tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post2696267967682985203..comments2024-03-28T23:53:16.262-04:00Comments on The Manson Family Blog: Preston Guillory InterviewMatthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06766282574442161929noreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-1012720862822939852019-01-22T11:42:47.889-05:002019-01-22T11:42:47.889-05:00I met Preston at a traffic school he was teaching....I met Preston at a traffic school he was teaching.We became friends and I found him to be a smart and extremely interesting person.His life experiences were fascinating and his love of home and country was admirable.He loved the Renaissance Fair and I have fond memories of attending in costume with him and having a great time.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12029150702195144136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-79721605245616334412018-06-09T11:12:33.459-04:002018-06-09T11:12:33.459-04:00Longtime lurker here & elsewhere. I just would...Longtime lurker here & elsewhere. I just would like to say thank you, both to the hosts, & also to the posters. I find so very much value in your prodigious research & knowledge, & I am in awe of it. I also find value in the occasional fights: errm, "differences of opinion".<br /><br />Much of it doesn't really matter, on the surface: what was done on those terrible summer nights is long over, with seemingly some justice done. But there are unresolved questions & issues, & it's both fascinating to me, & somehow comforting, to know that you are all still fighting for truth. Thank you. tinkse7enhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17760596928189633017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-63827093338007396412018-04-15T08:50:02.605-04:002018-04-15T08:50:02.605-04:00Cats your site was the first site that I found Man...Cats your site was the first site that I found Manson related. I truly miss it. Please bring it back if you can. Donnahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07360305484886925622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-74932060263458452102018-04-03T22:52:31.084-04:002018-04-03T22:52:31.084-04:00That wouldn't really apply to this case. All t...That wouldn't really apply to this case. All the motives mooted were <i>possible</i>.<br />Possibility didn't make them actual though.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-9570765276915477882018-04-03T15:03:38.489-04:002018-04-03T15:03:38.489-04:00How often have I said to you that when you have el...How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?<br /><br /><br />Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06766282574442161929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-70954835865400217052018-04-03T12:10:04.654-04:002018-04-03T12:10:04.654-04:00He is the Napoleon of crime, Watson. He is the org...He is the Napoleon of crime, Watson. He is the organizer of half that is evil and of nearly all that is undetected in this great city, He is a genius, a philosopher, an abstract thinker. He has a brain of the first order. He sits motionless, like a spider in the center of its web, but that web has a thousand radiations, and he knows well every quiver of each of them. He does little himself. He only plans.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08760641498649508874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-58817313656805202292018-04-03T11:33:23.355-04:002018-04-03T11:33:23.355-04:00AstroCreep said...
People here tend to like a... AstroCreep said...<br /><br /> <b>People here tend to like arguing other motives and so I’ve tried to continually point out that the families behavior supports the HS motive</b><br /><br />I agree.<br />Reading through Leslie's November '69 interviews with Sergeant Mike McGann, it's amazing to me that Susan Atkins is generally pegged as the one that rolled over and snitched. Leslie fills in so many gaps in that interview that I wouldn't at all be surprised if McGann walked away from there feeling in his bones that he was on the verge of sorting his case. And in the run up to the trial, the Family gave credence to HS, particularly in that incendiary Rolling Stone article. Even with the benefit of hindsight and all that, it's an insane article and Charlie's part is the centre of that particular universe. Then concurrently, with some of the stuff that makes it into Robert Hendrickson's documentary and the later one, phew ! For people that have tried to scotch HS from when the 4 defendants were found guilty, the Family sure shone a light on HS. I'm still fascinated by the way the leading {and not so leading} protagonists just couldn't keep their mouths closed. But like I said earlier, the overall events and their outcome reflect Charles Manson's life of crime.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-16378556634652496082018-04-03T10:04:59.403-04:002018-04-03T10:04:59.403-04:00Correct- was thinking more court of public opinion...Correct- was thinking more court of public opinion in terms of the riffraff on the corner. <br /><br />In terms of courtroom antics, I don’t think there’s an example of Charlie echoing or parroting the girls- only them following his lead.<br /><br />People here tend to like arguing other motives and so I’ve tried to continually point out that the families behavior supports the HS motive. AstroCreephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14400828131305289484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-43766074317873836512018-04-02T22:15:53.423-04:002018-04-02T22:15:53.423-04:00The jury was not aware of the followers on the str...The jury was not aware of the followers on the street corner and Charlie spent much of the trial shouting out for all to hear that Kanarek was not doing as he wanted him to do so his courtroom control being there for all to see is debatable.