Did Charles Manson have a legitimate case?

Charles Manson, the notorious and ruthless cult leader of the Manson family that orchestrated the killing of Hollywood star Sharon Tate and several others, the world’s famous boogeyman is dead. Many refer to this diabolical man as a serial killer, however, that was not the correct tag for a man such as this. That just does not accurately describe this man’s heinous and atrocious crimes. The Federal Bureau of Investigation describes a serial murder as being the act of one, or more, offender(s) killing more than two people in separate events, accompanied by an emotional cool off period between the killings. This cool off period is what largely defines serial killings according to the FBI’s Behavioral Unit and is what really defines a serial killer.

The Charles Manson misconceptions began decades ago and are still alive and kicking in today’s world. He was not a serial killer. However, the question is, if he wasn’t a serial killer, what was he? Before we answer this, we will have to contend that what the Manson family murders actually constituted were a killing spree. This notion is strengthened by the Bureau of Justice whereby they went on to define a killing spree as being killings at more than two locations without a break in time between those murders. The FBI states a killing spree as more than two murders committed without the period in between to cool off.

Using this information herein provided above we can see that the Manson family killings were more of a killing spree rather than a serial killing due to the fact of the lack of a cool off period in between the killings. The Manson family murders happened in a span of two consecutive nights with each night having a separate incident. Despite the fact that Charles Manson never actually murdered any of the seven victims himself, he was still convicted of 1st degree murder on all seven counts for the role he played in the murders. The fact that he ordered his followers to kill constituted what is known as a proxy murder or murder by proxy. This is meant that the murderer in this scenario was merely a proxy and was acting in the behest of another.

With all this in mind it’s hard to say that Charles Manson had any legitimate case whatsoever due to the fact that the family essentially killed on his behalf and upon his bidding. Removing him from the equation would mean that those killings would probably never have happened. They did because he willed them to. The court’s school of thought was right when they claimed that the Manson family was basically an extension of Charles Manson himself. Anything they did was basically like him doing it himself, murder was no exception. So when asked whether this ruthless, manipulative and deranged cult leader had any legitimate case before he died, it would be terribly hard to answer yes and even harder to prove and argue those yes answers. However, this is merely our view on the subject. What say you?