Monday, July 17, 2017

You Are Better Off Being Hitler

The Manson mythos has a long reach. Charles Manson is and remains the ‘bogeyman’ of our times
and has been so since 1970. Part of this aura exists because of the nature of the murders that occurred at Cielo Drive where victims fled calling for help and ‘witchy’ things were not simply printed on the door in blood but spoken to the victims. Part of it comes from the official motive and part from the instrument of murder- knives. But perhaps none of that would have remained in the collective psyche if it were not for the fact ‘Manson didn’t kill anyone’. Instead he convinced others, according to the official narrative to kill for him. They weren’t mob hit men or professional assassins or even psychopaths. They were early twenty-something girls.


Even though Watson did most of the killing what images appear with a google search of ‘Manson killers’? Aside from Manson, it is by far the girls. Like this one- a movie still.

The impact of ‘Manson’ was, perhaps, best illustrated by Dana Gilbert nearly forty years ago:
_____

“This, again, goes to my second point. And that is, the State in the form of the prosecution will not let the people forget that they were part of the Manson family. And it doesn’t matter if you try to break away. You will not be allowed, not by Manson, but by the State, by Chief Davis, by the District Attorney’s office, you will not be allowed to forget that you were part of the Manson family. And everything you do is because you’re part of the Manson family. Because you’re interested in ecology, that’s part of the Manson family. Because you’re interested in earth sciences, you’re part of the Manson family. It doesn’t matter. It’s guilt by association. Its as simple as that. You were part of the Manson family once. You will never be allowed to forget that. If you have an independent interest, that doesn’t matter. It’s because of somebody else in some part of the Manson family at one time thought about it, that means that you’re still interested in the Manson family. Don’t you think we’ve had enough of this? It’s been almost eight years now.”  (S. Dana Gilbert, attorney. Krenwinkel Parole Hearing, July 17, 1978)
_____

At the trial Bugliosi invoked the image of Hitler to define Manson:
_____

“The Nazis murdered 6 million Jews at Adolph Hitler’s command.”
*****
“ I want to make an observation related to what I just said, one or more of you may say to yourselves—I don’t think any of you will—but the thought certainly may enter your mind that as wicked, as vicious, as these three defendants are, by comparison to Charles Manson, they are not as wicked and vicious as he is; therefore, let’s give Manson the death penalty and these three female defendants life imprisonment.

The only type of problem with that type of approach, ladies and gentlemen, is that these three female defendants are given credit, as it were, because of Manson’s extreme wickedness and viciousness.

Under that type of reasoning if you were to employ that type of reasoning then if Adolph Hitler were Charles Manson’s co-defendant, Manson should receive life imprisonment because of the comparison with the indescribably evil Adolph Hitler.”
(Vincent Bugliosi, Argument, Death Penalty Phase, Vol 207 at 27,862-3)
_____

Part of what Bugliosi is trying to accomplish is precisely what he says: he doesn’t want the jury to compare the relative ‘evil’ of the defendants. He is also planting a seed: go ahead draw a comparison between Hitler and Manson. No one at counsel table objected.

In March 1971 Bugliosi invoked the name and memory of Hitler to sway the jury. But invoking the name ‘Charles Manson’ that’s another story altogether. If you are on trial I think you are better off being Hitler then Manson.
_____

Certainly don’t talk about yourself to friends in terms of Manson.

“VIII. Should the State have been allowed to refer to and question concerning Charles Manson? Defendant claims the State's questioning permitted by the court, over his objection, concerning Charles Manson and matters relating to or referring to Manson was irrelevant and immaterial.
During trial, the State examined Lori Forrester and Conard about statements defendant had made [to third parties] characterizing himself as Charles Manson.



Defendant objected to these questions as irrelevant and immaterial. The court overruled the objections, stating that the questions did not ask who Charles Manson is or what he stands for, but rather called for testimony relating to defendant's statements characterizing himself as Charles Manson. [Aside: you are kidding me right? The jury didn’t know who Manson was?]

Although it would have been preferable for the court not to allow this evidence on direct examination of the State's witnesses, we cannot say it was an abuse of the court's discretion to admit evidence that defendant characterized himself as someone else.

State vs. Horn, 282 N.W.2d 717 (1979).