<br />I don't even think Bugliosi overtly needed to capitalize on the damage the Family did to themselves because the centrepiece of his case against Manson was his domination of the family. He already had his case and made sure that he presented the witnesses that helped make and bolster his case.<br />But they did serve up Charlie as you describe it ~ primarily because they couldn't do anything other. In a way they were in a position where it was catch 22 for them; abandoning him might have been the best thing they could have done for him but by showing unity and 'love' they only demonstrated how much in thrall they were to him ~ and the jury noted <i>that</i>. Their greatest strength was his undoing.<br />Of course this is being wise after the event ~ if he'd been acquitted it wouldn't even be a thought worth considering.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-34550632883156603582018-04-01T10:08:24.669-04:002018-04-01T10:08:24.669-04:00Grim/David-
This is the same point I’ve made seve...Grim/David-<br /><br />This is the same point I’ve made several times. The courtroom antics, the followers on the street corner, the absolute control Charlie displayed throughout in the courtroom etc is what convicted them. Bugliosi would have been an idiot not to have capitalized on the damage the family did to itself on a daily basis. The Family served up their leader like a fat Thanksgiving turkey- AstroCreephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14400828131305289484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-70966200916892847122018-03-31T22:05:32.361-04:002018-03-31T22:05:32.361-04:00When the girls were about to testify, Kanarek move...When the girls were about to testify, Kanarek moved to sever. The Charlie made his speech and the girls changed their minds.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08760641498649508874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-88810600539315182452018-03-31T11:52:16.732-04:002018-03-31T11:52:16.732-04:00David said...
In fact, I could easily argue t... David said...<br /><br /> <b>In fact, I could easily argue that Manson's decision to control the trial and the defense and keep the four 'together' likely enhanced the probability he would be convicted</b><br /><br />Totally agree on that one. Probably one of the best lessons in irony that I could come up with. Ironic because separated from him, all of the defendants had blabbed to <i>someone</i>. So one can see why he'd feel the need to direct operations. But it kind of turned out worse.<br />That said, given Charlie's attempts at a life of crime, it's really not a surprise of earth shattering proportions. One could almost say 'twas par for the course.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-88240626139270133652018-03-31T00:23:02.864-04:002018-03-31T00:23:02.864-04:00Grim said: "Thinking about it further, I don&...Grim said: "Thinking about it further, I don't think it did convict everyone in the room but I think it certainly did for Pat and Susan. "<br /><br />Many years ago I participated in a jury 'study'. This was likely before professionals advised attorneys on jury panels, etc. and 'picking the jury' became a profession of its own. <br /><br />We ran some mock trials/partial trials for 'jurors' chosen by race and sex on purpose. While I have not read Zamora's book (and likely should) a couple of things from the results stood out to me. First, very few jurors actually understood the concept of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and most in their feedback sessions asked if that could be better explained to them. <br /><br />They also almost to a man/woman ignored scientific evidence that did not answer the question 'why'. In other words if an engineer explained why a bridge collapsed, they listened. But 'Granado-Type' evidence was Charlie Brown's teacher. Of course this was early DNA, pre-OJ trial. <br /><br />To your point, when multiple defendants were present and the evidence was 'emotional' the responses were overwhelmingly that 'all' of the defendants were classed together. In one scenario- a drive by shooting- there were six individuals 'in the car'. In that scenario there was fairly emotional 'testimony' (from a drama student at the local college) about her BF being shot. The 'jurors' uniformly held everyone in the car responsible and cited the GF's testimony as the reason, even though the 'legalities' of the guilt of four in the car was at best 'questionable'. They found all six 'guilty'. <br /><br />It also didn't seem to matter if someone 'made a deal' to testify. The typical response given was that 'they would do the same thing'. The conclusion we- ok 'they' drew was that if the juror 'identified' with the witness their background didn't matter but also if the jury identified with the emotional experience of the witness they tended to believe them. <br /><br />So I respectfully disagree. The defendants at TLB were not viewed as four individuals but as a group when those words were spoken by Kasabian. <br /><br />In fact, I could easily argue that Manson's decision to control the trial and the defense and keep the four 'together' likely enhanced the probability he would be convicted. After all but for three statements attributed to him there is no conspiracy the first night. Second night- welcome to life in prison. But, of course Bugliosi wanted him for both. Hence HS. Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06551377673977145628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-69076305100530007582018-03-30T23:55:27.812-04:002018-03-30T23:55:27.812-04:00David said...
