If Not a Serial Killer, Then What Is Charles Manson?

I would agree with the fact that Manson was a cult leader who sent his followers out on his mission, and is not a serial killer. Those two nights of killing seem to fall more under the idea of a killing spree, so I would agree not to call him a serial killer. Rather he is a cult leader who ordered these killings and the way they were executed falls under the definition of a killing spree rather than a serial killer. There was very little time for a cooling off period and Manson never killed anyone himself even though it was his mission for these acts to be completed. This reminds me of the current show, "The Following" and how cults can have a very strong power over individuals and make them do such horrible deeds. The only difference is in this show the leader did kill his victims, where as Manson never did. Therefore, I would find this argument fitting that Charles Manson could be classified as something other than a serial killer. Even if these murders were just as if he had done it.

I thought that your comment about Ted Bundy and the Clown Killer on how they can switch from carrying on their normal lives to then being serial killers the next was interesting. It made me question whether or not a serial killer is really a serial killer, especially if they can just turn off and on their serial killer prowess. You mentioned that Charles Manson used his family to help murder people, otherwise known as murder by proxy. In the case, is Charles Manson still the serial killer or since he had accomplices, then are they all serial killers, even if they kill only once?

I had no idea that there was a category of serial murder was different from serial killer. I think this raises a good point that there might be different societal triggers for serial murders? Does it make them easier to catch?

I found this article very interesting. I found it interesting that someone could be a serial killer and not feel any emotion about killing innocent people and then be able to lead two different lives. I also found it different that he had followers. I had no idea that he personally didn't commit any of the murders but had his followers commit them for him. I agree and understand why you went off the idea that this was all a proxy. I find that interesting.

Manson has a lot in common with former president George Bush, who also convinced his followers to commit murder. Now we know what type of murderer Bush is...

I found it very interesting that he personally did not commit the murders but had his followers commit them for him and how he could live a normal life after planning on killing people. I agree that it wouldn't make him a serial killer considering he had his followers do the killing.

I really liked the insight that your article offered. I wasn't aware of the correct definition of serial killing. With the clarification of this definition, I agree that Manson was a cult leader who sent his followers out onto missions. I was not aware that Manson never actually killed someone himself, but instead had his followers do it for him. All of this helpful insight gives me another perspective.

Before reading this article I had no idea that Charles Manson didn't commit any of the crimes himself. And realizing the proper definition of the term serial killer also helped me understand that he was not a serial killer but a cult leader. I, now, have a much better understanding of what the real story was like. What I wonder, is if those who killed for him were also incarcerated.

I had no idea that the definition of a serial killer meant you only had to kill 2 people. I found it interesting that he had other people kill the people for him. I did not know much about who Charles Manson really was until I read this article.

Manson was also convicted of killing Gary Hinman who died on July 27, 1969. As with the Tate LaBianca murders he did not do the actual killing but did partially sever the victim's ear with a sword. Then after the Tate LaBianca murders on Aug. 25 or 26, 1969 Donald Jerome Shea was murdered by six Manson Family men and Manson was an active participant. I does seem to me that there were a couple of cooling of periods before and after the Tate LaBianca murders.

Manson was convicted of nine murders not seven and you should take that into account for whatever point you are trying to prove otherwise it will be meaningless.

This article was very interesting especially considering the fact that I will be presenting on Charles Manson. I do not think that he is a serial killer because I believe that he may not have experienced the cooling off period had he performed the murders himself. Therefore, I think through his followers he used manipulation and acted as a cult leader would. He led his followers to perform the murders for him.

This article was fascinating describing Charles Manson not as a serial killer but as a murder by proxy. I certainly agree with Dr. Bonn that Charles Manson was not necessarily a serial killer because this cooling off period was not actually present and he did not do the actual killings. In order to be a serial killer a person must kill two or more people and there has to be a cooling off period between each murder. I believe that he was maniac that killed for his own agenda.

An argument could be made that the day in between those murders was enough of a cooling off period. Yes, it was planned, but nevertheless this could be considered serial murders.
Although in my opinion, I always considered these to be mass murders. Perhaps it's the portrayal of serial murder in the media, but I associate this term with a time period of at least several weeks.

