Monday, October 1, 2018

The Law: Conspiracy to Commit Murder, Felony Murder and One for the Colonel

It seems to me that these topics come up frequently. 

The defendants in the Tate-LaBianca trial were indicted for murder and conspiracy to commit murder. At the conclusion of the trial Vincent Bugliosi also sought an instruction to the jury on the felony murder rule  due to Linda Kasabian’s claim she thought she was going on a ‘creepy-crawl’ the night of Cielo Drive and her description of a ‘creepy-crawl’. He also based the requested instruction on the residential invasions, cash, clothing, wallet and food taken on the two nights, the felonies of burglary and robbery. 

The key impact of both crimes is that Conspiracy to Commit Murder and Felony Murder do not require the defendant to actually kill anyone or even be present when someone is murdered to be guilty of murder. That, of course, rather obviously is directed at Charles Manson.

The third area of the law, below, relates to the oft expressed statement that if a witness commits perjury during a capital trial (a murder trial) that they are guilty of murder. Not exactly. 


Conspiracy to Commit Murder



The Law


The statute is California Penal Code section 182. It may have changed since 1970. Here are the actual
jury instructions from the Tate-LaBianca trial. Jury instructions are based upon and generally paraphrase the statutes, in part, and add legal concepts developed by appellate courts. In other words, they are an accurate statement of the law.

“A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit any crime, and with the specific intent to commit such crime, followed by an overt act committed in this state by one or more of the parties for the purpose of accomplishing the object of the agreement.

In order to find a defendant guilty of conspiracy in addition to proof of the unlawful agreement, there must be proof of the commission of at least one of the overt acts alleged in the indictments. It is not necessary to the guilt of any particular defendant that he himself committed the overt act if he was one of the conspirators when such an act was committed.

The term "overt act” means any step taken or act committed by one or more of the conspirators which goes beyond mere planning or agreement to commit a public offense and which step or act is done in furtherance of the accomplishment of the object of the conspiracy.”


“Each member of a conspiracy is liable for each act and bound by each declaration of every other member of the conspiracy if said act or said declaration is in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy. 

The act of one conspirator pursuant to or in furtherance of the common design of the conspiracy is the act of all conspirators. Every conspirator is legally responsible for an act of a co-conspirator that follows as one of the probable and natural consequences of the object of the conspiracy even though it was not intended as a part of the original plan and even though he was not present at the time of the commission of such act.”

*****

“It is not necessary in proving a conspiracy to show a meeting of the alleged conspirators or the making of an express or formal agreement. The formation and existence of a conspiracy may be inferred from all circumstances tending to show the common intent and, may be proved in the same way as any other fact may be proved, either by direct testimony of the fact or by circumstantial evidence, or by both direct and circumstantial evidence.”


The Elements of the Offense



To be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder the prosecution must prove all of the following beyond a reasonable doubt. 

1. The defendant has to enter into an agreement with at least one other.

2.    The defendant agreed to intentionally kill. The target does not have to be identified.

3.    Some member of the group commits an any act that moves the plan forward in the state of California. Some member of the conspiracy does something to bring about the murder.

4.    The defendant is then liable of every act committed by every participant even if he wasn’t present. He is liable even if he personally didn’t intend the specific act to happen if it was a probable and natural consequence of the plan. 


Felony Murder



The Law


The statute is California Penal Code section 189. Here are the actual jury instructions from the Tate-LaBianca trial. 

“The unlawful killing of, a human being, whether intentional, unintentional or accidental, which occurs as the result of the commission or attempt to commit the crime of burglary or robbery, and where there was in the mind of the perpetrator the specific intent to commit such crime [burglary or robbery] or crimes, is murder of the first degree. 

The specific intent to commit burglary or robbery and the commission or attempt to commit such crime or crimes must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”

*****

“If a human being is killed by any one of several persons engaged in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, the crime of burglary or robbery, all persons who either directly and actively commit the act constituting such crime or who knowingly and with criminal intent aid and abet it its commission, or, whether present or not, who advise and encourage its commission, are guilty of murder of the first degree, whether the killing is intentional unintentional, or accidental.”


The Elements of the Offense


To be convicted under the felony murder rule: 

1.    The defendant must intend to commit the underlying felony (burglary or robbery) not murder.

2.    Someone is killed during the course of that felony by anyone, intentionally or accidentally.

3.    It doesn’t matter whether the defendant was actually present when the underlying felony was committed if he aided and abetted the underlying felony he is liable for the murder. 

4.    Again, as long as the defendant assisted with the robbery or burglary he doesn’t have to be present when the murder takes place. 

The felony murder rule is generally referred to as ‘accomplice liability’ and is based upon what legal scholars refer to as the probable consequences doctrine. That doctrine says that some crimes have such a high risk that a death is a probable consequence of the crime. 


California SB (Senate Bill) 1437 eliminates what is called ‘accomplice liability’ under the felony murder rule. That statute passed the state assembly on August 29th and the state senate on August 30, 2018 and as of the writing of this post was on the governor’s desk. 

The reason for SD 1437 summarized as follows: 

“It is necessary to amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.”


The new law reads as follows: 

(e) A participant in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a felony listed in subdivision (a) in which a death occurs is liable for murder only if one of the following is proven:

(1) The person was the actual killer.

(2) The person was not the actual killer, but, with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree.

(3) The person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, as described in subdivision (d) of Section 190.2.

This change might possibly impact Leslie Van Houten. SB 1437 also says this: 

Section 1170.95 is added to the Penal Code, to read:

(a) A person convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory may file a petition with the court that sentenced the petitioner to have the petitioner’s murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts when all of the following conditions apply:

(1) A complaint, information, or indictment was filed against the petitioner that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

(2) The petitioner was convicted of first degree or second degree murder following a trial or accepted a plea offer in lieu of a trial at which the petitioner could be convicted for first degree or second degree murder.

(3) The petitioner could not be convicted of first or second degree murder because of changes to Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.

The last section may be a problem. 


Perjury During a Capital Trial



The Law


California Penal Code Section 128 states: 

Every person who, by willful perjury or subornation of perjury procures the conviction and execution
of any innocent person, is punishable by death or life imprisonment without possibility of parole. The penalty shall be determined pursuant to Sections 190.3 and 190.4 [emphasis added].


The Elements of the Offense


First, you have to willfully perjure yourself. You have to lie voluntarily. 

The key here, however, is the underlined portion of the statute. In order to be executed for committing perjury during a criminal trial, three things must occur: 

1.    The person you testified against was innocent.

2.    The person against whom you testified falsely was convicted. 

3.    The person against whom you testified falsely was executed. 

So, let’s assume hypothetically that Bugliosi somehow managed to coach Kasabian well enough that she was able to invent everything she said. We also have to assume she wanted to participate in the scheme and even came up with some zingers on her own. Finally, lets assume Manson was at Esalen from August 1st to the 15th and had no idea what happened. Unfortunately, he can’t prove it because he jumped the fence. He’s innocent. 

Kasabian gets on the stand and lies. Bugliosi asks the questions that help her lie. Manson is convicted. The Supreme Court does not intervene and Manson is subsequently executed. Both Kasabian who committed perjury and Bugliosi, who ‘suborned’ her perjury could be tried for murder and could be executed. 

