Thursday, June 18, 2009

Susan Atkins, Up for Parole . . . Again?

by Kathryn Casey

Time flies.

Need an example? It’s been more than a year since May 8, 2008, when I wrote a short post for WCI, spreading the news that Charles Manson groupie and convicted murderer Susan Atkins (seen with Manson in the courtroom in the photo at the left) suffers from brain cancer and was expected to die within weeks. Seems that since then Susan’s taken the lyrics to that old Bee Gees’ song to heart, and she’s Stayin’ Alive!

Please don't take this wrong. I'm not being flip, and I do understand that we're talking about life and death. But I have to ask: What’s the deal? How could someone given weeks to live still be alive more than a year later? The impression we were all given back then from those close to Atkins was that she was flat on her back and in horrible condition, waiting for the soon expected arrival of the grim reaper. Of course, at the time Atkins was asking for a compassionate release from prison, which was denied in July 2008.

Maybe some of you in the medical community can comment on whether or not this is a common turn of events with a brain tumor? As far as I know, it may be. I'm far from an expert. Yet since I write about crime all the time, I have to admit that I'm a bit of a skeptic. My first thought was: Did the folks around Atkins perhaps exaggerate the seriousness of her condition last year, to stir up sympathy and support for springing her while she still had time to live on the outside?

The irony is that a full year has lapsed, and Atkins is not only still alive but up for parole again. She was scheduled for a hearing in May, only to have it cancelled when not enough board members were available. The hearing is currently rescheduled for September 2 in Los Angeles. Her husband has said that if she's still alive, Atkins will attend, even if she has to be wheeled in on a gurney.

In the meantime, the controversy surrounding Atkins bid for release hasn't died either. Some of those who saw Atkins as a monster, the wide-eyed killer who stabbed Sharon Tate while the heavily pregnant woman begged for her life, have pointed at Atkins’ nearly four decades as a model prisoner and come out favoring her parole. Included is Manson prosecutor turned bestselling author Vincent Bugliosi, who has said Atkins deserves mercy, arguing against the stance that “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."

In contrast, Sharon Tate's younger sister, Debra, hasn’t changed their opinion on what should happen to Atkins and the rest of the Manson clan. "They all should live out their natural years in institutions," she's said. Why? If they are released, Tate has said, "I can't trust that they won't inspire other individuals to do similar acts."

Will Atkins cling to life long enough to make the September hearing? Who knows? Her husband described her current condition to CNN as dire. He says Atkins is barely able to speak, a leg has been amputated, much of her body is paralyzed and she has to be fed. If she does make it to September, it seems certain that this will be her last bid for freedom.

Hmmm. On second thought, are we sure about that?

93 comments:

cheryl said...

Oh for God's sake, Susan Atkins isn't a threat to anyone anymore. She didn't kill Sharon Tate. That was jail house bragging. Even Charles Watson admits to killing Sharon Tate.

I understand Debra's vigilance. In this case, I don't agree with it. I think the three "Manson girls" who have spent all these decades in prison have learned their lessons.

Now someone like that ding a ling "Squeaky Fromme" should be in prison for the rest of her life if you ask me.

Anonymous said...

I think they ought to let her out, too. It's stupid to make the taxpayers keep supporting her and paying for her medical care. She should have to come out here to see what it's like for the rest of us!

LadySheila said...

Great post as usual, Ms. Casey! As they should have gotten the death penalty for the murders, they got a pretty good, well, GREAT deal, with life in prison. Though prison is probably a little, ok a lot, worse than being "out here", namely for me because of the lack of privacy to think, they still got to LIVE! They should have at least all gotten really hard labor, so much so as to drop dead at a much younger age. As long as a person has a mind, and is able to read, or write (especially us introverts), he already is free.

Anonymous said...

"She didn't kill Sharon Tate."
The state of CA would disagree with you. She was convicted of the murder of not only Sharon Tate but Jay Sebring Voytek Frykowski Abagail Folger Steven Parent and Gary Hinman.
If you're trying to make the distinction that she didn't personally stab Sharon Tate then you're giving more credit to someone that held down a pregnant woman so that her partner could stab her than I would.
The apologist for the "Manson women" always try to make these distinctions. For me it's 6 of one half a dozen of the other.
If I held you down so that someone else could stab you would I be less culpable for your murder? I don't think so.

Anonymous said...

Oh GOD! Someone actually believes her that she didnt kill Sharon Tate because she wrote a book saying she didnt? Even though she gave detailed evidence?

She deserves life in prison. Tate wasnt a pig, she was. Even if she is rehabilatated, she gets what she gave.

If she is in such bad shape, her life wont be any better at home than in a prison hospital. In fact if her brain cancer is that far along she doesnt even know where she is.

The bitch has always tried to compare herself to Kasibian, who didnt kill anyone. But changes her story every year.

The taxpayers will be paying for her medical care no matter where she is. Let it be where she deserves to be.

Anonymous said...

http://thesop.org/attachments/2008-002/12733_IMG_34_1216161404.jpg

Take a look at that picture and tell me she isnt just wishing she hadnt been the one who did that deed.

Do I believe she is remorseful? Yes. Do I believe she should be ever let out when she was already spared a life sentence? No.

She is literally rotting in prison. Some of you Death Penalty advocates should get a kick out of that. Is life without parole better than death?

In any case, if you google pictures of the Tate death you will be horrified.

She is getting adequate health care. Better than most uninsured in our country for that matter.

Cheryl said...

This is the other Cheryl, not the cheryl that made the first comment. NONE of the Manson people should be let out EVER! "Learned her lesson?" Dear Lord you've got to be kidding me, they killed innocent people. So what if she's dying, let her die, she should have been fried years ago.

Anonymous said...

Oh please! She has a better hair-cut than I do. I say, forget about her. PEOPLE ARE DEAD!

