tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post4158666790553928140..comments2024-03-18T15:40:57.986-04:00Comments on The Manson Family Blog: Manson & Me: The Human Side of Charles Manson Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06766282574442161929noreply@blogger.comBlogger146125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-22986889875855888232019-10-27T20:50:13.408-04:002019-10-27T20:50:13.408-04:00In the mid 90s when "Anthology" came out...In the mid 90s when "Anthology" came out I was a little non-plussed at their revisionist tendendencies. It came across even more strongly when I got the book in 2000. Ringo's revisionist reasons for walking out on the band during the White album sessions made me think "what is he playing at ?" And the idea mooted that they probably knew that the sessions for "Abbey Road" were going to be their last make no sense when one reads interviews from '69 and '70. These recordings that have recently surfaced {showing the Beats discussing future projects} which have many internet Beatleologists wetting underwear and foaming at the mouth are a laugh to me. I keep thinking, "What's the fuss about ?" Some of the stuff like "Teddy Boy," "Junk," "All things must pass" and others that ended up on some of the Beatles' early solo albums were initially mooted as Beatle songs. And they had a history of the songs on particular albums having been tried at sessions for earlier albums.<br />Macca's response to EC telling him his song was shit wasn't really out of character for any of the Beatles though. Although Lennon and Harrison were the bands' serial debunkers and critics after the split, during their time together, they too were very aware of their status. One story that always made me laugh was when Jeff Jarrat, an engineer at EMI, asked George to turn his amp down. George just looked at him and said "You don't talk to a Beatle like that !" and another time when one of the engineers told the band that they'd finally got one of the songs they were having trouble with right, Lennon told him "You're not talking to Ricky and the Red Streaks, you know !" He got really narky with Mick Jagger for some of the things Jagger was saying about the Beats. But his explanation was interesting; he said <i>he</i> could say tarty things about the Beatles as it was his {ex} band but Mick Jagger couldn't.<br />I do find Paul has been fairly consistent in his explanations of the meanings in and stories behind his songs though. But I also find that many from that generation are prone to exaggeration, embellishment and revisionism, particularly as they get older {and become increasingly respectable/statesman~ like !}.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-19001055052858084612019-10-23T01:20:49.018-04:002019-10-23T01:20:49.018-04:00Agree with you 100% here Grim. I guess what I was ...Agree with you 100% here Grim. I guess what I was trying to get across was more of how McCartney feeds many interpretations and, has become a bit of a shit disturber and/or revisionist "Beatleologist" in his golden years. He really seems to relish his status as rock royalty. <br /><br />How he plays 3.5hr shows without a break and, downing MAYBE 500ml of water during his set at his age is bloody amazing though. And, the plethora of landmark songs he plays is mind-blowing...but, he's definitely taking the piss or, manipulating the audience (and, reporter/interviewer) as he fancies as he is continuously interviewed.<br /><br />McCartney sidebar #1 - a friend of mine was one of the assistant engineers during the McCartney/Costello sessions that spawned "Veronica." At one point McCartney had a musical idea and, was playing it/singing a skeletal lyric over and over while Costello was at first pacing back and forth but eventually walking to the part of the studio room that the two of them were working in - that was the very furthest point he could have possibly walked - away from Sir Paul...when, after around a dozen or more attempts at this "tune/idea" McCartney turns around and spots Elvis...wayyyyyy over in the corner...and says, "What do ya think of this one?"<br /><br />To which Costello bellowed...in an exceptionally loud and dismissive tone, "It's fucking rubbish! It's a complete piece of shit Paul!"<br /><br />To which an obviously shaken Macca (Not at all used to anyone not kissing his ass, let alone vehemently dismissing him) whimpered something resembling "Well, you're not going to speak to me like that...John used to tell at me and tell me my ideas were shit...but nobody yells at me anymore!"<br /><br />Fortunately, the reconvened a few days later and, wrote "Veronica."<br /><br />Moral of this story - Paul is fully aware of his status and, that he is revered, and, will freely soak up the "legend" of Sir Paul...massaging the historical "truth" as he wishes...to suit his own agenda (which he has freely and, deftly changed to suit the circumstances).<br /><br />Doughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17388908256992077315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-83880784391279528362019-09-30T19:54:46.205-04:002019-09-30T19:54:46.205-04:00Doug said...
