Yes, they are all losers, through and through.I think I read that at least some came from nice, normal, middle-class homes with good back grounds.I forget who exactly. Some were prom queens or in the school choir, etc. I wonder how they ended up stooping so low. I know teenagers are rebellious and what-not. But this takes it to a whole new level.
As I said, losers through and through. The whole lot of them. Shoulda been executed 50 years ago.
Yes actually most of them came from normal middle-class homes. Outside of the bikers and a few others that gravitated toward the Family, most of the kids were from so called good backgrounds. That is one of the reasons this case shocked so many people, at least after it was discovered that the Manson Family was responsible. However, being a prom queen or in the school choir, a Sunday school teacher, a straight A student does not make one a good person. As far as them stooping so low, I don't know if it is simply a case of them being rebellious teenagers. That is to simplify it. Almost everyone involved in the Manson Family, at least those who have spoken about it, were damaged in a way. Or at least they felt that way. They were all missing something in their lives. Sure some were from nuclear families, but they have gone on record (Pat had said this) that there was not much love in their lives at home. Remember most of these kids were born in the 40's and grew up in the 50's and 60's. Family life was different back then. People didn't communicate or talk about things. Society's gender roles were stronger back then than they are today. People had to fit in to a certain mold. What happened is what has happened throughout time, only on a larger scale. The baby boomers were probably the largest generation as a whole, or at least the so called 'counter culture", that collectively as a whole really began to reject the previous generation's morals and ethics and ways of life. Something wasn't working for this generation. A lot of kids felt empty inside with the status quo. Suddenly the so called American Dream wasn't what they wanted. This also happened worldwide, at least in the western world. Pop culture was changing drastically. On top of that you had Vietnam and the draft.
People were searching for something. Something to fill the void they had in their life. Or at least felt they had. This is a normal thing, especially when one is a teenager and an early adult. As people do now, a lot of people were experimenting with various things to fill this void. Maybe some didn't realize they were doing so. Some found the answer in drugs i.e. pot and lsd. Others turned to Eastern religions. Gurus were all over the place. There was a spiritual awakening that probably rivaled the early 1900s. Some filled the void by completely dropping out from mainstream life and culture and tried to get back to the land so to speak.
As far as the Manson Family, the kids pretty much did all the above. Most of these kids had low self esteem. Some were kicked out of their parents houses. They felt rejected and lost and unloved by the main people that they should have been loved by. They all happened to meet Charlie. Charlie was and is extremely good at reading people and seeing what they are looking for. This was his main key, his so called 'power.' nothing more and nothing less. He had the ability to see what these kids were searching for and was able to be that for them. He was able to be many different things to many different people. Some of the kids looked to him as a father figure. The father they never had in their own biological father. Some found him to be a guru teacher of sorts. Some found him to be an amazing physical lover beyond what they had ever experienced. Some found him to be Jesus Christ. Now of course, most of these kids found him at low points in their lives. And what happens to most people who are in a low spot, when they find something that appears good and gives them good feelings, they dive into it. Be it drugs, religion or what not. I think this is one of the main reasons that people turn to religion. It fills a void what ever the void maybe. It gives them hope.
Above all, Charlie, at least in the early days, gave them love. What they felt to be honest to goodness love. People now can look back and put a spin on it and say that Charlie was faking it all along and was out to twist the young minds but there is no way to prove that. These kids finally felt accepted and loved. It was a mind blowing thing for them. Take Mary Brunner. She was not attractive by society's standards, but Charlie made her feel beautiful and important. Pat had a body hair problem and felt unloved and unattractive and he made her feel beautiful and important. The same can be said for many others. Charlie represented to them everything that they needed and wanted.
Now, mix very strong LSD and other psychedelics into the mix and Charlie introducing his doctrine into their minds for years, they became very open to suggestion. Charlie, for the most part had isolated them from society. No clocks, calendars, movies, news papers, tv, biological families or their own past. This is how any good cult works. Erase the past and start anew.
