" is jumping on the bandwagon, selling CMs ashes, posing with the body, doing documentaries, shows & interviews simply just to make money. Yes, some could argue that Channels is doing the same thing, but at least with Channels, he spent not only a considerable amount of time with CM, but he also thousands of dollars on visits, care packages, phone calls, commissary, etc. I simply think CMs estate should go to Michael. I'm sick of seeing footage & hearing this Freeman character jumping on the bandwagon & trying to benefit from who he is.
Also, may I ask, what happened to that other guy who always claimed he was the son of CM? He even tried winning CMs body.

orwhut said...

Ann,
Was that other guy Matthew Lentz? https://www.eagletribune.com/news/circus-show-court-battle-begins-over-charles-manson-s-body/article_9a0adc26-02a3-11e8-b192-bf8ed96536b1.html

DebS said...

Austin Ann, both Matthew Roberts and Michael Brunner were deleted from the running for the estate because both were legally adopted by separate adoptive parents. Any and all ties to the birth parents are completely severed by adoption as if the birth parents never existed.

I would not be the least bit surprised if Freeman's attorney filed to appeal the judges ruling on this motion to compel Freeman to have his DNA tested against Manson's. I fear that this issue is a long way from being settled.

Matthew said...

Unknown said
Is there actually any monetary gain from Manson's estate?
I would think that if the estate included the rights to his image and ownership of his music, there would be a great profit in that. My concern would be if any debt would also come your way. Is the estate square with the Frykowski civil case win? What was the cost to keep the body on ice for a year? etc.

DebS said...

Matthew, the Frykowski civil case has expired. David wrote a very fine post on the subject of the civil suit here-

https://www.mansonblog.com/2018/09/a-wrongful-death.html

I'm not sure who bears the cost of keeping Charlie on ice for an extended amount of time but it wasn't a year, I know it seemed like it though. Manson died November 19 2017 and his funeral was March 17 2018.

David said...

I'm not sure there is a way to appeal this order. I'm not an appellate lawyer but generally you can only appeal from a final judgment in a civil case. This isn't a final judgment. It is an interim order. Of course, I could be wrong.

What I see in the court's ruling is a judge who wants this crap off his docket. The easiest way to do that is to order the DNA test. If Freeman 'wins' the test or 'loses' for all practical purposes purposes the matter is over. Channels' will is (IMO) problematic for reasons I commented on once before. So here is how it works.

If Freeman is proven by DNA to be Manson's heir Channels likely loses on the issue of the will. If Freeman is not his heir Channels likely will still lose on the issue of the will. If that happens the 'estate', whatever it may be, is forfeited to the state as Manson has no other heir. If I were the judge this is exactly the result I would be seeking: no one profits off this crime.

These two ought to think about a settlement. They just missed a window of opportunity to profit off a murderer that will never come around again and now they both risk being shut out.

As an aside, Phil Kaufman claims he has a contract giving him the rights to Manson's recorded music.

DebS said...

Interesting, David. Well, I guess if all goes to hell and the state gets the estate at least the attorneys will have made something!

I know that Channels attorney send letters to all of Manson's known possible heirs informing them of the proceedings and either they did not respond or in the case of a couple of them, they wrote back to say they wanted nothing to do with Manson's estate.

Peter said...

Probate court is different. Doesn't always need to be a final judgment.

Jenn said...

The way the music business is now, there would be very, very little money to be made from rights to the music.

David said...

Thank you, Peter.

prefeteria said...

Do I have this straight?

Michael Brunner is not disputed to be Manson’s son, but is ineligible since he was adopted.
Matthew Roberts/Lentz is ineligible since he was adopted.
Jason Freeman is still in the running.
Freeman and Roberts/Lentz DNA test did not match.

If Freeman is a DNA match with Manson then he wins, game over? (As well as Roberts/Lentz 15 minutes…)

If Freeman is not a DNA match with Manson, then all rights to Manson-derived data revert to public domain?

Maybe someone should sponsor a DNA test for a match between Roberts/Lentz and Manson. (as a twist)

Peter said...

As much as I love the word escheat.

DebS said...

prefeteria, yes you've got it! Although if Freeman is not a DNA match to Charlie, it will be up to the judge to decide whether or not Channels will is valid. A will in California needs to have two witnesses and neither of those two witnesses can be someone who is benefiting from the will. The one witness Channels has, Roger Dale Smith aka Pin Cushion is dead. The judge will have to determine if the will is genuine and its intent among, other things, before ruling.