Leah said...

My aunt died in January from re-curring breast cancer that spread to her brain. Once they found it in her brain, she only lived a week a week and a half. Most of that was in a coma. SA must have a very slow growing tumor.

Anonymous said...

They ought to let that woman out and get her off the tax payers $$$$. Thats what I say. It's stupid to think she could hurt anyone else! In her condition? Come on.

Kathryn Casey said...

That's interesting, Leah. It sounds like your aunt's metastasized. So sorry about her death. It's so hard to lose someone we love.

With Atkins, we don't know if she started out with brain cancer or another type. She did have brain surgery at one point last year. Maybe that extended her life?

I'm just really curious about how sick she truly was last year, or if she was in the very early stages. Guess I'm wondering, as I said in the post, if the folks who wanted her out tried to hoodwink everyone else. But then, I am something of a skeptic. Sigh.

Anonymous said...

My grandmother had a brain tumor and didn't live long either. They are difficult to remove and treat. Has anyone looked into what kind of cancer or tumor it is and how is she being treated?

No one in that deranged cult that participated in Sharon Tate's murder should ever be let out.

Will this be an annual event? How horrible for the family that survives.

Anonymous said...

I had a friend who died of brain cancer and it went really fast (thank God). It started with breast cancer however which they had declared her clear of. She was in treatment for THAT for over a year.

I assume that SA had breast cancer first since her mother died of it.

I had another friend who's mother died of brain cancer and it lasted for years.

I have seen interviews over the years (which you can find on You Tube), where she admits to the actual stabbing and blamed the drugs.

It wasnt until Tex Watson said he did the stabbing that she changed her story.

And yes, she is rotting in prison, a much worse death than the death penalty. Good! I have always said that LWOP is worse. I am not crying a river over her. In fact my eyes arent even moist. I have no compassion for her. No more than she showed compassion for Sharon Tate and her baby that she BEGGED to be spared.

Soobs said...

My FIL's brain cancer had metastasized from colon cancer. He also had surgery (and yes, the blood/brain barrier makes treating brain cancer difficult)for the tumor, and was dead in 7 months, from the date of diagnosis. The last 3 weeks, he wasn't even talking.

Don't let her out. She's getting her just rewards, IMO.

Anonymous said...

Why are we being so vindictive? THe woman is dying. Shouldn't we let people go on with their lives? I'm just asking. It seems to me that Christians are supposed to forgive if not forget.

Cheryl said...

Ahhh NO!!! I would hardly call HER a Christian.

Sharon Tate didn't get to go on with her life. Her unborn child didn't GET a life. Steven Parent, Jay Sebring, Wojciech Frykowski & Abigail Folger didn't get to go on with their lives!!!

She should have been executed but nooooo California had to abolish the death penalty in 1972 and commute her sentence. You can blame them for spending tax payers money to keep her alive.

Cheryl said...

I'm willing to bet that if one of your family members had been slaughtered you would hardly forgive let alone forget.

Soobs said...

LOL at Christians who are supposed to forgive and forget. Obviously, not a bible scholar. No, Christians aren't required to forgive and forget. And no, she shouldn't be able to "get on with her life." What a stupid comment. Part of being an adult, is accepting the consequences of our actions. Her actions, led her to the death penalty. California changed the penalty, so now she's left with life in prison. If she wants GOD's forgiveness, then I hope she's been praying. A lot. Otherwise, she's right where she belongs.

California Girl said...

Someone I know well served time in prison with Susan Atkins. She said that Susan lived her life in prison EXACTLY HOW SHE WANTED TO LIVE. She had lovers and plenty of things she wanted. She should have been executed long ago but barring that, she should die in prison.

Anonymous said...

Sharon Tate's was an awful murder, all of the Manson murders were. But Atkins has been in prison for nearly forty years. In her condition, I think they need to let her out. It shows compassion on society's part, even though Atkins didn't have any for her victims. Otherwise, we look bad, too!

Cheryl said...

Who CARES how we look. I cannot believe anyone would expect us to show compassion for her.

Are you for real? If she had held down your pregnant sister, killed her and her unborn child you would seriously show her compassion?

Kathryn Casey said...

Still a lot of opinions on both sides of Atkins' parole bid, I see. Not surprising. This is one of those cases like Speck and Bundy that will be with us always. I think perhaps because we lost so much of our national innocence through these crimes.

Still hoping some medical folks will weigh in on this brain tumor issue. But I did talk to someone today who had a friend who survived a couple of years with one. He wasn't in the shape, however, that Atkins was reportedly in last spring, 2008, when she asked for compassionate release.

California Girl, I'm curious, any more insight into Susan behind bars? I find what you said fascinating.

cheryl said...

Wow...no hope for redemption, I guess.

I am glad that I have never committed a crime while under the influence of drugs and a cult leader.

In my opinion, Mr. Manson needs to stay behind bars because he is a lunatic. This crime was very sensational. THAT is the reason why Atkins, Krenwinkle and Van Houten don't make parole.

Has anyone heard from the LaBianca children? What do they have to say about the parole of the Manson girls?

They were victims as well.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Why are we being so vindictive? THe woman is dying. Shouldn't we let people go on with their lives?

Unfortunately the people she killed can't go on with their lives. She has gone on with hers in prison where she belongs.

Anonymous said... "I'm just asking. It seems to me that Christians are supposed to forgive if not forget"

You're making a big assumption that everyone who has a say in this is Christian. Even then, as someone else said there is no cut and dried point of view in the bible about this sort thing. For every turn the other cheek there is an eye for an eye. So really Christians can have different interpertations of what the bible's stance on this issue would be. It comes down to what you personally believe is right.

cheryl said...
"Wow...no hope for redemption, I guess."

The theological definition of redemption is
"the act of delivering from sin or saving from evil" Atkins claims to have already been delivered from sin. Letting her go is not going to change that.


cheryl said... "I am glad that I have never committed a crime while under the influence of drugs and a cult leader."

"a crime"? It was murder. Not one. Not two. Not three. Not four. Not five. Not six. But seven murders.

cheryl said... "In my opinion, Mr. Manson needs to stay behind bars because he is a lunatic."

Well I agree with that. But you seem to be making a distinction between Manson and the women who killed for him. Do you realize that Manson by his own hand, never killed anyone (at least that has been discovered). He cut Gary Hinman's ear and he shot a drug dealer who lived. He never held anyone down so they could be stabbed. He never stabbed anyone in the legs or the back or the buttocks but Atkins Van Houten and Krenwinkel did.
And of course so did Watson.

cheryl said... "This crime was very sensational. THAT is the reason why Atkins, Krenwinkle and Van Houten don't make parole."

That could be part of the reason Van Houten doesn't make parole but Krenwinkle Atkins and Watson have several convictions of murder in the first degree. Very few mass murderers are ever paroled.

cheryl said... "Has anyone heard from the LaBianca children? What do they have to say about the parole of the Manson girls?"

Ms. Labianca had a daughter and a son from a previous marriage. The daughter many years ago went to Tex Watson's parole hearing and asked that he be paroled. The son who discovered his stepfather has never spoken out. The rest of the Labianca family including the children of Mr. Labianca by his first marriage attend the parole hearings of Van Houten Krenwinkel and Watson and ask that none of the Manson killers be set free.

Anonymous said...

" The rest of the Labianca family including the children of Mr. Labianca by his first marriage attend the parole hearings of Van Houten Krenwinkel and Watson and ask that none of the Manson killers be set free."


Sad reality that the families of crimes victims never get to just "go on with their lives." They live with the loss of their loved ones everyday, and, when there are possible paroles, they must constantly remind the public what they have forever lost.


It is my opinion that being a Christian does not mean one simply has to accept a terrible crime, forget its affects, or allow the perpetrator to avoid or age out of accountability. The greatest burden is on the person that sinned, and they must truly recognize what they have done (which means no excuses or blame passing) and accept the consequences of those actions. That could mean never living freely in society again. The fact that Atkins has a husband, friends, and family to give her comfort and support shows society has not forgotten her needs or denied her compassion.

I say leave her in jail. Truthfully, I don't think that is vindictive but the true reality of her actions and the consequences of her crime. I hope she is a Chritian and has truly asked forgiveness. Only she knows the truth of her faith.

cheryl said...

Very strange that less sensational criminals (who are not repentant one bit) have served less time than the so called "Manson girls".

I will hesitantly admit that I am a Christian. I know it's more cool to be a Muslim or atheist, but I am what I am.

Anyway, does anyone reading this and posting here actually believe that these women aren't sorry and are still a threat to any commun ity?

Punishment is good. Years ago, prisons were called penitentiarys. Or reformitories. Our thinking has morphed, because of unrepentant criminals, into a "commit a crime and there's very little forgiveness, Go to jail, directly to jail, do not pass GO." attitude.

And if you can...kill em too.

Cheryl said...

Not just any crime, we are talking murder!!! Whomever is "quoting" the bible, what about an eye for an eye? Sure we can forgive but why should anyone who takes a life be allowed to continue theres in the free world?

BTW: Its nice to be having this discussion without being mean to each other. While I don't agree with every opinion expressed, I do have the utmost respect for all of you.

Anonymous said...

Lower case cheryl. They were spared the death penalty. Isnt that enough?

The only reason that we are even talking about this is that they are eligible for parole. LWOP in 1973 was not an option.

In NJ when the Death Penalty was abolished a few years ago, they didnt let everyone on Death Row eligible for parole. They all got LWOP.

Kathryn Casey said...

We didn't have the option of LWOP until recently in TX. I'm wondering if it'll cut down the number of death penalty cases. I'm glad it's finally available to juries.

I've been in courtrooms where jurors don't want someone to walk free again, and ask what's called "the question" while deliberating: whether 99 years or life is longer. The judge isn't allowed to answer. LWOP lays it out so it's understandable for everyone.

Anonymous said...

I understand that some people don't want her to stay in and that she probably can't hurt anyone anymore. But the thing is that once you start letting people like Atkins out, it becomes a possibility, and maybe the wrong guy will be set free next time. IMHO, she should stay in prison.

cheryl said...

So you want to keep a dying woman, who could be no harm to anyone else, in prison because it might set a dangerous precedent?

Yes I realize she was sentenced for MURDER. My ex husband tried to murder me. His sentence? Ten days in county jail. I guess he was lucky he didn't succeed. (rolls eyes)

The "Manson Girls" as they will be forever known as, are ALL penitent. They are model prisoners. They should be paroled. Period. Just my humble opinion of course!!!

charles said...

Just a few points:

The Manson women would have been let out long ago if it weren't for the cases' notoriety.

Leslie Van Houten killed no one and probably would have done about 10 years for her crime.

Those who have checked out the facts surrounding the Manson murders know that the victims (except Parent) were very bad people. They were hardcore Satanists involved with drugs. A Folger was a zealous Marxist.

The reason the case is still of interest to conspiracy buffs is because they know that ALL the Manson members, especially Charlie, were under mind control.

Just a few facts: Manson was a Scientologist and Freemason. Atkins was under the thumb of Anton Levay (sp?). I understand they were all (but Leslie) members of The Process Church (Scientology offshoot). And do you think Squeaky just HAPPENED to be near President Ford with a loaded gun?

Also, The murders were without doubt patterned after the movie Rosemary's Baby directed by Sharon's husband, Polanski. Think about it. And why do you think ROSEMARY Labianca was killed the next day?

There's alot more to these murders than meets the eye and THAT is why they'll never get out!

