ATWA Lives

April 4, 2008 7:25 PM

There seems to be a resurgence of interest in Charles Manson, the notorious lifelong convict who is currently serving a life sentence for masterminding the 1969 Tate/LaBianca murders, as of late. You may have heard about the search for bodies buried at the group's final hideout at Barker Ranch, Death Valley, using specially trained cadaver dogs. Besides that, Lindsey Lohan has signed on to star as Manson follower Nancy "Brenda" Pitman in a new film entitled Manson Girls. Also, documentary filmmaker Robert Hendrickson has finally given his classic 1973 film MANSON a proper DVD release, and has also released a new film entitled The Manson Gang, consisting of leftover original footage from his first film. There are even rumors that ol' Charlie might receive a new trial. So why all the sudden interest?

As a bonus, here's a blog where you can download all of Manson's (surprisingly good) recorded output, including the infamous 1969 album "LIE" and related recordings such as Bobby Beausoleil's soundtrack to Kenneth Anger's film Lucifer Rising.

posted by DecemberBoy (52 comments total)

i think we should play "fantasy cast" with the new manson girls movie.

who has suggestions of who to play "squeaky" fromme?
posted by CitizenD at 7:32 PM on April 4, 2008

If you take nothing else away from this post, you really should seek out (it was completely unavailable for over 25 years, so bootlegs and digital rips abound if you don't want to order from Hendrickson, who only accepts money orders via mail) the film MANSON, which is the only documentary about Manson and his girls to feature the actual people involved, including Sandra Good, Squeaky Fromme, Ronnie Howard (who broke the case after Susan Atkins told her everything in jail), other girls who were in jail with Manson's followers, and more. It's a truly excellent and criminally unknown documentary. It was available in full on YouTube and Google Video until recently, when Hendrickson made them take it down due to the impending DVD release.
posted by DecemberBoy at 7:35 PM on April 4, 2008

Fromme? Bryce Dallas Howard. She'd have to stop smiling, of course.
posted by grabbingsand at 7:37 PM on April 4, 2008

who has suggestions of who to play "squeaky" fromme?

And who could possibly play Charlie? With the exception of Steve Railsback, who put on a masterful performance in the TV miniseries Helter Skelter, every other portrayal has been crap.
posted by DecemberBoy at 7:37 PM on April 4, 2008

wow, grabbingsand, she's an excellent suggestion. i'd originally thought tilda swinton, but she's way too classy to co-star with lyndsay lohan.

decemberboy:
first choice: ben foster -- have you seen alpha dog? or 3:10 to yuma? in both, he goes from 0 to crazy in no time flat. he's short enough and has the nutzy in the eyes, ya know?

(i'd also suggest that ryan gosling -- at least the ryan gosling of 'half nelson' -- could do it too)
posted by CitizenD at 7:49 PM on April 4, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

he goes from 0 to crazy in no time flat

That's kind of the problem, everyone wants to portray him as some kind of comical lunatic, even Railsback did this to some extent. If you see the footage of him in MANSON, or listen to some of his recorded interviews (with the exception of Diane Sawyer and Geraldo Rivera, where he was totally playing to the camera and being the lunatic they wanted), he does have a tendency to ramble and make no sense, but he mostly just seems like your old redneck uncle, and often comes off as highly intelligent albeit uneducated.
posted by DecemberBoy at 8:01 PM on April 4, 2008

A more interesting movie about Manson would be a fictionalized accounts of him finally being paroled and crashing at Boyd Rice's house.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:09 PM on April 4, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

the film MANSON

It really is excellent -- and my God is it creepy. A lot of the footage from that movie was recreated in the micro-budget underground flick The Manson Family, which I thought was pretty good (if weird and featuring an awful Manson performance).
posted by Bookhouse at 8:17 PM on April 4, 2008

Stop. Stop feeding into this shit. Guys like Manson are not celebrities. He is a rapist and a murderer. At least wait until the mother fucker is dead.
posted by tkchrist at 8:20 PM on April 4, 2008 [8 favorites has favorites]

You must only pay attention to pop music and movies! Do not talk about the bad man!
posted by blacklite at 8:26 PM on April 4, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

i nominate tkchrist to play manson.tkchrist
posted by CitizenD at 8:26 PM on April 4, 2008

At least wait until the mother fucker is dead.

