It was Krishna Venta who held a staged crucifixion not Charles Manson.
20 September 2014
21 July 2014
Goodbye Helter Skelter
Goodbye
Helter Skelter
A New Look at the Tate-LaBianca Murders
"There's an image and a person that the District Attorney created called 'Manson Helter Skelter.' And there's an image that's in the press that you've been reading and watching and looking at for years. And that's built up in your mind. That's an image that somebody else made up. It's got nothing, really, to do with me personally. I am not that guy. But yet that guy is built up in your mind and you think that that guy is me. You think that I'm that fire-breathing, seven-foot-tall, no good hippie cult leader bullshit bunkum punk shit that they put on me, you know. And then sometimes I think you guys get to believing that shit. "That's not me.
"I might be worse than that, in some ways."
-- Charles Manson
"I might be worse than that, in some ways."
-- Charles Manson
In August of 1969 the spectacular Tate-LaBianca murders rocked Los Angeles, the country, and the world. But even more shocking than those murders was the story behind them: the story of a homicidal maniac named Charles Manson, how he turned the sons and daughters of middle-class America into a "Family" of murderous slaves, and an insane plan to achieve world domination by sparking a race war called "Helter Skelter."
But what if it was just a story?
Here is the first realistic and reasonable examination of the Tate-LaBianca murders and the true reasons behind them. Based on years of research and exclusive information from Charles Manson and many of his former and present friends, Goodbye Helter Skelter presents the conclusions of a long-time Manson associate -- conclusions that will likely change everything you think you know about Charles Manson, his "Family," and some of the most infamous murders in the history of American crime.
Goodbye Helter Skelter includes material taken from hundreds of hours of tape-recorded conversations with Charles Manson. Never before has Manson's point of view been presented in such a complete and coherent format.
416 pages, including over thirty pages of color photographs
Goodbye Helter Skelter
by George Stimson
Available Now
Copyright © 2014 The Peasenhall Press
22 October 2012
2 Letters from Lynette Fromme
 |
| Lynette Fromme (Red), during her trial, 1975. |
By JESSE GREEN
Published: May 23, 2004
INTERPRETATIONS vary as to whether Lynette (Squeaky) Fromme (rhymes with homey) intended to kill President Gerald Ford when she aimed her gun at him on Sept. 5, 1975, in Sacramento; the chamber of the .45 Colt was empty. But her larger motivation was clear. Ms. Fromme has said -- and in his libretto for ''Assassins,'' the musical he wrote with Stephen Sondheim, John Weidman has reiterated -- that she committed the crime so that Charles Manson, whose ''family'' she had joined in 1967, would appear as a witness at her trial, and thus have a worldwide platform from which to preach his apocalyptic vision.
Despite touring as a child in California with a dance group called the Westchester Lariats (they twice performed at the White House), Ms. Fromme's own family life had not been pleasant; her father, an aeronautical engineer, was by all accounts rough and tyrannical. It was after an argument with him that she met Mr. Manson on a Venice, Calif., beach. Soon she moved to Stockton, where she and several other Manson adherents set up a communal home. Though considered the alpha female of the group, Ms. Fromme was never convicted of participation in the infamous Tate-LaBianca murders that Mr. Manson directed on Aug. 9 and 10, 1969, nor in the mysterious deaths of two ''family'' members in 1972. But the assassination attempt on Mr. Ford, and her subsequent prison career, suggest that she has not repudiated her past. In 1979, she attacked a fellow inmate with the claw end of a hammer; in 1987, she escaped from a prison in West Virginia in hopes of meeting Mr. Manson again. (She was quickly recaptured.) At 55, she is now serving time at the Carswell Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth; though eligible for parole since 1985, she has consistently waived her right to a hearing.
Earlier this year, Mary Catherine Garrison, the actress who plays Ms. Fromme in the revival of ''Assassins'' at Studio 54, wrote to her at Carswell, seeking information that might help in portraying her. Ms. Fromme's responses, excerpted here with her permission, explain what it was like to be at the center of the Manson fold.
- JESSE GREEN
 |
| Lynette Fromme, West Virginia |
March 22, 2004
Mary Catherine --
I could not tell you first hand about the Hollywood murders. I can tell you that much about any history is dependent upon the times, the movements and thoughts of the world at the time. I can tell you just a little of the world that my generation inherited -- the many benefits even beyond our parents' childhood dreams, and the deficits that kept us from fully enjoying those dreams.