Anonymous said...

charles said... "A BUNCH OF CRAP"

charles said...

Even The Bug wrote in Helter Skelter that Manson was a Scientologist. The real perpetrators of this crime-so heavily promoted by the mass media- will never face justice. Manson and his followers were just expendable mind controlled dupes.

Anonymous said...

Where are the men with the nets?

Anonymous said...

I still think you're all not being reasonable about this. She did serve forty years, and she's really sick. Why not let her out?

Anonymous said...

Because she murdered 6 people. Because Life in prison should mean until death.

cheryl said...

Read the book again. Susan Atkins didn't murder 6 people. She was elated about people's murder, which is horrible, but she didn't do it. She was under the influence of drugs in the 60's.

The bloodlust of certain people chills my veins.

Anonymous said...

"Susan Atkins didn't murder 6 people."
You must be dense. Even if you believe she didn't stab Sharon Tate, here is what she did do:
1) Held a gun on Gary Hinman in effect holding him hostage in his home so that he could be be murdered.
2) Brought Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring into the living room at Cielo Drive by holding a knife on them
3) Stabbed Voytek Frykowski several times in the legs
4) Held Sharon Tate captive while her houseguests were slaughtered in front of her.
5) refused to let Sharon Tate go even when Sharon begged to be set free so she could have her baby.
6) Either in concert with Watson stabbed Sharon or held her down while he stabbed her.

And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more.

If you assist in a murder then you are as guilty as anyone else who commits that murder. She was an ACTIVE participant. Not a reluctant one. She is as guilty as Watson or Krenwinkel or Beausoleil.

Being under the influence of drugs is not an excuse. She was in control of herself enough to: hide in the bushes as Parent's car approached. To ask Linda Kasabian for her knife. To write the word PIG on Sharon's door. To not let Sharon escape. To stab Voytek in the legs.

"The bloodlust of certain people chills my veins."

But apparently the bloodlust of Susan Atkins doesn't?????

That's a nutty position.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"cheryl said... "Has anyone heard from the LaBianca children? What do they have to say about the parole of the Manson girls?"

Ms. Labianca had a daughter and a son from a previous marriage. The daughter many years ago went to Tex Watson's parole hearing and asked that he be paroled. The son who discovered his stepfather has never spoken out. The rest of the Labianca family including the children of Mr. Labianca by his first marriage attend the parole hearings of Van Houten Krenwinkel and Watson and ask that none of the Manson killers be set free."

Also, Jay Sebring's sister and nephew, Steven Parent's sister and various members of the Labianca family have all attended parole hearings and requested that the killers not be set free.

Anonymous said...

But prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi said that he’d provided a declaration supporting Atkins’ release largely because of her failing health.

Bugliosi said Lampel told him that Atkins had not only lost a leg, but that the other one was paralyzed. In an e-mail to Atkins’ attorney in support of her release, he wrote that the notion that “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” was wrong, Bugliosi said.

“Mercy is already built into California statutory law, because if it weren’t, we would automatically give the death penalty for every murder case, which we don’t,” he said. “My point is, what mercy are we giving her? It’s not like she has six months to live, and we’re letting her go home and she’s going to have fun with her family.

Anonymous said...

Actually, the way things turned out, if they had released her last year, like Ms. Casey pointed out, she would have been free for a whole year. She didn't die like they thought she would.

Anonymous said...

Who really cares what Bugliosi thinks? What dog does he have in this fight? It wasn't his family member that was murdered. He was doing his job prosecuting these people 40 years ago. He used that to make millions selling his story and being a talking head anytime someone does a television documentary about this story.
He is no longer a part of the prosecutor's office or a member of any law enforcement group. He's not a member of a victim's family. He's a private citizen just like you and I. His opinion should not hold any more weight than ours. Also, if you research his personal and private life that's been reported in the media over the years you'll find he's not exactly everything he's made out to be in the media.

And as the previous poster pointed out his logic is flawed. "It’s not like she has six months to live, and we’re letting her go home and she’s going to have fun with her family." She's already over 6 months over the deadline they gave her last year.

Anonymous said...

Who cares what Vince thinks? That is up to each individual to decide for them self. I make up my own mind, nobody makes it up for me.

It makes no difference whether the time frame is six months, six years, or six seconds. The point Vince was making is that we should be better than that, a point which I happen to agree with and upon which I exercise my privilege to express. If you don't like it that's your problem.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said... "It makes no difference whether the time frame is six months, six years, or six seconds. The point Vince was making is that we should be better than that,"
Actually that's not the point he was making at least not if she had "six years". He wouldn't be advocating her release if she had six years to live.

He comes in at the last moment to try and get some cred from the bleeding heart group (having squeezed out all he can from the law and order group) and look like a saint, when actually he is mainly doing this as a slap in the face to Steven Kay who he is concerned is getting more air time lately than he is on these specials they do ever so often about the murders.

Anonymous said...

"when actually he is mainly doing this as a slap in the face to ..."

And you know this how?

No matter, Kay should get slapped around. All one has to do is observe the fanatic gleam in his eyes to see what he's all about - power.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said... "Kay should get slapped around. All one has to do is observe the fanatic gleam in his eyes to see what he's all about - power."

And Bugliosi isn't? He's the biggest egomaniac around.

Anonymous said...

Impossible to weigh in on the brain tumor issue w/o knowing what kind of tumor it is.
Taxpayers will be footing the bill for her care in or out of prison.

Anonymous said...

Believe it or not, there are orgs of victims' families against the DP. Even here in TX.

In one of the most infamous cases to make it to SCOTUS and be overturned, the Panetti case, schizophrenic Panetti killed his wife's parents in front of her and her daughter, then held them hostage overnight. He had a LONG history of hospitalizations for severe mental disturbance, including schizophrenia. He was allowed to defend himself, and did so wearing a purple cowboy outfit. He wanted to call Jesus and JFK to the stand. You should read the transcript.

