The Smiley Smile Message Board

Aparently, Charles Manson has just contacted Phil Spector to see if they could make a record together:

http://www.uncut.co.uk/news/uncut/news/13411

Probably not going to happen... 8)

...with Jim Gordon on drums...

You know, they could probably make a good record together, and that's what's scariest of all.

I'd probably be scared too...speaking of scared, Spector looks scared in that pic!

Agreed.

It could be pretty cool. Maybe a little simmilar to the Leonard Cohen/Spector record?

I wonder if Spector would even be allowed. I shouldn't think so.

That would be an interesting production, I wonder what will come of it.

Assuming Phil Spector was interested, how do you make a musical recording in prison?

The article states that Manson has been recording for years in prison..... how and why is he allowed to do that??? Who the hell comes in there to record him??? Or is this just "recording" at the lowest level possible, ie hand-held tape recorder???? Someone please explain this! I think the two of them belong together.

It is just him, a guitar and a hand held tape recorder.  Prisoners are allowed certain amenities and that was one of the things he asked for.  There have been boots that "he" has put out from his cell.

*I realized after typing that I might sound like some sort of weirdo.  I havn't heard any of the stuff from prison (I have heard some stuff off of Lie though) I have just seen it/read about it

Now a days, home recording is very simple, inexpensive, and it's not difficult to make decent sounding recordings. Maybe he's even got a multitrack?

Maybe he's gonna be allowed to make a decent echo chamber out of his prison cell.

Prison wall of sound.

 :afro >:D
 :violin :thewilsons :drumroll :drum :dennis :serenade :thewilsons :violin

The afroman and the devil haha, you've put together a great band there lol.  Imagine the video - they've both got really horrible, scary, staring eyes, the stuff of nightmares!

Charlie & Phil lose a background singer....Squeaky Fromme was released from prison after serving 34 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQZfBfDSLMA

I wish Manson would hurry up and die.  He should have been executed years ago for his crimes.

Oh my...what on earth? :o

You can't execute someone that never actually killed anyone.

Oh he killed plenty of people, just ask Roman Polanski or Vincent Bulgiosi.  Manson had a trial and he was convicted, and was sentenced to death.  Unfortunately, the death penalty was put on hold for a while and he got out of the death sentence, but he's a murderer.   

The first release will be "River Deep, Helter Skelter High"  ;D

No he isn't a murderer. He is some combination of evil and insane, but isn't a murderer (at least not for those murders that landed him in jail). He conspired to have the murders committed, and under California law that meant he shared the guilt and punishment of the murder charges. But he isn't a murderer, which means to commit the crime of murder (which is to unlawfully kill a person, especially with malice or forethought). Disliking him and the actions--which any remotely sane or decent person presumably would--doesn't change the facts of the situation.

Words have meanings.

You don't have to be the person that holds the knife and thrusts it into someone's stomach to be the killer.  If you direct someone to do the killing, pay someone to do it, etc. you are a murderer.

Amen to that last post!!!!

In a moral sense, maybe: you bear responsibility. But literally, no you aren't.

Exactly.  You explained it very well in your last post Luther.  Murder via conspiracy is quite different than committing the act of murder.

I'm not a Manson Tate/Bianca killings expert, so forgive me if this is a stupid question - isn't there some doubt that Manson actually planned the murders at all?  Something like some off hand comments by Manson were interpreted by his followers as instructions to murder, when maybe that wasn't his intention?

I definitely don't know the answer to that: I'm no expert on them either. I believe he had basically said it was time for "helter skelter" to begin, which was his armageddon style uprising / race war / class war / whatever. And whether he specifically meant they ought to commit that killing is kind of a moot point for me, anyway. He needs to be incarcerated forever.

Do you think that the Tate murders happened at Terry Melcher's house was a random event?

Not sure whom you're asking, but I'd assume not.

It has been suggested by a music journalist "Watson M" that the prosecution's version of the crime greatly exagerates Manson's role in these particular crimes. A book about Manson was written by "Watson M" called LIVE FREAKY, DIE FREAKY but was never published.

This was the guy who discovered that Brian and Carl performed on Manson's demos that were cut at the Bellagio house.

