When discussing motives, there is a line of thinking that says Charlie (and to a lesser extant his followers) were all just simply crazy, and who can understand crazy, and thus it's pointless to look further. And in fact there is good evidence to suggest that Manson actually did suffer some mental illness, at least to some extant.
Certainly you can't have a belief in Helter Skelter without a certain level of craziness. Maybe not so much in believing the coming race war bit (many were prophesizing that) but certainly the stuff about the whites slaughtering each other to pave the way for the militant blacks, their spending 50 years in the desert without having aged a day, the blacks handing power over to you in the end, the underground fountains spouting liquid chocolate, the trees bearing 10 different kinds of fruit, etc., etc.
Helter Skelter by Vince Bugliosi c.1974 pg.233 unk Manson follower: "Every tuned-tribe of people that's ever lived [has] escaped the destruction of [its] race by going underground, literally, and they're all living in a golden city where there's a river that runs through it of milk and honey, and a tree that bears twelve kinds of fruit, a different fruit each month... and you don't need to bring candles nor any flashlights down there. He says it will be all lit up because... the walls will glow and it won't be cold and it won't be too hot. There will be warm springs and fresh water, and people are already down there waiting for him."
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-heilig/charlie-manson-the-life-a_b_4074267.html
He gathered unknowing young women from Berkeley and the Haight-Ashbury, where the clinicians at the landmark free clinic diagnosed him as an “ambulatory schizophrenic” with all manner of manipulative behaviors...
http://www.mansonblog.com/2013/05/dr-david-smith-on-family-in-berkeley.html
Dr. Smith(of the HAFMC) said, "The problem was that Charlie was disturbed. He developed a paranoid delusional system that led to violence.... "There are a lot of people like that, and many of them are in mental hospitals. Any individual who has an all-encompassing delusional system ... If you know schizophrenics, you know how persuasive they can get...
Manson's "Rolling Stone" 12/5/2013 interview "Helter Skelter wasn't a lie. It was just Bugliosi's perspective. ..There was a lot of motives, man. You got a motive for every person there. It was a collective idea. It was an episode. A psychotic episode..."
https://www.swlaw.edu/sites/default/files/2017-04/2%20Eye%20of%20the%20Beholder.pdf
Emmons: "Manson's grandfather and uncle both suffered from serious mental illnesses, and his grandfather was involuntarily committed to a mental hospital, where he died."
https://www.swlaw.edu/sites/default/files/2017-04/2%20Eye%20of%20the%20Beholder.pdf pg275
Manson was first diagnosed with schizophrenia in 1963, when he was incarcerated for check kiting at the U.S. Penitentiary on McNeil Island. ... During the forty-plus years that Manson has been in CDC custody since the murders, he has been diagnosed with several serious mental illnesses, primarily paranoid schizophrenia and chronic psychosis....
He spent most of his early years of imprisonment there(Vacaville), in the S-Wing of Seguin Unit, the intensive psychiatric segregation unit. ... In 1985, the CDC diagnosed Manson with schizophrenia... In 1987, a psychologist recommended placing Manson in mental-health care...
(in 1997) ...that (psychological)evaluation determined that Manson was severely mentally ill, because he was "out of touch with reality" and would not stop rambling incessantly...
Post-1997, a consensus seems to have emerged among CDC psychiatrists and psychologists that Manson suffers from serious, organic, psychotic mental illness.
There is evidence Charlie had already started going off the deep end by the summer of '67, when he got the idea he was Jesus Christ:
Member of the Family: My Story of Charles Manson, Life Inside His Cult, and the Darkness That Ended the Sixties by Dianne Lake c.2018
Chapter 20 OUT OF SIGHT re Charlie lecture to the group at Gresham St
"Some of you already know what happened when I first took the sacrament of psilocybin(LSD in another version)." Several of us nodded, but kept silent.
"Mary, you were there." Mary Brunner smiled and nodded. She was all but glowing with pride.
"In some way, you were all there. You know the truth. I am just reminding you in case you forgot. We were on a mattress and Mary, my Mary, my Mary Magdalene was at my feet. It was beautiful."
