tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post422778525077301092..comments2024-03-28T23:53:16.262-04:00Comments on The Manson Family Blog: Movie: Charlie SaysMatthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06766282574442161929noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-65880642575611993052019-06-09T17:08:37.016-04:002019-06-09T17:08:37.016-04:00Have you watched this? It’s on YouTube and I’ve wa...Have you watched this? It’s on YouTube and I’ve watched half so far. Matt Smith is unreal as Manson!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09339458358035907378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-83103716343428005622019-03-26T22:04:25.336-04:002019-03-26T22:04:25.336-04:00Knowing Bugliosi's ego I think he probably wro...Knowing Bugliosi's ego I think he probably wrote it out himself, but of course I don't know for sure.beaudershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14223387983663922713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-74156575807989698962019-03-26T10:57:13.668-04:002019-03-26T10:57:13.668-04:00Hmmmm? A movie intended to show the girls as victi...Hmmmm? A movie intended to show the girls as victims too? That's laughable, but in this day & age of feminism & the constant victimhood mentality, not surprising. The true victims, other than the people murdered were the families left behind in the wake. How much pain the Manson Family caused is beyond our understanding. AustinAnn74https://www.blogger.com/profile/06342503212454947554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-73420771661084678542019-03-24T18:10:11.845-04:002019-03-24T18:10:11.845-04:00Monica said...
I'm always fascinated why a ... Monica said...<br /><br /> <b>I'm always fascinated why a woman would want to counsel other women in prison who have perpetrated heinous crimes</b><br /><br />Some people don't want to consign another human being to the eternal rubbish dump, in spite of what they've done. They see people as being of intrinsic worth and if you have a 20 year old that might live to be 100, if that person can be turned around and acknowledge the errors of their ways, all the better than 80 years of negativity.<br /><br /><b>To me it feels sad and mama-bearish</b><br /><br />I'm all for Mama bears. They make sure everyone gets good tasting porridge that's not going to scorch their mouths !<br /><br /><b>They need to reform without too much kum-buy-ya hand holding IMO</b><br /><br />Sometimes, it's that kum-buy-ya hand holding that brings the need for reform into sharp focus. It also supports the offender, knowing that <i>someone</i> is there to help them through some of those difficult stages.<br /><br /> beauders said...<br /><br /> <b>my comment above is a response to what was written on Buglios’s grave stone</b><br /><br />Did Bugliosi choose the gravestone and did his family have no say in whether or not to have that stuff on it ?<br /><br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-10347107973837010622019-03-23T23:44:48.053-04:002019-03-23T23:44:48.053-04:00For those not on a phone my comment above is a res...For those not on a phone my comment above is a response to what was written on Buglios’s grave stone.beaudershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14223387983663922713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-50577758067492786412019-03-23T23:31:07.587-04:002019-03-23T23:31:07.587-04:00I wonder if Bugliosi’s mistress felt this way abou...I wonder if Bugliosi’s mistress felt this way about him after he beat the crap out of her because she didn’t want to have an abortion or the milkman and his family who he terrorized believing the man had fathered Vince Jr. I wonder if Bugliosi ever went to a shrink, those files would be interesting reading if they exist.beaudershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14223387983663922713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-33018738534391178902019-03-23T20:04:15.807-04:002019-03-23T20:04:15.807-04:00Charlie Says is a 2018 drama film directed by Mary...<b>Charlie Says is a 2018 drama film directed by Mary Harron</b><br /><br />I wonder if having a female director will have a significant impact<br /><br /> starviego said...<br /><br /> <b>I suspect that was all deflection. They, after all, weren't hit</b><br /><br />That's rather missing the point. Your original remark was about <i>reasons for choosing a location</i>.<br /><br /> <b>Isn't it part of the conventional wisdom that the Waverly house was chosen because Charlie knew the area?</b><br /><br />And what of all the other houses ?<br />I think the reasons that David gave for the inclusion of the "Hatami call out" are the accurate ones. You seem to be trying to shoehorn in an establishment conspiracy that ultimately leads to the murders being the responsibility of someone other than the people convicted and as is often the case, in order to do so, one has to dance around many houses and open many back doors that only take you to the front entrance.<br /><br /> <b>Bugs could not have used any of that evidence in the trial. He had to get the info to the jury in another way</b><br /><br />That's not the point. The point is that the information that Charlie knew and had been to the house and was familiar with the layout was already old, tired, stale news that had been in the public domain for almost a year before Hatami got on the stand. Therefore, it didn't advance the case, nor would its absence detract from the case. As such, Bugliosi's reasons for trying to get it in bear examination.<br /><br /> <b>I think the local Powers That Be weren't comfortable mixing the names "Doris Day" and "Dean Martin" and "Charlie Manson" in the same breath</b><br /><br />Yet, that is precisely what happened because their children were witnesses in the cases against the murderers.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-85195031080755115472019-03-22T23:10:08.914-04:002019-03-22T23:10:08.914-04:00grimtraveller said...
