‘Charles Manson in a box’ sideshow plan falls apart

Shall we have a pity party for either one of these darlings?

Charles Manson wedding off after it emerges that fiancee Afton Elaine Burton ‘just wanted his corpse for display’

Serial killer Charles Manson’s supposed budding romance with a woman 53 years his junior has been allegedly exposed as a money-making scheme.

According to journalist Daniel Simone, 27-year old Afton Elaine Burton, now known as Star, was hoping that she would gain possession of Manson’s corpse through marriage so she and a couple of friends could put it on display in a glass case in LA.

They apparently thought the Lenin’s Tomb-esque attraction would draw a huge number of visitors and make a lot of money.

But Manson, 80, apparently got wind of the plan and now no longer wants to marry Burton.

But WAIT, it gets better. The joke would have been on her since Manson says he is immortal!

You know, I didn’t find this original idea of the marriage unbelievable since there are women who do find such men… um, interesting. “Star” Burton says she was first attracted to Manson after reading about his environmental philosophy that stands for air, trees, water, animals. They have been in contact for many years. At one point, critics thought Manson was manipulating her into giving him attention and getting him more press. Have the tables turned? She seems a bit questionable in judgment. Maybe they deserved each other.

I don’t know how true this revealed “real” story is. But it’s so bizarre, I just had to share. We humans are fascinated by the darndest things.

manson and star

  9 comments for “‘Charles Manson in a box’ sideshow plan falls apart

  1. Angela
    February 10, 2015 at 2:05 AM

    Bet THIS one doesn’t end up on the Eharmony commercial…

    I was disgusted, as I usually am when he makes the news, upon hearing the announcement that he was getting married. I also was disturbed at how much the girl looked like a young Susan Atkins.

    Can’t find too much else about it online yet, but I agree, we as people are fascinated by some odd things. I did see an article in the (ugh) Daily Mail from this last December that had an interview with a musician who claims Manson is his father. He was calling out the woman for being after Manson’s money. (Manson has money? Good grief….)

  2. Tony
    February 10, 2015 at 12:18 PM

    You would think that the old publicity hound Charles Manson would be delighted to have his corpse exhibited in public. And I too have to wonder how true any of this is.

  3. Daniel C. Reiter
    February 10, 2015 at 3:33 PM

    I just have to correct the ongoing misconception that Manson is a serial killer. He is not. Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, and the other two girls committed the murders. Manson was never accused of murder.

  4. February 10, 2015 at 4:56 PM

    I realize that and I suppose I sort of perpetuated the erroneous mention of it in the story. You are right, but he might as well have been holding the knives as his reputation as the crazy cult leader, and orchestrator of the murders seems to equal culpability.

  5. knightofbob
    February 10, 2015 at 5:13 PM

    He actually was directly convicted of participation in two murders. Combined with the other family murders of which he was only found guilty of conspiracy, I think the definition of “serial killer” is met.

  6. Daniel C. Reiter
    February 10, 2015 at 6:01 PM

    Serial killer

    A serial killer is a person who has murdered three or more people over a period of more than a month, with down time (a “cooling off period”) between each of the murders.

    Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer
    I don’t mean to be picky, but the definition of serial killer hasn’t been met. And I’ve always believed that if it had not been Hollywood people who had been murdered, this case would have faded into obscurity, and Manson would have eventually been released. But the media turned him into America’s boogeyman. And falsehoods regarding him still abound. Just my opinion.

  7. knightofbob
    February 10, 2015 at 6:56 PM

    And, continuing to the next sentence in the Wikipedia entry: “Some sources, such as the FBI, disregard the ‘three or more’ criterion and define the term as ‘a series of two or more murders, committed as separate events, usually, but not always, by one offender acting alone’ or, including the vital characteristics, a minimum of two murders.”

    It might have been a slower burn (and one with a higher victim count) if not for the Tate murders, but the case probably would have been just as notorious. Manson was personally involved with a lot of Hollywood and music industry people, and the revelation that, for example, Dennis Wilson financially supported and housed a burgeoning murderous cult would have served to elevate him to boogeyman status even if he had stuck to killing (or overseeing the killing) people who he felt owed him money. In fact, if you read some of the investigation reports, he probably would have been caught quicker if it had only been the LaBianca murders (media circus revolving around the violent end of a young actress, police from different jurisdictions actively impeding each others’ investigations).

  8. Andrew
    February 10, 2015 at 8:18 PM

    I think Manson fits the category of “Spree Killer” more so, all though there were some ritualistic goings on leading up to the kill spree, ritualisation was less of a feature of the actual killings.

    Either way, even if you could get to publicly display a dead body, I doubt many people over time would come to see the body of spree killer. A few maybe, but not many.

  9. Angela
    February 11, 2015 at 6:13 AM

    I can think of many terms for Manson that aren’t scientifically based, but I’ll refrain here. I have always seen him as a dangerous cult leader. He still has followers, even in prison. Just gross.

Comments are closed.