as soon as Linda Kasabian descr... David said...<br /><br /> <b>as soon as Linda Kasabian described the murder of Frykowski the trial was over. Nothing else mattered. The horrific nature of that testimony convicted everyone in that room: not the courtroom antics or Helter Skelter, but that single moment</b><br /><br />Thinking about it further, I don't think it did convict <i>everyone</i> in the room but I think it certainly did for Pat and Susan. Especially with no defence put on. And had they put on the defence they wanted {in effect what transpired in the penalty phase}, I doubt that would have saved them. But tying Manson to as much of the proceedings as possible and showing conspiracy was partly why there were so many witnesses to HS, Family life, weapons, Charlie's domination etc.<br />It's quite interesting; George in his book posits the theory that if one takes the entirety of Linda's testimony, there's not really a great deal of corroborated stuff that sticks to Charlie. He may have a point. However, with all the other stuff that came in {as Simon Davies shows in <i>his</i> book}, the argument set forth in "Goodbye HS" falls down to the ground.<br /><br /> CATSCRADLE77 said...<br /><br /> <b>With all the bashing and hatred toward each other that this subject seems to cause, I had enough....I don't want to leave out people because of the bad behavior of a few..but I really don't need the hassle anymore</b><br /><br />I get you. <br />I might have thought TLB sites were worse than any others had I not frequented other sites on other subjects. Even sites about kids TV programmes or parental sites have a level of vitriol that makes one wonder at times. When I was on a home recording website, they used to have a section that had, as its intention, no holds barred nastiness. It was pitched as a biker bar where anyone could say pretty much anything to anyone ~ and people did. It actually came with a "enter at your peril" warning. But in all honesty, it was not vastly different to much of the spirit that found itself in the supposedly sanitized pages. Certain folk used to almost take pride in getting banned and the word 'butthurt' became a standard justification for basically treating others like toilet paper ~ lower than the shit itself. But they got rid of it in the end !<br />I guess the downside of democracy and free speech and the encouraging of people sharing opinions is that at various points, we are so tied to what we think that it can sometimes feel that some disagreements are, in fact, an attack and of course, that's not helped when people <i>do</i> attack.<br />Oh well.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-21494653785555190362018-03-30T09:49:38.662-04:002018-03-30T09:49:38.662-04:00Amen, Cats.Amen, Cats.Patty is Deadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07717777500117142160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-47039729117336552062018-03-30T07:38:07.193-04:002018-03-30T07:38:07.193-04:00Matt- if un-fun isn't a word it should be.
