The Mammoth Book of Celebrity Murders (48 page)

The “family” took on a more bizarre appearance when Manson, Krenwinkle, Atkins and Van Houten all shaved their heads in protest, the women by now having also etched crosses into
their foreheads. Outside the courthouse the remaining “family” members followed suit and shaved their heads in defiant support.

Manson and the others were now having to sit through statement after statement, most of which were damning against them. Manson had adopted new tactics to minimize the effect of the evidence
– whenever the evidence looked bad he or his cohorts would create a disturbance which ensured that it was their diversions and not the evidence which got all the attention. One particular
incident saw Manson launch himself out of the dock towards Judge Older screaming, “Someone should cut your head off,” at which point Atkins, Krenwinkle and Van Houten began chanting
some Latin verse. Judge Older had the defendants removed from court and instructed the jury to disregard what they had heard and seen – but they had now seen the true character of Manson, the
menacing, threatening, violent man which the prosecution had been painting all along.

After 22 days of the trial, the prosecution had had its time and it was the defence attorneys’ chance to make a rebuttal. By now the girls had decided to make a statement which had them
take the entire responsibility for the murders. It was they who planned them and they who carried them out; Manson had nothing to do with them. Van Houten’s lawyer, Ronald Hughes, refused to
co-operate, saying, “I refuse to take part in any proceedings where I am forced to push a client out of the window.” A few days later Ronald Hughes disappeared and the media speculation
machine went into overdrive once more, this time proven to be right. After the trial concluded Hughes’s body was found wedged between two boulders in Ventura County, and an ex-Manson follower
admitted that the murder had been carried out by a member of the “family”. When a replacement lawyer for Van Houten was appointed Manson accused Judge Older of killing Hughes; again the
proceedings were suspended and the defendants were removed from the court.

Overall the defence teams had a difficult time. As each one got up in turn to say something positive about their client, they could do little more than claim diminished responsibility brought on
by excessive drug use and mind control. They were less guilty because they were unable to resist the influence of Manson – even the defendants weren’t impressed.

The world had endured the reports of the murders and then followed the twists and turns through the media – the attempted murder of one witness, the disappearance of Van Houten’s
lawyer, the frequent outbursts of the defendants – but now the time had come to deliver the verdicts. On 15 January 1971, some one and half years after the Tate murders, the jury were holed
up in a high-security room at the Hall of Justice, ready to deliberate on their verdict. Security had been enhanced following a report that Manson “family” members had stolen hand
grenades from a local marine base and were preparing a special event on what they had termed “judgement day”. The seven men and five women who made up the jury took nine days to reach
their verdict. As the court reconvened the Judge asked the jury to give its verdicts: they found Charles Manson, Patricia Krenwinkle, Susan Atkins and Leslie Van Houten each guilty of murder and
conspiracy to commit murder. Charles Watson, who had fought extradition from Texas, had not been tried at the same time, but he too was found guilty on the same charges just one year later.

On 29 March 1971 the jury met again to agree the penalty phase of the trial, the outcome being no surprise to anyone: “We, the jury in the above-entitled action, having found the defendant
Charles Manson guilty of murder in the first degree, do now fix the penalty as death.” Susan Atkins responded, “Better lock your doors and watch your own kids,” while Krenwinkle
told them, “You have just judged yourselves.” Later in the month Judge Older pronounced the court’s position on the penalties, “It is my considered judgement that not only
is the death penalty appropriate, but it is almost compelled by the circumstances. I must agree with the prosecutor that if this is not a proper case for the death penalty, what should be?”
The Judge then shook the hands of each juror in turn saying he would have provided them all medals of service if he could have done.

Further trials were held for the murder of Hinman and Donald “Shorty” Shea, following which Manson was again found guilty, as were Watson, Beausoleil, Bruce Davis and Steve
Grogan.

