tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post6165287711590988697..comments2024-03-28T23:53:16.262-04:00Comments on The Manson Family Blog: The Bugliosi LetterMatthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06766282574442161929noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-40738816682019770502015-11-14T16:17:00.792-05:002015-11-14T16:17:00.792-05:00Robert Hendrickson said...
"the nuts were go... Robert Hendrickson said...<br /><br />"the nuts were gone as usual, but the squirel (who was enjoying my nuts) left an ACORN for ME"<br /><br /><br />My sister used to say that squirrels are just rats with PR !<br /><br /> Robert Hendrickson said...<br /><br />"WHY would a JUDGE risk losing HIS entire reputation (judicial soul) by making a dishonest RULING ?<br /><br /> WHY would an otherwise great LAWYER risk his "INTEGIDITY" for fame and fortune ?<br /><br /> WHY would a PRIEST risk going to HELL for a trisk with an underage boy ?<br /><br /> WHY would a U.S. President risk losing HIS great reputation (name) for a blow-job ?<br /><br /> WHY does a very successful LAWYER like Bugliosi RISK a "counterfeit" prosecution in order to make sure HE convicts a low-life ex-con and a couple of his girl friends ?<br /><br /> AND of course, WHY does a man like CM, who has finally found FREEDOM from prison (after losing half HIS life there) RISK going back to enslavement ?"<br /><br /><br />Because people are strange.....<br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-45419583805707453482015-11-14T16:02:45.218-05:002015-11-14T16:02:45.218-05:00Robert Hendrickson said...
"I wish I could t...Robert Hendrickson said...<br /><br />"I wish I could tell you all the truth AND the whole truth, BUT it's just TOO crazy for any civilized sane person to comprehend"<br /><br /><br />You'd be surprised just what civilized and sane people will comprehend and act upon !grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-48973625619944212242015-11-14T15:58:31.713-05:002015-11-14T15:58:31.713-05:00Robert Hendrickson said...
"Judge KEENE, in ... Robert Hendrickson said...<br /><br />"Judge KEENE, in his denial of Manson's CONSTITUTIONAL right to defend himself held 'that to allow Mr. Manson to represent himself would bring about a fundamental denial of due process'"<br /><br /><br />My sister used to be a barrister and is now a judge {my other sister & brother and I always chuckle at this because as kids, our big Sis was so bossy !} and one thing that I noticed about the legal profession right back in the 80s was that every member I met, whether QC, barrister, solicitor or even clerk seemed to be under the impression that no one but someone that had studied law all those years could possibly do their job with any degree of competence. Saying you want to be your own lawyer in a case brought about the same kind of resistance and reaction in the legal world as it did from classical musicians back in the 60s when pop and rock artists started writing their own songs that became popular to more people than Mozart and Mahler and even more so when these pop rockers started writing pieces that incorporated classical instruments and arrangements. A kind of institutionalized arrogance. "Hey ! Only we know about how music actually works and why !!"<br />So although Manson <i>was</i> allowed to represent himself, the Judge at the time said he granted 'pro~per' with great misgivings. I think although Charlie exasperated the court with some of his motions and the Judge felt he wasn't taking matters or the court seriously and therefore was not capable of being his own lawyer, I think he should have allowed Manson some leeway and simply warned him that he was overstepping the bounds and to stop.<br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-56409510478095471382015-11-14T15:39:16.687-05:002015-11-14T15:39:16.687-05:00christopher butche said...
