Charles Manson Is Definitely Guilty, But What If He Isn't?

Illustration for article titled Charles Manson Is Definitely Guilty, But What If He Isn't?

Charles Manson was found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder in 1971. But a new book by Daniel Simone says, hey, you know what? He might not be guilty of that helter skelter after all.


Page Six writes:

Simone and co-author Heidi Ley are putting the finishing touches on a book that will lay out all the evidence that Manson, 80, was the victim of a ruthlessly ambitious prosecutor, Vincent Bugliosi.

Before his death in June, Bugliosi wrote Helter Skelter. But even though it’s “the best-selling true crime book in history,” Simone and Ley claim readers of their book will “walk away with doubts.” It is, however, a little odd that Simone and Ley didn’t walk away with doubts of their own.

“At times he’s completely incoherent,” Simone said. “Other times, he’s articulate and made a lot of sense . . . I am sure he is using illegal narcotics.”

So, somewhere during Manson’s largely incoherent and potentially drug-induced ramblings, he said things that made a lot of sense and suggest his innocence. Oh, and he “placed his thumbprints beneath his signature in case someone questions” the authenticity of his largely incoherent and potentially drug-induced ramblings! Sounds like a reliable guy.

Simone called Manson “quite clever,” and I don’t doubt him. I mean, a person has to be at least a little clever to convince people to kill on their behalf, right? That is, of course, if he actually did it.


Contact the author at


Dolorous Bread

Quite clever? It’s as if they don’t realize the vast majority of psychopaths and sociopaths are highly intelligent, charismatic, and charming! A deranged person screaming nonsense in the street holding dead flowers or something won't attract a cult following like Manson did.