And/or playground slide...depend... Doug said...<br /><br /> <b>And/or playground slide...depending on which version Paul McCartney is dealing on that particular day...</b><br /><br />The song itself isn't <i>about</i> a fairground ride. It uses the metaphor of the fairground ride to make whatever point McCartney was trying to make. It escaped everyone except Charlie ! Macca does a similar thing with a woman {the "you"} in "Got to get you into my life" which is actually about marijuana and George Harrison does likewise when he uses the theme of eating the box of chocolates as a metaphor for Eric Clapton's addictive/excessive mode of being in "Savoy Truffle."grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-8960786620555330022019-09-29T23:12:11.636-04:002019-09-29T23:12:11.636-04:00Grim said, "HS was about the fall of the Roma...Grim said, "HS was about the fall of the Roman empire."<br /><br />And/or s playground slide...depending on which version Paul McCartney is dealing on that particular day...<br />Doughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17388908256992077315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-10803747691977014872019-09-29T21:59:35.097-04:002019-09-29T21:59:35.097-04:00Following suit and just ordered on Amazon- you’ve ...Following suit and just ordered on Amazon- you’ve both inspired me (as well as Beauders) to go ahead and read it. <br /><br />Last book I read was “High Hopes”- the prosecutor from the DeFeo family murders wrote a pretty epic summary of the case prior to the Amityville home being bought by the Lutz’s. Not related to Manson but a pretty great account of those crimes and subsequent trial. AstroCreephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14400828131305289484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-46417381481535268582019-09-29T19:25:56.411-04:002019-09-29T19:25:56.411-04:00Diana said...
INSIDE THE MANSON JURY. I would... Diana said...<br /><br /> <b>INSIDE THE MANSON JURY. I would not have come across it had it not been for your recommendation - thanks a million</b><br /><br />I wouldn't have come across it had it not been for Beauders mentioning it so really, the credit is hers. I'm kind of surprised that, given it's a book that was written very close to the time of the trial and by an actual juror, that it's not had more of a push or a write up on any of the blogs. Any insight we can glean from the jurors or their families, especially from at the time, at least in my opinion, is like gold dust ++ because it gives an important perspective that frankly, is virtually always missing from discussions about the Family, the murders and all the attendant packages.<br /><br /><b>Manson was a lot of things - but he wasn't stupid. It's really tragic. He had a brain</b><br /><br />You know, I was thinking about that earlier. If you look at his supposedly warped interpretations of some of the Beatles songs on the White album, one would have to conclude that on 4 of the big 5 {Revolution 9, Piggies, Blackbird and HS} he was pretty damned accurate if one looks at what the authors went on to say about what those songs were about. HS was about the fall of the Roman empire ~ he picked up what he saw as America's fall and without even knowing what was in Paul McCartney's head, equated the establishment to the Romans. Piggies was pretty savage in its noting of the establishment/straight society and the observation that they needed some stringent action taken against them. Blackbird <i>was</i> aimed at African Americans and encouraging them to change their lot in the USA and Lennon said Rev 9 was revolution in sound form.<br />Whatever else one says about Manson, he was perceptive and picked up things from the Beatles that they can't deny were there. <br /><br /><b>I have read reports of therapists in the various institutions when he was young which state that there was still a flicker of humanity left</b><br /><br />I think there was. I even think there was when he came out of prison in '67. I don't think it was his intention to live a criminal life, certainly not a career criminal life. I think he had genuine hopes of doing something with his music. Apparently, he'd written 80~90 songs by the May of 1966; if you don't count the songs the Beatles were working on during the "Revolver" sessions of April ~ June of that year that's more than all four Beatles together up to that point since being a recording band in '62, including unreleased stuff and demos and only about 5 less if you do include their entire '66 output !<br />I don't think he ever lost his humanity because there is more than one side to humanity and it ain't all pretty !<br /><br /><b>it's astonishing how something so wrong was so accepted up until fairly recently. Still is, in some quarters</b><br /><br />Can't argue with that.<br />Not everything that has been discarded from "the old days" was bad but much of it was.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-2514358094939959592019-09-29T10:02:19.841-04:002019-09-29T10:02:19.841-04:00"I really like your writing."
