Sunday, May 6, 2012

MattP has informed me, that AC Fisher Aldag
will be featured on Starcity Radio tonight at 8pm EST

From the Starcity Site:
Ever wonder how anyone could be a proud supporter and friend of Charlie
Manson ?

Tonight, we may get a little insight and a Charles Manson update as our
guest is A.C. Fisher Aldag, friend and supporter of Charles Manson and

A.C. is no stranger to the TLB blogosphere as she has and continues to
contribute to numerous TLB blogs and websites.

Agree or disagree but no one argues or brings it from the other side better
than A.C. Fisher Aldag.

"I support Charles Manson because I believe that he is not guilty of first
degree murder, and that he's served adequate time for being an accessory
after the fact." - A.C. Fisher Aldag, 4/28/2012


LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Thanks for the heads-up Matt.
I'll try to catch the show.

It should be a real hoot, to hear AC's voice after all these years. LOL

I've never agreed with more than half of what AC says... but she's so damn polite and friendly, you can't help but like her...

Dilligaf said...

I agree with you, LS.

I do not agree with much that AC says, especially in regards to how the law works, what a Conpiracy conviction means and how it works in California. However, that being said, I have always found her to be respectful to others, and perhaps loyal to a fault. Her comments are always a welcome read.

Anonymous said...

Go get em AC....

I couldn't agree more with this sentiment...

You have both have it right by me

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I just listened to the radio show...

AC was well-spoken, articulate and polite as usual.
She's a good egg.

As one would expect... "content-wise"... her thoughts and opinions mirrored her blog posts.
In that regard, nothing new was revealed... but it was an enjoyable show none-the-less... and it was cool to finally put a voice with a face (sorta speak).

Main Topics:
She discussed her visit to the prison a couple years back... how she became involved with ATWA and Manson originally... Manson's health... the DiStefano legal stuff... and the infamous "parking ticket" which no one has ever seen.

starship said...

I hope Matt puts it up soon. Right now I am listening to the April 22nd show...

leary7 said...

AC is a trip, and a delightful one at that. But it does boggle the mind how one can exercise so much selective perception as to arrive at the conclusion that Charlie was just a sort of innocent bystander in the TLB tragedy.
All one has to do is look at the girls (all the girls) behavior during the trial to see the complete control Manson had. Hell, at the end of the trial when Charlie finally realized his goose was cooked he convinced Pat, Leslie and Sadie to throw themselves into the gas chamber in one last attempt to get himself spared.
Given the obvious fanaticism that most of the girls had in serving Manson, you really have to wonder how AC can get her head to a place where Charlies was an innocent dupe of sorts. More power to her I suppose. It's a trip when anyone believes in a minority view as strongly as AC clearly does.

Anonymous said...

See my post on the Col's blog...

its parenting in my opinion

" when you plant corn- you get corn"

It isn't an insult to AC- she has a pure and sweet nature to her...

when your coming of age- your ideals and values are shaped by those around you- and if nobody is there telling you right from wrong, and explaining to you how life really works- and giving you the hindsight of age and experience...

you get people with screwed up ideas, and false heroes...

It is the reason I have always given much room to Snake Lake and Ruthanne- they were the two who really were too young to make up their own minds... and I cannot blame them for looking up to the only older influences they had in their lives at that time...

Dean hardly turned into a role model, and Diane's parents just weren't around period...

Charlies was a victim of this himself in many ways...

leary7 said...

I don't know Saint. Ruth Ann is a challenge for me. Her statement to DeCarlo out at Barker that "she couldn't wait to off her first pig" is a key for me in showing how the "kill piggies" mentality had permeated a significant portion of the Family.
And who knows what the intent was with Hoyt. We all know folk who have done extreme things when on allot of acid. It was a pretty cold blooded thing to do to someone who was supposedly a friend.
Yeah, I agree, her age and lack of parental guidance are mitigating factors. But she was old enough to exercise free will - and not wanting to 'off pigs' or fry the brain of a friend is pretty basic human decency.
Sure would be nice to hear her thoughts today, wouldnt it!

leary7 said...

I wonder if Ruth Ann lives in fear of Hoyt knocking on her door someday demanding an apology. Now that would be an encounter worth filming.

Anonymous said...

Star is a great example however- and that is probably why so many arguments start over Star...

you cant make a person understand who doesn't come from a strong solid family..

that sometimes it is o.k. to force a young teenager to follow some rules, and do whatever is necessary to prevent a young naive girl go live in the woods with a man three times her age, and dedicate life to a man who will never leave prison...