The Civil Rights movement marched through the end of my childhood and enlisted me, albeit only mentally. I had traveled through the South on long bus trips with the Lariats and seen the ''Whites Only'' restrooms and drinking fountains, so when the rioting and the civil protests reached my attention as a teenager, the full weight of responsibility for slavery seemed to come with it, and a general disgust for the so-called adults and authorities who were supposed to have been taking care of things, knowing best, being the wisest.
My own home's authority figure might have put some balance into my thinking but he couldn't face his children, let alone talk to us; he couldn't face himself. (I have to say, he did the best he could and I love him for it but he never did open up. Love had been shut down in that body before I arrived.)
Right about this time the Vietnam War began threatening to take the boys of the graduating classes. At first, I didn't think about it; some guys were going to war and some were playing football, some became engineers and some, soldiers. I had seen many WWII movies about the heroes who fought and died. It was religiously recounted like the story of Christ. It was about sacrifice for the good of all. The spilling of blood, the maiming and mangling of young bodies, the accidental deaths of women and children and the elderly all unavoidable. That's the theme. . . . That's still the theme.
How many people reached rock bottom serious about protesting the war and immolated themselves? Talk about giving . . .
By then, school meant less and less to me. The experience of life seemed the only hope -- to know it before one of the stupid or stubborn adults blew it up. Our government leaders -- from my view -- treated young people's questioning with defensive contempt, no way to open up a dialogue. . . .
But I was and am not a political creature. . . . I wrote poetry and dreamed of allowing words to take me mentally and physically into experience, what I wanted most. But not, I quickly decided, the alcoholic experience and early death of my hero, Dylan Thomas. Something clear and harmonious and perfect. I had always believed in intuition and that magic and miracles were real life. It seemed that almost all young people were out on the road, maybe more so in California, where the roads had plenty of space to stretch, and residents were not as rooted. . . . I had been exploring territory since I was young, getting on a random bus that took me all the way across the city, hitchhiking to the beaches.
''The Family'' was not a name that we used, you know. We didn't call ourselves anything but ''us,'' ''the girls,'' ''the guys'' or by any number of names that sprung from significant situations. We were just likenesses that found ourselves together through various circumstances during our travels. We almost knew one another on sight. . . . By forgiving ourselves of various perceived personal imperfections and focusing instead on the land around us, we were drawn into California's beautiful natural settings, and there beside river & ocean, surrounded by conifer, cactus or oak, our brains were literally wooed & awakened by new soft & pungent scents -- and a whole array of subtle sights, sounds and feelings previously hidden from us by our own narrowness of focus. What had often seemed like a flat existence became multidimensional.
Within these settings we fell in love with the bright eyes and minds of each other. To taint that with talk about sex orgies and group gropings shuts my mind down.
Lynette Fromme
 | |
|
March 24, 2004
Mary Catherine --
You asked how often I smoked pot. Marijuana was fairly precious when I first tried it and for me it remained that way. Two joints in one day would be an excess to me but my ''tolerance'' didn't rise. . . .
Our use, as a group, was almost always at night after dinner, when our day's work was done, the meal had been eaten, and the last of the dishes were being dried in a hurry so that whoever was in the kitchen could join the rest of the circle on the carpet or hardwood or floor-pillows in the room with the fireplace, if there was one. Then the joints (somewhere between two and six depending upon the number of people) were taken from the pocket of usually a woman who liked to roll them, the room settled down, bodies ever so slightly leaned in, and the relished and respected substance was anticipated. The matches flared and the scent reached us before the joints. There was a relaxed quiet about these moments, a catching up to ourselves (after activity), deep breathing and transcendence. We were allowing ourselves to re-tune, all odd sounds and notes refining to come together. Pretty soon the guitars came out, a flute or drum maybe, and we experimented with our vocal cords.
You asked what we wore but let me say first that our ''family'' if we must, in the old-time country way, was ''poor.'' Rich at times in resources but never in money. We didn't deal drugs but traded for them.
In those days goods were exchanged -- maybe they still are. People unsatisfied w/lives of substance-without-spirit gave away their things -- even houses and cars -- to go out on the roads or into communes. If I needed a couch or whatever, there was sure to be someone looking to unload one.