Horn was convicted of first degree murder but his conviction was overturned, but not for this.
_____

Now, understand the DA is not supposed to compare the defendant to Manson.

“Finally, the defendant complains of comments made by the prosecutor in closing argument. This assignment of error has some merit. Some of the remarks of the prosecutor [footnote #3] can in no way be considered fair comments on the evidence. Nor are they in answer to anything raised by the defendant. The remarks are totally improper and were it not for the overwhelming evidence of guilt, this case would have to be reversed because of them.

Under the circumstances, we believe that the minds of the jurors were not swayed between guilty and not guilty verdicts by the prosecutor's misbehavior, but they may well have been swayed to return a more severe penalty than they would have given otherwise. For that reason and because of the improper cross-examination of the defendant, the sentence is MODIFIED from a term of thirty (30) years' imprisonment to a term of fifteen (15) years' imprisonment and is otherwise AFFIRMED.

[3] "... A good citizen? Yeah. He [Megget] was a good citizen. Charles [Manson] was a good citizen before the eyes of the law, before he committed his first crime; so was Patty Hearst, so was Al Capone, before they committed their first crime. And I suspect that somewhere in the vast metropolitan area of Chicago you could have found somebody to say, `Yeah, I knew John Dillinger. He was good to me. He was a good employee of mine.' And I think perhaps even Charles [Manson] had a character witness or two at his trial....

Megget v. State, 599 P.2d 1110 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979)

“When combined with the prosecutor's analogizing the appellant to Charles Manson and the Candy Man in closing argument, we cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury was not unduly prejudiced in its sentencing of appellant. Accordingly, we would modify appellant's sentence from forty-five (45) years' imprisonment to thirty (30) years' imprisonment.”

Wooldridge v. State 659 P.2d 943 (1983)

_____

Despite cases like Megget and Wooldridge, actually preventing the DA from invoking Manson to help convict you for some reason is rather difficult. Invoking Manson and comparing the defendant to him could result in a mistrial. But I wasn’t able to find a single case where that happened. Instead it usually goes like this.  

“Fourth, Shurn complains that the prosecutor stated that Shurn was more deserving of death than Charles Manson. Again, Shurn overstates the prosecutor's argument. The prosecutor stated, "The Charles Mansons of the world, you're not going to deter them.... This is the kind of crime that can be deterred." In fact, the prosecutor was, in a backhanded manner, stating that Shurn was better than Manson.”

State vs. Shurn 866 S.W. 2nd (1993)

Sharon was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death.

“Appellant also claims the solicitor's mention of Charles Manson in his closing argument warranted a mistrial. We disagree.

While making his closing argument, the solicitor stated: "...[a]nd they are going to tell you that they are both cloaked in innocence. As a matter of fact, its a part of the charge that His Honor will give you that they are cloaked in innocence and only you can remove it. Well I want you to know that the cloak has been worn by many people and its been ripped from them by many juries. Charles Manson wore that same..."

At this point appellant's counsel objected and moved for a mistrial. The trial court denied this motion, instructed the jury to disregard the mention of Manson, and directed the solicitor to "get off the subject."

"When the record shows that objectionable evidence was either disallowed or stricken out on motion and the jury instructed to disregard it, the [appellant] cannot complain." State v. Campbell”

State vs Stroman 281 S.C. 508 (1984)

Stroman was convicted of multiple offenses and received life in prison for murder and kidnapping. The appellate court vacated the life sentence for kidnapping- not that that really mattered given the rest.

Ward v. State 262 Ga. 293 (1992)

(f) The prosecutor did not argue impermissibly by telling the jury that convicting the defendant only of involuntary manslaughter "is like convicting Jack the Ripper or Charles Manson for disturbing the peace."

Ward was convicted of kidnapping and murder and sentenced to death.
_____

The good news is that you can use Manson to get out of jury duty….sort of.

“ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER SIX
Defendant contends that the trial court erroneously excused a prospective juror, Faye Robinson, for cause.

Faye Robinson testified that she could not vote for a death penalty, stating: "I couldn't say that anyone has to go to death. I don't want to be a part of it." (Tr. 218) Although she would "never vote for it", she "probably" could in the case of someone like Adolph Hitler. (Tr. 219) If Charles Manson or Hitler were being tried, she thought she could consider a death penalty.

