Monday, September 14, 2015

If Marcia Clark had been the Manson prosecutor, they'd all be free...


I came across these videos in researching something and it reminded me that, no matter what people want to think, Bugliosi was in fact a truly brilliant prosecutor.  You look at the OJ Simpson trial, and as Bugliosi comments, those prosecutors did an F- job, and they did. Everyone likes to blame the jury for the verdict, but it really was the prosecution.

Bugliosi didn't make up the HS motive, it was handed to him by a variety of police witnesses prior to Bugliosi being assigned the case. He took it and ran. Watch the first few minutes and you immediately see that while he may be talking about the Simpson case, he could just as easily be talking about Manson et al.

People may hate him for hiding the "truth", but did he willfully mislead people? Think about what he had as a prosecutor: Three young women - only one with physical evidence, Krenwinkel's fingerprint, one fingerprint on Watson, who will not even be at trial because he's fighting extradition, and a gun found on the hillside, a witness for the grand jury who later recants, and Linda Kasabian. That's it. If Marcia Clark was the prosecutor of Manson, they'd all gone on to live in free society without serving a day in prison. Bugliosi got convictions on the actual killers and Manson. Without Watson in the game, he needed Manson as the fall guy to these women. Pretty amazing when you think about it. Did he hide facts? Probably. But I'm guessing he weighed his options and as so much was falling through the cracks, he grabbed what he could in the name of justice.

One hour and ten minutes in kinda says it all when he says, something like, "That's what a prosecutor does in a criminal trial, present incriminating evidence." And, no matter what conspiracy theory you wanna present, Helter Skelter was undoubtedly incriminating evidence. Whether it was actually a motive for these crimes or not, it was incriminating evidence from multiple sources interviewed before Bugliosi was given the case. We can't even say those witness were coached by Bugliosi because so many made their statements before even meeting Bugliosi.

Would we all have been happier if he'd ignored this evidence and no one was brought to justice for these murders? Absolutely not. This leaves you with one thing and one thing only, Bugliosi did his job. End of story. Did someone get away with murder? Maybe so. Did he successfully prosecute those that he did have evidence on? Yes.

We all play Monday morning quarterback with things that we think are evidence, things that we think were discovered years and years later that may or may not have had anything to do with this case. But all this "thinking" isn't prosecutable because it's all speculation and our criminal system (thank God) doesn't run on speculation. It runs on "Beyond a reasonable doubt". There has yet to be an ounce of viable proof that could properly be presented in a court of law. Yet we expect Bugliosi to have presented evidence of another motive.

In the history of the criminal justice system, I'll bet there are thousands upon thousands of criminals that got away with murder because the evidence just wasn't there. Look at Robert Durst. There's probably 90% consensus vote in the public that he's guilty of murdering not only the old man who he was found not guilty of killing for reason of self-defense, but of his wife, and Susan Berman yet he's (to date) never been brought to justice for those murder cases. Is there a conspiracy to keep some truth from the public on Durst? No. The evidence just hasn't been there to get a successful prosecution. And, due to double jeopardy, once we blow a case, we blow it. So, the DA's office waits and they wait until they do have a case guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

When there's no evidence, the justice system and the prosecutors, including Bugliosi are blameless. Was or has there ever been evidence, beyond hearsay that Joel Rostau was involved? The Mafia? Drug overlords? Anything? Anything at all that could legally be presented in a court of law? No. So why does anyone blame Bugliosi or anyone else of "hiding" information?





25 comments:

MHN said...

Matt - you need to sort this - the government appears to have hacked your laptop.

AustinAnn74 said...

I saw this a long time ago and thought it extremely interesting. He was very good at what he did, that's for damn sure. Was he an asshole? Yes, but it's that the #1 qualification in an attorney? You can't be sweet & nice and do that for a living. It doesn't work that way.

orwhut said...

Marcia, Marcia, Marcia...

Robert Hendrickson said...

OK Matt: I agree, so WHY are WE even here (wasting our time at this blog) ?

Hint, hint - cause Charles Manson was denied HIS Constitutional RIGHT to represent HIMSELF at trial and then to add insult to such a "judicial" MIS-CARRIAGE of JUSTICE "ALL" the defendant's "court appointed lawyers" sat at the lawyer's table beating OFF for months - AND when it came time for THEM to zip-up their pants and do THEIR job - THEY all said: "Judge, WE need to REST, cause our dicks are really sore and tired.

Matt said...

I just busted a serious gut (not nut) reading that, RH. Congratulations...


Mr. Humphrat said...

I watched almost the whole trial since I had a job in which I could sit around a lot. Darden screwed up on the glove, but I thought the prosecution couldn't be blamed for the verdict. Don't want to fully blame jury, but pretty close to it. You just can't be that gullible to accept defense positions and ignore the overwhelming evidence presented. It's called critical thinking.

Matt said...

I don't know about the rest of you but watching the trial, I picked up on sexual tension between Clark and Darden. I'm sure that didn't help things.


grimtraveller said...

