Not like anyone one will read this but.. Poison God might like this
On October 21, 1997 the New York Times online Cybertimes published an article about
Access Manson entitled "Manson Family Web Site: History Rewritten by Losers". The article is noteworthy because it included the first reaction to the web site from a member of the prosecution team that convicted Charles Manson in 1971.
Steven Kay was a young deputy District Attorney when he joined Vincent Bugliosi in the courtroom as a co-prosecutor late in the trial. In his book
Helter Skelter Bugliosi mentions Kay only six times, at one point to recall how the inexperienced deputy DA "intemporately" rushed from the courtroom to repeat a supposed Manson death threat to the press. Manson once remarked that Kay's real role at the trial was that "he carried Bugliosi's pencils."
The reporter for the New York Cybertimes asked Kay to comment on several of the points raised in
Access Manson. This exchange is repeated below, with additional commentary from
Access Manson. Prompts from the Cybertimes are in "regular" print. Kay's comments are in
italics.
Access Manson's responses to Kay's reactions are in
boldface.
To the notion that Manson was denied his rights because the judge did not allow him to represent himself in his trial:
That was always a sticking point. When he was denied pro per rights, he said he was going to get the worst attorney in L.A. Later, jurors had trouble deciding to convict because he had such a bad attorney.
The denial of Charles Manson's constitutional rights is reduced to "a sticking point". Note with this first response how Kay establishes a pattern of saying nothing of substance, of giving no detailed response to this or any other allegation contained in ACCESS MANSON. He offers nothing close to evidence or documentation in his answers, merely making statements and passing them off as fact, as if he was an acknowledged oracle of the truth.
On the Web site's section described as Manson "trial statement":
He didn't have the courage to testify in the trial. What they don't realize here, it says this was his trial statement. This is a statement he made out of the presence of the jury. He mainly wanted to testify so the press could pick it up.
Manson had the courage to do much more than testify in the trial: He had the courage (and confidence) to want to defend himself at the trial. The prosectution and the judge didn't have the courage to let him.
That "Helter Skelter" was a fiction cooked up by the state:
The "little Helter Skelter scheme" wasn't the scheme of the district attorney. That was the motive [for the murders].
As we have discussed in the "Lies" section below, the "helter skelter" motive was conjured up by the District Attorney's Office to provide a motive (and thus presumably evidence of guilt) for Charles Manson. The fallacy of this motive will be discussed in greater detail in a future enterprise from ACCESS MANSON.
On the general notion that Manson is innocent:
He thought if he did not inflict any of the fatal blows, he was not guilty of murder.
Or if he didn't plan or order the murders, which he didn't.
On a Manson quote from a parole hearing transcript -- "I do a lot of underworld things":
Yeah, that's true.
No argument.
To the assertion that Manson is 5 feet 6 inches tall:
[laughing] Manson's 5 feet 6? Not a chance. Manson is 5 feet 2. I guess they don't like the fact that he's a short guy.
Access Manson was incorrect in stating that Manson is 5 feet 6 inches tall. It now looks like Manson is actually 5 feet 7 inches tall. Our evidence to back this assertion consists of the last California driver's license held by Manson before his arrest in 1969. Reproduced below, the license lists Manson's height as 5 feet 7 inches.
More evidence that Manson is really 5 feet 7 inches tall can be found in the book Helter Skelter itself. Two mug shots of Manson, reproduced below, both confirm his height at 5 feet 7 inches. The reproductions here are not of superior quality, although the "7" from "5-7" can be seen midway down on the left side of the first picture, just before the "140" weight entry. We encourage interested parties to personally examine these pictures in a hardback edition of Helter Skelter. (If you do not have a hardback copy, please examine one in a bookstore or library, or buy a used copy -- DO NOT BUY A NEW COPY OF THIS BOOK.) Use a magnifying glass. Your examination will not only reveal a "7" on both mug shots, it will also reveal how both pictures were artfully cropped for the book so that the "5" foot part of the height entries (not to mention the "M" in "Manson") is not there, and thus Manson's real height is not disclosed.
One might wonder why the dispute over Manson's height is important. It is important because it clearly shows the willingness of the DA's side to present a lie and back it up with phony evidence or to omit evidence to the contrary. In this case, as we have said elsewhere, they lie about Manson being 5 feet 2 inches tall because such a height is so short that it is almost a negative superlative. They couldn't say that the monster Manson is ten feet tall, so they made him five feet tall.
One might also wonder that if the District Attorney et. al. would lie about this, how many other lies and ommisions of truth are contained in the fantastic "Helter Skelter" story of Charles Manson?
To the contention that Manson was not present during the murder of Shorty Shea:
He actually stabbed Shorty Shea.
Kay prosecuted Manson for the killing of Shea, so you might think he would offer some evidence to support his assertion. But he doesn't, and can't.