Clothes were acquired in the same way. And the surplus and secondhand stores were loaded with period clothing -- the contents of trunks and attics of elderly people who had neatly packed away all that genuine satin and velvet, those gowns and antique lace blouses and smart wool suits, and then died, with no one to give them to.
What did I wear? I dressed more for comfort but I do love costume. We wore not the sailor-wide bell bottoms; but more narrow ones, and like what's coming in, they were hip huggers. We didn't wear short tops but we wore short skirts -- I can't believe how short -- but all that was the fashion, and rarely looked at askance. We wore, specifically, rich or soft materials, nothing stiff or terribly restrictive. Gentle things (the women wore) soft to the touch. And no, we generally did not just exchange all of our clothes. Each of us probably had 3 or 4 sets of clothes at any given time that we really liked more than others. We didn't keep them apart. . . .
I'll tell you this, there were certainly no dictates about it. I've heard people say that everything in our lives was planned and orchestrated by Manson and it's just not true.
But as for what people wore -- all time-frames were in style, all sets and scenes. All the world a -- you know.
Lynette
12 October 2012
This Photo of Charles Manson is Fake
 |
| This is a fake photo of Charles Manson |
This photo of Charles Manson is fake. It first appeared online about 5 or 6 years ago on the flikr page of a man claiming to be a relative of one of the musicians in the photo. I asked Manson about the photo after I found it and he told me it was fake. I later studied the photo and found a dead give away that the photo has been altered, although the individual who altered the photo did a good job with the shadow and the reflection on the polished floor anyone who knows a thing or two about Manson should be able to notice something not quite right about this photo.
10 June 2011
Lovely Linda's New Dress
Dresses in Literature, Joan Didion:
In this light all narrative was sentimental. In this light all connections were equally meaningful, and equally senseless. Try these: on the morning of John Kennedy's death in 1963 I was buying, at Ransohoff's in San Francisco, a short silk dress in which to be married. A few years later this dress of mine was ruined when, at a dinner party in Bel-Air, Roman Polanski accidentally spilled a glass of red wine on it. Sharon Tate was also a guest at this party, although she and Roman Polanski were not yet married. On July 27, 1970, I went to the Magnin-Hi Shop of I. Magnin in Beverly Hills and picked out, at Linda Kasabian's request, the dress in which she began her testimony about the murders at Sharon Tate Polanski's house on Cielo Drive. "Size 9 Petite," her instructions read. "Mini but not extremely mini. In velvet if possible. Emerald green or gold. Or: A Mexican peasant-style dress, smocked or embroidered." She needed a dress that morning because the district attorney, Vincent Bugliosi, had expressed doubts about the dress she had planned to wear, a long white homespun shift. "Long is for evening," he had advised Linda. Long was for evening and white was for brides. At her own wedding in 1965 Linda Kasabian had worn a white brocade suit. Time passed, times change. Everything was to teach us something. At 11:20 on that July morning in 1970 I delivered the dress in which she would testify to Gary Fleischman, who was waiting in front of his office on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills. He was wearing his porkpie hat and he was standing with Linda's second husband, Bob Kasabian, and their friend Charlie Melton, both of whom were wearing long white robes. Long was for Bob and Charlie, the dress in the I. Magnin box was for Linda. The three of them took the I. Magnin box and got into Gary's Cadillac convertible with the top down and drove off in the sunlight toward the freeway downtown, waving back at me. I believe this to be an authentically senseless chain of correspondences, but in the jingle-jangle morning of that summer it made as much sense as anything.
Manson and the Constitution
V Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
VI Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
XIV Amendment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
31 May 2011
George V. Denny III charges Vincent Bugliosi with Perjury
LOS ANGELES PRESS CLUB; May 7, 1974; 11:00 A.M.
News Release: George V. Denny III, attorney in two Bugliosi cases, charges Attorney General candidate with committing perjury, fabricating false evidence for and lying to police investigators, and making hush money cover-up payments.
Vincent T. Bugliosi, who is now seeking to become Attorney General of California, has lied to you ladies and gentlemen of the press, has lied to the people of this State, has lied to officers of the Santa Monica Police Department in the course of their investigation of a charge involving Bugliosi himself; and has conspired to fabricate false evidence to further thwart that investigation.
