Susan Denise Atkins former member of Manson Family passed away on 24 September 2009 from brain cancer.
40TH Anniversary Of Tate-Labianca Murders
by George Yurich 46 Replies latest social current
-
-
Black Sheep
RIP Sadie
-
Big Tex
So what's your point George? I asked you earlier for proof to back up your assertion. You ignored me. So be it.
I have no sympathy or empathy for her whatsoever. I am neither happy nor sad she is dead. She committed an horrific act and it was just she spent the rest of her life in prison for it. She was given a fair trial and convicted on her charges. If her supporters cannot or will not prove her innocence maybe it's because there is nothing different from what Bugliosi proved 40 years ago.
-
George Yurich
I have never stated nor do I believe that Atkins was innocent. Atkins was guilty as sin. So I do not know where yoiu got the insane notion that I believed that Atkins was innocent?
-
Big Tex
Hold on George. Where did I say you said she was innocent? Please show me where I specifically mentioned that you were one of her supporters? I don't know you, nor your reason for starting this inane thread.
I simply asked you to provide backup for your assertion. You chose to ignore me. Now you're putting words in my posts. Climb off your high horse.
You're the one who started this thread. You're the one who felt the need to mark this person's passing. Why, I don't know. Your motives are a bit murky. But hey, whatever. You throw something out there, then you need to expect a response.
In the meantime, please read what I write more carefully.
-
George Yurich
Big Tex:I started this thread because I am interested in the Tate-Labianca Murder Case because I am interrested in criminology and the Tate-Labianca murders were in 1969 the most horrific murders that had taken place in the country up until that time. You keep mentioning something about that I have to provide evidence for my assertion. What assertion is that? The only reason why I brought up the passing of Atkins was that Atkins was a member of the Manson Family and that is what this thread pertains to.
-
Big Tex
You keep mentioning something about that I have to provide evidence for my assertion. What assertion is that?
The only criminal act that Van Houten should have been convicted of is desecration of a corpse.
Van Houten won a retrial in 1977 on the grounds that her counsel had not effectively represented her at the original trial. The lawyer at her first trial, Ronald Hughes, had disappeared during the trial and was later found dead. It was alleged that members of the Manson Family killed Hughes, but this has never been proven. Van Houten's second trial ended in a hung jury. She was tried a third time, during which she was free on bond. She was found guilty of felony robbery, murder, and conspiracy to commit murder. Once again, she was sentenced to life in prison.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Van_Houten
Three trials, two verdicts of murder. That's more chances than most criminals get. Sounds like she's guilty of more than desecration of a corpse to me.
-
Satanus
Side note, roman polanski, husband at the time of tate, was arrested in switzerland for pedophilia. Read here http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre58q0rt-us-polanski-arrest/
S
-
TD
I am interrested in criminology
The only criminal act that Van Houten should have been convicted of is desecration of a corpse.
Keep studying. You've got a long, long way to go if you don't understand the legal doctrine of felony murder.
Even if Van Houten had not participated at all, she still would have been guilty of conspiracy, complicity and/or abetment. When statutory murder has been committed, these crimes all fall under the larger umbrella of felony murder.
-
Farkel
TD,
:Even if Van Houten had not participated at all, she still would have been guilty of conspiracy, complicity and/or abetment. When statutory murder has been committed, these crimes all fall under the larger umbrella of felony murder.
That's right. And it only makes sense, too. Otherwise, some guy who would not murder himself but who was morbidly curious could hang out with a group that murders just so he could watch it happen and then claim he didn't "participate." The fact that he knew about it, and did nothing in advance to stop it is a crime as serious as murder itself. Perhaps even MORE serious, because he would be the only person who could have STOPPED it.
Leslie Van Houten, even if given all the benefit of the doubt possible would be no different than the guy I used in my example.
Our "forensic" friend has a lot to learn. Common sense would be a good place to start.
Farkel
