Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to not understand why Charles Manson is in prison?

116 replies

LuckyStrikes · 01/09/2013 12:48

Maybe I haven't looked into the case deep enough or have a good enough understanding.

But from what I can gather he never actually killed anyone. And yes he might have brainwashed his followers who did murder those 7 people but surely they are accountable for their own actions?

I'm not saying he's a good person who doesn't deserve to be there, I'm just confused as to what he was charged with to be in prison for the rest of his life.

OP posts:
SarahAndFuck · 01/09/2013 19:22

"Why wouldn't he be in prison?"

The OP hasn't said she shouldn't be in prison. She just wasn't aware of the law that was used to put him there. That was clear right from her first post.

Some people have been a bit snippy at her for not just googling her question but we'd be a quieter site if everybody did that and this could shape up to an interesting discussion worth her asking.

MrsWilberforce · 01/09/2013 19:28

The OP hasn't said he shouldn't be in prison. She just wasn't aware of the law that was used to put him there. That was clear right from her first post.

It wasn't clear - really only the last line of the op puts the question proper. The title of the thread and most of the wording of the op is extremely insensitive. Meanwhile the op is massively over-sensitive to to the point of being a bit bizarre.

SarahAndFuck · 01/09/2013 19:43

"It wasn't clear - really only the last line of the op puts the question proper."

So that is clear then. As you say, her last line makes it clear ("I'm not saying he's a good person who doesn't deserve to be there, I'm just confused as to what he was charged with to be in prison for the rest of his life.") even if the title isn't quite right.

So unless you (general you not personal you) are answering her based only on the title of the thread, which is never the brightest idea, it's clear what she's asking and why. I know people don't always read the entire thread but reading the first post in it is surely the bare minimum before you reply, and anyone that had would have seen, as you say, the question proper.

kim147 · 01/09/2013 19:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SarahAndFuck · 01/09/2013 19:53

I agree kim, but then the same can be said of lots of threads, and I still think that her following post made her meaning clear.

It's easy to do, write what's on your mind and then realise you've been as clear as mud once you hit post. At least the OP did go on to say what she was confused about and why in her post.

northernlurker · 01/09/2013 19:59

It's not a problem to not understand something but there is a ton of stuff on this case on the web. A few minutes reading it is enough surely to convince anybody that a conspiracy was at hand. That's why the OP got a hard time. Not because she didn't understand something but because she didn't bother to find out OR possibly found out and didn't think the conspiracy stuff all that bad.....Hmm

Personally I think this case os the stuff of nightmares. If you made a film today featuring exactly what happened at the Tate house and then the next day at the LaBianca home I suspect you'd struggle to get it shown.

OnTheBottomWithAWomensWeekly · 01/09/2013 19:59

yeah but some subjects need a bit more thinking than others. "Aibu to wonder why a mass murdering insane satanist cult leader isn't free to roam the streets" is less than considered.

MrsWilberforce · 01/09/2013 20:01

Surely when you're dealing with a sensitive issue - and are apparently massively sensitive yourself - you would have a bit more of a think about how to phrase your title and your question?

kali110 · 01/09/2013 20:02

Anyone have a link to the article about the supporters with a petition?id like to hear their reasoning about why this evil deranged person should be freed...

MrsWilberforce · 01/09/2013 20:08

In fact, now I look at it again sarahandfuck the last sentence isn't clear - the OP wasn't just asking what law was used to jail Manson but asking why he was in jail for the rest of his life. There is an emotive tone to the question and seems to suggest that there is something unjust about his continued imprisonment.

SarahAndFuck · 01/09/2013 20:18

""Aibu to wonder why a mass murdering insane satanist cult leader isn't free to roam the streets" is less than considered."

That's nowhere near what she said though. The title didn't clarify far enough what she was actually asking but her subsequent post did.

"Not because she didn't understand something but because she didn't bother to find out OR possibly found out and didn't think the conspiracy stuff all that bad."

Not googling before she asked a question is hardly crime of the century though. I doubt if she had asked anyone here in person they would have been quite so harsh in the way they suggested she google it rather than ask.

And I don't think the OP was suggesting the conspiracy was less bad than the murder. She took a couple of sentences to get to her point but she was only asking how they managed to convict and sentence him the same as the people who carried out the act, not excusing his part as being less serious or saying he shouldn't have been convicted and sentenced the same.

I could be wrong and I'm not wanting to get into a mass argument about the finer points of how the OP could have phrased things better or googled more, I just don't see the point in giving someone a hard time because of a bad title and a wobbly start to a post that was clear in it's intentions by the end.

It was clear she was asking about the legal process of getting him to prison in the same way as the others rather than asking how deserving he was to be there.

NotALondoner · 01/09/2013 20:19

Kali, that was Charles Bronson, not Manson.

So the ones who got off with no punishment then, how was that? I don't want to google or read horrific books to be honest. Thanks.