Then Charlie's voice got louder; it was booming. "Then I was on the cross.* I was on the cross for all of you." He arched his back, looked at the ceiling, and put out his arms as if they were on the cross. "They nailed my hands, they speared me, and I wore the crown of thorns for all of you. And Mary wept as I died for you."
And of course claiming that the Beatles are trying to send you secret messages via their albums is another classic sign of the 'delusions of grandeur' so often seen in schizophrenics.
There's a Riot Going On by Peter Doggett c.2007 pg305
Manson replayed these tracks over and over, and claimed that he could detect a hidden message from the Beatles, intended for his ears alone. It was a sure sign of madness....
The trouble is, is that, despite the above quotes, Manson never showed any symptoms of any real mental illness (generally defined as schizophrenia, paranoid schizophrenia, and manic depression) before or after his two and a half years of freedom from '67 to '69. None of the shrinks who interviewed him in prisons, before and after, ever said he was clinically nuts(and only a trained psychiatrist is qualified to make this diagnosis). And Charlie never spent any time in any nut house. So why would he suddenly, in his early 30s, start going off the deep end during that time period? Mental illness usually starts affecting its victims while they are in their late teens or early 20s, and it is a lifelong affliction. He wouldn't just start going crazy at age 32 and just as suddenly stop going crazy at age 35.
Dr. Joel Fort interview by Caroline Crawford c.1997
Some
of his(Manson's) ideas are bizarre, but he does not display any overt
psychosis. There are some things he says that could be interpreted as
schizophrenic or schizoid. But he was never close to being judged
legally insane despite the best efforts of the media and his lawyers to
present him as a madman and a crazy person, an image of somebody who
must be severely mentally ill. His acts were violent, extreme, and
clearly antisocial, and he comes across that way in conversations. But
in general, his speech and manner are controlled.
So how do we account for Charlie's increasingly strange beliefs, or his "psychotic episode" as Charlie himself called it, in the brief two and half years he was out of jail/prison?
Was it the LSD use? Certainly heavy users of LSD sometimes get into really strange beliefs, and LSD may help to bring an underlying psychosis to the forefront, but there is no evidence that LSD actually causes mental illness.
Or maybe it was the heavy amphetamine use by the summer of '69. Prolonged lack of sleep can cause symptoms very close to paranoid schizophrenia. Though those symptoms quickly disappear with rest and nutrition. Yet Charlie kept pushing his HS theory without interruption.
I keep thinking of how close CIA mind control dirty trickster Dr. Jollyon West was to Manson at the HAFMC. The same Jolly West who would, according to author Tom O'Neill, induce a psychotic break in Jack Ruby, Oswald's killer. Did he somehow do the same to Manson?
Dr. West complained to Aldous Huxley, famous writer of 'Brave New World,' of the difficulty of attempting to hypnotize people who were under the influence of LSD. Huxley had a solution:
www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1991/eirv18n34-19910906/eirv18n34-19910906_058-dr_l_jolyon_west_the_lsd_cult_be.pdf Aldous Huxley: "I suggested to him(JollyonWest) that he should hypnotize his people before they took LSD."
Was Charlie thus hypnotized before his seminal LSD trip, and while later flying high on LSD, did he hear a pre-planted 'trigger word' which set him off on his psychosis?
--------------------------------
*Interestingly, at least two other Mansonoids seem to have had the same "up on the cross" trip:
LADA Transcripts Trial of Charles Manson for Hinman/Shea murders Box54-2 pg2280 Ella Jo on acid at Gresham, feels she was "being crucified."
Q: You thought that you--you felt that you were being on the cross?
A: Yes.
Q: You felt as if you were a Christ figure on the cross?
A: Yes, I did.
LVH taped interview w/ Marvin Part: She describes a crucifixtion experience during an acid trip.
"One time I had an acid trip like that. .... I lived in Hollywood one time and I had an acid trip.. and I was up on the cross. It sounds far out but I was, for real. I was feeling them do it. And I could feel the knives and the sword when it went in too."
66 comments:
Through thick and thin, Charlie knew that they'll always be his friends.