The following night, he ...grimtraveller said...<br /> <b> The following night, he picked out a random car and a number of places to hit... </b><br /><br />I suspect that was all deflection. They, after all, weren't hit.<br /><br /> <b>No reason was ever given for why the LaBianca house was selected ....</b><br /><br />Isn't it part of the conventional wisdom that the Waverly house was chosen because Charlie knew the area?<br /><br /> <b>It was no secret that Charlie had been to the house. Susan Atkins had told the Grand Jury that Tex mentioned that he and Charlie had been there. In fact, the whole newspaper reading world knew it because it was in her LA Times "2 nights of murder" story back in 1969.</b><br /><br />Bugs could not have used any of that evidence in the trial. He had to get the info to the jury in another way.<br /><br /><b>How can a Hollywood connection be minimized when one of the victims was a Hollywood actress and one of them was a major hair stylist to the stars ?<br /> But even if one chooses to bite, what Hollywood connections were smoothed over?</b> <br /><br />I think the local Powers That Be weren't comfortable mixing the names "Doris Day" and "Dean Martin" and "Charlie Manson" in the same breath. Dino had a hit prime-time show on NBC at the time, and nobody was happy with the prospect of ratings points being shaved. In a company town, you don't mess with The Brand.<br /><br />starviegohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11256800799989566468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-15294631780592401492019-03-22T22:34:39.629-04:002019-03-22T22:34:39.629-04:00David said...
My comment about the law on perjury... David said...<br /><br /><b>My comment about the law on perjury was not intended to disagree with Peter's comment. His comments are absolutely correct. It was made by me because that concept "perjury in a capital case is a capital offense" is not what the law states</b> <br /><br />I know ~ and I'm glad you brought that up. Loads of people lie in all kinds of cases but how often does someone's lies lead to the death of the accused ?<br /><br /> starviego said...<br /><br /> <b>Au Contraire, my friend!</b><br /><br />I saw what you did there !! 😱<br /><br /> <b>Putting Charlie on the grounds provided the answer to the crucial question of why he chose that house to attack(he was familiar with the layout)</b><br /><br />The Terry Melcher connection alone, plus the stuff purported to happen over the music {including Gregg Jakobson testifying that Charlie told him he'd nicked Melcher's telescope from his new pad}, does that. <br />The following night, he picked out a random car and a number of places to hit, none of which needed any previous encounters on his part. Specific motivations weren't important to Bugliosi's case in terms of convicting the perps.<br /><br /><b>If you don't have that, then you would have to look for other motives</b><br /><br />No reason was ever given for why the LaBianca house was selected but the house, the householders and the area the house was in fell nicely into all of the motives.<br />When AstroCreep mentioned a while back, 'death by 1000 cuts,' the motives presented {there were 5 ~ 4 of them Charlie's} were part of that and gave Manson pretty much no wiggle room. Where it may not be HS, it's an extreme anti-establishment frame of mind. Where it's not that it's a lust for violent death. Where it isn't that it's a hitback against society's pigs etc. <br /><br /> <b>Anyway Bugs knew that Charlie had been to the house (via Deanna Martin and Terry Melcher)</b><br /><br />It was no secret that Charlie had been to the house. Susan Atkins had told the Grand Jury that Tex mentioned that he and Charlie had been there. In fact, the whole newspaper reading world knew it because it was in her LA Times "2 nights of murder" story back in 1969. <br /><br /><b>but I suspect he was ordered to minimize the Hollywood connection, so he felt justified in 'suggesting' this alternative scenario</b><br /><br />How can a Hollywood connection be minimized when one of the victims was a Hollywood actress and one of them was a major hair stylist to the stars ?