At the time the Manson trial had been the longest running trial in American legal history, lasting some nine and a half months and costing a million dollars, small by today’s standards. It
was also the most publicized case and has attracted a consistent high level of attention over the years, lasting right up to present times. The coverage made Manson more well known and infamous
than any other criminal. His name and face are now known to more people than any celebrity of the time, and possibly of the present time. His notoriety and that of his accomplices precede them
wherever they go and Manson still receives more letters than any other prisoner in the US penal system. They are all still alive and behind bars following the state of California’s abolition
of the death penalty in 1972. Their penalties were commuted to life and remain so, even though California has since reinstated the death penalty.

They are all in separate prison establishments apart from Atkins and Krenwinkle who are both housed in Corona, California. The Manson saga continued to rumble on for years after the trial
– in 1975, Lynette Fromme, a former “family” member, pulled a gun on the then President of the United States, Gerald Ford, in an attempt to get Manson freed. She never pulled the
trigger and managed to heap more bad press on the name of Charles Manson, as well as earning herself a prison stretch.

Unlike his associates, Manson has endured a difficult incarceration, having spent many years in solitary confinement, sometimes for his own safety and at other times as a punishment for drugs
offences. He suffered further loss of privileges for an alleged escape attempt involving a hot air balloon. To date Manson has been denied parole ten times, the latest in April 2002. His next
chance will be in 2007, but there is no one who believes he has any chance of release. He has spent the majority of his life behind bars and is now institutionalized; he has never accepted his role
in the murders and continues to hold a grudge against society. It is almost certain that Manson will spend the rest of his days in prison; now aged 70 and apparently in reasonable health, he could
have a long way to go yet.

His accomplices, however, may not have to rot in jail. They have followed a different path, each one admitting and taking full responsibility for their parts in the murders. Charles
“Tex” Watson is presently serving his sentence at Mule Creek State prison in Northern California. Since his imprisonment 34 years ago he has converted to Christianity, got married,
written several books and fathered four children. He has become a minister of religion and has an exemplary prison record. He was last turned down for parole in October 2001, but will have another
opportunity in 2005.

Susan Atkins is presently serving her sentence at the California Institute for Women at Frontera. She has been married twice and has been a model prisoner. She was last denied parole in February
2000. Sharon Tate’s sister attended the hearing and read out a letter written by her father: “Thirty-one years ago I sat in a courtroom and watched with others. I saw a young woman who
giggled, snickered and shouted insults; even whilst testifying about my daughter’s last breath, she laughed. My family was ripped apart. If Susan Atkins is released to rejoin her family,
where is the justice?” Atkins responded with, “I don’t just have to make amends to the victims and families, I have to make amends to society. I sinned against God and everything
this country stands for.” Atkins will not be eligible for parole until 2005.

Patricia Krenwinkle has maintained an extremely low profile during her prison term and has, like the others, led a trouble-free existence, being co-operative with the authorities. She too has
admitted her part in the crimes and has expressed great regret and sorrow at what she has done. She was last denied parole in July 2004 for the eleventh time. Although aching for freedom she will
have to serve a few more years before her next opportunity for release.

Leslie Van Houten failed to win freedom in July 2004 and will, like Krenwinkle, have to wait a few more years before trying again. At the last hearing Van Houten said, “My heart aches and
there seems to be no way to convey the amount of pain I caused. I don’t know what else to say.” With these words concluded her fifteenth parole application.

The crimes were without doubt some of the worst cases to be heard in a courtroom, although not unique. It is rare for women to kill in the grotesque way in which the “family”
murdered people, especially Sharon Tate, eight months pregnant. The law is a complex subject and is there to provide protection, retribution and a deterrent, but also remedial therapy. It is open
to public pressure and on occasions to the public’s apathy, but above all it is at the mercy of the forces of media presentation and sensationalization, and it is in this mass of conflicting
interest that you must wonder if the law delivers a fair and just outcome every time. The “family” members have been in prison for 34 years now, and are themselves still the subject of
much publicity – their victims were high-profile, famous individuals. To what extent is their own notoriety and the fame of their victims continuing to affect their prospects of release? As
history has shown, if you murder a celebrity, you often become as famous as that person, and in the case of Charles Manson and the “family” even more so.

