What do you think?
Rate this book
The Myth of Helter Skelter
In 1969 in Los Angeles, a crime took place which has been sensationalized to a point that it has attained mythological proportions in the minds of many people. This is the story of Helter Skelter. After decades of receiving letters from misguided youth and misinformed fanatics, Susan Atkins hoped to produce a counter-point to the "Helter Skelter" story that would demystify the crimes and show them for what they were. She hoped if she could explain them maybe they would no longer be the point of obsession they have become to some. “People are intrigued by what they don’t understand.� Susan Atkins-Whitehouse
231 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2012
217 people are currently reading
261 people want to read
About the author
Susan Atkins-Whitehouse
3Ìýbooks16ÌýfollowersMember of Charles Manson's "Family" and convicted murderer.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
April 29, 2013
I have read several books on Charles Manson and his family. I've even read Susan Atkins-Whitehouse's first book, Child of God/ Child of Satan, which I found very interesting. This book offers up a different motive to the "Helter Skelter" murders of 1969. Whereas, up till now, it has been understood that these murders were Charle's Mansons' way of starting a race war that he believed was imminent. The auther now suggests that this was not the case at all, and she is actually able to back-up her claims with alot of information from many different books on the subject: Vincent Bugliosi (the D.A.), Charles Watson, Paul Watkins both men known Manson family members), and hers, as well as notes from the actual trial.
This does give you something to think about, and alot of what she says makes sense. The part that bugs me a bit is her constant "I take full responsibility for my actions....but I didn't do anything". And this is throughout the book. I think I would've respected her more if she had simply left it at "I take full responsibility for my actions." This isn't a parole hearing or trial, you know.
This does give you something to think about, and alot of what she says makes sense. The part that bugs me a bit is her constant "I take full responsibility for my actions....but I didn't do anything". And this is throughout the book. I think I would've respected her more if she had simply left it at "I take full responsibility for my actions." This isn't a parole hearing or trial, you know.
September 20, 2017
I found it to be an interesting account of the whole sordid Manson affair. Written after over 40 years of incarceration, I have a tendency to really believe her in this accounting. It was written only a few years before her death, and my guess is that after so much time in prison she had little hope of ever being paroled; hence, she had nothing to gain by not telling the truth as she remembered it. Of all the Manson followers, she, to me, remains the most intelligent and complex.
September 1, 2015
Totally unbelievable
By reading this book you will learn 2 things; Susan Atkins was a terrible writer and still totally delusional.
By reading this book you will learn 2 things; Susan Atkins was a terrible writer and still totally delusional.
June 4, 2021
I was initially hesitant to read a book by Susan Atkins, aka Sadie, one of the participants in the Tate murders, but this was a surprise. I have been out of the loop for a while in Manson Family related news and info, so I wasn’t aware of a lot of new info that has cone to light. A lot of people reject Helter Skelter as the sole motive, and this book along with a few others, provides plenty of food for thought.
Susan Atkins touches upon her life prior to the murders, and demonstrates that the Family was trying to become a drug and crime enterprise, but were pretty inept at it. The main motivators for the murders appear to be revenge, a copycat murder to free an imprisoned Family associate before he could squeal, and fear of the Black Panthers. Helter Skelter is there partially, but no where as prominent as thought.
And yes, she does mention she was remorseful for what happened. She participated, but it appears that she lied about quite a few things- she initially said she was the one that killed Sharon Tate. Turns out it was Tex. The public never forgot her claims though.
I found this a fascinating read.
Susan Atkins touches upon her life prior to the murders, and demonstrates that the Family was trying to become a drug and crime enterprise, but were pretty inept at it. The main motivators for the murders appear to be revenge, a copycat murder to free an imprisoned Family associate before he could squeal, and fear of the Black Panthers. Helter Skelter is there partially, but no where as prominent as thought.
And yes, she does mention she was remorseful for what happened. She participated, but it appears that she lied about quite a few things- she initially said she was the one that killed Sharon Tate. Turns out it was Tex. The public never forgot her claims though.
I found this a fascinating read.
