Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Lots of old names show up again to repeat themselves- including the Bug cause there is no show without Punch.
Friday, June 05, 2009
But Atkins, who gained infamy for her role in the 1969 slayings of pregnant actress Sharon Tate and others in a bloody two-night rampage in Los Angeles, may get one last chance to convince state parole officials she should no longer be kept behind bars.
Officials with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation said Thursday they have scheduled a Sept. 2 parole hearing for Atkins in Los Angeles.
Atkins has served 38 years in prison, longer than any other female prisoner, officials said. Before last year's attempt, she was most recently considered for, and denied, parole in 2000.
In early 2008 Atkins was diagnosed with brain cancer. With one leg amputated and the other paralyzed, Atkins has only six months to live, doctors say. Atkins petitioned for so-called compassionate release, igniting a debate about when mercy is appropriate.
Those backing her release argued unsuccessfully that the cost of keeping Atkins in prison, which by now could be well over a million dollars, should have favored her release because it would save the state substantial amounts of money.
Others, including former Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, said it was a question of mercy and told The Times it was wrong to say "just because Susan Atkins showed no mercy to her victims, we therefore are duty-bound to follow her inhumanity and show no mercy to her."
But most were unwavering in their contention she should die in prison considering her crimes.
Tate, the wife of film director Roman Polanski, was 8 1/2 months pregnant when she and four others were killed at her hilltop home in Benedict Canyon. The actress, who was stabbed to death, had begged Atkins for her life.
"She asked me to let her baby live," Atkins told parole officials in 1993. "I told her I didn't have mercy for her."
Atkins was housed at the California Institution for Women in Corona from April 1971 until March 2008, when she was transferred to a local hospital for treatment.
-- Andrew Blankstein
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Okay, so we let the Pugh guy post here, and join here and he doesn't like it here. He can stay or go that's up to him. But first I want to get to the bottom of something? Can he read?
Back in May there was a comment in the section that reprinted the original article- by member Force 17. It read...
Simon Wells has written a book called Coming down fast and he has done some original research on this rather than another cut and paste job. Dont think it has a US release yet.
In the letter Dave Edwards wrote us, he defensively states that his article is not a cut and paste job. Fine. The comment is clearly referring to other books like the GoRightly one and two others.
Dave responds to my comments. One of his comments is
Of course newspapers aren't necessarily right but they've always been, and remain, forums of free expression. Sure, sometimes articles are skewed to toe a particular line but this wasn't the case with my piece.
Dave- If you've taken a look around you will see that this site, Bret's site and Cat's site all have one thing in common. We want the truth. A tabloid newspaper wants to be sold. It doesn't, by definition, care about the truth. We do....
I'm sorry, but nothing in my piece expresses admiration for Vincent Bugliosi. Incidentally, didn't Susan Atkins refer to him as the 'Bug'? I really, really hope that you haven't taken to quoting her. That would suggest this is a pro-Manson site rather than something more even-handed.
...And we have been able to, via research and actual free thinking, establish that someone who stalked his milkman thinking he was his son's birth father, who assaulted his mistress and who made up a bullshit motive for the crime of the century should not be trusted, cited or referred to. The moment you cite BUGliosi you lose. Because he is the cause of all the lies out there. His win at any cost ploys helped him to win (although ironically tied him to Manson for life) and helped us lose out on understanding what really happened. And you stand corrected- all of the Family referred to him as BUGliosi (not just Susan, even though BUG dwells on her in his novel). We are not pro Manson. For the record I once again state- Charlie Manson was a short, charasmatic, con artist, a punk who had spent 18 years taking it in the ass. When he got out he continued a life of petty crime. And he never KILLED anybody, so painting him as Satan, as Bug does, is just bullshit. So face that truth, Mr. Edwards. It's where the facts actually start.
If British tabloids really are as bad as you suggest, why on earth are you reprinting my loathsome, inaccurate and sensationalist article? And as far as a response goes, how about sending something to the letters page? It's not hard to do. Try google. Alternatively, there's a forum for comments on the paper's website.
Well Dave, I reprinted it so we can examine and dissect it- not because I assumed that it was the truth because the great Dave wrote it! And why do I care to respond to the paper? Are they official? We are! And why comment on the site? I don't care about the site at all.