It was definitely on purpose.

I doubt that Tex Watson and his accomplices had a beef with Terry Melcher, but I suspect that Charlie did and sent his "family" up there to do the evil deeds for him.   

In the Greta Van Susteren documentary, Vincent Bugliosi said that Manson knew that Terry Melcher was no longer living in the house, but chose it anyway because he was familiar with it and the house represented a certain status.

And this is what I had always heard as well.  He knew that Terry was no longer living there, but he knew that someone famous did.  I have also read a rumor that he cased the house a few days before to make sure someone was living there.

Man I gotta read that helter Skelter book again. I read it when i was 15 three years ago and have everything forgotten.

It's the book that got me into The Beach Boys.

Charlie had been to the house when Terry lived there, knew he no longer did, but was familiar with the layout and that is was very "out of the way".

Does not apply.  Murder is a legal term, and under the law, Manson was found guilty of murder (rightly so) and sentenced to death.  Then the death penalty was overturned. That's why he wasn't executed, not because he "never actually killed anyone".  Under the law, he actually killed at least eight people, as did Susan Atkins and Leslie Van Houten, neither of whom (in my opinion) struck an actual death blow. Linda Kasabian could also have been found guilty of murder for having driven the killers to and from both scenes, but I think it's right that she wasn't, due to legitimate extenuating circumstances.  (She was in genuine fear of Manson).

And Manson actually tied the Labiancas up personally before turning them over to Tex with full mutual understanding of what was to occur.  That's guilt in every sense. If Manson didn't kill anyone, Osama Bin Laden certainly didn't either.

As to executing people who really didn't kill anyone, I think at that time- 1970- you could still be executed for espionage (as the Rosenbergs were) or (in some case) kidnapping and rape.

Yes, they do, and murder is a legal term as well as a common term.  Manson is clearly, completely, inarguably guilty of murder in both senses- the legal and the moral senses.  He named the victims, chose the killers, placed the weapons in their hands, arranged for the car, and gave them the address.  He might have visited the scene at Cielo Drive as well, after the killings, he has given vague and conflicting statements on that, but there is some evidence. On the second night he visited the scene before the killings, chose the killers, chose the victims, and tied them up before telling Watson "You know what to do", or something like that.

The excuses made on his behalf are the same made by Nazis at Nuremberg and elsewhere: whereas those who carried out the killings invariably said "I was just following orders"; those who gave the orders said "Am I responsible for the excesses of my subordinates?" (Heinrich Himmler said this in 1945).  Nonetheless, they were all legally and morally guilty. And as I said earlier, I doubt that we will argue over whether Osama Bin Laden is a murderer.

Say what you will about Vince Bugliosi; he amply demonstrated Manson's domination of his followers at the trial, and it was an important point, legally.  There was overwhelming evidence from numerous sources that Manson was in a strong  degree of control of his followers, and that he had a strong and reasonable expectation that his orders would be carried out.  The trial itself, in which the women stood in unison and recited things that he had told them to say, and the circus outside with the bald-headed vigils were further proof of Manson's pervasive influence.

All of the killers- even Watson- have long since taken personal responsibility for their actions, but all have agreed that the actions were planned and orchestrated by Manson ( who fully participated on the second night, not that it matters).  The sole exception is Bobby Beausoleil, who detailed Manson's key role in the killing of Gary Hinman- he struck the first serious blow- but maintains that Manson's order to kill Hinman did not ultimately guide his hand, and that a combination of panic and poor judgment on his own part were responsible.

The term "murder" does have meaning, and it encompasses more (and less) than simply wielding a knife or a gun or a blunt instrument- but it is no less specific.  A person can stab someone to death without committing murder; (legally or morally); one can certainly commit murder without stabbing someone to death.

I wouldn't necessarily say "inarguably." It can be interpreted in a couple ways, and the law may say he's a murderer (which is what really counts in this situation, obviously) but the way I see it, you're not actually a murderer unless you are the one who commits the act that ends a person's life. I definitely see how Manson is considered a murderer, though. But I personally don't consider him to be a murderer.

