How much of Sadie's new book/story is true? I think all of it is fairly self-serving. That is obvious. But how much is true? If false, how do you prove it?
I look at Atkins' track record to this point and feel fairly safe in assuming most of it is fabricated. I recently asked Cats a similar question - why have none of the killers ever come forward with the truth about what really happened at Cielo and Waverly? Her answer? Who would believe them now, even if they did? Pretty difficult to argue with such a logical Cat.
Also, if it could possibly lead to further charges, they will never speak up. There is no Statute of Limitations on murder.
it? In Susan's mind, I would suggest that it is all true. To most of the world, it is more a work of science fiction. or fantasy. What Coroner suggests is true, however, I believe that it is more basic than that. To begin with, All of these wonderful folks have been in prison for many, many years, and as such, have seen the many changes within the California Penal System. They have seen much of society shift in some of their beliefs in that personal responsibility is a thing of the past. Therefore, over the years, if you tell a lie long enough, people will begin to believe the lie. What greater lie to tell than that you were under the influence of drugs and CM. No on denies that CM is believed to be evil, so why not play on that position? There are many who want to believe in the good of man and that is what Susan and her husband are trying to play up. It is the rehabilitation of Susan's image, pure and simple. Back to Coroner's point, it is ironic that in order to be considered for parole, one of the things an inmate must do is to take responsibility for their crimes. However, in a case like this, an inmate must also be careful not to cross a line which could result in additional charges resulting from taking responsibility. It can lead to almost a Catch-22.
The question asked is is Susan Atkins correct in saying that the Helter Skelter motive is untrue. I think it is.
Thanks Mike :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* And the point I see in the original question is a good one. How can we prove its not? How can we prove her finding of the faith is not real? What if this is what she really believes now, or maybe talked herself into believing?
[quote author=SAMTHECAT link=topic=3839.msg31466#msg31466 date=1238098096] The question asked is is Susan Atkins correct in saying that the Helter Skelter motive is untrue. I think it is. [/quote] It's not true now for her and it wasn't true then for her either. But if the motive isn't true what do you replace it with?? Why did it all happen?? (AND replacing it with some half-assed drug burn re-cycled crap doesn't cut the mustard) AND why did the Family believe in it implicitly 40 years ago??
Yes Coroner, darling that may be true. But as my beliefs in certain things change from day to day hers may have back then as well. (I recently overcame my fear of all things, Rod Serling. Thought the guy was a portal into hell. So I got some Night Gallery threw it on, and realized why the guy freaked me out is because his upper lip never moves.)So maybe years later, her vision of what was changed as well. A long line from Rod to murder but the logic is in there somewhere) Perhaps over the years she told herself these things in order to make sense and not accept what happened years later. I agree her story is bunk in parts, and which parts are the truth, I do not know.
I would say IMO - but I feel stronger than that on this matter. As you know I've been looking for one of 'characters' to set as a first person for my novel and goodI feel like Joan Didion (don't write as well as her though) who planned the same regarding Kasabian but could not get a lead on her at all - In our wildest imagination we will never phantom the level of cruelty and perverse sadistic thinking that drove these women/girls. Remorse, the only one with remorse is probably PK and she doesn't care to come out - Susan is still scheming to the best of her ability. I'm not even sure that this 'disease' she has is on the level - or something she and her idiot husband have drummed up. However, many things are true in this version. Charles Manson had the ability to be all things to needy people. If you needed a revolution, he could plan one for you. If you needed a drug burn, he could do that too - if you were a thief then he he could show you some tricks he learned in the can. If you needed religion or Jesus Christ he could drum up an act for that - same thing with the devil - he knew that character very well - He could even dream