Ex-Manson follower dying, seeks release from prison (Susan A

goodfello · Post by **goodfello** » 07-03-2008 09:37 AM

They should have the same sympathy for her as she and her friends had on the victims……

feetsie · Post by **feetsie** » 07-03-2008 09:46 AM

"If we practice an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, soon the whole world will be blind and toothless."

Mahatma Gandhi

Chickadee · Post by **Chickadee** » 07-03-2008 10:04 AM

There's also the question of when a person who is also a victim of another, commits crimes, whether punishment for those crimes should take that into account.

True enough the murders were committed by the girs (women). Would they have become viscious, phsychotic killers if they had never met Manson?

What gets to me is what happens to people when they're manipulated and changed by a psycho.

Bobbi Snow · Post by **Bobbi Snow** » 07-03-2008 11:29 AM

And let's don't forget that Manson kept them supplied with all kinds of drugs, taken together. One would hope that most of them (as well as other convicted inmates) are pretty much drug-free, altho I have heard that from time-to-time some drugs get smuggled into the prisons by guards.

Her brain tumor is probably due to using all those drugs when she was so young and immature.

I remember about 20 years ago when a doctor prescribed something for me that gave me psychotic episodes. I realize it was a doctor's prescription, but the psychotic episodes were very violent and real. I thought I was being funny, or that I was protecting myself... it wasn't until my friends all did an intervention that I realized there was something terribly wrong, and even then I had to argue with the physician to take me off that drug and prescribe something different. He didn't see any of the episodes, so he had no way of knowing how the drug was really affecting me... he only knew how it was written that it would affect me. After I'd been off of it for a few days, I returned to normal... then, and ONLY then, could I look back on the way it had adversely affected my personality, and actually SEE that it had been a poor choice of drug for me.

What really BOTHERS me about the recent interview with Sharon Tate's sister is, the sister said, "What happens if they release her, and she gets better medical care, and the tumor is eradicated, or her quality of life increases? She doesn't deserve better care or a better quality of life..."

This, to me, shows nothing but vengeance. It seems that forgiveness has all but been forgotten in this world of hate and greed. And it seems that no one realizes just how abnormally drugs can affect those who take them. Had she NOT been on drugs in the first place, she probably would never have committed those crimes. And I imagine, in retrospect, she regrets that she ever did.

badspell · Post by **badspell** » 07-03-2008 12:21 PM

feetsie wrote: "If we practice an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, soon the whole world will be blind and toothless."

Mahatma Gandhi

Wisdom really makes a person question judgment of others.
Although I do believe an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth is just....... Maybe the next phase of our consciousness takes care of that very thing.

Conspiracy Theorist · Post by **Conspiracy Theorist** » 07-03-2008 12:55 PM

If I recall, she was the one that cut the fetus out of Ms. Tate's body. Then bragged about it in prison, which was what blew the case open. You need to be really demented, to do that. As I know you agree.

She has a brain tumor. That's too bad. So do a lot of innocent people......

Susan Atkins did brag about the killing, but has long ago retracted it. What makes her retraction believable is that Tex Watson has admitted to being the actual killer of Sharon Tate, although Susan's statement, "I have no sympathy for you," is true and something she admits to. Keep in mind that the girls were considered chatel property and that they were ordered to sacrifice themselves for the men. This does not diminish her crime, of course. If you are present with an accomplice who commits a murder, you are still equally guilty.

Sadly for Susan, she was originally offered immunity in exchange for her testimony. She could have gone free, but when Manson somehow made contact with her, she renegged on her agreement and went back to being a loyal Manson soldier. Another girl, however, who had remained outside the residence, Linda Kasabian, did agree to testify in her place and did receive immunity.

Manson had spent many years in a Federal Prison where he studied psychology and mind manipulation. He used these methods to slowly break down the resolve of others so as to control them and get them to do things they would never have done otherwise.

On the other hand, Vince Bugliosi does make a valid argument when he says that these girls and boys must have had something in them to start that others would not have had. There were many who joined Manson's cult, probably for the sex, who left after becoming uncomfortable with Manson's attempts at mind manipulation. But a small minority stayed with him. Some remained dangerous and committed crimes long after Manson had been sent to prison.

Conspiracy Theorist · Post by **Conspiracy Theorist** » 07-03-2008 01:13 PM

Oh yeah...now I remember why Susan "flipped." Manson originally wanted to represent himself. As his own lawyer, he had the right to interview prosecution witnesses, and a judge ruled that he must be granted access to Susan Atkins over Bugliosi's objections. This interview had to be conducted in a private unmonitored room. Naturally, once alone, Manson went to work on her and Susan Atkins emerged renegging on her agreement and making a false confession to the actual killing of Sharon Tate.

The fetus was never actually cut out of Sharon Tate. Where that comes from is that on the stand, Susan Atkins said she wanted to cut the child out, and would have done it had they not been in a hurry to get out the door and make their escape. Over the years, this became an urban myth and most think it actually occurred.