On complaints about prison visiting rules:
Aha! That's what he's mad about. He can't visit with Sandra. And she can't visit him. This [Web site] gives her an outlet where she can do things for him.
Manson is mad about the denial of his rights, particularly the denial of his right to represent himself at his trials. He is also mad about the denial of his right to visitation with Sandra Good. Kay has addressed not one of the many legal arguments made in ACCESS MANSON concerning either of these denials.
That Manson was not obsessed by the Beatles:
He thought that the Beatles were the five prophets talked about in Revelations.
He thought that the Beatles were for teenyboppers. Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!
That the Manson Family did not abuse drugs:
Every drug imaginable. You name it, they took it.
First, we would differentiate between simply taking drugs and abusing them. That said, no one would deny that a wide variety of drugs was available at different times at Spahn Ranch, just as they were (and are) available in American society generally. But not everybody at Spahn Ranch was with Manson, and the people who were with Manson were certainly not responsible for any drugs which may have been brought onto ranch property by other persons such as ranch hands or motorcycle club members.
What kind of drugs did Manson use? He said at his 1992 parole hearing that he has "taken a few tabs of acid, I smoked grass, I smoked a little hash. I don't mess with drugs, per se. I don't do anything self destructive. I like the cactus buds. They're a spiritual experience.... (Peyote) and mushrooms are OK. I drink Scotch whiskey. I like Scotch whiskey and I drink beer occasionally. I'm not much of a wine drinker, but now and then some wine with meals is alright." At his 1997 hearing he qualified this earlier statement: "I ran the gamut of the streets, everything that the children do. (But) I never let anything over on me enough to get ahold of me. I tried to understand what it is. I've learned from everything I've done."
So Manson has admitting trying many things and favoring some -- a realistic response from an honest person.
It may be safe to assume that people who closely associate with each other over a period of years have similar tastes, and these shared tastes would probably include taste in drugs, although there would obviously be variations based on the individuality of the persons involved. But there is no evidence to suggest that anyone had any of the problems associated with drug abuse. Nor has there ever been any evidence from police records or anywhere else to indicate that large quantities of any kind of narcotic, even marijuana, were ever seized during any of the many raids conducted against Manson and his friends over a two year period. Nor is there any evidence of drug dealing on any large scale.
Kay's statement is simply a slanderous lie.
On another quote from Manson, "I did not break man's law nor did I break God's law":
Well, you broke both.
God's laws and man's laws have been broken by what state-sanctioned criminals have done to Charles Manson for the last 27 years.
LIES ABOUT CHARLES MANSON - GENERAL
Introduction -
When the so-called "LIE album" (top of page) was released few realized that the intent of its cover was to refute the image of Charles Manson put forth by the December 19, 1969
Life magazine cover that it parodied. That issue of
Life contained a lengthy article which established many of the misrepresentations of the events of the summer of 1969 that persist to this day: The people at Spahn Ranch were referred to as "hippies" and "the love and terror cult." Manson was described as the "cult leader." The word "family" was first used to describe Manson and his friends.
It would take 25 years to respond to all the lies that have been told about Charles Manson. These falsehoods range from the seemingly trivial (e.g. that Manson is 5' 2" tall) to the major (e.g. that Manson "masterminded" the Tate/LaBianca killings). Many of these lies were introduced as evidence at Manson's murder trials. Many more that were not admissible in court (since they lacked enough substance to qualify as evidence) were put forth as either real or implied truth in Vincent Bugliosi's megabest-selling
Helter Skelter, a book that has unfortunately come to be accepted as one of
the sources for information on the so-called "Manson Case".
Dealing with lies about Charles Manson is the purpose of this section of
Access Manson.
1. Lie - Charles Manson is a murderer. The assumption that Charles Manson is some kind of murderer has been so widely and blindly accepted that many people regard is as a fundamental truth. Manson's picture graces the covers of numerous books on mass murder. Media interviewers assume that he is a killer. (Geraldo to CM: "You're a mass-murdering dog.") Yet Manson has never killed anyone. The prosecution never claimed that he killed any of the persons for whose murders he was convicted (He was never present at the Tate residence; he left the LaBianca residence before anyone was killed; he was not present when either Gary Hinman or Shorty Shea was killed.). And aside from some wholly unsubstantiated rumors (e.g. that he shot someone in the head with a .45 in Death Valley) there is no evidence that he ever killed anyone in a murder that he wasn't charged with.