Thank you..."I really like your writing."<br /><br />Thank you. <br /><br />I've been reading the book you recommended, INSIDE THE MANSON JURY. I would not have come across it had it not been for your recommendation - thanks a million.<br /><br />There is one part of the book where the author transcribes (I guess, from memory, but I trust his memory) a Manson diatribe. I gotta say, Manson was a lot of things - but he wasn't stupid. It's really tragic. He had a brain. Unfortunately, it was warped.<br /><br />WRT to looking at his history of violence, I admit I don't know *all* the facts but I have read reports of therapists in the various institutions when he was young which state that there was still a flicker of humanity left (my paraphrasing). We'll never know....<br /><br />WRT to domestic violence, not minimizing it, but (a) if he "admitted" to a psych he used to beat his wife, he knew it was wrong, felt some guilt and (b) it's astonishing how something so wrong was so accepted up until fairly recently. Still is, in some quarters.Dianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00302261963164621064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-78730099062092548082019-09-27T22:44:18.891-04:002019-09-27T22:44:18.891-04:00Diana said...
I never meant to minimize the serio... Diana said...<br /><br /><b>I never meant to minimize the seriousness of rape, in an institution or out</b><br /><br />I didn't get that from you.<br />By the way, new as you may be to the blog, I really like your writing.<br /><br /> <b>when I said Manson wasn't particularly violent, I mean that his pre-1967 record didn't include assault, violent home invasions, domestic violence, etc</b><br /><br />This is true. I tend to look at the violence that occurred outside actual crimes. That gives as much of an insight into a person. He admitted to a probation psych doc that he used to beat his wife. He also drugged and raped a woman, all this in the 1950s. He used violence selectively.<br />What I find particularly interesting about his pre~'67 records and activities are the kind of things that were said of him, which appeared big time in his famous period, the manipulation, the cons, the need to be top dog, the anger and hostility, the lack of impulse control.....<br /><br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-83597494963919340822019-09-26T15:56:16.076-04:002019-09-26T15:56:16.076-04:00@grimtraveller,
A lot to chew on.
Two responses:...@grimtraveller,<br /><br />A lot to chew on.<br /><br />Two responses: not that you imputed I did, but I never meant to minimize the seriousness of rape, in an institution or out. just want to make that totally clear.<br /><br />And this: when I said Manson wasn't particularly violent, I mean that his pre-1967 record didn't include assault, violent home invasions, domestic violence, etc. Look at Mike Tyson's juvenile record. He freely admits he roamed the streets and mugged people, beat them, and took pleasure in it. It was eating lunch. Manson wasn't like that. <br /><br />As for "assaultive," well, a lot of people might be in a jail. The girls who would back up that report were all small, slender females. He could not assert dominance over larger males in a prison, at least, not physically. <br /><br />One of the better parts of Guinn's book was how he explained that Manson was very good at deflecting. (Dare I say, turning the other cheek?)<br /><br />Interesting stuff about Moorehouse. Sounds like Charlie almost looked at him like a father figure....the father from hell.Dianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00302261963164621064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-47182278025758705042019-09-26T15:02:28.583-04:002019-09-26T15:02:28.583-04:003/3
Diana said...