So Charles Manson girlfriend does she identify herself as a follower of Manson and if so what forms of monitoring do they have them under to ensure he is not starting an uprising once again? I know at plain sight it may seem irrelevant but if Manson never really killed someone himself couldn't he just use his relationship to initiate this racial war again?

Regardless of whether or not Charles Manson is a serial killer or not, I believe it is apparent that he is a deranged fuck. Watching the interview with Charles Manson on youtube is eerily creepy. The responses he gives along with his constant laughter sends chills down my spine. However, we have to understand the maniacal genius of Manson. By utilizing a stock home syndrome-esque approach he was able to prey and provide a fatherly figure for those in need . He gave them a purpose and a family, which they came to identify with and supported. My question is what were the responses of the Manson cult who actually committed the ruthless murders. Were they as crazy as Manson having no remorse for their actions; or did they repent for their sins and claim they were brainwashed by Manson?

I think Charles Manson was a brilliant man, who just happened to be deranged. I don't necessarily know if he had his followers kill the victims just for pleasure or if he actually thought he had some higher purpose. Either way, whether or not he is a serial killer the one thing i do know for sure is that this man has some bolts loose in that head of his.

If Charles Manson is not considered a SERIAL killer, he definitely fits under the category of a killer. I think it's fascinating how he was also a cult leader and was able to recruit members of his family to do some of his killings for him. Talk about dedication! He must have been a very influential part of the family to convince people to do his dirty work.

I too agree that Charles Manson was more of a cult leader than a serial killer. this fact make him even more vicious and dangerous in my eyes. One who wields the power to control people to do their bidding truly make them a force to be feared. This power makes him the true "boogie man" that hides behind close doors. Even now he sits behind bars and controls his "fiance" Star as well as his many groupies that write to him every day. I find comfort knowing he will never see parol, but i fear the deranged people out there that idolize his beliefs and worship his existence. Although he will be locked behind bars for the rest of his life, he will always have his cult leader status among the people who love him on the other side of those prison walls.

If he is essentially someone who convinces others to kill for him why is he allowed to speak with someone so much that they want to marry him?

It is interesting and enlightening to learn what the actual definitions are for serial killers and spree killers. This makes me wonder which type of killer is more dangerous, a spree killer or a serial killer. It also makes me question who is more danger, a person who does the killing him/herself, or someone who sends others to do the dirty work for them.

The family did its thing before I came around. I find Manson somewhat fascinating. He reminds me of my uncle, who is also rather brilliant, but also troubled.

I don't think he would be classified as a serial killer.

I mainly get 2 things from him.
1) The incarceration system is broken. Since his placement in jail(s) from an early age, they failed to rehabilitate him and possibly made him dependent on them (not to mention many others).
2) I think he was ultimately testing free speech. I kind of side with him, because I don't believe anybody can be "controlled" by anyone else. However, I do believe in influence, which he exerted on the family. The big question Manson put out is, if someone acts based on his words, can he be held responsible for it?

The courts say(d) yes to that. I do suspect that if Manson hadn't come into the lives of those people, they would not have killed anyone. However, I don't think there was any kind of contract to commit the killing. I don't think he paid them any compensation. I do think he may have used fear and threats to encourage them (I gave you this opportunity; I give you a place to live; You have nothing; this is how you can pay...)

But ultimately, those people didn't have to do what he said. Militants don't have to kill anyone, just because they were "following orders". They still have their own minds. They can think for themselves. They can say "yes sir" and fail their mission and take a court martial. You have to make up your own mind. Have your own mind. Develop it. Don't let anyone tell you what to do.

That said, based on this article, I must agree that George Bush is a killer by proxy. It then makes me wonder, if you take office when a war is in progress then you automatically become a killer, even if you were able to bring the war to a close within your term. I'd say no. If a war was ongoing, I don't think you could stop fighting and killing that was already underway. However, you could issue a cease fire order. You can order your troops that if they must fire to do their best to fire non-lethally. Therefore, Obama is also a killer by proxy, since he has issues orders for wars to continue and for specific hits.

I think the author just damned and convicted the state... of the same thing the state says Manson is guilty of:

"Killing over two consecutive nights"... "Killing spree".... "Mission killers"... that pretty much describes WAR, to a T.