Roger Dale Smith should not be confused with Roger Craig Smith who was Manson's parole officer when he was released from prison in 1967.

David said...

Deb,

There are a couple other problems with the Channels Will beyond the witness issue.

But that one is relatively easy to resolve at least as far as Mr. Smith is concerned. Check the Corcoran visitor logs. If he is not on there at the time the Will was signed, he didn't witness it. The point of the witness is to confirm this was the testator (Manson's) intent when he signed. they don't have to be alive and sometimes they are not. The issue is whether he was present when Manson signed. If not.....[loud buzzer]. (IMO)

Prefeteria,

I expressed my opinion. I did not, and can not cite authority. That is how I read the opinion: "get this off my desk".

David said...

Or if you want to be less cynical: "encourage a settlement".

DebS said...

David, Roger Dale Smith was a prisoner. He and Manson met in 1971 when both were on death row at San Quentin. They got moved around over the years but then both ended up at Corcoran. I know Smith died of cancer and I don't think he was ever paroled.

Robert C said...

Matthew Roberts continues to put on his best Manson doppelganger face but since his DNA testing proved (almost) negative he really needs to fade into anonymity and get a life. And he still sounds like a dangerous guy saying he thinks Manson is a great guy.

I've been seeing all around the net reports of Manson's estate valued at $400k, probably all derived from a single dubious source. But I don't know if that's just the current value of his stuff plus cash or includes future earning power.

About 30 years ago I came across a report of a cash amount in Chuck's account of around $40k deposited by secret and open admirers of various sorts even though he supposedly wasn't allowed to touch that. The feeling is he definitely has some cash sitting around now, that it should be substantial, and I'm guessing some of the sharper sleuths on this blog may already know what it is and how it plays into the estate.

Freeman to me is just another white trash guy lying and cheating his way through life yet never really getting anywhere. I've seen hundreds like him before. But if I were him I would have gotten a DNA match with Charlie immediately or asap to clear things up which he's apparently dragging his feet on which obviously leads to suspicion. But if it turns out he's related and eligible then I hope winning the prize will make him a better person.

Michael Brunner is the clear shot to me except for that pesky law which, if interested, he could continue to seek ways around (fat chance ?).

It's interesting that David or someone reported several Manson relations wanted nothing to do with the race for Manson's estate. Decent people who don't want blood money ? Or just want away from the limelight and probing reporters ?

My preference is the State receive the estate to pay back as much as possible the taxpayer's cost of Manson's lengthy incarceration.

David said...

Thanks Deb,

I don't know much about prisons but I assume guys can't just wander about. It seems to me there still ought to be some record of Manson, Smith and Channels all being in the same place on the same day/time.


Robert C,

I'm not the one who said that but I cheer your conclusion.

Ajerseydevil said...

If Charlie should have did life for sex with a 14 year old I guess there'd be a whole Hell of a lot of the boy's from back in the day along with him Terry Melcher Dennis Wilson
It's always amazed me how anyone can make money off of Manson's image just look at Etsy .com lot's of homemade mugs shirts dolls excetra seems that someone should have legal rights to his image & a portion should go to victims rights prison reform & such

David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Terrapin said...

I'm guessing Mike Brunner's kids aren't interested in challenging for the estate. Interesting since he did try to throw his hat in the ring.

Fiddy 8 said...

Ajer said: :::there'd be a whole Hell of a lot of the boy's from back in the day::: Elvis kept his 14yo secreted away in Graceland - Jimmy Page took his 14yo on the frickin Zepplin tour jet.

David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beauders said...

Actually I would have had Manson executed for the violent rape of Danny DeCarlo's wife. I believe that all violent sex offenders should die. If men were the ones being raped not women it would be a death penalty crime. Yes, I know men and boys do get raped but it's not as common as women and girls.

Gorodish said...

Does Mon have posts being deleted (hence David's retorts to what appears to be nothing) or am I missing something?

Peter said...

Women teachers are raping their students all the time and don't even get jail time.

beauders said...