The trial court concluded that Ms. Robinson could not impose a death penalty and allowed the challenge for cause.

Ms. Robinson indicated that she would vote automatically against capital punishment except in the case of a mass murder on the scale of Adolph Hitler or Charles Manson. There was no abuse of discretion in the trial judge's conclusion that this disqualified her as a juror.”

State v. Nicholson 437 So. 2d 849 (1983)
_____

‘Mass murder on the scale of Adolph Hitler or Charles Manson’? I personally don’t think there is an actual parallel there.

It appears Ms. Robinson couldn’t vote for the death penalty for a rather wide variety of murderers but it’s not a problem when it comes to Manson- his reputation proceeds him.
_____

And then there is my personal favorite. It requires a little ‘legalese’ to understand. In the law there is a concept known as ‘judicial notice’. Put rather simply, the court may take judicial notice of something that is so well established absolutely no evidence need be offered to prove the point: the earth is round, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. And….

In the case of Lawrence Walker the DA had this to say:

“On cross-examination, when the prosecutor sought to determine whether the appellant had been looking for a job after his release from prison, Mrs. Richardson stated: "He would go looking for a job, but you know, I mean, how many people are going to give Charles Manson a job? [Footnote #1]”

But the fun part is the footnote:

“(1.) This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the name "Charles Manson" is synonymous with murder and "some particularly terrible crime.”

Walker v. State 631 So. 2d 294 (1993)

So in Alabama, at least it is incontrovertible that ‘Charles Manson’ means ‘terrible murder’.

Walker was convicted of robbery in the first degree and sentenced to life in prison without parole as a habitual felony offender.

Pax vobiscum

Dreath









50 comments:

ziggyosterberg said...


Godwin's Law invoked by the OP. ;)

Thank you for writing this, David. And for all your contributions to the blog. You're a class act.

My first thought when reading this was I wonder what Jerry Millman thought when he heard his former cellmate being compared to Adolf Hitler?

Matt said...

Ziggy when you get time, email me please.

grimtraveller said...

Pax Vobiscum said...

The Manson mythos has a long reach. Charles Manson is and remains the ‘bogeyman’ of our times
and has been so since 1970


Only in America. Rarely elsewhere. For example, in the UK, the mystique he may have to us that are interested in the case doesn't exist. We've imported much from America that one could put in the 'negative' category, not least murder gang culture among young people and lawsuits over what were once considered as minor blips but Charlie has been well overtaken in the rush. American murder is simply that here, "American murder." We don't even recall the names of people and Manson is a dim and distant memory to those that were of a certain age range at the time. Last December in the school I work in in the afternoons, I was reading Nicholas Shrek's book during lunch and one of the teachers asked me about it. She vaguely remembered the case, in the same sort of way that some people might vaguely remember Pete Sampras losing to Roger Federer at Wimbledon in 2002 or thereabouts. But I could see she didn't really have an interest that went beyond a sentence or two.
We have enough hassles here with Gang leaders and hard line Islamists that are able to convince others to do their killing to be interested in some dude that did something similar half a century ago. And those guys rarely ever get put away for their crimes, a la Charlie.

But perhaps none of that would have remained in the collective psyche if it were not for the fact ‘Manson didn’t kill anyone’. Instead he convinced others, according to the official narrative to kill for him. They weren’t mob hit men or professional assassins or even psychopaths. They were early twenty-something girls

On a number of the crime channels we have here, there are so many programmes about people that convince others to kill for them and they start pretty young......

Even though Watson did most of the killing what images appear with a google search of ‘Manson killers’? Aside from Manson, it is by far the girls

Tex's cloak of invisibility in the past 48 years has been perhaps one of the most intriguing aspects of this saga although he "get's his" on the blogs and at parole hearing time so justice is working even if it is deemed to be somewhat imperfect at times.
But it's not surprising that the images of the women come up so frequently when when does a search for "Manson killers." After all, they were among the killers, they were the ones that visibly showed utter disdain, dancing and singing and baiting the Judge and the system {and by extension, spitting in the faces of the families and putting forward the notion that they'd done the right thing}. And they denied any notion of madness. Tex on the other hand was very low key, short haired, didn't cause any disturbance, said he was remorseful, spoke only when spoken to {sometimes ! Other times he was mute in his "I'm insane" routine}.
Unfortunately, human beings have long memories and we tend to peg a person where we want to remember them as opposed to where they may currently have travelled to, even if that somewhere is in the dim and distant past and without being obvious, the shock factor was such that it has endured in a way that I think Bugliosi foresaw when he was writing "Helter Skelter."

ziggyosterberg said...