up a black hole with sugar cane candy trees and chocolate fountains (and if you add that much LSD that might seem like a workable fantasy). Like Susan alluded to though - at some point you have to deliver. You can pull a Panzi scam for so long. Of course, being illerate he also needed a secretary to keep track of his lies because even the dullest of the full (Brooks Posten) was beginning to doubt some of his promises. Reminds me of Jim Jones at some people deside to defect and you can't let them. They know too much - then you have to kill them...LOL Why did he sent the ones he sent? I don't believe Yana the Witch one bit - I'm so glad the jury believed her though because between her and the Bug they at least were put away - Susan? Because he could count on her to taste blood or at least lie and tell everyone - Tex? Because he thought old Texaroni owed him and he say that Tex could levitate if you slipped him a bit of belladonna. Pat? Because she wouldn't let any of the rest wimp out on him because she truly loved him - loved him and still does. Lulu - because she was Bummer's girl. Bummer? Because he was a psychopath waiting to get a chance to prove his could be successful - Susan was right about that - Manson was afriad that Bob was going to turn them in anyway - maybe he wouldn't do it if Lulu one of his own main squeezes 'got their hands dirty' Helter Skelter - I think of the cool Henrickson flick - there is Brenda and the Sqeakster and Sandy the Strange singing 'If you want it here it is, come and get it" If it took a name of a failed nightclub at that awful ranch or the name of a Topsy turvy Ride in England or doodly squat to put them away then great 'I want it too - because the end was justified by the means just to get them behind bars.' Why do they fascinate us? Because their minds and deeds are beyond the realm of our own possibilities. I feel sorry for those who were on the paramaters though - the Kitty's and the Sherry's and the Danny's - those who landed fell in there by some awful mistake and could and had a hard time getting up... Susan was right on the money about Crowe - Manson's the twerp/thug/slug getting into a mess with the Panthers who are the 'unknown' in his hayseed racist world - the Panthers (any blacks at that point) were 'the devil he did not know' He also was pissed about failing to have the talent and the perseverance of rock and roll star, He was pissed about men like Roman Polanski (whose talent he didn't recognize because it was so beyond him) who could have a beautiful woman like Sharon. He was envious of an heiress who wasn't an airhead like some of the celebrity daughters he knew and who was kind and philanthropic and giving. (But as a Radcliffe graduate didn't buy his rhetoric) Therefore, he used their weaknesses against them. A con is best at turning other's weaknesses into their own stregths so their drug use, their reported inhibitions and the accessibilty up of that home was a perfect place to rob them and show the world WHO CHARLIE MANSON WAS/IS AND HE DID FINALLY WAS SUCCESSFULL. HE CERTAINLY DID THAT! He 'got the better' of that honey blonde who he could see was frightened of him that day in March and that lovely brunette who he thought had snubbed him in the Haight. Sharon and Gibby were a perfect target. They didn't ooze pus and gore. Drug burn - hell everyone was burning everyone else back in that day but it didn't take 129 stab wounds to get rid of a 'bummer' all it would have taken was one shot execution style. The Bianca's? Haven't figured that one out yet. You all tell me.
Court said: Drug burn - hell everyone was burning everyone else back in that day but it didn't take 129 stab wounds to get rid of a 'bummer' all it would have taken was one shot execution style. Like the one Manson thought he gave Crowe. But how much was actually Bobby's girl? The obvious pregnant Kitty and Bobby seemed tight, but then again she didn't know he got popped on the Hinman and they lied to her but she figured it out or it slipped from someones mouth. At this juncture I forget. The whole thing started to fall apart. There was no wonderous hole to slip off into, even though didnt they buy rope to go down in a hot spring and Clem and Ouisch could only get so far? How must have that sucked for them- the world was against them. And if the whole biblical prophecy was to come true of the 144,000 where the hell were they going to get them? With all the screwing that supposedly was going on, there werent too many babies. There were some hard core followers, but there was not a mass number, once again referring to Jonestown, where they had some 900 dead.