What happened? That's what...3/3<br /><br />Diana said...<br /><br /><b>What happened? That's what I'd like to know</b><br /><br />Well, it was a combination of a number of things working together at different strengths at different times. LSD and Dean Moorehouse didn't exactly help either. Moorehouse had a lot to answer for in a curious way. Firstly, he was the first person that Charlie was able to completely space out and alter with acid. When one considers that he came to Charlie intent on perpetrating some serious physical damage and ended up leaving the ministry, divorcing his wife, overlooking his daughter hooking up with Charlie & the troupe and trying to convince people that Charlie was some kind of Christ avatar, well, tell me that wouldn't alter some aspect of Charlie's head. It seemed to have confirmed Charlie's own acid conflation with Jesus {and later, as things turned darker, the devil}, something that wasn't unusual for a tripper. Moorehouse also turned Tex onto acid and had much to do with him taking up Charles Manson.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-32051848799689747202019-09-26T15:01:41.775-04:002019-09-26T15:01:41.775-04:002/2
Diana said...
What was it about the 60s th...2/2<br /><br />Diana said...<br /> <br /><b>What was it about the 60s that made Manson, Manson? Before he was let out in 1967, he showed no signs of becoming a violent criminal. The only violent thing he ever did was, supposedly, rape another kid in jail, and that was routine</b><br /><br />That's almost a question that contains its own reply. "<i>Before he was let out in 1967, he showed no signs of <b>becoming</b> a <b>violent</b> criminal. The only <b>violent</b> thing he ever did was, supposedly, <b>rape</b> another kid in jail, and that was <b>routine</b></i>."<br />Just looking at that speaks volumes. If rape was routine in jail and he spent 22 years out of 32 in some kind of institution where rape was routine......You know, it also occurs to me partly why Manson tended to minimize his actions. There is an order and hieracrchy among prisoners and as Khan in one episode of "Star Trek" put it when he grabbed Ms McGiver and started snogging her, "Some men may dare to <i>take</i> what they want !" There was no ask, in order to survive, you avoided confronting the big guns and took what advantages could be taken from those you perceived as weaker and psyched out those on your level. I remember a few years back, I read a sequence of books that all earmarked Charlie's sexual activities in jail. Among them were "The Garbage people," "Death to pigs," "My life with Charles Manson," "Witness to evil," "Taming the beast," "The Family" and "Myth and reality of an outlaw shaman." What was interesting was that apart from the last one, which put a different spin on it, the others in one way or another presented him as a prison punk who sold his arse in order to get along. Around the same time, I read that Rolling Stone interview in which he talks about this and his almost reluctant adoption of that way of looking at sex. But 22 years of being in that kind of world, and then having gotten out and then married and have his wife disappear with their child when he was back inside, one can see the embers smouldering. On the outside, there was little incentive to conform with society's rules and much of the youth and young of the times were abandoning these too. So it strikes me as no surprise that Charlie's violence would surface every now and again. What's interesting is not so much that it came to the fore, but <i>who</i> it came to the fore with. <br />His women.<br /><br /><br /><b>I have my doubts that such a small, skinny boy could rape another boy. It was probably consensual</b><br /><br />I dare say that much of it probably was consensual. But don't forget, the rape wasn't the only violence in institutions in his younger days. He was written up for 3 serious sexual offences not long after the rape and was actually moved from one institution to another because of it. A 1952 report on him stated that he had "assaultive tendencies." Diane Lake, Stephanie Schram, Mary Brunner, Kitty Lutesinger, Pat Krenwinkel, Sherry Cooper and a host of others would probably back up that report. Squeaky and Sandy would too, if they didn't spin it by saying that when Charlie hit them, they deserved it.<br /><br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-52042935119042987352019-09-26T14:58:30.143-04:002019-09-26T14:58:30.143-04:00Diana said...
