Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Really?
You know Roman Polanski raped a 13 year old girl right? That's why he can't return to the US today. And you know his brothers in the film industry helped spirit him out of the country- powerful men who run the studios- Jews who when they invite people to their affairs, the people are honored and not trying to figure out how many of the events they can miss.
Anyway, the girl, by 1969 now 18, had met and bewitched Manson. He went there that night to kill Roman. Sharon Tate was just an unfortunate bystander and Roman was luckily out for the evening. Sure there was rage on Manson's part- but Query: if it had been your daughter raped- would you not be moved to anger?
The girl wanted to testify for Charlie, but the studio heads blocked the move- box office gross of Roman's next movie would be at stake, and he was teed up for some sympathy oscar consideration. As always the almighty dollar won- Charlie now wears the mantle of "lunatic" and not the more deserved "Champion of young women."
Str8 will deny much of the above, but truly the money flow that pays his bookies is more responsible for the Tate-Labionco killing than is Charles Manson.
|
Now I just don't know what to think about Manson. I mean, I feel really bad about the clean cut paper boy with the bow tie whose picture Diane posted, and I tend to agree with her compelling argument that maybe this kid did not deserve to die a brutal and random death, no matter how cool Manson is/was. On the other hand, your portrayal of Manson as a complex figure who was maybe motivated by factors beyond drug-fuled blood lust has really gotten me to thinking. You also got me mad at the ingrates who don't want to share in their friends' childrens' religious rites and accompanying parties. Anyhoo, Manson is clearly a controversial figure about whom reasonable people can disagree.
