Canadian Marlin Marynick, a Regina man who says he has spent fifteen years working as a psychiatric nurse, decided he would contact murderer and cult leader Charles Manson to determine if there was any “truth in his madness”.
Through an online Manson memorabilia site (hard to believe that anyone would purchase items connected with Manson), he began a telephone relationship with Manson which evolved into visits to Manson at Corcoran State Prison in California in 2009.
Apparently, Marynick and Manson have continued their friendship and recently Marynick released his book called “Charles Manson Now”.
I, for one, do not plan on reading it, but Marynick has provided some of his insights into Manson based on his discussions with him.
Marynick became intrigued with Charles Manson after reading Vincent Bugliosi’s book “Helter Skelter” at the age of ten. Marynick points out that he comes from a similar background as Manson with family suicide and drug issues and can relate to him.
Marynick has concluded that the seven cold-blooded Tate/LaBianca murders had nothing to do with Manson’s “mind control” over his girls, but were the result of a drug deal gone bad and a home invasion. He also says that Manson has never seen a dead body, has never murdered anyone and he is not sure that Manson even knew about the Tate/LaBianca murders.
Mr. Marynick must believe Manson’s hogwash because he notes that he was “humbled” by his first prison visit with Manson because Manson had no motive to visit with Marynick and had to walk two blocks by himself from the cells to the visitor’s area to meet Marynick.
Marynick’s empathy knows no bounds as he coddles Manson, concluding “this guy has endured a lot of hell. I can’t even imagine what he has been through.”
I wonder if Mr. Marynick ever thinks about pregnant Sharon Tate or Leno and Rosemary LaBianca and the horrific circumstances of their deaths. Has he forgotten about Manson’s shooting of Bernard Crowe? What about the boy Manson sodomized as he held a razor blade to his throat?
We need to cry for the victims, not the villain.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Lawdiva's Blog 
I have seen the rot that murders such as Manson leave in their wake. Mr. Manson requires nor deserves sympathy or respect. The man is a convicted murderer, a monster who was unfortunate enough to get caught. Mr. Marynick on the other hand, deserves sympathy since he, like the kids that Manson inveigled into his warped world has been falsely charmed into believing that Manson is a straight-up guy. I am not surprised to see that both these men share a similar family background.
Do you know Manson? Were you there? Did you hear Manson order anything? NOBODY could say they heard Manson order any killings but Tex, the junkie baby killer himself & that makes it true? Manson was wrongfully convicted! P.E.R.I.O.D! Now I’m not saying Manson is a saint & shouldn’t have been punished for role in these crimes because he did know after the fact & tried to help hide evidence but he never should have been convicted of first degree murder. Manson has served 42 years of his life for a crime that carried a 17 year maximum sentence.
He has been demonized and stripped of his god given right to a fair trial on the words of people who were at the scene of the crimes, victims blood on their hands and every reason in the world to lie.
When Mr. Bugliosi couldn’t convince any of the perpetrators to turn states evidence he started to make offers of immunity, money, relocation, new identity and even the offer of gaining their children back, which were all extremely great reasons to lie.
There’s a reason Manson has been ‘demonized’, in fact, there are quite a few reasons. He would probably be hugely disappointed if that were not the case. Next to murderous, celebrity-seeking scum, on the list of nausea-provoking people, are the apologists for murderous celebrity-seeking scum. People who enjoy deluding themselves in the process of trying to convince the rest of us, that there is always an excuse for heinous acts committed by evil people; that the deeds were somehow not as bad as they seem, were committed by someone else or that they were not perpetrated at all! If these people are lucky, they may never encounter a Charles Manson and if they had any sense of decency they would withhold their absurd and insulting comments, which display a significant lack of sympathy for the victims of terrible crimes whilst evidencing an apparent idolatry of the perpetrators.
Hey Alan, Are you always this late? 4 months late too boot!! You speak as if you know Manson but I take it inside your head you do know what you’re talking about. You know everything about anything huh Alan? Well I beg to differ because I do know what Manson feels! I hear it almost every night when he calls my home so again, I KNOW WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT & you my friend know only what you hear or read…. Manson hates this stigma cast upon him by the likes of idiots such as yourself…. keep reading Helter Skelter & believing in the lies written by the puppet masters calling themselves “The Media”……& for the record, I do feel terrible for the victims & their families but you can not place blame on someone WHO WASN’T AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME!! What proof is there that Manson ordered these killings Mr. Know it all? Read transcripts not newspapers for facts Alan……. and by the way, I know Debra Tate & even she doesn’t blame Manson anymore & sees through Bugliosi’s Helter Skelter theory…. Bugliosi only wanted to sell a book otherwise he wouldn’t have planted a ghost writer in the courtroom from day one of the trial…. If you want to call stripping a man of his right to defend himself a fair trial…. but you wouldn’t know anything about that because those are facts & you know jack Shi8 about facts! I’ll give you something to marinate inside that brain of yours…. 1. Manson wasn’t allowed to address the jury, call any witnesses or defend himself.