Yes women are being punished for raping male students, I see reporting on it all the time. Funny how men are offended by my conservative approach to sex crimes. It's the only part of my beliefs that are conservative but when I read about men like Lawrence Bittaker or the Hillside Stranglers who committed crimes that were so barbaric that the press will not report the truth to save their readers pain, I can't help myself. Those of you offended by my beliefs about violent sex offenders look up Bittaker, do some research, go to youtube and watch and listen to the people attending his trial and watch them run from the courtroom. This happened while they were listening to him torture and rip apart a sixteen year girl that he recorded on cassette. Yes he ripped her apart literally. It's a good thing I can't get to Bittaker myself because I would give up my freedom to kill that fucker. Really I dare you go listen and watch that tape on youtube about him you may change your opinions real quick.

beauders said...

Look up NBC News archive footage of Lawrence Bittaker, the provider is Rocketman 1984. It lasts 29.27 minutes and I bet you can't listen and watch the whole thing. It is the most disturbing thing I have ever exposed myself to.

beauders said...

If you don't want to hear it, go to killzoneblog.com/tag/lawrence-bittaker. The author thinks that Bittaker's crime partner will get out this year. I doubt California will really let him out but who knows, Roy Norris is scheduled for release.

orwhut said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
orwhut said...

Has Jason been given a date to submit his DNA. I didn't see one in the post or in the comments.

Dan S said...

Bittaker got the death penalty. For what that's worth. The Russians would've taken him to the basement and put a bullet in his head

beauders said...

I'd like to take a sharp Uniball deluxe micro writing pen and shove it into his eye and up into his brain. Of course the only way to get near him would be to marry him and I probably couldn't get the Uniball pen into the prison anyway. I looked up Norris and he is up for a parole hearing so we are probably safe if they won't let any of the Manson people out I cannot see them letting out that monster.

beauders said...

Yes Mon he did that and worse to that teenage girl, I cannot imagine her suffering but we don't want to lose readers by describing what he did to her and the others. Thank goodness that Stephen Kay got to put one of them on death row, I will always respect him for that. These crimes were so barbaric that the lead detective committed suicide over it and Stephen Kay and the jury were given therapy to live with what they were subjected to during the trial. Bittaker and Norris are not the only serial killers who tortured their victims the pig farmer in Vancouver B.C. is rumoured to have had a paying audience as well as the killer who killed the girls in the killing fields in Houston. People are willing to pay to watch this.

orwhut said...

What I've read about Bittaker and Norris makes Tex Watson seem like a saint.

Trilby said...

I'm rooting for Michael Channels. I don't agree w/him re: Manson, but he seems like a decent guy who genuinely cared for him.
JMO, but I think Freeman's DNA will show he's not related to Manson.

Intense said...

Bittaker and Norris were cub scouts compared to Leonard Lake and Charles Ng.

beauders said...

Intense, the truth was never told by the press of what Bittaker and Norris did to their victims, it was too gruesome. Lake and Ng wanted sex slaves, maids, and cooks. I know they killed a lot of people but did they torture their victims? Breaking someone's elbow with a sledge hammer and then hitting it broken twenty-five more times is torture.

Dan S said...

Bullshit. Way more torture as a goal for B n N.
L n N were more interested in keeping a sex slave and robbing victims. All were cold blooded aholes

beauders said...

Well I've read quite a deal about both sets of murderers so lets just keep it at "all were cold blooded aholes." Now I can't wait for Ng to die. Lake took himself out with cyanide not a nice death as Jonestown showed.

Unknown said...

Right behind you Patty I believe that Freeman already knows only true bloodline I'd from Michael Brunner if a real sample isn't available from Charlie himself and to me he was Mac not the boogieman Charles Manson the propaganda that's been fed to all for 50 years and that I'm afraid to say from the DA to Richard Nixon plus in court the judge took away a defendants most important right and that is the 6th amendment the right to defend yourself In a court of law his hands was tied from the start when Nixon said that on national TV that I'm itself should have been a miss trial but no they had him

Unknown said...

He I believe that he already knows the outcome only true Manson blood line besides Charlie' real soon Michael Brunner and it never mattered what Charlie wanted but for him to put on writing that his best friend be given all he had his name, image, music that to me is what Charlie wanted in death since it never mattered in life

orwhut said...

So, the first of us to know how Freeman's DNA test came out will break into the then current topic with a NEWS FLASH! Right?