Charles Manson's cult killings fueled by 'perfect storm' as theories get new analysis: criminal profiler
The mystery of Charles Manson's motive in notorious cult killings is getting a fresh look as an FBI criminal profiler reveals a "perfect storm" of factors came together for the infamous murders.
Countless theories about how Manson managed to convince a group of young adults to kill for him have been dissected, but director Errol Morris is offering a new perspective into the mind of the notorious cult leader in his Netflix documentary "CHAOS: The Manson Murders."
Based on the 2019 book "CHAOS: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties," authored by Tom O'Neill and Dan Piepenbring, the documentary delves into the theory Manson may have been influenced by an external force when directing his followers.
"I've found myself trapped in a number of different true-crime stories, and the Manson murders are peculiar," Morris told Netflix's Tudum. "You could encapsulate the mystery in just one question: How is it that Manson managed to convince the people around him that killing was OK?"
Netflix and Morris did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
Morris explores the widely circulated theory suggesting Manson may have been operating under the influence of the CIA's controversial MK-ULTRA program, leaning into the cultural interest surrounding mind control, a widespread fascination throughout the 1950s and 1960s.
However, experts have expressed skepticism about the idea that Manson was acting under government control.
"[Manson] was influenced by what he wanted to do," former FBI profiler Mary Ellen O'Toole told Fox News Digital. "He was influenced by the fact that he wanted to become a very well-known musician at the time, which is why he made friends with the influential people that he did. But was there this outside force that compelled him to do that? I don't believe that there was. There was still his personality that was distinct to him [and] was not created by an outside force."
The CIA has also discredited the theory, first explored by O'Neill, in recent years.
"The author cannot definitively tie Manson to MK-ULTRA or CHAOS; he can only imply it on circumstantial evidence," the CIA said in a review of O'Neill's book.
O'Neill did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
In 1969, the Manson family carried out the brutal murders of seven people under his watchful eye. Pregnant actress Sharon Tate, Wojciech Frykowski, Jay Sebring, Steven Parent, Abigail Folger and Leno and Rosemary LaBianca were massacred by the family in a string of killings.
SIGN UP TO GET TRUE CRIME NEWSLETTER
The group carried out five of its murders inside Tate's home Aug. 9, 1969. One day later, the final victims of the Manson family, the LaBiancas, were fatally stabbed inside their home.
"[Manson] met up with a lot of his later-to-be followers in the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco, which, at that time in the '60s, was known for being a gathering place for people in very formative years," O'Toole told Fox News Digital.
"There was the use of drugs and alcohol, and people came together without a lot of external oversight by a parent or a caregiver, so they were very vulnerable at that point. [Then], here comes Charlie Manson, with his personality and his ability to get people — especially young people — to follow him, and that's what I'm talking about in regard to the perfect storm."
After the killings, Manson and his "family" moved to Spahn Ranch, located approximately 30 miles north of Los Angeles, where he subjected his followers to outlandish lectures while providing them with drugs and overseeing orgies.
Authorities arrested Manson three months later as details of the killings rattled Los Angeles and investigators delved into theories about the murders.
During the trial, prosecutors argued Manson was using his status with his all-white followers in an attempt to ignite a race war, citing his supposed misinterpretation of the Beatles' 1968 song, "Helter Skelter." Manson never actually carried out the murders himself, relying entirely on his followers to kill for him.
"[Manson] really was someone that knew right from wrong," O'Toole said. "He knew the repercussions and the end results of his actions. He took no responsibility for his actions or the actions of his group, and he was very deliberate in his thinking."
In 1971, Manson and three followers — Leslie Van Houten, Susan Atkins and Patricia Krenwinkel — were convicted for their roles in the murders and subsequently sentenced to death. A fourth "family" member, Charles "Tex" Watson, was convicted several months later.
The four defendants were resentenced to life in prison after a 1972 ruling from the California Supreme Court abolishing the state's death penalty.
Manson was 83 years old when he died of natural causes Nov. 19, 2017.
In 2023, Van Houten walked free after serving more than 50 years in a California prison for the killings of the LaBiancas, making her the only member of the Manson family to be released from prison.
While Manson never actually carried out the murders he was imprisoned for, Peacock's 2024 "Making Manson" documentary revealed he may have committed more killings himself.
In a teaser clip, Manson can be heard confessing to additional crimes while on a jailhouse phone call.
GET REAL-TIME UPDATES DIRECTLY ON THE TRUE CRIME HUB
"There's a whole part of my life that nobody knows about," Manson can be heard saying. "I lived in Mexico for a while. I went to Acapulco, stole some cars."
Manson goes on to reveal more details about the supposed murders.
"I just got involved in some stuff over my head, man," he added. "Got involved in a couple of killings. I left my .357 Magnum in Mexico City, and I left some dead people on the beach."