Yes, it's true that Indigo eyes Sandy and cutie redhead Lynnette stayed friends of not crazy at all Charlie. Whether you like 'em or not, they had and do maintain principles on that relationship.
Joel Fort's comment on this post is the only one that's said honestly, without the 'know it all' bull.
What Joel said wasn't grandstanding and he states what he thinks without all the mumbo jumbo we read from, well, 'everybody's an expert.'
I agree with him.
Yet, when you read the 'diagnosis' or whatever, of the others, they remind me of when you watched a tv show or movies and someone makes a 'wisecrack' and the person that feels offended, all in a lighthearted way, usually with an eye roll says:
"Ha...everybody's a comedian..." then some friendly laughter from all.
Now, consider that aside from Joel, everybody's is oh sure, you see, a clinical psychologist and psychiatrist and can read minds,and so on. And on.
Funny, when I thought about quotes from Diane Lake, it occurred to me that, why, she musta hadda a tape recorder when Charlie talked all those hundreds of times while they, the fun loving wild gang, sat wide eyed. (and some bored, but hey, a free, fun place to stay and to enjoy an occasional bit of wit and advise from sister Sadie Denise)
What all those people said sounds so contrived and they know it's gonna sell well.
And it did.
That Charlie 'cracked' on August 8 was anger and being royally pissed off for various reasons. We've been through those and it had nothing to do with the ridiculous 'drug deals' angles.
As for all that, you know, he thought he was Jesus no, I don't believe for a minute that he thought that.
Look at how Diane and some others acted during the trial of well dressed Charlie and the runway looking girls/models, Leslie, Susan and Patricia.
Look at ridiculous Paul, going from telling the law, on record, things that were damning to Charlie and then having the nerve to go to Spahn to be with the ones still there and even to say, to a reporter that the trial was rigged against the four on trial! As he sat with the girls on the steps next to 'em!
Who's really nuts here?
Just how much self serving can these people that 'write' books (all of 'em had 'ghost' writers) like Diane be when they were defending, again, the four on trial before they 'broke away' and became...good, honest citizens?
Give moi a break. Diane and some others Shoulda' been on the show Dragnet. Ha, "thanks for the facts ma'am."
The violence was a result of what really came from all of Charlies past, all that made him what he was, mentally and of his views on society. Sure, there's more but there were people saying weirder things than Charlie was saying and he didn't think that Helter Sillier was gonna happen, at least not in those stages. But he had the gang enthralled and entertained. If we had no murders,Charlie was another sort of a 'wise commune leader.' I can tell you that some 'musicians' in Laurel Canyon had some pretty crazy and downright junky, stupid views that helped make me view those a holes there with contempt. Everyone can say, with self satisfaction that Charlie was crazy as hell. That puts all of what's hypocritical about them and this society aside and so, ain't things otherwise rosy and we're the 'normal clean ones.' Take a look at David McGowan's book on that dark, nasty place, Laurel Canyon. Countless deaths, with murders, drugs, enjoying sex diseases, bringing 13-16 year girls, giving drugs, having 'em...You don't wanna know. Yeah, we're all clean, it's only Charlie that's crazy. So, we had the 60's, 70's, with no crimes, not even now, in our exceptional society. I'm just as pleased as punch.
Star,
I like the way you give references for what you write. Instead of saying, "I know for a fact".
D. Please take note of what I said above and do the same.
D: I’m not accusing you of inventing stuff, but referencing sources is not just pedantry, or a courtesy; it is a fundamental part of any serious investigation. It contextualises your research, acknowledges other people’s work and allows others to build on your own studies. It also shows that you are not just making it all up. We can all benefit so much more from what you have to offer if you provide some supporting evidence to back up your claims. Over to you.
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/2021/03/29/On-This-Day-Charles-Manson-sentenced-to-death-for-Tate-Labianca-murders/7551616947004/
I've used LSD at least 50 times in my life and I'm as NORMAL as I was after the first time
You don't sound very normal to me. That aside, LSD can affect some people badly - a classic example is Syd Barrett of The Pink Floyd whose use of LSD led to his complete breakdown. The fact that you have been unaffected by its use, if true, can not be applied willy nilly to everybody else.