Do you personally consider Osama bin Laden a murderer?  He has planned and financed thousands of murderes- does tha make him a murderer?  How about Heinrich Himmler?  He orchestrated six million deaths, and agonized over the cheapest and most efficient way to carry them out, chose the executioners and the place and time the killings would be carried out, in violation of international law, and helped conceal and deny the crimes, but never personally pulled a trigger or touched a Zyklon B tablet,  and only attended one mass shooting personally, at which he fainted.  Is he a murderer in your book?  Is bin Laden?

"Murderer"- it's really not a subjective term. The word refers to the commission of the crime- a murderer is simply one who commits murder, and the crime of murder is very precisely defined by law.

Yeah, under the law they all are, which is what I said. If you go by the definition most people think of, "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being," and "actus reus," then it would be murder if Manson was the one who was doing the killing. That's all I'm trying to get at, really; many people hear the word "murderer" and assume the person being referred to was the one who did the killing, like personally going up to someone and shooting them in the head or stabbing them.

Out of the two subjects of this thread, I'd consider Phil Spector the real murderer; he's the one who actually put the gun to Clarkson's mouth and pulled the trigger. Manson is more of a sociopathic loon with all the potential in the world to be a murderer, but never really achieved that status (according to what I quoted) because he had people do it for him.

Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying totally, but I guess I just see it a little differently. People disagree with laws and the way they're interpreted all the time. Maybe the more accurate thing to say would be that Manson never directly killed any of the victims.

And I believe he is directly responsible for those deaths, more so even than Watson, and therefore he killed them. So we disagree, but I certainly appreciate your reasonableness in arguing your point.

I would suggest that the people you refer to who think strictly of striking the death blows should be considered misinformed, and could not serve on a jury with that misunderstanding of what murder is.

In your definition you use the term "premeditated", which I wouldn't agree with.  But if so, how do you know Spector's act was intentional and not simply negligent?  Manslaughter is a very specific variant that can occur when there's no intention to kill. Manson's premeditation is completely beyond question, unless you reject all credible evidence as a favor to him, including many of his own statements.

Here's a classic law school exercise (no, I didn't go to law school), based on a real case, I think:

A couple tend to argue violently, and their arguments frequently lead to one of them running for an unloaded shotgun, and discharging it angrily (but harmlessly) at the other. The son hates them both, and he secretly loads the shotgun.  When the next argument happens, one parent kills the other.  Although this is actually not the point of the exercise (since it's legally clear to this point), who is the murderer in your eyes?  Note that it's certainly not an accidental death- it was a carefully planned event.

Leopold and Loeb, the teenage thrill killers from Chicago- the basis for Hitchcock's "Rope"- in 1924 they planned the murder together, they lured a child into their car, and while one of them drove, the other struck the death blows with a lead pipe.  No one knows which.  Then they dumped the body together, and sent a series of ransom notes. Only one of them was a murderer?

Dick Hickock and Perry Smith entered the Herbert Clutter home in Holcomb, Kansas on a Saturday night in November, 1959.  Dick had planned it all: "No witnesses".  He had said it over and over.  "Brains on the walls", he said, if I remember correctly.  He and Perry tied up the four Clutters, and then searched the house for a safe.  Finding none, they stuck to the original plan and went from room to room, blowing the heads off of those four people.  Brains were indeed on the walls. Perry pulled the trigger.  So Dick's not a murderer?

Manson's a murderer.

It would have been nice if Manson had died yesterday on the 40th anniversary of that horrible event.

Cease to exist, give into your brother.  >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D

Great posts Surfer Joe!  Manson sux.

I believe anyone who defends, denies, idolizes, etc. him is largely no different than one who defends, denies, idolizes those damn Nazis.  And Manson has the scar/symbol etched into his stupid forehead...just in case anyone forgets that fact.  He's nothing more than a highly unaccomplished Himmler.

As I've aged...I've become less and less sure I agree with the "death penalty"...but I'd be damned if that man doesn't deserve the worst human-kind has to offer.  To see him give those interviews and spew his stupid ramblings, and believe he's some gifted little pixie...just infuriates me.  I can't imagine what it must be like for the victim's families.  Hopefully prison has tormented him in ways far greater than a quick and painless death has to offer.  Otherwise, the state of California didn't get its money's worth.

