These people enjoyed killing. Things that the police had never seen before. Sharon tate begged her, please dont kid me. Average kids would be the killers. He would dose them with lsd. Are you sane . Sane . Charles manson stole lives. Grief like you cannot imagine. He stole innocence. He looks beautiful and happy. It draw as lot of people. And left the city living in fear. Gun stores sell out. Guard dogs are now selling for 5,000. Good. Happy. You may think you know the manson story, but not like this. Hes a very evil, sophisticated conman who knows exactly what he is doing. Ths exactly what he is doing. Ths its all in play, isnt it . Hello, and welcome to dateline. He was a Charismatic Excon who dreamed of being a Rock Star. Then he found a ragtag group of hippies in search of Direction And Purpose to follow him. In the end, their Toxic Union would result in a frenzy of brutality. How was Charles Manson able to security his influence for a murderous rampage . Shes Keith Morrison with m
it s an easy sell. it is certainly no profile in courage to push the latest conspiracy theory. why is it the mainstream press just don t come out and say it s bunk? why don t they just say it? i ll say it, it s bunk. i think we ve been trying to say that for years, and what is present to me is the further question, why, in spite of the numerous proofs, starting with the flawed warren commission, which arrived in the wrong way at the right result, and going on through books like gerald pozner s case closed, vincent buliosi s enormous thome. it s been proved again and again that the initial conclusion that lee harvey oswald killed the president because of his desires to, you know, his grandiose desires to make a mark on the world, impress castro, whatever was going through his warped mind, that he fired the shots
their paranoia. it s an easy sell. it is certainly no profile in courage to push the latest conspiracy theory. why is it the mainstream press just don t come out and say it s bunk? why don t they just say it? i ll say it, it s bunk. i think we ve been trying to say that for years, and what is present to me is the further question, why, in spite of the numerous proofs, starting with the flawed warren commission, which arrived in the wrong way at the right result, and going on through books like gerald pozner s case closed, vincent buliosi s enormous thome. it s been proved again and again that the initial conclusion that lee harvey oswald killed the president because of his desires to, you know, his grandiose desires to make a mark on the world, impress castro, whatever