Talk:Susan Atkins/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Susan Atkins. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Needs references for facts

This article needs references for its facts. --FloNight 23:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree but you know, whomever is lately sticking a fact tag after every sentence is doing this article a grave disservice. If they spent just half the time it takes to smack all those tags on looking the asserted facts up in the very well-known books about the case, he/she would likely find the page numbers and cites for all the statements they find so dubious. Since I have a fairly substantial collection of books on this case, I'll try and get to it eventually but it's not high on my priority list. I am by no stretch of the imagination a supporter of Ms. Atkins but I find the cite tag slapping of every sentence in the face of her very imminent death to be counter-productive to the purpose of Wikipedia. She will very soon pass away as she is in the end stages of cancer and having limbs amputated. If the article is to be improved, concerned editors might want to mosey on over to GoogleBooks and look up these facts. I realize that not all these tags were put in at once, but they have been accumulating to the point now where the majority of statements are tagged. That's just foolish editing in my opinion. Please help me if you can by picking just a few asserted facts and sourcing them. Most can be sourced through the Manson Women book or Helter Skelter. LiPollis (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Alkaline Trio

This is interesting, but is it needed? I edited this section so that it looks a little more professional, but I'm still not sure if the Popular Culture (formerly "Trivia") section is really relevant. Many people will probably come to this page because of the song, though, so it may be good to have it in there. The lyrics quoted are actually wrong, I edited them but they were changed back. The last line is actually "I have no remorse for doing what was right for me, I have no guilt in me." This is shown to be the case on all the lyrics sites and is actually quite clearly what is said. 84.67.167.78 13:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Her son

This is probably the wrong place to ask...

The article mentions a son called "Zezozece Zadfrack Glutz". Is there any information available on what became of him? Google does not yield any valuable information. There must be something about a person of such (in)famous origin, having such an unusual name.

Why does somebody keep changing the spelling of Atkins' son Zezezose Zadfrack Glutz? Bugliosi's book gives that spelling, and there are hundreds of google links to that spelling. A search on google for "Zezozece" gives ONLY THIS WIKIPEDIA PAGE. Ed Sanville 14:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, if Atkins herself claims this spelling, then I guess we should keep it, but can someone please cite her book as the source? I still wonder why wikipedia is the only link for this spelling in the entire world. Ed Sanville 10:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, according to a later edition of Helter Skelter, he was adopted by a doctor and renamed David. Wherever he is, I do wish him good fortune. Afalbrig 11:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Atkins says in her 1985 parole hearing that his adopted name is Paul.

She also does not object when the spelling of his name is read out as Zezozzeze Zadfrack, which is different to both this article and "Helter Skelter". I suspect there is no "real" spelling - it was a name invented by Manson at the height of the Family madness, and was chanegd as soon as possible by his adopted family. There was no birth certificate (the child was delivered at the ranch by some of the girls) and it is possible no one ever wrote down its name before Atkins was arrested and the baby taken away.

The link to Atkin's parole hearing with the spelling and the new name is http://www.internet.is/bret/atkins-1985-parole-hearing-transcript.htm Jeendan 23:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

AP reports yet another spelling, Zezozoze. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

New links

I just wanted to let everyone know the link (removed spam link) Susan Akins Letters from Prison] leads directly to the scans of the letters I recieved from Susan. Please check all links before editing them. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghost tracker d (talk • contribs)

Part of the problem is that you have to register just to view the topic. Please link to the material directly, not to a message board. EVula 16:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed the spam link... not letting him spam to talk pages either... absolutely no reason these pages should be listed anywhere, being on a talk page still affects Google results. DreamGuy 19:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

I quote from the introduction: "She swore before a Grand Jury to have stabbed actress Sharon Tate to death, and to have been present at, or an accomplice to, several other murders." But several paragraphs down, "In her autobiography and in subsequent years, Atkins maintains that she did not stab Sharon Tate, and that her Grand Jury testimony was accurate."

So which is right? I'm not entirely familiar with the legal proceedings. --Joshk 02:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the second part you quoted to "her Grand Jury testimony was inaccurate." In the original Grand Jury testimony, in which Atkins was offered immunity for her co-operation she gave a detailed description of events and categorically stated - boasted in fact - that she had killed Tate. Watson had participated, but Atkins had taken the major role. She refused to cooperate during the trial and the offer of immunity was withdrawn, but her earlier testimony was presented as evidence, and it was largely supported by evidence from other witnesses such as Kasabian. ie it was generally believed that Susan had been telling the truth. As years passed and Atkins was refused parole, she started to say that her earlier statements had been lies. In the section Susan Atkins#Atkins's life since being sentenced it discusses how she started changing her story in 1991. I think from here the chronology is correct, but the only wrong word was "accurate" which should have been "inaccurate". If there is anything else inconsistent in the way it's written, let me know, but I think it's ok now. Thanks Rossrs 09:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup?

Why did someone add the cleanup tag to this bio? In my opinion it's one of the better-researched biographies on wikipedia of those involved with the Tate-LaBianca murders. What specifically needs cleanup? Itsfullofstars 18:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

With the wholesale changes made recently, disregard what I said above. I'm now leaning towards this article as having strayed from a neutral POV. The recent modifications are an attempt to downplay her role in the murders and highlight 'good deeds' while incarcerated. Itsfullofstars 19:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It definitely needs a clean up. The overall tone now is far from neutral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.164.225 (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Revision February 2007

I have extensively edited the text, mostly for style and NPOV. I kept all references except that I substituted one source for another that had been cited just once.

The piece hadn't been neutral at all. I have kept all statements which would support Atkins' claims of innocence, but I made them objective.

Whoever are the people who substantially authored the old content, they were obviously poorly educated. The prose was clear and coherent, and the opinions are reasonable. They know how to spell. But they did a lot of hokey things: weird, incorrect capitalizations ("the Police", "Summer"); use of slang ("pink slips" instead of "vehicle registrations"); ignorance of when when to use commas. Hurmata 21:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Still neutrality problems with this article - it reads like someone trying awfully hard to cast her sympathetically. 165.189.169.190 (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Made a lot of edits to this - by removing a lot of subjective info and info that is not very important to the story of Susan Atkins and I think was put in to cast her sympethetically. 165.189.169.190 (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Atkins' child as hostage

I removed a sentence suggesting that Manson chose Atkins for the killings because her child was a potential hostage, because:

Manson has never explained why he chose particular people; and
While Atkins testified that one reason for not leaving prior to the murders was fear for her child, she also testified that she went along on 9-10 August willingly, and had no thought for anything but pleasing Manson.

The claim is therefore either speculation or original research. Jeendan 09:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This type of claim re-appeared and I removed it. It included a statement that Linda Kasabian back up this claim that Atkins participated because she feared for her child - that Kasabian had the same fear. However, this is not true - Linda Kasabian testified at trial she felt her daughter would be safe with the family when she fled after the murders without her daughter and that she did not fear for her daughter's safety and allowed herself to be separated from her daughter while with the family.

Just Thinking

I was just pondering something. Her husband must have been crazy to marry her after she committed those murders. Ugh. And have you noticed, on the website he runs, there is almost NOTHING about the gruesome murders she took part of? That makes me sick. I was just thinking about that...

You're allowed to think, but this isn't the right place to write it down if it's not meant to improve the article. And please use four tildes to sign your comments. It's not meant as bitchy as it may sound. Cheers, --Konsumkind 04:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Anton LaVey

If she worked for Anton LaVey as article states it would have had to occured between 30 April (the date he founded the Church of Satan) and the time she was arrested(article says 1966 but fails to specify date). She turned 18 in May, it appears she accomplished a lot in a very short space of time-gofer, secretary, dancer! Not to mention getting arrested.jeanne (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Really bad reference

I took out the reference for her having 17 parole hearings. All it says as the reference is, "Susan had hearings before the parole board in 1972, '73, '74, '75, '76, '78, '79, '80, '81, '82, '85, '88, '89, '93, '96, 2000, and 2005." I can change it and add some random dates in there to make it 19 or 27; that doesn't make it a good reference. So it's changing to citation needed.-Babylon pride (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Pop culture reference

I've restored the "pop culture" reference (which is cited to a less-than-great source) and removed the following notice from two places in the article:

"DO NOT ADD TRIVIA SECTION, IN POPULAR CULTURE, IN MEDIA, OR ANY OTHER SIMILARLY TITLED SECTIONS. DO NOT ADD SONGS THAT MENTION HER, ARE ABOUT HER, OR SIMPLY CASH IN ON HER NAME. THIS IS A CONVICTED KILLER, FOLKS, SOMEONE WHOSE NOTABILIY RELIES ON THE DEATHS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE. TRIVIA SECTIONS TRIVIALIZE HER ACTIONS AND HER VICTIMS. THESE SORTS OF MENTIONS WILL BE REMOVED WITH NO NOTICE OR DISCUSSION. THANK YOU."

I don't think the reasons provided are terribly relevant. The fact that someone is a convicted killer has no bearing on whether a neutral encyclopedia includes information about pop culture references to that person or whether someone has tried to "cash in" on the person's name or reputation. These types of references are quite common in WP articles, even for awful people. Heck, there's an entire article called Adolf Hitler in popular culture. Let's not let our emotions get in the way of creating a neutral article. If it's cited, I see no other reason to exclude the reference to the 2006 punk song about Atkins. That said, the current citation is a very weak source, and probably something more solid should be found, and if nothing else is available it could be removed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The wording was perhaps less than stellar, but the intent is most certainly relevant. To start, trivia sections are not encouraged in articles, and in this article, none existed until this was added. The fact that such sections exist in articles doesn't in any way support that they should be there. WP:TRIV starts out saying "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts" and "Trivia sections should be avoided." That there is an article about Adolf Hitler in culture doesn't mean it is encouraged or supported by Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Pages such as that are generally spun off of the main article to simply get rid of it from the main article in order to avoid exhaustive lists and editor disagreements. This particular issue isn't about removing a large trivia section, it's about not having one, an issue that seems to have arisen before (see above).

The question at issue isn't whether the tidbit is cited, the question is "how relevant to the notability of Susan Atkins is adding a new section to mention a song that in itself, doesn't merit mention in the article about the band?" Lists such as this detract from the real notability, and I don't believe that a song mention lends itself. Is it a mainstream hit, has it made a cultural impact beyond a cut on a CD? No. WP:HTRIV#Stand alone trivia addresses this sort of item. That there is no real point in the article to integrate this seems to me to be a more compelling reason not to start the precedent on the page. My opinion is to not allow the precedent. Members of WP:CRIME have been working diligently to contain and discourage these types of sections in order to focus attention on what is notable about the subject, not how the act is portrayed by entertainers later. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point, and I think what you've said above was, like you said, worded better than the all-caps notice. I suppose it comes down to whether or not it is trivia. Based on your explanation, I agree that it is in this case. I've no objection to its removal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I admit when it was added, it just annoyed me to no end. I spend a lot of time removing really inane entries on some pages that have contained lists of mentions that have at least some semblance of merit, like Bonnie and Clyde. At least once a week, I remove entries on that page of Eminem's '97 Bonnie and Clyde", or Jay-Z's "'03 Bonnie and Clyde", or Tupac's "Me and my Girlfriend." None of those songs are remotely about Bonnie Parker or Clyde Barrow, they just borrow the names in the titles or are allegedly about them (but in the ghetto, using modern weapons to kill homies). It gets tiresome because of how unrelated it is. For what I think is a good treatment of media mentions, look at what we did with Charles Manson. I think that is how a pop culture mention section should be treated if there is one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a trivia section should be kept out of this article and all Wikipedia articles, for that matter. Don't get me wrong, I love pop culture and trivia; however, its presence in Wiki articles reduces the quality of Wikipedia as a whole. More importantly, it detracts from the seriousness of a subject, especially in crime-related articles, which already are a "free for all" to vandals. One policy I have to remind myself of on a regular basis is: just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it's appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. mo ^talk 02:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the comments that have been made here. Just the same, I think we should recognize that name-checking a person like this, is more likely to offend than name-checking, for example, a pop star. Ultimately it's a question of significance and relevance, and unless that can be demonstrated it shouldn't be included in any of our articles. Rossrs (talk) 07:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Parole Hearing?

It seems as though the fact that her hearing has been postponed is somewhat significant, but the only source I've been able to find is here, and after I tried to use it to cite that her hearing was postponed, it was removed as it admittedly doesn't really have any details. Suggestions, anyone? Rachelisamazingg (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A postponement is significant, but it really needs a reliable source to put in the article. It wasn't just that the source you had didn't have any details, but also that it is a personal website, so there is always a question of reliability with that, plus it didn't indicate what its source was so it could be verified. I'm sure a story from a reliable news source will be forthcoming, so it needs to wait until there is one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that works. Everything I've found is on less-than-credible-looking blogs, and they all just link directly to that anyway. I'm somewhat surprised that there hasn't even been a small blurb on CNN or something like that, but as you mentioned, there likely will be soon. Rachelisamazingg (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source (Associated Press): Dying Manson Killer Seeks Parole Hearing. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

Article Appears Sanitized, Lacks Critical D4)etails

This article appears highly sanitized. "Five murders were committed" hardly begins to explain the unique savageness and brutality of these killings. Facts that are missing include the following: 1)Sharon Tate, 8-1/2 months pregnant, pleaded for the life of her child to Susan Atkins (herself a mother)who ignored her plea and contributed to stabbing her a total of 16 times.

