A number of people believe Bugliosi 'coached'
witnesses ('coached' to me means: directed their testimony where he wanted it to go before they took the stand-told them how to answer his questions). I think the theory goes like this: Bugliosi
invented the Helter Skelter motive from a few philosophical musings Manson may have made
during the timeframe. Bugliosi then expanded the thread to become 'Helter Skelter'
(perhaps in anticipation of a future book deal). He then communicated Helter Skelter to at
least a dozen other witnesses through his coaching and he threatened witnesses if they didn't adopt his theory of the case. He then had them all come to court and tell the story. This never happened.
But.... that doesn't mean we can trust the eyewitnesses and it also doesn't mean Bugliosi didn't influence the testimony of witnesses. He could have done so with no ill intent at all and without even knowing he was doing so.
Eyewitness Memory
It may come as a surprise but eyewitnesses to
traumatic events are remarkably unreliable witnesses. Far from being the source
of detailed information regarding such events they are frequently wrong and
frequently include in their descriptions of events information borrowed from
other sources. They seldom actually are able to recount the events with any accuracy a short time after the event. In fact, eye
witness memory is so unreliable that in 2014 the National Academy of Sciences
after an extensive review of the issue called for major changes in both law enforcement procedures
and the conduct of criminal trials to address the problem. While you read this quote consider these crimes.
____
"Factors such as viewing conditions, duress,
elevated emotions, and biases influence the visual perception experience.
Perceptual experiences are stored by a system of memory that is highly
malleable and continuously evolving, neither retaining nor divulging content in
an informational vacuum. As such, the fidelity of our memories to actual events
may be compromised by many factors at all stages of processing, from encoding
to storage and retrieval. Unknown to the individual, memories are forgotten,
reconstructed, updated, and distorted."
From the NAS study: Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification (2014)
____
Problems When Memory is Encoded
Studies have identified a number of factors that can
impact memories at the time the events occur- encoding. One of the most
significant is clearly present in this case when it comes to our eyewitnesses:
the trauma or the stress level of the event.
Eyewitnesses to traumatic events frequently have a
poorer memory of the event due to the stress of the event. The graph to the left shows how this happens: at the peak (which varies witness to witness) a
witness will have clarity and actually remember events perfectly but outside
that peak stress zone (too much stress or too little) memory will suffer
significantly. They will become 'weapon focused' and remember seemingly
inconsequential details while being unable to remember important events or ‘the
big picture’. These witnesses will frequently describe their emotional or mental status during the event as 'being in shock'.
Aharonian, Ani A. and Bornstein, Brian H., "Stress and Eyewitness
Memory" (2008). Faculty Publications, Department of Psychology. University
of Nebraska-Lincoln.
In one study subjects were shown a video of a
violent attack. They were then asked to identify 40 items of information from
the video. The group consistently underperformed a second group who watched a ‘sanitized’
version of the same event. Clifford and Scott (1978)
Examples of this effect can be seen in this case.
In the midst of the horror, after Jay Sebring is
shot and Watson is stabbing him, victims are screaming and chaos ensued, Atkins has a vivid recollection of a dog peering in the
window of the house- an inconsequential event. When asked in a narrative style to describe to the grand jury what happened this memory is foremost in her mind.
Q: What happened next?
A: There was still some light from outside so that
we could see on the inside. I looked over and I saw a dog in the window. The
dog ran away.
This effect, some experts warn, can also make the witness appear calloused or cold hearted: 'How could they not see 'X' and notice 'that'?
Bernard Crowe offers a classic example of weapon focus, carrying the issue one step further and actually requiring the gun to be pointed at him: weapon focus.
Bernard Crowe offers a classic example of weapon focus, carrying the issue one step further and actually requiring the gun to be pointed at him: weapon focus.
Q: I show you People’s 40 for identification. Have
you seen that revolver before?
A: Yes, It looks like it. But I was a distance away.
Q: This looks like the revolver Mr. Manson had in
his hands when he shot you?
A: Why don’t you point it at me. Then I could tell.
Q: Something like this?
A: Yes. Could be.
Kasabian remembers Frykowski falling into the bushes and can describe this event and the events immediately surrounding it with great detail but never mentions Frykowski and Watson passing within feet (maybe inches) of her as she stood on the walkway when they crossed the walkway into the yard. Frankly, remembering Krenwinkel's 'upraised knife' is likely the result of the traumatic nature of these events.
How does Kasabian describe her mental state? Being in shock.
_____
Q (Buglioli). Now, when you say your car, you are not referring to the car of the man in the driveway?
A: No.
Q. You are referring to the car you came in?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you enter the car?
A. Not at first.
Q. Were you by yourself at the time?
A. Yes.
Q. What was your state of mind at that point?.
A. I was in a total state of shock.
*****
The first thing eyewitness memory studies suggest is that it is probable none of our eyewitnesses have accurate memories due to the traumatic nature of these events, alone. This has nothing to do with lying or coaching by Bugliosi. It is simply what happens when a witness is confronted by such violence: their memory suffers.
How does Kasabian describe her mental state? Being in shock.
_____
Q (Buglioli). Now, when you say your car, you are not referring to the car of the man in the driveway?
A: No.
Q. You are referring to the car you came in?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you enter the car?
A. Not at first.
Q. Were you by yourself at the time?
A. Yes.
Q. What was your state of mind at that point?.
A. I was in a total state of shock.
*****
Q (Fitzgerald). And at that time you were in a total state
of shock; isn’t that correct?
A. Yes.
Q.That has been your previous testimony, that you were in a
total state of shock.
A. Yes.
_____The first thing eyewitness memory studies suggest is that it is probable none of our eyewitnesses have accurate memories due to the traumatic nature of these events, alone. This has nothing to do with lying or coaching by Bugliosi. It is simply what happens when a witness is confronted by such violence: their memory suffers.
Memory Storage Issues
The second place where memories are affected is
while they are stored and before they are recounted.
It is indisputable that the passage of time does not
improve eyewitness memory, ever. That is why myself and others rely more heavily on
sources closer to the events of July-August 1969 instead of parole hearings and
books written years after the events. Witnesses forget and when they do other factors begin to fill in the missing pieces when they are required to recall the past event.
One study compared the accuracy of witness
identifications after 3 days and 5 months. The study found no false
identifications after 3 days but after 5 months, 35% of identifications were
false. Malpass and Devine (1981). Although an admittedly simplistic,
non-scientific, approach, given this study by December 1969 our eyewitnesses
may have forgotten or reported inaccurately about a third of what occurred on
those nights.
Numerous studies have shown that memory changes over time. Eyewitnesses incorporate information learned after the event into their memories. For example, they may talk to another witness, read a newspaper account or see a TV account of the event and use that information to fill in their memories. This is called witness conformity. And if the source is viewed as 'reliable' by the witness the likelihood is even greater that they will adopt the memories of someone else. Gabbert, Fiona; Wright, Daniel B.; Memon, Amina; Skagerberg, Elin M.; and Jamieson, Kat, "Memory Conformity Between Eyewitnesses" (2012). Court Review: The Journal of the American Judges Association.
Eyewitnesses may also fill in holes in their memory
by combining two memories into one or by using biases or expectations of what
probably was seen or what should have been seen. The image to the right was used in a study in 1947. Allport & Postman 1947. The vast majority of subjects after being shown the picture later
identified the African-American as the person holding the razor.
And it seems that as witnesses recall (describe) an
event over and over as time passes they drop details from earlier versions and
add new details to later versions. These details are frequently obtained from other sources. All things being
equal, accuracy declines with each new telling.
It is, then, plausible that after Susan Atkins' Grand Jury testimony (or her story) became common knowledge (and certainly after the trial) every one of those present at Cielo would begin to adopt what I call the 'official narrative' as their actual memory. This can happen even if, for example someone thought they remembered that Sharon Tate was stabbed on the front porch. They will or could abandon their own memory and adopted someone else's and again, no evil intent need be ascribed. They are simply filling in their own missing information from what someone else who witnessed the event describes. Even if they have a memory of an incident they might abandon theirs if their memory is 'sketchy' and adopt the memory of another because they trust that recollection or it seems more 'solid' then their own.
Why This Happens
Most people conceive of memory like a video tape. Turn it
on and the memories play. In reality memory is more like a jigsaw puzzle with
pieces missing. Viewing conditions, duress, elevated emotions, other versions of the story and biases
increase the number of missing pieces and the passage of time increases the
number further. As humans, we attempt to fill in these missing pieces and
draw on outside sources.
So how might Bugliosi have influenced the witnesses in this trial?
Memory Recall Issues
This is where I believe Bugliosi had the greatest chance to
influence the evidence in this case and he even helps me reach this conclusion
by bragging about it.
Studies show, overwhelmingly, that an interviewer can create memories based on how they interview the witness. By 'create memories' I mean they can fill in those missing jigsaw pieces (and even replace some of the existing pieces with alternatives) through the interview process. I mean they can create memories.
More importantly the witness will actually come to believe the false or created memory. The witness will confidently adopt that information as their actual memory. That, by the way, will make them less susceptible to impeachment by cross examination because they truly believe it. This is called the ‘misinformation effect’.
Jean Loftus, Phd was one of the leading original psychologists in the study of eyewitness memory. In one study she showed groups a film of two cars having an accident. To one group she asked "How fast was the blue car going when it contacted the red car?" To another group the question was framed as "How fast was the blue car moving when it smashed into the red car?" Those who responded to the second question on average placed the speed of the blue car 10+ mph faster than those asked the first question. (Loftus, Miller, & Burns, 1978)
Misinformation effect can affect memory easily, and
without any intention to deceive (Allan & Gabbert, 2008). Even slight
differences in the wording of a question can lead to misinformation effects.
Subjects in one study were more likely to say ‘yes’ when asked “Did you see the
broken headlight?” then when asked “Did you see a broken headlight?” (Loftus,
1975). The image they had previously been shown did not include a broken
headlight.
If the interviewer uses leading questions in the interview the misinformation effect is
compounded. We already know Bugliosi had a habit of using leading questions in
the trial. Why would we believe he was any different in the interview
process? We also know he was described by some as having a quick temper (a sign
of impatience). That would tend to reinforce the notion he would lead
a witness to get to the point quicker.
Now, what happens after multiple interviews? The witness’s
memory of events doesn't deteriorate with multiple interviews instead it gets
better. So what's the problem?
The problem is this is usually due to 'created' memories supplied inadvertently (or perhaps purposefully) by the questioner. Multiple interviews fill in those missing pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. Engelhardt, Laura, "The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony" Stanford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 1.1
The problem is this is usually due to 'created' memories supplied inadvertently (or perhaps purposefully) by the questioner. Multiple interviews fill in those missing pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. Engelhardt, Laura, "The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony" Stanford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 1.1
In this case Bugliosi brags about interviewing
witnesses multiple times.
____
"I rarely interview a witness just once. Often
the fourth or fifth interview will bring out something previously forgotten or
deemed insignificant, which, in proper context, may prove vital to my
case."
Bugliosi, Vincent; Curt Gentry. Helter Skelter: The
True Story of the Manson Murders (p. 274). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle
Edition.
____
Danny DeCarlo:
"I interviewed Danny numerous times, one
session lasting nine hours, obtaining considerable information that hadn’t come
out in previous interviews."
Bugliosi, Vincent; Curt Gentry. Helter Skelter: The
True Story of the Manson Murders . W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.
____
Kasabian:
"I talked to her from 1 to 4: 30 P.M. on the
twenty-eighth. It was the first of many long interviews, a half dozen of them
lasting six to nine hours, all of which took place at Sybil Brand, her attorney
usually the only other person present."
Bugliosi, Vincent; Curt Gentry. Helter Skelter: The
True Story of the Manson Murders . W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.
____
It is not surprising Bugliosi brags about this:
"The more times a witness tells his story, the
more opportunities there are for discrepancies and contradictions, which the
opposing side can then use for impeachment purposes. While some attorneys try
to hold interviews and pre-trial statements to a minimum so as to avoid such
problems, my attitude is the exact opposite. If a witness is lying, I want to
know it before he ever takes the stand. In the more than fifty hours I spent
interviewing Linda Kasabian, I found her, like any witness, unsure in some
details, confused about others, but never once did I catch her even attempting
to lie. Moreover, when she was unsure, she admitted it."
Bugliosi, Vincent; Curt Gentry. Helter Skelter: The
True Story of the Manson Murders . W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.
____
He's wrong and in fact what he is doing is creating
memories. He is both creating and filling in those missing pieces and when he's
done the witness believes it.
Proving Bugliosi Contaminated the Well
The only way to prove Bugliosi had the impact on
this trial that he may have had would be if we could actually get our hands on
a taped version of his interviews from the first interview through the last.
Are there indications of 'modified' witness
memories? I think there are.
Jerrold Friedman
Jerrold Friedman testified on direct examination
that he received a call from Steven Parent at 11:45 p.m. But on cross
examination he said this:
______
I said, "It's awful late, Steve."
He said, "Well, what time is it?"
And I had a clock right by my phone. I picked it up
and looked at it and I said "l1:30.
He looked at a clock where he was and said “No its
11:25”.
And then I realized, yeah, I had my clock set five
minutes fast so I would never be late for work.
[Aside: So
much for the fact this call was when Steven Parent set the clock.]
______
[Aside: By the way, this was actually a rare example
of exceptional cross examination in this trial. Kanarek makes Friedman tell the
events in a narrative, which causes him to change his original testimony.]
In fairness, Friedman also said this during his cross
examination.
____
A: And he said, "Well, I will be there in 15 or 20 minutes," and then he said, "No...better make it 40 minutes so I will be there by 12:30"
____
[Aside: This series
of exchanges on cross examination likely led to a conversation between Bugliosi
and Sam Bubrick at the Watson trial and a stipulation there that the call
occurred at 11:50 p.m. Friedman did not testify there.]
To me this testimony shows
Freidman having been ‘led’ to 11:45 sometime prior to his testimony and then
recalling his actual memory through Kanarek’s examination technique.
Rudolf Weber
Weber was interviewed first by Bugliosi and Calkins at Weber’s house December 29, 1969 and
____
RUDOLF
WEBER: Well,
to the best of my recollection…we went to bed around 9 o’clock which is our
usual bed time –
SGT.
ROBERT CALKINS:
Who…Who is we? excuse me.
RUDOLF
WEBER: My
wife and I.
SGT.
ROBERT CALKINS:
Would you identify your wife, please?
RUDOLF
WEBER: Her
name in Mila(?)
SGT.
ROBERT CALKINS:
Alright, thank you.
RUDOLF
WEBER: We, uh
– ‘cause I have to be at work at 6 o’clock in the morning. So, about – it
must’ve been about 1 o’clock, I heard the uh, the sound of, running water.
____
But during his trial
testimony he gets more certain.
____
Q: Did anything unusual
happen that night sir, after you went to bed?
A: Well, it was about 1:00
o’clock in the morning, that would be Saturday morning.