This has me at a total loss. And what's with the swearword? This blog follows every twist and turn of the Manson story, happily devoting thousands of words to unsubstantiated rumours but then gets its knickers in a bunch when someone goes out and does some investigative reporting. The reason I looked into Joel's life was because I wanted to tell his story which, as far as I'm aware, had never been properly told. Why has that created such animosity?
Total loss? No doubt. Swear word? Aren't you a grown up? Unsubstantiated rumors? Not sure what you mean but if so I will FUCKING swear that I labelled them as such. Unlike- well, you. Telling Joel's story is a good idea... the question we are discussing is, did you? It appears many people think not. Sorry.
As far as 'sticking around' and learning the truth goes, rest assured, I'll do just that but I'm starting to thin this isn't the place to do it.
Ah, well, there you go. I'm sorry we didn't bow down and accept your tabloid article as God's word.
But at least we got that picture out of it!
Oh and as far as your "truth" goes, Cats from the other great site has a letter for you- she don't think much of your shit either-
Dear Mr. Dave Edwards,
I take note of your presence here yesterday reading this thread, then alas, you appear on the Colonel's site addressing what we have posted here concerning your article.
I take offense to what you said concerning us here, and we do not have hostility nor think we know everything about the TLB case. We just call bullshit bullshit and I am sorry that you did not deem it necessary to address us here on the points made in this thread. You are a member and can post.
The autopsy report has been seen, and Simon too has spoken to Joel's brother Daniel.
The infamous letter with the line about what happened to Joel not happening to the writer is reproduced in full in Simon's book, and when taken into proper context and seeing the letter in full, that single solitary line doesn't mean what has been gathered all these years.
----------David Gets Snarky in The Comments, Col Dissects----------
Gosh, my own thread. I’m honoured.If the guy could READ he would notice this is his THIRD thread.
Colonel,It's COL thanks I’ve read your comments and, after due consideration, I want to apologise. The points you’ve raised are not only pertinent, beautifully put and well argued; they’re also accurate. You mean this as a snarky asshole, but in fact are correct.
This isn’t easy for me to do but… I want to say sorry. no you don't. This makes you a liar.
First, I want to apologise for writing an article about the Manson case without seeking your permission. I thought it was about Joel Pugh- and you still keep being a smug limey asshole..Given how you, and you alone, possess the truth, I WISH I possessed the truth it was simply inexcusable. After much soul-searching, I’ve realised that somehow I have become part of the Great Media Conspiracy that has turned a basically nice guy like Charlie into the devil incarnate. The media didn't do this, BUGliosi did- with Charlie's complicity. LEARN TO READ.
May I also apologise for quoting Vincent Bugliosi who (you’re absolutely right) knows nothing about the case. Hey guys, CAN THIS GUY READ? I never said he knows nothing- he knows quite a lot. What he SAYS cannot be trusted though. You, Susan Atkins and the others are absolutely right -- he really is a bit of a ‘BUG’, isn’t he?He's a lying, woman attacking former DA.
I also want to – hand on heart – apologise if I suggested your website was in any way pro-Family or that you’re a Manson apologist.Anyone that could READ would realize this isn't true. That’s clearly not the case at all. Having looked over your site, it’s now clear to me that Manson is an unfortunate, misunderstood and largely harmless individual who should be freed immediately so he can spread his gospel of peace, love and death.See what I mean, loser- no where does it say that- too bad you cannot READ. Sure, he may have directed the residents of Spahn to commit mass murder,likely did not he may have tied up the terrified LaBiancas not "may"- didbefore they were horrifically killed, he may have orchestrated the murder of Shorty Shea depends on what you mean by orchestrated, he may have sliced off Gary Hinman’s ear,Hinman's corpse clearly has an ear in the autopsy record so he DID NOT do this he may have shot Lotsapoppa did, he may have raped teenage girls who found themselves at Spahn,we can agree to disagree about this he may have ordered the murder of poor Joel except he didn't and NOBODY but you, the poor reader, thinks that he did.but, as you rightly say, he was merely a short, ‘charasmatic’ con artist. Boy, did I get my facts wrong!And you continue to. Again, I’m sorry.