July 8, 2015
Rehash that should be ignored
Every action that was done by Manson and his followers is psychologically analyzed. Details that were mentioned in her 1978 book are ignored or rewritten. Its a mess. I have found this book hard to read and even harder to understand. Its written like someone just had their brain erased. Its a report not a book. Stick to the 1978 book. Its probably more correct and factual. It definitely has warmth unlike this book that feels cold and insensitive. Stay away unless you like rewritten memories.
Every action that was done by Manson and his followers is psychologically analyzed. Details that were mentioned in her 1978 book are ignored or rewritten. Its a mess. I have found this book hard to read and even harder to understand. Its written like someone just had their brain erased. Its a report not a book. Stick to the 1978 book. Its probably more correct and factual. It definitely has warmth unlike this book that feels cold and insensitive. Stay away unless you like rewritten memories.
September 2, 2023
Props to this for being a quick read.
Other than that? I’ve been interested in the Manson family since the young age of around eight years old. I know pretty much all there is to know about these women, the crimes, the men involved, and the trials. I’ve recently started reading through the transcripts of all of the girls parole board hearings, and while that has been a wild ride, it left me with no surprises to what would be in this book.
It’s weird because reading Leslie’s hearings, I had a strong want for her to be paroled and released. She appears to be the picture of what we want rehabilitation to look like, she was also the picture of the kind of young person who could be swindled and mindfucked by someone like Manson. I never had these same feelings reading Susan’s parole hearings, and while when she was dying I thought she could have been afforded some grace to die at home, I never once felt the empathy for her to want to see her released.
This book also didn’t give me those feelings.
This entire book, Susan claims, was to set the record straight on what happened those nights and what living in the family was like. What I saw while reading this was that this book was a blatant attempt to limit Susan’s culpability to almost nothing, make her appear borderline innocent of any wrongdoing, and elicit sympathy for her future parole board hearings. The constant ‘I didn’t do anything� ‘Charlie made me do it� ‘they were awful but I was just brainwashed� ‘I’m not like the other Manson girls, I swear� vibes this book gave off were disgusting.
The writing was also repetitive and pretty awful.
Nothing new in terms of understanding came from this book, it was truly just a ‘I’m not really that guilty, I’m a good girl and I love god� manifesto.
I’ve read so many books on The Family and I’d recommend this one the least.
Other than that? I’ve been interested in the Manson family since the young age of around eight years old. I know pretty much all there is to know about these women, the crimes, the men involved, and the trials. I’ve recently started reading through the transcripts of all of the girls parole board hearings, and while that has been a wild ride, it left me with no surprises to what would be in this book.
It’s weird because reading Leslie’s hearings, I had a strong want for her to be paroled and released. She appears to be the picture of what we want rehabilitation to look like, she was also the picture of the kind of young person who could be swindled and mindfucked by someone like Manson. I never had these same feelings reading Susan’s parole hearings, and while when she was dying I thought she could have been afforded some grace to die at home, I never once felt the empathy for her to want to see her released.
This book also didn’t give me those feelings.
This entire book, Susan claims, was to set the record straight on what happened those nights and what living in the family was like. What I saw while reading this was that this book was a blatant attempt to limit Susan’s culpability to almost nothing, make her appear borderline innocent of any wrongdoing, and elicit sympathy for her future parole board hearings. The constant ‘I didn’t do anything� ‘Charlie made me do it� ‘they were awful but I was just brainwashed� ‘I’m not like the other Manson girls, I swear� vibes this book gave off were disgusting.
The writing was also repetitive and pretty awful.
Nothing new in terms of understanding came from this book, it was truly just a ‘I’m not really that guilty, I’m a good girl and I love god� manifesto.
I’ve read so many books on The Family and I’d recommend this one the least.
January 11, 2023
Occam’s razor holds that if you have two competing explanations for something, the simpler one is usually correct. With this in mind, Susan Atkins� version of what happened during the summer of 1969 is patently more credible than the bizzare Helter Skelter theory, upon which prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi based his case against Charles Manson and his followers in 1970.