2) Atkins tasted Sharon Tate's blood before writing on the wall.

3)Colonel Paul Tate, father of Sharon, described in a letter read to the parole board how Atkins giggled and laughed at times during her trial.

4)Abigail Folger was stabbed 28 times; her white nightgown appeared red when she was found.

5)Jay Sebring, Steven Parent and Frykowski were shot, stabbed and bludgeoned multiple times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.43.59 (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That is fairly much a bad faith assertion. The article doesn't go into minute detail about each and every particular of the crimes and your statement that they were of "unique savageness and brutality" is unfounded. There are many other crimes in the world that were equally savage and brutal. The article is written in a neutral manner and it hasn't been subjected to the sensationalism of true crime magazine journalism. The article could be expanded, but guess what? No one has done so. If you want more gross details, go read Charles Manson or perhaps one of the other pages. Or maybe Vincent Bugliosi's book. Because the article hasn't been expanded does not mean it has been sanitized and frankly, it's ridiculous for you to claim that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The person posing this question does not apparently understand that this article is a biography of a Living Person and not merely an article about the crimes. encyclopedia entries about living persons are subject to certain rules including rules that discourage defamation. Now, it is true that if you sift through the court testimonies and then even further sift through the voluminous mountains of contradictory statements Susan Atkins has made over the years about her crimes, you will find some of those details. However, it is not necessary to to go into such detail here. Greg King's book on Sharon Tate is possibly the best all-inclusive and best referenced book to date on the crimes and that might be the best place to begin for those looking for the agonizing details of her crimes.

That said, I do think the use of passive voice is a bit overwrought. to say "five murders were committed" makes it seems as if the murders had no actual agent of action. The woman was convicted and in her many requests for parole, she has admitted to her role in the crimes although each year that passes, she tends to further minimize her part in them. I think it is fair to say say that "Susan Atkins was convicted of X number of murders and has admitted responsibility for her participation in them.. etc. etc." Use of the passive voice is a way to subtly suggest innocence of the crimes.LiPollis (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Untitled post

I agree it is poorly referenced so is all in all dubious. Allegations are vaguely made that contradict Susans official website version - straight from the horses mouth. They are not referenced eg within the "arrest and grand jury" section it's said Atkins would years later state her grand jury testimony (once retracted) actually was an accurate reflection of what occurred in the crime scene. There is no reference, and Susan Atkins website categorically says she has been consistent throughout the years that her grand jury testimony was wildly inaccurate due to pressures and her State of Mind. So I take this unsupported claim about her reaffirming her grand jury testimony later on as misrepresentation.

Could aspects like the above evidence a bias being preserved by some invested contributors. I added a section under the motive subheader which summarised Susan Atkins conclusions about the motive, as only recently and belatedly given on her website. Belatedly as she says it's difficult to mull over but that it needed to be done (in her dying days) as too much myth harmful to issue understanding abounds. Her voice is surely a more authoritative one than the Prosecutors guesswork. Yet the rendition of her version I reproduced here was twice removed. The first time understandably so as I'd neglected to reference it, but the second time that this occurred I had provided the website,page and draft book title of Susans account which I'd condensed for Wiki. Her report is enlightening and could prevent further atrocities unfolding - but somewhat makes the Prosecutor look like he went off half cocked with his famed theory (a small part of the larger canvas Atkins paints). It seems this article is being managed to present a one sided view that has become doctrine. I conclude that attempts to contribute balancing material which fails to maximally vilify the subject or challenge efforts to exaggerate Atkins profile of utter badness lead to rapidfire deletions.

It's surely or should be a concern that defamatory or at the least prejudicial statements are not referenced so that one can judge source strength, and that the living subject is not having her rebuttals to such unreferenced Wiki claims (as published in her website) permitted re-publication, by the hand of intermediaries like myself. Motive as well as the extent of Atkins physical role in the murders goes to the heart of the degree of culpability, where it falls most heavily and how we perceive Atkins. Instead, the article just promotes bias with phrases like "it was widely believed at the time" (that Atkins was the one to fatally stab Tate). And has serious omissions, like evidence showing Atkins knife wasn't used.

This bias would not matter so much if the subject of the biographical page were dead, but it does given a Parole Hearing is due. The woman is dying and in no condition to defend regurgitated misrepresentation. That her website puts forth a view pertinent to matter in this article which is being dismissed or censored is disturbing. If its a murderer then you do not trust or give airtime the source. Ask strangers 40 years on, who've read a few books. Talk about them, never to them. This is how rumours root. I know - there were community, media, Cop exaggerations of my Mothers killers evil too. Shame on those citing journalistic integrity & ethics who paint it too black. 219.88.116.101 (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)(Edward)

I am guessing you are referring to this reversion and this reversion. Besides that Bobby's name was in fact Beausoleil, not Beaujolais, and Sharon's last name is spelled "Tate", not "Tait", the majority of what you added based on Atkins' website isn't disputed, nor is it misrepresented. In fact, the relocation to the desert and the fear of retaliation is mentioned, in the section regarding Gary Hinman. The rest was badly planned ways to circumvent blame for that event - which did partially occur after the shooting of Bernard Crowe. There is no disputing those factors in the crimes 40 years ago. Here's the thing. A properly vetted book has not been published and there's very good reason to doubt what is written on her website, which actually isn't hers, per se, but her husband's. We don't cite unpublished books, in case, under WP:CRYSTAL. There's certainly reason to consider any statements she makes now with a grain of salt. Because she is now disputing things accepted in her prosecution - facts supported by individuals not on trial - doesn't particularly balance anything. It's not required that the article present Atkins' story, and presenting facts from the trial and available widely in reliable sources is not misrepresentation. Her viewpoint isn't particularly being censored or dismissed, but it's still excusatory to the degree that someone is trying to make themselves appear a certain way. She is a convicted mass murderer. She was found guilty and is still in prison. As someone else pointed out, she never said she didn't participate, but she certainly has continued to minimize her participation. The other participants have not offered alternate explanations and in fact, Atkins is the only participant who had a child at Spahn Ranch. I don't believe anyone accepts that she willing participated in events surrounding 8 murders, on three different occasions, solely out of fear for the life of her child. None of the other participants dispute that Atkins was an active participant. Her fingerprints, bloody footprints and admissions contradict a lot of what is being put forth now. And you can't simply condense it down to excuses or condense the whole of what she (or her husband) wrote on her website to a couple simple, undisputed facts.