Victims' family members opposed his execution. It took the Supremes to stop it.

One of my family members was murdered. If I named the killer's defense atty, many (all the attys) would know it.) I oppose the DP. Not out of any sympathy for specific killers. On principle, as well as for practical reasons.

Anonymous said...

The thing is that they only gave Atkins six months and now it's well over a year. And what people always say is that medical care in prisons isn't good. Guess it must be okay, at least in CA.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said... "In one of the most infamous cases to make it to SCOTUS and be overturned, the Panetti case, schizophrenic Panetti killed his wife's parents in front of her and her daughter, then held them hostage overnight. He had a LONG history of hospitalizations for severe mental disturbance, including schizophrenia. He was allowed to defend himself, and did so wearing a purple cowboy outfit. He wanted to call Jesus and JFK to the stand. You should read the transcript.

Victims' family members opposed his execution. It took the Supremes to stop it.

One of my family members was murdered. If I named the killer's defense atty, many (all the attys) would know it.) I oppose the DP. Not out of any sympathy for specific killers. On principle, as well as for practical reasons."

And? We're not debating the death penalty. Her death penalty was overturned.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"Impossible to weigh in on the brain tumor issue w/o knowing what kind of tumor it is.
Taxpayers will be footing the bill for her care in or out of prison."
Absolutly correct. Her husband is not wealthy he can't support her. She's a con with no money and one leg. She'll be on govt. assistance as soon as she comes out. The same people paying for her medical care while she's in prison will be paying for her medical care as a free woman.

Anonymous said...

"The thing is that they only gave Atkins six months and now it's well over a year."

Okay, go ahead and add six months to her sentence for living too long.

Whoever knows a doctor able to predict to the day, hour, and minute how long a cancer patient will survive, raise your hand...

What happens if she died too soon? How ridiculous is it to even debate this?

Bugliosi's words do not require any interpretation, they speak for themselves. The thing is, the man who prosecuted and convicted Susan openly admits that enough is enough. He calls for an end to it.

He said six months because that's what the MDs figured she had left, not because six months is some magic number. Enough is enough, there's no point in carrying it any further. She can't possibly be punished any more than she already has been. Give it a rest, let it go, move on.

Anonymous said...

The point was six months vs six years

Anonymous said... "It makes no difference whether the time frame is six months, six years, or six seconds. The point Vince was making is that we should be better than that,"

and again....
Actually that's not the point he was making at least not if she had "six years". He wouldn't be advocating her release if she had six years to live.

I wasn't trying to "interpet" Bugliosi's words. I was correcting a misconception that he would feel the same if she had six years to live vs six months.

My overall opinion is who gives a crap what Bugliosi thinks. He's an egomaniac with no dog in this fight.

Anonymous said..."What happens if she died too soon? How ridiculous is it to even debate this?"

It is absolutly ridiculous to debate it. She should have been dead long ago with the death penalty she was given. But since that's overturned she should at least serve out a "life" sentence, that meaning until she dies.

And as stated above the argument that her health care is being paid by the tax payers of CA while she's a prisoner is irrelevant because a one legged 40 year con is going to be supported by the citizens of CA whether she's in prison or out. She should at least serve out the rest of her life in prison to pay for all the horror she wrought.

Anonymous said...

For the last time...

Vince's point was not that she had X months to live, but that she had an advanced terminal illness that amounted to an inescapable death penalty. With this in mind, he feels that a release is appropriate. You don't know what he would have said if it was nine months or a year or longer, so spare me the "correcting a misconception".

If you don't give a crap about what Vince thinks, why are you foaming at the mouth about what he said?

Now he's an egomaniac with no dog in the fight. So Susan was convicted by an egomaniac? Perhaps the case should be reviewed for appeal on that basis.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"For the last time..."
THANKS

Anonymous said..."Vince's point was not that she had X months to live, but that she had an advanced terminal illness that amounted to an inescapable death penalty.
With this in mind, he feels that a release is appropriate. You don't know what he would have said if it was nine months or a year or longer, so spare me the "correcting a misconception"."

I don't know of many "terminal illnesses" that drag on for "six years" as was the example used.
You don't know what his "point" was anymore than I do so you "spare me"

Anonymous said..."If you don't give a crap about what Vince thinks, why are you foaming at the mouth about what he said?"
Who's foaming at the mouth? I'm merely pointing out that he is no longer a DA, not in law enforcement, not her doctor, and not a victim's family member. HE HAS NO DOG IN THIS FIGHT. He did his job convicting her 40+ years ago, now he's a private citizen with a ve$$$$$ted interest in keeping his name involved with this case (selling books, producing movies, etc) and his opinion should have no more weight than yours or mine as far as this goes. Now that he wants to release her suddenly all the manson women apologists have embraced his word as some sort of sacred edict.

Anonymous said..."Now he's an egomaniac with no dog in the fight. So Susan was convicted by an egomaniac? Perhaps the case should be reviewed for appeal on that basis."

If every person's case who was convicted by an egomaniac DA was appealed there'd be no one in prison.
Just because he's an egomaniac does not mean that Susan shouldn't be in prison or that she was wrongly prosecuted. She was rightly convicted of multiple counts of murder. She should have been put to death but at the least she should spend the remainder of her life in prison.
My point is he has no dog in this fight NOW. (See my comments above)

Anonymous said...

Apparently, bubbles, your one of those who must get in the last word, however feeble.

I do know what his point is, he clearly states it. It is you who keeps trying to obfuscate the point by applying spin, out of context quotes, and complete imagination.

For example, what I wrote was "six months, six years, or six seconds". You cling to the six years part (while ignoring the rest) because you imagine that it supports your point of view. Any reasonable human would realize that Vince's opinion had nothing to do with the precise period of time which is what I was rhetorically pointing out.