"I tend to get th... christopher butche said...<br /><br />"I tend to get the impression that the guilty verdict was in before the trial began"<br /><br /><br />A read of William Zamora's "Trial by your peers" may change your impression. I was surprised in reading it to discover that as a news item, the Tate murders weren't something that figured highly to any of the jurors. It wasn't really part of their world and keeping up in the news about "this love & terror cult leader and his hypnotic spell" doesn't appear to have been on their radar. To be honest, the impression I get from his book is that in terms of modern up to date events and perception, the jury was pretty out of touch and narrow focused. Zamora seems to have taken being a juror with the utmost seriousness and he claims that he was determined not to show any kind of bias, based on their antics in court. They found the defendants guilty in the end because the evidence presented pointed that way and wasn't successfully rebuffed by the defence. He also made it clear that he wouldn't have been influenced by Nixon's comments. Not everyone liked tricky Dicky !<br />Especially interesting is his account of deliberations during the penalty phase. Although he believed the four deserved the death penalty, he took every opportunity of any delay in deliberations in which he hoped someone would come up with reasons for him to be able to change his decision.<br />I think the jury {and let's not forget, they were locked away for 9 months so they couldn't be influenced by the media ~ they weren't allowed access} tend to be way underestimated in this case.<br />He also puts more meat on the bones of much of the trial testimony than Bugliosi does in "Helter Skelter." His book was out a year before HS and seems to have passed out into the ether.....grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-34409567580884414122015-11-04T17:16:45.879-05:002015-11-04T17:16:45.879-05:00http://jpg2.lapl.org/pics18/00018737.jpg
Cool pho...http://jpg2.lapl.org/pics18/00018737.jpg<br /><br />Cool photo of Bugliosi getting a certificate in July 1971 for getting the convictions.Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14711422705919582549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-73491941853772708542015-11-04T16:50:50.048-05:002015-11-04T16:50:50.048-05:00Mr Hendrickson, I like your idea about the behind ...Mr Hendrickson, I like your idea about the behind the scenes at the trial.<br /><br />It's something I occassionally consider writing about at length.<br /><br />Justice is blind, and it is all about legality and law, but this is all delivered by people, and that is where the noble concepts fall prey to human frailities.<br /><br /><br />Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14711422705919582549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-7146253136591847202015-11-04T15:33:19.851-05:002015-11-04T15:33:19.851-05:00If you have a crook playing the part of the Good G...If you have a crook playing the part of the Good Guy and hiding behind and using the image of the Good Guy and doing bad with fake noble motives. How is that different from a Bad Guy playing the part of the Good Guy and convincing others to do bad under the pretense of noble motives?<br /><br />Maybe Bugliosi only thought Manson did that, because that is how HIS mind works.<br /><br />See criminals and crooks realized a long time ago that all they have to do is get in those noble positions. People haven't realized it yet. That's why priests are still molesting kids and politicans are still robbing you and cops are still killing and beating people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-69715450858377205582015-11-04T15:27:31.908-05:002015-11-04T15:27:31.908-05:00Bugliosi has clearly stated that he never had any ...Bugliosi has clearly stated that he never had any intention whatsoever of ever writing a book on the case too. <br /><br />Lie #what?<br /><br />I think Bugliosi thought he was Teflon. This is the problem of a duelist thinking society who sees everything in black and white. If you have the look, credentials, the right title and position that fits the idealistic idea of "Good guy", especially when put against the likes of Manson, you could pretty much get away with lying about anything and discredit anyone without question. <br /><br />In his mind, the people who's opinion matter would buy his nonsense hook, line and sinker and the only people who would question it were the losers of society, thus nobody would listen. I don't think counted on some being smart.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-73204764208858092312015-11-04T13:26:11.229-05:002015-11-04T13:26:11.229-05:00FROM the files of W.W. NORTON and COMPANY (publish...FROM the files of W.W. NORTON and COMPANY (publisher of Helter Skelter):<br /><br />"Gentry and Bugliosi began a 50-50 partnership in 1970, prior to the time the trial judge issued a gag rule and they had to work secretly late at night in motel rooms.<br /><br />Of course, Bugliosi had to keep it a SECRET, he became in violation of the "gag ORDER." Gentry was a "writer" and revealing INFORMATION to HIM could be considered a "criminal" act. Additionally, IT could be considered that, under the "color of authority" to be an obstruction of JUSTICE and thus a "violation of the DEFENDANTS' right to a "Fair trial."<br /><br />As a minimum, I think I may have discovered the "CAN of WORMS." AND where "MANSON" (the movie) is a behind the scenes LOOK at the TRIAL of the 20th Century - from Inside the MANSON Gang, I may NOW have the "behind the scenes" story of the "corrupt" Prosecution of the Manson Family. <br /><br />Manson would say "The whole world is one great big FUCK" !<br /><br />Robert Hendricksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02880909248364077567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-72585146908231391572015-11-02T17:06:39.695-05:002015-11-02T17:06:39.695-05:00I think it was Bugliosi who said the Hoyt incident...I think it was Bugliosi who said the Hoyt incident wasn't brought to trial because they could not find an expert to confirm that LSD could be fatal. Aside from that, I believe it was also a matter of them knowing the case was weak and most likely a big fat lie and they didn't want to risk losing a case, especially one that reflected on a witness poorly by exposing her as a liar.<br /><br />Bugliosi helped Hoyt with her career as a nurse, so I suspect she thinks it's her duty to perpetuate his reality. She also gets paid for doing it too. All the documentaries her and Catherine Share's fat asses appeared on paid them well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-74365129181282213012015-11-02T16:24:26.253-05:002015-11-02T16:24:26.253-05:00christopher butche said....