They cant understand why you would force someone to do something- because nobody ever took the initiative to force discipline on them, and therefore they cant see the benefits...

how many friends I grew up with who hated there parents and couldn't wait to get to college to get away from home... Be on their own, and live there own life...

and how grateful they are today, and how much they give back to these parents and how much love they learned and have for them ...

It makes me sad - not so much that everyone doesn't get this- but that some cant even- or wont even try to understand it...

I am not saying star isn't a smart and competent young women...

I am saying she never had a chance to reach her potential- because nobody nurtured or listened or cared...

until one day someone finally did...

Anonymous said...

When you put a 15 or 16 year old girl in those circumstances with those people...

she is going to play tough

after all - she had the likes of Sadie to contend with...

imagine having to try and live up to older girls like that???

Her father was Charlies biggest cheerleader until he went to the clink... he did acid with them and chased girls not much older than his daughter..

she had no chance in my opinion :)

Anonymous said...

But maybe I am wrong...

I didn't say I give Ruth and Snake a PASS...

just more room than the others

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Youse guys wanna play a fun drinking game?

Slam a shot of whiskey for every time I say, "Uuuuhhh" in that interview.


A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

How I arrived at these conclusions?

I tossed out the media version and read trial transcripts, listened to people who weren't being offered "deals" by the prosecution, and looked for the holes.

For example, Mr. Bugliosi says there was a traffic ticket issued to Manson, dated Aug. 7th, 1969... so where the heck is it?

When a key piece of material evidence disappears, my conclusion is "evidence tampering".

Youse guys seem naive to ME, because you're so ready to accept the word of the authorities and the media. Both have lied to me, I've caught both in lies, I've sued both for perpetrating these lies, and I've won.

Before going on the air, I studied the cases of over 40 people who were innocent of crimes, or only guilty of lesser crimes than they were convicted of... and were later released after serving YEARS for crimes they didn't commit.

Google "The Innocence Project" and "False Confessions".

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Star comes from a strong, average, middle-class middle-American family, ST.

Anonymous said...


I am totally with you that the media blows things up to suit its own purposes, and I have said over and over that I agree with you totally in that Charlie is way overblown in terms of what he did and who is made out to be...

I totally agree with all of that

but it still just doesn't make any sense to chose him as a person to make a stand behind in any of these causes....

he broke plenty of laws, and he hurt and used many people.

even if they exaggerated his relevance and importance over the years ( they being the media and general public)- it still doesn't erase the fact that he just wasn't a very good or honorable;e guy...

if the environment and nature are your causes- it seems you could find plenty of people who live substantial lives and make a real difference in this world- witho0ut hurting anybody, or taking advantage of anyone....

You seem so really intelligent and very very nice. You must at least understand what I am trying to say...

anyway- congrats on your media event, and I am glad and not surprised to hear you made a good showing for yourself :)

Do not want to argue over Star or her family- which I know next to nothing about...

but I guess what constitutes normal family- middle class American depends on where you grew up and with who...

I swear that In my hometown near Princeton New Jersey- girls at the age she was when she starting talking to Charlie- were not allowed to have boys in there rooms when their parents aren't home....

let alone make the kind of decisions she was allowed to make... which despite what she or family might have thought at the time....

will ultimately end up causing her life long consequences...

Anonymous said...

You get the last word AC if you want it...

I am off for a few weeks to go back out west and check some of this stuff again in person :)

See you all soon

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Have a GREAT time Saint!

Take plenty of pictures!
Take a photo of that "Bad News Bears" pitchers mound for us! hahaha

I'd also like to see what the famous Haight-Ashbury looks like these days.

: )

TomG said...

A.C. is a good egg.

We all have opinions and views and beliefs and at the end of the day, we'll all float on okay.

My only rule in life is to be true to your own heart. And I think she has.

MrPoirot said...

charlie was present when Shorty was murdered. Charlie tied up the Labiancas so they could then be murdered. That's three murders Charlie was directly involved in.

That being said, I agree with AC that Charlie should be released. He does not have a life without parole sentence. If the laws of California are wrong then change them but until then those laws are what should be paramount. Charlie ain't got no life in prison sentence yet he is being forced to serve life in prison. It is obvious that the laws of California are being bent or broken rather than admit their laws are inadequate. But then California screws up everything anyhow so why wouldn't they get Charlie's sentencing wrong too?

TomG said...

Charlie Manson suffers from schizophrenia and dropping acid did not help that condition.

But if middle class white kids became rebellious and violent, that's on them. And California juries pretty much agree with that.