Get the fuck out of here you fucking newbie
Ad hominem attacks don't improve your arguments, not that you have any to speak of. The last refuge of the desperate and semi articulate. Not that it matters, but for the record, my first post here under this name was in 2015. That's when I changed my moniker - I was here before that, under another name, in fact ever since Evil Liz started this forum up in 2010. And, unlike you, I've always addressed my fellow bloggers civilly.
Didn't the comments section of this blog used to have moderators overseeing it? Have they all fallen victim to covid-19 or something? It wasn't so very long ago that worthless trolls like "unknown", whoever the fuck he may actually be (and I have my own candidates as to his identity), would have been promptly tossed out of here at the first (or, if the mods were feeling merciful, second) instance of rude behavior. Too bad that this site now, apparently, permits assholes to run amok.
I'll moderate!!!
This is getting uncomfortably like 'the other site'.
What other site?
Paulcast: Manson saga discussion panel is scheduled for 7:30pm PST tonight(Wed)here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNjtBiKdUxM
I've known people who have been EXTREMELY PISSED OFF, pissed enough to kill someone but NEVER known anyone who wanted SOMEONE ELSE DEAD it makes NO SENSE
Well your own sentence makes no sense either. A person who wants someone else dead? Would that be as opposed to wanting themself dead?
It’s been documented that ... [Bugliosi] had untreated mental disorders ... [and was] most likely chemically unbalanced with some form of bipolar disorder.
Has it? Was he? You base this on ...?
in a perfect society [Buglosi and Gentry]'d both be serving sentences for falsifying documents.
Given that this is libellous, and that neither is here to defend himself, would you care to back up this allegation?
Since the trump era began, people insult each other and belittle each other on all of the social media sites. If someone disagrees they are idiots or assholes etc. I come and read this blog every day at work and have always loved the civil disagreements and educated takes on the Manson saga. Sad to see such disrespect showing on this thread and the big statements with no backup proof.
You must hate Col Scott then, hes (sic) terrible
On the contrary, I'm rather fond of Col Scott. Beneath the bluster he has a mind, and an occasional wit. He also came out once with a statement I rather liked: something to the effect that it's not true that everyone has a right to an opinion, rather everyone has the right to an informed opinion. If the cap fits, ...
Here's my documentation:
The website you point us too says, and I quote: "At day’s end, neither side offered conclusive proof and it remained another confusing episode in the election campaign" Seems odd to offer as 'proof' a statement that there was none.
There's no backup proof because you don't want any, look its there
I think I'd give you an E for that, with no marks for effort either ...
How is it libelous to beat, threaten and try to kill a woman you're involved with who holds you back from the State of California Attorney General?
Well, obviously physical assault and threats are not libelous, and I did not suggest that they were. What is libelous is your claiming that two people have committed crimes.
This was all proven by George Denny
I'm not sure what 'this' refers to, but the complaint and cross-complaints Denny and Bugliosi exchanged as heard under LASC case # C87997 were dismissed by both parties and all rights were waived under section 1542 of the then Civil Code of California. Denny, Heaman, Bugliosi, Barbara Silver and others signed an agreement to this effect in July 1974.
If he was alive ask Vince Buglosi about Herb and Rose Weisel, see what his opinion is
Your mastery of the hypothetical [and the subjunctive] leave something to be desired, but it will be difficult to consult a dead attorney for he reasons you yourself give. I'll take a rain check.
Why do I persist with this dialogue? Well, because if you insist on coming here to disturb the peace, offing and blinding and insulting people, and failing to say anything remotely resembling sense and if the moderators are sleeping on the watch then like others I think attention should be drawn to it. And I tend to share Baudelaire's bon mots: The man of intelligence [...] should cultivate a pleasure in the conversation of imbeciles and the study of worthless books. From these he will derive a sardonic amusement which will largely repay him for his pains. Again, if the cap fits.