what interests me is this:
...Diana said...<br /><br /> <b>what interests me is this:<br /><br /> What the hell caused Charles Manson to become so crazed? Was it in his genes, his upbringing, or the times? I suspect a combination of all three</b><br /><br />I agree; I'd also add a whole lot more. I'd also add that there are probably very few human beings, if any at all, that are immune from going down dark paths. Just by dint of the fact that we all acknowledge that we're not perfect, that we have flaws. The reality that one has not chosen to give in to an impulse that may lead to horrendous consequences shouldn't take away the possibility that we don't know exactly <i>what</i> sequence of events might combine to make us do so.<br />It's like a lot of things; until one is in specific situations that bring certain things to the fore, one will never know. For example, being a parent may just be that thing that conspires to bring out a person's innate selfishness that they had never exhibited before.<br /><br /> <b>Of the three, the most interesting, to me, is "the times." Because I lived through them</b><br /><br />The emergence of gurus and huge personality leaders in the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s makes it tempting to say that the times had little to do with it as throughout recorded human history there have been people like him. But that would be naive, in my opinion. Being a fairly lawless kind of guy that had been shat upon by some of the very facets of <i>supposedly responsible and nurturing</i> authority within society, Charlie found, that unlike the previous decades, there were actually loads of people that felt similar to him {and their voices were beginning to be heard and they were infiltrating various mainstream channels previously vigourously controlled} and because he'd been in jail and seen the kind of hypocrisy first hand that wasn't supposed to happen in staright society, he had a seriously authentic voice that some people took notice of. For me, the greatest tragedy of Charles Manson is that he could have done and been so much that was positive and wonderful on a wider scale. The 60s was possibly the first modern decade that really enabled people from poor, dysfunctional or lousy backgrounds to bypass their beginnings and get somewhere glorious in life in large masses. Things happened in that decade that opened up doors in a way that was almost unforseeable at the start of that decade when he went back to jail to complete his sentence. Even Brits like Keith Richards and John Lennon who first went to the USA in '64 were gobsmacked by the changes that the country went through within just 2 years, by '66.<br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-73725349830014768292019-09-26T09:02:41.508-04:002019-09-26T09:02:41.508-04:00I’m far from an expert on Charlie. Just thinking t...I’m far from an expert on Charlie. Just thinking that his behavior became increasingly violent, he slapped around the girls, and his rejection by the establishment drew out his hatred towards society. He never really fit in except for when he was with Dennis Wilson and that was very brief.<br /><br />Technically speaking, he personally didn’t ever rage kill anyone... not like Tex did. One shot into Lotsapoppa. One slice on Gary Hinman. Who knows what exactly with Shorty but it seems it was a group effort and he had a small part in that. I believe he didn’t have the rage in him that you typically see in serial killers because he really wasn’t one. There’s no proof Charlie ever killed anyone so his guilt lies within the conspiracy laws only. <br /><br />Just my two cents.AstroCreephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14400828131305289484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-33912793762137237042019-09-26T08:28:46.532-04:002019-09-26T08:28:46.532-04:00AstroCreep;
I'm referring specifically to his...AstroCreep;<br /><br />I'm referring specifically to his pre-1967 rap sheet. It's not pretty but it's not especially violent.<br /><br />He didn't even have a history of mistreating animals as a kid. Did he?Dianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00302261963164621064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-33002522673911130042019-09-26T07:32:33.118-04:002019-09-26T07:32:33.118-04:00Diana-
I think Charlie was more violent than you ...Diana-<br /><br />I think Charlie was more violent than you think. He had a rape charge (or claim) for Danny DeCarlo’s wife while at Spahn. GTA, weapons, underaged girls, rape (multiple rapes), these are not petty crimes. <br /><br />By the time the Lotsapoppa incident happened, the heat was on. That incident bridges the gap from felonious activity to murder. AstroCreephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14400828131305289484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-67780751334317166652019-09-25T18:01:06.292-04:002019-09-25T18:01:06.292-04:00@Astro,
