Monday, July 24, 2017

Did Vincent Bugliosi Diss Stephen Kay In Helter Skelter?

The animosity between Manson prosecutors Vincent Bugliosi and Stephen Kay is well known. Kay resented Bugliosi taking the entire credit for convictions in a case in which he felt he was an active co-prosecutor, and later Bugliosi couldn’t stand Key’s embarrassing grandstanding at “Manson Family” parole hearings. But did this mutual animosity result in an immature diss on the part of Bugliosi? Did Bugliosi so resent sharing the “I got Manson!” scalp with anybody that he intentionally minimized the contributions of his fellow-prosecutors (as he did the numerous times when he pointed out that his investigative skills had single-handedly saved the case from the incompetent Keystone Cops of LAPD)? And did he even resort to childishness?

That Bugliosi was disdainful of Kay as a co-prosecutor is evident in his initial mention of his fellow Deputy DA in Helter Skelter when he introduces Kay as a replacement for Aaron Stovitz, who was removed from the case for making inappropriate comments to the media:

“Since I had prepared the case and examined most of the witnesses, Aaron’s removal did not affect this portion of the trial…. Although two young deputy DAs, Donald Musich and Steven Kay, had been assigned to replace Aaron, neither was familiar enough with the case to participate in the trial.” (Helter Skelter, 25th Anniversary edition paperback, page 453)

“Neither was familiar enough with the case to participate in the trial.”  That characterization must have grated on Kay.

Later in the book Bugliosi alludes to Kay’s ineptness as an attorney when he refers to Kay irresponsibly commenting to the press about a statement Charles Manson allegedly made during the penalty phase of the trial about there being bloodletting should he receive a death sentence:

“Both the court clerk and Steve Kay overheard the remark. Kay intemperately rushed out of the courtroom and repeated it to the press.” (Helter Skelter, page 585)

As a result of Kay intemperance, the jury had to be sequestered for the remainder of the penalty phase so as not to be exposed to headlines such as “Manson Death Threat — Warns of Terror if Doomed to Die.”

Clearly, Bugliosi’s characterizations of Kay during the trial are less than flattering. But did Bugliosi go even further? Did he engage in some juvenile dissing to cause even more discomfort to his former partner in criminal prosecution? In looking closer at Bugliosi’s references in Helter Skelter to Kay I noticed something that made me wonder, namely that Bugliosi misrepresents the spelling of Kay’s first name throughout the book.

As a person who has had his surname reworked into nearly countless incorrect variations I’m well aware of the sensitivity of some persons that their names be rendered correctly, both in print and audibly. And certainly Vincent Bugliosi was irked by years of having his last name mispronounced and otherwise mangled. (The childhood taunts of “Buggy! Buggy! Buggy!” must have been intolerable.) And knowing what we know about Bugliosi and his nominal sensitivity (“The ‘g’ is silent.”) we might wonder if he considered the mispronunciation or misspelling of a name to be just another weapon in his human interactional arsenal. Was “The Bug” so affected by the mispronunciation of his name over the years that he felt justified in giving offense in kind to those he didn’t like? Did Bugliosi refer to “Stephen Kay” as “Steven Kay” as a subtle dig against his former courtroom companion?

Looking more into this I noticed that throughout the text of Helter Skelter Bugliosi goes further, not even calling Kay “Steven” (much less “Stephen”), but rather just “Steve” in five out out seven mentions. This strikes me as odd too because often people don’t want to be called by derivatives of their names. For example I know several fellows named “David” but I would never call any of them “Dave.” (How about you, David? Does it bother you when someone calls you “Dave”?)

Was Stephen Kay sensitive about the spelling of his first name? We don’t know. But we do know that the correct spelling is “Stephen” with a “ph” and not “Steven” with a “v”. This is evident not only in court documents from the trial (which Bugliosi would have had to have seen many, many times), but also in the way Kay has spelled his first name at various parole hearings. So we know that his name was spelled differently than the way he preferred in Helter Skelter.  Thus, the questions boil down to: Was the misspelling of Stephen Kay’s first name in HS an honest error, a rare oversight by a person otherwise noted for his attention to detail? Or was it an intentional slight by Vincent Bugliosi against a co-prosecutor whom he resented sharing the “Trial of the Century” limelight with?

Vincent Bugliosi  

Stephen Kay

Stephen Kay’s misspelled first name in the index to Helter Skelter


Stephen Kay spells his name correctly at Patricia Krenwinkel’s 1978 parole hearing. (Thanks to Cielodrive.com for the transcript page rendering!)