What is historically stated inaccurately on this blog is that just because you lie during a murder trial you can be convicted of murder. That is false. 

One issue that has been debated by 'legal scholars for over 100 years is whether these crimes, known as inchoate crimes should be crimes at all. The defendant actually does not commit the crime for which he is prosecuted and convicted. He participates in a robbery (felony murder) or allegedly agrees to someone else committing murder. This is seldom proven by an actual 'recorded' agreement but nuances, circumstantial evidence. In this case that comes down to seven words: Now is the time for Helter Skelter and a few comments made by a con man whose schtick was a race war or philosophical discussions with Gregg Jakobson.

This is especially the case with the felony-murder rule. At least with conspiracy to commit murder they have to prove you agreed to commit murder. With felony murder you are there or participated in crime #1 and end up in prison for life (or worse) for murder.

I, personally, support conspiracy laws. I agree with the state of California on the felony murder rule.

Pax vobiscum 

Dreath







64 comments:

AstroCreep said...

Bugs put on one hell of a case. Over the years here, I see a lot of criticism of Bugs and have never really understood it. I also see a ton of criticism (lately) of Linda and not really understanding that either. Do I think she’s 100% not guilty of a crime? No. She was there and could have made 100 different decisions before, during, and after the crime/s were committed.

The ONE thing nobody should fault Linda for are the 18 near perfect days she spent on the stand. People hint at Bugs coaching her and leading her, but 18 days? Come on, man!

Peter said...

An interesting wrinkle in this, and one that set Bugliosi back on his heels for a bit, is the question of when was the conspiracy entered into and to what extent could evidence from before the alleged formation of the conspiracy be used to prove the existence of the conspiracy. Bugliosi had alleged the conspiracy arose August 8th or 9th. Based on this, Kanarek objected to any evidence with respect to actions or discussions that preceded that date. It had Bugliosi pretty worried and the parties had to brief and argue the issues before the judge.

Somewhere in an earlier post we discussed this, the arguments and the case law.

Matthew Record said...

there is a photo of a guy with long hair in this post but nothing about who he is that I could see. Just curious.

DebS said...

Matthew, that is Larry Dyer, a friend of Ronald Hughes.

http://www.mansonblog.com/2018/03/ron-hughes-look-back-at-remarkable-man.html

Monica said...

Thank you for this interesting post David. I sense though that he is being criticized for prepping his witness. C'mon. If you were Bug ("YOU" being anyone), what would you have done differently? She made his case and he was a pitbull.

Monica said...

And...did anyone reading this blog every meet Bug or Kasabian? What were your impressions?

grimtraveller said...

Pax vobiscum said...

I, personally, support conspiracy laws

So do I.
Some conspiracies are straightforward and obvious {the 1605 gunpowder plot ~ now there's a story that has always made me shiver}, but others are a lot more nuanced, TLB being a corker of an example.
When people downplay or minimize Charlie's influence on the the other defendants with the notion that no one human being can get another to engage in any particular action, let alone murder, I find myself wondering if they've ignored the whole of human history. There's more conspiracy going on in everyday life than many of us care to think about or even acknowledge !

I agree with the state of California on the felony murder rule

It's long struck me as ludicrous that 2 people could agree to burgle a house that they believe to be empty and agree to not go 'tooled up' but one of the perps goes armed anyway {and his colleague doesn't know} and when they are disturbed by the occupant, the unarmed one thinks, "I'm outta here !" and starts running but the other one pulls out their gun and shoots the occupant dead and the one that had no intention of killing ends up either executed or spending their life in prison instead of the few years they'd get for the burglary. It's not sticking up for the rights of criminals to note that that simply is not just.

Peter said...

An interesting wrinkle in this, and one that set Bugliosi back on his heels for a bit, is the question of when was the conspiracy entered into and to what extent could evidence from before the alleged formation of the conspiracy be used to prove the existence of the conspiracy

That was kind of what I was alluding to earlier. The specific conspiracy may have been over a 2 day period, but the surrounding milieu that gave rise to and strengthened the conspiracy was part of the air that the Family breathed and that was a central plank in the prosecution case. At various points, it seemed that Judge Older couldn't see the point of trying to have so much witness testimony about life outside those two days. That said, he was also a lot more canny and balanced than he seemed in the earlier part of the trial.

Pax vobiscum said...

This change might possibly impact Leslie Van Houten. SB 1437 also says this:

Section 1170.95 is added to the Penal Code, to read:

(a) A person convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory may file a petition with the court that sentenced the petitioner to have the petitioner’s murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced...


It's can seem as though the prosecution was being somewhat duplicitous in changing Leslie's charge to felony murder because the reason they were at 3301 Waverly was not to nick coins and dresses ~ they were there to kill. Bugliosi even made the point in the initial trial summing up that neither Cielo or Waverly were about robbery and he enumerated the reasons why. It felt as though the prosecution, having seen one verdict against LVH quoshed and then a hung jury in the retrial were wavering at the thought of yet another one and the train of thought seems to be that it had gone from the worst {death} and gotten progressively lighter {abolition of death, sentence set aside, retrial ending in hung jury} in just 6 years and could not prove their case. Easy to say in retrospect, yes, but with Dianne Lake and our good friend Linda, they should have had a good case, especially with Lake ~ having evidence of a particular medical condition that only someone there could have known.
The pressure may be on the Guv'nor now....

Peter said...

When you agree to burglarize a house, a foreseeable outcome is that someone may get killed.

Here's one. Instead of the homeowner being killed, what if the co-conspirator gets killed? Is it still felony murder?

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

Peter said...

When you agree to burglarize a house, a foreseeable outcome is that someone may get killed

Not necessarily. Burglars here tend to knock off houses when the occupiers are out.
I've been in both instances, where I came home only to discover I'd been done and once I was actually in and could hear the guy downstairs. Fortunately, I didn't think it was a burglar, just the other person that shared the house so I just stayed in bed.

Here's one. Instead of the homeowner being killed, what if the co-conspirator gets killed? Is it still felony murder?

Depends who does the killing.
Here's one. When the family went a creepy crawling, was there a possibility that the occupier of the house could be killed ?

David said...

I have been away from the blog dealing with some matters in the real world.

Just now I read some of the comments above. I couldn't figure out how Ms. Kasabian became a topic for some. That was a hypothetical. I am not arguing she lied. She didn't. I was using the examples that are usually used to support the odd notion that her or Bugliosi's alleged perjury could lead to their execution to illustrate the law.

I do not believe she was coached. I do not believe she 'lied'.

I believe her lawyers and Bugliosi agreed to a schtick for her. I do not believe for on moment that she 'would have testified without immunity' or 'felt compelled to tell the truth'. I believe her lawyers created that 'innocent hippy chick' because, as Monica correctly points out, that is wha we do. Any other belief, I believe, is naive.

I do believe she omitted information from her story, whether on the stand or otherwise either because Bugliosi correctly avoided the subject or she did, for obvious reasons. For example, I believe parts of her testimony make it clear she was inside the house.