They were a crime family. They got in a tangle. They got caught. And they spent their lives in California Correctional Institutes.

Aside from that, they are folk just like me and you.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Poirot.

Let me start by saying:
I believe these folks should have received "life without the possibility of parole".
After all... they originally received the death penalty.

Be that as it may... and regardless of my personal opinion:

The powers that be (as you stated)... decided in their infinite wisdom, to commute all death sentences (at that time and place)... to life "with" the possibilty of parole.

I agree Poirot...
The law (and sentence) must be adhered to... whether I particularly agree with it, or not.

These folks should be legitimately considered for parole.
In fact... they must.
If not... the law and their sentence are not being properly observed.

I don't want to live in a society where our judicial system is not adhered to.

If a mistake is made... (and I believe there was... with this life "with" the possibilty of parole decision)... we simply have to live with it... until or unless the law is changed.
I agree with you Poirot.

Here's where we diverge:

Manson has had (I believe) 108 (or so) infractions while incarcerated.
He's done zero to upgrade himself.
He's attempted zero in the way of education.
He remains defiant.
He's never expressed remorse.
He doesn't attend his parole hearings.

Here's the thing Poirot:
One must demonstrate suitability for parole.
Manson quite simply, has not demonstrated suitability.

The parole board can easily justify a denial vote in Manson's case.
In fact... truth be told... it would be nearly impossible to justify an approval vote.
Based on what??

Your sentiment has some merit in regards to Bruce, Bobby, and Leslie.

To my knowledge...
Bruce, Bobby, and Leslie have had great behavior over 40+ years... expressed remorse (whether genuine or not)... and have done some productive things while incarcerated.
One could justify an approval vote, with a straight face.
In fact... continuing to deny these folks in coming years, may prove harder and harder to justify.

As for Manson... I'd have to disagree with you.

The bottom line:
Denying a man like Manson parole, is not contrary to his sentence or our judicial system, because Manson has demonstrated nothing in the way of suitability... remorse or personal effort.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...


I hasten to add...

I don't believe AC's premise for wanting Manson released hinges on parole... or his "suitability" thereof.

AC believes (and correct me if I'm wrong AC):

AC believes, that Manson is not guilty of the crimes he was originally convicted of... and hence, wrongfully sentenced.

She believes Manson was only guilty of being "an accessory after the fact".

"Wrongfully convicted", as it were...

This of course... is a totally different topic and angle... and beyond my energy level at this hour. LOL

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I'm by no means a legal expert... or even a legal non-expert (LOL)... but, suffice it to say... in regards to AC's assertion:

I believe Manson would have to realize a completely new trial, in order for his present conviction to be overturned... completely dissolved... and re-written.

That would be a longshot, to say the least.

Dilligaf said...

California Penal Code 182 (a)(1)(6)

If two or more persons conspire to commit any crime. They are punishable as follows: When they conspire to commit any other felony, they shall be punishable in the same manner and to the same extentas is provided for the punishment of that felony.

Since the felony was First Degree Murder, California Penal Codes 187, 188, 189,190, 190.1, Manson was not an accessory, he was a co-conspirator. Found guilty by a jury of his peers, his sentence was just and appropriate.

When looking at what the appropriate length is of a sentence, we must look at each crime individually. These were not just a "typical" homicide. With possibly the Shea murder being the exception, each murder involved a level of burglary, robbery, torture, and murder. Exactly how much time is a life worth? If you are convicted of seven homicides, that currently works out to a term of less than six years per life. Not much time for a life, is it.

When California overturned it's DP, and the U.S. Supreme Court soon followed, Life With was the harshest legal sentence available. Part of that sentence did include the "possibility" of parole, not the "guarantee" of. Each inmate, when appearing in front of a parole board, is given the opportunity to display why they should be able to rejoin society. While their behavior while incarcerated is reviewed, and is part of the consideration, the offense itself is the primary matter at hand, and as such, must be addressed accordingly. None of these inmates have yet been able to address any of the BPH members in such a manner as to relieve any concerns that parole would be the correct decision. The laws, as they exist in California, are being adhered to. If an inmate believes that there is legal justification to file suit against the State of California as a result of a BPH decision, they may do so.

leary7 said...