2. The president of the US, Nixon, went before the world & declared Manson guilty before being found guilty & the jury knew of this but the Trial was allowed to go on. 3. A juror stole one of the Tate murder scene photographs & sold it to a European tabloid & was caught but not prosecuted & the photo was published but the trail went on… I could go on for days but these three reasons alone should have been just cause for a mistrial but wasn’t. If any of this happened today Manson wouldn’t have spent one single day in prison….. Again, learn the facts of the case not what the media tells you and I’ll guarantee your attitude will change……..
Tex Watson killed Steven Parent, Voytek Frykowski, Jay Sebring, and Leno Labianca. Tex Watson assisted in killing, and probably did kill, Abigail Folger, Sharon Tate, and Rosemary Labianca. Susan Atkins assisted in killing, but probably did not kill, Sharon Tate. Patricia Krenwinkel assisted in killing, but probably did not kill, Abigail Folger. Leslie Van Houten assisted in killing, but probably did not kill, Rosemary Labianca. The motive: Home invasion robberies (attempted), a plan that was hatched by Susan Atkins, and it was she who recruited the others. Why? Possibly to obtain bail money for jailed “family members.” Although the killers took credit cards, they did not get what they were really after, a substantial amount of cash, because the victims attempted to flee or fight back. As a result of these two botched attempts, the killers became discouraged and stopped.
Now, see the name “Charles Manson” anywhere in the above paragraph?
I don’t, but he is serving a life term for his involvement in the deaths in the Tate-La Bianca cases. How do you explain that?
I can explain it using one word….. SCAPEGOAT!
Charles Manson killed those people, or did his “followers” that he had such influence kill those people? Well which one was it? Because by law to be guilty of first degree murder you have to have two elements, mental intent, and physical action. Not just one. You can’t be guilty of first degree murder if you only act on what someone else intends for you to do, or what drugs cause you to do if it can be proven drugs or being under the influence caused you to do. Do you people get that?! Charlie Manson would have had to have taken part in the actual stabbings in order to have been guilty legally of first degree murders. By all rights either he shouldn’t still be in prison, or his followers should not be there. Somehow Vinny boy got his cake and ate it too.
I wish there was a law back then and now that said people who can’t think for themselves can’t own a television set or subscribe to any newspapers!
Deadtrees:
Your ignorance of the law is stunning. Your misinterpretation of what constitutes liability to a murder conviction in the Manson case would be humourous if it were not so pathetic. You have somehow managed to muddle the legal concepts of “mens rea” and “actus reus” to arrive at the bizarre conclusion that Manson could not possibly be liabile to criminal conviction unless he had been at the scene.
Scenario: I, by telephone, contact an associate in England and arrange for a murder to be committed in Spain, accompanied of course with appropriate payments and other logistical information. A third person commits the murder. I am guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Murder in Canada, England and Spain. I am also guilty of the murder in Spain. That is the law.
Now turn off the computer, get out out of Mom’s basement, go to law school, and you’ll be a better person for it.
“accompanied of course with appropriate payments and other logistical information.” Thats the key here..There was no payment and no monetary gain..At least in the courts eyes.Hence the Helter Skelter theory.
Oh, and John Michael Jones…I won’t address your “theories” because you are clearly certifiable…
Our knowledge of Manson’s persona has been deliberately fabricated by many authority figures, television programs, journalists, and maybe even our own friends and family – who in casual conversation and jokes perpetuate their own misunderstandings and fears. This is one among many messages Charles Manson alludes to throughout interviews & conversations with him: our minds are entirely conditioned by our environment, to the extent that we believe things to be true merely because they are all-pervasive. And this removes us from reality.
Do you think it is merely a coincidence that the government frames Mannson’s guilt as being directly correlated with hallucinogens, rock and roll music (specifically the Beatles), and living as a hippie with communal and familial values? And all at the height of the Nixon Administration? These are all antithetical to the corporate, violent, and materialist system that attempts to control all of us.