"I would never draw the line and say Charlie Manson could manipulate people to do his bidding, but he himself would never do it," O'Toole said. "I would never draw that line. You can't simply say that because Charlie hurting other people was part of his repertoire. So, whether he had somebody else do it or he did it himself is certainly something that has to be explored."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
I'm completely hooked on this new Netflix thriller that's so intense I can't turn it off
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Gripping new thriller series The Survivors only landed on Netflix last week, but it has already secured itself a place in the streaming site's top 5 - and I can see why! The six-part series is based on the bestseller by Jane Harper, and as a fan of Jane's books, I knew this was going to be a show to look out for. However, little did I know just how hooked I would be right from the word go. Set in the fictional seaside town of Evelyn Bay in Tasmania, The Survivors follows Kieran Elliot, whose life was changed forever 15 years ago when his brother and best friend drowned while trying to rescue him from a terrible storm. While the small town was rocked by the terrible tragedy, a young woman called Gabby also went missing on the same night. However, this is a mystery that no one in the local area seems to talk about. But why? In the present day, Bronte, a woman from out of town comes to investigate what happened to Gabby on the fateful day she vanished. But, it seems someone in the town isn't happy about her digging up old secrets, and soon tragedy hits Evelyn Bay once again when Bronte also turns up dead. But who has killed her and what did she unearth that got her murdered? Amazingly, all this happens in the very first episode of the series, meaning the season kicks off with a bang, and it doesn't let up from there. Each episode is packed with twists and turns that even the most dedicated crime thriller fan won't see coming, and I can promise you this show will quickly become your next box set to binge-watch - but unlike so many others, you'll be watching this one through your fingers! All six episodes of The Survivors are available to stream worldwide on Netflix now.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
What parents should consider before sharing photos of their children online
While Meghan Markle and Prince Harry have previously shared official portraits of their two children, Archie and Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor, they have chosen to keep both out of the spotlight since their departure from royal duties and move to California in 2020. But, coinciding with the release of her Netflix show, With Love, Meghan, earlier this year, the Duchess of Sussex returned to social media – offering fans a snapshot of her family's new life in the Golden State. The first tidbit Meghan shared was part of a tribute to her late dog Guy, where both Archie and Lili could be seen playing with the pup, and audio of them talking could be heard alongside the backing track. Then, we later saw snippets of the children in a Reel of Meghan making biscuits with friends. She also previously shared a video on Instagram Stories, showing her and Lili wearing matching beekeeping outfits as they approached a beehive. Today, celebrating her daughter's fourth birthday, Meghan posted two black-and-white images of them both – one taken recently, the other of when she had just given birth. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (@meghan) In all of these pictures, though, she has chosen to keep her children's faces out of shot or obscured to protect their identities. Of course, Meghan and Harry have both expressed their desire for privacy over the years, instead choosing what, when and how they share information with the public (for the most part). But, they're not the only parents who choose to shield their kids' faces when sharing photos and videos online. This is becoming a particularly pertinent trend among parents since various updates to data-sharing policies and Meta's announcement that it would be using certain user images and content to help train artificial intelligence (AI) models. Even so, "sharenting" – the movement of parents sharing content of their kids online – has long been a hot topic of debate. Some argue that social media allows them to connect with other parents and similar communities, as well as give updates to family and friends. But others brandish the exercise as irresponsible and exploitative – and that's before we even get to kids having access to their own social media accounts and how to navigate that. So, here's what you need to know. First things first, it's important to understand what tech companies can do with images and information. Dr Jason Nurse, a reader of cyber security at the University of Kent, tells Yahoo UK that, depending on the social media platform, there is a risk that images can be shared and used in different ways. He explains: "Companies don't usually 'own' the pictures uploaded to them. Rather, by uploading photos, we are typically agreeing to grant the platform a licence to use our content. This could include obvious actions, such as displaying content on one's profile page, but it may also allow them to use a person's content for other purposes. "This doesn't necessarily mean that photos will appear in other places online (e.g. in advertisements), but it is wise to always read the terms of service before using social media sites," he adds. Developer OpenAI, for example, has previously confirmed that it uses copyrighted material and data from the internet in order to train its chatbot, ChatGPT. Snapchat has also said that by using its AI-generated selfie feature, users' images may be used in ads and sponsored content. Dr Nurse says that while some platforms may have different rules, generally speaking, private settings are more of a safeguard when it comes to protecting your content, particularly if you're worried about sharing pictures of your