Which shouldn't be long.

So why all the sudden interest?

Because a new generation of turd-brains thinks that they have discovered something about the 'nature of evil,' by looking at old news footage, instead of realizing that the old cliche 'evil is banal' is right on target.
posted by jonmc at 8:26 PM on April 4, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

just joshin, tkchrist.

really, i also think john hawkes could do manson really well.
posted by CitizenD at 8:28 PM on April 4, 2008

Because a new generation of turd-brains thinks that they have discovered something about the 'nature of evil,' by looking at old news footage, instead of realizing that the old cliche 'evil is banal' is right on target.

Casting Lindsay Lohan may be evidence that someone has in fact had this realization.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:36 PM on April 4, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

Manson was not just a run of the mill cult murderer No. He was all about race war and white supremacy and all sorts of other crazy ideological shit. Shit. Let's put David Duke on t-shirts and make endless movies about him, too. It's just weird that our culture does this. And you don't have to participate. Just say'n.
posted by tkchrist at 8:36 PM on April 4, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

He is a rapist and a murderer.

Really? You might want to let the LA County District Attorney's office know about your new evidence, because even they never claimed he was actually a murderer. He is in prison because he was idolized by people who committed murders, and the DA was able to prove that he masterminded them. As for him being a rapist, I have no idea what you're even talking about. He once went to prison for violating the Mann Act, but no one ever said he raped anyone. Unless you're one of those womymoymwmon who believes all sex with a man is rape.
posted by DecemberBoy at 8:38 PM on April 4, 2008

decemberboy, i'm sorry to threadjack.

i agree with you that MANSON is an amazing film. it's been nearly that long (25 yr) since i've seen it, so i am glad to know it'll be available on DVD.

i don't know why (or even if, really) there's been a resurgance of interest. it's always fascinated me how -- somehow -- he seems to make the news at least every couple of years or so. i went through my requisite fascination with it some years ago, but it still has resonance. to me, and obviously to others as well.

perhaps it's because i know people who have become attached to individuals in this way. perhaps because wild charisma is difficult to look away from. perhaps because manson is so banal himself. the whole thing -- manson, his legacy, his followers-then and now -- is surreal and utterly mind-blowing to me.

really, maybe the 'fantasy cast' thing is just a coping mechanism.
posted by CitizenD at 8:40 PM on April 4, 2008

Yeah, I wondered about the "rapist" thing, myself. tkchrist?
posted by yhbc at 8:41 PM on April 4, 2008

who woulda thought a thread about charles manson could possibly go wrong?
posted by facetious at 8:42 PM on April 4, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

I have no idea what you're even talking about.

While imprisoned Manson sodomized another inmate while holding a razor blade to his throat. I'd say that qualifies as rape. But if you want to impress us all with how iconoclastic and edgy you are by posting about ol' Charlie, you go right ahead.
posted by jonmc at 8:43 PM on April 4, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

Really? You might want to let the LA County District Attorney's office know about your new evidence, because even they never claimed he was actually a murderer. He is in prison because he was idolized by people who committed murders, and the DA was able to prove that he masterminded them. As for him being a rapist, I have no idea what you're even talking about. He once went to prison for violating the Mann Act, but no one ever said he raped anyone. Unless you're one of those womymoymwmon who believes all sex with a man is rape.

A documentary about the '60s I had on last weekend while I was cleaning (so you'll forgive me if I didn't give it my full attention, and so could be mistaken in some way) did mention offhandedly that Manson had raped another inmate while in prison (previous to the Tate-LaBianca murders). I imagine this is what was being referred to.

I think that when you order murders and those murders are carried out, you're pretty much a murderer. If I hired a hitman to kill someone for me, I would be guilty of...what? Maybe not murder, per se, but conspiracy to commit murder? I'm not seeing a big difference here.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:48 PM on April 4, 2008

Let's put David Duke on t-shirts and make endless movies about him, too. It's just weird that our culture does this.

Why not? They do it with Che who was arguably a mass murderer, even if his anti-imperialist slant had some endearing qualities to it.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:52 PM on April 4, 2008

We do make movies about people like David Duke. The thing about Manson is that he retains some air of mystery for, forgive me, idiots. Basically he's still suckering the weak into paying attention to him and giving him some level of credibility.