The article does need to be expanded, but there is nothing I read on the Atkins website that is new or illuminating and it is all covered in reliable, third party, vetted sources. However, your condensation does omit a lot of facts that Atkins did not dispute. She didn't even dispute that Manson talked about Helter Skelter or that he used the idea of a race war in his talks. The article does lay down a basic sketch of the historical facts of the case, consecutively and it does say clearly that "Bugliosi stated that he believed the murders had numerous, disparate motives, all of which served to benefit Manson." I'm not sure what you think is being misrepresented here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie, everything you have stated above is true with one exception, Linda Kasabian, a relatively new Family member, had a child at the Ranch during the killings. At various times, Kasabian has stated that she went along with Manson's instructions partially out of concern for what might happen to her child if she didn't. Over the years, Atkins has had a tendency to alter her story in order to meet the expectations of her present audience. It's not surprising that Aktins has, over time, come to believe that Linda Kasabian's fears were fears she herself either should have had or did have. Who is to know? All we do know is that in all the many, many statements made at the time of the trial, this was one concern Susan never voiced. Some people adopt new narratives to comfort themselves or explain their actions or to gain sympathy. Since her husband's website has proven itself to be far less than credible with regard to claims about her health in recent years, it is not surprising that the narrative there surrounding the events that put her in jail don't exactly jibe with the established facts. He's had her clinging to life by a hangnail for 5 or 6 years now, often predicting she would be dead in weeks. No doubt she is ill, but how ill isn't something his website can be trusted to reveal. I'm only saying this because people seem to think that Susan herself plays some major role in that website. CA Inmates aren't allowed access to the internet and whatever is up there reflects her husband's view or at best, her view filtered through his. it's not a reliable source. Also, if she really has been as ill as he says she has been lo these past few years, any new information will be coming solely from him. I support you in your contention that the "official" Susan Atkins website is hardly a Reliable Source.LiPollis (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ack! You are right about Kasabian, I tend not to think of her in the same actual thoughts as the people convicted. It certainly is worth mentioning, in regard to her, that while she was along, she still refused to participate in killing anyone, despite fears for her child. It's interesting, on the Atkins website, she refers to her baby by saying that by the time the baby was 6 months old, she'd begun to bond with it. It took that long? Hmmm. In any event, I actually tend to sympathize with Van Houten and Krenwinkel much more than I've ever felt that toward Atkins. Not that I'm technically sympathetic, but that they seem to be more honest about their participation. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Re the errors (sp)I apologise, especially re the victim. Thanks for the explanation that you don't cite unpublished work. The fact remains that the best biographies draw on many sources including oral history and expert comment. You say presenting facts from the trial and reliable sources is not misrepresentation, while denying her husband (her only available voice) who claims more or less to have taken dictation as possibly reliable. I'm sorry but this does sound biased to me - terminally ill are often malingerers and this is not evidence of perfidy. Something being said or published in Court records does not make it fact necessarily. Adversarsial Justice systems do not truth seek but present best and worst credible scenarios, as a choice for juries with many lies abounding in Courtrooms, daily. Although I do not believe this pretty picture/ugly one fundament was adhered to in this case, because imo some defendants perversely sought to present themselves in worse than realistic lights due to psychological dysfunction & Manson manipulation (overt and covert).

I am not trying to suggest Atkins was not an active participant, nor that she only acted from fear for her child - a factor that should not be so easily discounted simply as others claimed it too, and did so earlier. Not everyone under threat of the death penalty has all their crime rationales at the ready - could seem pointless searching your life or self or "explaining" at that juncture. What I suggest is the active role is contentious as to degree. Some major news media accept the version that Atkins stabbed Tate to this day, others more latterly assert that her role was to restrain her while the male co-offender used the weapon - it's odd and confusing that major outlets have different editorial policy on this. Obviously her culpability is grave either way, but despite no consensus or more evidence of no stabbing Wiki top bills the "she stabbed" theory. As you say the article could be expanded - such a complex case though that the risk of creating a confusing patchwork (such is life)is high. I do not believe the subtle factors encouraging complicity / participation with murder are adequately exposited. A key lesson of this life - a key requirement to ensure the victims deaths weren't in vain.

It is too difficult to condense and express and getting in to psychological dynamics can lose or even turn off a (presumably) primed to be outraged general audience, but I believe sources could be used, to support that Atkins was likely a person vulnerable to manipulation of anger at the world generally and perhaps depression, seeking approval and belonging who trusted in or idealised the wrong person. And critically whose ability to differentiate right from wrong was deliberately and seriously destabilised, so that she might serve as a compliant tool. A crime in itself or it should be.

Much of the living environment created by Manson for his followers was textbook for brainwashing - but this key matter seems understressed. Atkins was an "active participant" as you say but looking deeper I question whether this was "consciously willed" ie under her own volition or mainly Mansons, it is confirmed by several good sources he aimed for full control. More surprising to me than her involvement type(perfectly explicable given the known psychological effects of abuse and fostered dependency under a seige mentality - such as Manson utilised) is that Kasabian was able to extricate herself and resist. Until I consider she was under Mansons influence but briefly.

I just wonder at the tone of this article and possible bias, whilst realising the content is emotionally loaded so it's manner of presentation and content is likely to face heavy challenge. As a reader I prefer comprehensive presentation of points of view so I can draw my own conclusions. I feel that the Atkins website could add to what is published here in 3 or 4 ways, but is not given a fair shake. Why not add key assertions, then balance with a comment as to reliability of what has been said being queried given that one (whether murderer or their next of kin or not) does not always have perfect self perspective.