Charlie had a criminal personality. My dad is good friends with Stanton Saminow who wrote the book on the subject . The traits are to feel entitled and lack empathy. The criminal takes no personal responsibility and justifies themselves for everything. Charlie acted this way from early youth.
Personally I enjoy the shit talking and butt-hurtery. One vote for Vera!
To me this case comes down to the two Charleses, Diarrhea Mouth Manson and Diarrhea Brain Watson.
Col Scott sure looks better now.
A few people here have mentioned the current conversation feels violent/toxic. No offense to the OP but maybe using the phrase 'batshit crazy' wasn't the best choice for the title here. It could very well trigger people who have been called that themselves, and it sort of sets the tone for what follows. If people want a higher level of discourse it helps to set an intelligent tone from the beginning. I know it boils down to 'tone policing' but if mods don't attend to at least a little of that, this is the result.
The people who used to serve as moderators here definitely need to do one of two things...either 1) please resume doing the job you once did here or 2) if you personally have no more time or desire to be a moderator, please assign the task to somebody who does. If scum and lowlifes are going to continue to be allowed in here to post unsupported nonsense and vicious, unwarranted attacks on other people, you (I'm addressing the site owners) are going to be driving both casual readers and longtime fans of this site away in droves. You can take my prediction to the bank. Please take my request seriously, I'm certain I'm not the only fan of this site who feels this way.
Off Topic:
Has anyone heard anything about Star and Gray Wolf lately?
SixtiesRockRules! said...
Didn't the comments section of this blog used to have moderators overseeing it?
These complaints are valid. Sorry we haven't had tons of time on our hands lately to moderate, but both Deb & I have a lot on our plates lately. I did however change the settings to only allow comments from those with Google accounts. Perhaps that will solve the "Unknown" thing.
I'll also try to read the comments more carefully. You all know my email address, so if something needs attention please let me know. I also just made Patty an admin again to help moderate. Don't fuck with her, she's a cold bitch...
ICE cold, mofos.
@matt.......thank you very much for responding to and addressing this issue.
Welcome back Panamint Patty.
Hi Whut. I've missed you.
Off topic (apologies...didn't want to forget to post this link)
Harry Reasoner and CBS bringing THE HIPPIE TEMPTATION into the homes of America in 1967. An interesting tour of some of the various pieces of the counterculture as found in 1967 (widely said to be the beginning of the darkness leading to the death of love and, the eventual destruction of the hippie ideal)!
It is notable for all the "six degrees of the embryonic Manson Family" connections that were already happening in/around San Francisco in the time before the bus left for Topanga.
At approx the 8:25 point of the show, Harry Reasoner visits THE ORACLE. He speaks to Gabe Katz, one of the editors of The Oracle. Prior to this interview you will see 2 adult males and, both a teenaged and toddler aged girl. The toddler sure looks like she could be Snake's little sister! Is either of these men her father? The timeline seems to make sense to me.
And, think about how many future members of The MF are living in the Height at this point in time. Not sure if the dwelling at 636 Cole was established at this point but, at the very least, Susan, Patricia, Mary, Bobby, Charlie and, Snake (still at the Hog Farm) at the very least are all there and, traveling in/out of the sane circles. You'd figure that they would have friends/acquaintances in common.
I'm just going to post this link. It is around 1 hour long. I'll let you think about these things as you watch the program.
https://youtu.be/d-UOMpRYPAM
Cheers
Doug,
I pulled up my copy Dianne Lake's book, "A Member of the Family" and went through the photo's Dianne's sister Cathy, a blond with straight hair, is having her eighth birthday party in one of them dated 1967. There are several pictures of Dianne, her brother, and only one sister so I don't believe the curly haired toddler getting her nose rubbed is Dianne's sister. Clarence Lake has a mustache in all of his photos and I don't think the man with the toddler is Clarence.
Doug,
Thanks for the link.
"Traveling in/out of the Sane circles".... i see what you did there
Much appreciated, Matt
"No offense to the OP but maybe using the phrase 'batshit crazy' wasn't the best choice for the title here. It could very well trigger people who have been called that themselves."
Also. I am a bat and find this to be deeply offensive.