"As a threaded online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

The Nazi comparison was inherent this time: the man has a swastika carved into his forehead and has made comments admiring Hitler.  (Hitler was "a tuned-in guy who leveled the karma of the Jews", said the guy who so many people think is really smart and "speaks a lot of truth").

The reason the Nazis inevitably creep into a discussion is because right and wrong and the nature of evil come up, and they're the ultimate and perfect symbol of evil and of the perversion of a system, a society, and so many other things that they represented or exemplified- misguided loyalty or patriotism, the question of ultimate responsibility, the nature of the potential cruelty that's within us all, it goes on and on. They represent dangers that still exist, and the main lesson of the twentieth century. They should come up in conversation, and it's better that we bring them up too much than too little.

Bean Bag, I actually don't support the death penalty either, for various reasons; never have.  But Manson had already suffered plenty at the hands of the system long before his killing spree- which is his favorite point to make.  I don't know if there's any justice in this life for someone like him.  All we can really do is keep him pinned like a bug and watch him get crazier and stupider, until they finally box him up and haul him away with the trash.  Meanwhile, look at any YouTube video of him babbling and sticking out his tongue and doing the hoky poky, and the comments below will include claims that he never killed anyone and should be out, and that he speaks a lot of "truth".

The idea that he made some kind of profound statement or gave us insight about ourselves by having those people butchered makes me ill. The ultimate con, and only the stupid fall for it.

This sums his great wisdom up perfectly- thanks, Ben Stiller:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5IrRe2F7qY

Is George Bush not a murderer, then, for going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or Barack Obama for continuing these travesties? No, because the people American troops are killing in those countries are supposedly enemies of America, which makes it OK. However, if Charles Manson orders the murder of people he views as his own enemies, perhaps even as society's enemies, he is the scourge of the Earth. Now, I'm not defending Manson. In fact, I have equal contempt for Bush, Obama, and Manson. What I am doing is pointing out the common inconsistencies in most people's moral judgments that render their judgments laughable and primitive. You have no right to judge Manson if you at all support the policies of Bush or Obama. As Manson himself correctly states, he is persecuted for representing the side of our selves we don't like. If you voted Democratic or Republican, you indirectly asked for people in other countries to be killed, which is not so different from what Manson did, except that he wasn't as far disassociated from the act as we try to pretend we are from our country's politics.

This is the argument always made by Manson's groupies- not saying you're one- usually in regard to Bush.  I'm somewhat open to it, but only on a certain limited basis: if you can convince me that Bush violated international or U.S. law and/or violated the oath of his office and waged war wrongly or illegally.  Maybe he did, I don't know.  That could make him morally a murderer, and perhaps legally, too- if so, "war criminal" would seem to be the more accurate charge.  But either way it doesn't do a damned thing for Manson's thick coat of slime.


Pardon the bluntness: BS (since I don't think the board will let me spell that out). We don't all agree on politics, so we should let a mass killer run free? Not sterling stuff there. 

There has probably never been a head of state, much less a world leader, of even minor significance who was not responsible for deaths in the course of making important decisions. So there are no viable options at the voting booth, and anyone who says he is one is trying to pull a fast one or is as crazy and full of it as Manson.

For that matter, if you vote for a skyscraper or a bridge to be built, you voted for someone to probably die. So you're a murderer?  How utterly silly. When you pay your taxes and equip the police, you subsidize killings, including some unjustified ones. You paid for the bullet. And yet if you don't arm the police, far more innocent people will be hurt and will die.  So Manson should go free and organize a new murder club?  Sorry.



Colossal, spectacular B.S.  Archetypal Manson psycho-drivel. He's in jail for murdering eight or more people, not for "representing the side of me I don't like".  The side of me I don't like is that I'm typing on a message board right now instead of getting work done.


Not so different from what Manson did, except that in one case I'm voting on a clean air act and possible health care reform ,and in the other he's slicing a guy's ear off with a sword and shooting a pusher in the chest and telling people to write on the walls in a pregnant woman's blood.  Yeah, I guess that's the same thing.