Oh, I agree, the original question raises a valid point. It's just one that has no easy answer. Was her 'born again' experience genuine? That's a difficult question to answer. Who needs to be convinced? Atkins? You? Me? The Parole Board? God? (Apologies to those who might be offended by a discussion of religious faith) When I realized I wasn't holding up my end of the program with God, I sat down and tried to come up with a better idea of what my strengths and weaknesses were. I figured that way I would know how I could better apply myself to do His bidding. I was missing the entire point. That was me, trying to tell God what I could and could not do for Him. (Steven Curtis Chapman wrote a song called Whatever and it really describes my own misunderstandings. Google the lyrics and you'll see what I mean.) God didn't want me to define what I was going to do. He wanted me to surrender myself to His will, so that I would be ready to do whatever He wanted me to do. And let me tell you, that kind of surrender landed me in some places and situations I would never have imagined. However, I could relax in the understanding that I was doing what He needed me to do. Even in some of those strange, unfamiliar and even awkward situations, there was a sense of Peace within me, because I was doing what I had been called to do. Does Atkins demonstrate that kind of surrender? If she was truly surrendering herself to God, then why all the parole hearings? If God wanted her to be released, she would already be on the streets. Manson tried to teach her to die to self, but he failed. And it seems to me that she still doesn't grasp the concept. In an effort to help explain, how many times did we ever hear Sister Teresa complain about her lot in life and how many times did we witness her trying to change her situation? She was content with being a called servant of God, and she gave it her all. She had an incredible understanding of faith that most of us will never achieve. So, do I feel Atkins' conversion was genuine? No, I think it was merely convenient. But I cannot stress enough that it is not me that needs to be convinced. I have an opinion, but so do we all. And in this particular instance, our opinions don't count. How can we prove Atkins' new story is true or false? At this point, I think it will require detailed and diligent corroboration from her associates in the crimes to be proven true. Will that be forthcoming? I'm not holding my breath. The killers and Manson have obfuscated the facts of the case for 40 years, so why should they suddenly experience a change of heart? In my own mind, hiding the truth is the same as telling a lie. Either you are honest or you are not. Maybe Atkins truly believes what she is allegedly now saying. I've no idea. But just believing something is true doesn't make it so. She believed Manson was superhuman. Wasn't she one of his associates that believed he was Christ? She believed that if she stuck by him, then the State of California would never convict her or murder. Didn't her mouthpiece try to make everyone believe she only had months to live? Sometimes it can be quite easy to make people believe things that are simply not true. Again, all of the above is nothing more than my own opinion. Which may be worth exactly what I charged you for it, aye?
Mike said: God didn't want me to define what I was going to do. He wanted me to surrender myself to His will, so that I would be ready to do whatever He wanted me to do. ---But isnt that indeed what she did for Manson and didnt he once say something to the effect that Susan sticks more with her God conversion that she did with him..I forget the exact quote but I am sure someone has it somewhere. And does she ramble on somewhere about Manson being a false prophet that she fell for the shit?
Mike, you are exactly right about the surrender 'thang' so true - God wants us to praise Him when things are awful - what a dicotomy that seems unless you have been struck down on the road of Damascus like St. Paul - and the Word is revealed to you... I don't know about Susan's personal relationship - I don't want her singing in my celestial choir that's for sure - but ya know? Easter's coming and you think of the theft that is cruified on the side of Jesus - Jesus tells him "This afternoon, you will be with me in paradise" the old original greek word is afternoon, not today or day as is usually used in Modern Bibles. Afternoon...in other words - In the heat of the day - unlike the ancient Oriental view of 'afternoon' which is in the cooling of the eveing - but in the heat of the day! The most wretched time - WITH ME -so Susan has that chance of being 'with Him' if she is truly subugated to His will. Sorry for the religious rant but just goes to show you that we mortals don't know very much do we? Puck says "What fools we mortals be" how true.
Mike, Good post and you make some great points. As I have gotten older (more mature?), I have begun to scratch the surface of my faith, but feel a sense of peace and comfort from it. However, I still have a bit of cynicism flowing through me anytime I hear about Susan Aktins. You make some very good points about her behavior and actions over the past 40 years, and as I stated earlier, 40 years is a long time to try to rehabilitate your image, especially on the outside to others. But my beliefs do not matter either, God will ultimately decide Susan's eternal fate, and I am okay with that. But, if I were Susan, I would pack some sun screen just in case. By the way, if her husband believes this drivel, he is either complicit in this charade or a moron. Either way, society suffers.