Stephen Russell Kay’s name as it is correctly spelled on the first page of one of the scores of volumes of transcripts of the original murder trial 

249 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 249 of 249
Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Lol how long did it take you to stalk all those posts Grim? Let me know where to send the check for all the space i rent in that little pee brain of yours "blimey"

grimtraveller said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

how long did it take you to stalk all those posts Grim?

A couple of minutes. It's the least I could do for my new bestest bud.

Let me know where to send the check for all the space i rent in that little pee brain of yours "blimey"

Are you not on Paypal ?

Anonymous said...


I think Grim does most of his posts when he's "working" - in case anyone in London is wondering why their delivery from Camden Town to Chalk Farm took a fortnight. 😱

Anonymous said...


Super Mario said...

"No Ziggy, I never picked-up
Lana Wood hitch-hiking."
😱


David said...

"I did. Twice." 🤥


Is this opposite day? 🙃


BTW, Humph 🤣 LZFAO

David said...

Twice.....no, really....twice

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Hes a jack of all trades wannabe TLB expert/third rate Uber driver/post stalker/falied musician

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Oops forgot expert on American jurisprudence even though hes never actually been to the US lol

David said...

Simon's book is available FYI

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07498WZGJ

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

What is it called?

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...

https://m.facebook.com/Simondavisauthor/

In a summer swelter

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Thats funny, the first time i ever heard about Manson and the case was my mom and I were driving in 1983, i was 12 and American Pie came on the radio and i asked her what "helter skelter in a summer swelter" meant and she told me the whole story, she was a big true crime fan and was reading Fatal Vision about the Jeffrey Macdonald murders,at the time, i remember being scared shitless of girls with shaved heads and Xs carved in their foreheads breaking in and killing us at night but didnt actually pick up and read Helter Skelter until 1986

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Even though we dont see eye to eye on much i want to congratulate Simon on the book, alot of people talk about doing things like this but very few actually follow though, much respect to him

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...

Maybe you should read it Susan- Dave. You might come to understand the law. Without that understanding you are tilting at windmills.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

What you dont understand is that i DO know the law and im saying the law is wrong in this case, im not an idiot i understand what the statutes are regarding conspiracy, my position is that theyre wrong, laws are written by men and nen are sometimes wrong, me telling someone to kill someone IF thats what Manson did does NOT make me guilty of first degree murder

David said...

Susan-Dave:

Thank you. And that is definitely worth a discussion.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

David ive always that this was a Tex Watson/Kasabian deal all along, theres dimply too much drug evidence and evidence of Tex being in business for himself, yes i believe Charlie had some knowledge of what happened but it simply wasnt in his nature to want death and blood and destruction up there, numerous people who knew Charlie at McNeil and Terminal Island have said Charlie was scared of his own shadow and was the last person who kill or order anyone killed, both nights were Texs show

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...


David said...

"Twice.....no, really....twice"

I detect that there might be "a lot more to that situation ".

Anonymous said...


I can't wait to read it : 348 pages of a guy asking readers questions about the case.

Fwiw, I don't think Matt should let him promote it here after he "dissed" us last week. Let him go sell it at Lynyrd's 700 Trump Club. (Or would that be cruel and unusual punishment?)

David said...

Ziggy I think you should read it and then comment/write a review. Not me I've read it.

Anonymous said...


LoL. I think I know what you're saying. It sucks, but you don't want to be the one to say it.

Personally, I'd vote for either Manson Mythos or ColScott to review it. Unlike me, they both wouldn't pull any punches. 👊

I'm much more interested in Beauders book. She knows everything about this case. Things that people aren't even aware of.

David said...

No, I was serious.

Penny lane said...

Yes indeed Grim...a tiny minded bigot...god u must get so sick of that pathetic shit...your grace is a credit to you...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

If his post history on here is any indication it will be just more of the accepted "Charlie made me do it" narrative, i read a description on his FB page and his main position is that defense counsel did a horrible job and that the girls basically got a raw deal due to Mansons machinations with defense counsel

Matt said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
What you dont understand is that i DO know the law and im saying the law is wrong in this case, im not an idiot i understand what the statutes are regarding conspiracy...


Perhaps, but what you don't seem to understand is common decency.


Anonymous said...


Matt said...

"Perhaps, but what you don't seem to understand is common decency."


If only you had the time or energy to play whack-a-mole with a guy who double posts every. single. time.

Anonymous said...


Regarding Simon, and any other finger pointer out there who wants to tell us what bad people they deem us to be - Bill Nelson took the sanctimonious approach to this case too. It worked out really well for him.

And it's a slippery slope to hypocrisy when you start judging people and defining yourself by what you claim you don't do. There are some who would say that writing a book about the case is exploiting and cashing in on a tragedy. But not me, though. ;)

grimtraveller said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Oops forgot expert on American jurisprudence even though hes never actually been to the US

Expert ?
I've taken the time to find out what the law did say so that I would understand it and not drive a plough through it if I didn't like the outcome of a case.
Lots of people can tell you lots of things about places they've never been and people they've never met. A bit like you re: Charlie.
That's the joy of conversation, you discover things to check out, even with you. Since '68 I've hung out with hundreds of people from India, Pakistan, Bangla Desh {when it became that} and Sri Lanka and it would be the strangest thing going if after all that I couldn't tell you anything about those countries even though I've never been to any of them.
Watch out for those shaven headed females, 71.

What you dont understand is that i DO know the law and im saying the law is wrong in this case, im not an idiot i understand what the statutes are regarding conspiracy, my position is that theyre wrong, laws are written by men and nen are sometimes wrong, me telling someone to kill someone IF thats what Manson did does NOT make me guilty of first degree murder

You clearly don't know the law you keep commenting about.
That said, and I agreed with you in the thread where 114 of your posts got deleted, I think it is definitely a debate to be had as to whether someone who actually physically commits murder should be given the same punishment as someone who, say, sets up a murder or sets up a robbery in which a murder is committed even though that wasn't their intention or whether an unarmed robber should be given the same punishment as their accomplice who is armed and commits murder during the robbery.
Because there are nuances to many situations, it's not a hard and fast straight down the line easy yes or no. In some cases it seems ridiculous to me that all members of a "conspiracy" get the same punishment because of the possible actions of just one of them. On the other hand, I come back to the example of the gang situation where the leader of the gang orders their underlings to go cap someone or the syndicate boss that tells one of their guys to wipe someone out. Are those leaders less culpable for the killings ? Debatable.
This case does arguably have some of those matters but in terms of Charlie, none of it applies to him.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Lol because if you disagree with ANYTHING a black person does youre a bigot and a racist

grimtraveller said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

i believe Charlie had some knowledge of what happened but it simply wasnt in his nature to want death and blood and destruction up there

Even Charlie himself might have issues with you on that one !

numerous people who knew Charlie at McNeil and Terminal Island have said Charlie was scared of his own shadow and was the last person who kill or order anyone killed

And that might well have been the case while he was at McNeil and Terminal Island. I personally think that was probably the case throughout '67 and the majority of '68.
But '68 was a strange year, particularly given the events of the year preceding it. On both sides of the Atlantic, many people that were espousing peace and flowers and a cessation to war started along a more militant and less overtly tolerant path.

didnt actually pick up and read Helter Skelter until 1986

Although I read the book in '78, interestingly we were the same age when we first read it. And here we are a fifth of the way into the next century...

both nights were Texs show

I'd say it was Tex's lead to Charlie's rhythm.

ziggyosterberg said...

I can't wait to read it : 348 pages of a guy asking readers questions about the case

On the other hand, there are and have been numerous contributors to these pages that have had tremendous insights into varying aspects of the case, whether one is sold on those insights or not. Right now, I can't think of a better place to come and ask questions and try to clarify matters and test the waters of what one might think.

grimtraveller said...

David said...

Simon's book is available

Well, I've bought my copy. Hopefully it will be with me before I go off on my holiday.
I wonder if Stephen Kay will autograph it for me ? 🤥

starviego said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
starviego said...

gonorhhea said...
"Charlie: ...it simply wasn't in his nature to want death and blood and destruction up there."

Huh? Is this the same Charlie that pumped a bullet into Lostsapoppa's stomach? That slashed Gary Hinman across the face(and then ordered BB to finish him off)? That tied up the LaBianca's knowing that they would be murdered? That participated in the murder of Shorty? That tried to get Sunshine Pierce, Paul Watkins, and Juan Flynn to kill? That slapped, kicked, and beat his women? That threatened his own devotees with getting their throats slashed and breasts cut off? That told his followers that they should be ready to murder children?

SERIOUSLY?

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

First off he shot Lotsapoppa because he saw no other way to get him to not go to the ranch and shoot it up, second he slashed Garys ear to get him to hand over the money he thought he had, him "ordering BB to finish him off" is Bobby and Susans claim, third he did not participate in Shortys murder, and fourth all the rest of the claims heresay and even if the part about beating the women although wrong doesnt make him a murderer, lets be clear Charlie was no saint and he deserved to be locked up but not for murder and not for anywhere near the half century hes been behind vars

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Charlie saud alot of crazy thing during that time and afterwards in interviews that i seriously doubt he believed, attention starved, parentless, directionless children turn into attention whores 99 percent of the time and thats what happened with Charlie

Anonymous said...


grimtraveller said...