"I think the same process is how peo...@Astro,<br /><br />"I think the same process is how people are radicalized thru the use of religion."<br /><br />That's the girls. I'm not really interested in them. How they got hooked is typical cult stuff. I'm interested in how Charles Milles Manson, petty but not violent criminal, low-level pimp, all around loser, got released into 1967 San Francisco and became Charles Manson, charismatic cult leader. And he did have charisma. <br /><br />More and more I do agree that the murders were simply revenge for slights real or imagined. Not discounting HS as an overarching "philosophy," though.Dianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00302261963164621064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-27078557154458822332019-09-25T13:22:08.458-04:002019-09-25T13:22:08.458-04:00Astrocreep said:
My perspective of Charlie is that...Astrocreep said:<br />My perspective of Charlie is that he felt life owed him something and was on track (or so he thought) with his music. When that bottomed out.<br /><br />This is what I have always believed was the one and only motive for CM. However, he threw other motives around to different family members depending on which would work for them. Pat was HS. Leslie was acceptance in the inner circle and Bobby copy cat, Tex was lots of drugs and Linda and Susan was to see how crazy you can be. He knew what would press who's buttons. In my opinion, getting back at Terry Melcher and the rich people that snubbed him was his one and only reason get the people in the Cielo Drive house. As far as the next night, just the fact that he could get these kids to slaughter innocent people on his command was too great a high to just let it go. I don't think that he actually believed that they would go through with it.Matthew https://www.blogger.com/profile/17147415819068597641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-121337489586541202019-09-25T11:04:26.603-04:002019-09-25T11:04:26.603-04:00Diana,
I think the same process is how people are...Diana,<br /><br />I think the same process is how people are radicalized thru the use of religion. Sure ISIL, AQ, and the Taliban have been around for a while but had never threatened our country until September 11th. The kids have lost hope, life isn’t turning out the way it should have, they’re victims, and become violent, and they want to stand for something. <br /><br />My perspective of Charlie is that he felt life owed him something and was on track (or so he thought) with his music. When that bottomed out, so did he. The factual timeline leading up to the crimes certainly suggest that to be an accurate assessment. AstroCreephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14400828131305289484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-26481130280715303602019-09-25T09:11:30.905-04:002019-09-25T09:11:30.905-04:00@Destroyer of Opinions,
It's DianA.
And from...@Destroyer of Opinions,<br /><br />It's DianA.<br /><br />And from now on, I'm simply ignoring your troll comments. You are a broken record with nothing to contribute, as far as I'm concerned. <br /><br />" People with those types of opinions are much worse people than Charlie could EVER BE! "<br /><br />WTF? I don't moderate this forum but if I did I'd remove your worthless comments. Say whatever you want, I'm not responding further.<br /><br />@grimtraveller,<br /><br />I don't have the same intense knowledge of this case that you do, nor will I ever. The facts of the case are known. I can't speak for others, but what interests me is this:<br /><br />What the hell caused Charles Manson to become so crazed? Was it in his genes, his upbringing, or the times? I suspect a combination of all three. Of the three, the most interesting, to me, is "the times." Because I lived through them.<br /><br />What was it about the 60s that made Manson, Manson? Before he was let out in 1967, he showed no signs of becoming a violent criminal. The only violent thing he ever did was, supposedly, rape another kid in jail, and that was routine. (Also, I have my doubts that such a small, skinny boy could rape another boy. It was probably consensual. But I digress.)<br /><br />Mainly he was a petty criminal who did stupid things that he knew would get him nabbed. He didn't want to be released in 1967. Yet he was. And the rest is history.<br /><br />What happened? That's what I'd like to know.