Sent you one, Matt.

grimtraveller said...

@Manson Mythos;

Your comment has gone but one of the things you argued was that Stalin, Pol Pot and some other dudes killed more people than Hitler. What's worrying about that, even if it be true numerically, is your logic that somehow, that diminishes Hitler, his thoughts and his actions.
Jewish people don't keep the memory of Hitler alive because it's a convenient way to get what they want. They keep that memory alive because in recent living memory, a horror was systematically visited on a people for no other reason than their cultural heritage. You come across as having no understanding or consideration of the real pain of others. You make similar jibes about Black people as though they and the Jewish people are simply over~reacting to centuries of degradation at the hands of others.
The other point to make about Hitler and why one can't compare his impact with that of Stalin or Pol Pot is simply the international dimension. The guys you mentioned were, for want of a better word, 'localized.' Hitler was anything but. Like Charlie, he had reach and continues to.
With Charles Manson, I sometimes think he had a point when he called himself a reflection of American society. The problem there though is that he often pitched it in the context of deflecting attention away from his own responsibilities in matters.

David said...

Ziggy said: "You're a class act."

Thank you.

Robert C said...

Grim -- As always, greatly appreciate your insights.

From my perspective I don't think very many Americans, especially those who came much later after the 60's, have much of a recollection of Charles Manson other than the name itself **if even that**. Mostly of interest to historians, crime and punishment fans and those with a focus on the Manson Family which covers us on this blog. I often think there's a tendency for us affectionado's to feel everyone has great interest.

As for Manson calling himself a reflection of American Society ... pure horse shit from any angle. Helps him mentally validate his actions. And as one who has lived in Europe and visited the UK extensively, what you know about the US is what's fed to you by your local media outlets very similar to what Americans think they know about the UK. Slanted.

David said...

Robert C said: "From my perspective I don't think very many Americans, especially those who came much later after the 60's, have much of a recollection of Charles Manson other than the name itself **if even that**."

I agree with the rest of what you said 100% but not the last part of this. Our country is driven by $$$$. I don't think Aquarius would have happened or Tarantino would be making a movie (or talking about it. I don't think Dateline or 20-20 would troop out Guinn to regale us with his opinions every year or so if his name was not synonymous with 'evil/murder/etc.". I don't think people mag would interview Love about it for that matter.

At the same time I always notice how little people know (an issue I have with an Inglorious Basterds-Manson movie). I was just trying to find it but one little blurb I saw some time ago from some fairly reputable source described Manson as the 'murderer' of 'actress Sharon Tate and four others. A bit short on the victims.

grimtraveller said...

Robert C said...

As for Manson calling himself a reflection of American Society ... pure horse shit from any angle. Helps him mentally validate his actions

That was partly my point, that he spoke of being a reflection from the viewpoint of what was negative which was one of his ways of saying that he took no responsibility for his actions because after all, "I am what you have made me...."
But I don't think it was entirely horse shit. A warped reflection is still a reflection of sorts and while we have to go on trust regarding his recollections of his early years, if true, there was quite a bit that befell him that he did indeed end up being a reflection of. For example, his first incarceration didn't come about due to any crime he committed but because he wasn't really wanted around by his Mum. Some of what he encountered in some of those boys homes in terms of abuse from the very people that were supposed to be taking care of him would turn many youngsters' heads and he certainly reflected some of the mindset that he fell victim to as he got older. It's an eye opener looking at some of the things that were said about him and his attitude. Eye opening because it seems few if anyone actually put together that some of why this young guy was behaving as he did was because of the circumstances that their very system placed him in. As much of a con man as he developed into, the statement that Dr Block made about him in 1951 not having totally given up hope of finding "some kind of love and affection from the world" speaks volumes, or at least it does to me. Dave 1971 would probably have a pop at me and ask me if I were a psychiatrist !