What actually occurred, and this is backed by Tex Watson himself, is that Susan Atkins was told to guard Sharon Tate. Tex Watson was in charge of the operation, and when he returned to Susan Atkins, he told her to kill Tate. When she said she couldn't do it, Watson did the actual killing.

Watson was being held in another state during the trial and was fighting extradition. Manson instructed Susan Atkins to confess to the killing in an effort to get the charges dropped against Watson.

vigo · Post by **vigo** » 07-03-2008 02:02 PM

I just can't get Sharon out of my mind and what she must have been feeling. Knowing that she had a child inside of her and that these people were going to kill her and her baby. Seems to me that that perspective always gets lost when the years go by and someone wants to be released for humanitarian sake.

Forgiveness helps us to move on and grow true enough, would forgiveness and a pat on the back have made Charlie and his followers productive members of society?

feetsie, you quote from one of my favorite saints. We are a better world for his having been on it. Hard to see it theses days. However, are we really taking an eye for an eye? She is feed and clothed and cared for medically. Her freedom is in question true enough, but didn't she choose to take the life of (or assist in taking the life of) two others? Her choice has taken her freedom away and therefore she has chosen to be sightless and toothless. This a moral dilemma and one that I have gone round and round with for years.

Does time heal all wounds? Can Sharon and her child come back because we will it and can time make it all better in the hearts of those who were denied living all this time with them?

Live365 · Post by **Live365** » 07-03-2008 02:29 PM

This is fascinating and well researched information you're providing, Conspiracy Theorist. Thank you..........

Conspiracy Theorist · Post by **Conspiracy Theorist** » 07-03-2008 04:34 PM

Live365 wrote: This is fascinating and well researched information you're providing, Conspiracy Theorist. Thank you..........

Well, I guess you could say it's better than researched, since I've known some of these people. I don't talk about it a lot, but I had an ex-wife a long time ago in the same prison as the Manson girls. I got to know them and their families during visits. Yes, I've met Susan Atkins and Leslie Van Houten as well, although any conversations I ever had about their cases were more with their families than with them.

I don't believe either of those two women would ever be a danger to anyone and if they were released, I'd have no problem with them living next door, but that's not the issue. I don't believe any of them will ever go free, although I'd have to say Leslie probably should if no one else. None of them have "Life Without Parole," but they are only guaranteed parole hearings, not actual parole. With high profile cases like that, it's politically unthinkable for them to ever be granted release.

I never met the 3rd woman, Patricia Kernwinkle, but this is because she has no family and never gets visits. I'm told she's the quietest and never even attends her parole hearings anymore, as she's accepted a life sentence and would have nowhere to go even if she was released. In any case, she would be the least likely to be considered, since she actually committed the most murders.

The hearings are mandatory at a minumum of once every 5 years, but the inmate is not required to attend if they do not seek release. Of the lifer hearings in California, only 1 in 50 are ever granted parole dates, usually only in exceptional circumstances, and of even those, something like 3/4ths of them are rescinded by the governor before they ever walk out the gates.

So, of an average of 5,000 lifer hearings per year in California, only about 20 or 30 actually get paroled. Usually, they would be classic battered women's cases, or those who clearly acted in self-defense, but may have been over-prosecuted and under-defended.

So, where exceptions do happen, Susan Atkins will not be one of them.

ibme · Post by **ibme** » 07-03-2008 06:29 PM

Chickadee wrote: There's also the question of when a person who is also a victim of another, commits crimes, whether punishment for those crimes should take that into account.

True enough the murders were committed by the girs (women). Would they have become viscious, phsychotic killers if they had never met Manson?

What gets to me is what happens to people when they're manipulated and changed by a psycho.

If I faced her, and held her fate in my hands, I would be compassionate despite her past.

Interesting posts.

Live365 · Post by **Live365** » 07-03-2008 06:47 PM

Conspiracy Theorist wrote:
So, where exceptions do happen, Susan Atkins will not be one of them.

Conspiracy Theorist, you are among friends here.

Thanks for sharing yer personal experience.

Bobbi Snow · Post by **Bobbi Snow** » 07-03-2008 10:54 PM

None of you ever say the crime photos. I did... Three years after they were committed. Hes, the fetus WAS cut out of her stomach, and the baby in the sack was cut open. I saw the black & white photos. NOT on the internet... the coroner's photos.

Kaztronic · Post by **Kaztronic** » 07-04-2008 12:00 AM

Bobbi, is it possible that the baby was cut out during the autopsy of Sharon Tate, and also autopsied?

Anyone know definitively what is in the court record regarding the baby?

Bobbi Snow · Post by **Bobbi Snow** » 07-04-2008 12:54 AM

The coroner's photos were taken "at the crime scene." She hadn't yet been moved... It was horrible.

My husband was working with the LAPD and the Sheriff's Department, and he was taking me on a tour of all the things they do. He had already established a great rapport with a lot of the "in charge" people throughout the various departments, and I couldn't BELIEVE they were really going to show us the actual photos, but he did... I wasn't ready that those.

I had bad dreams for a long time over seeing those photos. But it made me a lot stronger, and able to deal with a lot of other things that eventually came at me in my life. Accident photos, gun shot victims, etc.