I would like to believe that morality goes beyond what is 'right or wrong' according to the law.


No, Manson shouldn't be free. I just don't know why people think megalomaniacs like George Bush and Barack Obama should be free, let alone in charge of a country. Of course, if you believe in war, in senseless violence, you'll think I'm crazy. I'm OK with that, though, because I think you're crazy. I believe that war is backwards, a relic of our tribal beginnings. Apes go to war over territory (I'm not joking) - humans should know better. It's time for a new age.


There is a lot of subtlety in subconscious fears. Your response illustrates only a surface understanding of what I'm talking about.


Those issues (clean air act, health care reform) are just distractions from the larger, more pressing issues. There is suffering of far greater magnitude going on right now all throughout the world.

That's a separate issue.  Law and accepted, conventional morality are closely related, but of course they're not the same.  Manson is guilty in all senses, and others may of course be guilty of other things. But when you throw Manson in with politicians, you're just trying to cleanse his slime by spreading it around until the water gets muddy.



No, I'm not a war fan or a death penalty supporter.  But I'm not going to lump the guys who liberated Auschwitz with M-1 rifles in with Manson having people write on the walls in a pregnant woman's blood. If you don't see a wide swatch of moral distinction there, grab a banana and join the apes.


I don't get your and Manson's deep thinking there, huh? Please. It's pyscho-drivel, and you seem to regard attacking people with knives and guns as a legitimate conversation-starter.  Manson is proud of you.


O.K.,  I'll support the anarchy ticket in '12.

Surfer Joe, you seem to be doing some amazing mental gymnastics as far as your defense of some 'killers' and hatred of others. There is no difference who gives the order, if you think murder by proxy is bad then you need to understand that it is always bad. Bush, Obama, Hitler, Mao, Manson or (CIA asset) bin Laden...They All are Murderers by your definition and, guess what, even if you elected them as your representative, they all remain murderers. unless you condone the killing of Innocents we must admit this to ourselves.
Also, this topic is veering wildly into space!

You shouldn't say 'well, politicians kill people all the time' to try and legitimise Manson in any way.  Manson was a cold-blooded psychopath. Most politicians who lead nations into war are not. Was Neville Chamberlain a cold blooded psychopath? or Winston Churchill? or Woodrow Wilson?

Using politicians is too much of a big generalisation to carry any kind of weight. There are obvious exceptions, true. And i'm no red-blooded war-mongering patriot, but it's just common sense.

And I think relating the deranged and sick acts of Manson to various presidents is a dangerous and stupid act of mental gymnastics meant to suggest that one wrong shades another, and to distract, in this case, from calling Manson what he is. You also confused my basic point completely: I certainly do consider bin Laden, for example, a murderer.  That was my actual point, made quite clearly. Find for me where I defended a murderer, i.e. someone who meets the widely accepted definition of a murderer. As Luther said, words have meanings.

As to whether heads of state are murderers, that is clearly a more complex issue, but even there, the only distinction I made was quite a reasonable one- that they would be more likely to be considered war criminals, which is presumably far worse than a murderer.  If Bush is found to have acted criminally as head of state, he will not be arrested by a cop in blue and tried by the local district attorney.  Is that clear enough?

However, I will say this: I do not agree with the ridiculous implied premise that all heads of state are automatically mass murderers.  

And I will add this: if the topic is veering even more widely from the point at which we started discussing whether Charles Manson is a murderer, it's because people are going to absurd extremes to muddy the waters in his favor.
"Sure I'm driving drunk, officer, but you have no right to judge me because somewhere, someone else is doing something worse!"  Please.  

Thank you for that island of sanity and reason in an increasingly disturbing thread, hypehat.

Everyone's making valid points and arguments, some enough to make me reconsider how I was thinking of things before. But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree (cliché, I know) on certain aspects of the discussion, because if someone believes in something strongly enough, no one/nothing is going to change their mind. It would be so boring if we all thought exactly the same ;D And politics is something I won't get into, it can bring out the worst in anybody.