I think Judge Older made one overriding mistake during the trial and that was not letting Charlie be his own lawyer. I think the result would have been the same because Charlie was going to lay a defence that would have been catastrophic. It proved to be catastrophic when it was presented during the penalty phase and landed them all the death penalty. Catherine Share, Susan Atkins and Pat Krenwinkel have all subsequently come out and said {for differing reasons, interestingly enough}they lied their heads off in the penalty phase. And if you read Charlie's own trial testimony where he states "these children, everything they have done, they done for love of their brother. Had you not arrested Robert Beausoleil for something he did not do ....." you can see how devastating to his own defence that line would have been.
He well and knew Robert Beausoleil had done what he was arrested for.
However, a person must be free to sink their own ship.
Bugliosi was willing for Charlie to represent himself.
Through looking at various interviews, trial testimony and documents that we've been fortunate to be able to view online and with the benefit of hindsight, the idea that this cheap prosecutor made up this dummkopf theory and pushed it for all it was worth holds no water. Not if one follows objectively and chronologically. I'm often curious as to why, if Bugliosi was just a briefcase carrier to Aaron Stovitz, the lead prosecutor in the case, and Stovitz didn't think HS had any legs, that that was what they went with.
Anyway, for objectivity's sake, it was only one of a few motives offered at trial. The opening statement makes that abundantly clear.
Bugliosi was a good prosecutor because he kept the end goal in mind and fought to keep in whatever incriminating evidence he could. But as Linda Kasabian's, Lotsapoppa's and Danny DeCarlo's testimony shows, much of what he wanted included was thrown out.
One other thing I've noticed, almost everyone that comments on them writes off the jury as total thickhead hicks who were totally influenced by pre trial publicity and had made up their minds beforehand and therefore, none of the defendants stood a chance from day one. Reading William Zamora's "Trial by your peers", I'm reminded that they need to be given more credit than they receive. Their flaws were plenty but open ignorant bias wasn't one of them. It may be hard to believe but not everyone in California was actually that interested in the Manson case. Kind of like now.....

Robert Hendrickson said...

So SUZE, if you spent HALF of your first 33 years in PRISON, how do YOU think you would have turned out? Like the Virgin Mary OR the New Messiah ?

Mr. Pistols: WOW - you got ME.
What a schmuck I was to trust my memory and NOT my instinct.
THANKS - I actually needed a good dose of reality this morning.

Chris: The 3 of us now have a secret.
Just saw a doc last night where they pointed out that the Iranian Hostage Crisis was "Muslims RISING"
BTW: the CIA / FBI must be concerned, because THEY recently knocked "exclusivefilms" OFF the top ten on major search engines.
Didn't have the balls to contact ME directly, BUT insead HIT me with a US "CENSES" questionaire that directly asks ME about "aliens."

Also recently saw one on the fighter "Ali" where they go into detail about HIM and the Nation of Islam.

"Look out, Helter Skelter !

MHN said...

Having read a couple of books on the Simpson case I always believed the prosecution had been negligent and complacent to an amazing extent, but watching this documentary now, and actually seeing Deaden and Clunk in action for the first time, I'm staggered by how weak they are. Bug might be an arrogant douche, but I would LOVE to have seen him take on that roach Cochrane.

Matt: sexual tension? Hardon and Marcia Clark? Jesus, Hilary Clinton's more likely to have a vagina than that klingon.

Matt said...

MHN, I guarantee you Darden and Clark were playing hide the salami. It was palpable.

MHN said...

I'm now going vegetarian, thanks Matt...

MHN said...

What would an appellate court make of palpable pokings from unpalatable prosecutorial appendages? Appalling.

ziggyosterberg said...


Did you watch all 3 hours and 54 minutes of this, Matt? I got up to the part where Vince says "For several weeks, right after the verdict, I was so angry that I could have eaten nails.". Bugliosi means "hyperbole" in Italian, apparently.

It's rather hypocritical of Bugliosi to be angry about the OJ verdict. He used 'racism' to convict Manson. The OJ defence team used 'racism' to acquit OJ. Turnabout is fair play.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go watch something truly worthwhile on YouTube, like Celebrity Big Brother UK. Got to root for my homeboy, Fatman Scoop!


Matt said...

Yes Ziggy I watched the whole thing. But, when I found out there's a part 2, that's where I drew the line!

MHN said...

53 minutes into part 2 as I write. Part 2 is Bugliosi giving the closing argument he would've given had he been prosecuting. He keeps implying that OJ was trying to provoke a racial war, that at the eruption of racial violence OJ would take refuge with all his wealthy white buddies in a secret city beneath a Brentwood golf course.

Even RH would have to agree, Bugliosi was a fantastic performer.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Michael: I think you have ME all wrong.

I $love$ Mr. "B" and Helter Skelter ! AND giving Charlie the RIGHT to represent HIMSELF would have definitly changed EVERYTHING - especially HIS newly acquired Messiah status.

MY only problem is: with Bugliosi's hypocritical blaming of George Bush for lying to start the Iraq WAR versus HIS intentional failure to even mention LBJ lying to start the Vietnam WAR. BUT that's obviously a triva type Democrat / Republican thing.

OH, and I get it, The Vietnam WAR had nothing to do with the Manson Family OR the TLB murders.

AND Bugliosi KNOWS, cause HE actually talked to Charlie for a minute or two ONCE.

grimtraveller said...

Robert Hendrickson said...

"Just saw a doc last night where they pointed out that the Iranian Hostage Crisis was 'Muslims RISING'"


When I first saw it being pointed out that Sandra Good had said, back in 1970 that “Islam is rising” my first reaction, my mental reflex action was that she was really talking about Black Muslims. Because as a Black person, I’ve long been used to names of religions being used interchangeably with races. Both Black and White people do it. So for example, ‘Christian’ {and included in that sometimes would be ‘Catholic’} will almost always {when speaking politically or historically} mean ‘White’ as will ‘Babylon.’ ‘Rasta’ pretty much always means ‘Black’ and ‘Hindu’ nearly always means ‘Asians’ {in the UK, people from India, Pakistan, Bangla Desh, Sri Lanka and such are referred to as Asians}. ‘Islam’ or ‘Muslims’ usually meant ‘Black’ or ‘Arab’ and in the last 30 or so years has stretched to include Asians. ‘Sikh’ always meant Asians. When people speak of ‘Judeo~Christian’ they almost exclusively mean ‘White.’
You get used to people speaking in this way when it’s part of the air you’ve breathed for over half a century. Few people in reality connected ‘The Nation of Islam’ with actual, mainstream Islam as say, practiced by the Arabs or some of the peoples of the Middle east. Even the Black Muslims didn’t always. When Malcolm X broke away from the Nation of Islam and went to Mecca and saw Muslims of all colours, he underwent a change arguably more profound than the one that caused him to join the NOI in the first place. After that he really considered himself a Muslim. His autobiography is fascinating.
I suspected that when Sandra Good spoke about Islam, being an American, she really was talking about Black Muslims and that was my main reason for searching out “Death to pigs” and jumping through the hoops I did in selling stuff to raise the money to buy it. It’s a fantastic book by the way, like George Stimson’s book, there’s so much to ruminate on. Anyway, I paid particular attention to the section where Sandra speaks and as I suspected, when she speaks about Islam rising and the kind of justice that will be meted out by them, she really is referring to Black Muslims and more to the point, Black Muslims that are American. She’s not seeing ahead to a situation in which Muslims from, for example Saudi Arabia or Pakistan rise up. And when she speaks of Christians or what she refers to as ‘the Christian thought’ she is referring to White America and those establishment ways that the family and other countercultural groups had rejected. She herself stressed that the church and the State had always been the same, never separated.
Because the Black Muslims took on certain aspects of a religion alien to the status quo of America and because so much establishment rhetoric was couched in Christian terminology as opposed to real demonstrable, loving, giving Christian living, the interchangeable terms ‘Islam’ and ‘Christian’ for ‘Black’ and ‘White’ are kind of easy for me to see, but understandably easy to miss also for those not used to seeing things that way.
On pages 472 & 473 it comes over as clear as a bell and the most striking thing about it for me {among other statements that Squeaky, Sandy and Brenda make when they speak on a number of things} is that what Sandy says fits in snug as a bug in a rug with Helter skelter. Not them igniting it, the rest of it. She speaks of a uniquely American scenario.

lostgirl said...

Hi everyone. Long time reader, first time commenting. As I read your thoughts on CM not being allowed to represent himself I have to wonder if he HAD been allowed to and was still convicted, would we then hear people say that he was not competent to do so? I was only 3 when all that evil went down, but I have to think mainstream America would find him bat crap crazy.

orwhut said...

Lostgirl,
I was thinking along the same lines as you when I read the comments last night. I'm not sure how crazy mainstream America would have found Charlie though. Lots of people under 30 seemed crazy at the time.

Matt said...

lostgirl, my hunch is that you are correct. That's what people would be saying.

In the decades that I have paid attention to this subject I have come to the conclusions that Manson is far from a "nice guy", but he's not the brainwashing Svengali that Bugliosi and the media have portrayed him as.

I also believe that he was used as an indictment of the anti-war counterculture. He and the actual killers were used by Nixon and the establishment as "proof that hippies are evil!"

Matt said...

To be clear, what the killers did were evil acts. Tex Watson is to me an empty soul and an evil person. My statement above only concerns the way the story has been told and the way the media has portrayed it. Nixon and the establishment relished it. It took the focus for a time off of them and made the anti-war counterculture the bogeyman.


Mr. Humphrat said...

I don't think Bugliosi would have won against the dreamy team. I don't think anybody would have. They were allowed to throw enough paint against the wall and go down just about any avenue they pleased.

christopher butche said...

Matt, I recently read an interesting quote by Paul Kantner of 'revolutionary' band Jefferson Airplane. Back in 1969/70 in the quote he is unsure of Manson's innocence or guilt, but what is of more importance to him is that at least the murders will bring the upcoming revolution closer.

christopher butche said...

Ignore me, a misquote, he goes on about the revolution is coming, but identifies with Manson because he is getting fucked over by the same people who are fucking over all the longhairs, and because of this he doesn't care whether he is innocent or guilty.