2. Lie - Charles Manson was obsessed with the Beatles. This lie was presented by D.A. Bugliosi as part of his construction of the elaborate and false "helter skelter" motive. With this lie we are asked to believe that a 30-year-old long term prison convict would be susceptable to the teenybopper-oriented media hype of "Beatlemania". Not very likely. Of course, Manson heard the Beatles' music, and the group was a part of his world as much as it was a part of
everyone's world in the late 1960's. But to say that he was obsessed with the Beatles is simply not true. The best evidence of this is Manson's own music. Of all of that music that is available, either through unauthorized professional releases or underground circulation,
none of it sounds like anything recorded by the Fab Four (except possibly
Rocky Raccoon, but that is really the Beatles copying the same mountain/country musical style that
did influence Manson). If Manson was obsessed with and idolized the Beatles, wouldn't he have emulated their musical style?
3. Lie - Charles Manson wanted to be a rock and roll star. In American society celebrity and attention have become so important to so many people that anyone who excels in certain fields (especially the fields of music, motion pictures, television, sports) can achieve a position of status and adoration that was formally reserved for great statesmen, military heroes, and members of royal families. In America today, recognition, in any form, is taken as greatness. Because this "cult of celebrity" is so much a part of the contemporary American psyche it is plausible to many people that fame and approval are desired by
everyone.
Thus is Manson supposedly affected by the influences and yearnings of American society. But Manson is not a part of that society, and nothing in his history demonstrates that he ever had a desire to be well known. To the contrary, all of his behavior indicates a desire to get away from society and live in the total obscurity of the desert.
4. Lie - Prior to December, 1969 there was a group of individuals known as "The Manson Family". The people at Spahn Ranch never referred to themselves by any collective name. (There was a musical group at the ranch called "The Family Jams".) The term "Manson Family" was coined by the news media, adopted by the prosecution, and has been used since as a convenient way to catagorize a group that in fact never existed in any organized form.
5. Lie - Charles Manson was the undisputed "leader" of that group. Since there was no group, there was no leader.
6. Lie - Manson and his associates abused drugs. While the people at Spahn Ranch did use substances such as marijauna, LSD, mescaline, peyote, and psilocybin, there was no widespread use of any drugs such as cocaine, amphetemines, or any of the spectrum of drugs commonly known as "downers". This fact is well documented by the statements of even such pro-prosecution people as Paul Watkins. Manson was known to run people off who abused drugs. Tex Watson and Susan Atkins have both stated in their books that their use of speed was hidden from the other people at the ranch. No substantial amount of
any kind of drug was ever seized during any of the numerous police raids on Manson and his associates.
7. Lie - Charles Manson is 5' 2" tall. This petty and pointless lie has been told by D.A. Bugliosi from the time of the publication of
Helter Skelter to as recently as his December 8, 1995 appearance on the Discovery Channel's program
Rivals. Bugliosi spent over nine months in a courtroom in close proximity to Manson, so he must know that this claim is not true. The only reason there can be for him repeatedly saying it is that the height 5' 2" is so abnormally short for a white American male that it adds yet another freakishly unique aspect to the Manson caricature. In fact, Manson is at least 5' 6". This is born out by the height indicated on the California Department of Corrections record card reprinted on page 118 of
The Manson File. It is also born out by the personal experience of the Webmaster St. Geo, who has observed Manson during over 100 visits at California State Prison - Corcoran. The photo in
Helter Skelter which purports to show Manson as being 5' 2" is clearly incorrect and probably faked. This can be shown by continuing the height scale to Manson's left down to 0'. If Manson was 5' 2" tall, as the scale indicates, the scale should reach 0' where his feet meet the floor. It doesn't. It goes below his feet, out of the photograph, and off the page. Click
here for a demonstration of this. (For more on this continuing controversy see
Access Manson response to Steven Kay, above.)
8. Lie - The motive for the Tate/LaBianca killings was to ignite "Helter Skelter". This is an important lie since it supposedly points the finger of guilt at Charles Manson and demonstrates that he had a personal motive for the Tate/LaBianca murders to take place. Motive is important, for while a prosecutor is not required to show motive they usually do because: a. it is usually pretty obvious, and b. motive is strong circumstantial evidence of a person's guilt. (Actually, it is more than that. It is an absolute requirement, one of the three things a person always has when they commit a crime. The other two are means and opportunity.) But conversly,
lack of motive is strong circumstantial evidence of a person's innocence. Bugliosi, as we have said elsewhere (see
Rights/New Trial) immediately assumed Manson's guilt and then arranged all the "evidence" to suit that premise. No other version of the crime or interpretation of any of the evidence was even considered. Unfortunately, the D.A. had trouble finding any motive tying Manson to the crimes. A large part of
Helter Skelter, over 60 pages, is devoted to overcoming this troublesome flaw in the "Manson is guilty" scenario. And the only motive Bugliosi could come up with was the literally unbelievable 'helter skelter' motive. Briefly, this motive is as follows: Manson and his "family" were white racists who hoped to provoke a race war by committing atrocity murders against whites which would be blamed on blacks. The ensuing outrage over these murders would cause whites to retaliate, thus beginning the war ("Helter Skelter"). While this war was raging Manson and "the family" would be waiting it out in a bottomless pit in Death Valley. (The "bottomless pit", as presented by Bugliosi, is just one aspect of the 'helter skelter' motive which, if truly believed by Manson et. al., would have rendered them psychotic and probably incompetent to stand trial.) The blacks would win the war but not know how to run the world, so they would have to hand the power over to the only white people left on earth: Charles Manson and his "family". Literally fantastic.