****
Q: How do you know it was
1:00.
A: Because I looked at the
clock.
____
Notice how between December 29, 1969 the date of the interview and August 19, 1970 the date of his trial testimony when his memory should fade Weber's memory actually improved. To me this suggests he received a little help in filling in the missing pieces. I’d also point out that he doesn’t answer Bugliosi’s initial question but blurts out 1:00, a sign that something isn't right, but I’ve done that before.
Timothy Ireland
The First Tate Homicide Investigation report notes:
“Between
0100 and 0130 Mr. Ireland was awake, alert and watching the sleeping children.
He heard a male voice from what seemed to him a long distance away to the north
or northeast shout, 'Oh, God, no. Stop. Stop. Oh, God, no, don't'. Ireland said
that the scream persisted for approximately 10 seconds. The male voice was
clear and he did not notice an accent.”
At
trial, presumably also after having spoken to someone at the DA‘s office in
preparation for trial, Mr. Ireland changed his answer. He now places the scream
at precisely 12:40 a.m. basing the change on what Mr. Sparks told him regarding
the time.
____
Q:
About what time was this?
A:
Approximately 12:40 a.m.
*****
Q:
You say you told Sergeant Henderson that it was between 1:00 and 1:30 a.m.
A:
Yes, sir.
Q:
Now, what caused you to change your mind about the time.
A:
When I talked again to Mr. Sparks, who was the man I first contacted about
hearing the noise and asked if I could look around the camp, he said the time
was 12:45, because he noticed it on his watch.
*****
Q:
You spoke to Sparks a second time after you spoke to Henderson?
A:
Yes, sir, I spoke to Henderson and Lee and Richards.
____
Bugliosi
did interview Ireland before the trial. But more importantly this illustrates
how memories can be impacted by the memories of other witnesses. Here, the
impact may be innocuous, but clearly Ireland’s actual memory of the events
changed because of what Sparks said and by August 19, 1970 he believed it. In August 1969 he did not: witness conformity.
The Jakobson Interview
To really determine what Bugliosi did we would need to have tapes
of all his interviews. We have the taped interview of Gregg Jakobson by
Bugliosi on February 20, 1970. It can be found Cielodrive.com. The problem is
the interview is clearly not the first of Jakobson and not the first of
Jacobson by Bugliosi. This is noted about 30 seconds into the interview. We
can’t really track if Bugliosi's style had any impact because we don’t have the starting point. But from my review of that interview I can say this:
Bugliosi repeatedly throughout the interview uses two approaches
that according to all those experts above are going to impact Jakobson’s
memory. He asks leading questions. He also makes statements about what ‘others’
have already told him and asks Jakobson to confirm their viewpoint. Sometimes
Jakobson does and sometimes he doesn’t. When he doesn’t did Bugliosi then go
back to the other witness and interview him again? We don't know.
In my opinion this tape confirms that Bugliosi is doing precisely
what he should not have done and he is likely affecting the witness’s memory. Unfortunately,
we can’t see the impact because we don’t have the starting point to compare. This
is one of three interviews Bugliosi conducted with Jakobsen and not the first.
[Aside: To me, Jakobson’s
testimony is a lot of fun to read. Aside from the fact the ‘anti-Helter
Skelter
wing’ never seem to actually explain him away, in my opinion, defense counsel
are revealed as utterly inept.
Jakobson gives quite a dissertation
on Helter Skelter and is aided significantly by Fitzgerald’s
robust cross examination which allows him to repeat much of it. His ‘real’
client wrote what on the fridge, again? Why let him bang the drum twice!
Hughes’ only possible
defense, and only chance to avoid the death penalty for his actual client, is Manson’s
control over Van Houten. Hughes does an exemplary job of proving the
independence of the family members, especially the girls, and Manson’s lack of
control.
Shinn seems to want to
‘bond’ with Jakobson about trees and nature and Kanarek strives mightily to
prove Manson had a right to have a grudge against Jakobson and Melcher for
misleading him about that record deal through Melcher. Can you say secondary motive?
Several times Bugliosi
objects and then says ‘objection withdrawn’ when he realizes the improper
question actually helps his case.
[Aside: What on earth could they be smiling about? They didn't get paid and they didn't win. And three of them threw their clients under the bus. IMO]
[Aside: What on earth could they be smiling about? They didn't get paid and they didn't win. And three of them threw their clients under the bus. IMO]
From the available evidence
it appears that Bugliosi breaks three of the memory rules.
1. He interviews
the witness multiple times.
2. He asks leading
and suggestive questions in those interviews.
3. He acts as a bridge between witnesses. He carries witness #1’s memories to witness
#2. In other words, he facilitates witness conformity through his interview
style.
Could these three factors,
if applied to Kasabian over six interviews and 50 +/- hours, have impacted the
accuracy of her testimony? Yes. In fact, the probability is very high.
One last point. This doesn’t
mean Bugliosi is 'unethical' or 'evil' or 'broke the law'. Probably most of you have heard the
Jakobson interview long before this post and never even noticed anything.
Probably, neither did Bugliosi. It’s just his style and to him it was effective even
if it was effective for all the wrong reasons. His quote above is revealing. He recognized that witness memory 'improved' through his methodology. He didn't recognize that it may have been doing so because he was providing the missing pieces.
Now if he was consciously doing this, knowing he would effect their testimony…..that would be a different story.
[Aside: Why is Bugliosi standing like that, facing the wall like he's in the corner? I mean the wall is too big to be an office door, isn't it?]
Now if he was consciously doing this, knowing he would effect their testimony…..that would be a different story.
[Aside: Why is Bugliosi standing like that, facing the wall like he's in the corner? I mean the wall is too big to be an office door, isn't it?]
Pax Vobiscum
Dreath
179 comments:
Excellent post, David... though I don't think I'm as forgiving of Bugliosi's methodology or ethics as you :-) The unreliable and subjective nature of most peoples' memories (or indeed perceptions) is a favourite hobby horse of mine. You've explained & demonstrated it very, very well in this post. Well done.
re: the photo of Vince at the bottom...
And who can forget the classic Stephen Kay quote “Not only was Vince a damn fine lawyer but he was also one humorous hombre. A favourite party trick of his was to sneak into other lawyers' offices when they weren’t there and piss in the corner. He was just a barrel of laughs!”
Sorry... I couldn't resist :-)
I heard someone say something once that really resonated with me: "When you remember something you really aren't remembering the event. You are remembering the last time you remembered it."
And so I guess, we are really just "playing telephone" with our own memories.
Thanks for the post, David. I will read more when I have time. Re: the Bugliosi photo at bottom, it reminds me (memory uh-oh) of the opening scenes of the Manson documentary when I think he is about the walk into a courtroom entrance perhaps.
Regarding my memories, I almost always equivacate, even if I'm almost sure of something. Don't trust my brain for a second, ugh.
The issue I have with alternate theories/motives starts with your second sentence.
It implies that Bugliosi premeditated the motive and knew the outcome before having all or very few of the facts.
From the very beginning of his assignment to the case, Bugliosi acknowledged that motive did not need to be proved to get a guilty verdict. From the beginning of his assignment, he was on a quest for evidence and at every turn was being given information that supported the Helter Skelter motive.
As stated before, Helter Skelter was the GROUP motive that Bugliosi found most logical given the evidence and statements he collected. It was likely not each individuals motive or reason to go kill. In reality, the individual motives (that were proven in court) were more that Manson was seen as the leader and the individuals were just following orders. The female defendants and idiots on the street corner pretty much proved this regardless of group motive.
Does anyone remember when Hillary Clinton talked about getting off the airplane under sniper fire in Bosnia? My point is, after spending about 10,000 hours telling yourself something, it can become fact. 10,000 hours is generally the same amount of time required to build muscle memory- when actions take over and things become reflexive and second nature.
I believe the earliest recollections are the most factual. After that, individuals involved in the case had their own reasons for making the statements that they did.
Maybe this has been covered at length in the past, so excuse me for asking- Has anyone provided an alternate reason for WHY all of the girls and idiots on the street corner mimicked everything Charlie did? If he wasn't the ringleader, why did they represent him as such?
Brownrice said:
"though I don't think I'm as forgiving of Bugliosi's methodology or ethics as you"
Thank you.
As to the comment: I think part of my viewpoint about Bugliosi consciously altering memories/testimony comes from the fact I don't like giving him that much credit ;-)
Another well-researched and well-written post.
As it seems that many are concerned about motive for the July-August 1969 crimes, I reckon I’ll put my two cents in. To begin with, I have no concrete idea what the motive of the various conspirators and actors were.
But… I suspect different players had different motives. For some, no motive was required. They were just in it for the thrill of the kill. Some are natural born killers who need no motive to act. For them, killing is a certain kind of fun. Others may have believed they were Biblical avenging angels. Others may have believed they were freeing tormented souls, as the gang in the revered novel "Stranger in a Strange Land" did. Others may have believed they were somehow helping to get BB free. Others may have initially thought they were just going creepy crawling and hoped to either maybe steal a few bucks or just have some weird fun. Others’ motive may have extended no further than peer pressure. Some may have believed they owed the ringleader a favor and were just trying to pay back the favor. Some may have thought they were doing nothing more than just making their bones, in underworld parlance. The ringleader’s motive may have been tainted with power tripping and screwing with peoples’ heads, mixed with a lifelong loathing of the wealthy.
On the other hand, perhaps all were unified in the notion of starting a race revolution by writing Beatles lyrics in blood. Which is an odd way to start a race war, as blacks were not generally known as Beatles fans (although Wilson Pickett covered “Hey Jude” and Fats Domino and Richie Havens covered “Lady Madonna”).
Certainly, thoughts of imminent revolution were part of the spirit of the times in 1969. Many Americans in the counterculture, the left, and even the dominant culture thought a revolution was at hand. Folks wondered what and who would start the revolution. Many of the left-wing bombers circa 1968-1978 likely sought to be the revolutionary vanguard to light the fire of revolution. Though they became known as the New Year’s Gang, the Madison, Wisconsin bombers of 1970 called themselves the Vanguard of the Revolution. On January 1, 1970, they stole an airplane and (unsuccessfully) bombed a Wisconsin munitions plant from the air. My point being that part of the HS motive was being the revolutionary vanguard, a not unusual desire for some caught up in the zeitgeist. (For more on the misplaced revolutionary fervor of that time, I strongly recommend Bryan Burrough’s 2016 instant classic, "Days of Rage: America’s Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violence.")
After all, Jacobson called CM an “active revolutionary of the time in that area. Like Castro in the hills before he overthrew the government. Charlie advocated the overthrow of the government and the police force and everything.” (Mindfuckers: A Source Book on the Rise of Acid Fascism in America, p. 83).
Peace.
Study history and politics right up till today and you'll see this case isn't much different. The United States shot down a Syrian aircraft just recently for attacking US backed "rebels". Rebels armed by the Obama Administration to take out "bad guy" Assad. All in the name of democracy and social justice. But we KNOW that wasn't the real motive. Oil, gas lines, money and power were. But that doesn't sound righteous nor a good excuse to get the American public cheering. Just like murder over dope disputes isn't.
Charlie most certainly was a master of "the noble motive". Read How to Win Friends and Influence People, a book we know Charlie studied and it will make sense. Not that I believe the murders were his idea or HS was used to get them to kill, but I believe later it was used as a cover, as it was to cover the the reasons why the ranch went into combat mode after Crowe. It appears that HS tickled the fancy of some of the younger people at the ranch, thus the fantasy became a motivation tool and a way to keep them out of the know for the real reasons a lot of things were happening.
Bugliosi ran with the fantasy. Much like many Americans run with the fantasy we are in Syria to fight terrorists and take out a demon named Assad. Or that the Paris Agreement is really all about helping to prevent climate change and isn't just a shake down that benefits nobody but the EU/US Oligarchs.
Really great work!!
Very interesting...
Thank you, Saint.
Dear David1971,
Could you please quote or state to whom you are writing? Thanks.
Nice work, Dreath.
What did Bugliosi have on Jakobson that made Gregg willing to testify? And not only testify, but to sit there multiple times ruminating on what he thinks, Charlie might think, lyrics to Beatles songs mean, to Charlie. And also listening to Vince reading verses from the Book of Revelation. And again, ruminating on what he thinks, Charlie might think, those verses mean, to Charlie.
Incidentally, there's a part of the Jakobson interview where Bugliosi says, with some uncertainty, "Well, I, I think the word apocalypse means, uh, revelation".
The book of Revelation is named "the Apocalypse" in most Catholic bibles. Vince would know that if he was a good Catholic boy like Matt and ColScott. And he also wouldn't mangle the pronunciation of "Euphrates" so badly.
Ziggy said:
"What did Bugliosi have on Jakobson that made Gregg willing to testify?"
Why did Bugliosi have to have something on Jakobson? While Jakobson tells the HS story with Beatles four part harmony and Fitzgerald has him do an encore his testimony from a 'guilt' perspective isn't particularly damning. He doesn't link HS to the murders in large measure because his discussions with Manson happened months before the murders.
Maybe he just felt it was his 'civic duty'. If you want shenanigans I think the better question is why didn't Wilson testify? That one IMO reeks of 'prosecutorial discretion'.
Of course I could also answer this way: a subpoena.
My replies are directly under the person im replying to post
Thats a great question David, why didnt Dennis testify, he was a pivotal figure in this whole saga, more so than Jakobson or Melcher, Wilsons comments to people after the trials even up until his death suggested that he knew the real motives behind the killings
Actually, Dave1971, they don't appear that way if you use a computer to read here. They just fall next in line.
David said...
"If you want shenanigans I think the better question is why didn't Wilson testify? That one IMO reeks of 'prosecutorial discretion'."
Dennis might be the reason why Jakobson was so loquacious. That and the fear of his wife finding out about all the hookers that he shtupped at the Ranch.
Dave1971 said...
"Wilsons comments to people after the trials even up until his death suggested that he knew the real motives behind the killings"
Are there any other "real motives" other than Helter Skelter or Copycat that would necessitate writing various forms of the word "pig" in blood at the scene?
...all the hookers that he shtupped...
Ziggy you make me miss NY. You don't hear words like "shtupp" in NC :(
"What did Bugliosi have on Jakobson that made Gregg willing to testify?"
From his extensive 1970 interview(s) with David Felton, as published in "Rolling Stone" and the great "Mindfuckers" book, as well as his later interview(s) with Jeff Guinn in Guinn's 2015 cheapshot bio, I think it's fair to say that Mr. Jacobson just likes to talk about CM.
As an aside, Mr. Jacobson seems to particularly like to emphasize what a fabulous dancer CM was. "There have been many dancers in this world that I have seen, but no one ever danced like Charlie," "Mindfuckers," p. 83. And, as I recall, Guinn's 2015 bio begins with GJ's story of going to the Whiskey-a-Go-Go circa 1968 with CM, Dennis Wilson, and Terry Melcher, and watching agog as CM danced.