If Atkins� take on the Tate-LaBianca murders is accurate, it shows Manson as less of the delusional, would-be-musician cum race-war-fomenter than the charismatic conman/career criminal trying to pin the murder of Gary Hinman on the Black Panthers and to exonerate Bobby Beausoleil so he wouldn’t rat him out. Atkins never denies committing the murders, and I can’t think of a good reason why she would fabricate this.
But alas, Helter Skelter as a motive is demonstrably more fascinating for its ties to the Beatles, a bottomless pit in Death Valley, and the idea of the Manson family presiding over a race war, at the conclusion of which Manson would be made ruler of all he surveyed. (FYI, there’s no credible evidence that Manson himself ever actually believed any of that stuff, even if he did preach it to his followers.)
Is the truth somewhere in between? We may never know, but I am putting my money on William of Ockham.
If Atkins� take on the Tate-LaBianca murders is accurate, it shows Manson as less of the delusional, would-be-musician cum race-war-fomenter than the charismatic conman/career criminal trying to pin the murder of Gary Hinman on the Black Panthers and to exonerate Bobby Beausoleil so he wouldn’t rat him out. Atkins never denies committing the murders, and I can’t think of a good reason why she would fabricate this.
But alas, Helter Skelter as a motive is demonstrably more fascinating for its ties to the Beatles, a bottomless pit in Death Valley, and the idea of the Manson family presiding over a race war, at the conclusion of which Manson would be made ruler of all he surveyed. (FYI, there’s no credible evidence that Manson himself ever actually believed any of that stuff, even if he did preach it to his followers.)
Is the truth somewhere in between? We may never know, but I am putting my money on William of Ockham.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 25, 2020
I was unaware of this book before reading it today, in one sitting. Susan Atkins' recollection of the events is very interesting. What intrigued me the most is the court's treatment of her versus Linda. Much of the details within the trial I was unaware about; though it is hard to still find sympathy for Susan, I can understand many of the circumstances she was forced into. The murders committed by the Manson family truly are not as fascinating as they seem...which is a good thing. This was a mature way of describing her side of the story without having to brutally describe the nights of the murders.
February 9, 2019
Eh it was okay
While this book definitely gives one insight to a different motive into those tragic days, it is difficult to see past the grammatical errors. True crime is always an interesting read in that you can gather all sides of the story and determine what is true for yourself... for this purpose, the book was good.
While this book definitely gives one insight to a different motive into those tragic days, it is difficult to see past the grammatical errors. True crime is always an interesting read in that you can gather all sides of the story and determine what is true for yourself... for this purpose, the book was good.
September 20, 2022
Not very insightful
Other than Atkins� explanation of why the murders were committed, I found little value in this book. The author mostly writes about how she was duped by Manson and that she feels she was treated unfairly by the prosecution. The “support� for her opinion that she was unfairly convicted is flimsy.
Other than Atkins� explanation of why the murders were committed, I found little value in this book. The author mostly writes about how she was duped by Manson and that she feels she was treated unfairly by the prosecution. The “support� for her opinion that she was unfairly convicted is flimsy.
March 11, 2025
I don’t buy her saying she didn’t kill Sharon Tate, but I like that she exposes Charles Manson for what he was. He wasn’t a psychic with special powers of mind control, he was a drug dealing pimp who preyed on young, impressionable females. I always thought the Helter Skelter argument didn’t make sense and she proves it was just a DA’s dumb idea
September 27, 2018
Lol
I really don't know what to think about what she is saying. Will read another book on subject then maybe.
I really don't know what to think about what she is saying. Will read another book on subject then maybe.
June 23, 2019
Great read! Good to hear another aspect of the crime. Not cool or not Neat was accurate analogy of what people have taken from the crime. Charles Manson should not be idolized.
October 1, 2020
Ok book
From my extensive research this seems very self serving. Not sure if I believe this account or not. Very difficult.
From my extensive research this seems very self serving. Not sure if I believe this account or not. Very difficult.
February 22, 2022
true crime is cool
December 4, 2023
Definitely a more detailed book than her first one. This book had a million footnotes documenting her sources for information.
November 3, 2024
Very interesting book
October 3, 2014
Interesting to get another perspective but clearly biased, often repetitive, and at times contradictory
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.