<br /><br />Dianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00302261963164621064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-11123313795095923672019-09-23T00:51:42.007-04:002019-09-23T00:51:42.007-04:00Diane, one major injustice is that Charles has got...Diane, one major injustice is that Charles has got a horrific reputation, much worse than people who've got obscene, narcissistic, sheeple, and/or hypocritical opinions. People with those types of opinions are much worse people than Charlie could EVER BE! They deserve to be ridiculed, condemned, dehumanized, and ostracized for their opinions!Destroyer of Opinionshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06917098944631568573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-59384340678650941122019-09-22T22:47:43.186-04:002019-09-22T22:47:43.186-04:00Doug, sorry for your loss, I lost my mother in Dec...Doug, sorry for your loss, I lost my mother in December to Alzheimer's and it sucks. She was so strong then that all faded away. <br /> It does not surprise me that Fromme had a miscarriage. I heard somewhere, think it was Hendrickson who said the Manson women had a lot of miscarriages and the fetus's where buried at Spahn Ranch.beaudershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14223387983663922713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-68632085669689037612019-09-22T22:41:38.295-04:002019-09-22T22:41:38.295-04:00Right, whatever you call it, it doesn't exculp...Right, whatever you call it, it doesn't exculpate Manson. They are just saying (in effect), "hey, that wasn't the motive, this was!" and they are just admitting their guilt further. All of them.<br /><br />As for one standard for the rich, and another for the poor, tell me something I don't know, Destroyer of Opinions. <br /><br />But it goes both ways. Manson is a big celebrity; he continues to be a money-maker. He got what he wanted out of life, eternal fame and followers. Never had to work a day in his life. Didn't mind going back to jail. Jail was Daddy.<br /><br />About Charlie the human being: I actually found the scene at the end of the book where Manson seeks Bugliosi out, congratulates him on a job well done, and confesses he doesn't mind going back to jail, touching and sad. I suppose you'll say Bugliosi lied about that. (It was well done in the 1976 TV version. I haven't seen the 2004 one yet.)<br /><br />Now, when you consider all the 7.7 billion souls who live now, most in wretched conditions, the "injustice" done to Charles Manson is peanuts, and I question both the sanity and the morals of those who waste so much time on it.Dianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00302261963164621064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-7472511519259314702019-09-22T21:49:37.897-04:002019-09-22T21:49:37.897-04:00Diana said...
My objection is simply one of nomen...Diana said...<br /><br /><b>My objection is simply one of nomenclature</b><br /><br />I understand that. I must admit, in many instances, I'm also a stickler for the correct phraseology. I also recognize however, that sometimes, the thoughts/words/phrases of the majority, no matter how grammatically incorrect or definitionally inept, are what people understand a certain thing to be. As a phrase, the "copycat" isn't really concerned with what is good English. It's just become a term that encapsulates "get a brother out of jail" and uses one word instead of a mouthful of six !<br />Either way, I don't buy it. The funny thing is though, that if you look deeply into it {taking the Stimson end of things}, it shows Charlie as being just as controlling as HS does. And if you take the Emmons or Atkins {either her 1977 or 21st century version} wing of it, it shows Charlie to be guilty of murder.<br /><br />Destroyer of Opinions said...<br /><br /> <b>If I WERE Michael White, I'd come here and constantly complain about the unfairness of the justice system and the fact that rich people get much more of a fair shake than people of Charles Manson's class standing</b><br /><br />I do have a certain amount of sympatico with that view, not only in the US of A, in many if not most countries on the planet. I've personally experienced it myself.<br />However, I would point out to you in particular {and Michael White} that:<br /><i>i.</i> Charlie shot a man {Lotsapoppa}, told Bugliosi that he had meant to kill him <i>and till the day he died, was never even charged, let alone tried, for it.</i><br /><i>ii</i>. Manson told the judge in the Shea trial that he was guilty and had chopped off Shorty's head <i>and it was the Judge that refused to enter his plea</i>.<br /><i>iii.</i> Manson blatantly lied when testifying in his own trial for the TLB murders. He said the Police arrested Bobby Beausoleil for something he did not do, when he absolutely knew Bobby had murdered Gary.<br /><i>iv</i>. Also bear in mind that between December '69 and around March '70, when Manson was going on and on to the press about how the system was conspiring to do him in, he wasn't aware that Lotsapoppa wasn't actually dead. So he believed him to be dead....yet he was saying things to the press that belied this because no one outside his circle was aware of his involvement tin Lotsapoppa's "death."<br />So your point has another side to the mountain that is certainly worth a view......grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-83766377911269094632019-09-22T21:23:48.146-04:002019-09-22T21:23:48.146-04:00Destroyer of Opinions said...