"If every person's case who was convicted by an egomaniac DA was appealed there'd be no one in prison."

Precisely what I mean by obfuscation, thank you. This isn't about any other case.

"I'm merely pointing out that he is no longer a DA, not in law enforcement, not her doctor, and not a victim's family member. HE HAS NO DOG IN THIS FIGHT."

And here we have the "spin". You're "merely" appointing yourself the arbiter (or should I say judge and jury) of what is and what is not valid and relevant. Spare me again. Or, in the immortal words of Ralph Kramden, "WHO DIED AND LEFT YOU BOSS?"

There is no person on earth who knows the facts of the case better than Vincent Bugliosi. To suggest that his opinion has no merit is hubris.

When this all started, I was "merely pointing out" that the man who convicted Susan felt that enough was enough. Apparently you feel that no opinion contrary to you own can be allowed, therefore you slander Bugliosi (who is not even here) and argue pointlessly with me.

I'm really tired of wasting my time with this, so why not just do what I suggested earlier. Let it go, move one.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"Apparently, bubbles, your one of those who must get in the last word, however feeble."

Unlike you, old dish water, who said they were posting for the "last time" yet here you are again. I never said I was posting for the last time you did.

Anonymous said...
"I do know what his point is, he clearly states it. It is you who keeps trying to obfuscate the point by applying spin, out of context quotes, and complete imagination.

For example, what I wrote was "six months, six years, or six seconds". You cling to the six years part (while ignoring the rest) because you imagine that it supports your point of view."

I know he does not support my point of view. I'm glad to say that. I don't respect him. I don't give a crap what he thinks. My point was it was you trying to "spin" his statement into saying that even if she were to live for "six years" his opinion would be the same. I doubt it would as it wouldn't look good for him.

Anonymous said...
" 'If every person's case who was convicted by an egomaniac DA was appealed there'd be no one in prison.'

Precisely what I mean by obfuscation, thank you. This isn't about any other case."

Absolutely but you said that if the DA was an egomaniac then perhaps Susan's case should be appealed. Putting aside the fact that we're well beyond appeal at this point and just playing along with your premise I was merely pointing out that the fact that VB is an egomaniac is not grounds for appeal that many DA's are egomaniacs and as long as they do their job properly generallhy there is no basis for appeal.

Anonymous said...
" 'I'm merely pointing out that he is no longer a DA, not in law enforcement, not her doctor, and not a victim's family member. HE HAS NO DOG IN THIS FIGHT.'

And here we have the "spin". You're "merely" appointing yourself the arbiter (or should I say judge and jury) of what is and what is not valid and relevant. Spare me again. Or, in the immortal words of Ralph Kramden, "WHO DIED AND LEFT YOU BOSS?"

It's my opinion and I think it's the correct one. I'm saying that my opinion, your opinion and VB's opinion are all equal and that none should be given any more weight than the other. What you Manson apologist seem to want to do now is say VB says she should be released so that should be the deciding vote. I'm saying No it shouldn't.

Anonymous said...
"There is no person on earth who knows the facts of the case better than Vincent Bugliosi. To suggest that his opinion has no merit is hubris."

I'd say he knows the case as relates to the murders and the trials he was involved in. He doesn't know the case from the standpoint of the victims or their families. He hasn't been in a parole hearing so he is not an expert on how the murderers have testified in those parole hearings.

Anonymous said...
"When this all started, I was "merely pointing out" that the man who convicted Susan felt that enough was enough. Apparently you feel that no opinion contrary to you own can be allowed, therefore you slander Bugliosi (who is not even here) and argue pointlessly with me."

Not true see my comment above. All opinions (outside of the DA's office, law enforcement, victim's families, the murderers' doctors and the parole board, which should be weighed more heavily) should be given equal weight, including yours, mine and VB.

Anonymous said...
"I'm really tired of wasting my time with this, so why not just do what I suggested earlier. Let it go, move one."
Again you said you were speaking for the last time in your last post. I didn't. If you want to move on please do so. Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. For myself I'll decide when it's time for me to move on.

Anonymous said...

Wow. I didn't know so many people were still hung up about this case.

Anonymous said...

Those Manson chicks were all freaky. They should leave them all locked up, even this Atkins chick. Just because she's sick doesn't mean she gets a pass.

Anonymous said...

Vince Bugliosi, who prosecuted the Manson case, has gone on record as supporting Susan's release.

[quote]

Bugliosi said Lampel told him that Atkins had not only lost a leg, but that the other one was paralyzed. In an e-mail to Atkins’ attorney in support of her release, he wrote that the notion that “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” was wrong, Bugliosi said.

“Mercy is already built into California statutory law, because if it weren’t, we would automatically give the death penalty for every murder case, which we don’t,” he said.“My point is, what mercy are we giving her? It’s not like she has six months to live, and we’re letting her go home and she’s going to have fun with her family.

“My view is that anyone who opposes her request, other than relatives of the seven Tate-La Bianca victims ... is either being robotic or extremely callous,” Bugliosi said.“The mercy being requested now is almost too minuscule to speak of because she’s in bed and she’s going to die.”

[unquote]

You know, upon re-reading this I feel that I must take exception with one statement. In the very first sentence, it is written that Atkins has lost one leg and the other one is paralyzed. How can you have an "other" leg when you only have one?

Another esteemed individual who supports the release of all three girls is Douglas Linder, Professor at the UMKC school of law.

Professor Linder has devoted much time to the study of famous trials dating back as far as the trial of Socrates in 399BC. He has an excellent webpage entitled "Famous Trials" which has accounts and pictures of dozens of the most important and sensational cases ever heard. Sandwiched right between the Chicago Seven (Abbie Hoffman) and the Patty Hearst fiasco if none other than our old buddy, Chuck Manson.