Yes peoples narratives change over time - not necessarily dependent on the audience but also because essential truths have always been there but we get more perspective and think more deeply on what went on and how that interacted with our behaviour, so we've peeled the onion a bit more. I will talk today about past experiences differently to after they happened, only because I'm more aware of what was making me or others tick, in hindsight with maturity. Is a 20 year old unsupported by any real biological family or stable friends, who is brain addled from drugs likely to put a fair case forward for themselves initially or before "deprogramming"? If not early accounts aren't best. 203.96.104.249 (talk) 11:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Edward

Edward - Wikipedia is an encylopedia and as such, it does not seek to present a tit for tat "Johnny Law says but the Family says" version of events. Susan and her many supporters have a number of influential websites brimming with her most recent side of the story. Over the 27 years I've spent keeping track of new developments in this case and in digging up old sources, I've seen public opinion on the roles of each of the women change quite a bit in their favor. It seems as if the more time passes, and the less people have access to the original court transcripts and news sources, the more likely they are to go along any changes the women make in their account of what they did on those terrible nights. The point we other editors have tried to make to you is that all that matters is what can be reasonably verified as fact. What most editors try to do in articles about crimes and convicted criminals is to stick to what has been established as fact in a court of law or by the sworn statements or testimony of those involved as close in time to the actual event as possible. If a significant admission or recantation comes to light at a later date that can be established as fact through reliable sources, then we'll include it. As many times as we might take out something sympathetic, we also take out edits that are too biased against an individual or not backed up properly with references from news media or published books. Heck, Wildhartlivie, reverted one edit I made to this article that was a tad too dismissive of James Whitehouse and his characterizations of Susan's condition. I saw that he was right and agreed with his edit. In the biography of a living person such as Atkins who is convicted of a crime and who has, in the past made explicit admissions of guilt in sworn testimony, numerous interviews, parole hearings, and in her own autobiographjy, it's not necessary to try and "balance" those facts with a current revised account unless that new account can be proven via reliable sources. All that we should aim for is a factual summary of what is accepted as the truth about this person without tipping the scales towards condemnation or outright sympathy. We should try to be as neutral as possible. The Pro-Manson Family websites and Pro-Susan websites (which do not necessarily share the same motives) are out there to present all the issues you raise and they are skilled at making their case. Without Bill Nelson's old site around to counter them, they are the first sites that come up on Google nowadays. (Mind you, I'm not saying Nellie was a reliable source either!)LiPollis (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

OK with you - nothing too subjective. Hard to toe line between condemnator and sympathetic tone. If Wiki aims to present "the truth" or as close as one can get using solid sources is not her state of mind during period of crimes / hearings important to delineate? Recent cases set precedents that "mens rea" ie responsibility level is acknowledged in US Courts as reduced where brainwashing factors. In your research have you seen early prison assessments of SA or family regarding psychological condition or treatments or are these confidential perhaps?219.88.116.173 (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Edward

Lack of neutrality and depth

The biography has language that is calculated to influence readers towards belief in the fairly well discredited testimony of Atkins at her sentencing. I have a couple of times removed the reappearing word candid from a statement as it implies truthfulness, on a matter a preponderance of evidence points to Susan not being truthful.

The section I say is biased by reason of (1) use of "candid" (2) lack of context follows; During the sentencing phase of the trial, Atkins testified that she stabbed Tate. She candidly stated that she had stabbed Tate...

I lately added context to this section (with references) offering insight to why Susan would have lied by taking prime responsibility for the Tate stabbing (she was under considerable duress to do so as per multiple reliable sources). Also demonstrating what factors may have influenced retraction of her sentencing testimony and reversion to standing by the version she gave to the grand jury ie primarily the fact her son was finally adopted out of State care, and so was completely out of the fruit loop patently dangerous Manson followers reach. One can't interpret decisions/motives lacking chronology.

The evidence around which version of Tates death mechanism was true are not minor details, given Atkins is probably only more notorious than the other Mansons by the reason people were historically led to believe she did stab Tate. Why is the overwhealming stockpile of contrary evidence continually deleted, and only the sole corroboration that she did not Stab Tate from (poorly credible) Charles Watson, permitted "airtime" here. There is much more compelling evidence than this. It seems an editor is wanting to preserve excess emphasis on Atkins dodgy self incriminating evidence at the sentencing, by means of censoring additional balancing facts.

It seems that the more evidence that emerges that Atkins did not stab Tate eg the forensic evidence re Susans knife (unused), the more that some parties conceal these matters. Even to the point that Atkins non supporters now fabricate claims, such as those reported in LA papers that Atkins not only stabbed Tate (despite the high unlikelihood), but that she "slit her throat" (when the Coroners report showed no such wounds). Given that such myths are being propagated at a time public opinion may influence Parole hearings, I would think it especially imperative for Wiki to strive to present all relevant facts about the most sensational aspect of Atkins alleged offending with balance. .

I see no valid reason for continual replacing of the word "candid" in a supposedly neutral article. This words inclusion seeks to persuade that the testimony made by Atkins was true at sentencing - against a preponderance of forensic, witness, circumstantial her own contrary testimony at the grand jury and following the sentencing. Atkins retracted claim to have stabbed Tate is poorly supportable, highly suspect and therefore shouldn't be prefaced with the word candid. "Perjurious" while also a subjective and opinionated adjective would be just as, or even more appropriate. I would not put it there though anymore than candid (unless I could claim myself a human polygraph).

Of course, none of this high level of contentiousness over "did she, didn't she (stab)" among those who've followed developments would be apparent to someone after a neutral overview from Wiki, because important contextual matters to comprehension are being censored. And language and prohibition on factual content adds a slant to the affirmative.

These pages should not be about pushing personal views - but should offer a rich enough rendering of salient facts that people leave well informed. One can not possibly have insight to a biography without social context. Things like visits to Susan in jail prior to the sentencing, when she is informed people close to the Mansons have mysteriously died (zero), are highly relevant as to whether her sentencing testimony was sound. Also the fact that lawyers were highly fearful the girls would martyr themselves to save others, and that one who was perhaps trying to do his job in putting up a good defense for a codefendant appears to have been murdered during the trial.

These dynamics are vital to understanding why Susan would perjure in such a way as to damn herself. Rap taking is a reality - it was one legal counsel were worried about. Yet my addition to the article of these contextual matters was removed. Exposition of these matters is far more historically important than interesting trivia like the vampire play.

The section dealing with the Tate LaBianca trial is a stub, it lacks important detail that is needed to form any sort of intelligent viewpoint, and it is frustrating that when one tries to enrich that section, albeit with facts unpopular among some because they would tend to explain Susans behaviour rationally based on pressures of the day, this effort is scratched. It seems white space is preferred to a proper description of the matters at hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.116.245 (talk) 09:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I am the editor who first added the word "candidly". It serves no useful purpose and so I have removed it but you are attaching too much importance to one word. Removal of the word does not diminish what she said. Agreed, that one word does convey something more than it should. How about this: "Vilification of Atkins and recent media dissemination of incendiary false reports, such as that Atkins slit the throat of Sharon Tate(whose throat was intact), makes it impossible for unbiased Parole Hearings to occur." I count four words in this single sentence that convey a clear meaning, intended to elicit support for Atkins. "Vilification", "incendiary", "false" and "impossible". "Candidly" is quite mild by comparison, but it's gone, along with these other inappropriate words. People have commented about the biased tone of your edits, and your lack of supporting evidence from reliable independent third party sources. That is a clear criticism that you can address. Instead you come here suggesting that editors have an agenda in presenting Atkins as guilty as possible.