And as one who has lived in Europe and visited the UK extensively, what you know about the US is what's fed to you by your local media outlets very similar to what Americans think they know about the UK. Slanted

There's some truth to that but not in its entirety. I don't trust local media outlets to provide me with a balanced picture of anything, let alone an entire nation. I don't even really see America as a homogeneous mass because to me, from my experience with people from the continent as well as books I've read by "you guys" and, importantly, the contributors to the blogs, America is much like Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle east; lots of differing groups that aren't really alike in quite significant ways even though they may look the same in many cases. Yet have certain similarities.
I don't know where you live and how much interaction there is between different people groups but I'm quite fortunate in that regard, I have regular interaction with people from literally all over the globe and I've picked up more from them than I ever could through the telly and papers.
33 years ago, I was at a film screening hosted by this Black American filmmaker, Sam Greenlee, and one of my friends asked him which was the better party in the USA for a Black person to vote for. Sam said it made no difference, that both were as bad as each other and that there would never be a Black POTUS but if there ever was to be one it wouldn't happen without some kind of violent revolution. While much of the audience lapped that up, I just could not accept that there wasn't some kind of balance to the situation and I guess I've long tended to look for that in any situation I come across or find myself in. Last year, David quoted George Martin as saying that without "Pet Sounds" there would have been no Sergeant Pepper; as minor a situation as it was, straight away my balance antennae went up and I argued against that and backed it up. A few people didn't like that but that's me. "Nuance" is my middle name and "sometimes" is my most favoured word.

grimtraveller said...

Robert C said...

I often think there's a tendency for us affectionado's to feel everyone has great interest

I had a little snigger to myself at David's sarcastic
[Aside: you are kidding me right? The jury didn’t know who Manson was?]
because it wouldn't surprise me at all if few people, even back in 1979, could remember Charles Manson, let alone have an actual detailed knowledge of all that surrounded him and his case.
It was really refreshing to find this and other TLB blogs and to actually hook up with people that not only like to talk about the case but had different and alternative views on it and are quite, for want of a better word, passionate about their thoughts. In the 37 years previous, apart from a couple of chats with my younger sister {the one I'd bought HS for in the first place}, I'd never met anyone that had shared my interest.
Despite the number of books written on the subject, it's definitely a minority sport and I suspect there's not many of us left !

Robert C said...

David -- almost on the same page but I was referencing percentages whereas I sense you're thinking in numbers. From name recognition only to detailed knowledge of Manson activities, I still think the percentages of those in the know are low but the numbers can be high. Five percent of 320 million is still 16 million (arbitrary example). That's enough clientele to keep the media shows happy. ;-)

Grim -- There are millions of people who had less than ideal childhoods but they didn't follow the path Manson chose. He had many opportunities to clean up his act but decided instead to pursue a perpetual life of hurting other people whether he stole cars, raped, prostituted girls, etc. It's like he told Geraldo Rivera in an interview in a moment of weakness, he's just a bad person and everyone was so nice to him when he got dumped out into the Haight (San Francisco) that he just decided to play along with that .... for awhile.

Meanwhile it appears you do not stereotype Americans easily which is, for lack of a better word, good.

An aside: Tarantino does not make literal movies. He makes caricatures of quasi-real world events or circumstances using both humor and horror. So I don't expect a highly accurate, realistic portrayal of anything Manson even though I suspect whatever he comes up with will be entertaining nonetheless.

David said...

Robert, with that comment we are on the same page. I think those truly interested in the subject are quite small. But I do think the name is like Jack the Ripper even if most people would respond: Gary who?

I was talking today at lunch with a friend about the Tarantino film. He sent me the link because he knows my interest- hours after here. Because of these comments I asked him independent of me why he thought Tarantino would pick up the subject. He doesn't know about Mr. H or much else. He made two comments.

Tarantino obviously is interested citing the end of Inglorious Basterd- you know where he got the idea was his comment.

Pushed further he said 'its like Jaws- something that kills for no reason. No insanity. Not money etc. it's terrifying.'