Of all the multitudinous violations of Charles Manson’s rights which have occurred since his arrest in 1969 none is so substantial as the denial of his constitutional (Sixth Amendment) right to defend himself at his trials.
From the very beginning Manson has always voiced his desire to represent himself. On December 17, 1969 Manson made a formal request to do so in the courtroom of Judge William Keene. “Your Honor,” Manson said, “There is no way I can give up my voice in this matter. If I can’t speak, then our whole thing is done. If I can’t speak in my own defense and converse freely in this courtroom, then it ties my hands behind my back, and if I have no voice, then there is no sense in having a defense. Lawyers play with people, and I am a person and I don’t want to be played with in this matter. The news media has already executed and buried me…. If anyone is hypnotized, the people are being hypnotized by the lies being told them…. There is no attorney in the world who can represent me as a person. I have to do it myself.”
Manson was examined by Joseph Ball, a former president of the California State Bar Association. Ball’s assessment of Manson, presented in court on Christmas eve 1969, was that he was “an able, intelligent young man, quiet-spoken and mild-mannered. We went over different problems of law, and I found he had a ready understanding…. Remarkable understanding. As a matter of fact, he has a very fine brain. I complimented him on the fact. I think I told you that he had a high I.Q. Must have, to be able to converse as he did. And he feels that if he goes to trial and he is able to permit jurors and the Court to hear him and see him, they will realize he is not the kind of man who would perpetrate horrible crimes.”
Judge Keene relented. “It is, in this Court’s opinion, a sad and tragic mistake you are making by taking this course of action, but I can’t talk you out of it…. Mr. Manson, you are your own lawyer.”
This situation existed until March 6, 1970. At that time Judge Keene, upset over some supposedly “outlandish” and “nonsensical” motions filed by Manson, vacated his status as his own attorney. Why the “outlandish and nonsensical” motions were not simply overruled was not explained. Whatever the real reason, Keene’s action violated Manson’s constitutional right to defend himself. Any defense presented after that ruling (and in fact there was none) was invalid, and in direct opposition to the Sixth Amendment right to self representation.
This issue was brought up in Manson’s Appeal. In that appeal the California Justices denied Manson’s request for a new trial claiming that a federal ruling which affirmed the Sixth Amendment right did not apply to Manson because the decision came after his trial and “was not to be given retroactive application”. This interpretation of the law was later overruled in Bittaker v. Enomoto, wherein a United States Federal Appeals Court ruled “Although California defendant’s trial occurred prior to United States Supreme Court’s Faretta decision confirming to state defendants the constitutional right to self-representation, denial of the California defendant’s right of self-representation was a federal constitutional defect requiring setting aside of his conviction”. Manson is mentioned specifically in footnote # 2 of this decision.
The right to self-representation is as fundamental and undeniable as any other right. It is every citizen’s constitutional right. That is why Colin Ferguson, the seemingly deranged Long Island Railroad gunman, was allowed to defend himself at his trial. It doesn’t matter if the defendant’s defense may be unconventional. Self-representation is his constitutional right.
The denial of Charles Manson’s right to represent himself during his trials is a fatal flaw in the legitimacy of those trials. Manson’s convictions, and his present incarceration, are illegal.
Over the years Manson has filed several habeas corpus petitions with the Los Angeles County Superior Court protesting his imprisonment based on the claim that he was denied the right to defend himself. All of these petitions have been dismissed at the Superior Court level with no explanation other than that the petitioner (Manson) had failed to establish that the claims made in the petitions warranted the granting of the writ. This is a standard rubber-stamp denial. None of the legal arguments advanced in any of these writs has ever been addressed. This is to be expected. The California Court System knows what it has done to Charles Manson and is afraid of the consequences it faces if Manson is given his rights. Manson will never get any relief on this question from the California court system. Only if he appeals a new writ through the California legal system to the Federal level will he ever get a fair hearing. Then he would get a new trial. No convicted person in the United States is more entitled to a new trial than Charles Manson.
Manson was never allowed to call one single witness nor was he allowed to speak before the jury because Bugliosi convinced the judge that Manson had the power to brainwash so to allow him to address the jury would be too much of a risk, that he may influence the jury. WELL ISN’T THAT THE PURPOSE & GOAL OF ADDRESSING A JURY?