Sometimes it takes a man to stand up and admit his mistakesWell since you are a poorly educated limey fool who could only sell his 6 months of work to a British tabloid, let me know when you find a man. Well, I’m doing just that. Colonel, you’re truly a one-off. A fearless seeker of the truth and someone clearly unafraid to courageously ask the big questions that most shy away from.This is accurate May I also compliment you on your spelling and grammar – you’re also a commander of the English language. My prose is pretty solid, thanks. You CAN'T FUCKING READ so please don't try to teach.I salute you! I’m also glad you haven’t lost your sense of humour during our tête-à-tête. I can’t remember the last time I was called a ‘Spazz’ but I think it was in a playground.No. It was yesterday. By me. Because? Well, you are a spazz. Anyway reading your letter thinks to themselves "Wow, what a spazz!"
Peace, brother, and fingers crossed Charlie, Susan, Linda and all the other victims of disinformation in the media finally win their long overdue parole. God I hope Susan never gets out. Charlie never will no matter what I hope. And Linda IS NOT IN JAIL.... SPAZZZZZZZZ!
Apologies for leaving it so late but I thought I'd respond to all your comments regarding my article. Very briefly, I spent six months writing the piece.
I've been a journalist for the past 13 years and came up with the idea of writing a piece on Joel Pugh after re-reading Helter Skelter last year. Over many, many nights, I contacted Ed Sanders, Vincent Bugliosi, Curt Gentry and others looking for leads. They were all extremely helpful and, after a very, very long time, I was able to contact Joel's brother, Dan, to find out a little about what became of him. I then put together the article you now see and placed it with a newspaper.
While I'm proud to have been the first to piece together the life and times of Joel (a warm, witty and idiosyncratic guy), I'm bemused at the hostility my article has caused. This is something I noticed on many of the Manson websites. It's as if there's a hardcore of people who believe they know the truth of the murders who dismiss those who come up with anything off their radar. I can understand this given all the disinformation out there but, still, the patronizing air is stifling. I'm as fascinated as them about the killings but am not arrogant enough to think I'm the sole keeper of the Tate/Labianca flame.
Incidentally, if the webmaster sees fit to post all my hard work here, I'm offended s/he uses the intro 'but how much do I believe?' Why didn't they have the courtesy to get in touch with me first? I'd have been happy to answer any questions they had. Believe it or not, I didn't make this piece up. Every word was drawn from first-hand testimony, contemporaneous newspaper reports and documents.
As far as Force 17's comments go, may I suggest s/he actually reads my article, which is comprised entirely of original research. It's depressing when people dismiss newspaper articles as 'cut and paste jobs' but even more depressing when the critics don't appear to have actually read them.
As for Simon Wells' book, I finished reading it this week. I thought it was an interesting summary of the phenomenon that, rightly, steered away from the whole Helter Skelter mythology. I notice on other websites he's unhappy at my article, suggesting I've twisted the facts to make a suicide look like a murder. Again, the criticisms are delivered in a familiarly patronizing tone, suggesting I've trivialized Joel's life and death for tabloid readers. I refute this and refer Simon to the blurb on the back of his own book that refers to 'new evidence linking a cult member to a murder in London'. Murder, huh?
Having spent a long time perusing this site, it seems clear the users have a distinct distrust of the media (just like Manson himself, incidentally). That doesn't mean all newspaper articles are wrong.
Nor does it mean that they are right. You start off expressing admiration for BUGliosi who wrote a self-aggrandizing book full of lies. How should we respond? That newspaper is a UK Tabloid. How should we respond? You decided out of a clear blue fucking sky to do a story about Joel Pugh- it doesn't get more obscure than that. How should we respond?
Welcome to the Blog. Stick around and you might learn a thing or two.
Dying Manson killer seeks parole; hearing put off
By LINDA DEUTSCH
AP Special Correspondent
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Susan Atkins was expected to succumb to brain cancer months ago, but the former Charles Manson follower imprisoned for killing actress Sharon Tate nearly four decades ago still clings to life.