As far as Dennis Wilson, as I recall, he never gave a post-summer 1969 press interview about CM, only perhaps a few scattered asides.
To ziggy, my theory has always been that it was a drug deal gone bad, theres too much testimony telling me that both Frykowski and Sebring were small time dealers, that's just my opinion
I think the most likely reason Dennis Wilson did not testify is because he could not be trusted by the prosecution to give damning evidence against Manson. He may have made a good defense witness but the defense attorneys only called witnesses in the penalty phase of the trial.
Most accounts of Dennis's relationship with Manson would have us believe that Dennis cut off contact with Manson in 1968 when the lease was up on his house. David has shown us that was probably not true because of interviews Dennis did with the Record Mirror as late as July 1969 where Dennis had nothing but good things to say about Manson.
Jakobson was doing damage control for himself, Melcher, Wilson, Brother Recordings, etc. .....needless to say even the minimized association presented in the press and at trial they had with Manson was a scandal and damaging to repuations enough. That they were all about of a drug nexus would have made it work. Needless to say they would have wanted to keep Wilson away from the trial and case as much as possible. With Melcher, they needed him to support Bugliosi's case.
The Record Mirrior article came out in December '68. But regardless, Manson and Wilson were still in contact even after the Tate murders.
I'll never understand the hatred people have for Vincent Bugliosi. He prosecuted the shit out of the killers, and got guilty verdicts. What's the problem? Shouldn't the hatred be towards the actual killers instead? This blog used to be all about different viewpoints, and now every other posting is about blaming the victims, Manson was framed, Bugliosi is Satan, Leslie Van Houten was just misunderstood, Gary Hinman was a drug dealer, etc. What absolute lunacy!
Anyone know if there's an online version of Mindfuckers? Always wanted to read it. Public libraries obviously don't have it, and when one does come up for sale the price is usually too steep for my wallet!
Dave1971: "My replies are directly under the person im replying to post"
No they aren't. For example, if this was in answer to me, your post isn't right under mine.
MM, there was a July 5, 1969 Record Mirror article where Dennis is obviously talking about Manson and Spahn. I can't find David's post on that right now but check your email, I sent you the article.
MansonMythos,
Here is the post too: http://www.mansonblog.com/2017/01/when-did-dennis-wilson-finally-sever.html
Ilovepho said: "This blog used to be all about different viewpoints, and now every other posting is about blaming the victims, Manson was framed, Bugliosi is Satan, Leslie Van Houten was just misunderstood, Gary Hinman was a drug dealer, etc."
That really isn't the point of the post. Bugliosi 'out lawyered' the hell out of the defense counsel and in my opinion the right people are exactly where they should be. The point of the post is the title.
When I read comments I am always struck by the fact commenters will occasionally disregard (or make assumptions of error regarding) the objective evidence/physical evidence and witnesses such as Jakobson and frequently cite something one of the eyewitnesses (murderers) said as 'proof' that the objective evidence is wrong. I feel the analysis should be the other way around: if there is a conflict assume the objective evidence is correct and the eyewitnesses are wrong until something objective establishes its the other way around.
I certainly didn't intend to bash the victims and apologize if that is how you read the post.
ILovePho, the slant of the blog hasn't changed much if any. Bugliosi did do the world a service by gaining convictions. It's just the path he took that is in question.
Different viewpoints are welcome. If a commenter feels Manson was framed they have a right to explain why they feel that way. What commenters believe is not necessarily what WE believe.
If Hinman was a dealer it changes the motive behind his killing, not who did it. If you think us authors are blaming victims then I call your reading comprehension seriously into question.
Yeah Chris i remember Jakobsen talking about how Charlie pretty much lit up the dance floor at the whiskey, said it was like there was an electricity coming off of him
David ive never seen one post from anyone on any blog who is a Helter Skelter doubter who actually blamed any of the victims or even denied that Tex, Patricia, Susan, Leslie and most likely Linda were the killers, my interest as a HS non believer is what the actual motives for the killings was, what happened to all known "family" victims is evil and wrong and nothing they did in their lives was deserving of being murdered
Dave1971: gotta say 'huh?' About your comment to me. A little help. Please.
Sorry David i actually meant that for Ilovepho
IlovePho said...
"I'll never understand the hatred people have for Vincent Bugliosi. He prosecuted the shit out of the killers, and got guilty verdicts. What's the problem? Shouldn't the hatred be towards the actual killers instead?"
Why hate anyone? "Hate" is seldom helpful.
"This blog used to be all about different viewpoints, and now every other posting is about blaming the victims, Manson was framed, Bugliosi is Satan,
Who said Bugliosi was Satan? Everyone knows that Charlie was :-)
"Gary Hinman was a drug dealer, etc. What absolute lunacy!"
Other than being illegal under an antiquated and ineffective law, why is being a drug dealer automatically construed as a bad thing? Particularly when we're talking about pot or psychedelics. I've always felt about drug dealers much the same way that Homer Simpson does about Mo the bartender... "How can I hate you, Mo? You sell me beer."
Even more so at the time that these murders happened.
Exactly, brownrice. When someone says that Gary Hinman was a drug dealer it is typically meant as a statement of "fact", not a judgement. And ILovePho, I say that to make a point about WHY a commenter might say he was a dealer, I'm not actually taking the position that he was one (in the interests of that reading comprehension thing).
Dave1971 said...
My replies are directly under the person im replying to post..........Sorry David i actually meant that for Ilovepho
@71,
to quote someone that you want to reply to in bold, if you don't want to just use "speech marks," use < followed by b followed by > then put in the quote that you want to reply to then add < followed by / followed by b followed by > and their comment will be in bold and it's a little clearer whom you're replying to.
The only way on this site that your answers will be directly under the quote you're answering is if no one publishes their own comment while you are composing yours which means you either have to be a speedy writer, live in the UK or somewhere with a zany time difference to America or be plain lucky !
ive never seen one post from anyone on any blog who is a Helter Skelter doubter who actually blamed any of the victims or even denied that Tex, Patricia, Susan, Leslie and most likely Linda were the killers
I smilingly note that one unnamed protagonist towers above the ones you do name....
brownrice said...
Other than being illegal under an antiquated and ineffective law, why is being a drug dealer automatically construed as a bad thing?
For me it really depends on who that dealer is actually dealing to and what they are selling or supposed to be. You made an interesting point in the other thread about qualifications to speak authoritatively about drugs. For me the same can apply sometimes to the seller.
IlovePho said...
This blog used to be all about different viewpoints
I think most of the debates over these last couple of threads show that it still is and thankfully so.
Bownrice's comment triggered a memory (see how I tied that back to the post):
You know the dealer, the dealer is a man
With the love grass in his hand
Oh but the pusher is a monster
Good God, he's not a natural man
The dealer for a nickel
Lord, will sell you lots of sweet dreams
Ah, but the pusher ruin your body
Lord, he'll leave your, he'll leave your mind to scream
Steppenwolf: “The Pusher” 1968
Or if you prefer the original by Hoyt Axton:
Yeah, the dealer take a nickel
Give you lots of fine dreams
But the pusher take your body
And leave your mind to scream
God damn the pusher
IlovePho said...
Shouldn't the hatred be towards the actual killers instead?
No. Like you, me and Queen Elizabeth 2nd, they are human beings that have erred. They have/had parents, siblings, partners, thoughts, wishes and desires. Listening to and trying to understand them is much more profitable and enables one to place their feelings when and how they arise, in the right context.
Matt said...
When someone says that Gary Hinman was a drug dealer it is typically meant as a statement of "fact", not a judgement
While true, I've noticed that it's a point often made with an "anti official narrative" foundation so it's hard not to conclude that if Gary can be trashed, then that throws doubt on the reasons, the real reasons, for his murder which then shines its light on official "motive" narratives on this case in general.
For me, his death has little to do with whether or not he used to move drugs. That side of things becomes irrelevant if one is to believe Bobby's story because Bobby is adamant that he and Gary ha sorted out their problem. I think there is more than enough official and anecdotal {autopsy, the Family, Bugliosi} information to hand to be able to reach the conclusion that Gary was involved at some level with drugs of different kinds. His very involvement with Buddhism was directly drug related according to Police reports.
The biggest culprit of the idea that somehow Gary brought his fate on his own head is actually Charlie, who, in addition to making sure he told Nicholas Shreck that Hinman was a government agent feeding info on countercultural undesirables {or word to that effect}, coined the stark but brutal phrase "Hinman killed Hinman."
According, ironically to Bobby and the original accomplices, Charlie is the basic reason Hinman is dead, not whether he moved drugs now and then.
lurch asked if "Mindfuckers: A Source Book on the Rise of Acid Fascism in America" (1972) is online anywhere.
My answer is: I don't know. Years ago, I ponied up $80 and bought it on Amazon. If you can afford it, it's worth it. There are three sections: one on CM; one on Mel Lyman; and one on Victor Baranco. The CM section is fine. The Baranco section is not gripping. And the Mel Lyman section is fascinating (but may be character assassination). Lyman is one of my favorite acid gurus of that era. Besides acid, the Lyman Family were into carpentry and folk music and were quite productive. The book came out of a series of "Rolling Stone" magazine articles, but I'm not sure if the book has more than just the original articles or expands upon them.
Not to derail the OP's post, but is anyone else working on a compare/contrast essay on CM and Emmett Grogan of the Diggers?
Grim it was actually Bill Scanlon Murphy that Charlie told that about Gary, basically said Gary was a govt informant "playing all kinds of treacherous games" and sold some drugs that caused Bobbys wife to lose her baby but i thought she ended up having the baby didnt she?
It's highly possible Hinman was an informant, considering his interest in far left politics. Communist scumbag Gloria Steinem admitted not long ago she was working with the CIA as an informant and one of the most celebrated members of the Black Panthers who's been openly praised in the various sympathetic documentaries about them was working with the FBI as an informant. An interesting project for somebody would be looking in to seeing if there is an FBI file on Hinman. I would bet nearly all of the radicals and assholes like Hoffman, Rubin and Leary were stooges for US intelligence.
A lot of people like to spread tinfoil hat insanity that the murders were "staged" as apart of Operation Chaos, but Operation Chaos was simply, I believe an operation in which US intelligence wanted to see if foreign influence was meddling in the counter culture, probably Cuba and Soviet. Similar to the "Russian investigation" of today.
As for what Charlie says: almost everything he says, there is a degree of truth. But his mind isn't exactly perfect nor is his memory. So while he is not fabricating nonsense, not everything he says might be accurate and he has mixed up people and situations. They also used him as guinea pig for a various of chemical brain cocktails in the 70s to the 80s and there is no doubt these drugs effected his mind.
MM, if one were to send for any FOIA documents at the FBI/DOJ they would probably receive a letter much like the one I received when trying to get Susan Atkins file. Gary was related to the Manson case and no doubt his file, even what might not have been related to Manson, et al, has been destroyed like Susan's file.
Susan would have triggered an FBI file when she was arrested pre-Charlie in Oregon for taking a stolen vehicle across state lines and the firearms charges.
http://www.mansonblog.com/2014/05/freedom-of-information-my-ass.html
Dave1971 said...
it was actually Bill Scanlon Murphy that Charlie told that about Gary
Cheers mate. It plays quite a prominent part in Schrek's book. Perhaps a poor assumption on my part.
and sold some drugs that caused Bobbys wife to lose her baby but i thought she ended up having the baby didnt she?
I've seen a number of references to Bobby's 'wife' Gail, but he stated during a parole hearing that he'd not been married before jail and his child was with Kitty Lutesinger.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay. Were you married prior to coming to prison?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, I wasn't.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WELCH: Do you have any children prior to coming to prison?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, I had one out of wedlock child. Her name is Jeanne Beausoleil. She's written a letter for this hearing.
Of course, one should never trust an eyewitness !
Somebody involved in this case for many, many years told me, and this is unvarified, but a lot of people had it in for Hinman because he was selling weed that was sprayed with Paraquat and some of his batch ended up being sold to some Hells Angels.
Chris Till said:
Not to derail the OP's post, but is anyone else working on a compare/contrast essay on CM and Emmett Grogan of the Diggers?
No but I'd love to read one. There's an interesting throw-away line in Sanders' The Family, where he makes the comment that Charlie was hanging round with a prominent Haight Ashbury character not long after his release... and that it's a pity he didn't pick up on some of the guy's more ethical behaviour & beliefs (or words to that effect). I've always wondered if that were Grogan. Charlie obviously borrowed a lot from the Diggers and I'm sure his street-savvy ex-crim persona would've resonated with them (at least initially). The other option is perhaps Steven Gaskin...
Apologies for being off-topic.
To brownrice, Charlie talked about the Diggers in his interview with Charlie Rose, talked about meeting a kid when he got to San Francisco and he asked the kid where he gets food with no money and the kid told him about the diggers
Manson Mythos i think its more an issue of what i call "con talk" with Charlie, he gives you nuggets of truth inside of a rambling sometimes incoherent story and uses alot of metaphors, Doris Tate said what you said about Charlie, that he speaks in riddles but rarely ever lies, i think its based on years spent behind bars where the worst thing you can be is a rat
Paraquat wasn't used on marijuana until the mid 70s when the US government started spraying pot fields in Mexico. Do a google search for Paraquat Pot.
Chris Till said:
Not to derail the OP's post, but is anyone else working on a compare/contrast essay on CM and Emmett Grogan of the Diggers?
The whole idea of taking an old school bus and traveling the country was pioneered by the Merry Pranksters of the Bay Area, of which Grogan was one. Numerous others, of course, followed course as the '60d went on. And the Family appears to have copied this hippie template exactly. But was that just coincidence?
RIP Hinman/Hells Angels "Paraquat" drug burn theory (murdered by a Google search).
Krenwinkel's Parole Hearing resumes today
That paraquat thing was going on when I was in high school. We had our coal mine canaries that were more than happy to sample the weed before the rest of us were willing to chance it.
In fact, Emmett Grogan was not a Merry Prankster. He co-founded the Diggers in San Francisco, c. 1966.
I wish Vegas was taking odds on Krenwinkels parole, id bet my house on a denial, i like what Harold True said about her, "ahhh Krenwinkel man, she carries her brains in a lunch box" lol
Krenwinkel July 17, 1978 Parole Hearing Transcript
MR. S. DANA GILBERT, Attorney for Krenny: "... the State in the form of the prosecution will not let the people forget that they were part of the Manson family. And it doesn’t matter if you try to break away. You will not be allowed, not by Manson, but by the State, by Chief Davis, by the District Attorney’s office, you will not be allowed to forget that you were part of the Manson family. And everything you do is because you’re a part of the Manson family. .... Don’t you think we’ve had enough of this? It’s been almost eight years now."
Come on, people! It's been almost eight years now!
Chris Till said...
In fact, Emmett Grogan was not a Merry Prankster. He co-founded the Diggers in San Francisco, c. 1966.
Whoops! I was thinking of Wavy Gravy(aka Hugh Romney), one of the first to do the 'hippy bus' thing.