I...Matt- if un-fun isn't a word it should be. <br /><br />Its been a wild ride. CATSCRADLE77https://www.blogger.com/profile/12703250961706399752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-88285223022984661672018-03-30T07:26:23.698-04:002018-03-30T07:26:23.698-04:00I'm among the first to agree with you, Cats. T...I'm among the first to agree with you, Cats. The behavior of a few have made it un-fun (is that a word?) from time to time. Luckily I have thick skin or I'd have walked away long ago.<br /><br /><br />Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06766282574442161929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-35296786448015721272018-03-30T07:22:25.136-04:002018-03-30T07:22:25.136-04:00Christopher- there was a book proposal that I rece...Christopher- there was a book proposal that I received from Irving that was years old. I don't believe he had any takers, and I don't recall how far he had taken it. <br /><br />Thank you Doug. Your kind words are appreciated. <br /><br />Grim- it isn't nosey at all. It all kind of went away abruptly. It is more a peace of mind thing at this juncture. It took a lot of time and effort to get the site started and to maintain and I had the help of a lot of good people. Within like two years, two of them died suddenly. With all the bashing and hatred toward each other that this subject seems to cause, I had enough. Things are rebuilt- I just haven't decided when or if to open things back up and who should have access. Its a debate between myself. I don't want to leave out people because of the bad behavior of a few..but I really don't need the hassle anymore. CATSCRADLE77https://www.blogger.com/profile/12703250961706399752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-21644333502912676372018-03-30T00:55:46.534-04:002018-03-30T00:55:46.534-04:00David said...
I agree with Irving: if you can... David said...<br /><br /> <b>I agree with Irving: if you cannot prove my client is guilty, he's not. That is the foundation of the system</b><br /><br />Legally, I totally agree. But we don't just discuss and argue around legalities. Cases in general and this one in particular elicit more than stone cold legality. What I found interesting about what Irving said, is his emphasis on <i>knowing</i> someone to be guilty of horrific crimes, whatever 'horrific' may entail. The mind recoils if one follows that to anywhere close to a logical conclusion.<br />However, it's also an odd statement given his <i>schtick</i> about proving guilt. <br />I completely agree that Linda's testimony completely kippered the Cielo defendants and Tex and went a long way towards frying Leslie {although Dianne kind of really put the kibosh on her there}. That none of the defence lawyers could undo anything she said <i>about the murders</i> was significant and all of the making her look like a lying, drug sodden scumbucket paled in insignificance against her descriptions of the deaths of Steven, Wojiciech and Abigail.<br />Lots of other stuff was necessary though and I find William Zamora's and the wife of John Baer's accounts of the trial fascinating from that perspective.<br /><br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-64082137152474196662018-03-30T00:07:24.033-04:002018-03-30T00:07:24.033-04:00Grim,
I have always truly enjoyed your posts...m...Grim, <br /><br />I have always truly enjoyed your posts...may not always agree but, thank you. <br /><br />I agree with Irving: if you cannot prove my client is guilty, he's not. That is the foundation of the system. And you have to do it beyond a reasonable doubt'. <br /><br />But, Bugliosi 'proved' Manson was guilty. <br /><br />While I hate to give him the credit, Ed Sanders is absolutely right: as soon as Linda Kasabian described the murder of Frykowski the trial was over. Nothing else mattered. The horrific nature of that testimony convicted everyone in that room: not the courtroom antics or Helter Skelter, but that single moment. <br /><br />All he needed was that testimony about Frykowski falling into the bushes and looking Kasabian in the eye. <br /><br />Case over. <br /><br />What is odd to me is that given his prior cases including The Onion Field Case; that he didn't understand the impact of that testimony. Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06551377673977145628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-76525752711624008602018-03-29T22:22:45.932-04:002018-03-29T22:22:45.932-04:00Matt said...