I also believe it borders on the absurd to argue that Bugliosi's method of interviewing witnesses (over and over and over, again) didn't impact what and how witnesses remembered things. There is absolutely no study I am aware of, that instructs attorneys to interview witnesses repeatedly and every one I have seen say exactly the opposite.

This last weekend I listened to a CNN 'pundit' and felt she was quoting the sources in a post I wrote on witness memory some time ago. So, yes, I believe her testimony is not completely accurate, and yes, I believe part of that 'originated' from Bugliosi but that does not mean she was coached or that she lied.

It means the holes in her memory of that traumatic experience were filled in 'naturally'. Nor does this mean Bugliosi 'cheated'. As I read his statements on this subject he is ignorant of the impact he had, not culpable in coaching a witness.

Tehe number of influences that likely formed Kasabian's memory on that witness stand are beyond the scope of this comment. There is the trauma, passage of time, repeated telling, the form of the question, the Atkins tale and the emotional protection of the witness, etc., etc.)

That said, the Kasabian references in the post are hypothetical. This post was intended to be a "FAQ". Only the LVH part was 'new'. I believe it was Peter who suggested we needed a FAQ section when these legal issues came up a number of posts ago.

tinkse7en ! said...

I hope I'm not derailing the thread if I bring this up, but I've been doing a lot of reading & re-reading lately, & it strikes me that there is not very much direct mention of creepy-crawling, other than in HS & many early articles that were based largely on Sadie's jailhouse braggadocio. Trial testimony from both her & Linda says they only did one, & that was a car to score a couple credit cards. This contradicts the official narrative, at least as far as those two were concerned, but I am beginning to believe that the entire concept of 'creepy-crawling' has been grossly inflated.

I do believe there were stealth night missions, but these were more likely straight burglaries, with Bill Vance as team leader/headmaster. He was wise in the ways, & I doubt he'd let a couple goofy slippies under his tutelage break into a house merely to rearrange the furniture, whilst he stood by, benignly beaming at their skills. Follow the money! (and by that I mean also the otherwise respectable journalists that could not resist this bit of sensationalism to shock, awe, & $ell).

I'll go a bit further to say that this hardened ex-con may have forbade weapons on these forays, as that could jump it from simple to felony burglary. But hey, he may have been as haplessly stupid as Charlie appears to have been in committing crimes, so that is just a supposition.

And to stay OT: am I right in thinking that carrying a weapon turns simple burlary into felony burglary? I'm aware that there are otjer factors, but I would think that would be a rather definitive factor?

tinkse7en ! said...

And I should mention a big thanks to our learned legal eagles here, & also to the posters who pose the sticky questions. I do think it adds a lot, explains much, & is so much more satisfying to read than "That wasn't fair!"

DebS said...

California's Gov. Brown recently signed a new senate bill regarding the felony murder law. This will be retroactive and could mean that hundreds of convicted prisoners could be re-sentenced.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/california-felony-murder-reduce-hundreds-sentences-731491/

I wonder if this could affect Bruce Davis and his conviction for the murder of Gary Hinman?

Peter said...

David what evidence do you have that Linda was in the house? I agree with you that her testimony was embellished, although I tend to believe she testifies to more than she actually witnessed rather than less, but I've never come across anything showing ahe was actually inside.

Peter said...

Grim said.

"Not necessarily. Burglars here tend to knock off houses when the occupiers are out."

I didn't say likely outcome, it just has to be a foreseeable outcome.

"Depends who does the killing."

I don't believe it does. If the homeowner killed your co-conspirator while the two of you were robbing his home, you still might be found guilty of felony murder. The law only requires that: "Someone is killed during the course of that felony by anyone, intentionally or accidentally." So even if your co-conspirator accidentally fell off the ladder you were using to reach the window on the second floor and bumped his head and died, it would satisfy this definition.

AstroCreep said...

David- I don’t think you’ve been critical of LVH rather, many others have been, and Bugs too... and never really understood why exactly.

If anyone has issues with LVH’s 18 days of testimony (or supposed inconsistencies/lies/etc) they should find fault with the defense lawyers. Maybe instead of making a mockery of the trial and turning the courtroom into a circus and objecting Bugs frivolously every step of the way, he/they should have focused more on a real defense.

Legal question: if a witness lies on the witness stand, who’s responsibility is it to prove the lie to be a lie?

grimtraveller said...

Peter said...

I didn't say likely outcome, it just has to be a foreseeable outcome

Well, a heart attack is a foreseeable outcome as is a sudden change of heart on the part of the burglar.
Perhaps this is more a reflection of the times we live in. While there have always been burglars that have murdered, there was, until very recently, pretty much a distinction in the criminal profession of those that just did houses and those who did houses armed and ready for action. They just used to be called armed robbers.

"Depends who does the killing."

I don't believe it does. If the homeowner killed your co-conspirator while the two of you were robbing his home, you still might be found guilty of felony murder


You may be right but I find that kind of odd. Under what kind of circumstances would a homeowner in the course of their house being robbed end up killing the burglar ? Self defence ? Protection of their family after a threat to harm one or all of them ? A surprise attack in which death was not meant to be the outcome, the idea being to try to overpower the perp while someone calls the cops but which ended in death ? An attempt to hurt the burglar in trying to dissuade them from their course of action and get them out of the house ? Or something more insidious, taking the view that "you come into my house mate, and you can't cry if you are hurt by the outcome" or "I will kill you, you are the violater here," the latter 2 of which are in a more deliberate direction and don't seem to me to fall under felony murder.

The law only requires that: "Someone is killed during the course of that felony by anyone, intentionally or accidentally."

Isn't the import of that talking about the perps of the actual felony being the ones that do the killing ?

So even if your co-conspirator accidentally fell off the ladder you were using to reach the window on the second floor and bumped his head and died, it would satisfy this definition

I know you like a little lawyer humour every now and again. I trust that's an example of it.

Peter said...

If someone had a heart attack you may still be guilty if there was enough evidence to show the heart attack was caused by your burglary.

The homeowner wouldn't be guilty of felony murder. You, as co-conspirator, would be. Even if the person who ends up being killed is one of your compatriots.

No humor. Read the law. "someone is killed ... intentionally or accidentally"

Peter said...

All this being said, I believe that law has either been amended or interpreted to not include the death of a co-conspirator, but originally, it was and it caused some odd outcomes like we are discussing here. I'm just a small town antitrust lawyer and maybe someone here with some criminal law bonafides knows the answer.

grimtraveller said...

Peter said...

If someone had a heart attack you may still be guilty if there was enough evidence to show the heart attack was caused by your burglary

I agree and have no problem with that.
Although you say that you stated it was a foreseeable as opposed to a likely outcome, in real life, such terms are interchangeable when trying to demonstrate that "When you agree to burglarize a house, a foreseeable outcome is that someone may get killed" which is why I used an example that was forseeable but not likely. The point is that almost anything is foreseeable.

The homeowner wouldn't be guilty of felony murder. You, as co-conspirator, would be. Even if the person who ends up being killed is one of your compatriots

Well, if it is felony murder because a burglar in the act of robbing a house fell off a ladder and died then that law is indeed an ass. In fact, unless the co-conspirator kills their partner in crime, how can they be guilty of murder if their mate somehow dies in the commission of the crime ?