Anyone have a copy of Shreck's 2011 Manson file they want to sell please email me at ajerseydevil@gmail.com
I'm willing to pay a decent amount of $$ considering how hard it is to find
Friendly tip for Dave1971: Don't hit your back button to avoid double posts.
I read an interview with Deb Tate today and she is predicting release for Pat.
She won't get past Brown anyway but I would be more shocked than I have in a very long timd if Krenny gets past the board before Lulu.
Shocked!! But Deb pointed out some statues in Krenys favor.
A couple of them seem to be getting closer and closer. But...
I still believe none of them ever actually walk. But I don't have the same level of confidence I did when I first started paying attention.
Sorry for off topic Dave this was an excellent post.
There is no evidence Gary sold drugs it's all rumor and innuendo. No proof ever existed Gary sold drugs. Not one spec of actual
Evidence ever resisted. Just stories and rumors.
Helter Skelter does have actual evidence to support it. I have laid out the list many times.
Me thinks some people make this a lot more difficult than it needs to be.
If what happened with that group of people isn't fascinating enough god help you. Why the need to try and add layers and put in questions that may have already been answered?
I think it's cause some will look for anyway to obsolve Charlie and his group from responsibility in some way for what they did
There is no and never will be a good excuse for the brutal violence they committed to Shorty Gary Sharon Jay Gibby Steve and Voutek.
Drugs. Sex. Burn. Copy cat. HS.
End of the day is it so important why? Do any of the above make it ok for those animals to beat and stab people to death?
Think hard about what your trying to excuse and weigh the cost of human life.
What if Gary was someone you cared about? And that happened to someone in your family...
What would you think about someone who slandered his name and questioned his character after he was brutally tortured??
Shameless
Last comment on motive and I'll let others have final say....
Bugs was told by over a dozen people about how much of an influence HS was to Charlie and the family. He saw it written on property at ranch and in blood at the crime scene.
That's real. Not stories or rumors.
Tex Pat Lulu have all stated that is why they did it and was at least part of the motivation.
They actually did the killing. That's real. Not stories or rumors.
So how anyone can absolutely rule out the possibility that HS was part of the motivation is totally beyond me??
Ignore facts and testimony and put my faith in unproven stories and rumors??
Not me. I will believe what my eyes see and what my ears hear. Not what strangers with self interest spread.
Peace friends. :)
Ok one more word. It's been awhile lol
I'm not as experienced with this as some. I'm not nearly the researcher or brains as most.
But I have read almost every book. I have watched hundreds of hours of parole hearings. I have read transcripts for 9 years now. All the biographies. Police reports. Trial
Testimony.
For almost a decade.
I'm smart enough to comprehend what I learn. And it's really simple if you just look without predetermining your opinion.
There is just no evidence to support any motive beyond a reasonable doubt. There is more evidence on record to support HS that any other potential motive.
Sorry that's just the simple truth.
So if you can't know for sure what the motive is? How can you be so sure what the motive isn't??
Anyway thanks for indulging me 😉
Very true, St. I'm old enough to have been in high school when TLB happened. I remember reading about the Helter Skelter motive before Bugliosi ever came into the picture. It didn't come from Vince.
David said...
I feel the analysis should be the other way around: if there is a conflict assume the objective evidence is correct and the eyewitnesses are wrong until something objective establishes its the other way around
For everyone since the morning of 9th August 1969, the story begins with the objective evidence. And the objective evidence didn't prove anything that went towards netting the culprit{s}. It established much but proved nothing. It took the revelations from the eyewitnesses to put flesh on the bones. The objective evidence then assisted what was revealed. Had Susan Atkins and Kitty Lutesinger never spoken, indeed, if all of the Family had, Mafia like, kept Schtuum, what could the evidence have proved ?
Similarly, if everyone had talked and confessed all day night, without objective evidence, what could have been proven ? Nothing really. What a person said on their own would, I imagine, just be hearsay.
It seems to me that the two walk hand in hand.
CarolMR said...
I'm old enough to have been in high school when TLB happened. I remember reading about the Helter Skelter motive before Bugliosi ever came into the picture. It didn't come from Vince
Are you sure about that ? That you remember reading about HS as a motive before Bugliosi came into the picture ?
I'd say that was impossible. Not because it wasn't around in fragments {it was ~ from at least 8 people} but because the statements that contained any pointing to HS weren't public, were police and lawyer interviews and jailhouse tongue waggings and Bugliosi didn't finally put it together himself until Feb '70.
St Circumstance said...
So if you can't know for sure what the motive is? How can you be so sure what the motive isn't??
I'd love to know from Helter skeptics exactly what it is or why it is that they think HS is a crock. Is it the idea itself or the man that is identified with putting it together or other things ?
I'm genuinely curious
Krenwinkel was denied.
To St. Circumstance like i always say with this case the right people are locked up and thats a good thing, talking about the "whys" of the case is just very interesting, just a really cool way to pass the time
To St. Circumstance like i always say with this case the right people are locked up and thats a good thing, talking about the "whys" of the case is just very interesting, just a really cool way to pass the time
To William Marshall, same here, i havent been able to find a copy anywhere
Saint said: "Sorry for off topic Dave this was an excellent post."
No need to apologize. I sort of view this as a 'sports bar' or aa good 'pub'. Not everyone comes there to watch the game but they still have a good time.
Then again, that might be why I help derail other posts...hmmm...maybe I should rethink that (channelling Saint) LOL.
Grim said: "It seems to me that the two walk hand in hand."
Of course they do. I think my point was- if the objective evidence says "X" but Atkins said "Y" so therefore "X" must be wrong- is backwards. I know you use comments asa jumping off point but that style does tend to suggest now and again that someone said something different then what they actually said. Maybe use the whole quote.
Saint said: "Do any of the above make it ok for those animals to beat and stab people to death?"
Answer provided by Trilby: "Krenwinkel was denied."
Looks like ol Patty is gonna be buried in the California Correctional Center for Women at Chowchilla graveyard lol
It's too late to save the dead. But we can still save the living. As Moses said to Pharaoh "Let my people go!"
1971 - I agree its much fun to wonder about the puzzle and try to figure out what really happened...
Matt and Deb S and Col and the serious TLB Scholars are all about getting to the very bottom and I respect that and would love to know if there is a real truth myself.
But some people "Create" motives ( much like they accuse Bugs of doing lol) or alternative possibilities- NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATIONS OF WHAT HAPPENED-
but because they can - in some fashion- erase some culpability for Charlie. That is it. They care not who or what gets trashed in the process.
Thats ok with me, I guess, if that is your thing. Do what you gotta do to defend your position and your guy...
But Come on Man.... Dont step on the memory of a brutally slain man by trying to introduce question's about his character or lifestyle as to say he somehow had it coming. And make no mistake- That is exactly what they are doing...
That is all I am saying...
I'm not going to put up a new post with the news that Krenny was denied parole. I'm pretty sure that's what most expected the outcome would be despite the battered partner thing.
She was denied for five more years. You can read about it here-
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/manson-follower-longest-serving-female-inmate-seeks-parole-48211374
To St. Circumstance, yeah as far as motives go i always say there has to be enough "smoke" to be a "fire" thats why im a believer in the drug burn theory and not the stupid MK ULTRA or satanism bullshit, i think theres reasonable evidence there for drugs, police reports of more than one dealer implicating Frykowski and Sebring, drugs found at the scene, killers were all known drug users, i can understand why people believe in the HS theory and i think possibly even the girls may have believed in ut as a motive but not the main person Tex
As far as ive read there isnt much reason for Leslie to hold out hope with the Tex tapes, it seems the only new things in them is possible info on the Tennerelli and Stubbs murders and also the third unnamed murder, im guessing maybe the CHP officer
Anyone have a copy of Shreck's 2011 Manson file they want to sell please email me at ajerseydevil@gmail.com
I'm willing to pay a decent amount of $$ considering how hard it is to find
I didn't have the time to write more than 3 words earlier (!); just want to add a comment saying how thought-provoking and informative your posts are, Dreath/Dave. Absolutely great. I'm tired & not very articulate at the moment, but the words are sincere.
And also, for what it's worth, I agree with the comment pointing out that calling Hinman a drug-dealer isn't a slur. We're only human and most of us consider life a learning experience, right?
(Also, Matt, thanks for cracking me up with the weed/canary analogy. I don't remember Paraquat but I remember bad weed that had been "dusted" in the early 80s.)
For instance, calling Leno LaBianca a compulsive gambler & embezzler who stole from his family, & Rosemary a habitual grifter, is harsh yet supported by evidence. Revealing negative facts DOESN'T "JUSTIFY" their murders by ANY means, yet it would be remiss to not acknowledge these facts within context as being possible contributing factors. Who would an actuary rate as more likely to die in the course of their daily activities: a nun or a mountain climber?
I've found someone who lived in Topanga in that era who bought their mescaline and acid from a dealer named Eric, & they further knew Eric as being a friend of Hinman's who crashed at times at Hinman's house. While this source knew Hinman, they hadn't ever bought from him & couldn't corroborate rumors they had heard at the time. Very credible source (whom I stumbled upon, basically), & info matches what Ed Sanders said about Hinman having a mescaline-making partner named Eric.
Also, something I meant to post on your last thread: People asked how Hinman could have spent 1k in a few days. Easily: on Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism ie: trip (pilgrimage) to see the Dai Gohonzen in Japan with SGA. During my relugious-exploration era, I practiced this religion from about '82-'85, off & on. These trips to Japan were group excursions & greatly encouraged as part of your practice. In the early 80s the cost was several thousand (payable to SGA). So 1k was very feasible in '69. Then, as in my era, SGI HQ for L.A. was in Santa Monica (regional HQ would be referred to as the "Kaikan"), but "chapter" meetings held in members' homes as well as at the kaikan.
Sorry for being so long-winded. And hopefully I spaced the paragraphs properly so as not to piss off the people who get annoyed by formatting issues.
Jeezus. Typos & I fu*ked up formatting. No excuses. *sigh*
Correct term should be: "SGI" NOT "SGA" for Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism's parent organization. At the time of his death, Hinman was in the preparatory stages of making this trip. I've always figured that's where a lump sum of $$ could have gone.
David is spot on about memory, if I may say. Most jurisdictions have long since moved to amend various legislative provisions to reflect the things he talks about, certainly here in Australia that has been happening since 1995. Law reflects science, albeit dragging the chain somewhat slowly.
David, you might have referred to this and I have missed it, but just assuming VB "coached" Kasabian, it doesn't seem to have come across that way to the juries because they accepted her fully. I suppose that fits with your comments to the effect it was somewhat subtle, perhaps too subtle for the juries to appreciate.
I'm still struggling with this stuff. My training/experience was that not only are leading questions impermissible in evidence in chief (direct), they are actually "tactically" unwise because most juries see right through you if you try to put words into a witness's mouth. My approach, rightly or wrongly !, was to avoid leading as much as I could so the witness gets into a comfortable pattern of talking to the jury. I think there's no doubt that that is a much more persuasive way to present a case. I'd be surprised if VB wasn't caught in two minds frankly. On the one hand, "gee this is a big case, I really want these people to come through" and, on the other hand, "I must be careful to not let the jury(s) think I've coached, or am leading, these people, that equally will not win me the case".
I frankly find it hard to judge how he interviewed these people without seeing the records of the interviews (does anybody have those?).
Sorry, also, the converse of what I've said about leading is that I would generally allow leading by my opponent where I didn't take issue with what was being said. (In fact, better that he does lead, because it is less witness talking, and more counsel talking which I liked.) Anyway, I am still struggling to work out what was really in issue about Kasabian's evidence. I mean the girls' lawyers were, I am sure (I think you are too), carrying instructions to the effect they agreed substantially with what Kasabian said. So the point is that the attorneys simply allowed some of VB's leading to go on (my memory of reading the transcripts which admittedly is getting a bit rusty). I remember thinking "gee I might have objected to that", then I simply assumed well they didn't really take issue with it. If you've already covered this, I'm sorry, its a long post !
Trilby you make great points and it's ok to point out those things about Leno and Rosemary even if they are harsh...
AS long as they are true!!!
In the case of Gary. The drug thing is not fair in my estimation because there is not a speck of evidence to back it up. So in addition to being harsh - it's also not fact.
If the stuff about their others can be proven then I agree it's fair game to point out I guess..
But still not a real justification for what they did to them in any case to me....
Look I don't care what Anyome at Cielo was doing in their private life's or what kind of people they were off record - I am quite sure 9 month pregnant Sharon didn't deserve to be stabbed to death....
Haha! You said "revelations".
Get it? Revelations? Like in the Bible?
I kill me! Get it? Kill? Like in the murders?
Oh never mind.
Well Saint, I have little doubt that Hinman had nothing to do with drugs. BUT there was a speck of evidence, as I understand it, in that there was white powder residue on some scales in a kitchen cupboard. Now, in theory, that could be peyote, which is the raw ingredient of mescaline (as I understand). It could equally have been self-raising flour I suppose, but let's assume for the sake of argument it was peyote. So what do you (we) say about that ? I think we say it only seems to add up to some sort of drug "activity" that was miniscule in dimension. It was either dealing on a miniscule basis, or sharing, or personal consumption. Isn't it ? What do others say ?
IT was tested and found not to be drugs. You could speculate about a scale I suppose - but as the powder was tested and found not to be drugs...
I would say Gary liked to bake perhaps lol
There was zero evidence Gary dealt drugs
Again Simon. Your going into theory. This main was tortured. His memory deserves respect. If something is proven about the matter I will look at it and accept it.
But rumor theory and second hand stories are a bad basis to trash a murders persons memory and reputation.
That's the only point I'm trying to keep out there.
👍
I'll look for it this weekend. I believe it was in the Himman police report but can't remember exactly where for sure.
But I'm positive I read it. The scale powder was tested and not drugs.
So you don't have to take my word for it lol. Only the facts!
Simon,
I did not go into 'trial tactics' in the post. As to leading questions in the transcripts my impression is Bugliosi used them quite a bit (although drawing generalizations in a trial of this length borders on the absurd). Then from my observation the scenario typically goes like this:
Bugliosi: leading question
Kanarak: makes say three objections (one is 'leading the witness' and the others are terrible)
Bugliosi: only addresses one of the terrible objections (good tactic)
Kanarak: adds a fourth objection
Court: overruled
One example of this is during the Kasabian testimony where she is asked about the timing of going from Spahn to Cielo.
And, 'yes' to test the theory we would need tapes of every one of his Kasabian interviews and compare her answers over time and to her trial testimony and to the best of my knowledge those don't exist.
I did find it interesting that Bugliosi says that after each interview he would tell her to write him notes if she remembered things later. It would be interesting to see those notes and see if she gives any clues in them as to 'how' she remembered something- "You told me Sadie said X and now I remember X' . I thought I read somewhere on here that Ed Sanders might have some of them but could be wrong.
_________
Thank you Trilby.