Thanks for checking that. Apparently Jeanine Garofalo's mother is the dark haired woman sitting on the couch at the Free Clinic...
Batshit crazy? Hardly. Mentally ill? Probably. Lots of drug use including LSD and speed? Yes. A corrupt disposition from years of voluntarily refusing to play the game of society? Yes. Anti-social? Yes. I can't see his wacky belief system of HS being related to his mental state. Try reading the book of Revelation (or most of the Bible, for that matter) and see if it doesn't sound at LEAST as wacky as HS.
Welcome back Patty and thank you Matt!
A friend of mine just posted a photo of Maria Alonzo from a late 60s skin mag shoot on his FB wall. He purchased around 400 "for file use/not for public" photos from an old porn publisher from Hollywood and, the photos include the REAL names and, details of the models...
Dunno if you can access via this link...but, maybe...
Robin is super legit. He publishes Cinema Sewer among other ventures
https://www.facebook.com/100001518092821/posts/3985549998172231/
The photo us censored appropriately as per FB guidelines
I don't care if she's "ice cold" ...
Mongo LIKE Panamint Patty! :)
FYI, no more "Unknown" users. If I see comments without a handle we're deleting them no matter the content.
Doug
There are a couple of nude photos of Squeaky and Sandy floating around on the Internet. Do you (or anyone else) know the origin of these? They look quite tastefully done, not in any way pornographic.
There has always been talk of 'iffy' movies at Cielo Drive but I have also heard it rumoured that Manson had access to a movie camera and took some 'blue' shots at Spahn; I always figured that if that were true they would have surfaced so it probably never happened. Was I wrong?
Great piece Starveigo, Thanks, i thought any talk of value in Tom O'Neill's book was banned on here, great to see it opening up a bit. Not sure how much Manson was manipulated by Dr West but i do think he was on board with him and the CIA "Chaos" program for the support, $ & LSD
Proteus said...
"...I have also heard it rumoured that Manson had access to a movie camera and took some 'blue' shots at Spahn; I always figured that if that were true they would have surfaced so it probably never happened. Was I wrong?"
Yes, there were films and photos made, by Charlene Cafritz and others. Why they have not surfaced is a mystery.
example:
LADA files Box14 vol3076 pg74of302 Sandra Good
Juan was always up in arms. We have a movie of him, "Going to get those pigs," and just raving and screaming. If you want to look at the movie, you can watch Mr. Flynn in action.
LADA files Box 6 Vol176 pg68of164
Fromme: "Mr. Flynn is on film. We have a film of him. ... There are a lot of things that you won't let come out."
LADA files Box54-3 pg1703 Johnny Swartz: Gun room had "a lot of motion picture equipment in there."
It's bloody sad that adults have to be supervised. I'm an anarchist at heart. In my head I have to recognise such a system doesn't work.
Hi Matt/Patty have you taken the 'reply' facility off too? Or is it just my computer/profile/general incompetence?
Milly, I did not do it. I don't think. But I'm rusty so, maybe.
My theory: it can all be traced back to eating that rancid dumpster food.
Hi Patty. It's weird. I just checked my phone and the 'reply' button is there. But not on my laptop, which I use for my occasional comments. Anyway, I didn't want to say much. I referred to 'the other site' which someone queried. I was referring to a site, also Manson related, which involved commentators being sworn at and insulted. This clearly is not happening here. Thank you.
Milky, are you logged into your Google account on your computer? That could be it.
Stranger67 said...
"Not sure how much Manson was manipulated by Dr West but i do think he was on board with him and the CIA "Chaos" program..."
At times Charlie sounded like he was certainly under the influence of some kind of mind control:
http://www.cielodrive.com/manson-case-files/BOX-24
Box 24 pg291of396
Marvin Part interview with Leslie Van Houton
VH: "And -- and he(Manson) used to -- he used to even say, umm, "I've become an empty hole." He'd say, "I can --" He says, "I have no control of what I'm saying." He just says, "I have no control of my actions. I don't even think about what I'm doing or saying."
This photo of Maria is not tastefully done...it is definitely from an X Rated publication.