SarahAndFuck · 01/09/2013 20:23

No, MrsWilberforce she hasn't asked why he is in prison for the rest of his life.

"I'm not saying he's a good person who doesn't deserve to be there, I'm just confused as to what he was charged with to be in prison for the rest of his life."

That's it right there. What was he charged with? That was her question and she began it by saying she doesn't think he's a good person who doesn't deserve to be there. She's asking how they managed to put him there for the rest of his life not why he's there or if he deserves to be.

IDontBowlOnShabbos · 01/09/2013 20:24

If it makes you feel better op I didn't even know that he hadn't killed anyone, so you've taught me something. Smile

OnTheBottomWithAWomensWeekly · 01/09/2013 20:25

Id say what annoyed wad "maybe I havent looked into the case ENOUGH" when I think she meant AT. ALL.

FlutteringButterflie · 01/09/2013 20:33

Id say what annoyed wad "maybe I havent looked into the case ENOUGH" when I think she meant AT. ALL.

Why is that annoying? The OP knew that Manson didn't kill those people and that he brainwashed his "family" into doing it. What she didn't know was that conspiracy carries the same sentence as murder itself - hardly something to be annoyed about.

So because you found it annoying that justifies giving the OP a hard time?

FlutteringButterflie · 01/09/2013 20:42

I found it terrifying that they mislaid, lost and destroyed evidence and overlooked obvious and vital matters throughout. It is a testament to Bugliosi's skills as a prosecutor and Manson's huge ego that he ever got convicted

Quote from a review of Helter Skelter on Amazon. I don't personally think it's quite as black and white as some of you are implying.

I've read many cases in which people have confessed to the murder but they won't be convicted because the case has already gone to trial the maximum amount.

Under the law of double jeopardy, a second trial is forbidden following an acquittal.

I know that is not what happened here but the legal system is never going to perfect. So I don't think it's an unfair question to ask why Manson who didn't commit the physical crime of murder has been imprisoned.

Some of you are implying that the OP wants to see him free and that he does not deserve to be there, and the fact that someone tried to imply the OP had a stake in Manson is just a bit ridiculous and gives you "the claws are out" feeling.

RunFatGirlRun · 01/09/2013 20:46

OP I really don't mean to be patronising but are you actually thinking of Charles Bronson? (I've heard loads of people make this same mistake, myself included)

I ask because Charles Bronson has been in the UK press the last couple of days because someone (a family member) is pleading for his release.

If you are thinking of Charles Bronson I do understand your question, since his sentence is a bit more confusing and relates to behaviour behind bars etc.

Apols if I'm barking up the wrong tree

RunFatGirlRun · 01/09/2013 20:47

For clarification recent article about people calling for CB's release

He was originally only jailed for 7 years.

MistressDeeCee · 01/09/2013 20:50

If OP really wanted to know about the case she'd have read up on it right here on the internet instead of posting goady question in the hope of for/against debate. There are sites etc where people DO give a shit about murderers as opposed to victims..best toddle off there

MistressDeeCee · 01/09/2013 20:58

Of course AIBU is naturally/normally a place where people come for information and insight re.legality of sentences for mass murder/those who incite it then I take back all I've said

MistressDeeCee · 01/09/2013 21:00
  • IF AIBU is..meant to say
thebody · 01/09/2013 21:06

grow up op!! either that or go work for another paper.

if this is a serious post, and I find that hard to belive, then google him.

and then google Sharon Tate and how she died at 8 months pregnant.

and then remember her relatives are still alive.

FlutteringButterflie · 01/09/2013 21:13

What a strange post thebody .... do you really believe journalists use mumsnets to gain information about murder cases? Confused

MistressDeeCee what for and against debate?

Original poster
LuckyStrikes · 01/09/2013 21:21

My goodness some of you are really looking for a fight Confused

thebody I don't work for a paper, and if I did why would I be using mumsnet? If the article was about children I could understand your suspicion but Charles Manson? ... erm .... there are no words.

I know Sharon Tate died and so did her unborn child, and yes her relatives are still alive. I haven't ever denied that, or said that the crime wasn't horrendous, and that the people who committed that act deserve exactly what they got.

MistressDeeCee I don't under the for and against debate you seem to have come up with. For and against what? Confused - I am for him being in prison for the rest of his life, and I'm sure the vast majority of the world is too. So where is the debate?

And why do you think I "give a shit" about Manson and not the victims? The only thing I couldn't quite understand was as Manson had not physically killed them himself why was his sentence (originally a death sentence) the same as the people he had convinced to do these acts. Although I do believe they are too very accountable for their actions.

I didn't know that conspiracy was treated the same as murder - I hold my hands up to my ignorance on that.

Now I do. And now I understand what crime under law he was convicted with.

I don't know what some of you people want from me Confused

My OP wasn't written well and neither was my title, I can't change that. But have subsequently explained further on what I meant.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread