The Tragic Death of Marina Habe. Tighe Taylor
INTRODUCTION
This is a story that will make you mad, sad, frustrated, and helpless. This is a story that will have you asking how does someone operate thinking he or she has the right to kill, denying the deceased a chance to live, love, work, prosper, or even fail.
What has happened to a culture that produces this kind of monster? Are our children living out their own abuse and lack of self-worth? Does a killer think that he has the right to live while his victim does not?
When a killer kills, he kills not only the victim. He also, in some measure, kills all of the people close to the victim.
No one understands the finality of death until he experiences it. There is no coming back from the dead. Once a person is dead, not only does he have no more life, but the people around him are deprived of him, for the rest of their lives.
In the case of many people close to the victim, that deprivation can virtually extinguish their desire to live. Guilt, longing, or wondering what might have been infects survivors in a multitude of ways.
The children of the deceased no longer have the love, the guidance, or the support they would have had if the victim had lived. They might have to settle for much less from life than they could have achieved if the deceased had lived. No college. No law school. No medical school. All beyond the reach of children without the support of their murdered parent.
This is the story of a young woman struck down in the prime of her life, leaving her mother alone, and causing her to never be able to enjoy marriage, children, grandchildren, a profession, a vacation, or anything else.
Murder – the absolute pinnacle of selfishness. The murderer enjoys his pleasure and cares not one wit about the hurt and destruction he brings to the lives of others, not just for now, but forever.
And when the murderer is caught does he beg for the forgiveness of the family of the deceased? Does he offer to make amends? Does he offer pay for college for the deceased’s children? Does he offer to pay for a nursing home for the deceased’s aging parents? Does he do any of the things that the deceased would have done for the people around him as part of his normal life.
No. In fact, the murderer doubles down. He drags the family through a protracted trial and endless appeals. He takes advantage of all of the rights that our superlative Constitution grants. He is free from illegal searches and seizure. He is afforded the opportunity for a jury trial. He is allowed ample time to consult with legal representation.
In short, he is given all of the rights and privileges which no longer are available to the deceased, as the deceased is dead.
The murderer is not even required to defend himself. He is “presumed” innocent. He does not have to testify, as he has the Constitutional right to be free from self-incrimination.
The People, on the other hand, must prove his guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Further, the People are required to seek “justice” while the murderer is allowed to game the system any way he wishes. (Everyone is entitled to a defense, they say.)
The defendants carry on and complain constantly (like little children) about the conditions in jail: the food, the lack of time in the yard, the limited communication with the outside world, and a whole host of other things about which the victim wishes he or she could complain.
No remorse. No thinking ‘maybe I brought this on myself, and this is the best I deserve.’ We need to learn more about this mind-set to help society move forward. We have become so wrapped up in our own self-satisfaction that we can kill others to achieve it. Where does this come from?
And if this is not enough, the media and bloggers pile on. It is not enough to report the facts. To make the story interesting or “marketable”, the speculation begins that maybe the victim brought her fate upon herself by exposing herself to the perpetrator through social connections.
In our story, even people thought to be responsible professionals or journalists, went seemingly out of their way to try to connect Marina’s death to Charles Manson and his family or to her association with delinquent-types.
Remember, in 1968 and 1969 when these events occurred, there was no DNA testing available. There were no traffic cameras.
After DNA evidence became possible in the 1980’s, perhaps the energy expended trying to link Marina’s murder to the underworld or to Charles Manson might have been better spent exhuming Marina’s body, trying to harvest DNA evidence, and comparing that DNA evidence to the DNA of the prime suspect, who was available.
A few months after the death of Marina, another teenage girl was abducted, killed in a similar fashion, and left near the location where Marina’s body was found.
She was exhumed, and her DNA was harvested to compare her DNA with the DNA of her sister, just to confirm identity. Could this not have been done in Marina’s case to compare her DNA to that of the possible perpetrator?
It appears as if the media was more concerned with sensationalizing the deaths of both young ladies than with solving the crime.
This is the story of the most enchanting Marina Habe. I knew her in junior high school and was enthralled by her grace and beauty. This is the tale of her needless and senseless murder.
Our story is told through the eyes of a fictional writer for a true crime magazine. Much of the action, particularly the early stages, centers around meetings between the writer and his editor. In these meetings, the writer explains his plan for an article about Marina and her fate.
This framing allows alternative theories to be presented. The discussion between the writer and his editor allows differing views as to how events occurred, how they were interpreted, and how different writers have presented the subject over the past 50 years. Hopefully, this will add to a better understanding of the event.
The writer may present one theory. The editor may counter with another theory. This allows more theories to be explored and for those theories to be compared.
This crime was never solved. There is some chatter that Maurice Terry, Jr. solved the crime. It has been contended that he wrote the resolution in a book he was going to publish. Unfortunately, he died before he could publish this book.
I reached out to his sister, apparently his next of kin, but could not learn whether such a manuscript exits, and, if it does, whether she would make it available to me. To date, I have had no response.
As alluded to above, there is much speculation that Marina was, at least tangentially, involved with the Manson Family. This story examines those alleged involvements.
Marina was said to have been friends with Diedre Lansbury, the daughter of Angela Lansbury, the famous actress.
It has been reported that Diedre socialized with Manson, visited the Spahn Ranch, and went shopping with Manson, using her mother’s credit card. Her mother had the sense to move her to Ireland.
I have attempted to contact Diedre to learn whether she knew Marina, the Manson Family, or Dennis Wilson of the Beach Boys, who is alleged to have known Charles Manson, but I have had no reply.
The events are terrifying.
I drew heavily on the reports from the crime scene and the actual detailed autopsy. I believe that this adds to the story, as this is a case where truth is definitely stranger than fiction.
No sane person could ever make up such a story.
As it unfolds, I would like us all to keep in mind how horrible and unnecessary this crime was and to remember that no one should ever blame the victim. The blame lies in one place, and one place only – with the perpetrator.
In your wildest dreams, could you ever understand the horror of being stabbed by two people. Imagine what goes on in someone’s mind when she realizes that she is going to die. Particularly when the perpetrators kept her alive for two or three days, even feeding her.
The story unfolds. It is tragic, but I hope that it the information provided outweighs the horror.
Was