I found that interesting.

starviego said...

grimtraveller said...
"33 years ago, I was at a film screening hosted by this Black American filmmaker, Sam Greenlee"

What was the name of the film?

ziggyosterberg said...


I was listening to an interview with Tarantino, and in it he said that he was a fan of genres, and especially sub-genres, films like the Dirty Dozen being a sub-genre of the war films genre. And that was what he was trying to do with Inglorious Basterds.

I'm not sure how (or if) that applies to his Manson film.

It's possible that, given the subject matter, he may be playing it straight this time. Doing something similar to "Jackie Brown", a movie with a very realistic storyline, and one in which the violence was toned down, and most of the killings happened off screen (with the victim not shown).

There was a rumor last week started on Reddit that the plot of the movie was going to be "Sharon Tate survives and hunts down/murders the whole family".

The thing that I like best about the rumor is this : "Harvey Keitel is playing Manson as on old man". For some reason, I can see that casting work.

ziggyosterberg said...


There was also a rumor about 3 years ago that QT had scrapped his Hateful Eight movie after script leaks, and decided instead to make a prison movie that had something to do with the Robert Blake case :

"TheWrap has heard that Tarantino has been considering a prison movie of sorts and has immersed himself in the details of the Robert Blake case, though a representative for Blake told TheWrap several weeks ago that Tarantino has not reached out to the former “Baretta” star, who was acquitted of killing his wife.

Tarantino could not immediately be reached for comment."


If there was any truth to that, "Robert Blake" may have been the name that QT was substituting for "Charles Manson", to keep the real subject of his film under wraps.

ziggyosterberg said...


Just one last thing :

Robert Blake talking to Barbara Walters and sounding like Charles Manson (at around 0:50)

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Tarantinos flick cant be any worse than any of the Guinn and Co. rehashed bullshit, at least it will be interesting to see his spin on it and if its indeed Sharon somehow living through it and extracting revenge on everyone it should be at least good for a laugh, her and Voytek partaking in some MDMA, donning swords, heading to Spahn to raise some hell, maybe throw in Ving Rhames in as Lotsapoppa

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

starviego said...

grimtraveller said...
"33 years ago, I was at a film screening hosted by this Black American filmmaker, Sam Greenlee"


What was the name of the film?


"The Spook who sat by the door." It's not a great film but I've seen worse. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of its content was what Charlie may have had coursing through his mind as HS was taking shape as "the shit is coming down."

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

if its indeed Sharon somehow living through it and extracting revenge on everyone

Your pen name is not a nom de plume that one should be looking at before they are about to eat a hearty or even small meal !

Robert C said...

There are millions of people who had less than ideal childhoods but they didn't follow the path Manson chose. He had many opportunities to clean up his act but decided instead to pursue a perpetual life of hurting other people whether he stole cars, raped, prostituted girls, etc

Agreed. I do want to point out that there may be something of a paradox at work in understanding the horrors that one underwent at various points of their life and seeing how these may have contributed to an eventual outcome while at the same time recognizing that the eventual outcome was by no means inevitable or even justifiable, though understandable.
Both are true; some of the cruelty of others played a significant part in shaping his psyche and therefore his personality and therefore contributed towards his future actions. By the same token, he can't say that he became what he became because of the actions of those others.

Panamint Patty said...

Susanatkinsgonnorhea is dave1971

ziggyosterberg said...


grimtraveller said...

"Your pen name is not a nom de plume that one should be looking at before they are about to eat a hearty or even small meal !"


Need I remind you that your nom de plume is also a reference to Cockburn?

brownrice said...

ziggyosterberg said...


Need I remind you that your nom de plume is also a reference to Cockburn?

Nice one, Ziggy... I could never really understand why Bruce didn't change his name given that he was working in show biz and all.

grimtraveller said...

ziggyosterberg said...


Need I remind you that your nom de plume is also a reference to Cockburn?

Which you can drink with any meal !


grimtraveller said...

brownrice said...

I could never really understand why Bruce didn't change his name given that he was working in show biz and all

I guess he figured most people would miss the pun if they heard the name as opposed to seeing it written down.









{Bruce that is, not the Zigster !}

Matt said...

Even if you can't spell your own pen name, googling the spelling takes less time than it would to acquire gonorrhea.