I've never seen any other X-Rated film or photos of the MF or, members of - despite a lot of rumours about them shooting such content
I just read Paul's book...Paul was the most " real" character out of all of them.Conflicted? Hell yes..and he admits it.Thank goodness he met Crockett...Watkins both loved and feared Manson and luckily was able to act on it.Being conflicted is one super normal human trait.Can you imagine fearing that you could die at the hands of someone you supposedly loved? He knew he had to help put Manson away( for his good and others) but at the same time felt for his Family friends.Maybe he relished the idea of becoming the new Manson? Hard to say....I was truly moved by his account in his book.What a shame Manson had to steal Barker away from Brooks,Crockett and Paul....I bet it was truly beautiful out there...that is..until Charlie came along.
Same here...all amazing experiences.Peyote being the absolute best.I feel it can promote change...hard to say since I have no conparison factor within my own life...Would I have ended up the same? I know the things that " normal" people seem to strive for...having their ducks in a row"..etc...I couldn't care less about...I enjoy the moment..the day....I understand THE NOW.I wouldn't trade my drug times for anything else.
Matt said...
These complaints are valid
Sometimes they are. But just because someone complains doesn't mean that the entire structure of a debate should be altered. Yes, it was heated at times. Yes there was a bit of name calling but did it really get to a point where entire posts needed to be struck off ? No. There has been way worse than that that still remains ~ and I wouldn't advocate they get exorcized either.
FYI, no more "Unknown" users. If I see comments without a handle we're deleting them no matter the content
That strikes me as cracking a peanut with an industrial sledgehammer. One may not like the tone of some of the comments but the "unknowns" that contributed to this thread before being deleted made some excellent and interesting points and comments. Now, personally, I didn't agree with much of what they said but they added to a discussion and took it in interesting directions.
This happened a few years back with Dave1971/SAG/Lou Gehrig/Rudy Weber's hose/Mon Durphy and by deleting 114 of his comments in one thread that netted over 300 comments, the whole of that thread looks completely unbalanced and much of it appears not to make sense. So much is being replied to without any seeming context and it is going to cause many to just skip it which defeats the point of existing in the first place. As I recall, it happened to quite a few threads.
Human beings argue. Sometimes rudely.
I agree that people should be civil. But there are plenty of ways of being uncivil yet not appearing to say anything that is upfront nasty. I don't disagree with moderation at all. I just think that it is one of those things that is, in reality, rarely needed. We're not children in primary or high school. We're adults expressing opinions.
Incidentally, having the name "unknown" is ultimately no different to having the name "grimtraveller" or "Orwhut" or "Proteus" or "Fred Bloggs" or "Sleepy Joe" if that person is contributing to the conversation. An internet forum's strength rests on the "what" is said and the quality of the debate, not the "who" happens to make the points.
Grim, I agree with most of what you said. However this person has commented using a handful of different handles, has low impulse control and has had scores of second chances.
Unknown said...
Explain the low impulse control to me.....Plus the reason I use different handles is because YOU delete them all while giving NONE of them a once over to see if what I said is even viable
Unknown, a word to the wise;
Use a handle. If part of the difference between being allowed to stay on board is to adopt a pen name, don't be such a Charlie Manson that the insistence of having your own way trumps the importance of sometimes compromising in order to get that which you really want.
Also, passion in debate is often a good thing but it can easily descend into an excuse to beat people with a stick if they disagree with you or call you out on points you make and do so fervently.
Unknown said...
a "Charlie Manson"? I hate that motherfucker more than damn near anyone
Maybe so. But all I was getting at is that some people {and Charlie was one of them} are so intent on having their own way that they'll stick to those guns even where it clearly harms them. That's not always a bad thing, indeed sometimes it's admirable. But the case in question isn't one of those.
You know what I would do ? If I was insistent on using the 'unknown' handle, I'd re~jig the spelling like "Un~known" or something like that.
BUT I can realize when someone is getting the raw deal on a case
He didn't get a raw deal. He got what he deserved. He thought he was smarter than he was and that his street smarts made him smarter than anyone else in straight society. He'd ridden on the crest of that wave for 3 years or so then the full weight of reality hit him between the buttons and squarely in the balls.