"On the other hand, there are and have been numerous contributors to these pages that have had tremendous insights into varying aspects of the case, whether one is sold on those insights or not. Right now, I can't think of a better place to come and ask questions and try to clarify matters and test the waters of what one might think."

Agree 100% with that.

However, as it relates to Simon, he wasn't engaging in some sort of Socratic dialogue. More often than not, he was simply being a dick.

But I did enjoy the rich irony of his pseudo-moralist posturing when he's mining mass murder for personal gain.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

I have to admit im really curious to hear Simons description of or take on the events at Cielo and Waverly

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
grimtraveller said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

First off he shot Lotsapoppa because he saw no other way to get him to not go to the ranch and shoot it up

Even if that was true, it kills your argument that it was not in his nature. You are in effect saying the opposite, that it was in his nature because it was the only way he could see to resolve the situation. Death to Poppa was the only way he could see.
Think about that.

second he slashed Garys ear to get him to hand over the money he thought he had

Once again demonstrating the opposite to the point you're trying to argue. Violence was his way to make Gary hand over the money he thought he had {according to your argument}. You're in effect saying that it was his way because that was how he figured he could get Gary to do what he wanted. No discussion. Just violence. His nature.

him "ordering BB to finish him off" is Bobby and Susans claim

Bobby does not claim this. He denies this continually. He does say he feels he was manipulated into killing Gary but it's a somewhat different argument.
As for your namesake, her various claims are the living definition of the word "unreliable." Which is unfortunate in a sense because this one was one of her her consistencies.

third he did not participate in Shortys murder

Read George Stimson's book "Goodbye Helter Skelter" if you haven't already. Have a look on the chapter on Shorty's murder and have a good gander at what Charlie says. It's long, it's fascinating, there's lots of Charliespeak and some of his best wriggling and even his most ardent supporter could not read that and say "he did not participate in Shorty's murder" and expect to be in any way taken seriously. You call me a jack of all trades wannabe TLB expert and post stalker but all I do is take on board what people say, even you. Unless you are seriously stating that what you say is such hogwash that it is not worthy of being considered.

lets be clear Charlie was no saint and he deserved to be locked up but not for murder

He wasn't even arrested for Lotsapoppa, his sword strike on Gary was officially listed as "possibly fatal" and the only reason we'll never know if it was fatal, given that Bobby, Susan and Mary were no doctors, is because Bobby ended the possibility by killing him {!}, and he was as involved in Shorty's death as it is possible to be ~ by his own admission.
You'll note that I've left out Cielo and Waverley.....

and not for anywhere near the half century hes been behind vars

Well, that's always going to be the big debate isn't it ? As long as you cling to the fantasy that this was the Tex and Linda drug show, then for that set of murders you'll always have a point that you can fling out whenever the weight of evidence to the contrary shows up. But for the others, particularly with no remorse in his attitude but a defiant stance, he's really not given the authorities much choice. Even if HS was never mntioned.
I understand why he has little trust of LE but the ultimate fact will always remain that he did not have to continue down the criminal road.

grimtraveller said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Charlie said a lot of crazy thing during that time and afterwards in interviews that i seriously doubt he believed

Well, then whatever people take from those things if they rebound on him would be his own fault.

attention starved, parentless, directionless children turn into attention whores 99 percent of the time

While they are not the only ones, I won't disagree with you that that will so often have an adverse effect. I'll add to that that some of those attention whores may end up being involved in murders and may derive some perverse satisfaction from the stir they generate. They may deep down like having lots of people talk to them, talk about them, have people busting a gut tying to interview them, be the cause of much debate....
Or they may hate it once the thrill runs out.

and thats what happened with Charlie

That all said though, the desire for attention isn't some bizarre aberration or kink in the human psyche. It's as natural to us as breathing for we are social creatures, even when we want to be left alone.

grimtraveller said...

Amp1776 said...