If this is the case, then what Manson was waging was a small scale war. I'm sure he would of described it as so, and how he described it to his followers. And if that's the case, that would make him a leader and politician, of a state (albeit small one, consisting of said cult group members).

By the same metric, measuring the number of people killed by Manson's wars, against, say, the number of people killed by the United States in its wars... "Killing over two consecutive nights"... "Killing sprees"... and "Mission Killers" (doesn't that sound just like Special Forces... Seals.. even... Army... Air Force... Marines... who all fancy themselves... "Mission Killers"... by this same metric.... lets see... counting the Indian Wars of Genocide, the American Civil War fought over Slavery, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq... then... how many people has the serial killer organization of the United States killed... and should it be imprisoned for life, or executed on the spot, and disolved?

At any rate, no US court or its subsidiaries (state courts) seem to have any moral leg to stand on, to point the finger at anybody else, and say, you sir, are guilty of murder... when their own backpocket is overflowing with blood...

The narrative here is, in my opinion, somewhat of a unique one for Manson, and I'm happy that it is. I'm tired of the "love-hate" relationship that some people propose, as if they're attracted to the idea of a person being able to kill other people, through whatever means, with no remorse, as is and hypothetically would be with Manson. The hate side of this comes to fruition, in my experience, when people are rather ill versed on Charles Manson, really attempting to ascribe certain things to him that aren't true in the first place, ("He's a lunatic, he's a serial killer, he deserves to die!" statements of that nature.) I am not attempting to defend Charles Manson. I do not love Charles Manson, and I don't hate him in full either--maybe it isn't my place to say, as I am not a victim of his murder by proxy whether it be direct or indirect. But, I still hold that this narrative gives a certain clarity to the decades-old case of Charles Manson, because one can see that the man acted in complete knowing the entire time, that he commissioned his fanatical followers to kill for him; Manson being more than just a catalyst in their actions; but as is defined by murder by proxy, a force strong enough to order these people to act as his puppets.

To add some levity, (well not really, because its about Charles Manson) he did make some music, he has a bunch of prison recordings and the like, but I believe this album was released the day of his court appearance (pathetic publicity stunt!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUkE3lTJnbo

Charles Manson is a product of society. He was a ward of the state at a fairly young age. Like he's said many times, the cops and judges were his father. His fellow inmates were his big brothers. Those were the people that reared Charles Manson. He didn't get a lot of love and guidance. He's not like most of us who received discipline from someone who loved us and hurt as much as we did when we had to be punished. Charlie Manson is a number, he's always been a number. He has a few people who truly love him but most of the people in his life are short timers and he's doing life, this has been true when he wasn't locked up also.

Charles Manson is institutionalized to the extreme. He's known little else. He'd get out a prison now and then and try to earn money doing crime in someone else neighborhood. He got involved with mobsters who put him to work by giving him a life long job of being "the most dangerous man alive". He's done his job well. Most of you are convinced that's for sure.

The first thing you need to do is realize that his last name isn't Manson, its WATSON. Once you get that through your media muddled minds you'll be on the right track.

My reaction is this description - instead of being a serial killer Osama Bin Laden was actually a deranged cult leader who sent his fanatical followers out on a mission—that is, a four separate airplane killing spree—to please him? And, thus, Bin Laden actually murdered four thousand people by proxy.

I have always said that I couldn't have convicted little Chuckie of murder since he didn't do the deed. Period. Making him take the rap takes away *personal responsibility* from those who DID the deeds. It's that old saw, if someone told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it? Well??? Just because he told them to cut those people up didn't mean they had to do it. They could have just run away. They had it IN THEM to do these heinous acts. The worst I could have convicted Charlie for would be conspiracy, and that's all. Don't know how many years that would have gotten him, I hope a lot, but the number of counts of conspiracy surely would have gotten him a life sentence or two.