I think it was a long process over time for them to have stooped so low. A combination of drugs, conditioning, weak wills, hatred of society and what not. BUT, I am not saying this is a total excuse. As far as the actual killers, these people had something in them that allowed them to kill. All of us can kill if we have to. If we are pushed enough and the situation arises we can all become killers. Not necessarily murderers, but I think you can understand. Most of us don't. We have a something in us that tells us that it is not right. However if we were stoned out of our minds on LSD (60's acid mind you) all the time and were being fed a bunch of bull about how killing is not bad, More people did not stay with the family then did. Lots of people came and went and decided it wasn't for them. Only really a small group of hardcore people stayed and they were all the same.
I am losing my train of thought now, but hopefully maybe you can see how someone can stoop so low as to be part of the Manson Family. Remember not all of them were actually murderers.
reply
share
JosephASpadaro
9 years ago
Very good post. And very thorough. Thanks for taking the time to post this.
Two thoughts came to my mind, after reading your post.
(1) A lot of teenagers and young adults went through all of the "angst" that you describe. And, of course, 99% of them never turned to murder. So, as you indicated, there was that little something "extra" in these people that allowed them to say "yes" to participating in murders.
I recall that one girl -- I believe, Linda Kasabian -- actually felt bad and tried to (and did) stop a murder from happening. She was supposed to point out the potential victim's apartment, and she deliberately pointed to the wrong door to thwart the murder plan.
(2) A lot of what you said makes sense for the female followers of Manson. But a lot does not ring true for the male followers, I would think. No? Which makes me wonder. I wonder what the ratio would be of male to female followers in the Manson family?
reply
share
bredlau3
9 years ago
(1) A lot of teenagers and young adults went through all of the "angst" that you describe. And, of course, 99% of them never turned to murder. So, as you indicated, there was that little something "extra" in these people that allowed them to say "yes" to participating in murders.
True. Though you do have to keep in mind only Tex, Clem, Bruce, Sadie, Leslie, Pat and Bobby were the only family members that were convicted of murder. Not counting Charlie, but I am keeping it to the followers. Brenda (Nancy) was later involved in a double murder and I believe served time for her involvement. Others have been thought to have been involved in murders but really it's all theory. There are lots of unsolved murders that a lot of people feel were done by the Manson Family. Ruth was arrested for attempted murder but was not convicted, nor went to trial. So there were a lot of family members that didn't go down the murder path, though some would have willingly done so if asked.
(2) A lot of what you said makes sense for the female followers of Manson. But a lot does not ring true for the male followers, I would think. No? Which makes me wonder. I wonder what the ratio would be of male to female followers in the Manson family?
Your Reply:
No I think it went the same with the male followers. On a different level though. I think for a lot of the male followers the initial attraction was probably the pretty young girls ready for the taking. The was the era of free love and it seemed that the Manson girls were the most free. Plus the drugs and music attracted them. Paul was attracted that way. But also in Charlie they found what they were looking for. A father figure and teacher and Jesus. As for the ratio, I think there were more female followers over all. Charlie had an easier time "controlling" the girls than the men. Pre murders there was Paul, Clem, Bruce, Bobby (sometimes), Tex, Brooks, Danny DeCarlo and a few others that hung around such as Juan. This is not counting the bikers that would hang out for drugs and girls. I am talking the inner group. If you look at the mug shots during the raid, there are mostly girls. During the Spahn raid there were more guys because there were a lot of bikers there the morning of the raid. There were a lot of guys though but I still think it was more women. I couldn't give you an actual ratio...maybe 2 or 3 to 1?
And yes you are right about Linda going to the wrong door.
reply
share
JosephASpadaro
9 years ago
On Point 1 - I agree with your last sentence. Many of them did not participate in murder. But, I bet that most/all would indeed do so, if asked (or "ordered to") by Charlie.