In addition, Mr. Bugliosi has committed willful and deliberate perjury in a deposition which I personally took of him in connection with the civil action which arose out of slanderous statements he made about a plain citizen of this State at the close of Bugliosi’s campaign for District Attorney of Los Angeles County in 1972.
I am here today to document these charges for the news media and for the voters. My wife has joined me here because in laying ALL of the facts before you, I subject us – my whole family – to a potential liability of $15,000. The liability is real enough if Mr. Bugliosi wishes to avail himself of the hush money contract he insisted be signed before making a cash pay-off to keep the press and public from learning the truth.
When I came before some of you reporters on the last day of the D.A.’s race here to announce my filing of a slander action on behalf of Herb and Rose Weisel against Bugliosi, I told you that it was not a campaign trick or publicity gimmick. I told you that the suit would not be dropped after the election but would go forward until Mr. Weisel was vindicated. Well, it wasn’t dropped and it did go forward, and Mr. Weisel has been vindicated.
Mr. Bugliosi had harrassed Mr. and Mrs. Weisel unmercifully over a three month period in 1969, using his position as deputy district attorney to get their unlisted phone number and to locate Herb Weisel’s place of employment. Bugliosi had apparently become obsessed with the idea that Mr. Weisel might have fathered Bugliosi’s son during the few months when Mr. Weisel was employed as a milkman at Arden Dairy.
When Bugliosi discovered that the Weisels would hold a press conference four days before the D.A.’s election, he didn’t wait to hear what they were going to say about that period of harrassment. He jumped the gun the night before the Weisel press conference and gave two reporters a phony story. The public was supposed to believe that Mr. Weisel was the suspect in a purported $300 theft from Bugliosi’s home. A theft which was never reported to the police and which – if it occurred while Mr. Weisel was a milkman between October, 1964 and January, 1965 – was well past the three year statute of limitations when Bugliosi started harassing the Weisels four to four and a half years later in March, 1969.
Well, the Weisels had guts enough to stand up and be counted back in 1972. They filed their action against Bugliosi, and even though unfortunately it was literally election eve, some of you reporters observed that what they said in their suit was important enough to tell the voters about.
Today, May 7th, isn’t election eve. And today I want to tell you all the conclusion of “the milkman” case. The complete story is given in the Bugliosi Fact Sheet which has been given to all of you along with supporting materials. But briefly, in the course of his deposition Mr. Bugliosi perjured himself not just once but many times. Wilful, deliberate perjury on material matters concerning admissions of his harassment of the Weisels; admissions made in the presence of two attorneys and Bugliosi’s own distraught wife.
But Mr. Bugliosi has sought to cover himself and to cover his tracks. He settled the Weisel case. But he did so in a way that should earn him the title of a “one man mini-Watergate.” He insisted that he get all of the court reporter’s steno-tapes of the nine untranscribed depositions I had taken. He required all parties and attorneys to sign the Liquidated Damage Agreement requiring a $15,000 payment from anyone who disclosed its terms or even its existence. And when he paid to keep everyone quiet, his payments were all cash -- $100 bills.
I know because I am the attorney who received $12,500.00 in cash for the Weisels from Vincent T. Bugliosi so that he could try to sweep under the rug the misuse of his office as a deputy D.A., his slander of an innocent citizen, his lies to you of the press corps, his own ignoble perjury, and his final cash capitulation.
And now I lay down a challenge to Mr. Bugliosi through whatever medium he hears or reads these words:
IF ANYTHING I HAVE STATED OR WILL STATE IN THIS NEWS CONFERENCE ABOUT YOU IS NOT TRUE, THEN SUE ME FORTHWITH – IMMEDIATELY – FOR LIBEL AND SLANDER. YOU HAVE A READY-MADE FORM IN THE PLEADINGS FILED AGAINST YOU IN THE WEISEL CASE. BUT DO IT NOW, VINCE, WELL BEFORE THE ELECTION, SO THAT I CAN PLACE YOU UNDER OATH IN A CIVIL DEPOSITION, A DEPOSITION THAT WILL BE TYPED UP AND FILED IN COURT, NOT SECRETED OR DESTROYED BY YOU.
