|
Post by SwampFire on Oct 9, 2007 16:40:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Millergirl4 on Oct 9, 2007 16:51:33 GMT -5
The truth is in your slaughterhouses.......
|
|
|
Post by SwampFire on Oct 9, 2007 17:28:55 GMT -5
If you take that comment contextually though... and pretend it wasn't a guy who was convicted of 9 murders saying it... it makes a kind of sense. At least to me.
|
|
|
Post by Millergirl4 on Oct 10, 2007 8:57:06 GMT -5
He may make some sort of sense to some people but he doesn't to me. Maybe it's because after 2 minutes of his jibberjabber I get bored out of my skull and all I can think of is what a lunitic this man was for orchestrating all those deaths. I think if I had the patience to actually listen and try to make sense of his rants maybe I would feel the same way.
|
|
|
Post by SwampFire on Oct 11, 2007 16:48:21 GMT -5
IF you believe he did orchestrate all of that. I think it's hogwash because both Susan Atkins and Tex Watson both say that Charlie had no previous knowledge of what they were going to do. Atkins went back to the ranch and told Manson "look what I've done for you, I'm giving you the world."
Watson says he exacted revenge for Manson because Manson saved his life.
The whole 'Helter Skelter' story line is wayyy exaggerated and was presented as fact at trial to frighten the jury and make them convict Manson. Bugliosi himself said that.
|
|
|
Post by Spooky on Feb 5, 2008 16:16:31 GMT -5
The whole 'Helter Skelter' story line is wayyy exaggerated and was presented as fact at trial to frighten the jury and make them convict Manson. Bugliosi himself said that. I'm about half way through Helter Skelter and am really interested in it. Are you saying that Helter Skelter is not the book to get all the info about the case? Which one would you recommend if any?
|
|
|
Post by SwampFire on Feb 6, 2008 9:17:04 GMT -5
I'm about half way through Helter Skelter and am really interested in it. Are you saying that Helter Skelter is not the book to get all the info about the case? Which one would you recommend if any? Bugliosi does a pretty good job of presenting the evidence in the case, he was on the prosecution team after all. The thing that was missing from his case was actual physical evidence linking Manson to the murders. Bugliosi knew that short of physical evidence he needed some way to link Manson in and prove to the people that without Manson there would have been no murders. Bugliosi exaggerated and propped up the 'Helter Skelter' story to paint Manson as some kind of freak with a vision that he used to entice everyone to commit murder for him. It's packaging, at best. I think if there were no Manson present then yes, it's true there would likely have been no murders so I don't really have an issue with what Bugliosi did because it ultimately broke up a bad (and criminal) situation. It's my opinion though, supported by my own research, that 'Helter Skelter' didn't exist as it was presented by Bugliosi at trial. What bothers me about the case is that the prosecution was scared of Manson and I believe they violated his rights by not letting him speak for himself. Constitutionally, he had a right to trial by jury and he had a right to speak to those who would condemn him. Bugliosi was afraid that Manson, being as charming as he was able to be, would win over a jury and his thin veil of a case would break down and he would lose a conviction against Manson. Bugliosi went to the judge and he apparently agreed as they did allow Manson to speak but they removed the jury when he did which violated his civil rights. Also, president Nixon proclaimed Manson guilty before the end of the trial and it showed up in all of the newspapers which should have been grounds for a mis-trial. I don't believe Manson is the monster that he was made into by the media. Bugliosi HAD to paint him that way to get a conviction and he says as much in black and white in the book you're reading. He was a true victim of the system (yes, I can support that statement) and chose unfortunate ways to express his outrage as he does himself admit. As for sources, you could try the book Manson, in his own words which is basically a representation of what Manson said in the documentary Charles Manson, Superstar. If you keep checking youtube though you can find it there periodically. Manson isn't shy about telling exactly what happened. If you listen to him between philosophical expositions he tells the story. The Geraldo Rivera interview is up right now and he doesn't do a bad job in that one though Rivera is trying to lead him into admitting the Bugliosi nonsense is all true. Enough for now, sorry for the ramble
|
|
|
Post by Spooky on Feb 6, 2008 12:53:44 GMT -5
I know the bare details about Manson and the whole case etc (well, I'm learning more reading this book) so I can't argue with you about it or tell you my thoughts about it.....yet. Though, I'm finding it hard to believe that Manson could brainwash all of the Family into doing his evil doings, eventually members of the Family would go down that road with or without Manson IMO. I was YouTubing quite a bit yesterday regarding the case and will watch the one you linked today. After I am done with the book(s) and watched all the videos I'll have a debate with you (and lose horribly because you know so much more it than I) or agree with you. Deal? ;D Once I get into a case, I usually try to read as much as I can about it too. I'll read one book about something and end up reading 4 more books about the same case.
|
|
|
Post by Millergirl4 on Feb 6, 2008 13:51:18 GMT -5
I believe that he is looney. He is where he belongs whether or not he took a life by his very own hand or not. He was involoved in the conspiracy to commit murder at the very least. Also he didn't have to dirty his hands when he had many followers who would do it for him if he asked.
|
|
|
Post by SwampFire on Feb 6, 2008 14:52:40 GMT -5
I believe that he is looney. He is where he belongs whether or not he took a life by his very own hand or not. He was involoved in the conspiracy to commit murder at the very least. Also he didn't have to dirty his hands when he had many followers who would do it for him if he asked. Well if he were loony he'd belong in the loony bin and not in prison so he can't be loony AND be where he belongs because the two are mutually exclusive (or should be) ! I believe he's guilty of conspiracy in the LaBianca case and I believe he's not loony and is, therefore, where he belongs.
|
|
|
Post by Spooky on Feb 6, 2008 15:00:02 GMT -5
IF he's loony, he seems to be a happy loony. Did you see my big IF? if if if if.
|
|
|
Post by SwampFire on Feb 6, 2008 15:00:30 GMT -5
Manson himself says he didn't brainwash anyone. He did bring an element of anger/hate/violence to the group and he did influence them, I believe, with that. They weren't robots and they made their own choices but Manson is culpable in more ways than one. Sounds good, though you'll agree with me I'm sure Most about this case are garbage with the exception of "Helter Skelter" and "In his own Words".
|
|
|
Post by Spooky on Feb 6, 2008 15:04:45 GMT -5
You're so charming! Good to know. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Millergirl4 on Feb 6, 2008 16:36:01 GMT -5
I don't know if he is certifiable looney or whether it is just an aspect of his personality. He did have a messed up childhood but then again there are many people who have had less than perfect upbringings and have personality disorders but aren't necessarily 'certifiable'. Maybe that is how I should have worded it. Anyways I don't think he is a genius whatso ever. I think he is evil and has issues.
He is also dangerous and that is why he needs to be in prison not in some hospital so he can cut and paste flowers or learn how to knit. I'm no doctor though and that is only my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by SwampFire on Feb 6, 2008 17:46:50 GMT -5
How the hell do you know so many details about what they do in loony bins? I think you're not telling us something LOL!!
|
|