It does seem to be buglosi's style. Also can be seen where Mason is accused of being 5'2"

Have a look at this police photo and pay particular attention to the yardstick to the right. Now, you could say that the police deliberately fiddled with it to make Charlie look small although why the hell they would do that when it was an official picture and his real height if not 5ft 2ins could easily be ascertained, is not only beyond me but probably them too !
Bugliosi mentions Charlie's height specifically a couple of times. The first time is when he tells the reader of the first time he saw him. Now, pretty much any of us would do that if we were seeing a celebrity we knew well for the first time and they were smaller than we'd expected. I saw Michael Portillo once, who was then a conservative party politician, standing by the road as I drove by. I'd seen him on TV tons of times but seeing him in real life, I was struck by how small he looked. Same with John Bercow, the speaker in the house of commons. He's small. I wasn't even aware that there were issues about his height until a couple of years after I'd actually seen him. Other politicians made jokes about him and when it made the news, I was telling people I'd seen him and how small he was. It was nothing to do with put downs, I like the man and he's a good politician even though I'd be unlikely to vote Tory.
The other time Bugliosi mentions his height is when he's trying to ascertain whether it was Charlie that Hatami saw at Cielo in March '69. The height thing is part of a general description and it's rather stretching it to read 'subtle diss' into it.
That police photo is, if nothing else, some very interesting viewing. He appears to be 5'2 or 3 in it.

grimtraveller said...

grimtraveller said...

Paul Whitley is frequently down as "Whiteley," I've written him down that way far more than any other. He's nearly always written down that way. He's written that way in Ed Sanders' "The Family," William Zamora's "Trial by your peers" and "Helter Skelter," to name but 3. But Whitley is his name. In Bobby's first trial, he's asked to say who he is and to spell it and that's how he does so;
THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: Be seated and state your name, please.

THE WITNESS: Paul J. Whitley, W-h-i-t-l-e-y


Now how weird is that ? The same cop Paul that spelt his name as Whitley in the Hinman trial of Bobby, in the Hinman/Shea of Charlie two years later, spells it as Whiteley ! After swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth !!

THE CLERK: Please state your name for the record.

THE WITNESS: Paul J. Whiteley, W-h-i-t-e-l-e-y.

Of course, he could have changed it in that time. One of my closest friends I knew for a good 15 or more years as Diane then one day she told me that it wasn't her name, that it was Deanne and that's what she wanted to be known as and that's what I've called her for the last 17 or so years. In the first 15 or so, her husband, her sister, her Mum, all our mutual friends {and enemies !} knew her as Diane.

grimtraveller said...

grimtraveller said...

Have a look at this police photo and pay particular attention to the yardstick to the right....He appears to be 5'2 or 3 in it.

Cielo.com has subsequently pointed out to me that the subject is supposed to stand a couple of yards forward of the wall that the yardstick is on to accurately record their height. There's a box that he would have stood in and when doing so, has a height of approximately 5 feet 7 inches.

grimtraveller said...

Here's an irony; in the search index of this blog, Kay comes up as spelled with both a 'v' and a 'ph' !

Unknown said...

"Diss" is verb and a slang term, probably short for "dismissed" as you suggest. It is something you would have heard in the 1990's in high schools, or between competing wannabe rappers...lol. It's not really a formal term in good journalism, IMHO. Sorry if I am dissing the author for its use.

grimtraveller said...

ziggyosterberg said...

Have you ever been to Inglewood, California, or Mobile, Alabama?

And please do tell us more about the America that you've experienced through books


An interesting statement from Pat from her 2016 parole hearing regarding both California and Alabama:
"When I went back to Alabama in sixties, it was totally segregated. And there were black and white water fountains. And there were, if you get on the bus, it was a very strange world, because it was absolutely segregated. When I went to counters I was told I couldn't sit there or that I had to go to the back, because that was not a place where white people sat. I was told by my uncle when you walk down the street you don't ever step off the curb for a black person. It was, it was a world I did not understand at all. And I felt so out of place. I was called a Yankee ~ everywhere I went I was called a Yankee, because, for some reason, if you don't have a southern sound to your voice, everyone would call me a Yankee. It was a really odd environment at that time. And there were marches. And my uncle was rather violent. And he had a gun and said he wanted to go stop those marches. I came from Los Angeles. And in Los Angeles I had Hispanic friends. And I was brought up that, although there was very much division even in Westchester, there weren't a lot of black families there, if any. I did know, at our church and stuff, there were blacks, whites, brown people. It was integrated here."

It's interesting that without prompting, she comments on the fact that she had Hispanic friends but says nothing about any black ones and that she makes the point that in her area there were hardly any Black families "if any." Her only stated experience of Black people was in her church and this would have been when she was younger, before her family fell apart and she moved with her Mum to Alabama. But that was hardly an environment where one would pick up on the nuances of Black people talk.

grimtraveller said...

Patrick Perry said...

"Diss" is verb and a slang term, probably short for "dismissed"

It's short for "disrespected."

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 249 of 249   Newer› Newest»