Helter Skelter: An American Myth

It was a mish mash. Why repeat clips? Charles Manson's history has been recounted in other documentaries and I suspect many others skipped that episode. Boring!

The strength was the footage at the time of the murders. I know so much work was put into it but it needs more editing and less jumping around.

There is absolutely nothing new in the six part series that hasn't been rehashed ad nauseam. (I chose to give it 10 stars because the trove of TV footage, interviews, and previously unseen photos was enough to make it an intense viewing.)

Considering the glut of new information that came out in print during the 50th anniversary of the murders, I was disappointed that the series didn't probe some of the much more convincing theories.

We are left with the tired "Helter Skelter"-- a motive that has been laughed out of most investigative circles, and proven Bugliosi's "facts be damned" obsession with convicting Manson.

"Helter Skelter" will go into the history books as the accepted version of what happened in August of 1969. But for the small percentage of the population that refuse to take the media's word for it, it is not that simple. The more logical theories of drug burns and a very seedy Hollywood underbelly cannot compete with a real life boogeyman.

So Tex Watson, the man who did most of the damage, inflicted most of the stab wounds, and had a direct hand in seven murders will die in obscurity. And the victims will be remembered as wide eyed innocents, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary (Sebring and Frykowski were well known drug dealers. The Tate residence was Geound Zero for wild drug parties and pornographic films involving everyone from Mama Cass to Yuel Brenner). No one will know Jack Nickolson was among friends who removed damaging film reels in the living room loft while the bodies were still warm.

In the end, it's probably safer that we believe documentary series like "Helter Skelter". When we start peeling back the layers, the truth is far more terrifying than a 5' 2" failure and his group of degenerate hippies.

Had it not been for the Roman Polanski/celebrity slant for the mainstream media to exploit, Charles Manson and family would have been a much shorter version of 'just another '60s hippie cult' story.

Repeating detective statements and medical examiner findings just sensationalizes what happened all over again. As for Charles Manson, his parroting of the media to the media was just an attempt to keep his idea of himself alive.

Interviews weren't fresh and were subject to the editing of hindsight. Bury the bones and move on.

Very interesting but the pile of idiocies and assumptions coming out the mouth of author Jeff Guinn are unbearable, they're at best fantasies at worst projections and having listened to the actual interviews with Manson even just on YouTube without prejudices what I can see that the person he's talking about isn't Charles Manson, so his interventions bring nothing useful to the show.

The series would be really interesting otherwise, nothing new, but at least more neutral than the usual documentary on the same story, even if it can get a bit repetitive sometimes. This is a case that's been talked about for years so that's not surprising and not a fault.

Great documentary that really tells the full story in one series, for a 35 y/o dude. Only problem is that Episode 1 doesn't chrnologically fit & then several scenes after (incl episode 1 scenes) are replayed several times to a "T" in 1-2 min stretches & almost makes you think you selected an episode you already watched.