No humor. Read the law. "someone is killed ... intentionally or accidentally"

Perhaps I'm just showing my layman~ness here, but when that law speaks of someone being killed either intentionally or accidentally, it seems to me that that is a reference to someone other than those actively involved in the underlying felony {ie, the perps}, be it a house occupier, a garage attendant, a shopworker or whatever. So if, say, 2 perps went to rob a house or rape someone in the apartment but their intention wasn't to kill, but after their acts one of them got cold feet and killed the victim[s], or, not meaning to kill, pushed one of the victims away with such force that they careened to the open window and fell out and died {because they were on the 18th floor}, until that new law was put on the Guv'nor's desk, the one that didn't kill would be guilty of felony murder. It seems that that is what the law has in mind when it speaks of someone being killed. It doesn't have the 'victim becoming the killer' in mind. That seems to me to be a different matter altogether.

AstroCreep said...

David- I don’t think you’ve been critical of LVH rather, many others have been

Astro, did you mean Linda or Leslie ? In 3 recent threads {Creepy crawls, A wrongful death and Karate Dave} there has been what seems like a concentrated bout of criticism of Linda {much of it from the receptor of the hosepipe ban} but Leslie has barely been mentioned in any threads and when so, not with any great consequence.

AstroCreep said...

Grim- my bad. Linda.

Just looking for someone to answer why people seem to have an issue with her- I get it, in the Manson isn’t guilty crowd she’s likely the villain after all, she was there and he wasn’t. It’s why David’s post is on point- it’s THE LAW.

Lying for 18 days straight without a severe step on your crank kinda moment is virtually impossible.

David said...

AstroCreep,

I think I laid out where I come from on LK, above. I don't set out to criticize LK. But I do try to focus on the objective evidence and when it contradicts a witness I will definitely tend to try to point out why his or her testimony is unreliable. That likely comes across as criticism.

I do not believe LK was coached. I have heard coached witnesses. They sound coached. They tend to answer before the question is finished. They give answers that differ from their normal speech patterns. Their answers tend to follow a predictable 'script'. And they tend to have this subtle nuance: they start their answers with "yes" and then the answer to the question because they are registering the 'trigger' from the coaching. In other words, the "yes" doesn't answer the question.

"Now, after you crossed Main Street what happened?"

"Yes, after I crossed Main Street I ........."

David said...

AstroCreep said: "Legal question: if a witness lies on the witness stand, who’s responsibility is it to prove the lie to be a lie?"

The other side. However, you are going to open a broader discussion on legal ethics. If, for example, my client tells me or a witness tells me they are going to lie- if I know they are going to lie- I can't help them. Asking questions of the client or witness could very well be helping. If it is my client or the testimony helps my client that can lead to a difficult situation.

Other things:

I purposely used the jury instructions from the trial because the laws have changed. Jury instructions are the law. Jury instructions are in a book and numbered. So if you read those portions of the TLB transcript you will see Bugliosi or a defense counsel asking for say #3,4,5, 22,23,45 and 101. You then may see Fitzgerald object to say #22. Then the court decides if #22 is 'in' or 'out'. Once that is sorted out the jury is brought back in and the judge reads the instructions.

Burglary, on its own, without a weapon is a felony.

In California, then and now the law read as follows: "“Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel...with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary.”

If it is a 'residence' it is first degree.

The use of a firearm in connection with a felony in California and elsewhere is a 'sentence enhancement' adding years to the sentence.

Deb,

Thank you for updating the status of the senate bill. It appears Felony Murder as used in this case no longer exists and if you were convicted under it you get a re-sentencing hearing, or at least can apply for one.

Grim,

"A 26-year-old man accused of breaking into a Long Beach home was charged with murder Friday in the death of his accomplice, who was shot by the 80-year-old homeowner."

LA Times, July 25, 2014.

DebS said...

David said...
Deb,

Thank you for updating the status of the senate bill. It appears Felony Murder as used in this case no longer exists and if you were convicted under it you get a re-sentencing hearing, or at least can apply for one.
------

There is always going to be an asterisk in this case, isn't there? If Manson were still living would he qualify to have his sentence re-examined?

christopher butche said...

Wasn't Leslie's 1978 conviction for felony murder?

AstroCreep said...

David- which begs me to ask this question- not of you per se, but of the group-

Given the nature of the courtroom, the outbursts, and the other antics- don’t you think that if Linda was a big fat liar, the knuckleheads would have been screaming at the top of their lungs “SHE WAS IN THE HOUSE” and things of the sort?

David said...

Deb said: "There is always going to be an asterisk in this case, isn't there? If Manson were still living would he qualify to have his sentence re-examined?"

Yes, there is. No. Manson was convicted of Conspiracy to commit murder and thus murder. While Bugliosi offered Felony Murder at the end of the trial and received an instruction to that effect the conviction was on the indictment.

Christopher Butcher said: "Wasn't Leslie's 1978 conviction for felony murder?"

She was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder and murder but the theory of the case presented by the prosecution was felony murder. This was done to eliminate the need to prove premeditation and thus eliminate the defense of diminished capacity. Felony murder is not a separate crime. It is somewhat like being an accessory before or after the fact. It says 'if someone dies during a felony it is murder'.

David said...

AstroCreep said: ".....don’t you think that if Linda was a big fat liar, the knuckleheads would have been screaming at the top of their lungs “SHE WAS IN THE HOUSE” and things of the sort?"

I don't think she was a liar. I think she omitted information and as Peter said, embellished. I also think her memory was indeed impacted by others and likely one was Bugliosi due to his interview style. For example, I don't think she 'saw' Tex shoot Parent. No one else did. And she certainly didn't see Tex attack him with a knife by her own acknowledgement. Given A and B happened quickly how could she miss the first attack?

Was Bugliosi being evil? No. Was she lying? No. memory is not a video tape we can replay. It is a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces. Our brains seize on many things to fill in those holes. That is one reason leading questions are not allowed. And Bugliosi got away with a lot of those mostly because Wkanarek's objections were stupid, overly complex and thus the real objection frequently got lost.

There is a great exchange where Bugliosi asks Kasabian what time they arrived at Cielo. She, of course says something like late at night. He then asks well, was it about midnight or three or four in the morning. That's a leading question.

Kanarek objects on that basis and that it is argumentative. He's arguing with his own witness. Bugliosi says 'It's not argumentative' (notice what he doesn't address). And the court says overruled.

That said, I believe one of them said 'when are you going to tell your part' and I recall Manson said 'you've told three lies so far'. But all in all I am not sure they would. Their outbursts were more along the lines of the Chicago Seven-Eight trial in that they didn't comment on the evidence that I recall. So my answer would be I'm not sure they would.

David said...

Likely because they were guilty as hell.

grimtraveller said...

David said...

So my answer would be I'm not sure they would. Likely because they were guilty as hell

As the Black kids in Kilburn would say back in the 80s, "sure bloody !!"

"A 26-year-old man accused of breaking into a Long Beach home was charged with murder Friday in the death of his accomplice, who was shot by the 80-year-old homeowner."