"...On an aside ...<br />christopher butche said....<br /><br />"...On an aside I do wish someone would point out to Hoyt at parole hearings that no one was legally convicted of trying to kill her. "<br /><br />Agreed, Christopher. I also wish that Barbara Hoyt would stop attending the hearings altogether. There is sufficient representation at the hearings from remaining family members of the victims. It will be interesting to see if Hoyt turns up at Bobby's hearing on 8 December because, after all, she was not involved in the Hinman murder before, during or after. It's like Barbara doesn't want to let go of her fifteen minutes of fame.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-8741323062512637562015-11-02T14:23:13.044-05:002015-11-02T14:23:13.044-05:00Another point of interest is Hoyt's overdose. ...Another point of interest is Hoyt's overdose. Again an incident filed as attempted murder but quickly dropped down to a misdemeanor charge carrying 90 day jail terms.<br /><br />Officially it was for something like interferring with a witness. By 1974 it's back up to being pimped as attempted murder.<br /><br />I noticed in a press cutting Bugliosi claiming the lowering of the charge was because it was too expensive to have a murder trial in Hawaii. However, the lesser charges were tried in LA.<br /><br />Is it likely for the authorities to make the decision to not bother over cost? Can LA DA office make the decision for them about who gets charged with what?<br /><br />On an aside I do wish someone would point out to Hoyt at parole hearings that no one was legally convicted of trying to kill her. The board constantly claims to rely only on testimony and yet Hoyt constantly makes the claim as a fact.Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14711422705919582549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-65192686361858462102015-11-02T04:28:40.437-05:002015-11-02T04:28:40.437-05:00Remind me to someday explain how the name Charles ...Remind me to someday explain how the name Charles Manson 3 decades after the TLB murders helped change the culture of, not only America, but the entire world.<br /><br />Ronald Hughes was supposed to "marry" Brenda and I was going to film the wedding, but Ronnie decided to go swimming. Bugliosi as an "author" was expected to keep HIS book sales UP, just as HE was expected to WIN a conviction.<br /><br />Robert Hendricksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02880909248364077567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-63545780797751286442015-11-01T21:24:33.256-05:002015-11-01T21:24:33.256-05:00It seems such a shame Bugliosi didn't actually...It seems such a shame Bugliosi didn't actually rewrite Helter Skelter when he had the chance for the 25th anniversary release. Instead he kept every single word of this kind of crap in it...and then simply added an epilogue with *where are they now* from Bill Nelson.<br /><br />He had his chance to fix the ridiculous statements about Hughes.<br /><br />Whatever legacy Bugliosi hoped to leave with his other subsequent books are forever tainted by not fixing the first book.Fiddy 8https://www.blogger.com/profile/13633505037758578259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-90847074272821035312015-11-01T20:36:33.027-05:002015-11-01T20:36:33.027-05:00You know, Alisa Statman also makes the claim in he...You know, Alisa Statman also makes the claim in her book that Sandy jumped on the back of Col. Paul Tate. That sounds like such a load of absolute bullshit. I never heard that from anyone but her. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-44518808785986348812015-11-01T20:32:58.510-05:002015-11-01T20:32:58.510-05:00In the copy of Helter Skelter that I have, Buglios...In the copy of Helter Skelter that I have, Bugliosi explicitly refers to Hughes as "the first of the retaliation murders" (which begs to ask the question, then why not use his pull to launch an investigation?)<br /><br />That's a BOLD claim for a DA who supposedly believes so strongly in "proof". When listening to his interview with Gregg Jakobson, one would actually believe he did believe strongly in it. He seemed to really want him to be clear about exactly what Manson said and didn't say. He always gives off the impression he would never say or do anything without "overwhelming evidence", But I think that's just a matter of him making his case stronger. In other words, if five people tell the same lie, it's proof to him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-48963607894101192832015-11-01T17:32:15.544-05:002015-11-01T17:32:15.544-05:00Sandy never said that to Merrick. Sandy never said that to Merrick. George Stimsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01335003151229883480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-8047843505991462742015-11-01T17:05:12.334-05:002015-11-01T17:05:12.334-05:00Ronald Hughes is a good example of what can happen...Ronald Hughes is a good example of what can happen when a bigger story needs to be told.