I remember my grandparents trying to convince my parents to take away my Guns N Roses tapes because of Manson, so I've got nothin' but ill will towards him.
posted by Roman Graves at 8:55 PM on April 4, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

When I was 14 or so, the whole Manson thing was somewhat fascinating to me, so I read helter Skelter, but I was fascinated mainly because I was a kid who didn't understand the ways of the world. Now, I look at him and I see a sad-ass power-hungry loser who, via some historical accidents, managed to find a bunch of people pathetically deluded enough to do his bidding. That's all he is. let him rot in his cell.
posted by jonmc at 9:00 PM on April 4, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

who has suggestions of who to play "squeaky" fromme?

Shoulda been Amy Wright back in the day, but now I'd go with Evanna Lynch, aka 'Luna Lovegood' from the Harry Potter movies. Also Jena Malone as Linda Kasabian, Evan Rachel Wood as Patty Krenwinkel, Anne Hathaway as Leslie Van Houten, and Natalie Portman as Susan Atkins. Paris Hilton as Sharon Tate. James Franco as Bobby Beausoleil. Nicholas Cage as Vincent Bugliosi.

And Bob Odenkirk as Manson.
posted by Kinbote at 9:01 PM on April 4, 2008

I think you meant Nic Cage as Manson.

"We're just, uh, gonna go underground here, and wait for the niggers to win." *Cue some kung fu moves and a high kick*
posted by Roman Graves at 9:06 PM on April 4, 2008

It seems that the investigation at the Barker Ranch has been kept under wraps for a while. Just about a year ago (April 2007), I had the pleasure of joining a poetry workshop with Ed Sanders, who infiltrated the Manson family and subsequently authored The Family: The Story of Charles Manson's Dune Buggy Attack Battalion. It was really casual and small (10 people), and during our discussion, Ed said that he had just received a call from one of the original detectives involved in the case-- they had drawn upon a great deal of Ed's notes and observations when putting the prosecution's case together. At any rate, the caller was asking for Ed's help again, the detective stating that they had received a tip that there might be more bodies at one or more of the sites. They had, at that point last year, already brought cadaver dogs in. All of this leads me to wonder at the coincidence of the movie casting/production and the current press release. I'm not sure what it might mean, but it's intriguing.
posted by exlotuseater at 9:15 PM on April 4, 2008

Yeah, I went through a big Manson phase in about 1988, which was....

OMFG, THAT WAS LIKE 20 YEARS AGO. NOOOOOOOOOOOO.......

Anyway, of all the materials that I read, watched, or listened to, the most interesting was Tex Watson's book Will You Die For Me? Yes, he eventually FOUND JEBUS and was Saved from Eternal Damnation, but the real value is the detailed account of life with Charlie.

When I got a paperback copy, I was told it was somewhat rare, though I don't know this as a fact. I've held onto the copy all these years. Well, surprise surprise, I find the entire book is now online!

Highly recommended.
posted by Tube at 9:23 PM on April 4, 2008

Jane Adams is perfect for Squeaky.
posted by [NOT HERMITOSIS-IST] at 9:36 PM on April 4, 2008

I've said it before and I'll keep on saying it, if you want to read anything decent about the Manson family, read The Family by Ed Sanders. It really is the alpha and the omega when it comes to this case. I wasn't surprised in the least when the recent Barker Ranch news hit.
posted by NoMich at 9:51 PM on April 4, 2008

What "resurgence"?

Manson has always been cool amongst a prominent group of morally bankrupt celebrities like John Waters (or wanna-bes like [spits] Boyd Rice) who have clearly never actually been crime victims themselves.

I personally am very much in the "don't pay attention to them, it'll just encourage them" school of thought regarding Manson and the Family. (However, the Sanders book is pretty authoritative if you must look it up...)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:58 PM on April 4, 2008

Anyway, of all the materials that I read, watched, or listened to, the most interesting was Tex Watson's book Will You Die For Me?

I have that book and it is definitely worth a read. I got that and Susan Atkins's book at a local library book sale at the same time.
posted by NoMich at 10:01 PM on April 4, 2008

He still got that million dollar bounty on his head?




....I'm just askin'
posted by Smedleyman at 10:05 PM on April 4, 2008

I remember being fascinated with the made-for-tv movie HELTER SKELTER as a kid, watching it over and over again. My folks would tell me stories about when they first moved to LA with long hippy hair and quickly went to 70s punk to avoid the Manson hysteria and my dad drove me past houses, pointing out where murders took place.

