Slightly OT: Charles Manson and Phil Spector

[the captain]

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

[Chris Brown]

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.

[Bicyclerider]

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?

[the captain]

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.

[urbanite]

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

[the captain]

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

[Wilsonista]

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?

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.

[Aegir]

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

It was definitely on purpose.

[urbanite]

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.   

[Sheriff John Stone]

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.

[Amanda Hart]

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.

[Shady]

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.

[DonnaK]

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.

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".

[Surfer Joe]

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

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

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.

[Surfer Joe]

Words have meanings.

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.

[Nicole]

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.

[Surfer Joe]

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.

[Nicole]

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.

[Surfer Joe]

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.

[urbanite]

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

[Alex]

Cease to exist, give into your brother. 

[Bean Bag]

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.

[Aegir]

I believe anyone who defends, denies, idolizes, etc. him is largely no different than one who defends, denies, idolizes those damn Nazis.

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

[Surfer Joe]

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

[Mr. Cohen]

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.