Saint, thank you. I agree with you but I want to test what I/we think. I guess I'm using you as a devil's advocate (?). The Hinman drug theorists' retort to your/our points will be, I am pretty sure: "well narcotic testing methods in 1969 weren't able to detect peyote". What do we say to that ? Well it seems to me we again say "hey look even if it was peyote (and remember it could have been self raising flour for all anybody knows), it's unlikely it represented anything but personal consumption or sharing". Moreover, it seems inconceivable that it would represent drug business warranting the attention of strong-arm criminal groups like the Satans.
Mate, it is a given that the whole ordeal was shocking etc. But what we need to bear down on now is the extent to which people are justified in saying "well Hinman was a drug dealer". The significance of these claims is that they make Gary less victim/more criminal, and Beusoleil/Manson more victim/less criminal. That is precisely why BB and CM propagate these theories. If we are right, that Hinman is being defamed in death, then it is adding insult to injury to the poor guy. If we're right, we need to try to stop it. This is one big interest for me in the whole saga.
Fair enough Simon :)
David, thanks. I tended to ignore Kanarek's scattergun objections after a while. There's not much you can deduce from them. I agree with your point about the way a lot of objections fell away making it in effect easy for VB to get away with things. But, to play the devil's advocate, wouldn't that be exactly how any lawyer would have to react to Kanarek's behaviour? I can't imagine myself thinking "oh I'd better deal with his strongest objection first". You'd fight fire with fire I guess. Your client would be entitled to feel aggrieved if you didn't.
Please understand I'm thinking out aloud. You say your post is not about "trial tactics". But your post seems to only have significance if it means that VB's (pre-trial) wrongdoing actually translated into causing the trial to miscarry (doesn't it ?). The only other significance it could have is that you wish to gratuitously pick apart the man (VB), and I don't read you or your post as being particularly interested in such an undertaking. Therefore, for your post to have a result or have significance, I feel, rightly or wrongly, you need to point to where it caused a miscarriage of justice.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm just trying to understand where people's points and posts, excellently researched and written and absolutely great reading, take us in terms of the overall justice of the case. I love some of your points (especially the carrying of witness #1's comments into witness 2's interview and so on). But does it just mean that VB (arguably) gilded the lily, or does it mean the defendants did not get a fair trial by virtue of the witnesses being tainted ? I don't think you've yet crossed the bridge from the former to the latter yet (my preliminary impression). But you might soon at the rate you're going. Remember also that, on one strong view of it, what stood out about these witnesses was not really how they gave their evidence in chief (direct), but how extraordinarily well they handled the cross-exam. Now granted, the defence lawyers were not the dream team. But I guess my point is: lawyers cannot realistically coach witnesses how to deal with XX. You would have had many prospective witnesses ask you "what do I say if they ask me this" and your answer would be the same as mine "I can't tell you what to say, just answer as honestly and directly as you can, if you don't understand the question, then say so, if the answer calls for just a "yes" or "no" then just say yes or no". I would find it hard to believe VB would have been so silly as to say to these witnesses anything but that in respect of how they deal with cross-exam. IF I'm right, this really pushes any alleged wrongdoing by VB even further into the background doesn't it? Please remember just testing, just learning, just trying to get it right etc etc. Please don't be offended, I can only imagine how long it has taken you to compile this stuff, and how excellently it is constructed. Please understand I say these things because my head is about to go on the chopping block when my publication is put out there, it is quite nerve wracking frankly.
PS I noticed the stuff about taking notes. I can't recall saying this to a witness. Did you ? Or do you ? I can't quite see anything wrong about it, although it perhaps smacks of an anxious young DA (??).
PPS, while I remember I think a point you made about VB some time ago is strong. It was along the lines of "subtle" coaching. So VB and Linda have an exchange like this:
VB: What colour were your clothes ?
LK: I don't remember. What do I say if I can't remember ?
VB: Well you just say you don't remember, just tell the truth.
LK: Hey Vince, didn't you ask me that the other day? What did I say the other day?
VB: Maybe I did, let's see, you said black clothes.
LK: OK, black clothes is my answer.
If this went on, and it remains a big IF until the records of interview become available, then it was bad. But I guess it doesn't really explain how well she did in xx. No amount of impropriety/coaching coudl have got her (and others) through that xx, even allowing for the poor quality of it.
St. Circumstance why do you keep saying that if you disagree with motives that conflates with saying the victims deserved to die? I have never heard anyone say that here or anywhere else
Lol i wish this blog had an option to edit and quote posts
Simon said: "But, to play the devil's advocate, wouldn't that be exactly how any lawyer would have to react to Kanarek's behaviour? "
I'd say it was a brilliant tactic by VB. Figure out the shotgun and attack the weak link and Kanarek will help by never saying 'hey, what about the leading objection' but say something stupid instead. At least that's how I read it.
_____
Simon said: "Therefore, for your post to have a result or have significance, I feel, rightly or wrongly, you need to point to where it caused a miscarriage of justice."
Why?
I think the point of the post is what's in the title and why it was written was the comments/ responses by quite a few who visit here and would assume either an eyewitness (the murderers) were/are accurate reporters or use their statements to determine the physical evidence is erroneous.
The second and you might even say opposite point was to explain why some of the inaccuracies by those witnesses may not be 'lies' at all and explain how an eyewitness can get to an inaccurate recollection without a devious intention.
I think I noted Bugliosi's possible involvement in this process could be wholly innocent. It is revealing that he found witnesses more accurate after multiple interviews when I was unable to find one study or reference that would agree with that position.
I don't think I said anywhere that I could prove anything nefarious about Bugliosi and I think brownrice pointed out his disagreement with me on that in the first comment. There is no proof and like I said you may think it and you may even know it but as you and I both know if you can't prove it you have crap.
Personally, as I said, I believe Bugliosi's interview style likely did influence the testimony but I don't think he did anything intentionally- see the opening of the post.
Yes, it is highly unlikely VB told witnesses anything other then what you indicate- I use 'five golden rules' of testifying with my clients and those track your points. You and I know a coached witness sounds coached and while I didn't see/hear him testify I do put Weber in that category for the reasons stated in this post and another. But that does not mean VB did the coaching.
Let's tie this back to Hinman for an example: A friend told someone Hinman had a drug dealer buddy named Eric and the friend there knew a guy named Eric in Topanga Canyon who delt drugs so that's the Hinman 'Eric'. Possibly. Or the friend read the article about a supposed connection to Hinman named Eric and suddenly remembered his acquaintance from Topanga was named 'Eric'- memory conformity. Since there is no physical evidence of drug dealing by Hinman don't trust the 'eyewitness': here the friend and acquaintance of 'Eric'.
Or, if you prefer: If Kasabian was hunkered down next to Atkins and Krenwinkel, I'm sorry, the physical evidence says she heard but did not see Watson shoot Parent (corroborated by not seeing the knife) but the memory studies referenced in the post offer several possible explanations- none of which require Bugliosi to 'coach' her or Kasabian to lie.
That/ these are the point of the post. I am not trying to say Bugliosi caused a miscarriage of justice unless like I said he knew what he was doing and the effect it would have- but again think-know-prove. I'd also note for the Bugliosi is a Scoundrel crowd that those studies come about after this trial and were cutting edge at the time.
_____
Simon said: "PS I noticed the stuff about taking notes. I can't recall saying this to a witness. Did you ? Or do you ? I can't quite see anything wrong about it, although it perhaps smacks of an anxious young DA (??)."
Never have. Neither do I. I'd just like to see them.
PPPS
Simon said: "If this went on, and it remains a big IF until the records of interview become available, then it was bad. But I guess it doesn't really explain how well she did in xx. No amount of impropriety/coaching coudl have got her (and others) through that xx, even allowing for the poor quality of it."
This post is not about 'coaching'. But how about this example:
VB: Now, Linda, what did Charlie say, what did he tell you to do when he came up to you on that porch?
LK: Um...he said...um... to get a change of cloths and a knife.
VB: Well, did he say anything about what was going to happen we've heard from Sadie that he said to go with Tex and do whatever Tex said did he say that to you?
LK: I don't see that right now.
VB: Ok, lets move on. If you remember anything more write me a note.
What might LK say the next interview when he asks the same question? or five interviews later? Memory conformity suggests an answer.
OK, so what you say is (1) VB subtly "rehearsed" or "coached" - we can use these terms interchangeably for present purposes can't we ? - the witnesses (2) this did carry over into at least some of the evidence of the witnesses and (3) people on the site benefit from knowing about it. All are validly well made points for good reason, if I may respectfully say.
You DON'T (yet) say (1) VB crossed over the line into demonstrably or incontrovertibly unethical conduct or (2) any of the above translated into a miscarriage of justice.
Is that a fair summary?
Dave1971 - what's the point you're making about being able to cut and paste from other comments ? What's that about ? Tell us so someone can have a fair opportunity to answer whatever you're saying.
David said:
I'd also note for the Bugliosi is a Scoundrel crowd that those studies come about after this trial and were cutting edge at the time.
Good point, David... though it's worth remembering that academic studies don't always represent much more than a codification of common sense. For instance, I was discussing an ex-partner from 40 years ago with another close friend from those days. We both agreed that the ex-partner was "self-obsessed" and probably a "narcissist" (a psychological profile given a mythological name and subject to endless facebook posts over the last year or so) but that those definitions weren't really part of the popular language of the time. "Yeah" said my mate, "but you knew she was up herself, didn't ya?" (an old Oztralian slang expression that roughly translates as "self-obsessed" or "narcissistic"). The point being that no-one used those particular psychological terms then in general conversation... but everyone with any sense recognised the syndrome.
In the same way, (IMO) concepts like "memory conformity" & "confirmation bias" (plus a whole slew of questionable interview/interrogation methods) may not have been named at the time but would've certainly been well understood by many... particularly cops & lawyers.
Simon says (sorry couldn't resist):
"OK, so what you say is (1) VB subtly "rehearsed" or "coached" - we can use these terms interchangeably for present purposes can't we ? - the witnesses (2) this did carry over into at least some of the evidence of the witnesses and (3) people on the site benefit from knowing about it. All are validly well made points for good reason, if I may respectfully say.
1. No. Witness conformity doesn't have to have anything to do with 'coaching' or 'rehearsing' a witness and there is no, repeat 'no' proof of either by VB. Why don't we call it what it is VB's interview style. You are assuming facts not in evidence ;-)
2. Yes, I believe that is highly probable based upon his interview style. His style breaks two fundamental rules if you want to avoid memory conformity and misinformation effects by his own description of his style, Loftus would cringe.
3. I hope so, otherwise I read a lot of very dry stuff for nothing.
_____
Simon said: "You DON'T (yet) say (1) VB crossed over the line into demonstrably or incontrovertibly unethical conduct or (2) any of the above translated into a miscarriage of justice."
1. I do not. In fact I don't believe his actions were purposeful.
2. I do not. Which leads back to my/your point: we would need tapes of all of his Kasabian interviews (Kasabian as the most important witness) and then track her answers and carry that into the trial and that is not going to happen. But see #2 above.
brownrice said: "In the same way, (IMO) concepts like "memory conformity" & "confirmation bias" (plus a whole slew of questionable interview/interrogation methods) may not have been named at the time but would've certainly been well understood by many... particularly cops & lawyers."
I can't/wouldn't argue at all. That's why I included that last statement in the post. If VB knew his style had the desired effect of influencing the testimony of witnesses and did so 'on purpose' it is a very different scenario and then my answer to Simon's second #1, above, becomes 'He did cross the line' and to the second #2 becomes 'it may have'.
I used that 'counter example' to Simon, above on purpose. That statement links Manson to the crimes. If it originates from memory conformity (there is absolutely zero evidence it did- ZERO) that is a very big legal issue (IMO).
David said:
If VB knew his style had the desired effect of influencing the testimony of witnesses and did so 'on purpose' it is a very different scenario and then my answer to Simon's second #1, above, becomes 'He did cross the line' and to the second #2 becomes 'it may have'.
I used that 'counter example' to Simon, above on purpose. That statement links Manson to the crimes. If it originates from memory conformity (there is absolutely zero evidence it did- ZERO) that is a very big legal issue (IMO).
Very true, David. As you say, you'd need a complete transcript of all the interviews to really determine that. Personally, I'm undecided. Most of us are more than capable of rationalising our own behaviour and in many ways Vince (to me) definitely seemed like the kinda guy that would. So it's entirely possible (IMO) that over time he quite unconsciously helped shape testimony and still crossed no legal lines.
For me though, the crossing of legal lines isn't really such an issue :-) I'm not so concerned with Vince's culpability or otherwise. Trying to understand the motive & circumstances of these crimes is what always brings me back. For this reason, I found this a really interesting & good post with lots of food for thought. Thanks.
David, others have said much worse than than "Simon says" to me on this blog, and never apologised ! I frankly thought I'd never hear "Simple Simon" again after about 2nd grade (8 yo), but Col Stott dragged that old chestnut out. Still trying to work out the twinkie with a handbag stuff. David you are a scholar and a gentleman.
OK, back to business. I'm precisely not assuming anything, I thought I said precisely I was testing, asking etc. For umpteenth time, in case anybody has missed the point - I find it hard to understand what a lot of bloggers say (maybe their fault, maybe mine, couldn't give a hoot which - the problem is I don't understand and I want to).
So, what you're saying is there were things about his interviewing style which lent themselves to witness memory conformity, which is not a desirable thing in terms of sorting out the truth of events, which is useful for bloggers to know when trying to size up the events.
Fair summary ? If so, sounds fair and good except I think, incredibly enough, I find myself closer to Brownrice's corner than your corner. My gut reaction is "awww I think even a junior lawyer like VB should have known better than some of this stuff" (if it happened of course, which is the big caveat hanging over all of this discussion). My gut is saying it is a bit charitable to VB to excuse him for some of the stuff you've highlighted. But I have to work my way back through it all to gather my thoughts frankly. You never know David - you might end up being the most pro-Vince guy on the site ha ha.
To others on this blog: you might be starting to see how suicidally stupid it is for a lawyer to coach, rehearse , whatever, witnesses, or go anywhere near it even with your interviewing style, because it can be so easily seen through, and it tends if anything to weaken a witness's testimony in the eyes of a lot of juries. Worse still, the dread of all lawyers - when the witness is being bashed up by a good cross-examiner s/he comes out and says "he told me to say it". Thank God never happened to me, because I never went anywhere where the Davids of the world could uncover this sort of stuff against me. But it would be total shame and ignominy. If you had half a brain, why would you risk it?
simon davis said
If you had half a brain, why would you risk it?
Self-righteousness… greed… political pressure… career ambitions… naivety… hubris… a book publishing deal with television spin-offs… the possibilities are endless. :-)
brownride said: "Trying to understand the motive & circumstances of these crimes is what always brings me back."