You assume that I'm trying to legitimize Manson, the typical argument, when in fact I am trying to delegitimize politicians by comparing them to Manson. I believe that politicians that lead their nations into war are in some way sociopaths. Just because a viewpoint has mainstream consensus, that doesn't prevent it from being psychopathic. After all, most Germans supported Hitler at one point. In defense of Churchill, the Hitler problem was so out of control that perhaps their only option by the late 1930s was to "fight fire with fire". Perhaps there were other ways it could have been dealt with earlier, but that's a ridiculously complicated subject. I'm not so sympathetic towards Wilson, but that's a completely different topic. Regardless, I just see a lot of politicians causing a lot of problems with their ham-fisted, knuckle-dragging response to political disagreement: war. Bush and Obama are part of the problem, not the solution.

True words of wisdom, Nicole!

Manson's prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi says he is: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vincent-bugliosi/the-prosecution-of-george_b_102427.html

I would also argue that those who favor the death penalty favor murder by proxy. I'm sure we can all come up with reasons why killing is okay, Joe, but my argument, like DADA's, is that no murder, no matter who committed it or why it was committed can EVER be sanctioned, with the obvious exception of personal self-defense. Since I personally would not go to war on  a foreign country, I cannot differentiate between 'evil' Manson, who seems like a megalomaniac psycho (could it be his near lifetime in the hands of Authorities plays apart?), and cuddley Churchill or Obama, who also seem like the same. So, because I think murderers are all bad I'm doing mental gymnastics? Sure. Whatever.
Still, politics aside, I hope we can continue to enjoy our Beach Boys posts together. :smokin

This thread doesn't belong in the BB forum anymore. It belongs in the sandbox.

I'm hoping you can show me somewhere that I said anything remotely like that.

You just proved my point. There are far too many variables in absolutely every example you can think of, so statements like yours and grillos just don't stand up.  'Politicians' is way too big a generalisation. You can't do it. I agree that war is a bad thing, and that leaders carry responsibility, and i also don't agree with our recent forays into the Middle east. But, in my personal opinion, to claim a misguided war and intentionally killing a pregnant woman and smearing her blood all over the walls are similar is just too much.

No-one here is advocating the death penalty, i think. Although me and my friends once did declare war on Wales during a paticularly dull maths lesson way back, so you've got me there.

I think it definitely stands up in the cases of Bush and Obama, which were my original examples. Of course it's convenient for those who disagree with me to bring up something like WWII, but that was roughly 70 years ago. In just that short amount of time, the world has changed so much. There has been both a technological revolution and an information revolution. I thought the 'baby boomers', with their 60s flower power and free love were supposed to be the ones in charge by now. Well, they are, but oops, turns out they love war as much as mommy and daddy did. Sorry for the Woodstock mess. I am utterly disgusted by this travesty being perpetrated. But, as the wise Nicole said, we'll have to just agree to disagree.

Sounds alright by me  :)

Bobby Beausoleil is still producing & recording inside the walls. Good stuff, too.
So the Spector / Manson collaboration may have a chance.

What kind of a set-up do they have in prison? Do these guys just get to screw around in a recording studio while doing time or what? I guess I'm ignorant about the resources available to convicted murderers, but it seems pretty wild that they'd have the chance to make records. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it just seems really odd. Anybody know how this might work?

I was searching around awhile back for information regarding San Francisco bands from the mid to late '60s, and came across some stories about The Orkustra, a band that was formed partly by Bobby Beausoleil (who was also an early member of the L.A based, Arthur Lee led band, Love).  As I explored further, I found this site. 

http://www.beausoleil.net/wizard/index.html

If you explore the Cronicles section, there is an interview with Seconds magazine, in which he (Bobby) talks all about his life before prison, his recordings in prison, his electric stringed invention, and the movie for which he composed and recorded the soundtrack (which is available for sale).  It seems as if he has his stuff together.   

I think it's mentioned earlier in the thread, but in theory a prisoner can have a few personal items - a guitar and four-track are presumably not out of the question, as the guy Reggie mentions has one. You could easily make records on that. I don't think we're talking Wall Of Sound here....