<br />But even if one chooses to bite, what Hollywood connections were smoothed over ? What "connections" existed between anyone of that ilk that had anything whatsoever to do with the 7 murders that weekend ?<br /><br /><b>Realistically, Altobelli had nothing to fear from that quarter</b><br /><br />I don't think "law abiding citizens" with plenty to lose think that way and where they may do so, it generally stays within their heads rather than something they'd actively pursue. People used to butting heads with the police and other law enforcement agencies and who have scant value for the lives of those they want to mess up, might.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-8111869055071447842019-03-21T23:56:29.616-04:002019-03-21T23:56:29.616-04:00Starviego said: "Putting Charlie on the groun...Starviego said: "Putting Charlie on the grounds provided the answer to the crucial question of why he chose that house to attack(he was familiar with the layout)."<br /><br />I have to take exception to that. As you point out he had enough evidence from other sources that Manson had been there, (perhaps even inside the house). What he wanted was the same thing he wanted from the Ireland testimony (hence his obsession with the timeline), "Sadie Make It Stop", "I have no mercy for you bitch", etc. He was trying a death penalty case he wanted exactly what he stated as fact in his book (it did not go as well in the trial). <br /><br />He wanted the jury to believe Sharon Tate looked into the eyes of the man who ordered her murder. More importantly he wanted Manson looking in to her eyes to show how little regard he had for her life. <br /><br />From a conviction perspective the incident adds nothing, as Grim stated. But a death penalty requires that something more. <br /><br />My comment about the law on perjury was not intended to disagree with Peter's comment. his comments are absolutely correct. It was made by me because that concept "perjury in a capital case is a capital offense" is not what the law states. Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06551377673977145628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-86094059542173974842019-03-21T22:32:06.222-04:002019-03-21T22:32:06.222-04:00grimtraveller said...
"... it is totally irre...grimtraveller said...<br />"... it is totally irrelevant to the case whether that information is there or not. It does not add to the case against the 4 defendants and it's absence would not have weakened the case."<br /><br />Au Contraire, my friend! Putting Charlie on the grounds provided the answer to the crucial question of why he chose that house to attack(he was familiar with the layout). If you don't have that, then you would have to look for other motives.<br /><br />Anyway Bugs knew that Charlie had been to the house (via Deanna Martin and Terry Melcher) but I suspect he was ordered to minimize the Hollywood connection, so he felt justified in 'suggesting' this alternative scenario. It may also explain why the defense attorneys didn't challenge Bugs on that.starviegohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11256800799989566468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-28958553914071712642019-03-21T22:17:52.547-04:002019-03-21T22:17:52.547-04:00I don't think Altobelli would have feared perj...I don't think Altobelli would have feared perjury charges. How would you prove Altobelli perjured himself? The only living witness to his ID of Charlie is Charlie, and who's going to believe him? Realistically, Altobelli had nothing to fear from that quarter.starviegohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11256800799989566468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-6206666906966560742019-03-21T21:32:55.785-04:002019-03-21T21:32:55.785-04:00But at the time, there was a very real possibility...But at the time, there was a very real possibility that the defendants would be executed. You're never going to know for certain if the execution is going to take place when your testifying during the trial. But you would certainly have to budget for it if you're going to take that chance.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08760641498649508874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-80880548277772993022019-03-21T21:31:43.472-04:002019-03-21T21:31:43.472-04:00David said...
