Fantastic Forum the Original Art Bell's Midnight in the Desert and Coast to Coast AM Forum

That's strange. I've seen autopsy/coroner's photos too, and I could swear the picture of Sharon Tate still showed her fully pregnant.

But you say you saw them directly from the coroner. I saw it on line, but it was certainly not an advocacy site. I little google search will find those photos...I wouldn't post a url, but they're out there.

I could be wrong...

OK...I just reviewed the crims scene and coroner's photos, and they do not show Sharon Tate's abdomen cut open. They are the same on several sites, so I'm sure they aren't faked.

If the baby was cut out or not, doesn't make any of these poor people less dead. I have had 2 very close friends murdered and it doesn't matter how it was done, they are no longer here. There is family that suffers daily because of the loss.

The Manson cult has had the opportunity to get up and breathe every day since these horrific murders, that fact that one of them is dying doesn't change who they are or what that did, imo.

When we speak of compassion, where is the compassion for the families that are the victims in all this ?

Setislady, I think that overall this thread is quite concerned with compassion for the families of the victims, and it is that compassion for the victims, and their families that is guiding most here when it comes to forming an opinion on whether or not Susan Atkins should be paroled due to her medical condition. The rest is the interesting discussion that will always ensue when subjects such as the Manson cult come up.

Kaztronic wrote: Setislady, I think that overall this thread is quite concerned with compassion for the families of the victims, and it is that compassion for the victims, and their families that is guiding most here when it comes to forming an opinion on whether or not Susan Atkins should be paroled due to her medical condition. The rest is the interesting discussion that will always ensue when subjects such as the Manson cult come up.

With all due respect Kaz, I have read the thread and know what is being discussed. I am stating my opinion just like anyone else here.

No worries Setislady,

Your post ended with a question, I was just answering it based upon my perspective of the discussion taking place in this thread.

Have a happy 4th!

Kaztronic wrote: Have a happy 4th!

Back at ya, I am off to the beach :p

Now I'm jealous!

It's raining here and I am off to work, LoL.

Still, have a nice evening planned with my Aunt and Uncle, so looking forward to that

Have a great time at the beach

Susan Atkins was denied release from prison today.

After having read the article linked below, I have to say that I have come around to the views put forth by Chickadee prior.

Her left leg has been amputated, she has terminal brain cancer and has been given 3 months to live, she is hospitalized, and the right side of her body is paralyzed.

Susan Atkins is no threat to society - so this boils down to what is cruel and unusual punishment and how we define that as a society.

First, the members of the Manson Family (Susan Atkins included) treated their victims in a far more heinous, cruel and unusual fashion than we are discussing here today, none of us will disagree on that front.

But, that harsh reality is a separate issue as to what constitutes cruel & unusual punishment on the part of "the people".

It is difficult to summon up enough conviction to share my current thoughts about this (because of my sympathy towards the relatives of the victims, and because of a certain lack of sympathy towards Susan Atkins), but I will say it:

I have to admit to still having very mixed feelings about this, but I think Susan Atkins should be released at this point - difficult as that is to say.

MSNBC

This to me is "cruel and unusual punishment" .

In the summer of 1969, Susan Atkins stabbed to death a pregnant Sharon Tate a gruesome 16 times at Tate’s Benedict Canyon mansion. Later, Atkins told fellow inmate and Beverly Hills matchmaker Virginia Graham that the 26-year-old actress begged for her life and the life of her unborn child.

“She told me this thing with great glee,” said Graham who shared a dorm room with Atkins at the Sybil Brand Institute for Women in the fall of 1969. After killing Tate, prosecutors said Atkins tasted the actress' blood and used it to scrawl “PIG” on her front door. On that dreadful night, the Manson Family also killed Abigail Ann Folger, Voytek Frykowski, Steven R. Parent, and Jay Sebring.

The following day, on August 10, members of the Manson family – excluding Atkins – bludgeoned to death Leno LaBianca and his wife Rosemary at their home in the Los Feliz hills. Atkins, then 22, was convicted of killing Tate and music teacher Gary Hinman. Charles Manson, Tex Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten were soon charged with the other grisly murders.

Full Interview:

http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/city- ... an-atkins/

Too bad Sharon Tate doesn't get a second shot at living her life to the final end Susan Atkins took that from her. Too bad her baby never got to live. Susan Atkins took that from her. We all have to live with our choices, she is living with hers now.

There is nothing cruel about what Susan Atkins is going through, she killed 2 people. we conveniently forget about the victims Susan Atkins is NOT a victim she is the murderer.

SETIsLady wrote: There is nothing cruel about what Susan Atkins is going through, she killed 2 people. we conveniently forget about the victims Susan Atkins is NOT a victim she is the murderer.

One might argue that Susan Atkins is also a victim, a victim of Charlie Manson.

That does not for one moment excuse her actions, or her decisions to join his "family", and to carry out horrific crimes on his behalf.

Further, who is forgetting the victims of Susan Atkins here? Or there families? I think that anyone who has said they would consider the release, or support the release of Susan Atkins has stated the difficulty of coming to grips with such a decision given the wishes of the relatives, and the suffering of the victims of Susan Atkins' crimes.

I noted while reading the article linked above that Susan Atkins has served longer than any other woman in California. She has previously been denied parole 12 times.

Is Susan Atkins being treated differently than other murderers in California because of the media attention her release would garner? What about the victims of all the other murderers who are granted parole in cases of murder?

Yes, I to find it unpalatable to see Susan Atkins ever released from prison, and there is a dark part inside me that thinks she should suffer until her last breath for her despicable, unimaginable actions nearly 40 years ago. Let her rot.

But there is another part of me that see's a sick woman who is dying, a one-legged, half-paralyzed woman with terminal brain cancer, a woman who is clearly no longer a threat to society. That part of me wishes to see a more compassionate and just society than that which Charlie Manson hoped to see come about as a result of "Helter Skelter".

IMO, it does not matter that she is no longer a threat to society. She was convicted of participating in another human being's murder. Coldblooded, calculated, senseless murder.

Update:

On July 15, 2008, the California Board of Parole Hearings denied her request, a unanimous decision after a 90 minute hearing. The decision—posted on its Web site—came after a public hearing on Atkins' request. It means the request will not be forwarded to the Los Angeles Superior Court that sentenced Atkins, which would have had the final say as to whether she would be released. It is now expected that Atkins' will almost certainly die in prison.

Shimmering Auro wrote: IMO, it does not matter that she is no longer a threat to society. She was convicted of participating in another human being's murder. Coldblooded, calculated, senseless murder.

Many murderers eventually go free. Some have "Life Without Parole," and some don't. Susan Atkins does not, but that's more a technicality since it's the only sentence available when her death sentence was commuted.

It's sad in a sense, but she is actually guilty in at least participating in the killing of something like 7 to 9 people. Keeping her in prison at this point is symbolic, since she's in a hospital bed that she will never leave whether or not she could be granted freedom in name only.

In this case, sad as it is, I think the parole board was correct in denying release.

That being said, there are many times when killers should be given a second chance. Amazingly, they have the lowest rate of recidivism. An example, I think, of when they should be paroled is in the case of battered women who killed abusive spouses, or those who killed in passion, possibly believing they were acting in self-defense. There are many cases that are prosecuted as murder, but which are really manslaughter. All cases of killings are overcharged, with the understanding that defense attorneys will help the court arrive at the correct verdict. This doesn't happen for those who must depend on public defenders.

So I think each case ought to be judged on it's own merits, and some need to be given a second chance.