<br /><br />Both Mr Stimson and Mr Hendrickson may be of assistance.<br /><br />When Hughes disappeared almost immediately Fitzgerald was quoted as saying that Hughes was not messing about trying to get a mistrial and shortly afterward that he had probably drowned. Bugliosi initially accused him of messing about but shortly afterward that he was alarmed and concerned.<br /><br />That was in Dec 70, by the following March Hughes body was found. If you do a Google news search you will find no references to Hughes 'mysterious' or 'suspicious' disappearance. When the body is identified and autopsied 'no signs of foul play', added to this are reports of the three people who last saw him being lie-detectored and there is nothing to report.<br /><br />By 1974 Helter Skelter has Bugliosi personally checking out the autopsy report, homing in on the 'inconclusive' conclusions and stating that decomposition was so bad who could say what had happened to him, and the traces of medication may have been poison.<br /><br />Bugliosi claims to have requested an investigation, but it was denied as there was no evidence of foul play.<br /><br />However, Laurence Merrick, in the presence of one other witness, was told by Sandy Good that Hughes was the first of the retaliation murders. The total of which was 35 to 40.<br /><br />I note that Bugliosi used quote marks for both claims.<br /><br /> What's the story with Merrick passing on to Bugliosi 'proof' that, as he wrote 'one thing is now known, however. If an admission by one of Manson's most hardcore followers is correct, Ronald Hughes was murdered by the Manson Family.'<br /><br />By 1977 Bugliosi was giving a talk to Florida Atlantic University and stated that he believed Hughes was murdered, he himself received threats, but he was not afraid of Manson, because as long as he showed no fear Manson would back off completely.<br /><br />A good story based on writing 'if' Sandy Good did actually say something which Merrick heard 'correctly' and was published in quotes to imply the responsibilty was Merrick's, becomes a few years later an anecdote to demonstrate the personal danger to Bugliosi and how he faced down Manson by using his knowledge of Manson's weakness (that he only thrives on fear).<br />Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14711422705919582549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-35776134669384905592015-11-01T16:22:33.532-05:002015-11-01T16:22:33.532-05:00@Robert Hendrickson said...
"...NO I was not...<br />@Robert Hendrickson said...<br /><br />"...NO I was not invited, but Merrick was."<br /><br />Mr H,<br /><br />Any idea how that came about? After all, YOU were the originator of the film project, not Merrick. Do you think Merrick had been cosying up to the Academy?<br /><br />If you had been invited, you could have attended the Post-Oscar party and scoffed your way through their champagne and canapes.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-53026018551792930762015-11-01T15:34:31.314-05:002015-11-01T15:34:31.314-05:00Mr Hendrickson, I watched Robert Wagner on Youtube...Mr Hendrickson, I watched Robert Wagner on Youtube this afternoon making the in dispute comment. A weird non-event in your life preserved forever.<br /><br />I notice the documentary that did win that year pretty much disappeared until a copy was found in the 1990s and it was restored. <br /><br />No trailer on Youtube for your comedy Close Shave?<br /><br />Back to Bugliosi what happened regarding the contempt charge during the trial for threatening to get Sandy for having oral sex with Manson and give Squeaky the gas chamber? Filed by at least Fitzgerald. What with lashing out at Atkins in court and calling her a bitch, and having to apologise for calling a female journalist a cocksucker, he appears to have had a short temper.<br /><br />I also note Theo Wilson recalled that publically he used Hughes death to claim another Manson murder but privately used it to criticise journalists as writing unfavourable remarks leading to Hughes to commit suicide.