We ALL seem to agree that AC is a delightful gal, but it is kinda insulting of her to imply that all of our beliefs about Charlie and his guilt come from 'the authorities and the media'. I can't speak for anyone else but my view of Manson comes from the words and testimony of his friends and "family" as well as his own words. I have no trust or faith in the media or authorities whatsoever.
And please don't be silly, AC, and claim Charlie was 'just kidding' when he shouted at interviewers that he was "a gansta" and a truly evil man and so on. Or when he lamented that "maybe he should have killed five or six hundred so he might have been taken seriously".
Some of us might find Manson to be fascinating and even charming, but ignoring the irrefutable reality that he is also a schizo sociopath is just plain bonkers. No offense.
And using him as the face for an environmental cause may be the worse joke I have ever heard. Like using OJ to promote family values.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Thank You Dilligaf.

leary7 said...

And "accessory after the fact"???
Leslie, Pat and Sadie literally threw themselves into the gas chamber in a last ditch effort to save Manson (at his command) at the end of the trial - not to mention all their other suicidal antics during the trial done at his command.
Anyone who questions Manson's total and absolute control/influence over the hardcore Family members is really grasping at straws. If AC's revision that HS was Tex and Sadie's creation weren't so sad it would be funny. I am still working on the theory that it was Ella Jo masterminding the whole thing.
Kidding obviously.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Folks... as Dilligaf outlined:

Retribution is one of the main purposes of incarceration.

Some folks are under the false misconception, that once an inmate ("with" the possibility of parole) is no longer dangerous to society, they should (and must) be released.
That is not true.
There are other criteria considered... and retribution for one's crimes is a big factor.

Case in point:
Tex Watson (in my opinion) simply can't live old enough, to truly pay retribution for his crimes.
Regardless of any "suitability" Tex may demonstrate... or lack of "danger to society" Tex may demonstrate... he should remain in prison.
The magnitude of his crimes, are simply too great.

Bear in mind folks.
Manson was convicted for nine murders.
At just ten years a piece... that's still 90 years.

#3) Bottom line, as Dilligaf so handily illustrated:

The "possibility" of parole, is not a "guarantee" of parole.

One might entertain Poirot's argument, that some of these folks may have earned the luxury of parole.
It's a sympathy more applicable to some (as I stated), than others.
At the end of the day however, it's just that... a sympathy... as parole is not guaranteed to any of them.
It's a "possibility".

There's no gauarantee that any of these folks will ever be paroled... and it's not against the law (or their sentence) to keep them incarcerated.

MrPoirot said...

Norway has egg on it's face now because under it's laws they must release Brevik in 21 years but rather than admit they are naive and idealistic they will bend all their laws and keep Brevik under lock and key until he dies.

starship said...

More R words. Retribution.

Once upon a time it was Rehabilitation.

Now it's all about Revenge.

I find this sad.

Dilligaf said...


Try this one instead, Responsibility.

As it taking it for one's own actions.

Here is another, Revision.

As in rewriting the past to meet your beliefs.

Truly sad....

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Starship.

I have no problem with imprisonment, serving the purpose of restitution.
Prisons have always served the purpose of restitution, whether stated explicitly or not...

If restitution were not a primary goal... our dangerous persons could be placed directly into mental hospitals behind locked "safety doors"... and those facilities are still in existence, as well.

The problem begins witn the inevitable question:
When is enough, enough?
Or more accurately:
How much restitution is enough?

This is when the fun begins, because that is a completely subjective question.
As they say:
If you asked 100 people, you'd get 100 different answers.

Each crime is so very unique.
Words and concepts like severity... motive... and circumstance crop up.
"Callous disregard for human suffering".
How does one quantify that concept?

We start asking questions like:
How much is one life worth?
Would any ten people answer that question with the same answer?

Even more palatable concepts like "rehabilitation" and "remorse" are very subjective.
How does one demonstrate rehabilitation and remorse to everyone's satisfaction?
The problem can be spun (and permeates) from that side... and those "R" words, as well.
Those positive concepts can prove just as ambiguous.

Therein lies the problem(s).

This is why our parole system, is destined to function haphazardly at best.
Man's institutions are imperfect.

The entire concept of men "dolling out" justice on one another with 100% accuracy... is simply an imperfect science... if not laughable.
But we try... because we must.

Everyone (generally) agrees that murderers should be incarcerated.
The problem of course, begins on the other end of that journey.

The only consistent lesson I can take away from this never-ending debate, is this:

Don't commit acts which will place your freedom in the hands of others.
If you place your future in the hands of others, you are seriously screwed. LOL
You might strike gold like Clem.
On the other hand... you might not.

That's all I've got! LOL

Peace... Lynyrd

starship said...

Yes, Lynyrd, you make very cogent points. It is indeed a conundrum.