He thought that by making sure he had a joint defence that he'd control the women and ultimately escape the DP. But his very own tactics trussed him up and made it clear and obvious to the only 12 people that mattered ~ the jury ~ that the prosecution was bang on the money when they presented him as the architect and leader of Family life. Where he led in disruption and "X~ing", the women followed. The jury were not blind. The jury were not ding~a~lings like Paul Fitzgerald thought. They saw 3 co~defendants parroting Charlie and they put that together with the evidence that said that was how things went. But never forget, Unknown, those instructions came from Charlie !
He's the guy that brought in Kanarek. His express reason for doing so was to cause trouble. He stated it blatantly. And it trussed him up and it served him right. For him to later talk of being denied his rights when, at one point he was allowed to be his own lawyer and showed that he simply didn't have what it took, is pitiful, not laughable. Although in saying that, I still feel that the judge should have given him a stern, stiff warning but allowed him to carry on with his lawyer status.
He was smart and ruthless. But Bugliosi was smart, ruthless and almost obsessively tenacious and in him Charlie more than met his match.
But raw deal ? Not by a long shot.
That's right. The judge practically begged Charlie to choose a more competent attorney. He even appointed the former head of the California Bar Association as Charlie's counsel for a time. And that's right rhat Charlie acknowledged in open court that Kanerak was the "worstlawyer in California" and was appointing him just to throw sand in the gears.
Wow. I missed a good one. Imagine trolling the same people for decades. I think you almost become like family at that point I'm not sure. Cousin Eddie but darker?
Hey GreenWhite how you be? Your comment made me laugh.
Just finishing up Neil Sander's book...tons of theories/ connections are thrown around.Were these players THAT together enough to pull any of it off? The murders based on a drug burn? Etc etc
Just read Neil Sanders book...hard to know what is true..what is conjecture.I want to believe Watkins....he seems likeable and down to earth for a druggie.Only way to know would to have been there.What puzzles me is Lynette Fromme setting herself up for an assasination attempt.I honestly believe if she hadn't have been so stubborn..she could have received a lesser sentence....her mental state of mind is highly suspect.I really want to like her and I do...she just seems " lost".What a cruel joke they played on her..not letting her see the man she loved....
Surprised there is so little discourse here.
Caught this interesting quote:
'Manson's mother talks of his early life' LATimes article by Dave Smith of 1-26-71
And it was during this time(around 1958), she says, that she began to feel he(Charlie) needed psychiatric treatment, though it was far beyond their means.
Charlie was never diagnosed as being clinically crazy nor was he ever confined to a mental institute, but he starts espousing some really crazy shit after he is released in '67. He is Jesus Christ, the Beatles are talking to him, they're going to spend 40 years underground without having aged a day. etc. Then sometime during his trial all that stops. To me it sounds like an artificially induced mental illness--until it was artificially ended. Though I don't generally believe in the concept of 'temporary insanity' as a legal defense, it may actually have been applicable in this case.
Off the deep end by 1955?
Wheeling News Register December 4, 1969
"Rosalie Willis White, remarried... was shocked by the news involving her former husband but commented, "Truthfully, I believed this could happen. I just never could believe what he said to me. ... I didn't know at the time he was so involved. It took seven months to find out." "
(married in 1955)
Odd thing to say. What did Charlie say to her in 1955? What was he 'so involved' in?
More evidence of an incipient madness?
HS, pg 190
The judge requested a psychiatric report. Manson was examine on October 26, 1955, by Dr. Edwin McNiel.
if the judge ordered the psych eval, this suggests the judge found Manson's behavior to be odd or disturbing.
Even Charlie thought he was going nuts in 1955:
HS, pg195
(Manson arrested for stealing cars Oct '55) "Taken to federal court, he pleaded guilty to the theft..., and asked for psychiatric help, stating "I was released from Chillicothe in 1954 and, having been confined for nine years, I was badly in need of psychiatric treatment. I was mentally confused and stole a car as a means of mental release from the confused state of mind that I was in."
Post a Comment