But this is not the end of the Bugliosi story. Just two short weeks after putting the final $500 cash in my hand to close out “the milkman case,” Mr. Bugliosi launched into an affair with Mrs. Virginia Cardwell, a young divorced medical assistant who lived with her young son in a small apartment in Santa Monica. I am not here today to leer over Mr. Bugliosi’s adulterous affair. It is important, however, because of his response in mid-June to her announcement that she thought she was pregnant.
Again, the particulars are laid out in the Fact Sheet, provided you. The situation exploded when Bugliosi discovered that Mrs. Cardwell had not gotten an abortion which he had paid for and had insisted she get. On Monday afternoon, June 25, 1973, Bugliosi burst into Mrs. Cardwell’s apartment, enraged at his discovery, and beat her up and choked her. Whether by accident or design he only left marks on her in two places, her left eye and right arm. (These 8 X 10 photos show them several days later.)
Once again, being a criminal defense attorney, I well understand such “lovers’ quarrels,” and such exercises may not necessarily disqualify one from holding high office. It is what followed that makes Vincent T. Bugliosi unfit for Attorney General or any other office in this State.
The story of his assault on Mrs. Cardwell hit the press and the airwaves; so next morning, using his secretary to gain entry, Mr. Bugliosi accosted Mrs. Cardwell in her apartment. Using his not inconsiderable persuasive talents, he worked on her for almost four solid hours to recant her report of his assault and present a totally false story to the Santa Monica detectives waiting to question her.
Overborne by his threats and pleas – as well as feelings she still retained toward him despite the beating – she agreed to follow his “scenario.” According to the new Bugliosi script, their relationship was purely that of attorney-client – which it had never been. Supposedly they had never seen each other socially, and the reason she had “made up” the whole assault and battery complaint was that he had refused to refund to her $100 she had supposedly paid when she purportedly consulted with him on June 14th to get delinquent child support.
Not satisfied with concocting this false story for Mrs. Cardwell to tell – thereby subjecting her to criminal charges based on her original complaint – Mr. Bugliosi and his secretary conspired to fabricate a false receipt for the non-existent $100 payment of June 14th. The secretary did, in fact, prepare such a receipt there in the apartment using plain bond paper and Mrs. Cardwell’s old portable typewriter for the job. That was supposed to be good enough to fool the detectives.
Well, Mrs. Cardwell went and told the new Bugliosi version to the police. And so did Vincent T. Bugliosi – almost word for word the same as they appear in the follow up police report.
And the City Attorney came within a hair of filing false report charges against Mrs. Cardwell. But he dropped those plans at the urgent pleading of Mr. Bugliosi when Bugliosi discovered that his compliant girlfriend wasn’t going to be represented by a lawyer chosen and paid for by him, a lawyer who would quietly plead her guilty, pay her fine (with money provided by Bugliosi) and then let the whole matter quietly disappear.
He begged the City Attorney to drop any charges and forget the whole thing when I informed him that I would be representing Mrs. Cardwell and that I would be cross-examining him when he took the stand as the prosecution’s star witness in a really contested jury trial on such a false report prosecution.
But again, that’s not the end. After the criminal aspect of the case had disappeared, Mrs. Cardwell acquired a civil attorney who contacted Mr. Bugliosi’s attorney concerning a projected civil damage action for the assault and battery. To make what is now a very long story shorter, suffice to say that Mr. Bugliosi’s penchant for pay-off cover-ups once more came to the fore.
According to what Mrs. Cardwell told me before anything was ever signed or any money paid, the old Liquidated Damages Agreement was trotted out again – this time with a $50,000 stinger for anyone who divulged the settlement. And the rather considerable sum of $5,000 cash plus retention of the still unspent $450 “abortion” money was offered by Bugliosi and accepted by Mrs. Cardwell.
Was the Liquidated Damages Agreement signed? Well, I have never seen the Agreement, but Mrs. Cardwell just won’t discuss with me anything about the case any more.
Was the $5,000 in cash paid? Well, on December 11, 1973, I received a check for $713 from the trust account of Mrs. Cardwell’s civil attorney, and I was only to get that reimbursement of costs from a settlement or judgment against Mr. Bugliosi. And I know too that any time I have mentioned the Bugliosi case to Mrs. Cardwell since the first of the year her smile reveals over $1,000 worth of dental work that she suddenly could afford at just the time I received my reimbursement check.