grim will ignore th... Destroyer of Opinions said...<br /><br /><b>grim will ignore the link I posted because it’s “beneath” him</b><br /><br />I've read that site <i>ad nauseum</i> over the last 4 or so years and in my opinion, while there a couple of things in there that offer good food for thought, overall it's a really poor site with nothing that can't actually be garnered in greater detail elsewhere.<br /><br /><b>This post (which contains an LA Times article) shows how much integrity Bugliosi had: liesaboutcharlesmanson.blogspot.com/2011/05/transcripts-indicate-bugliosi-lied-in</b><br /><br />The LA Times article you refer to doesn't <i>prove</i> a thing. It doesn't even demonstrate how much or how little integrity Bugliosi has. All it does is report that one of Bugliosi's foes reckons that he lied about leaking something to the press. As I've pointed out to an <i>old friend</i> of mine on this site on a few pertinent occasions, nothing brought as evidence would be strong enough to convict anyone of perjury, especially what Steven Kay said. His deposition, such as it was, is pretty much gossip and I wouldn't be surprised if he regrets opening his mouth. <br />Not only that, but the "foe" in the headline is on record in the same article as saying that <i>he</i> was not accusing Bugliosi of anything <i>himself</i>.<br />You know, I didn't even realize until I read Herman Tubick's "Inside the Manson jury" that the William Farr at the centre of the controversy actually worked for the DA's office. It wasn't until later that he became a reporter for the Times {the article does mention the latter bit}. That puts a somewhat different spin on matters.<br />But back to your assertions, no, the link does not show what little integrity Bugliosi had. And when the case eventually came up, it was thrown out.<br />By the way, a site called "Lies about Charles manson" is hardly going to present a fair or balanced picture of Vincent Bugliosi is it ?<br /><br /><b>I just can’t stand it when people who believe the HS theory ridicule all that disagree with them and claim to be smarter than they</b><br /><br />Can you show me where I have ridiculed anyone that doesn't believe any part of the HS theory ? As a point of information, the overwhelming majority of contributors to TLB related sites I've been part of do not go along with it. And a huge number of them are people that I respect enormously and have enjoyed engaging, debating and yeah, arguing, with and learning from. I won't for a minute deny that I've been known to be pretty sarcastic at times, but if you look at people that I've engaged in that type of banter with, you'll note very quickly that it is <i>always</i> punters that fire all guns blazing, from the hip and who are not backward in coming forward with insults and ridicule themselves. And it has always been them that has begun the festivities. I'm a gent !grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-72009573890844397562019-09-22T16:49:17.736-04:002019-09-22T16:49:17.736-04:00That sounds good to me.
"opinion, presented ...That sounds good to me.<br /><br />"opinion, presented him as a human being."<br /><br />Yes. I'm not aware of one book that dehumanizes Manson. The fake news media, sure, but they do that to everyone, and frankly, carving a swastika into one's forehead doesn't do much for optics.<br /><br />I thought that the Guinn bio was fairly good at that. In fact I avoided it because I thought it would make me sympathize with Charlie the neglected, abused kid. And it did. Not the man. But the kid - yes. I felt very sorry for him.<br /><br />Dianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00302261963164621064noreply@blogger.com