children. "For some, private accounts primarily control which other individuals on (or off) the platform can view posts or photos. This therefore may not naturally translate to greater restrictions on social media platforms," he explains. "For others, setting photos or posts to private may afford users a higher level of privacy even in terms of their use by the platform itself; this has been discussed especially around private posts, with some platforms like X confirming that such posts are not used to train AI." Additional online safety threats, according to Dr Nurse, include photo misuse and exploitation and privacy violation. "Sharing photos of children exposes them to this long before they are even able to curate their own digital presence," he adds. "Shielding their faces, as Meghan has done, can be a good way to protect their identities, as our faces are our most distinguishing features." Jenny Warwick, a BACP-accredited counsellor who specialises in providing support for parents and carers of adolescents and teenagers, stresses: "Once images are online and 'out there' – they are 'out there'. They become widely accessible and can be downloaded, altered, shared and circulated without your consent. Even the most innocent photos can be exploited and misused by people whose intention is not innocent. It's a horrible thought, but unfortunately, it's a reality that highlights the potential for harm." She adds: "Additionally, due to the long-lasting and often permanent imprint of digital footprints, your children are inheriting an online presence that they have not or could not have chosen, which can impact their futures. It also opens up the risk of identity theft as personal information, such as full names, locations, or school uniforms, for example, can be used fraudulently." While Warwick understands the motivation behind posting can range from pride and love to a desire to feel less lonely, she says it's important to assess what can happen beyond the immediate post. She says: "Sharing our children's milestones helps boost a sense of connection and community, so we feel supported and less alone. We want to keep memories of our kids' childhood, and social media platforms make it easy to create a digital scrapbook or diary. Plus, likes, comments and engagement can give a sense of validation and social approval, which feels rewarding. "But when sharing about your child online, consider their future feelings by asking yourself if you would want this information or content shared about you. Avoid posting personal details like full names, school names, locations or dates of birth." "Ask yourself if the content could be misinterpreted or misused, particularly in the case of photos taken at bath time, the beach or during emotionally vulnerable moments," Warwick continues. "While sharing humorous or cute content might feel fun, ask yourself if this is respecting your child's dignity. Is this something they might feel embarrassed or ashamed of if they were aware of it? Ask your child how they feel about a photo being shared. Even very young children can express their consent or dissent." Warwick warns that, while sharing pictures can build a sense of family connection and pride if done mindfully, children may also feel pressure to "perform" for the camera rather than just being themselves. "They may feel embarrassed or ashamed – particularly if their private or vulnerable moments are made public," she says. "If they're feeling overly scrutinised or 'known' online, this can impact their mental health, and they may develop anxiety or challenges with their identity." She adds: "If your children discover that things were shared without their knowledge, they might feel betrayed, undermining their trust in caregivers to prioritise their well-being. Plus, when their boundaries and consent aren't considered, they will struggle with boundaries and distinguishing between public and private in their own lives." Finally, Dr Nurse advises: "I would always suggest parents consider the implications of sharing such photos, and weigh them up against the risks. If sharing is deemed appropriate, it's really important for parents to limit what's included in the photos of children and who can access them. "Ideally, I suggest always limiting viewing to a small circle of family members or friends, and asking them never to re-share photos without your consent." Read more about parenting: How a social media curfew could impact your children (Yahoo Life UK, 7-min read) 5 ways to support your child's talent as Beyoncé's daughter Blue Ivy returns to the stage (Yahoo Life UK, 7-min read) Why sleepovers have become a new nightmare for parents (Yahoo Life UK, 12-min read)
4 hours ago
In 'Youth Group' comic, evangelical kids sing silly songs about Jesus, fight demons
(RNS) — When he was a teenager in the 1990s, Jordan Morris was always up for a bit of mischief — as long as it didn't involve sex or drugs, two things he was sure would kill him. So he went to a megachurch youth group, which promised teenage shenanigans without much danger. The 'sanitized mischief,' as he describes it, was perfect for Morris, who grew up as a nerdy, nervous kid. 'Youth group was great for me,' Morris said. 'We can put on a show, we can sing little songs, we can do little skits. We can toilet paper the pastor's house and clean it up later. And I just don't have to worry that someone is going to try and pressure me into something that I'm scared of.' Now a Los Angeles-based comedy writer and podcaster, Morris has fond memories of his time in youth group. Those memories — and his love for horror movies like 'The Exorcist' — inspired him to write 'Youth Group,' a graphic novel about church teens who fight demons while singing silly songs about Jesus. ___ ___ Think 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' — the 1990s hit movie and later television series — goes to church. 'I thought it would be a fun challenge,' Morris, whose previous graphic novel, 'Bubble,' was nominated for an Eisner Award, told Religion News Service in an interview earlier this year. 