And that qualifies as one of the daftest things I've heard when it comes to the law. In the old "Archie" comics, there was a period where they would have this law page that quoted enforceable laws from America's bygone era, things like "The entire Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a formula for making beer at home" or "You are not permitted to wear cowboy boots unless you already own at least two cows" or "Men who wear moustaches are forbidden from kissing women" {the latter 2 from Blythe and Eureka, California}; well that felony law is up there with them except that it's from 2014 not 1797.

For example, I don't think she 'saw' Tex shoot Parent. No one else did. And she certainly didn't see Tex attack him with a knife by her own acknowledgement. Given A and B happened quickly how could she miss the first attack?

For any number of reasons ~ it was dark, she wasn't expecting the guy to be shot, Tex's particular movements, ie not clearly seeing that one of his movements was with a hand that contained a knife, the surprise of the headlights, tension at a creepy crawl being suddenly interrupted, a momentary look away, the speed of everything that happened in such a condensed time frame......

I believe parts of her testimony make it clear she was inside the house

You once said it was because she said she saw the pool and that is clearly possible from inside the house. In that "Manson, the lost tapes" thingy there's a helicopter shot of the grounds and at one end, you can see the pool. If you go down far enough around the back of the house as it stood then, I'm fairly certain you can see the pool at ground level from there too.
Atkins does say in one of her books that Linda came into the house twice, but she also says in the same sequence that Jay Sebring was shot twice and that the "Sadie make it stop" conversation took place and that she got a knife from Linda and that Wojiciech had the rope around his neck. And we all know what we can make of 'Suzy sez,' a veritable tsunami when it comes to sticking to any truth. She had a bee in her bonnet about Linda and if what she said to Jeff Guinn is true, Pat wasn't her greatest fan either. But even she doesn't place Linda in the house.

DebS said...

California's Gov. Brown recently signed a new senate bill regarding the felony murder law. This will be retroactive and could mean that hundreds of convicted prisoners could be re-sentenced

Leslie's lawyer has already applied.






David said...

Grim said: "....And that qualifies as one of the daftest things I've heard...."

Maybe you could frame your comments as an opinion. As Peter tried to explain 'that is the law'. You are a bit out of your 'element' arguing the law in the US. I mean no offense. The Felony Murder Rule (not law) is...stupid (IMO) <---- see that?

Grim said: "For any number of reasons ~ it was dark, she wasn't expecting the guy to be shot...." Oh, come on. It is a memory issue. She heard for 60+ hours Parent was shot and came to believe she saw it. She didn't. Go back to that post and look at the layout and where they were. It is not about a 'lie'. It is about the fact the most unreliable evidence in the world is an eye witness.

Grim said , "You once said it was because she said she saw the pool...."

Of course, I can't prove that BUT......If you want to pony up the bucks (I didn't) I can. And I can assure you, you cannot see the pool from where she claims she was, whether it was the parking area, behind the house or the walkway. Yes, 'Sadie says' is a bad source. Don't rely upon that. But I also thought Krenwinkel put her in the house in a parole hearing.

The pool was IMO.

I may have missed something or can't remember but I don't think anyone asks her if she was in house, during the trial.

Matthew Record said...

I believe that because Sadie was responsible for them getting busted, she would do or say anything against Linda to turn the focus on her being the rat instead of herself.

grimtraveller said...

David said...

Grim said: "....And that qualifies as one of the daftest things I've heard...."

Maybe you could frame your comments as an opinion


Well, OK, in my opinion.
I wouldn't have thought anyone would take something like that as anything other than an opinion.

You are a bit out of your 'element' arguing the law in the US

No argument there, you're 100% right on that ~ and that's not an opinion !

The Felony Murder Rule (not law) is...stupid (IMO)

If the rule is applied as the law, then it's all moroccan roll to me. They equate to the same thing. That said, I get your drift.
Incidentally, I wasn't denigrating US law in particular. We have some ridiculous laws/rules here. For example, if, in a driving test you indicate, then look, then proceed, you'll fail the test. But if you look, then indicate then proceed, you'll pass. They call it "mirror, signal, maneuver." It makes no difference in the real world whether you look first or indicate first, as long as you do not proceed {turn, move into traffic etc} until you have both looked and indicated.
There are daft laws/rules/ordinances almost everywhere I've lived or been.
In my opinion.

Oh, come on. It is a memory issue

It could well be. But in the real world it may not be. I know that eyewitnesses aren't always the most reliable witnesses but if you follow that to its logical conclusion, nothing anyone says is worth a bean unless it happened to have been filmed or whatever {that said, CCTV on the streets has been amazing in showing what happened in a situation people swore went some other way !}. But you were asking how she couldn't have seen Tex knife Steven and I was just suggesting some ways in which it was possible. I'm not convinced either way. But by the same token, I'm in the same position when it comes to the shooting of Frykowski. If Linda could hear the screams from the house when she was outside by the cars, and if Pat & Susan were in the actual house in such close proximity that it would be impossible not to hear a flaming gunshot, and not going off once but twice, then one of the three should have have heard it, even if they didn't see Tex wield it. But none of them recall it. Of course, they could be lying because one of them did it but that's kind of fanciful.
But these things happen. In 1987, we were blasted by a great storm and it left southern England devastated ~ some of the results are still visible today. There are people all over the place that will regale you with tales of how they thought the world ending or saw trees fall or cars blowing across the road or heard the most fearsome noise all night. I was right in the midst of it but I wasn't aware of anything until I got up for work and saw there was no electricity. But at that time, we were on electric cards and quite a few times they ran out so I didn't think anything of it. I've been in so many situations where someone just did not see something happen that really, they should have {by my reckoning}, that I can't just dismiss it.



Peter said...

Linda knew she had to put the hat on everybody if she wanted immunity. I'm sure Bugliosi fed her just enough information during his interviews to help her "remember" without telling her what and what not to say.

Bugs: Did you see Mr. Frykowski at the front door?
Linda: Well it was so dark, I can't be sure, but I think I may have.
Bugs: That woukd make sense because we found his blood all over this bush.
Linda: Yes, now I remember, I did see him at the front door.

David said...

Peter,

You touch on an interesting aspect of how memories can be filled in. By that I mean the broken bush. In Granado's testimony he tries to get Granado to ID the broken bush, which corroborates Kasabian's testimony that Frykowski fell into a bush and Granado fails to do so. In that exchange Bugliosi 'reads' (since we can't hear him) like he is disappointed/frustrated by the answer, to me.

How an attorney asks a question even in an interview can fill in the blanks. I have always thought that the bush is an example.

I think it went like this:

VB: Linda, did you see anyone fall into that bush (pointing)?

Jean Loftus' studies have demonstrated that this relatively innocuous question can provide that memory. And remember, this event is was written down by her as something she remembered after an interview.

Peter said...

Linda was a godsend because she was a born schemer. She was hep to what needed doing and didn't need it to be spelled out for her. She gave them what they wanted and they gave her what she wanted.

I still think that after Tex called her from the back of the house, the only thing she saw was the backseat of the car she was hiding in.

grimtraveller said...

David said...