<br />Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14711422705919582549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-28621279955534014712015-11-01T15:11:28.765-05:002015-11-01T15:11:28.765-05:00RH: so sue me! ;)RH: so sue me! ;)MHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765688604319832245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-41986491398230334382015-11-01T15:05:51.818-05:002015-11-01T15:05:51.818-05:00YES EQ, but I think there is also the "though...YES EQ, but I think there is also the "thought" that there will be NO victims who will have loved ones like a "Charlie Manson." <br /><br />CHRIS: NO I was not invited, but Merrick was. Robert Wagner of Natile Woods fame announced that "the Producer Credit is in controversy." Which drew a very confused look on his face. As far as Merrick, Leslie and Polanski being invited and NOT me. I think I am in a far better place, than they are NOW.<br /><br />Many years later, when the Academy asked me for a dvd copy of "MANSON," I was glad to comply - for the going price of $39.95. AND "they" PAID.<br /><br />So I guess you could call ME an expensive whore. AND the "Hendrickson vs EBAY" First Impression Case cost the Motion Picture Association $$ BILLIONS $$$, BUT that was more for Jack Vallenti (President of the MPAA) being LBJ's personal cock-sucker.<br /><br />So remember what JC once said: "Payback can be a bitch."<br /><br />GEE MICHAEL: YOU stole my whole 2nd ACT.<br /><br />Robert Hendricksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02880909248364077567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-29180495714102707572015-11-01T13:16:21.372-05:002015-11-01T13:16:21.372-05:00WHY would a JUDGE risk losing HIS entire reputatio...<i>WHY would a JUDGE risk losing HIS entire reputation (judicial soul) by making a dishonest RULING ?</i><br /><br />Because he knows his profession will close ranks to protect him, and because he when he realizes he is (and is therefore above) the law, he goes to sleep at night with an enormous erection.<br /><br /><i>WHY would an otherwise great LAWYER risk his "INTEGIDITY" for fame and fortune ?</i><br /><br />Because he desires to be famous and fortunate. You can't deposit integrity in any bank in the world, and nor can you buy a smooth shiny life with it.<br /><br /><i>WHY would a PRIEST risk going to HELL for a trisk with an underage boy ?</i><br /><br />Because his desires really matter more than something he knows he only believes. Flesh is fact, hell is only theory.<br /><br /><i>WHY would a U.S. President risk losing HIS great reputation (name) for a blow-job ?</i><br /><br />Because he'd already gotten away with far worse ("You might wanna put some ice on that") as Governor.<br /><br /><i>WHY does a very successful LAWYER like Bugliosi RISK a "counterfeit" prosecution in order to make sure HE convicts a low-life ex-con and a couple of his girl friends ?</i><br /><br />Because he has first made sure the low-life ex-con is universally acknowledged to be the devil incarnate, and if the devil is safely caged in the state pen then the lawyer has no need to fear hell for his deceptions. If the devil's caged in Corcoran then maybe Mr Bugliosi is currently running for the vacated position down below.<br /><br /><i>AND of course, WHY does a man like CM, who has finally found FREEDOM from prison (after losing half HIS life there) RISK going back to enslavement ?</i><br /><br />Because Charlie's idea of freedom is a lump of alkaline metal, and society's idea of freedom is water. Put one in the other and we have crazy sparks, flames, explosions. That's what we build prisons for, to contain the debris from those chemical reactions.<br />MHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765688604319832245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-75324326617868730932015-11-01T11:32:58.782-05:002015-11-01T11:32:58.782-05:00Mr Hendrickson, did you attend the Oscars the year...Mr Hendrickson, did you attend the Oscars the year the film was nominated? I see from your comment it was also the same year you were suing each other.<br /><br />Even Leslie van Houten attended the Oscars, so surely you must have gone?Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14711422705919582549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-88498485265540735662015-11-01T09:24:37.760-05:002015-11-01T09:24:37.760-05:00@Robert Hendrickson
Hi Mr H,
In answer to your a...@Robert Hendrickson<br /><br />Hi Mr H,<br /><br />In answer to your above questions, could it be because all the above parties believed they could get away with it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com