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Bugliosi’s attempts to cover up his attack on Mrs. Cardwell, his own lies and his fabrication of phony stories and phony evidence may bind others to silence, but his payment of hush money to Mrs. Cardwell doesn’t bind me.
The people of this State deserve to know about Mr. Bugliosi – all about Mr. Bugliosi.
I am no politician. What I have said today may be too blunt for some people. I have used words like “liar” and “perjurer” and “fabricator of false evidence.” I have used those words because they fit Mr. Bugliosi. And because they do fit him – and fit so horrifyingly well – Vincent T. Bugliosi is UNFIT for the post he now seeks.
30 May 2011
Playacting with Lies
September 20, l999
It would take more time than I have to play faces with people who playact with lies.... I believe God will be much worse on the unreal as they are on themselves each day as they create more guilt, fear, and hate. Thirty years I've been punished, not for what I did, but for what people needed to balance the fear and confusion going on in between their ego games.
Over thirty years I told you I broke no law, yet you keep lying and say I was given a fair trial in court, and because I got no school in my brain you play me for fool. The reason I don't write and try to help myself in what's called "you people" is because it's used and mixed up with all the confusion "you people" play with your fears for money and past implants from the same twisted school heads who would eat earth and or anyone else before they would bend to GodÃs will. They would spend 2000 more years running from themselves before being in God and God being in them. Even if they say it, they still won't give up what they know is bad for them and earth. They run on fear-based teachings coming from wars and schools where they hide and won't accept anyone with a brain unless it's got papers signed by dead people.
I've retired fifty years of lunch buckets and seen you grow up, eat your children's minds, and retire lunch bucket after lunch bucket. You lock your best servant up because you fear the other side. You're playing with past mind sets. Thirty years and I've not met four people who could set and talk to me looking in my eyes. Each finds an excuse to justify their pee-wee brains by calling someone else crazy or playing me as the evil and bad because I'm not like them.
It's not if I'm bad or did crimes, it's "We want you to be like us." And at the same time you all follow TV movie hate images to hell. I stood up for you all and was burned, was disrespected, and fucked over more by the people of Christ. That showed me and the millions of eyes that watch me (that) there was no love there. So God loves the love given. He gives it right back because God is love....
I don't need school to learn what's in my own mind. And they don't teach you how to use your brains, they teach you how to get a job and work for the god money and come back justifying and dancing the lies and ego, will for greed etc. I don't want to be the judge. Two P.A.'s were fired for making two black inmates cut their hair. I want to fire the people who took the weights off the yard and are trying to cut beards and hair.
The WORD of the warden of Death Row said "Death Row is coming down now. What must we do, as CDC, to keep you from treating us as pigs and killing us?" (The) deal was cut and set. "OK, you respect us, we respect you."
We are not dogs. We are men and would like boxes from home so we can have slippers for our feet and a bathrobe so we don't need to run naked to the shower. (We want) some of our lives back to be as human, a radio we can change and listen to what we want and end the CDC brain.... Radio and TV would help some of the men who are confined for a long time. (We want) our music (guitar) and music programs funded by the MAC, our welfare to have a wife and visits with out a bunch of cops trying to show more manhood to convictsà wives who already killed people for disrespecting their loved onesà family.
There are those among us who would fight for God and country, and soldiers who have served are not pigs. And CDC who respect are not pigs. They will be just as much human as they let us be. Your hat is a little off center, my crowned jewel....
YouÃre blinded by unlove zombies who need others to feed on, and you keep me helpless because you're helpless, locked in your fear and doubts of what may happen or "What will so-and-so think?", etc. Your prison is much worse that mine.
I'm thirty years locked in cages and picked on. Why don't you give me thirty more days in my cage and take some more of the summer away from me? Has the last thirty days of my life been good for you? Has hurting me and using me to look over your doubts and fears helped you? Thirty days of my time -- one day at a time -- is about twenty years of yours.
I did wonder why earth people got old so fast. Staying a child, I just never went to school and learned how to be a people....
Rich people get favors. Manson is rich, but not permitted to do art or send photos or art. Everything I owned was taken time after time and called "contraband." Anything I do, I'm accused of making money, like it's a sin. My life itself has been outlawed ever since my father died in the War and my mom went to prison for trying to feed me at fifteen years old.