Douglas is a good writer and his synopsis of the case is first rate. In a few brief pages he manages to relate all the important points of the crimes while conveying a strong sense of the insanity of Charles Manson and his crazy ideas. For example, Manson believed that the Book of Revelations was directed at him personally.

At the end of the entry Linder adds the following opinion...

[quote]

All three female defendants have expressed remorse for their crimes, been exemplary inmates, and offered their time for charity work. Yet none has been released by the California Parole Board, even though each of them was young and clearly under Manson's powerful influence at the time of their crimes. There is no question that but for their unfortunate connection with Charles Manson, none would have committed murder. It is sad, but undoubtedly true, that parole boards are political bodies that base decisions as much upon anticipated public reaction to their decisions as on a careful review of a parole applicant's prison record and statements. The three female defendants deserve release, but there is a real question whether they will ever experience freedom again. Susan Atkins, diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in 2008, will almost certainly die in prison.

[unquote]

Anonymous said...

shoulda woulda coulda....to debate after 40 years her exact participation in those hiddeous crimes is irrelevant. She was found GUILTY. By anyone's standards Susan Atkins has lived comfortably the last 40 years. She was educated, had her medical and dental coverage, got married twice and could have had kids I guess if she chose so to do.

She participated in many skits, plays, functions and perfected her artisitic side through paintings and sculptures, all while incarcerated. She changed her looks, her hairstyle and was afforded the luxury of watching the events of the world and her family unfold before her eyes. So many things Sharon and the others never got a chance to do.

Given all that she was allowed to do beacuse the death penalty was revoked is beyond any type of kindness that she deserved. Now when she is sick I see people who feel the life she was spared and lived isn't enough?? Please rethink your opinions.

How can you say that she has not been shown enough mercy? Compared to the brutal endings of all the lives that where lost and her connections to them she has been dealt a much better hand than the victims and their remaining family members...leave her where she is. She hasn't been breaking boulders for 40 years, sorry no free pass here for her.

And for the ever forgiving people who speak of religion and the right thing to do...that isn't our job here on earth, that's someone's els's job after she's gone. If you believe in heaven , than you must also believe in hell. I always thought that was where people who do deadly acts go anyway.

Anonymous said...

"There is no question that but for their unfortunate connection with Charles Manson, none would have committed murder."

So, why are they and the men involved in the cult - Watson, Davis and Beausolei - the ones that actually did the murders? Manson didn't kill anyone by his own hand? These people had murder in their hearts. They simply found Manson and each other. The perfect storm of sociopaths and a charismatic leader.

Anonymous said...

The women were ALL brainwashed victims. Even Manson has somewhat diminished capacity...he's crazy as a Loon!!

Susan should have been let out 15 years ago. Watch it Ahnnode Gropenfuhrer. You have forests that Burn!!

Anonymous said...

The only victims were the people murdered. Atkins, et al, were willing participants in murder.

Anonymous said...

Sue and the other kids were just as much victims as those that lost their lives. Even more so, in a sense, since they've had to endure incarceration for their entire adult lives while those that died at least have the peace of oblivion. Victims of Charles Manson, the incredibly evil force that twisted their young minds through the power of drugs, sex, intense peer pressure, and his personal brand of crazy, twisted logic.

Like it or not the kids were temporarily insane while under the control of Manson. Once separated from him they eventually came to their senses. I have no doubt that their memories of the events are as if it was someone else entirely living in their bodies. Linder has it exactly correct, without Manson there would have been no murders. Manson is the one who should be held responsible. The parole boards are simply afraid to do what is right and just.

Anonymous said...

"Sue and the other kids were just as much victims as those that lost their lives. Even more so, in a sense, since they've had to endure incarceration for their entire adult lives while those that died at least have the peace of oblivion."....WHAT A BUNCH OF HORSE MANURE!!!!

Yes, it was so much better, I'm sure, to be 8 1/2 months pregnant anticipating the most joyous event any woman could hope for only to have a bunch of lunatics invade your home terrorize and butcher you and your friends while begging for your life and that of your unborn innocent child.....why yes, of course silly me, that's sooooo much better than living in prison, if you can call it that, with all the creature comforts including health benefits! the bastids should be shot for making her live like that...the inhumanity! yes being sliced open with a machetee is sooo much better!!! why hasn't anyone else not realized this???

Also she was 21, an adult, not a "kid" as you called her. The point is she and the others should have been put to death like they were sentenced. To say that they are the real victims here is insane.

The next time you feel some sympathy for Sue maybe you could re-driect that compassion for an innocent woman who pleaded for her life and that of her soon to be son...

You have no doubt about so much of the events that transpired so long ago and how these excuses for human beings are now and what they are thinking and how they feel...how the HELL is this possible? please do tell everyone about these mystical powers of yours?...or are you just related to one of these monsters?

Sue participated in 9 murders during her manson years. That translates into A LITTLE MORE THAN 4 YEARS PER MURDER...hardly enough time in my opinion and obviously the parole boards as well. Thanks God no-one on that board shares your misplaced compassion. Keeping her where she is IS the right thing to do. HOORAY FOR THE PAROLE BOARD!!

P.S. Pat Krenwinkle has admited her willingness in the crimes and accepts full responsibilty for her actions. She is not shifting any blame....maybe you can learn something from her. But I seriously doubt it.

Anonymous said...

Can anyone fathom living in a society that should let murderers go free because "someone else" told them to commit the crime???WTF????

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"Sue and the other kids were just as much victims as those that lost their lives. Even more so, in a sense, since they've had to endure incarceration for their entire adult lives while those that died at least have the peace of oblivion."

That's an obscene and ignorant comment. I don't even think that Atkins, Watson or Van Houten would have the cojones to make that comparison - PUBLICLY

Anonymous said...

Excellent! I see I'm getting the audience all riled up again. You people are so predictable. You just can't tolerate a different point of view and you'll move heaven and earth in a futile attempt to shoot it down.