I think its the David Koresh/Jim Jones charismatic nutbag thing that makes Manson crop up as a fascination every few years. We all want to believe we'd never fall under the clutches of some nutbag claiming to be Jesus. The malevolent mastermind is far more curious and WTF than a serial killer, even one as quirky as a Gacy or Dahmer.

I was afraid of Manson when I was a kid. Too much TV interview of him just being a pathetic old crazy has just tuned me out to it. Watch the standard modern coverage and he's not fascinating, just horrible. In other words, I guess what these kids on our lawns need is someone like Geraldo again to debunk Manson. Good thing the youth aren't fixated on Al Capone's vaults.
posted by Gucky at 10:22 PM on April 4, 2008

*Cue some kung fu moves and a high kick*

Sounds more like Crispin Glover if you ask me, and it makes sense: he's the only actor in America crazy enough to do the part justice.

And Bob Odenkirk as Manson.

"Oh, he's not in anyone's children, Bernice, he just likes to say that."
posted by Horace Rumpole at 10:26 PM on April 4, 2008

Manson's bus with link to dugout circa 1969
posted by hortense at 10:45 PM on April 4, 2008

I remember watching a copy of the Rivera interviews with Manson. I was half out of it at the time but I remember Rivera saying "You're crazy Charlie" and I'm thinking - well f'ing duh there 'Ed Bradley', nice interview skills. Manson is crazy, what a revelation.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:51 PM on April 4, 2008

Some say Manson had been an MKULTRA test subject. Makes you wonder if he didn't learn something there about controlling people - he certainly picked up quite a bit during his Scientology stint. He was also involved with the super-shady Process Church of the Final Judgment. It's like Manson's hold over people was this toxic waste produced from all of these bizarre entities colliding.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:15 PM on April 4, 2008

Previously, about Manson and the Process Church.

They were also involved with David Berkowitz. Weird crew.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:21 PM on April 4, 2008

I need to make a quick buck, so I was thinking maybe I'll be a real shitty writer and produce a bunch of pulp novels. Then I changed my mind and thought I'll just write trashy romance novels. Now I'm thinking "Fuck all that!" I gots me a grand idea. I'm gonna write about o'l Charlie there. Sheeeiiit! MKULTRA? That ain't nothin'. I thinking I'll make him into some kind of charismatic spritual leader. Heck, he already has a buddhist symbol on his forehead. Yep, I'm going to weave in so much bullshit, angsty 16 year olds vill be eating up this crap for decades. Oh, wait....did somebody already do that? Damn!!!
posted by P.o.B. at 11:35 PM on April 4, 2008

He was also involved with the super-shady Process Church of the Final Judgment.

Actually, he wasn't. Apparently Ed Sanders just kinda made that up. All the stuff about the Process was removed from the book by court order.

Anyway, and this is kind of the point of the post, if Manson was just a loser criminal and only angsty teens have any interest in him, why has he remained in the public consciousness for nearly 40 years? Why has he been put forth as a symbol of ultimate evil for so long? Why are people still making movies about him in 2008? Why are people interested in the search for bodies at Barker Ranch nearly 40 years later? The film Charles Manson Superstar explores some of these questions, but is tainted by the fact that director Nikolas Schrek was a Manson sympathizer/groupie at the time he made it (he's since renounced Manson). Jim Jones was responsible for the deaths of 900 of his followers, and he's pretty much nothing more than a historical footnote now. Heaven's Gate was forgotten a few months later. What is it about this particular cult leader that's so collectively fascinating?
posted by DecemberBoy at 12:00 AM on April 5, 2008

While the jackasses who celebrate Manson as some antihero are as pathetic as the man himself, it's still an interesting story in the same way the tales of Ed Gein, Delphine LaLaurie, Leopold and Loeb, and Carl Panzram are interesting; while all five have ghoulish appeal for folks who're into that sort of thing, there are social aspects beyond the crimes that are equally fascinating. The intersecting of music, counterculture, racial politics, religion, family issues and power dynamics in the Manson story are what makes it so appealing, IMO. The other crimes I mentioned focus a window on specific points in history and society, and to suppress them lest some shmucks get dumb ideas, or the criminals glorified, seems wasteful and wrong.