For over fifty years I've been raised in your punishments, not for what I did or do, (but) because I'm not a bully like you. I've done nothing to no one. I owe no one, and people keep using me bad. I have learned that the rights they say you have are only if you have money or a place you were born into. Being right is not enough. Respect is not respected as should (be). Respect is covered up by a bigger fear. Fear is a big control in some minds.
P. S. - Everyone thatÃs getting off on gun laws are not on line with ATWA. Pollution is gonna kill us all as people fight each other for bunkum plays. You can't keep playing law and order when prisons are filled with poor people that have been fighting for change in ATWA, (when) you keep claiming their efforts and running for office and making movies, and others play act our efforts for money. Money is not the asnswer. Covering us up, distorting -- you law and order freaks are breaking all the laws one way as they kick down on others with their misunderstandings and warped thought patterns. How can you keep destroying Manson family when you are the Manson Family. Not giving us our rights don't give you rights and to keep thinking you got any more rights than Manson is pure bunk. You got the same rights you give. You get the same protection of your own life that you give life. - Charles Manson
26 May 2011
Access Manson vs. Stephen Kay
On October 21, 1997 the New York Times online Cybertimes published an article about Access Manson entitled "Manson Family Web Site: History Rewritten by Losers". The article is noteworthy because it included the first reaction to the web site from a member of the prosecution team that convicted Charles Manson in 1971.
Steven Kay was a young deputy District Attorney when he joined Vincent Bugliosi in the courtroom as a co-prosecutor late in the trial. In his book Helter Skelter Bugliosi mentions Kay only six times, at one point to recall how the inexperienced deputy DA "intemporately" rushed from the courtroom to repeat a supposed Manson death threat to the press. Manson once remarked that Kay's real role at the trial was that "he carried Bugliosi's pencils."
The reporter for the New York Cybertimes asked Kay to comment on several of the points raised in Access Manson. This exchange is repeated below, with additional commentary fromAccess Manson. Prompts from the Cybertimes are in "regular" print. Kay's comments are in italics. Access Manson's responses to Kay's reactions are in boldface.
To the notion that Manson was denied his rights because the judge did not allow him to represent himself in his trial:
That was always a sticking point. When he was denied pro per rights, he said he was going to get the worst attorney in L.A. Later, jurors had trouble deciding to convict because he had such a bad attorney.
The denial of Charles Manson's constitutional rights is reduced to "a sticking point". Note with this first response how Kay establishes a pattern of saying nothing of substance, of giving no detailed response to this or any other allegation contained in ACCESS MANSON. He offers nothing close to evidence or documentation in his answers, merely making statements and passing them off as fact, as if he was an acknowledged oracle of the truth.
On the Web site's section described as Manson "trial statement":
He didn't have the courage to testify in the trial. What they don't realize here, it says this was his trial statement. This is a statement he made out of the presence of the jury. He mainly wanted to testify so the press could pick it up.
Manson had the courage to do much more than testify in the trial: He had the courage (and confidence) to want to defend himself at the trial. The prosectution and the judge didn't have the courage to let him.
That "Helter Skelter" was a fiction cooked up by the state:
The "little Helter Skelter scheme" wasn't the scheme of the district attorney. That was the motive [for the murders].
As we have discussed in the "Lies" section below, the "helter skelter" motive was conjured up by the District Attorney's Office to provide a motive (and thus presumably evidence of guilt) for Charles Manson. The fallacy of this motive will be discussed in greater detail in a future enterprise from ACCESS MANSON.
On the general notion that Manson is innocent:
He thought if he did not inflict any of the fatal blows, he was not guilty of murder.
Or if he didn't plan or order the murders, which he didn't.
On a Manson quote from a parole hearing transcript -- "I do a lot of underworld things":
Yeah, that's true.
No argument.
To the assertion that Manson is 5 feet 6 inches tall:
[laughing] Manson's 5 feet 6? Not a chance. Manson is 5 feet 2. I guess they don't like the fact that he's a short guy.
Access Manson was incorrect in stating that Manson is 5 feet 6 inches tall. It now looks like Manson is actually 5 feet 7 inches tall. Our evidence to back this assertion consists of the last California driver's license held by Manson before his arrest in 1969. Reproduced below, the license lists Manson's height as 5 feet 7 inches.