I would welcome an attempt to present this article in a balanced and neutral manner using material from reliable, independent third party sources. That has not yet happened. I've resisted the urge to comment until now, but I will say one thing about Atkins website, which has been referred to in some previous edits. It is completely biased and rightly so. Its purpose is to gain support for Atkins, nothing else, and that's understandable. Her account of events bothers me. She discusses the LaBianca murders, at which she was not present, in more detail than the Tate murders at which she was present. Perhaps she would be more convincing if she was just a little more "candid" or forthcoming. Regardless of her reasons, she has changed her story more than once, and in her website account she is still saying only what she wants to say, rather than everything there is to be said. This is nothing but my opinion, but I would expect that any effort to mitigate or explain Atkins actions and words would look at everything she doesn't say as closely as everything that she does say. Maybe she dug a hole for herself, but that she was able to do so with such conviction, should make anyone view her words with a degree of scepticism. History has so far judged her to be a pitiless killer. If this is not true, it needs something stronger in the way of sources than what has yet been presented, and it needs to be more than theory, conjecture or supposition, but no matter how strong these theories may seem, they are not fact. Pre-trial visits may have clouded her testimony, but using this as example, unless there is supported evidence to establish what was said to her, it's not appropriate to conjecture that she may have felt pressured to behave in any particular way. So again, I stress this - we must use material from reliable, independent third party sources. Rossrs (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your well thought out comments. I always find the statement citing the lack of blood on the knife Atkins lost as proof that she didn't stab anyone as incredulous. My reaction each time I read it is "where there no other knives in the entire house? What did Krenwinkel use?" How does that prove anything at all? In any case, I'm not sure I know how many different ways it can be said that Atkins' husband's website is not an acceptable source for properly vetted and confirmed content. Until the time comes that an independent reliable source has published researched work that examines these issues that purport to contradict the evidence that was presented in court that led to her conviction, there is no place in the Wikipedia article for it. This is not the forum upon which the trials are retried, nor is it the place where a defense is mounted 40 years later. Anyway, appreciate your comments. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm interesting comments Rossrs - Atkins web may be biased (of course it is) but it has some things of value. This case has definitely become a lot clearer as things got closer scrutiny, stories got lined up against others over years etc. Yep you're right, my edits were biased. Your welcome to fix it - its not always easy to see ones own bias! It is very hard with such a load of possible material here to add stuff without it tipping scales one way or another though you must admit. Wildhartlivie - there is much more additional evidence like maybe 20 points, thats just one bit of it easy to present. Another thing is that new stuff that is very relevant is getting published even at this late stage. Like the very suspicious Mansony murder in London of Sandra goods partner - things like that create a much heavier climate of fear the defendants must have been under when deciding how to testify. Whoa easy - I'm not attempting a retry or defense,lets not get carried away. The court records are not authoritative or truth defining. They are merely records among others available to do a biography. Or else we might as well just make this page a link to the trial notes and nothing more. I am saying there is a well supported view - supported by much evidence and many prominent people involved with the case that Atkins did not stab Tate. I also agree she was highly guilty of murdering her (it took 2). Thats very interesting what RossRs says about looking at what her website does not cover, as much as what it does. It shows far more remorse over Hinmanns death than Tates which seems odd. But then it could be she is cautious not to say much on that as she knows that whatever is said one camp will jump on it with criticisms. Or it could be the goal there was not so much to express remorse etc as to offer her final insights / explanations. I mean her goal is stated at the top - to essentially demythologise it all. And remove Charlies mystique/fascination. She clearly detests him now.

What specifically are you saying has been carried here from the Atkins website that purports to contradict the evidence in court so needs further verification? Nothing I see. Most everything on the website in relation to the crimes references back to easily verified sources like Parole Hearings, books etc. I think it's a quite excellent source and source to source stuff. A biographical page that can not carry quotes from its subject - if that is what you advocate - to me lacks authenticity and credibility. Its required for balance imo. If those quotes come from a website maintained by the husband I think we can trust it, unless we would be assertuing defamatory idea like that he has manufactured them. As a person with a lawyers practising certificate he is held to professional standards so...

How do we get a reliable independent 3rd party source that Manson or followers threatened her to testify a particular way? Only ones who were involved would know, so are not independent or given their type reliable!! Admitting it would be setting self up for charges. Circumstantially there is much to support it. Visits occurred, lawyers were switched/murdered till all have CMs(a possible letter passer. Lawyer for Kasabian just confessed in a Press interview to getting Kasabian to lean on Atkins to retract with coded letters (how unethical is that)but the letters were too coded for Wiki though I considerd it - said stuff like "Charlie is DA, Charlie find you" - vaguely menacing / suggestive of course of action but obviously he was smart enough not to leave a definitive trail. I don't think its possible 100% proof - would you then not just qualify with "It's claimed...." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.117.133 (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm mindful that Wikipedia's role is not to try Susan Atkins or determine her degree of guilt. We're supposed to be about facts, facts and more facts. I appreciate that the waters are muddy and that Atkins stirs strong feeling either for her or against her. If Atkins is quoted it has to be given within appropriate context. We quote her from her self-damning testimony, so equally we should be able to quote from her more recent version of events. I guess in the name of neutrality we would need to be open to that, but I would really like to see what is intended before it goes into the article. How we accurately and evenly present her biography while rising above these elements, is going to be difficult, and in all honesty, I don't think we have ever achieved it. It seems to me that there is a lot of "he said, she said" in the different versions of events given, not only by Atkins, but by other "interested" parties, many of whom are qualified to speak on this matter. I don't know how we are to present a rounded view of it without taking on the role of an investigator, which is why I keep saying we need reliable, independent third party evidence. If reliable, independent third party evidence does not provide an accurate picture, or answer all the unanswered questions, we have to leave it be at that point. I understand you - how do we get the reliable, independent third-party evidence, considering the type of people that are involved? Good question. Perhaps we can't. Wikipedia is built on verifiability more than accuracy. If what is verifiable tells only half of the story, that's where it must end. We must never put any faith in circumstantial aspects.