On Point 2 - I am sure Charlie had an easier time controlling the women; and I am sure he had more interest in women. He probably only needed a few men around for certain physical jobs and tasks that he needed tending to. And the men were drawn to the sex, drugs, music, and parties; and to the no-responsibility, carefree life. Yes, I assume a higher ratio of women to men. Plus, men would have an easier time to filter through -- and reject -- all of Charlie's "b.s." and talk. Women would be more taken in with that.
Sounds like you are very interested in the case.
Did you read the book? See the film? Which was better?
reply
share
bredlau3
9 years ago
Sounds like you are very interested in the case.
Did you read the book? See the film? Which was better?
Yes. I am very interested in the case. I have been reading about it and studying it since I was about 10 years old, and I am now 41 years old. I probably have more books on the Manson case than any other subject, other than religion, in my personal library. Yes I have read the book and have seen the film. The book is better because it goes into far greater detail. I think the movie is very good though one has to remember it's a made for TV movie in the 70's.
reply
share
JosephASpadaro
9 years ago
I have always been meaning to read the book, but I can never find/make the time for it.
I saw the film in its original airing. I was a 9- or 10-year-old kid. I distinctly remember this.
My parents would not allow me to watch it, but somehow I got that edict lifted. (I probably said "Oh, it's no big deal. I will be fine.")
I remember being terrified. I actually averted my eyes off of the TV display several times during the film. I even remember saying prayers under my breath.
It was traumatic for a 9- or 10-year-old kid. Especially at that time (the 70's).
I believe that they cut it into two nights: Part 1 was shown one night and you had to come back the following night for Part 2.
reply
share
JosephASpadaro
9 years ago
Since you are so familiar with (and interested in) the case ...
What are your opinions about William Garretson and that whole component of the case?
There was a thread where we discussed him. I will have to go find it, because it was interesting.
But - ironically - I don't think the thread was on the Message Board for this film.
I believe that it somehow came up as a topic when another Message Board went off on a tangent.
And I think it was the Message Board for a sit-com.
I will have to go look for it. If/when I find it, I will post the link here.
Update:
Here is the link for a discussion about William Garretson (on another Message Board):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2011325/board/thread/243917157?d=251564467#251564467.
You have to jump down the posts, toward maybe the middle or end of the page. There is another user named archer1267. That user and I go back and forth with our discussion about William Garretson.
reply
share
bredlau3
9 years ago
What are your opinions about William Garretson and that whole component of the case?
I think he is a very confused person. I think he is easily manipulated and swayed to believe anything. I think he went through a very scary experience and never recovered from it. I believe his initial police interview were probably closer to the truth than anything he has said from the day on. His story kept changing over the years, especially when someone fed him with some information that they heard, a rumour or what not, and then suddenly it becomes part of his story. I put no faith in anything he says now once he believed that Sharon Tate's baby was still alive and was actually a woman. All credibility vanished at that moment and what he did have was very thin up to that point. I don't believe he was involved at all in anything that happened that night. If someone told him not to go there that night is really true I don't know. It came out later, probably after someone planted that seed in his mind. I think he is forever frozen in the mental age he was in 1969.
There was a long thread about him on this board years ago, it seems to have vanished now as IMDB gets rid of posts. If I ever find it I will post the link.
reply
share
JosephASpadaro
9 years ago
Yes, he was a "side story" to the whole murder case, but a very interesting one.
One thing I never understood:
I don't believe he had anything to do with the murders, of course. But, if he were 100% innocent -- which I think he was -- why on earth would you lie to the police in your interview? I never understood that.
And my understanding is that, over the years, he has never talked about that nagging question.
Also: Did you hear the "story" that he and Steven Parent were actually engaging in sex and met as "lovers" that evening, and not for "selling a radio" (as he claimed). I thought it was a crazy rumor, just made up by someone. But then I saw some official police report or such about it.
reply
share