MamaPoohBear said...

A little off the subject. OJ was granted parole today, even though he murdered two people. Never convicted, agreed, but murdered them nonetheless. He served 9 years for another crime.

LVH participated in the murder of one person and is going into her 43rd year of prison. Can you please explain that math to me, Governor Jerry No-Balls Brown?

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

One little itsy bitsy problem with that.....OJ......was......found.......not.......guilty

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

OJ was sentenced to 9-33 years for kidnapping. If LVH were tried under the 'modern' sentencing guidelines and events played out the same way. She would likely have received 25-life and yes, absent the Manson connection, would have walked out free after 25 years.

Manson et al, by contrast would have still received the DP or at best life without parole so actually, given the way things shook out, they got a better result then they would have received today.

IMO

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

I meant he was found not guilty of murder in criminal case

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


The OJ Simpson trial also gave us the Kardashian family and Mario George Nitrini 111. You're welcome, America.

Keeping Up with the Nitrini
(Mario's Twitter)


Mr. Humphrat said...

I was surprised OJ said all the things you're not supposed to say to a parole board in rationalizing his actions in Las Vegas. I only heard small clips, but I've read enough from this website to know you don't try to justify your actions. I wonder if the board reprimanded him at all for that attitude.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Humphrat all he was doing was telling the truth

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

So, Susanatkinsgonorhhea
You really think that OJ Simpson was telling the complete truth in his parole hearing just this last
July 20th, 2017?
Well I can tell you 100% from my personal knowledge of what I know personally in this case and about OJ Simpson,
HE WASN'T..........

Thank you ziggyosterberg.

David, I agree with you on your evaluation of
LVH (absent the Manson connection)
& the "Manson" et al....

Mr Humphrat:
I also, like you was suprised (Very)
at what OJ Simpson said in this parole hearing. He lied about several situations.

Mario George Nitrini 111
------
The OJ Simpson Case

David said...

Mr. Humphrat,

In a lot of states( where I am for example) when you are sentenced to say 9-33 you need a reason to keep them in past 9. That typically has to be something you did in prison so the rules are a bit different.

CrisPOA said...

He really sounds like Manson - and look at his eyes! He's got those strange eyes and look too!

David said...

Welcome back MGN111

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Thank you David

Your blog-posts are OUTSTANDING!!!

Mario George Nitrini 1111
-------
The OJ Simpson Case

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Well David,

I'm getting old.....lol

That should be:

111

Mario George Nitrini 111
-------
The OJ Simpson Case

grimtraveller said...


ziggyosterberg said...


Need I remind you that your nom de plume is also a reference to Cockburn?

Actually, it isn't.


MamaPoohBear said...

OJ was granted parole today, even though he murdered two people. Never convicted, agreed, but murdered them nonetheless

It's what you think. But is it what you know ?

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

He doesnt know anything, what I KNOW is the LAPD fucked up a whole lot of things on the case like it is their track record of doing

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


grimtraveller said...

"Actually, it isn't."


Save a little something for your autobiography, Grim. :)

ziggyosterberg said...


Mario, I just listened to audio on your Twitter of OJ saying that he "don't know any Rocky Bateman" - What's up with that?

Is OJ just a liar?

Or is there more to that situation?

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Hey Ziggy,

There is a lot more to that situation, a lot more.....

Rocky Bateman was OJ Simpson's regular limousine driver from approximately
August of 1993 to June of 1994. The limo company in The OJ Simpson Case was my main focus and I have blogged and commented extensively about it.

Believe me Ziggy, OJ Simpson knows who Rocky Bateman is.

If you would like, I can direct you to comments and blogs that I have made concerning Rocky Bateman and The limousine company, Town and Country Limousine Service, in The OJ Simpson Case.

Mario George Nitrini 111
------
The OJ Simpson Case

David said...

MGN111 said,

Your blog-posts are OUTSTANDING!!!


Thank you very much.

grimtraveller said...

ziggyosterberg said...


Save a little something for your autobiography, Grim. :)

To be titled "I've had the war, now I need the peace...."

ziggyosterberg said...


Warren Piece would be a good pen name/nom de plume.

grimtraveller said...

Can't argue with that.