I find myself yet again agreeing with you. I admit I am HS. Last night I watched (again) 'Sympathy for the Devil' originally called 'One Plus One'. Aside from the studio shots showing the development of the song, fairly well, why I watched. I recommend it. As you watch, think about HS. It struck me with some of the scenes what people actually thought or what their motivations were (filtered by LSD) at the time. These artistic pieces were actual as possibilities.
Similarly, some of the Manson's comments and ongoing argument to represent himself during the trial are interesting regarding HS- more interesting now, likely then then.
And thank you brownrice.
Simon said: "Fair summary ? "
Yup
____
Simon said: "My gut is saying it is a bit charitable to VB to excuse him for some of the stuff you've highlighted."
Think-know-prove. I hate having to say 'I can't prove it' in a post.
____
Simon said: "David - you might end up being the most pro-Vince guy on the site."
Damn- here comes the Col.
_____
Simon said/brownrice said: "If you had half a brain, why would you risk it?"
I'd go with 'career ambitions' and add one 'the times'. My first 'encounter with this was my Eisenhower Republican dad putting a loaded shotgun in our front hall closet. I was 8. I lived, at the time, about 45 minutes from Kent State. I asked 'why are you doing this, dad?' after he told me 'don't touch it, its loaded'. His answer was: 'the hippies are breaking into peoples houses and killing them with knives'. (My mother- a Marxist- intervened). There was a 'need' to solve this/ convict them and I think 'at all costs' might have played a role.
Since they were guilty it was pretty easy-as Simon has noted.
David said:
I'd go with 'career ambitions' and add one 'the times'. My first 'encounter with this was my Eisenhower Republican dad putting a loaded shotgun in our front hall closet. I was 8. I lived, at the time, about 45 minutes from Kent State. I asked 'why are you doing this, dad?' after he told me 'don't touch it, its loaded'. His answer was: 'the hippies are breaking into peoples houses and killing them with knives'. (My mother- a Marxist- intervened). There was a 'need' to solve this/ convict them and I think 'at all costs' might have played a role.
Since they were guilty it was pretty easy-as Simon has noted.
Yes. Absolutely to both points.
Aaah, the times, yep I see the point there, there was a lot of pressure pulling on him wasn't there, perhaps more than I've ever allowed for. You've also got the ambition, perhaps not over-the-top ambition (?) but enough to exert unhealthy pressure on him.
In book I write about VB (briefly) and point out that he did hold himself back from over-reaching in a number of instances. But maybe, maybe, I'd now add that he also did NOT hold himself back in other instances. I do write that there are things he did which I wouldn't have done, which is a nod to your previous analysis of his interview style. Hmmmmm maybe, maybe, perhaps, perhaps, dunno, need to think about it more.
Cheers all, great chat that one, where's Grim ?
David said:
"My... dad putting a loaded shotgun in our front hall closet. I was 8. I lived, at the time, about 45 minutes from Kent State."
I remember my dad buying a 9mm semiautomatic handgun in response to TLB. I was 11. I lived, at the time, about an hour from Cielo Dr.
Way too close for comfort !
Trilby said...
"Sorry for being so long-winded. And hopefully I spaced the paragraphs properly so as not to piss off the people who get annoyed by formatting issues."
Trilby said...
"Jeezus. Typos & I fu*ked up formatting. No excuses. *sigh*"
There's something about this case that attracts people who can't let shit go. YEARS later.
Carry on.
It was a perfect cocktail of human intrigue, especially of the time. It had so many addictive issues - Hollywood, hippies, blood and gore, mystery - who ? why? And the longer it went unsolved, the more it attracted other typical human fascinations such as rumour, gossip, speculation. And the media whipped up the hysteria. Then there was the book, although I suspect the movie really whipped things up again. I know lots who know the movie(s), but haven't read the book. Not usually the converse. I suspect many felt, in a perverse sort of way, vindicated by the arrest of the hippies - bloody long-hairs ! Many young people of that generation I've spoken to are very bitter about the Manson Family because they set the youth movement backwards. They're probably right. It also went totally viral (1969 style) around the world. I only turned 9 (1 week after TLB) but I can tell from local media archives it was HUGE here in Aus. I think the randomness of the killings sacred the s...t out of people. I read the book in '75/'76 here and I swore I started hearing rustling bushes outside my bedroom window.
David said...
I know you use comments as a jumping off point but that style does tend to suggest now and again that someone said something different then what they actually said
Granted; it's the risk I have to take at times though I don't want to deliberately mislead. Hopefully, if it does come over that way, the person I'm quoting {or someone else, for that matter} will come back and make it clear that wasn't what they meant. If we were all in the bar together chatting, we'd be able to do that straight away.
Maybe use the whole quote
I only get 4095 characters !
Trilby said...
People asked how Hinman could have spent 1k in a few days. Easily: on Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism ie: trip (pilgrimage) to see the Dai Gohonzen in Japan with SGA. During my relugious-exploration era, I practiced this religion from about '82-'85, off & on. These trips to Japan were group excursions & greatly encouraged as part of your practice. In the early 80s the cost was several thousand (payable to SGA). So 1k was very feasible in '69
I wasn't querying how Gary could have spent 1K in a few days, I was shining a light on one of the problems of Bobby's tale which is the very tight timeline. He says picked up the drugs late on Friday. By sometime on Saturday he was back with the threat of the Satans in his ears which means that the Satans' discovery of the drugs being bad and then them slapping Bobby about and then him going to Charlie to ask for his advice and then him talking to Danny & Bruce and getting the gun and advice then him, Susan and Mary going to Bobby's happens in a really tight timespace. He says he was at Gary's for about 36 hours, which, if he had left by Sunday evening means he arrived at Gary's on Saturday afternoon. Gary's ticket to Japan was already paid for. The Police knew his Dad had given him over 1K for his ticket and trip. Gary had a tiny space of time in which to spend 1K but it was never accounted for; the Police had a record of his money situation. The Japan money was accounted for long before that final day.
By trying to get away from the "3 day torture" angle the prosecution used, he boxes himself into the tightest of spaces.
simon davis said...
I have little doubt that Hinman had nothing to do with drugs. BUT there was a speck of evidence, as I understand it, in that there was white powder residue on some scales in a kitchen cupboard. Now, in theory, that could be peyote, which is the raw ingredient of mescaline (as I understand). It could equally have been self-raising flour I suppose, but let's assume for the sake of argument it was peyote. So what do you (we) say about that ? I think we say it only seems to add up to some sort of drug "activity" that was miniscule in dimension. It was either dealing on a miniscule basis, or sharing, or personal consumption. Isn't it ? What do others say ?
The Police said that whatever that residue was on the scales, it was determined after testing not to be any narcotic.
Whatever the truth about Gary and drugs, all we can really say for sure is that he was known as a user of marijuana, mescaline and acid which loads of young people were at the time. And the Police knew him because his car was recognized at Spahn by them right after he died and nothing suspicious was thought of his vehicles being there.
He's always going to be a mystery. It came out in court that he'd been married, divorced and was chanting for reconciliation with his wife and dated other women. Yet all the talk of the Family was that he was a gay man. That came up in court, that came up with Virginia Graham back in Nov '69 and Susan Atkins carried on that theme in her "Child of Satan...." book 8 years later and even "The Myth of..." a while before she died {if it was indeed her and not her husband}.
He was supposed to have some sort of science degree that gave him the chops to be making mescaline but as yet, I've not come across any evidence of this. And according to his employer and friend, a guy who said of Gary "I don't have a closest friend, but he would be as close to it as I could think of," he had discontinued studies at UCLA though he was close to his PhD yet it keeps coming up that he had a degree of some sort. I'm hoping this can be verified.
And Bugliosi certainly believed he "furnished the Family with drugs" as he said in a 2009 documentary.
A man of mystery indeed.
I think though, that sometimes, when he's mentioned as a drug dealer, it can be a roundabout way of saying he lived by the sword and died by it in the sense that he was involved in a shady world with dodgy characters and chose to play deceptively with some of them and as a result, if you play that kind of game, whatever comes your way is pretty much your own fault. It may not be said in those exact words but that's sometimes the net effect.
And I think Bobby knows that.
grimtraveller said...
And the Police knew him because his car was recognized at Spahn,,,
Why would the police have known him?
grimtraveller said:
it was determined after testing not to be any narcotic
See, the thing with drug tests is that they're quite specific. There's no test that somehow magically determines what a substance actually is. They test for specific drugs to see if they're present... usually beginning with the most obvious choices. If they don't test for the right one (or it's not illegal at the time, such as MDA) then the police report shows that "no narcotics" were present. Not that scientifically any of the psychedelics or phenethylamines are actually "narcotics" of course... but ya can't let science get in the way of a good legal definition, eh? :-)
David said...
I did find it interesting that Bugliosi says that after each interview he would tell her to write him notes if she remembered things later. It would be interesting to see those notes and see if she gives any clues in them as to 'how' she remembered something- "You told me Sadie said X and now I remember X'
I still don't think that it is unusual for an eyewitness to recall things later that you may have forgotten in the relatively immediate aftermath of an event. That's happened to me quite a few times.
Equally, I can't see that it's odd that after a while we may start to add things that we actually don't remember because of what we may have heard from another source.
Being human is a energizing paradox at times.
Personally, as I said, I believe Bugliosi's interview style likely did influence the testimony but I don't think he did anything intentionally
Perhaps I'm showing some cynicism here but without being able to put a finger on it, it's kind of hard to separate the two. It can't be proved, yes, but VB's style follows on from knowing what he wants so how could it not be deliberate ? The example you used last year about the timeline questioning of Linda bears this out; he wanted a particular timeline even though she hadn't a clue of times. But the end result was that she gave one ~ because of the way he asked her the questions.
simon davis said...
I noticed the stuff about taking notes
VB had this thing about notes. He wouldn't use computers, he admonished the jury to take them, he encouraged Kasabian to do so.....he was old school at a time when more modern methods like taping were coming in but he was nothing if not consistent throughout his life.
No amount of impropriety/coaching could have got her (and others) through that xx, even allowing for the poor quality of it
I find her answers to the defence lawyers to be far more interesting than those to Bugliosi. She didn't have any inkling what she would be asked by them and so her time on the stand with them ranged from conversation to argument but I don't get the impression of her playing fast and loose there.
Dave1971 said...
i wish this blog had an option to edit and quote posts
Well, with a little plonking here and there you can do it yourself in seconds.
St Circumstance said...
I believe it was in the Himman police report but can't remember exactly where for sure.
But I'm positive I read it. The scale powder was tested and not drugs
It's in the 22/8/69 lab examination report.
Grim said: "The example you used last year about the timeline questioning of Linda bears this out; he wanted a particular timeline even though she hadn't a clue of times. But the end result was that she gave one ~ because of the way he asked her the questions."
Careful Grim you are using questions at trial to argue a point we don't know- what happened six months earlier in an interview. Certainly that example was a leading question but testimony is recounting the memory. Any impact relative to the concepts in the post occurred long before Kasaban got on the witness stand.
brownrice said...
See, the thing with drug tests is that they're quite specific. There's no test that somehow magically determines what a substance actually is. They test for specific drugs to see if they're present... usually beginning with the most obvious choices
If Chris Till's point about peyote not being federally banned but Cali state law banned in '69 is true and the Hinman autopsy of Aug 1st stated in the attached report that Gary was a known user of LSD, mescaline and "piote" then would they not have been testing for specifics once they found the powdery scales ?
If they don't test for the right one (or it's not illegal at the time, such as MDA) then the police report shows that "no narcotics" were present
At Cielo they knew of all the drugs that were there and the ones in the systems of Frykowski and Folger and how much, even though, as you point out, MDA wasn't illegal. So testing was obviously going on and there must have been ways to determine the presence of this drug even though it wasn't illegal at the time.
Not that scientifically any of the psychedelics or phenethylamines are actually "narcotics" of course... but ya can't let science get in the way of a good legal definition, eh?
True, but 'narcotics' just seem to be a catch all term for drugs, for example the Tate report in reference to Garretson says "there was an underlying belief by Burdick and the investigating officers that due to some narcotics sedation or other mental incapacity the subject was not sensitive to all of the monitoring devices employed on the machine" meaning he was too dumb or stoned to be effectively polygraphed ! And for 'narcotic peddlers' read 'drug dealers.'
starviego said...
Why would the police have known him?
In the Hinman file is written
On 3-13-70, undersigned interviewed Deputy Grap, Malibu Station, who stated on 7-28-69, he responded to the Spahn Ranch and observed a 1965 Fiat station wagon, white in color, parked in front of the ranch buildings. This vehicle was run through Department of Motor Vehicles and the registered owner was Gary Hinman.
I can't recall where, but I read somewhere that when the officer saw and had it confirmed it was Gary's car he didn't think anything untoward as Gary was known to them. Not for any criminal activity, although because of the reports reaching LASO about stolen vehicles, that's why the call may have gone in to check out the car.
David said...
Careful Grim you are using questions at trial to argue a point we don't know
Can we ever really know, even if we had the notes ? I kind of think tape would be the way to see it definitively and aside from Greg Jacobson and maybe a few others, Bugliosi didn't do much by way of tape.
Grim, just out of interest, that stuff about Gary spending 1K in a few days and Bobby's timeline being too tight etc, does that come from one of Bobby's parole hearings?
Brownrice, get a life, move on mate !
Has anyone seen a letter Bobby wrote to the Hinman family after the 2010 parole hearing ? I believe it was written in 2012. At the 2010 hrg., as I recall, Bobby was given a hard time about the drug story. In 2012 he wrote to the family admitting drugs was bogus and effectively fingering Charlie for making up the story. This would be consistent with my research which tells me the first time it was raised by anybody was by Charlie at his own trial in 1971. Now that letter appeared on some blog site or web site and I made a note and a copy of it but when I went to check it for the purpose of writing my book it had disappeared. I was expecting him to come clean about the drug story at his next parole (2016 ?) but he didn't. Anybody know about the letter, can shed light on it ? It might be the most powerful piece of evidence that drugs is/was a concoction.
simon davis said...
that stuff about Gary spending 1K in a few days and Bobby's timeline being too tight etc, does that come from one of Bobby's parole hearings?
Yes. Well, kind of. 1971 would probably say I was playing cheap amateur detective but I'd beat him to it because I was playing detective; Personally I'm not sold on Bobby's story but I generally approach it as though it could well be true. As such, I find there to be a number of holes in it or certainly questions that need to be asked and answered. One of my holes was about the legality of peyote at the time but it turns out that I got that wrong. However, it was always a minor point. The thing with Bobby is that he has utilized this story in order to a]provide important context to events that he was {at least since 1976~8} now admitting to, having plead 'not guilty' in his 2 trials and b]show that he was not ordered to kill by Charles Manson as part of a $20,000 robbery.
Aspects of Bobby's story change even through his parole hearings from '78~2016 but those aside, there are some bits that remain consistent, such as his insistence that the troupe did not spend from Friday 25th through til Sunday 27th July at Gary's house. That insistence leaves a really tight timeline in which I can't see how all the things he claims happened had time to happen. Particularly Gary and the 1K. Now, that's just me working things out but it seems that the Police managed to put together a fairly solid picture of Gary's financial situation at the time but that 1k disappeared without a trace in a few hours. Bobby says Gary says he'd spent it. Where ? How ?