This was an interesting article. I will concede I do not know the law in this area so I assume that the verdict and decision of the judge saying this was "murder by proxy" is a legitimate criteria for his decision by the law. I do understand however, that legal definitions are tied the rules of our legal system and therefor cannot be used in everyday language the same. I think people who do not understand this confuse the two and the specific understandings that are set down by legal doctrine and cannot be used when having a regular discussion in the same way without misinterpretation as it appears to be the case here in this discussion.
Moving beyond this, I think the terms killing spree and serial killing make perfect sense as described here. I can easily see the difference and can understand this concept as described. But part of the reason for this is also my own understanding of the motivation in this case which ultimately begins and ends with Charles Manson.
If I were a psychological profiler working backwards from beginning to end, I would describe Charles Manson as an extreme Narcissist with extreme Anti Social Personality disorder who felt powerless in his own life from the earliest of age. His extreme need for control over his own life and the contempt for those he viewed who had what he did not developed into a delusional world view of himself within the only world he new....institutionalized correction ie: a contrived pseudo social structure of punitive rules and a coercive manipulation of the society members with little or no choice granted to the members within it by design....and enforced and legislated over the society with no personal choice or ability to vote or decide their own fate or treatment as long as they are within these created confines within the structure. This is the only world that Manson new and he was said before his last release from the system that he requested to stay rather than to leave at one point showing his fear and distrust of the outside and his own acceptance and comfort of being within this world.
On the outside however, he discovered his own power within the chaos and turmoil of the times. Previous to being institutionalized as a child, the only experience he had with his mother was for her to trick herself as a prostitute ( if not professionally personally) and beg borrow or steal to survive.
the key point here that the judge used in his decision was that the "family" was an "extension" of himself. I agree with the judge in this much. Manson's behavior is consistent and predicable to all Narcissists and a person who cannot distinguish between the cause and effect of his own behavior and someone else....a person who subsequently cannot differentiate between right and wrong on a fundamental level without the ability to take any responsibility for their own action and substitutes a normal context or perception of reality with his own. For Manson, this is a perpetual state of victim mentality, persecution and self imposed torment whether he can see this for himself or not...actually, he cannot see this which is the core of his deficiencies. In the framework of a Narcissist, he has to protect his core insecurities as a means to protect his ability to manipulate others to survive on a primal level. Remember, everything within the institutionalized world he knows must come from someone else and he must prey on everyone to get anything he wants or needs to survive in the outside world where there is choice involved. This is a concept I think he has no idea even exists.
I think the sole motivation in the Manson murders is based on Narcissistic rage. Anyone who he cannot control or worse...slights him or defies his will as with the Beach Boys manager who rejected Manson as a musician (his first visit to the Tate residence that was owned by him) was not only the worse thing that you can do to a Narc but also did it publicly as witnessed by his family and circle of associations. This shame ensited his unresolved internal rage and was translated upon the home and anyone who resided there whether it was the Beach Boys manager or not. It was what the residence symbolized and the attachment to Manson's rage that was his motivation in retaliation and ultimate control over those who were there. The ultimate control by taking their lives. I think the LaBienca murders were another form of transgressed and transmuted rage in what they represented to Manson....wealth and success.
I agree with the suggestion that this was a spree and believe he had only begun to satisfy his pent up rage once he got a taste for it. This personal success in finding an outlet for his internal self hatred and feelings of no self worth and the pseudo power and control he felt from it as a substitute for the things that he was devoid of himself.
If I were a betting man...I would lay money that the the things I just said are at least in the ball park as explaination to Mason and the motivation behind his behavior.

He's no one. He's a nobody. If he's anything at all its a fictional character thought up by a disturbed overly ambitious woman batterer stalker prosecutor turned author named Vinny Bobbarino.

Manson is a schizophrenic with paranoid delusions. I believe he was somewhat normal until the time of the murders. He was friends with the Beach Boys and other well-known Hollywood types. When the psychosis set in, it set in hard. Childhood abuse, neglect and copious LSD use undoubtedly played a role. He was also raped in a boys' home in his teen years. Lots of trauma.

The real question is: could Manson have turned out any other way?

That is the way that the law works.

My thoughts are about the actual participants in the crime. Primarily, Tex Watson. He was the one who did most of the crime and then blamed it on mind control. Now, I think that a person is responsible for the decisions that they alone make. He could have refused. But during that time, the people were into experimenting with drugs etc. And I think that it was particularly heavy use on this commune. So, he was probably not in full control of himself. But again, he still chose to do them. I guess blaming someone else may be a bit of a psychological defense mechanism. That is just a guess. But the main physical actor in the crimes was Charles Tex Watson.