I may have missed something or can't remember but I don't think anyone asks her if she was in house, during the trial

Shinn did, on August 3rd. He establishes that she says she stayed outside to keep watch and then asks her if the only reason she didn't go in to participate was because she was pregnant and Linda replies that whether pregnant or not, she would never have killed anyone. Kanarek casts the reply as a self serving statement and succeeds in getting it stricken. The judge agrees with Bugliosi that the question from Shinn prompted it but says it wasn't responsive.
Kanarek also did on the 5th. He was trying to twist her in knots about her statement that she was in shock and asked her if she was in the house and when she said no, he asked her how she knew she wasn't, if she was in shock or words to that effect.

She heard for 60+ hours Parent was shot and came to believe she saw it. She didn't. Go back to that post and look at the layout and where they were. It is not about a 'lie'. It is about the fact the most unreliable evidence in the world is an eye witness

It must be the 'protectalindometer' in me working overtime {😉}, but I've gone back to that post a number of times since it was written, looked at various ariel views of the grounds and looked ad nauseum at LK's testimony, taken into account that she is the one, unprompted, in the trial that, when asked to mark where the car was when Tex shot Steve, pointed out the clump of bushes that hides it from view to which Bugliosi replies "I realize that you can't see the driveway completely, but you could see where the driveway would be absent these bushes?" plus the fact that when he and a number of police officers had taken her to Cielo for the express purpose of pointing out where things happened, if it is so simple to spot things that couldn't possibly have been seen, surely one of the horde that was there would have seen that and thought "no way !!" She didn't claim to see Frykowski die, she didn't claim to see Abigail even stabbed, just chased but the murder of Steven Parent is the one murder she actually claims to have seen. Atkins was always clear that she never saw it, just heard it. As far as I'm aware, Pat has never said she actually saw it either. It's Kasabian's pièce de résistance as a witness, the main thing that stitches together any credibility she might otherwise have and with so much that could quite easily derail what she had to say, taking into account all that, plus having to get through 18 days on the stand with 4 lawyers, no matter how inept they may be characterized in retrospect, with 5 people that she had feelings for on trial for their lives, I find on balance that it's a bridge too far that she simply convinced herself she saw something that she hadn't in fact seen, just because for 60+ hours she'd been told Parent had been shot. It's the cynic in me !
Whether or not she would have testified without immunity is another discussion for another time but one thing that does occur to me is that her lawyer Gary Fleischmann pushed for some kind of deal pretty much from the moment she was flown back to LA after the GJ and I think it's partly because he knew, rather like Clem years later with the whereabouts of the body of Shorty, that as well as having not killed anyone, that his client had some goods to trade. Seeing Abigail chased and Wojiciech stabbed and clubbed would have sufficed ~ but they had carried on moving....

grimtraveller said...

Peter said...

Linda knew she had to put the hat on everybody if she wanted immunity

The one major flaw in that statement is that......Susan Atkins had already beaten her to the punch. The whole flaming news following world knew how the score lined up.
The other flaw with that statement is that if Linda was actually there, there is no way she couldn't put the hat on everybody.
And come to think of it, until Clem finally got his comeuppance for the fact that he committed murder, nothing Linda said left him anything other than hatless.
Had Leslie accepted the immunity she was offered, ironically, she would have put the hat on everyone ~ except possibly Linda.
The way you put "knew she had to put the hat on everybody if" carries a slant like the hill I lived on on Laurel Way as a kid. It was awful to ride to school but a wizard wheeze coming home !

Peter said...

When Sadie backed out, Sadie's statement could only be used against Sadie.

Linda put knives in everyone's hands and described for the jury how they used them. It prevented any of them trying to say they were there, but did not participate. That made it easier for the jury to sentence them to death.

Clem wasn't on trial.

tinkse7en ! said...

Lurker popping out of the (broken) bushes here.

First, I have to laugh & acknowlege Grim's characterization of his Linda protectometer, & admit that I have one of my own. It's not so much that I believe anymore in Bugliosi's image of her as the "gentle hippie chick" as that I now get a vibe as a somewhat vacuous, rather random person who liked to get high, but also was truly looking for something spiritual, even given that. There may have been some manipulation by the prosecution (almost certainly, that's the way it works), but I still believe LK testimony, despite some of the relatively minor discrepancies.

Fun & informative to watch you all pick it apart, bit by bit, though. Thank you all (she sez, as she scurries back into the hole in the desert of the Internet. Btw, Charlie, you needed to wait 40 years. The hole was here all along)

David said...

Grim said: “Shinn did….”

Thank you.

Grim said: “surely one of the horde that was there would have seen that and thought "no way !!"

Why 'surely'? We don’t really know what was said by whom or who ‘lead’ that tour. It may have been LK. It may not have. We don’t know. What we do know is that the defense wanted a jury view, which the court denied. That at a minimum should tell you they thought something ‘there’ would refute someone’s testimony.


Grim said: “I find on balance that it's a bridge too far that she simply convinced herself she saw something that she hadn't in fact seen, just because for 60+ hours she'd been told Parent had been shot. It's the cynic in me !”


You might want to talk to Elizabeth Loftus (above, I erroneously called her ‘Jean’) and others.

“If someone is exposed to new information during the interval between witnessing the event and recalling it, this new information may have marked effects on what they recall. The original memory can be modified, changed or supplemented."

"The fact the eyewitness testimony can be unreliable and influenced by leading questions is illustrated by the classic psychology study by Loftus and Palmer (1974) Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction described below.”

“False memories are constructed by combining actual memories with the content of suggestions received from others. During the process, individuals may forget the source of the information.”

“These results suggest that some information (the essence, the theme) of a traumatic event might be relatively well retained in memory, while memory is impaired for many of the specific, and especially peripheral, details.”

“During interviewing, asking leading questions, introducing new and inaccurate information, and pressuring or expecting the interviewee to report memory details may facilitate such an inaccurate account (Loftus, 2005).”

“This study provides evidence that people can come to visualize and recall detailed false memories of engaging in criminal behavior. Not only could the young adults in our sample be led to generate such memories, but their rate of false recollection was high, and the memories themselves were richly detailed.”

“Our results align with the literature suggesting that exposure to misinformation provided by interviewers can lead to major distortions in memory (Morgan et al., 2013), and that malleable reconstructive mechanisms may be fundamental to episodic remembering (Patihis et al., 2013).”

grimtraveller said...

David said...

What we do know is that the defense wanted a jury view, which the court denied. That at a minimum should tell you they thought something ‘there’ would refute someone’s testimony

The court said "my recollection is that somewhere after the testimony of LK, one or more of the parties requested a view of the premises and the motion was denied without prejudice to renew it at some later date in the trial after the jury had heard all the evidence.
Of course, if my statement is correct, there was no renewal by any party of their request for a view of the premises"
which perhaps really does give an indication how seriously the defence took it. It only came up for discussion again after all the closing arguments because the jury requested it. And Irving Kanarek pounced upon the judge denying the jury's request to make his customary request for a mistrial and his blurb on the 6th and 14th amendments. It's interesting that before any of the lawyers on either side spoke up in defence of their positions, the judge said "I'm very much opposed to that."
Funnily enough, I disagree with him. I do think it would have assissted the jury to go to both residences.

You might want to talk to Elizabeth Loftus and others

I have no truck with what Ms Loftus said. I agree with her and I also agree with her choice of words like "may have", "can be", "might be", "may facilitate", "can come" "can lead" and "may be." In other words, they may or may not but either way, it is not definitive to every human being in every situation.