I'm glad you mentioned that she is "highly guilty of murdering her (it took 2)" - yes it did. More than 2. In fact, we don't really know how many people it took to create the scenario of murder or to turn it from an idea to an act. But we do know that Atkins was right in the middle of it from well before until well after and at some point she had her hands on Sharon Tate. It may never be known with certainty who held the knife, and at the end of it all, for the purposes of this article, it doesn't strengthen or mitigate her degree of guilt. Atkins was a participant before, during and after the murders. I don't intend to "try" this any more than you do but if there are people saying Atkins acted in fear or whatever, there are people who say that Linda Kasabian was also in fear, said no she wouldn't do it, and was able to step away from it without suffering any injury. Maybe Linda Kasabian had to sell her soul to the devil to walk away from it, maybe she passed Atkins notes. We just don't know what is the truth. Vincent Bugliosi asked why Linda Kasabian was the only person able to say no, she wouldn't do it. I don't know what Atkins has said on that subject, if she's said anything. The entire theme of "acting under duress" can take a complete circle and still be unresolved, and I don't know - is that really desirable for this article? Atkins' remorse over Hinman seems odd, yes. By her account, she was always on the edge of events, willing them not to happen, but not saying a word or lifting a finger to change their course. You've offered a couple of possibilities to explain why she may have glossed over Sharon Tate in her website account of events. Whatever her reason was for withholding her version of that particular event - the one most closely associated with her - its intentional omission casts greater doubt over everything else she said. Her words are still her words, so it's all well and good to report on what she has said, but no meaning can be attached to any of it. Just a bland "Atkins said ...." is all that can be drawn from it. No inferences or interpretations. I mention these points because they are part of a chain - Atkins establish a behavioral pattern before and after the killings which is confirmed by other participants, she gives testimony, refutes her earlier testimony and then other people come forward to support her version or to dispute it, and then their comments are commented upon. I get the impression that you are not necessarily trying to mitigate Atkins' actions, but to humanize her. I don't see that as a bad thing, but I think you're seeing things that don't add up and taking that as supporting the thought that Atkins may be telling the truth now. Well perhaps it does, but then again, perhaps it doesn't. The article has to be even, and not subscribe to or become part of any of the theories, myths or interpretations. Not an easy thing, I agree. Rossrs (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Also - looking at recent edits. I think the overall article would flow better if it was just fact, fact, fact in chronological order. Atkins comments in 1970 were what they were. She can't change them, and we can only report them. To have something straight after saying (to paraphrase) "Atkins later said this wasn't true and what really happened was ....." may not be intended as offering mitigation, but it reads that way. Her later comments would go better in the part of the article at which they were made. ie if they are recent comments, they could be placed in a better context if put in the timeframe in which they were made. So if she said something during a parole hearing for example, that's were these comments would fit better. IMO. I would like to know what Wildhartlivie thinks about the positioning of these comments. Rossrs (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thx for thoughtful comments. I agree with everything. Yes I was conscious it was getting mucky and confusing. Chronologising could be good. But there is also something to be said in readability for making connections? You have got my measure. I care about presenting as much or as close to truth/s as one can get. My angle is one of humanising, which comes from a background of being generally interested in biographies - and people - its a dry read if not getting at a persons essence. I will have a different perspective to many others too re murderers, given my qualifications, work experience (assessing and treating criminally insane) and life experience as a homicide victim. This training gives me a view of Atkins - relative to her "friends". Tentative Danger Rank lo-hi LK, SA, PK, LV, BD, CM, BB/CW I think if her health was failing while writing that draft book it may just have been too draining looking again at the Tate scenario - she somewhere described as a recurring nightmare - and if I was assisting her I'd just have said "look you've given your story, no need to go again". She put her foot in it saying Kasabian entered Cielo in her book and I think it was accidental, and fromloyalty to Linda - just not wanting anyone elses life ruined I'd say she skips rehashing as doing that if the sticky Q's got asked could jeopardise Linda AND Bug. if he encouraged perjury / gilded the lily Linda. SA needs him onside. Also I personally have trouble remembering much detail of even major life events 20 years ago, let alone 40. To do the subject justice could take 3 pages. But then the content would get so hard to marshall and select what was important or most authoritative as well. It would become investigative and require much critical asnalysis likely beyond Wiki facility. The duress/brainwashing stuff would be great to incorporate but we'd need unhindered access to psych reports from the early days. And those could be little use too, as 1970s assessments weren't too flash or objective compared to todays. Anyway have not contributed before so thx for the patience.

You're welcome. I'm always happy to discuss things. I don't think length should be an issue. Some articles need to be lengthy in order to be comprehensive. The problem with some long articles is that they go into excessive detail or try to cover absolutely everything. Readability, yes, I see what you mean, but depending on how many times the story flashes forward to Atkins' present account of it, the jumping between more than one time-line can be confusing too. Perhaps that's something to be kept in mind, and just see how the article develops. 1970s assessments may not be what they are today, but they're still highly relevant, given that they helped determine Atkins' fate. I wouldn't discount them, but as you said, access is a problem too. Could you please give a layman's-explanation for "Tentative Danger Rank lo-hi LK, SA, PK, LV, BD, CM, BB/CW"? That looks interesting. Rossrs (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh my little ranking was just a quick informal roughshod assessment of the relative danger of the Manson killers. I've worked with round a 1000 killers and normally to assess dangerousness (part of my training) well would take a few weeks of obs. Initial interviews though will get a reasonable feel. So at the low end based on history and psych profile (I look at words, relationships. current functioning etc automatically, can't turn my profession off sadly) I have LK ie Kassabian (come for coffee) at low end, & CW ie Watson up top (I want 3 restraint staff, no metal cutlery, and won't turn my back) and surprisingly not Manson! Meeting them might cause a little reshuffling, but prolly not much. Also a couple of bad family evaded the net. One of the Manson women inside is almost certainly a sociopath - a popular one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.117.133 (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh... I feel a bit dumb now. I didn't make the connection that it was the initials of the people. In my defence it was 2.00 am in my part of the world, when I asked the question. Interesting that you put Van Houten as the most dangerous of the female family members, because I usually read about her being the least threatening. And I'm guessing the sociopath is L"S"F ? Thanks, I get it now. Rossrs (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a couple comments in passing. I, too, have advanced degrees in psychology, aberrant behavior, and psychopathology. I have also worked at times with persons who were just slightly less dangerous than various members of the Manson family (most of them did not kill anyone, although one did kill her mother when she set fire to the house), and I too have experienced the loss of a family member who was murdered. I have to state for the record that if Linda Kasabian's lawyer could admit years later to unethical behavior in regards to all of this, that it makes it even more credible to me that Atkins' own husband is certainly even more likely to skewing facts that help make her look less culpable. In any case, there certainly needs to a large measure of caution in adding anything from the website, and it must clearly note that the site is where it comes from. The content cannot be synthesis of materials, such as the statement in the article right now that references timing between two events. Also for the record, per Wikipedia policy, we cannot list links to the petitionsite or to the self-published freesusanatkins.net, though I don't know who added them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There are quite a few points in the article that need to be updated with sources, and part of that process could be replacing unsuitable sources with suitable ones, and rewording to avoid the issue of synthesis. If an external site reports that Atkins has made such-and-such a comment, it could be cited to that source and comply with WP:V. I haven't looked at more than a handful of news reports but I think they should contain enough usable information. Rossrs (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"The content cannot be synthesis of materials, such as the statement in the article right now that references timing between two events." Please point out Wildhartlivie - not sure what part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.116.187 (talk) 04:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I am referring specifically to this sentence: "The timing of reversion to stand by her grand jury version aligns with her sons legal adoption and move out of State care, in 1972 or 1973 (1985 Parole Hearing transcript)." That is part and parcel of synthesis. It is original research and is inappropriate and against Wikipedia policy. Also, including "1985 Parole Hearing transcript" is not a proper source. It is not in any way clear as to what it is in that transcript that supports your statement, or where the transcript is obtainable. Each and every place where you insert "she claims" or "Atkins alleges" or a quote is given, a clear and specific citation must be included, not just stuck in inside parentheses. This is not a full reference and does not given someone trying to verify what you're adding indication of where to verify it: (p10-12 1978 Hearing transcript).