On 18 October 1943, at the Bahamas Supreme Court, Count Marie Alfred Fouquereaux de Marigny (known to his friends as Freddie de Marigny) stood before the court accused of the
murder of his father-in-law Sir Harry Oakes. Because of the high social status of the murder victim, not to mention the circles which he moved in, this was to prove to be a massively publicized
case. Outside the courtroom were hundreds of interested parties, some friends, but the majority members of the press. Despite the fact the Second World War was still raging, this new story
dominated the headlines throughout the court case and beyond.

Freddie was originally from the island of Mauritius, but had moved to the island of Nassau during the 1930s. He was extremely tall, over 6 feet, and described as handsome and charming; with a
French accent he was an accomplished ladies’ man. He had made a profitable living on the island by running a highly successful chicken farm, also proving to be a prosperous property
investor.

He lived a rather jet-set lifestyle and spent the majority of his recreation time sailing; in fact, as an accomplished sailor he regularly took part in the Nassau Yacht Club sailing
competitions, which he regularly won. The now second-time divorcee spent many evenings at parties and social engagements and was never without a beautiful companion.

He was to meet Sir Harry Oakes’ eldest daughter at Nassau’s British Colonial Ball – Nancy was at that time only 17 years old. When she told her parents about Freddie they were
immediately against her seeing him, but she was not easily dissuaded and managed to meet him privately for over a year. When she was 18 the pair decided to elope to New York and were secretly wed.
When Nancy called her parents to break the news they were totally devastated – they considered that a man twice divorced, and with a reputation for being a womanizer, could not devote himself
to their beloved daughter. That said, they did try their best to accept him into the family, but their true feelings towards him were never far from the surface. Oakes was seen on several occasions
telling his son-in-law exactly what he thought of him, although his daughter had no complaints regarding her marriage and was so upset by her mother and father’s attitude towards Freddie that
she eventually gave up and stopped communicating with them, in the hope that they would one day accept him.

The accused had been assigned defence barrister Godfrey Higgs as the leader of his team, despite the fact that Marigny had previously asked the police to provide him with his own lawyer, the
much revered barrister, Sir Alfred Adderley; it would appear that the police did not fulfil this request.

The jury was chosen, as always at random, and were all men, many of them working-class Bahamians. Prior to the testimonies being given, the jury were escorted to the murder scene to view the
location, this being the home of Sir Harry Oakes in Westbourne, Nassau.

One of the first testimonies given to the jury was that from Sir Harold Christie, who had been born on the island of Nassau and had lived there all of his life. He was a self-made man, who had
worked hard selling property on the island, and was extremely successful. He asked his employers if rather than pay his commission in cash, they would pay him in plots of land instead. They agreed,
and as time passed Christie managed to amass quite a valuable portfolio of land. He used the profit from this land to buy larger, more sought-after properties and building plots.

He became extremely wealthy and as the island began to attract more rich and famous residents, Christie was usually the person who found properties and sold them. In this way he was profiting
both financially and personally by his work, for he became good friends with the most successful and wealthy residents on the island.

When Oakes arrived on the island it was Christie who was his real estate agent. In fact Oakes came close to buying almost half of all the properties on the island, and, having much in common,
the two men became good friends.

Christie explained to the court that as he and the victim were good friends it was common for them to spend time at one another’s home. On the last evening of his life, Oakes had invited
Christie and two guests to his home for dinner. These guests were Oakes’s neighbours, Mr Charles Hubbard and Mrs Dulcibelle; also joining the group for drinks until around 7 p.m. were
Christie’s niece and her friend. After enjoying an evening meal together the four friends played chequers until around 11 p.m., when Mr Hubbard and Mrs Dulcibelle made their way home. Shortly
afterwards, Christie told the court, he and Oakes chatted for a while before Oakes retired to his bedroom to finish reading the daily newspapers. At around 11.30 p.m. Christie bade him goodnight
and made his way to the guest room to also catch up on some reading before switching off the light and sleeping.