As an aside, the VW bus that he supposedly used to settle had already been sold to Glenn Krell who had paid him $200 of $700.
There are just a number of awkward questions that Bobby's story raises.
The biggest point for me is that far from keeping Charlie out of the picture and minimizing the Manson connection, he plonks him squarely in it as the main reason Gary was killed and why he was sentenced to death and has spent most of his life in jail. And Charlie is no help to Bobby because their stories don't mesh. At all.
as I recall, Bobby was given a hard time about the drug story. In 2012 he wrote to the family admitting drugs was bogus and effectively fingering Charlie for making up the story
From what I recall, he didn't say the drug story was bogus, rather that Gary wasn't a drug dealer. It's an important distinction. He has pointed out that sometimes he bought a bit of pot from Gary and that sometimes Gary would sell a bit to friends just to make ends meet. I can dig that; back in the day, I'd sometimes be a go between for people that wanted some weed. I never considered that 'drug dealing' in the sense that we would understand it. I wouldn't even categorize Charlie as a drug dealer per se.
simon davis said...
Brownrice, get a life, move on mate !
Rather than putdowns, Simon why not try a rational response or a comment or even a joke? Or if ya don't have one of the above handy, it's pretty easy to ignore comments that aren't personal attacks and are just someone else expressing an opinion or theory. If I sound like a stuck record sometimes, I'm truly sorry but I suspect most other people do as well... everyone's got their own passions and obsessions and everyone's different. Beautiful, ain't it? The trick is (IMO) to be a little bit tolerant of those differences. It makes for much better communication & discussion... and sometimes when ya take the trouble to listen to a divergent world-view to your own you actually learn something new. The world's not a courtroom, Simon :-)
grimtraveller said:
At Cielo they knew of all the drugs that were there and the ones in the systems of Frykowski and Folger and how much, even though, as you point out, MDA wasn't illegal. So testing was obviously going on and there must have been ways to determine the presence of this drug even though it wasn't illegal at the time.
Good point, though I'd be interested to know whether the testing happened before or after witnesses like Witold K & William Tennant talked to them about Pic Dawson, alleged MDA deals etc etc
Thanks for that pompous and sanctimonious lecture Brownrice. You won. I lost. Scientists are better human beings than lawyers. Science is better than law. You got me. I'm already dead. I agree the world's not a courtroom. I've had my say. You've had your say. Now can we rule a line under it and move on ?
Thanks Grim, I agree with your thoughts. Prompted these thoughts:
1. After reading all of BB's parole hearings, more than once, I came to the view that they were unhelpful because they are hopelessly inconsistent on most things, he is transparently a liar and of course he has rehearsed and re-told so many different stories that his head is just a scramble of completely unreliable bits and pieces of information. They are so unhelpful that they are a positively unwelcome distraction from the primary contemporaneous material being, for example, things he wrote on walls, things he did, what investigators found etc in 1969/1970. Usually, and certainly in Bobby's case, what was said and done at the time is far more probative than what may be said 5 yrs later, 15 yrs later, 41 years later etc etc.
2. ha ha I've forgotten no. 2 - senility at 56 years of age, oh yes Charlie and Bobby don't mesh on that point you've identified and certainly on a lot of things. But there was a core thing they seem to have agreed on probably in 1971 (by my reckoning- see Charlie's trial) which was that they were going to say Gary was a drug dealer - makes Gary less victim, and makes them less criminal (especially the business about the Satans roughing him up and threatening more - Bobby makes himself a victim). Now I've seen this time and time again where 2 crims agree on the core point but forget to work out the peripheral detail, so they fall out of line with each other on the detail and it all falls apart in a mess. A lot of xx of crims is specifically aimed at exposing this, and it usually works. I guess what I'm suggesting is that what I've said may be a working template for analysis of it all, albeit a template which you keep coming back to and testing and asking yourself "well is my template still right ?". You might choose a different template, or hypothesis, but pick something you can test (a "case theory" if you like) and keep testing it. I'm only suggesting it as a good way to sort out the maze and mess that is Bobby Beausoleil (aka the "Frenchman"). I've done it with Bobby and I can tell you I came to conclusions that I don't think anybody has come up with. I may be right, or I may be wrong. But at least I'm happy with it. ( I can't yet reveal what "it" is yet, but soon will).
brownrice said...
I'd be interested to know whether the testing happened before or after witnesses like Witold K & William Tennant talked to them about Pic Dawson, alleged MDA deals etc etc
I wondered that. My guess would be for coke and the other well known things, as early as was possible once the autopsies had been done. The MDA probably a bit later as it was only just then appearing on their radar.
Matt said...
"When you remember something you really aren't remembering the event. You are remembering the last time you remembered it."
There's a lot of truth in that but it really depends on how you're remembering and the circumstances under which you're remembering and what you're remembering.
AstroCreep said...
I believe the earliest recollections are the most factual
Some of them, yes. Susan killing Sharon Tate and Gary Hinman ?
Ironically, Bobby's first tale to Sergeant Whitley when questioned was that he had spent from Friday night {25th} and all day Saturday {26th} at Gary's.
Alternatively, some early recollections are just lies.
Has anyone provided an alternate reason for WHY all of the girls and idiots on the street corner mimicked everything Charlie did? If he wasn't the ringleader, why did they represent him as such?
Like a few things, I see paradoxes at work here. On the one hand, Charlie was their leader. Despite him supposedly saying that they were their own, their world revolved around him and after 2 years of being together and tripping together, a very bonding experience, many of them couldn't envisage life without him.
At the same time, they all felt similar things and had a common enemy so there was a lot of solidarity and pulling together as an expression of unity and as creatives, one of whose chief modes of expression was music and performance, what they were doing wasn't unusual. They were no different from say, the Beatles who, when John & Paul got their hair cut in the mop top style, George followed suit or when Stuart Sutcliffe got a leather suit made, John, Paul and George followed suit or once John & George tripped on acid, Ringo and Paul followed suit. Lots of groups through the 60s did that kind of thing and I'm not talking strictly musicians either. Come to think of it, lots of social groups do that now.
simon davis said...
But there was a core thing they seem to have agreed on probably in 1971 (by my reckoning- see Charlie's trial) which was that they were going to say Gary was a drug dealer
If what Bobby was saying in later years was the truth, it begs the question of why he didn't just say this in his trials, especially the 2nd one when the prosecution was asking for the death penalty. Not being seen as a snitch doesn't do you much good when the pellets are a droppin' !
I came to conclusions that I don't think anybody has come up with. I may be right, or I may be wrong. But at least I'm happy with it. ( I can't yet reveal what "it" is yet, but soon will)
Now I'm intrigued.
Chris Till said...
But… I suspect different players had different motives. For some, no motive was required. They were just in it for the thrill of the kill....Others may have believed they were Biblical avenging angels
Specifically on Cielo, these two groups pique my interest because other than Tex, they had such little time to process and think about what was to take place. And going by what all have said, it's confusing. Susan says they were told about the nights activity on the way, Pat says it was as they walked up to Cielo that she found out and Linda never reveals when and gives the impression that it was only after Tex had blown away Steve Parent that she realized that this was no creepy crawly.
blacks were not generally known as Beatles fans (although Wilson Pickett covered “Hey Jude” and Fats Domino and Richie Havens covered “Lady Madonna”)
Black people in general weren't but Black musicians were. Their songs were covered by a wide range of artists like Al Green, Little Richard, Aretha Franklin, Otis Redding, Mary Wells, Ella Fitzgerald, Chubby Checker, Wee Willie Walker, The 4 Tops, Nina Simone, Arthur Conley, Screamin' Jay Hawkins, Ike & Tina Turner, The Temptations, Dionne Warwick....
Generally speaking, Black people didn't really dig blues either.
As a Beatle fan for the last 41 years, I have to say I've never come across one other Black person that liked them ! Not that there aren't any, I've just never come across one.
Tis a lonely furrow I've ploughed all these years !
In all seriousness though, the Family repeatedly demonstrate that they knew hardly anything about Black people although it was hardly Charlie's fault that Pat chose to write "Healter Skelter" on the LaBianca fridge !
Dave1971 said...
my theory has always been that it was a drug deal gone bad, theres too much testimony telling me that both Frykowski and Sebring were small time dealers
Supposing that were true {and it's not confirmed but I'll roll with you on this for a moment} can you imagine Charlie would be happy to go to the gas chamber or spend life in prison.....for Tex ?
I think not. He was happy to throw the women under the bus. Had he been innocent, Tex would have been the first one rolling under the wheels.
Manson Mythos said...
But regardless, Manson and Wilson were still in contact even after the Tate murders
Gift bullets notwithstanding, eh ?
Grim i think if hed been allowed to represent himself hed have thrown Tex to the wolves along with Susan, Pat and Leslie and would have surely shredded Linda to pieces, in interviews post conviction hes repeatedly said it was Texs show
Grim my position on Gary is that Bobby is guilty as hell and i dont believe Gary was a dealer of any kind, as you said i think he may have "hooked up" people with small amounts of weed here and there but so did millions of people at that time, Charlies guilt on Hinman in my opinion is first degree assault or whatever crime it was to slice his face, maybe Simon would know what crime that would be
Grim why were cops at Spahns on July 28th? Ive never heard about this before
Dave1971 said...
why were cops at Spahns on July 28th? Ive never heard about this before
I'm not altogether sure why they were there but they were. I always thought it was something that fed into Charlie's paranoia, given that Gary had died only the day before. Anyway, this newspaper story has a little about it if you scroll down far enough.
i think if he'd been allowed to represent himself hed have thrown Tex to the wolves along with Susan, Pat and Leslie and would have surely shredded Linda to pieces, in interviews post conviction hes repeatedly said it was Texs show
I don't think he would have shredded Linda to pieces. He continually tried to intimidate her during her 18 days on the stand and she stood up to him in a way that I think surprised him, considering, according to "The Garbage people," he wasn't that bothered about her testifying for the DA as he felt she'd crumble. In the end he was reduced to taking potshots at her drug use when he was on the stand after trying to get her to rejoin the Family and discredit her about Melton's $5000 had failed woefully.
I've long felt he should have been warned about his silliness when he was representing himself and told he had one more chance to take things seriously before being stripped of his pro per. But I still think the result would have been the same had he represented himself. Remember, their defence would have been what they presented during the penalty phase ~ suicide incarnate. Its foundation was the weak & floppy Charlie line regarding Bobby, "if you hadn't arrested Robert Beausoleil for something he did not do...."
As for his post conviction interviews, he's actually thrown in more different ingredients than Susan Atkins did. Everything from Black books to telling them to do something about Bobby in jail to writing something witchy to dropping glasses as a false clue to not being around to not even remembering what happened because he was loaded to visiting Harold True on LaBianca murder night when he knew he'd left the house 10 months before....
Charlies guilt on Hinman in my opinion is first degree assault or whatever crime it was to slice his face
Unfortunately, none of our opinion matters here. You see, that "face slice" as you put it, was written up by the ME as "possibly fatal." In other words, had Gary not received the proper medical attention, he could have died. We'll never know what the outcome would have been because Bobby beat Charlie to the death stakes but one thing's for sure, once it was known Charlie sliced Gary with that sword, he was going down for something far more weighty than assault. At that point, he becomes part of a conspiracy to commit murder.
simon davis said...
Thanks for that pompous and sanctimonious lecture Brownrice. You won. I lost. Scientists are better human beings than lawyers. Science is better than law. You got me. I'm already dead. I agree the world's not a courtroom. I've had my say. You've had your say. Now can we rule a line under it and move on ?
Ooooh… touchy touchy! You don’t have to take it so personally, Simon… it’s not a competition, it’s a conversation… and no-one said “science is better than law”. Once again, you’re trying to put words in my mouth. Either that or showing very poor comprehension skills. Though admittedly , misrepresenting peoples’ statements and bullying can be very effective ways to win a court case sometimes... so no surprises there.
Grim i could punch someone in the face and knock them out and leave and if no one comes to hus attention and he dies it doesnt make me guilty of first degree murder
To brownrice, your last sentence is exactly what Bugliosi did
Dave1971 said: "Grim i could punch someone in the face and knock them out and leave and if no one comes to hus attention and he dies it doesnt make me guilty of first degree murder"
If you hold him hostage, steal his cars, steal a dress or $90 or anyone else does who participates with you....ah....yes it would.
David i didnt mention any of those things did i? And Charlie did none of those things with Hinman, i believe he went there to scare Gary into turning over whatever money he thought he had, when he went back to the ranch Bobby called and i think Charlie told him what he always told those people, do what you think is right
Involuntary manslaughter probably.
To lurch...and i have no problem with that, that seems to me to be the fair punishment for that crime but first degree murder would be a miscarriage of justice
Dave1971, correct me if I'm wrong but you're saying Charlie would have successfully cross-examined Kasabian (?).
When exactly was Charlie going to cross-exam her ? He was in a detention cell for much of both his trials. You're not suggesting he could have cross-exam'd her from the cell are you ? And he'd have to be present for her direct exam. too (at least that's teh rule here)
and then be there during re-exam. (in fairness, I can't recall if his detentions started during her evidence, so I may stand to be corrected).
And tell me exactly what his plan would have been for the cross-examination of Kasabian ? What topics would he have prepared and covered ? And what questions would he have asked ? You must have something in mind about these things, I assume, in order to have made the assertion you have made.
And when was he going to learn about vicarious liability for murder? If you don't understand the law governing the trial, you're hardly likely to know to what end you are cross-examining people (after both the TLB and Hinman/Shea trials he was still asking police about how vicarious liability worked). Do you know what vicarious liability is ?
Grim, you did raise somewhere about BB not giving evidence at his trials. Maybe I've misunderstood you, but do be careful about that, in fairness to BB. You can't really deduce much, or anything really, against him from that, if that's what you are intending to convey. The law instructs that adverse inferences ought not usually be drawn from a defendant excercising his sacred right to silence (for good reason). Except in very rare circumstances, juries are implored to observe this cardinal principle. I won't elaborate on all of the jurisprudence behind it, but if you want to chat I'm more than happy to give you my private e-mail.
Don't know if you follow rugby but did you see Lions v. All Blacks on weekend? Lions shouldn't feel too bad actually because the pace was twice as fast as the sad affair between Aust and Italy (we limped home but we would be no match for either Lions or AB's).
simon davis said...
Thanks for that pompous and sanctimonious lecture Brownrice
brownrice said...
Ooooh… touchy touchy! You don’t have to take it so personally....Once again, you’re trying to put words in my mouth. Either that or showing very poor comprehension skills
I'm utterly confused as to why the two of you are fighting. You both seem pretty much in tandem with the points you've made, with Simon even noting to David, "I find myself closer to Brownrice's corner than your corner."
What have I missed in this unusually entertaining but mind boggling antipodean sparring ?