It is only a capital offense if... David said...<br /><br /> <b>It is only a capital offense if the defendant is executed and your perjury led to the execution</b><br /><br />True, but that kind of highlights the thrust of Peter's point. This was a case in which the DA's office was <i>going</i> for the death penalty and that was known from the start. So any perjury leading to Manson's execution would risk becoming a capital offence. Therefore, with <br /> <b>starviego said...<br /><br /> My gut feeling is that Altobelli was a bit of an opportunistic snake. I can see him offering to perjure himself to Bugliosi, just to ingratiate himself with the DA's office</b><br /><br />in mind, for Altobelli and Bugliosi to perjure themselves over the Hatami incident would be little short of insane. To put it another way, it is totally irrelevant to the case whether that information is there or not. It does not add to the case against the 4 defendants and it's absence would not have weakened the case.<br /><br /> AstroCreep said...<br /><br /> <b>Bugs presented as much info as he possibly could...I think he was brilliant for his ‘death by 1000 cuts’ approach</b><br /><br />Agreed. He made well and sure that each one of the defendants was stitched and sewn tightly from every possible angle. Mind you, he was only able to do that because the defendants themselves provided the masses of needle and thread. They left themselves so wide open from so many directions that Bugliosi had the luxury of being able to leave out some stuff and they still sutchered themselves.<br />That said, I think he did emphasize some things that simply weren't important. They made for good drama though and juries are human ~ we respond to drama.<br /><br /><b>I also think ‘the man’ being described as ‘creepy’ also makes the inference of it having been Charlie more plausible</b><br /><br />I have no doubt that it could have been Charlie. I also don't dismiss that it might not have been him ! Thing is, Sharon described the man as 'creepy' and Rudi doesn't appear to have elaborated as to whether it was Charlie that Sharon may have been talking about.<br /><br /><b>To describe ‘the man’ as long haired could have been half of LA at that time</b><br /><br />That's the difficulty. To Hatami, the photos he saw of Manson were the closest resemblence to "the man" but he only said he resembled him, not that it <i>was</i> him. And as Ed points out, to this day he has no recollection of ever having seen Manson at Cielo.<br /><br /> <b>Bugs had a job to do. His job was to secure a conviction for the people of Los Angeles. His job wasn’t to present underwhelming, non dramatic, and plain information. It was to secure a conviction (which he did) and...it worked</b><br /><br />Even Charlie had to acknowledge that Bugliosi did a fantastic job in convicting him. Among the more fascinating elements of Bugliosi & Gentry's book are those conversations that Bugliosi and Manson had during the trial. I believe them because Manson has said so many things that jibe with what he is supposed to have said to Vincent T. <br />One of the real eye openers comes from their first conversation where Manson asks why Bugliosi thought he was guilty. That's so Charlie. Vincent T couldn't just present plain bland facts because Charlie wasn't a plain bland criminal.<br />George Stimson often presents the view that because the murders were seen as so bizarre, it was felt there had to be weird motives and people attached to it but the whole case <i>was</i> arcane.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-47213093778255393802019-03-21T21:10:48.722-04:002019-03-21T21:10:48.722-04:00Bobbed about a bit Doug. Bobbed about a bit Doug. Milly Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03612495681178122993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-82403704910403413842019-03-21T21:08:39.696-04:002019-03-21T21:08:39.696-04:00Thank goodness we don't have execution in the ...Thank goodness we don't have execution in the UK. I understand that people like me, never brought up with it, are more 'anti' than those who take it for granted that it is part of the justice system. Milly Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03612495681178122993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-29259125914086350372019-03-21T21:02:39.972-04:002019-03-21T21:02:39.972-04:00I've just borrowed that book. Haven't read...I've just borrowed that book. Haven't read it. Will report back. Milly Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03612495681178122993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-28150091644568723632019-03-21T20:49:02.315-04:002019-03-21T20:49:02.315-04:00Peter said: "Perjury in a capital case is its...Peter said: "Perjury in a capital case is itself a capital offence."