I believe our whole system of law is flawed because we allow so much emotion into it. Justice should be blind. So whatever laws we all agree on: you cannot take anyone's life intentionally. Period. Punishment for such is blah blah blah. For all...don't matter if it's a kid from el monte or a movie star from bel air. No Sharon's Law...

And it is complicated, I know. But practically speaking, Sandy and
(my metaphorically speaking neighbor), Squeaky, were probably the most bat shit crazy, and they haven't posed a problem and probably won't I bet.

So, yeah, I think the women would be good to go. And I think it's just stupid that Susan Atkins had to die in a state facility.

Dilligaf said...


If we are to take emotion out of the equation, as you claim exists, does that mean that the DP should not have been struck down and the killers executed? After all, it would have meant everyone was treated equally.

Squeaky & Sandy may have been crazy, but I do not believe that they were convicted of killing anyone, so the reference is moot in regards to the danger they pose, and the responsibility (there is that pesky word again) they bore.

Susan died exactly where she should have died, in prison.

starship said...

Should the death penalty ever have existed in the first place?

I think, Dilligaf, we believe different things, come from different points of view. That's fine, I can disagree with you and not hate you. If you want equal and the death penalty, then let's make the death penalty the punishment for, like, everything.

I don't think for one minute that society is better off because Atkins died in prison. So to keep her there means what to whom? She was going to die anyway. Pretty quickly. Perhaps it satisfies some sense of vengeance that some people may have, but it certainly didn't make anyone else any safer.

katie8753 said...

AC said this on another blog:

"Something I forgot to mention on the radio... parole hearings go on an admission of guilt and an expectation of remorse. Another reason Charles won't attend parole hearings is because he is not admitting responsibility for acquaintances murdering other acquaintances."

I think this is the biggest reason Manson won't get out. He has never been one to play by the rules. Sticks in his craw.

You'd think that if he REALLY wanted out, he'd say whatever they wanted him to say.

But he chooses to not express remorse and admit that he had a part in these murders. Which, of course, he did.

In doing so, he pretty much chooses to stay in prison.

Dilligaf said...

Starship, are you saying that everyone who commits a crime should be executed?

Keeping SA in prison means something to every person in California society who wants their convicted murderers incarcerated as called for. You say she was going to die quickly, but she actually lived a little over a year longer than her husband claimed she would live. She received adequate medical treatment that last year of her life while still serving her sentence. That does not sound like vengeance, but rather compassion while still accepting responsibility for the death of others. Sounds like a win-win to me.

As far as making society safer by keeping her inside, it would threaten society by creating a precedent granting a compassionate parole to someone convicted of such horrible crimes. The decision was actually larger than that affecting a convicted murderer.

beauders said...

if they let atkins out on a compassionate release then what would happen if manson got sick, should he be let out as well. atkins was more of a participant in the actual murders than manson.

grimtraveller said...

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

"For example, Mr. Bugliosi says there was a traffic ticket issued to Manson, dated Aug. 7th, 1969... so where the heck is it?

When a key piece of material evidence disappears, my conclusion is 'evidence tampering'"

The ticket was part of the prosecution evidence. It's relevance is that it was given at 6.15pm on Aug 7th and the registration of the van it was issued to is the same as the one Mary and Sandy were arrested in the following day. Where was the quibble about the ticket ?
More importantly, the defence had a copy. Bugliosi states he was hoping the defence wouldn't notice it.
In a number of her posts on Col Scott's blog, AC states that Charlie got a ticket in the early hours of August 9th and that this ticket "disappeared", the idea being that he wasn't around therefore couldn't have ordered or been involved in any killings. She also has stated a number of times adamantly that Manson was not at the LaBiancas or anywhere in the area. She states this fervently, intelligently, articulately and always with the underlying implication that anyone that believes otherwise is kind of a sucker, believing the Bugliosi/media hype/lies/spin {as we call it in the UK}.
Cute. It's a clever and subtle form of peer pressure.
I dig much of what I've seen of her writings and her manner even though there's much I disagree with.
But I can't take what she says seriously when physical evidence like that Aug 7th ticket exist. But there's more. Even if you want to discount everything Charlie told Nuel Emmons {and ironically, AC's opinions are often backed up by Emmons}, Manson told Vanity Fair in an interview that appeared in 2011 that he took the killers there. In George Stimson's "Goodbye Helter Skelter", Charlie not only admits to being in the area, driving the killers around and going to the LaBianca house, he even relays a conversation he had with Leno LaBianca.
Yet AC has adamantly stressed he wasn't even in the area. For me, that blows her credibility. Still think she's fantastic though.