Matt said...
you make me miss NY. You don't hear words like "shtupp" in NC
Funnily enough, the only time I've ever come across that word was via an Australian, the former AC/DC bass player, Mark Evans.
Dave1971 said...
i could punch someone in the face and knock them out and leave and if no one comes to his attention and he dies. it doesn't make me guilty of first degree murder
Firstly, that is highly dependent on both the context and your intent. We've had quite a few "one punch resulting in death" cases here over the last few years.
Secondly there's a world of difference between you punching someone in the face and you whacking them in the face with a sword !
Thirdly, either way, you'd be filling out prison visit requests for a long time.
Fourthly, you should try to gather a little working knowledge of the laws you draw into your comments and opinions.
simon davis said...
Grim, you did raise somewhere about BB not giving evidence at his trials
I don't recall doing that. I know he barely did so at his 1st trial {he spoke about not getting enough sleep} but he did do at his 2nd.
Earlier I did cast a quizzical eye on why he didn't just tell the story he's telling now during his trials.
Don't know if you follow rugby
No. Although Gareth Edwards 1973 try for the Barbarians remains one of my favourite sporting moments ever, for sheer drama, excitement and gravitas.
grimtraveller said:
Funnily enough, the only time I've ever come across that word was via an Australian, the former AC/DC bass player, Mark Evans.
I’m pretty sure it’s a yiddish word. My first exposure to it was in various Lenny Bruce bits.
Australia has always been pretty much a vassal state of one world power or another (the Yanks won us off the Poms in a card game at the end of WW11, doncherknow? These days it’s the corporate hegemony… same as everywhere). As such, our media has traditionally been made up of equal parts Australian, American & British content. Consequently, many of us are quite fluent in all sorts of regional dialects & slang from both the US and the UK.
Edwards' 1973 try for the Baa Baas was one of the greatest bits of sport, any type of sport, I've ever seen. Right up there with the George Best stuff which is probably THE most miraculous thing any human being has ever done with a small inflatable ball, at least that I've seen.
There's 2 things Brownrice and I now heartily agree on, because I more or less agree with his last comment there. Actually I don't think we agree on Bugliosi, but maybe I'm closer to him than I am to David by the looks of it. Poor old radical David, Marxist father (?), now out there crusading on behalf of Vince on his own. Who'd have thought ?
Marxist mom. Dad was a Republican.
Sorry, geez you must have been one mixed up kid !
I became a Marxist, well actually more a Fabian or Utopian Socialist at about age 17. My parents were aspirational capitalists from working class backgrounds. But they hated the working classes, they were a bit to the right of your Republican party. I was one mixed up kid, still am !
David said...
Marxist mom. Dad was a Republican
At certain points, love conquers all.
simon davis said...
the George Best stuff which is probably THE most miraculous thing any human being has ever done with a small inflatable ball, at least that I've seen
There are two goals he scored against Chelsea, one in 1965 in black and white and one in a 1970 league cup tie in the rain, in colour that for me still defy, well, being defied ! I never get tired of seeing them.
Dave1971 said...
David i didnt mention any of those things did i? And Charlie did none of those things with Hinman
No, but there were parts of the event that made up the conspiracy which mean the sword whack was never regarded as an isolated event.
Hinman ultimately died because of the fallout of the sword whack, not mescaline.
Corroborated by who Grim? From looking back at it in the beginning, Bobby, Susan and Mary tried pushing it off on Charlie then at least Bobby came forward and said it was done of his own volition
Dave1971,
I am very hesitant to do this but here is that law you should consider in your comments.
BB, Brunner and Atkins go to Hinman's home to get money. It doesn't matter whether it is for bad drugs or an inheritance. I assume everyone can agree that’s why they went there to get money from Hinman.
They enter the house, likely without resistance, maybe at gun point, maybe not. It doesn’t even matter.
They pull a gun at some point, refusing to leave and demand money. I assume we all agree that happened. At this point they are committing two felonies (robbery and burglary).
California Penal Code 211: Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.
California Penal Code 459: 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.
When Gary is not forthcoming with the cash they call the ranch and ask for Manson's help because Hinman is not cooperating. Manson drives on over. I assume this is not factually in dispute.
Manson enters the house to convince Hinman to pay up. Manson went over to help get the cash. Does anyone dispute this?
At this point, under the law, unless Manson takes steps to stop the crime(s) he has a big problem and he hasn’t even used the sword. He has joined the felonies as a principal to the crimes.
California Penal Code 31: All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or, not being present, have advised and encouraged its commission, ****are principals in any crime so committed.
Manson then slashes Hinman's face and ear. I don’t think anyone debates this, not even Manson. At this point the DA has Manson even if he can't prove or connect anyone else to the murder. Manson has now created his own problem- a separate felony.
At this point for Manson to avoid life in prison Hinman better live.
California Penal Code 203: Every person who unlawfully and maliciously deprives a human being of a member of his body, or disables, disfigures, or renders it useless, or cuts or disables the tongue, or puts out an eye, or slits the nose, ear, or lip, is guilty of mayhem.
Hinman dies as a result of or during the commission of any one of these felonies. It doesn't matter which one. I think we can agree on that, right?
Manson, Brunner, Atkins, Davis and BB are all now guilty of felony murder.
California Penal Code 189: All murder which is *****committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, *****is murder of the first degree.
Notice you don’t even have to succeed: only “attempt” one of those crimes.
Notice you don’t need ‘intent to murder’.
The penalty in 1969 for 1st degree murder was life in prison or if the DA sought it and won, the DP.
You may not like the law (many legal scholars and LVH don’t) but there it is.
Grim, I know the Chelsea goal very well, I think he was still 17 (?) when he scored that one. I probably know the other goal too. There were so many, I still watch them over and over. And all with the old heavy ball, about which people are now taking legal action.
Again David in my opinion this just shows that the laws in California are way too far reaching, is this the kind of country we want to live in?
You're right in one sense there Dave1971. Interestingly, the laws about conspiracy and felony murder as set out above by David (very accurately too, if I may respectfully say) actually do go further than, for example, their Australian counterparts. This has struck me repeatedly since I started seriously researching these events 2 yrs ago. This is interesting because the laws of the 2 countries are usually very similar or the same.
I have also been repeatedly bemused by the fact that Charlie spent so many years of his young adult life (after about age 14) behind bars. I still don't quite understand it frankly. I gather the Federal nature of some of his offences explains some of it, but still . . . For that matter, it also perplexes me somewhat that Van Houten and Krenwinkel are still behind bars 47 years later, and/or Atkins until 2009. These things do not feature much in my book but they are perhaps important considerations.
Thinking out aloud, perhaps Charlie's repeated imprisonments embittered him in the same way that the German nation felt embittered after WW1 by the harsh terms of the Versailles Treaty. Both Charlie and post WW1 Germany seem to me, admittedly in retrospect, to have had some valid reasons for their grievances.
Simon Charlie goes into a bit more detail about his incarcerations at a very young age, i believe it was actually younger than 14 if you consider juvenile facilities and youth homes, he said in his storytelling type way once "id be playing basketball in the schoolyard as a boy and it would get later and later and each kids parents would tell them to come home for supper and eventually id be the last kid out there, eventually a cop would tell you to go home and where do they put you when you have nowhere to go?" so take a kid thats been in snd out of reform schools or prisons since probably age 10 and you basically have a product of that system
Yes I agree, subject to this: from the time Charlie came to widespread attention in 1969 and forever after he has repeatedly been a dishonest and evasive manipulator of people, and very very good at it, one of the best. Now, it seems to me anything he says should not be trusted straight away unless independently corroborated. What you advance is a subjective Charlie story with no corroboration as I understand it. So caution is required, I think.
But there is not much doubt that once the system got hold of him it chewed him up and demoralising him completely, by the looks of it unfairly too.
Another thing that springs to mind, perhaps underestimated in the scheme of things, was the effect of his song being apparently stolen by Dennis Wilson. If I've got that right, it stunk. Apparently Charlie was pretty angry about it and I would be too.
Yeah Simon ive always wondered about the 100k figure Dennis said Charlie and the girls cost him, thats an awfully high figure especially adjusted to 2017 dollars, aside from drugs its hard to see what they were spending it on
Dave1971 said...
i've always wondered about the 100k figure Dennis said Charlie and the girls cost him, thats an awfully high figure especially adjusted to 2017 dollars, aside from drugs its hard to see what they were spending it on
Not really. There were a lot of people over quite a length of time. Factor in Dennis' car that was uninsured being destroyed. People had to eat. Their medical bills and dental bills were paid by Dennis. Rock'n'rollers frequently went through vast sums like that in the 60s on both sides of the Atlantic. I'm more amazed that they made that kind of money rather than having a group of unemployed spongers spend it for you !
Grim i dont think the cars , were totalled and even with food and drugs like weed and lsd were cheap, shit i remember buying blotter and window pane LSD for 5 bucks a hit in the late 80s, even with the medical bills 100k at the time was alot, plus Dennis had to have an accountant going over stuff
Grim i seriously believe that if Charlie would have had the chance to represent himself hed gave gotten off, like Phil Kaufman said "there arent 12 people in the world who would convict Manson if Charlie is speaking for himself"
Grim i seriously believe that if Charlie would have had the chance to represent himself hed gave gotten off, like Phil Kaufman said "there arent 12 people in the world who would convict Manson if Charlie is speaking for himself"
You've cracked it. The Manson family didn't do I. I thought something was fishy.
Very fishy indeed.
Dave1971 said...
even with the medical bills 100k at the time was a lot, plus Dennis had to have an accountant going over stuff
It was a huge amount of money, agreed, and I feel that Dennis kind of exaggerated, even if you throw in recording studio costs which weren't exactly cheap, but spending money approaching that sum over a period of a few months doesn't strike me as difficult, not since reading about how much bands used to spend and how so many of them "suddenly" found themselves broke and owing money and taking into account the party atmosphere and number of people.
i seriously believe that if Charlie would have had the chance to represent himself he'd gave gotten off, like Phil Kaufman said "there aren't 12 people in the world who would convict Manson if Charlie is speaking for himself"
Let's not forget that at one point Charlie was representing himself. And he chose to bring to court the very kind of motions that ended up with him being stripped of that freedom. I think that he would have netted the same result because he did not respect the court and its procedures and during a trial, that could well have hamstrung him. He said things like "I'm fighting for my life" yet proceeded, in front of the jury to hold up newspaper headlines that declared the POTUS said he was guilty, he made the cutthroat sign to Linda during her testimony, he kept interrupting and was removed on many occasions, in front of the jury attacked the judge and shouted that someone should cut off his head. Cope well with pressure he did not.
I don't think Phil Kaufman could be more wrong and even he had to quit being around Charlie. One of Charlie's huge selling points was that there was no division between his actions and his words and he chose to play with language in ways designed to disarm "straight" sensibilities but it brought him grief. To have the people move with you and for you, you need to communicate in language they are comfortable with. That was the essential difference in his and Bugliosi's modes of operation ¬> Bugliosi avoided lawyery jargon or explained things to the jury in simple, almost child friendly ways. Result ? They understood and ∴ listened to him.
I think Charles Manson should have continued to be his own lawyer because, despite Lincoln's rejoinder that "a man that represents himself in court has a fool for a client," I'm with him 100% in the notion that no one can speak for me. But both through my own experience and having listened to Charlie all these years, I don't conclude that it would mean he would win his case, primarily because I think he was guilty.
By the time that trial came around, some of his former friends were bloody angry with him {Watkins, Poston, Hoyt, Watson, Flynn, Kasabian} and some that weren't soon would be.
Dave 1971 what CHP Officer might be on the Tex tapes?
beauders said...
the Tex tapes?
A thought just struck me out of nowhere in particular as I read about the DA accusing Leslie's lawyer of misconduct in trying to secure the Tex tapes.
I've often said that Tex's account in his first book sounds like he was relaying information that he'd heard before as opposed to stuff he actually remembers unlike Atkins and Kasabian who seem to have recalled stuff actually in their memory. Well it struck me that maybe the information on the Tex tapes will chime with Susan Atkins' grand jury testimony because that is essentially where Chaplain Ray Hoekstra got it from in co~authoring the book with Tex. Perhaps it isn't so much the case that he's been relaying what he's already heard from Susan and others, but actually that, having told what happened as he remembered it back in '69, what he said is not essentially different from what Atkins and Kasabian went on to say in '69 and '70.
Of course there exists the possibility that Tex was lying on those tapes too, as he did during his trial. After all, why would he admit to murder in such detail......
I don't believe there really is anything groundbreakingly new on the tapes, particularly considering Tex waived privilege on them back in 1976. Would he have done that if there were damaging revelations contained therein ?
Grim,
Allowing Chaplin Ray to hear the tapes didn't waive privilege any more then you sending your shrink's file to me as your lawyer would do that. Watson's communications with Ray were also privileged. It was publishing the book and saying it was based on the tapes that waived.
I think the tapes would potentially be very valuable not for more murders or such but because of who recorded them. His Texas lawyer had a plan. Part of that plan was to fight extradition, which he knew would never work in the end but was designed to keep Watson out of that courtroom with the others. While we likely saw Watson's defense at trial (maybe not- different lawyers) the tapes would contain the basis for that defense just like Part was going with diminished capacity for LVH until he was fired.
His lawyer would want to know the facts- that may indeed corroborate Atkins' story and certainly would be pre- witness conformity issues. It also might not, which would be very revealing. After all there is some reason the DA will not release them and it is not 'more murders'.
More importantly he would be trying to figure out what the DA could prove, any defenses Watson might have and since he would know it was a capital crime mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
Was Watson on speed?
When did he last take LSD or any drug?
Who might the DA 'turn' for a deal and what did they actually see? "Where was Linda at that time? Did she see that?"
On that score what could he use to impeach her?
Is Watson nuts?
What did Manson tell him before hand?
We know there are 'ramblings' about a land under the desert so motive is likely there- especially since this motive sounds nuts?
And these last two are important for 'premeditation'- did you go there to kill everyone?
Motive might help Watson- copycat is a straight walk into the gas chamber. Drug burn? Maybe not.
There would likely be details about the crime as his attorney attempted to create an insanity/diminished capacity defense and avoid the DP. "Tell me about the rope? Did you hang anyone?"
He would be looking for anything he could use. You might even find out if Manson did return to the scene after because an altered crime scene might help Watson's case or let the defense mess with prosecution experts- something done poorly in the Manson trial.
Could Watson have lied on the tapes- of course- Atkins did with Cabelllero and did before the Grand Jury. My experience of 30+ years is that clients, however, seldom 'fabricate' they 'omit' like Atkins. I can't count the number of times I have looked at a client and said "When were you going to tell me about that?"
My 2 cents for what it's worth.
David said...
Watson's communications with Ray were also privileged. It was publishing the book and saying it was based on the tapes that waived
You're the lawyer and you know the lingo. I was trying to say that in my layman's way.
Post a Comment