Now, a hearing that is perhaps her last chance at freedom has been abruptly put off until September.
Her lawyer husband doesn’t know if the 61-year-old Atkins will make it. But that’s fine with the family of Tate, among seven people killed by Manson followers in one of the most notorious murder cases of the 20th century.
"They all should live out their natural years in institutions," said Debra Tate, the younger sister of the slain actress. If they are released, she said, "I can’t trust that they won’t inspire other individuals to do similar acts."
It’s been more than a year since prison doctors gave Atkins only a few months to live. She lost a bid for compassionate release from prison last July. Now, her parole hearing, initially scheduled for last week, has been delayed three months because parole board members were unavailable.
"I don’t know if she’s going to make it through that long," said her husband, James W. Whitehouse. "She is deteriorating."
Whitehouse said his wife has undergone surgery to remove a brain tumor, is paralyzed over most of her body, can’t feed herself and has lost most of her ability to speak. Still, Whitehouse said, Atkins plans to attend the hearing, even if she is on a gurney.
The gruesome murders that made the cult infamous were discovered on Aug. 9, 1969, when a maid ran screaming from the home shared by Tate and her husband, director Roman Polanski.
Five people were killed in a ritualistic manner, including Tate, who was 8½ months pregnant; coffee heiress Abigail Folger; and celebrity hairdresser Jay Sebring. Two other people were killed at another home. Polanski was not at home at the time of the slayings.
Atkins admitted stabbing Tate to death even as Tate begged for her life, claiming she and other cult followers acted on orders from Manson and were on LSD.
The chaotic, nearly yearlong trial concluded with Manson, Atkins and two other followers, Patricia Krenwinkle and Leslie Van Houten, convicted and sentenced to death. The sentences were commuted to life when the death penalty was temporarily outlawed in the United States in the 1970s. They all remain in custody.
Deputy district attorney Patrick Sequeira said he planned to argue that "the enormity and the severity of the crimes" weighs against granting her parole.
At a hearing in 2000, Atkins acknowledged, "I sinned against God and everything this country stands for." She said she wanted to make amends for what she did.
Whitehouse, 46, said his wife has made him a better person in their 21 years of marriage and should be released, if nothing else, to save taxpayers her hefty medical expenses.
Debra Tate, 57, the last surviving member of her family, said brain cancer can go into remission and she doesn’t know if Atkins’ condition is as grave as her husband says.
She said she remains in touch with her sister’s widower, Polanski, and feels that he has designated her the keeper of the victims’ rights in the case. Polanski remains in exile in France, having failed recently to get a decades-old child-sex charge dismissed.
Although many life-term prisoners have come and gone from behind bars while Atkins was incarcerated, none of the Manson killers has been paroled. Krenwinkle and Van Houten remain at the California Institution for Women at Frontera. Every few years they appear before parole boards and ask for release. Manson, now 74, has ceased to request parole.
Col's Note- Debra "feels" this way like I feel I need a scotch.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Now we all know, or at least SHOULD know, that Wikipedia is a stupid website that is run like an online role playing game. ANYONE can edit it, even special needs children, so therefore NOTHING can be taken as accurate. Its founder recently had his semen encrusted shirt auctioned on ebay, so that gives you a good profile of the place.
That being said, it takes a special kind of idiot to spend a lot of time playing on Wikipedia and becoming an editor. A fucking idiot. This of course is today's topic of discussion, John B.
John has anointed himself the Manson expert on Wikipedia, because, well he read HELTER SKELTER once. And of course, like the fucking idiot he is, he believes it to be an accurate depiction of what happened.
So Helter Skelter, the bullshit theory that even the Bug's fellow prosecutors believe is bullshit? John buys it.
And so he writes this article
on Wikipedia. And it is just so full of bullshit that I want to throw up and then throw up some more. But don't point out that even fellow prosecutors thought Bugliosi was full of shit. No, then this lame ass bitch Wildhartlivie will show up and change things and get you banned.
So what we have is a wrong, provably stupid article that is treated as encyclopedic by the web and thus more and more people are told INCORRECT information by this guy.
It's kind of a shame. But then I guess if people treat Wikipedia as truthful they get what they deserve.