Considering the rape mentioned by jonmc (Who is sort of projecting) is basically a footnote and, judging from some responses in this thread, still fairly obscure, how would you know about it unless you followed Manson's story on more than a cursory level? At what point should discussion or dissemination of the story be squelched so that we don't feed the troll? Even the debate over whether there should be discussion or dissemination has some value, I think.

Maybe I'm biased, Charles Manson, Clifford Olsen, and Paul Bernardo helped me win a debate in eighth grade English: "Be It Resolved That: Canada Should Reinstate Capital Punishment..."
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:08 AM on April 5, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Also, while the Process link is BS, he was involved with Scientology. You'll never find any evidence of it, as Scientology has long since purged all records of his involvement, but people who were in prison with him say he was completely obsessed with it for a brief period. He eventually dropped out, but he incorporated Scientology ideas into his own personal mish-mash of beliefs.
posted by DecemberBoy at 12:13 AM on April 5, 2008

Yeah, DecemberBoy beat me to the punch as I came into this thread to say that Manson rejected Scientology as too crazy. This amuses me to no end.

For what it's worth, I find people like Manson, Berkowitz, Gein, Gacy & DeSalvo et al absolutely fascinating. I don't idolize what they did, far from it, but I can't help but be fascinated by them. I can't quite put into words why. I think it's partially to do with the fact that I can't relate to their action emotionally or psychologically at all, making them seem entirely unreal and alien to me yet at the same time most of these people had the same starting point that we all did. Where did this profound change happen and why?
posted by slimepuppy at 3:47 AM on April 5, 2008

Manson, et al., fascinate because they are humans, just like you or me, who somehow went wrong. They have a flavor of craziness that leaves them more or less functional, so we can't safely dismiss them as "crazy." Many of them go through society for a long time without arousing suspicion, and it's disturbing to think that something so horrible could like beneath any of our skins. It's not the Uncanny Valley, but it's something similar.
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:20 AM on April 5, 2008

I saw a TV documentary about Manson in which they claimed that Manson had been repeatedly raped in prison as a youth. Manson himself says that is what happened, although you have to take anything he says with a shaker of salt. But anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if he was in fact repeatedly raped in jail (he's a small guy; only 5'2"), and if that was the case, it undoubtedly affected his mindset and contributed to his rage against society.
posted by Devils Slide at 6:31 AM on April 5, 2008

First Marylin, now Manson. I think I see a pattern in the Lohan.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 8:29 AM on April 5, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Squeaky Fromme: I will get you part way there. We need to find this generation's Glenne Headley.
posted by spock at 9:43 AM on April 5, 2008

It's difficult to dismiss Manson if you read his 1970 testimony. It is insane and sinister and horrible and incomprehensibly true.

I have nothing against none of you. I can't judge any of you. But I think it is high time that you all started looking at yourselves, and judging the lie that you live in.

I sit and I watch you from nowhere, and I have nothing in my mind, no malice against you and no ribbons for you.

But you stand and you play the game of money. As long as you can sell a newspaper, some sensationalism, and you can laugh at someone and joke at someone and look down at someone, you know.

You just sell those newspapers for public opinion, just like you are all hung on public opinion, and none of you have any idea what you are doing.

You are just doing what you are doing for the money, for a little bit of attention from someone.

I can't dislike you, but I will say this to you. You haven't got long before you are all going to kill yourselves because you are all crazy.

And you can project it back at me, and you can say that it's me that cannot communicate, and you can say that it's me that don't have any understanding, and you can say that when I am dead your world will be better, and you can lock me up in your penitentiary and you can forget about me.

But I'm only what lives inside of you, each and every one of you.

posted by nasreddin at 12:32 PM on April 5, 2008

why has he remained in the public consciousness for nearly 40 years? Why has he been put forth as a symbol of ultimate evil for so long?

Saying he has remained in the public consciousness is a bit much. I would just say he is something a talking head will point at when they mention evil.

Why are people still making movies about him in 2008?

Have you seen the bullshit hollywood has been churning out? Why not add to it some more?

Jim Jones was responsible for the deaths of 900 of his followers, and he's pretty much nothing more than a historical footnote now. Heaven's Gate was forgotten a few months later.

From my perspective he isn't any more noteworthy than any of these other "crazy cult people". And whenever I hear about him mentioned he usually is lumped in with them.