I've learned over the years o...Matt said...<br /><br /> <b>I've learned over the years of TLB blogging to rely more on documentation than taped interviews</b><br /><br />That's what kind of caused me to raise an eyebrow or two when I listened to Irving's interview. Some of the documented stuff that he contradicts fall into the realm of me refusing to acknowledge my foot is not my kidney....<br /><br /> CATSCRADLE77 said...<br /><br /> <b>I have it already to launch I just haven’t yet. Don’t know if or when I will bring it back or how public it will be if it happens</b><br /><br />As a nosey Englishman, I'm curious as to what prevents you from relaunching. Is it the work involved, the cost or the sheer hassle of, well, people ?<br /><br /> 21 Days Stop Smoking Programme said...<br /><br /> <b>Did he ever tell you why he rested the defense without calling a single witness? I read somewhere else that he felt there was no need since the prosecution hadn't proven their case</b><br /><br />That was precisely it according to him. He said in an interview; <i>"If it wasn't for all of that prejudicial publicity, Manson never would've been convicted of anything. First, he's on the cover of Life, then Nixon declares him guilty, and then Bugliosi leaks Susan Atkins' claim they were going to kill Frank Sinatra and Elizabeth Taylor! They had no case against Manson, that's why I rested without putting on a defense. He had nothing to do with those murders."</i> <br /><br />He also said in another article in '98: <i>"Manson was a personable guy. He had nothing to do with those murders. The people who testified against him are all criminals."</i><br /><br />For me, the most insightful thing Kanarek ever said was: <i>"I would defend a client who I knew was guilty of horrific crimes. They have to be proved guilty. I've had cases where people were guilty as hell but they couldn't prove it. And if they can't prove it, he's not guilty. In that case, the person walks free. That's American justice."</i><br /><br />So when he talks of Charlie being innocent, he <i>rather speak with forked tongue</i> given that he was found guilty. Still, I'm reminded of a line from the song "Justice":<br /><i>Everybody likes to see justice done........<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />....on someone else.</i>grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-6671671159231124022018-03-29T22:22:07.858-04:002018-03-29T22:22:07.858-04:00All of this discussion is enormously intetesting a...All of this discussion is enormously intetesting and, facilitating some great back-and-forth dialogue...kinda "stoking the coals" of a fire that had lost a bit of momentum after CM's passing (not to mention the resultant sideshow circus surrounding his will and, estate)!<br /><br />Thank you Cats! I was a great fan of your pioneering web forum and, really appreciate your input here!<br /><br />And, thank to my rather quiet friend in the UK (Grim) for the link to Kanarek's archived interview w/Cats on Vimeo!<br /><br />Cheers!Doughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17388908256992077315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-38006912940338564882018-03-29T20:43:15.933-04:002018-03-29T20:43:15.933-04:00PS: Aside from the fact "Manson and his follo...PS: Aside from the fact "Manson and his followers" were on LASO's radar months before the murders he provides no testimony that Manson was framed. <br /><br />An interesting tidbit: Guillory took the call when Hinman's friend called the sheriffs office and dispatched the officers who found his body. I, for one, didn't know that. Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06551377673977145628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-73672157942126058712018-03-29T19:54:49.177-04:002018-03-29T19:54:49.177-04:00Starviego,
Kanarek put him on as what is known a...Starviego, <br /><br />Kanarek put him on as what is known as a 'mitigation' witness during the penalty phase. When challenged by the court as to the relevance of Guillory's testimony Kanarek stated this: <br /><br />K: "Yes, this--is in the aggravation or mitigation on penalty, we have a right to know--we have a right to--if they are-- if they are framing Mr. Manson on these charges, we have a right to know it, if law enforcement is doing that."<br /><br />Court: "All right. You intend to prove, then, that this-- through this officer, that they're framing Mr. Manson?<br /><br />K: Yes<br /><br />Court: Basically, that's your offer of proof?<br /><br />K: Yes. The inference--the inference can be made, from what he's going to testify to, yes, that Mr. Manson has been framed; that Mr. Manson-- [he goes on] pp 9570<br /><br />Guillory had quit the LASO. reading between the lines from Wkanarek's unanswered (objection sustained) questions he was given a choice resign or be fired. It appears to have been due to his complaints about planted dope and other such acts by LASO officers. <br /><br />He also said he was afraid for his personal safety because he testified for Manson- afraid of the LASO that is. <br /><br /><br /><br />Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06551377673977145628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-83532759133914384342018-03-29T19:27:04.113-04:002018-03-29T19:27:04.113-04:00Cielodrive.com said...
"(Guillory) testified...Cielodrive.com said...<br /> "(Guillory) testified in the penalty phase of Manson's trial for the Hinman/Shea murders. He did not testify in the TLB trial."<br /><br />Thanks for that. What was the nature of his testimony? Why him out of all the other patrol officers?<br />starviegohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11256800799989566468noreply@blogger.com