The real motive was to get a brother, Bobby Beausoleil, out of jail by committing "copycat" murders that would convince the authorities that Beausoleil could not be guilty of the murder (of Gary Hinman) for which he had been arrested on August 6, 1969. This motive is much more realistic and has much more circumstantial support than the DA's fantastic 'helter skelter' motive. It's the real motive. There's only one thing wrong with it from the prosecutorial point of view: It is not a personal motive for Charles Manson.
9. Lie - The book Manson In His Own Words is Manson's book. "Is there any way to stop (that) book? That thing has been a curse. It's destroyed us all, (and) ATWA for over ten years. That should be enough." So commented Manson in a recent letter. The most obvious evidence that the book is not really Manson's is that the words presented in the book are so unlike the diction of Charles Manson, spoken or written, that not even such notable Mansonphobes as D. A. Bugliosi and Ed Sanders believe that the words are his. This is not surprising, since the circumstances of the interviews that Emmons conducted for the book did not permit him to use a tape recorder (except rarely) or even to take notes. As a result of these limitations (and because of other motives Emmons may have had)much of what is presented as Manson's words (and presumably his thoughts) are really the words, thoughts, values, and perceptions of Nuel Emmons, not of Charles Manson. And many of the incidents described in the book never even occurred.
10. Lie - Manson's father may have been black. Bugliosi offers this allegation in his book as a possible and convenient explanation of Manson's alleged hatred of black people (Shades of Hitler's Jewish grandmother!). It is a ridiculous contention. In the first place, Manson is totally lacking any of the physical Negroid features that one would expect to observe in a mulatto. In the second place, Bugliosi bases this allegation on the questionable premise (itself based on old and probably inaccurate records) that the "colored cook Colonel Scott" was Manson's father. But even if the mysterious Colonel Scott was Manson's father, it is unlikely that he (Scott) was "colored". To see this, one would only have to examine the newspaper articles from the Ashland, Kentucky
Daily Independent that covered the murder of Colonel Scott's brother, Darwin Orell Scott, in May of 1969. The photograph of Darwin Scott (the brother of Manson's supposed father) that accompanies the articles is clearly of a white man. Click
here to see it.
11. Lie - Manson and his associates may have been responsible for as many as 35 murders. The basis for this lie is a single statement made during an LAPD interview with Juan Flynn on August 18, 1970. "(Manson) admitted -- he boasted -- of thirty-five lives taken in a period of two days." That's it for the "evidence" of additional murders beyond the nine for which convictions were obtained. Bugliosi spends over ten pages of
Helter Skelter listing murders he hints that Manson or his associates may have committed, but there is no real evidence to support any of these contentions unless you believe the premise "Well, these murders happened around the same time and Manson and his friends were homicidal maniacs, so they must have done them." Here we will address three of Bugliosi's examples:
1. Darwin Orell Scott; Ashland, Kentucky; May 27, 1969 - Darwin Scott was found hacked to death in his modest apartment on May 27, 1969. Apparently Manson's motive for this murder was that Scott was the brother of his alleged father, "Colonel Scott". Despite the claims of several Ashland residents that Manson was in the area around the time of the death, even Bugliosi admits that Manson was probably in California on the day of the murder. Newspaper articles about the crime say that Scott was known to have large sums of money in his apartment and that local police believed money was the motive for the slaying. Scott, who had a record for breaking and entering and forgery, may have been involved in the area's illicit liquor trade. Police found 86 fifths and 28 pints of whiskey in his apartment.
2. Joel Dean Pugh; London, England; December 1, 1969 - Joel Pugh was found in a London hotel with his throat and wrists slashed. Pugh is usually described as the husband of Sandra Good. In fact they were never married. Although Pugh is also described as a "former Manson Family member" in
Helter Skelter, he never met Manson or any of the other so-called Family members. After Joel Pugh's death his parents journeyed to London to satisfy themselves with the official verdict of suicide. After checking all the medical records (Pugh's father was a doctor at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota) and the files at Scotland Yard they were satisfied that the death was, indeed, a suicide.
3. Marina Habe; Los Angeles, California; December 30, 1969 - This one is easy. There is simply no evidence whatsoever to connect anyone from Spahn Ranch with the murder of Miss Habe. But she was killed in Los Angeles, so Bugliosi included her as a possible victim of the "Manson Family".
I hope someone has read this through- just the facts Jack!!!