Didn't Oliver Stone do a movie showing the ridiculousness of these people and the people who idolize them?

I think he is only fascinating from the perspective of his ability to be persuasive enough to talk people into doing what they did.

But, hey, if you're into this guy have at it. I guess I would also fall into the category that this guy really doesn't deserve any kind mention above a random posting on an internet forum every once in a blue moon.
posted by P.o.B. at 4:02 PM on April 5, 2008

I agree with P.o.B. The thing that's fascinating about Manson is how a middle aged ex-con managed to sucker a bunch of good looking middle class hippie chicks into becoming his sex slaves. To the extent that they'd even kill for him. To the extent that they'd carve swastikas on their foreheads and attempt to assassinate presidents for him.

I guess it had something to do with the period, something to do with the youth, naivity and the damaged quality of the children involved with him, but it must have had something to do with the man himself as well. That said, as someone's already pointed out, his mommy was a whore and he'd done time for pimping himself -- he was obviously running some 1960's hippie variant of a pimp game on those kids -- but his degree of control seems much greater than you'd expect under the circumstances.

Perhaps some of that had to do with the isolation in the desert, the acid, and the cult-like quality of the Family itself. But even if you dismiss him as a nasty little sociopath running a fairly unsophisticated con game that could only have worked with damaged kids, the story itself is such an interesting one that it's inevitable that you'll get continuing interest in it. That shouldn't be taken as an enthusiasm for Manson per se.

It's difficult to dismiss Manson if you read his 1970 testimony. It is insane and sinister and horrible and incomprehensibly true.

I completely disagree, nasreddin. I think that what he's doing there is parroting the standard 1960's critique that he'd worked into his pimping con game. The very same one that he used to sucker those stupid, vulnerable kids. And not surprisingly for a sociopath, he takes the basis of a legitimate critique, but uses it to legitimatize his personal doctrine of nihilism, and the naivity and lack of education of those poor dumb kids blinded them to the fact that his conclusions didn't follow from his premises.

Because it worked for him with the kids, he stupidly thought it was going to work on the courts and on wider public opinion.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:18 PM on April 5, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

But the most interesting question appears to have vanished into the mire of the worship of bigger-than-life longing. I happened to know two of the victims of Manson's killings. And when I turned on the radio and heard the news that Saturday morning I was devastated. But as the story began to unfold, the parallel story unfolded right along with it, but not so immediately apparent. Hardly anyone caught on, nor cared. certainly not the media. From the moment the news of the murders got out, most of young Hollywood were terrified. A lot of them figured that they might be next on whoever's hit list, and they let it be known to anyone who would listen. But they also wanted to be in on it. The stories began to fly. "It was a drug deal gone wrong." Except Sharon was days away from giving birth, her husband was away in England and her close friend and hairdresser was there at the house looking after her. There was no question of any drug deal. Anyone who knew them, knew that. But the stories began growing: "There was to be a big party that night at the Polanski's" I must have spoken to a dozen people including a male Movie star and a Hollywood gossip columnist who claimed, along with loads of others, to have been invited but for various reasons hadn't been able to make it. Then the story went around that the killings were revenge by someone who had been humiiiated at one of a string of S&M parties of which this was one." Well. there may have been such parties but not with those people and certtainly not at that time. Around the bar at the Daisy Club on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills the stories grew more and more dramatic and unbeivable. The LaBianca killings made little impression becacuse they didn't involve Hollywood. The gossip columnist claimed to know who the guilty parties were, but was too frightened to reveal this info because she had received a black widow spider in the mail with note warning her to keep her mouth shut. As Jimmy Durante would have put it, "Everybody wants to get in on the act."

Of course, when the Manson family was finally caught it put a damper on all this. The fun went straight out of it. The point is that this frenzy of wannabe involvement and the need, for some, to make themselves part of a terrible but newsworthy event, predated our present celebrity culture by decades and if anyone had the talent or the contacts to tell it, even now. I think it would be far more interesting and important than mythologizing a bunch of lunatic losers running around murdering people.

I was only on the fringes of this world and had nothing to gain by either making such claims or believing them. And as much as I would love to read the whole story from this perspective, I would not be the one to write it. But maybe some might still have a shot at it
posted by donfactor at 6:35 PM on April 6, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]