When I said that we are not going to rehash the crime and trials, I was also referring to discussing speculation about whether or not Atkins could have used another knife or if others were available. My comment was intended to illustrate that because Atkins lost her knife at the scene does not mean that she could not possibly be guilty of murder, it was not to introduce speculation about where Linda Kasabian was, whether Atkins is more or less guilty of murder and conspiracy based on whether she "just" held down Sharon Tate while someone else stabbed her or Atkins did so, it was not to invite discussion about possible conspiracy theories. The cookie crumbled one way. Everyone on trial was found equally guilty. If you've worked with and around criminals, you know that each witness takes away their own perception of an event and that a singular truth is rarely evident. The burden on Wikipedia is not truth, it is verifiability. We don't concern ourselves with investigation, only with reporting. If someone wants to investigate, they will have to seek publication elsewhere, it's not allowable on this website. The victims in this case cannot zero in on points of conflicting stories and testimony at parole hearings, they are all dead and last I checked, there is no parole from that. Finally, it would be decidedly helpful if you referred to individuals by their names, not by initials or a nickname like "Bug". It's a bit discomforting to see Vincent Bugliosi referred by the same nickname Manson uses for him. When you make talk page posts, please sign your posts by typing four tildes or click the 9th button above the edit window - the one to the right of the button with the red circle and line. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK got you. I thought you were opening the knife subject. Have deleted that spiel as space wasting accordingly. Have tidied references, per my understanding of Wiki policy. It says to follow article style, footnoting preferred but parantheses Ok at times. Another Ed above said the disputed or more untrusty references ie Susans website if used need to be clearly marked as such. Hence I left that in Parentheses. Also did same with Parole transcripts, as those ones aren't already footnoted, and am not sure how to do a superscript that creates a footnote. Trying to work it out now. And removed the phrasing you mention as being synthesis. I've left the facts in the section but not in a way inviting any particular conclusion, I believe. Urgh I did not know CM used that term for the Prosec. Had seen it - thought here? A faior bit of the article is not referenced at all though 219.88.117.129 (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Ed

Okay, thanks. You can find a lot of information about how to format sources at WP:REFB. For instances, the references in parentheses are linked to a specified source in either the reference section or bibliography. Other information is at WP:CITE. If you have any questions, either post them here or on my talk page or perhaps on Rossrs' talk page. I'm off to bed now - much, much too late. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Manson Follower Susan Atkins Denied Release

This site: [Susan Atkins Denied Release] talks about the fact, that this woman will die in prision. She has brain cancer and will die soon.Agre22 (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)agre22

I don't think anyone disputes that. Her health is covered in the article, so I'm wondering what point you're making? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Victim of sexual abuse as a minor

Is there enough evidence of her having been sexually abused by her father's friends, older brother and his friends etc. for that info to be in the article? If it happened, it is certainly relevant to her biography. Information yes (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

According the The New York Times, she says she was sexually abused by a male relative. I don't think we can say more than "according to her". [1]

I think the evidence is compelling in that she has named 2 names to Parole hearings (1 her brother) and that this has been made public domain knowledge - and in the fact that it would be slander if not true yet the accused brother has made no denial. While the rest of her family has supported her consistently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.59.88 (talk) 10:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Lived in a middle-class home?

The Early life section claims this. However, what I have read about her upbringing is that she grew up in poverty; her parents were alcoholics. Information yes (talk) 07:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There are degrees of middle class and because parents are alcoholics doesn't necessarily mean that the income level for the family was not middle class at some point in her early life. Besides, a highly reliable source characterizes her that way. [2] Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That source merely states that as a child she was 'a middle-class girl', not, as the early life section claims, that she 'lived in a middle-class home'. It does not give anything to back that up. If she were, at any time whilst growing up, middle-class, then one or both parents would have had to have been employed in a middle-class profession, which I've never seen any evidence for. It appears from many sources that Atkins grew up in poverty; neither parent ever had a job that would qualify as middle-class. If the home Atkins lived in as a child really were middle-class (which is claiming it was a reasonably upmarket house in a nice area), let's see some evidence of that. 'Middle-class girl', even if true, does not prove she 'lived in a middle-class home'. Information yes (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're splitting hairs here and overanalyzing this. By definition, the American middle class covers a wide range of income levels and jobs and I'm not seeing anything that disputes that, and while you refer to seeing sources claiming she grew up in poverty, that would need to be cited and I don't recall seeing sources to support growing up in poverty. Poverty of a good family life, perhaps, but not by definition of poverty in the US. She may not have grown up in an upper middle class family, but by and large, working class America is part of the middle class and there's no indication that Atkins' early life was not that. It wasn't until later, in her teens, that her family fell apart. WP:V covers what can be verified by sources, not what one may believe to be true. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some zealots keep adding things like "-offensive remark redacted-". However one thinks of Susan Atkins, the Manson Family or anyting else, this is an encyclopaedia. This kind of childish graffiti is completely inappropriate. I'm sure that every regular Wiki editor agrees with me, it's just the idiots who attack articles like this. Just thought I'd keep everybody informed 124.170.123.65 (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to request that the article is protected so that anonymous people cannot change it? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need for that. The vandalism seems to have been up there less than an hour and in general, there is usually someone online that checks the edits to this page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think protection is necessary. Atkins is on the radar now because of her recent death, and I expect that casual interest in her article will subside fairly quickly. Several editors have this article watchlisted, so an inappropriate edit should not survive for long. It's good that this comment was raised by someone who cares about maintaining the integrity of the article, and I agree with his or her sentiments, but I think it will be dealt with. Rossrs (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)