Peter said...

When Sadie backed out, Sadie's statement could only be used against Sadie

Yes, but think of the impetus that she'd caused in relation to that investigation. Sufficient impetus to cause Charlie to pull out all the stops in getting her to recant. She provided the framework and had filled in the pieces of the jigsaw that make the Tate and LaBianca progress reports such fascinating reading after the perps were caught. Regardless of whether or not anything could be used against Sadie, the point is that Sadie had already put the hat on everybody. Legally it may have been difficult to put a case together without her but everyone involved knew which direction to take from thereon.

Linda put knives in everyone's hands and described for the jury how they used them. It prevented any of them trying to say they were there, but did not participate

She never described Sadie using the knife or stabbing anyone. Isn't that the substance of the "Sadie's stroll" debate ? That she didn't have her knife ?
She couldn't put any knives in Leslie's hands the next night.
The way you put that though Peter, it feels a little like when people bring up Gary selling mescaline or Wojiciech living off Abigail and being almost permanently wasted or Shorty being attached to the porn industry, not that anyone is coming out and saying anything blatant yet, at the same time, somehow, alluding to something being not quite straight.
It's not a matter of "Linda knew she had to put the hat on everybody if she wanted immunity." Thanks to Sadie, I ask again, how could she not ? The joke is, Sadie had already put her in a better position by saying she didn't kill anybody. But if LK was there, how were any of the Cielo troupe not going to be fingered by her ? "Who did you go up there with ?" "Tex, Pat and Sadie." And there was evidence against all 3 just requiring corroboration. When you say she knew she had to put the hat on everybody, it's almost as though the real life event of what happened gave her a choice. Same for the next night. And the reason I mentioned Clem in the way that I did is that he wasn't even indicted but he was still part of her story of what happened.

grimtraveller said...

tinkse7en ! said...

Lurker popping out of the (broken) bushes here

Nice one !

First, I have to laugh & acknowlege Grim's characterization of his Linda protectometer

For anyone that didn't get that, that was just some friendly banter between David & I.
I think Linda was sufficiently "Linda" to not really need protection. Sometimes, the cards just fall your way and when one considers Susan had the "get out of the gas chamber" card and chucked it and Leslie was offered immunity, regardless of her involvement {now, whether Mike McGann really had authority to offer that ~ he says he did~ I have no idea. It could have just been good police work. Or it would have been if it had worked} and rejected it I can see why she got fatalistic about it all. That said, had she killed someone or really been instrumental in what happened, I don't believe we'd be having these Linda debates.

tinkse7en ! said...

It's not so much that I believe anymore in Bugliosi's image of her as the "gentle hippie chick" as that I now get a vibe as a somewhat vacuous, rather random person who liked to get high, but also was truly looking for something spiritual, even given that

You know, I would espouse the idea that part of the reason Manson picked Linda to go on these crimes was because she did have a dirty mouth, calling rich people pigs and a selfish and nasty streak to her that had seen her wolf $5000 from her friend that she considered a brother, were it not for the fact that Manson said she was the one that came to the ranch calling people pigs and Squeaky in her book said the same thing, that she'd never heard anyone use the term 'pigs' towards the police until she arrived at Spahn.
She was a Hippie. I find it rather bemusing that people object to the picture of her as a Hippie as though there wasn't great diversity among the Hippies. Some of them were thieving wasters, some of them were brilliant entrepreneurs, some of them were selfish to the core, some of them had great social consciences. Some of them were natural leaders and great organizers, some of them wanted to live off the fat of the land but not work it. Some were scientifically and technologically gifted, some had an affinity for nature. Some were deep thinkers and some just liked drugs. Not every Hippie was a law breaker but there was definitely a number with the mindset that the collective laws that they lived under {in the western world} were outdated and not relevant to their world and had produced slavery, decimation, inequality, not to mention a couple of wars that engulfed much of the world. Like most collectives that splintered into various sections they were diverse. Linda has long struck me as the searcher that never found, and who picked up a lot of negative traits along the way.
To be fair to Bugliosi, at the time he knew her, she probably was gentle.

David said...

Grim said: "I have no truck with what Ms Loftus said."

Each of those quotes are from separate studies conducted since 2010 by others, not Loftus. And, yes, you do if you believe this:

"I find on balance that it's a bridge too far that she simply convinced herself she saw something that she hadn't in fact seen, just because for 60+ hours she'd been told Parent had been shot. It's the cynic in me !"


But reading your comments I finally figured out why this is largely, not a very productive discussion. It's not your defense of Kasabian- the protectometer. You are saying "because she said it, it is accurate." Of course I can't argue with that for obvious reasons.

I will withdraw from the discussion but strongly suggest you read the studies, then the testimony and you will see them 'in play'.

And, 'no' AsstroCreep, that does not mean she 'lied'.

David said...

AstroCreep

Jenn said...

Hi all,

May I ask, who is Dennis Hearst who appears in one of the photos?

As an aside, I rehearsed for an upcoming gig today with a retired corrections officer who worked at the California Men’s Colony here in San Luis Obispo. He had some interesting takes on Watson, Davis, and Beausoliel.

David said...

Jenn, it is actually ‘Hurst’. The guy who delivered Gibbie’s Bike.

starviego said...

Jenn said...
"As an aside, I rehearsed for an upcoming gig today with a retired corrections officer who worked at the California Men’s Colony here in San Luis Obispo. He had some interesting takes on Watson, Davis, and Beausoliel."


So share already!

Jenn said...

David wrote:
"Jenn, it is actually ‘Hurst’. The guy who delivered Gibbie’s Bike."

Thanks.

Star wrote:
"So share already!"

Checking with him to see if it's OK to. I don't want to get him in trouble.

Doug Smith said...

Sure hope that he is cool with you sharing some anecdotes. Sounds awesome Jenn. Let him select his own alias ;-)

PS - Are you gigging a lot? I haven't had time to even mess around on my own since an April 20th show :-(

grimtraveller said...

David said...

And, yes, you do if you believe this:

"I find on balance that it's a bridge too far that she simply convinced herself she saw something that she hadn't in fact seen, just because for 60+ hours she'd been told Parent had been shot. It's the cynic in me !"


Sorry mate, not so. You appear to be saying that there's no way it can't not be that this is the case with Linda. That's dogmatic. I'm saying it could well be. I just do not, on balance, believe it to be so in this instance.

You are saying "because she said it, it is accurate."

I most certainly am not.

Was she lying? No. memory is not a video tape we can replay. It is a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces

I agree with that and the fascinating thing about memory is what is actually remembered and what isn't, within the same incident. Arguably, in many instances, the oddest things remain while other things that aren't at all quirky just never make it back but one would think those things would.

Peter said...

Linda was a godsend because she was a born schemer. She was hep to what needed doing and didn't need it to be spelled out for her. She gave them what they wanted and they gave her what she wanted

Unlike David who says Linda didn't lie, you do think she lied as you've stated on a few occasions that you think she spent most of the time cowering in the car, away from the action. I don't want to presume, but what do you feel she didn't actually see that she claims she saw ?

Doug Smith said...