More evidence that Manson is really 5 feet 7 inches tall can be found in the book Helter Skelter itself. Two mug shots of Manson, reproduced below, both confirm his height at 5 feet 7 inches. The reproductions here are not of superior quality, although the "7" from "5-7" can be seen midway down on the left side of the first picture, just before the "140" weight entry. We encourage interested parties to personally examine these pictures in a hardback edition of Helter Skelter. (If you do not have a hardback copy, please examine one in a bookstore or library, or buy a used copy -- DO NOT BUY A NEW COPY OF THIS BOOK.) Use a magnifying glass. Your examination will not only reveal a "7" on both mug shots, it will also reveal how both pictures were artfully cropped for the book so that the "5" foot part of the height entries (not to mention the "M" in "Manson") is not there, and thus Manson's real height is not disclosed.
One might wonder why the dispute over Manson's height is important. It is important because it clearly shows the willingness of the DA's side to present a lie and back it up with phony evidence or to omit evidence to the contrary. In this case, as we have said elsewhere, they lie about Manson being 5 feet 2 inches tall because such a height is so short that it is almost a negative superlative. They couldn't say that the monster Manson is ten feet tall, so they made him five feet tall.
One might also wonder that if the District Attorney et. al. would lie about this, how many other lies and ommisions of truth are contained in the fantastic "Helter Skelter" story of Charles Manson?
To the contention that Manson was not present during the murder of Shorty Shea:
He actually stabbed Shorty Shea.
Kay prosecuted Manson for the killing of Shea, so you might think he would offer some evidence to support his assertion. But he doesn't, and can't.
On complaints about prison visiting rules:
Aha! That's what he's mad about. He can't visit with Sandra. And she can't visit him. This [Web site] gives her an outlet where she can do things for him.
Manson is mad about the denial of his rights, particularly the denial of his right to represent himself at his trials. He is also mad about the denial of his right to visitation with Sandra Good. Kay has addressed not one of the many legal arguments made in ACCESS MANSON concerning either of these denials.
That Manson was not obsessed by the Beatles:
He thought that the Beatles were the five prophets talked about in Revelations.
He thought that the Beatles were for teenyboppers. Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!
That the Manson Family did not abuse drugs:
Every drug imaginable. You name it, they took it.
First, we would differentiate between simply taking drugs and abusing them. That said, no one would deny that a wide variety of drugs was available at different times at Spahn Ranch, just as they were (and are) available in American society generally. But not everybody at Spahn Ranch was with Manson, and the people who were with Manson were certainly not responsible for any drugs which may have been brought onto ranch property by other persons such as ranch hands or motorcycle club members.
What kind of drugs did Manson use? He said at his 1992 parole hearing that he has "taken a few tabs of acid, I smoked grass, I smoked a little hash. I don't mess with drugs, per se. I don't do anything self destructive. I like the cactus buds. They're a spiritual experience.... (Peyote) and mushrooms are OK. I drink Scotch whiskey. I like Scotch whiskey and I drink beer occasionally. I'm not much of a wine drinker, but now and then some wine with meals is alright." At his 1997 hearing he qualified this earlier statement: "I ran the gamut of the streets, everything that the children do. (But) I never let anything over on me enough to get ahold of me. I tried to understand what it is. I've learned from everything I've done."
So Manson has admitting trying many things and favoring some -- a realistic response from an honest person.
It may be safe to assume that people who closely associate with each other over a period of years have similar tastes, and these shared tastes would probably include taste in drugs, although there would obviously be variations based on the individuality of the persons involved. But there is no evidence to suggest that anyone had any of the problems associated with drug abuse. Nor has there ever been any evidence from police records or anywhere else to indicate that large quantities of any kind of narcotic, even marijuana, were ever seized during any of the many raids conducted against Manson and his friends over a two year period. Nor is there any evidence of drug dealing on any large scale.
Kay's statement is simply a slanderous lie.
On another quote from Manson, "I did not break man's law nor did I break God's law":
Well, you broke both.
God's laws and man's laws have been broken by what state-sanctioned criminals have done to Charles Manson for the last 27 years.
18 May 2011
Crucified - The Railroading Of Charles Manson
Free pdf of the book 'Crucified - The Railroading Of Charles Manson' by Michael White
Release Charles Manson Now Project
http://www.releasecharlesmansonnow.blogspot.com/
R C M N
P.O. Box 303
Corcoran, CA
93212
USA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)