'Can we do one of those religious horror stories, but make it kind of funny?' Morris also said he'd rarely seen stories set in the kind of youth group he'd grown up in. 'I've just never seen that little world written about in a way that I thought was like, accurate or, like, that got what it was about,' he said. Published last year by New York-based First Second Books, 'Youth Group' tells the story of Kay Radford, a theater kid who winds up joining the Stone Mission megachurch youth group after her parents split up. Her mom is a true believer but lonely. Kay is more skeptical but lonely as well and angry at her dad. 'Church might help with all this,' Kay's mom tells her early on. 'I think we both could use some community.' At the youth group, Kay is met by youth leader Meg Parks, a kind but sometimes over-the-top youth leader in pink; a bearded, hippy pastor who turns the 'Pina Colada song' — the Rupert Holmes hit 'Escape' — into a metaphor for spiritual seeking; and a band that churns out parodies like 'I Saw the Christ' sung to the melody of Ace of Base's 'The Sign.' Though fictional, the songs fit the kind of pop culture reference — sometimes known as a 'Jesus juke' — that youth groups can be known for. 'I always think there's something funny about that move, where you take a secular piece of entertainment, like a song that's in the zeitgeist, or a popular movie and try and give the hidden religious message,' Morris said. Kay eventually discovers the youth pastor and some of the older Stone Mission kids also fight demons. That fight becomes personal after one of the demons goes after her dad, and Kay decides to join the battle. Along the way, the Stone Mission kids team up with youth groups from other faiths — Temple Beth Israel, Immaculate Heart parish and the Polaris Coven — to fight off a demon invasion with the help of some training by an order of nuns. Morris said he and illustrator Bowen McCurdy wanted to tell a story that was more than just satire. And while he no longer embraces the faith of his youth, Morris still sees value in the lessons he learned, like the importance of loving your neighbor. 'We wanted to tell a story of people from a lot of different religions coming together with a common goal,' he said. Matthew Cressler, a religion scholar and creator of the webcomic series 'Bad Catholics, Good Trouble,' said comics with evangelical or denominational settings like 'Youth Group' are uncommon. Religion in comics, he said, is often seen as 'a marker of difference': for example, Kamala Khan, the Muslim-American hero known as Ms. Marvel, or Matt Murdock, better known as Daredevil, who is Irish-Catholic. In the 1960s, when Daredevil was created, Catholics were still seen as outsiders to the American mainstream, and many of the most popular heroes, like Batman, were seen as Mainline Protestants. While there were comics for evangelicals, they were often evangelistic, like the controversial Jack Chick tracts or the Christianized adventures of Archie and his friends, published by Spire Comics starting in the 1970s. And evangelicals have often downplayed the kind of sacramental imagery and architecture found in mainline or Catholic settings and try to avoid the kind of visuals needed for comics, said Cressler. Matthew Brake, founder and editor of online publication Pop Culture and Theology, said non-denominational churches often have a 'let's go to the mall aesthetic' and lack the visual clout of Catholicism. 'Nondenominational churches are sort of a cultural underdog,' he said. That may change, Brake said, as creators like Morris, who grew up in non-denominational settings, come of age. And those settings often contain surprises. Although they are most known for things like worship music and purity culture, megachurches also provide space to talk about things like social justice. Still, he wonders if many nondenominational Christians would be the kinds of fans that would enjoy a book like 'Youth Group' or 'Preacher,' a late-1990s comic about an evangelical pastor who ends up possessed by a supernatural being. David Canham, who reviews comics for the secular pop-culture website AIPT — short for 'Adventures in Poor Taste' — had mixed feelings about 'Youth Group.' 'First off, there's plenty of '90s nostalgia — a good-natured tongue-in-cheek look back at many of the silly and absurd things about '90s culture, with a focus on evangelical Christian culture,' he wrote when the book came out. ''Youth Group' delivers on this point.' But the book's take on pluralism — the idea that all religion is on the same side — turned him off as an evangelical Christian. 'I don't want to recommend a book that promotes a worldview that so strongly disagrees with my own beliefs,' he wrote. At first, Morris said he was worried the book might offend Christians and atheists alike. Some evangelicals might feel the book mocks their faith, while atheists might think the book overlooks the shortcomings of religious groups. Both those criticisms would be fair, he said. Religious groups get a lot of things wrong, and yet churches and other faith groups remain important to their members. Morris said he tried to walk a fine line of gently poking fun at faith while showing why it still has an impact on people's lives, and how the friendships made in youth groups may long endure. 'I didn't want the humor to be like, church is stupid, or say, 'look at this dumb church stuff,'' he said. 'I wanted it to be funny and familiar.' Morris said he wanted to capture the mixed feelings people have about the faiths in which they grew up. While he appreciated Bible teachings like caring for the needy, some of the politics and social messages, especially about LGBTQ+ folks, were a turnoff, he said. Religion, he said, is complicated. 'There are a lot of wonderful memories, and there's a lot of stuff that gives me the ick,' he said. 'I hope that's in the book. I hope you can see how a religious upbringing can be upsetting and wonderful — comforting but also makes you mad.'