[quote author=Dilligaf link=topic=3839.msg31486#msg31486 date=1238132780] As I have gotten older (more mature?)...[/quote] Well, they say you can only be young once, but I plan on being immature forever! ;D Cats, if you read Atkins closely (yes, I know, what can one actually believe), you will notice that she comes across as being subservient to Manson, but she usually had her own agenda well out in front of his own. She was always looking to come across as the tough girl in the herd, but the real truth is that she was one of the weakest. So, whilst she appeared to have surrendered to Manson, she really hadn't surrendered at all. I really don't want to 'preach' here on the forum, as I try to remain respectful of everyone's faith. But when you have really died to self and have risen with Christ, then you come to know a freedom that cannot be given by man. If Atkins is being sincere, then she should know she is already free. If God needed to use her elsewhere, she would be elsewhere. God wants to use her, right where she is, and that is why she has remained incarcerated. Why can she not see that prison is where she has been called to be? Why does she keep trying to get parole, to get away from the ministry that God has provided her? But hey, she is eating pudding, right? ;D
[quote author=Mike link=topic=3839.msg31487#msg31487 date=1238148920] If Atkins is being sincere, then she should know she is already free. If God needed to use her elsewhere, she would be elsewhere. God wants to use her, right where she is, and that is why she has remained incarcerated. Why can she not see that prison is where she has been called to be? Why does she keep trying to get parole, to get away from the ministry that God has provided her? [/quote] I think this is a specious argument, and possibly a dangerous one. By similar (deterministic) reasoning we could also claim that it was God that wanted her to be involved in the killings, and who is she (or we) to question His will? Were Susan to attempt to use this as an excuse for her actions it would not hold up in a court of law, nor in the face of common sense. By the same token, the above proposal simply doesnt wash. Most religions accept the doctrine of free will, because not to do so gets you into the most unholy logical mess. Jem
[quote author=jempud link=topic=3839.msg31488#msg31488 date=1238152478] By similar (deterministic) reasoning we could also claim that it was God that wanted her to be involved in the killings, and who is she (or we) to question His will?[/quote] Quite a stretch from answering God's call into service to violating God's law, don't you think? This is one of the reasons religious discussion is best left outside the door of a forum. Different people have different beliefs and even those sharing the same beliefs are at different points in their own faith journeys. So none of us are ever going to be in complete agreement with one another in any discussions about faith. But that certainly doesn't suggest that any one of us is wrong. I am of the opinion that God has always been very specific about murdering other human beings and that He would never have wanted Atkins, or anyone else, to be involved in any murder. But there you go, that is my own opinion again.
[quote author=Mike link=topic=3839.msg31489#msg31489 date=1238155292] Quite a stretch from answering God's call into service to violating God's law, don't you think? [/quote] Not at all. Given God's omnipotence he could easily have prevented murder but chose not to. Who are we to question why? And God's law is a self-serving concept in that not only is he his own legislator but also his own judge and jury; a holy trinity of executive, legislative and judiciary, if you'll excuse the conceit. If you believe in God then it is irrational to believe in Free Will, because God is omniscient and already knows the outcomes of our actions. If you don't believe in God and do believe in Free Will then you usually want to see people punished for their transgressions. Some people seem to want it both ways: they accept that God knows what evil you are going to do, but insist that you should be punished for doing it. This is not a religious or theological argument, but a philosophical one. Susan, as a believer in God, might question why he allowed her to commit murder and then allowed her to be punished for doing so. I myself wonder why God created fossils, the tape worm and spina bifida. The usual vindication for Christians is reference to the 'mysterious ways' in which he moves when performing his wonders, with the unhelpful directive not to question them. But I do agree with you that religious matters (although not necessarily philosophical ones) are best left out of forums, and will not pursue the topic further. Jem