Keep it coming. It's been a boring summer.

Anonymous said...

people who feel their main goal in life is to "rile people up" are so pathetic....why not try to see another point of view yourself?

As long as murderers are in prison our attemps aren't futile.

I'm not surprised your summer is boring, must match the rest of your uneventful life, huh?

Don't worry, I refuse to try to educate anyone with the mentality of brick....do everyone a favor a get a life. EDUCATED and INTELLIGENT points of views are always welcome. People who defend baby killers aren't.

Anonymous said...

"the peace of oblivion".....hmmmmm very profound......profoundly asinine.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said (July 29, 12:02 am)

"Even more so, in a sense, since they've had to endure incarceration for their entire adult lives while those that died at least have the peace of oblivion."......hahahahahahahah..that's just too freakin funny, I damn near peed myself. Know any other good jokes???

I understand your point of view totally....but then again I'm institutionlized...

Anonymous said...

Main goal? Haha, not a chance. Merely a means to an end.


“An element of conflict in any discussion is a very good thing. It shows everybody’s taking part and nobody’s left out. I like that.”

* Harvey
* 1950
* James Stewart

Anonymous said...

Since you like quotes so much...

"Behind every argument lies someone's ignorance." - Louis D. Brandeis (1856-1941)

Anonymous said...

Now I understand why you keep arguing with me :)

Pauly said...

imo, atkins didn't actually kill anybody....what did watkins have to gain by declaring he killed tate instead of atkins? kasabian got to walk for being there and not killing anyone....40 years for atkins is long enough....and anyone here advocating she should have faced death row or should not be shown compassion aren't qualified to comment on the tenet of christianity...hypocritical bible thumpers are what they are...

Anonymous said...

Geez, Pauly she was shown compassion....she wasn't executed for Petes sake. Oh, I guess just holding down a pregnant woman so someone else can stab her to death qaulifies her as a wonderful, compassionate person huh?

Anonymous said...

My mistake...I guess just holding down a pregnant woman so someone else could stab her to death qaulifies her for sainthood, huh?

Anonymous said...

Ahh, Pauly, pity you for having the temerity to venture into this den of the anonymous anti-Mansonites. Abandon all reason and logic, ye who have the misfortune to enter here

:)

Anonymous said...

whew! Parole denied...again. All you (anonymous as well) liberal thinkers can spew to your hearts content now about this so-called tranformed killer. No need to argue my case anymore, California did it for me. Goodbye and good luck on your next life mission supporting sociopaths, pot stirrer. I leave you to your quotes and the big "L" on your forehead.

Anonymous said...

Yup. Parole denied today. She has one more year before she's eligible again. Do you think she'll make it?

Anonymous said...

up for parole again in 2012, not next year....who knows, she was supposed to die last year.

Barbara said...

This is no longer about rehabilitation; Susan was rehabilitated. It's no longer about punishment; she's been punished for most of her life, and I doubt she would even know it if she were being punished further at this time. This is about revenge, pure and simple revenge. "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." The Parole Board is helping carry out Manson's ultimate wishes, which is that someone else take the fall for his heinous crimes. The Tates would follow her into the grave if they could, just to criticize her some more. They are meaner than she is, that's for sure. And the Tates are thriving off all the publicity they've gotten as a result of Sharon Tate's murder. Sick, sick. Do you think Sharon Tate's sister would have ever been invited to do a nude centerfold if her sister hadn't been murdered?

Anonymous said...

Barbara, for the millionth time she was shown mercy...she wasn't put to death. To what extent do you personally know the level of rehabilitation she has shown? Manson's ultimate wish? isn't he also still in prison? how is your take on this that he is not paying for his part in this? "They (The Tates)are meaner that she is"...that's a sick and ridiculous thing to say...when they hold down a pregnant woman to help someone slaughter her, taste their blood and write pig on their front door in her blood get back to me. And what the hell does the fact that she was invited to do a centerfold have to do with this? she was invited by your own words, she didn't go seeking that type of attention. You want sick, go look in the mirror. To quote the bible then call the victims families meaner than the killers is sacrilegious

Anonymous said...

For all you religous folk who like to use the bible in Susan's defense....I like the commandment "Thou shall not kill". Sums it up plain and simple.

Pauly said...

i believe that atkins held sharon tate while watson stabbed her....that action alone excludes her nomination for sainthood.....certainly there is precedent in the us for release from prison those who have committed murder and served less than 40 years....yet again, the right wing religious hypocrites extol their misguided belief in the golden rule of an eye for an eye.......

Anonymous said...

Pauly, an eye for an eye would have been her being put to death.

What I have a problem with forgiving Susan is the fact that she not only was present on multiple murders, but one that took the life of an innocent, defenseless baby...tell me how can you or anyone get past that and not think of that child instead of what Susan has gone through? is killing anyone a crime we as a society can sweep under the carpet because a certain amount of time has passed? and what exact amount of time would be appropriate and who should determine it? remember jail isn't just about reabilitation it's also about paying for your crimes

Kathryn Casey said...

Susan Atkins died today from cancer. Now, it'll be up to a higher authority to judge her.

Anonymous said...

i wonder how many times manson had sex with all those young girls and what he would make them do to him ....your thoughts on this ...especially you females

Becky said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

who cares about manson and how many times he had sex!

Anonymous said...

I don't like the way Debra Tate picks and chooses the criminals and crimes she abhors and tolerates. As a victim of child molestation, I take offense to her support of Roman Polanski and the fact that she considers what he did not to be "rape, rape". She used her sisters death to pose nude in Oui Magazine, because there's no way anyone would have wanted to see her that way if she was relying on her own looks. What a way to exploit your dead sibling. Disgusting.

Also the only one who killed her sister was Tex Watson, who I agree should never be released.