Stabby McStabberson seems to be getting a series based on his born again/jailhouse writing...

http://ceasetoexist.site/wp/index.php/intro-2/

Gorodish said...

Doug Smith wrote :

Stabby McStabberson seems to be getting a series based on his born again/jailhouse writing...

Just checked out the website :

Running a prison ministry for many years, Charles “Tex” Watson does not receive any financial benefit from this production, nor does he have any ability to control how his story is told in it. The producers’ promise to him in exchange for facilitating the transfer of rights for his book was that the story be told so that future young people do not make mistakes similar to his own.

The producers own all rights to the book, and plan to republish it in connection with the production.,

Hmmmm......will he finally come clean about Shorty ? And I wonder who "the producers" are.....

Dan S said...

Good point! It is bottomless

beauders said...

As he/she should

beauders said...

For those on a computer if the law changes and Van Houten can benefit from then her lawyer (he/she) should act on it. Does that make more sense?

Dan S said...

I have countless personal anecdotes about when I've remembered stuff wrong. Massive amounts of marijuana maybe?

Dan S said...

Didn't the mansonites use a little of that stuff?...hmmmm

Dambuster said...

Regarding whether Linda was inside the house. Crime scene photo taken from the living room showing the hallway leading the bedrooms is a straight line of sight to the back door and immediately beyond,the pool lit by outdoor lights. I believe Linda made reference to the pool that night "glittering like diamonds". Possibly that indicates a view remembered while at one point in the living room with the others and since it is known she carried the knife later requested by Susan when Linda was outside the home, might not that possibly indicate she earlier was a participant in the "armed" home invasion for which she recieved a "pass" from the prosecution for eye witness testimony. I suppose the key is whether the pool "glittering" was visible from her vantage point outside or ONLY visible as a line of sight from the livingroom.

AstroCreep said...

There is a clear line of sight from around the front walk area- it can be seen here in greater detail. As well, if you google “10050 Cielo Drive Overhead” you’ll see a number of pics that show a clear line of sight from the front walk to the pool area-

https://youtu.be/2kiFqjFyBto

AstroCreep said...

Specifically 1:24 thru 1:28 mark in the video

grimtraveller said...

Dambuster said...

Crime scene photo taken from the living room showing the hallway leading the bedrooms is a straight line of sight to the back door and immediately beyond, the pool lit by outdoor lights

To have that view, you'd have to be in the house. If you came in through the front door, it seems you'd have to make a 90% left turn to have that view.

I believe Linda made reference to the pool that night "glittering like diamonds". Possibly that indicates a view remembered while at one point in the living room with the others

Did she actually say that ? She does say "When I went back I got a faint glimpse of it" when asked if she saw the pool {having already mentioned it with the gate, the driveway and the buildings}.

and since it is known she carried the knife later requested by Susan when Linda was outside the home, might not that possibly indicate she earlier was a participant in the "armed" home invasion for which she recieved a "pass" from the prosecution for eye witness testimony

Well, it could indicate that. Counting against that is that the first time it comes up is in the penalty phase when even the psychiatrist that was put on by the defence testified that Atkins was a self confessed liar. Though it turns up in her book "Child of Satan", so does her declaration that the murders took place to free Bobby Beausoleil.
David is more canny than to rely on anything Sadie said so if he feels Linda was in the house, you can bet it's because of something Linda herself said that smells off to him.
But you sort of dent your observation by what you say there about the prosecution. The only reason Linda got immunity was because she didn't kill or even stab or hold anyone, not because she wasn't guilty. It was felt that Susan had done all 3 and so immunity was never on the table for her.

I suppose the key is whether the pool "glittering" was visible from her vantage point outside or ONLY visible as a line of sight from the livingroom

Yeah, that's the wheel upon which all of this turns.

AstroCreep said...

As well, if you google “10050 Cielo Drive Overhead” you’ll see a number of pics that show a clear line of sight from the front walk to the pool area

This is another interesting one {The house of Sharon Tate by George E. Smith} that gives some shots of the pool from a few places and offers some food for thought. If one looks at 0:38, as you come off the tarmac area and proceed towards the trees on the left of the house, you could see the pool. Especially if it were lit up and it was night.
At 0:41 there is some written blurb that says "The premises were landscaped with flowers and trees and a swimming pool that was visible beyond one corner of the house."
At 0:46 there is a scale map of the grounds and also a drawing of the premises and if you measure a straight line you could see the pool from the tarmac area. It actually also makes sense that Abigail would come running from that direction if she exited via Sharon's room and eventually head towards the parking area where she might have felt there was a chance she could escape. That's the general area she was eventually found.
1:05 gives a tight ariel shot and if you pause at 1:28 you have a long side shot from the end of the tarmac area to the pool {it is an assumption on my part that it's the pool area, because of the umbrella}.
2:09 and 2:18 show more ariel shots, the latter in particular being a kind of companion shot to the one at 0:38.
At 2:25 and 2:28, Jack Garofalo of the mag, Paris Match, has taken two striking shots, the first of which shows the pool and also how far up one can see. The second is similar but also shows that if you went around the back of the house, you wouldn't even need to get to the end in order to see the pool. Both shots show that from the pool the parking area is clearly visible.

grimtraveller said...

Dan S said...

I have countless personal anecdotes about when I've remembered stuff wrong

As have I. In fact, somewhere on the blog is a classic example that I gave about my memories of looking for a song that turned out to be the Supreme's "Automatically Sunshine." I was sure for over 30 years of when I heard the song but it turned out that my memories of the journey I associated with the song were way off {3 years} as the song didn't exist at that time. So I'm well aware of the foibles that come with memory. Neither do I doubt for a moment that people convince themselves of something they purport to have seen {my sister does it almost as a regular sport when we argue !}. All I'm saying is that this is not always the case.
In an instance like Linda saying she saw Steve get shot or she saw Wojiciech fall into the bushes, if she says she saw these things but didn't, in my opinion, it's being too generous to say that she was just filling in blanks. That's lying, even if it's assuming. If Tex told the women to lie down out of sight and then he moves out of her sight and she hears the dialogue between the two men and then 4 shots and then goes past the car and sees a still body there, well, she knows Tex shot the guy. Whether she saw it or not is actually unimportant to her immunity because there is no way it could have been anyone other than Tex. Even Kanarek wouldn't try to convince us there was a hidden sniper somewhere {it would fail in any event due to bullet match up with the other corpses !}. Absolutely nothing changes if she didn't actually see it happen. After all, Susan didn't see it. But Tex and the others were still indicted. So my question is simply, why say you saw it ? And if she didn't actually see it, there is absolutely no way that anyone can know this, unless Pat or Susan was looking at her at the moment of the 4 shots or unless the objective evidence makes it impossible for her to have. I don't deny that Bugliosi's "squeeze every nuance of notes out of the piano riff" style of questioning could leave suggestions or equally dredge up things forgotten. It worked both ways, for example, when he picked up on Susan's ex-cellmate, Roseanne Walker, in like their 5th interview and it was there that the stuff about the glasses not being owned by the killers came out. On the other hand, many a time he'd try to slip in info that no one had actually committed to {eg, with Sharokh Hatami} and many a time he was corrected ~ often by the person he was questioning.