<br /><br />Not exactly. The law is over there to the right: http://www.mansonblog.com/search/label/The%20Law. <br /><br />It is only a capital offense if the defendant is executed and your perjury led to the execution. <br /><br />Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06551377673977145628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-50572776858772818172019-03-21T20:00:00.037-04:002019-03-21T20:00:00.037-04:00Perjury in a capital case is itself a capital offe...Perjury in a capital case is itself a capital offence. As I would assume suborning perjury would be. I doubt either Altobelli or Bugliosi would skate along that edge over such a trivial piece of evidence. Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08760641498649508874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-60742078240520292872019-03-21T18:01:51.158-04:002019-03-21T18:01:51.158-04:00. In his 1992 autobiography, “What’s It All About?.... In his 1992 autobiography, “What’s It All About?,” Michael Caine, no hippie to be sure, recalled being introduced to a “scruffy little man” named Charles Manson at a party at Cass Elliot’s house. (Also in attendance: future Manson family victims Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring, the celebrity hairstylist). From NY Times.Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14711422705919582549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-76382802727858090832019-03-21T17:12:12.591-04:002019-03-21T17:12:12.591-04:00I hope we’re not going down the old ‘Bugs framed t...I hope we’re not going down the old ‘Bugs framed them and invented Helter Skelter’ road... again.<br /><br />Bugs presented as much info as he possibly could. I’ve always felt this story is plausible as even the killers themselves said that Charlie selected 10050 because he was familiar with the layout of the property, as was Tex. <br /><br />I also think ‘the man’ being described as ‘creepy’ also makes the inference of it having been Charlie more plausible. To describe ‘the man’ as long haired could have been half of LA at that time. <br /><br />Bugs had a job to do. His job was to secure a conviction for the people of Los Angeles. His job wasn’t to present underwhelming, non dramatic, and plain information. It was to secure a conviction (which he did) and I think he was brilliant for his ‘death by 1000 cuts’ approach. It worked.AstroCreephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14400828131305289484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-3535092660608816502019-03-21T16:10:29.462-04:002019-03-21T16:10:29.462-04:00My gut feeling is that Altobelli was a bit of an o...My gut feeling is that Altobelli was a bit of an opportunistic snake. I can see him offering to perjure himself to Bugliosi, just to ingratiate himself with the DA's office.starviegohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11256800799989566468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-67217975815894486302019-03-21T08:10:38.008-04:002019-03-21T08:10:38.008-04:00Doug Smith said...
Grim said "Vincent T ... Doug Smith said...<br /><br /> <b>Grim said "Vincent T stated that Sharon looked into the face of Charlie"<br /><br /> Could this be in an abstract way...like, via Tex, Pat and Sadie as they brutalized her and the others? Or, even deeper as in the oft mentioned "I am you/mirror-we are all Charlie" kind of way?</b><br /><br />Nah. He meant it as a literal, historical, actual happening.<br />Buglosi jumped on certain things that made for good drama but weren't particularly important to the mechanics of the case, like his timeline dramas or the Cielo Hatami incident. While it's true that Bugliosi placed Hatami and Altobelli's testimony back to back, it's equally true that he stated blatantly that the Sharon/Manson look happened. I shouldn't be, but I am surprised that no one picked him up on it while belting out that it assumed facts not in evidence ! <br />I noted that during the long argument at the bench or in chambers about Hatami, Bugliosi could not say "Yes, he positively identified Manson." He danced around it every which way and even the judge in the end was critical of him.<br />But it was all much of a muchness.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-77406284720001361422019-03-21T07:36:51.111-04:002019-03-21T07:36:51.111-04:00I think Bug means literally looked in Manson's...I think Bug means literally looked in Manson's face. He asks Hatami how long she was on the porch, how far away she was from Manson and if it was possible they saw each other. Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08760641498649508874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-19256830890602654582019-03-21T02:09:10.115-04:002019-03-21T02:09:10.115-04:00Grim said "Vincent T stated that Sharon looke...Grim said "Vincent T stated that Sharon looked into the face of Charlie"<br /><br />Could this be in an abstract way...like, via Tex, Pat and Sadie as they brutalized her and the others? Or, even deeper as in the oft mentioned "I am you/mirror-we are all Charlie" kind of way?<br /><br />And, David said, "Pretty damn fine lawyering"<br /><br />YepDoughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17388908256992077315noreply@blogger.com