There are significant amounts of truth, to that statement.
Marlin Marynick said himself (paraphrasing):
"Manson essentially exhibited the same 'persona' as most homeless, transient men at soup kitchens".
Manson Replies:"I was a half-assed nothing who hardly knew how to read or write, never read a book all the way through in my life, didn’t know anything except jails, couldn’t hold on to my wives, was a lousy pimp, got caught every time I stole, wasn’t a good enough musician to hit the market, didn’t know what to do with money even if I had it and resented every aspect of family life. But a week after Sadie’s story, I was a charismatic cult leader with a family, a genius who could program people into doing whatever I asked of them".
Lynyrd Replies Further:
I believe "the times"... and "very unique social circumstances" allowed Manson... (an otherwise small-time criminal)... to "blossom" into something much more.
Given different circumstances (say 2011, in S. Dakota)... it's likely Manson (as Tom suggests), would have been an unknown con-man... in-and-out of prison (mostly in), for lesser crimes. Essentaially... a bum.
Circumstances came together... much like planets aligning (in the 60's)... and Manson was given "free reign". Things deteriorated.
There's an old proverb which applies here, which I quote often:
"Absolute power, corrupts absolutely". It's my opinion... that the "group experience" corrupted Manson... every bit as much... as it corrupted the others.
For No Apparent Reason. "I'm gonna Barbucue your ASS in Molasses"! AHahahaha
116 comments:
I'd love to hear from Leary on this one... as well as Frank and Saint.
OK I will take a stab at this...
Essentially I agree with the main point that the brutality of the crimes involved make Charlie as infamous as anything about him or his personality would have individually...
I do sometimes wonder if he had kept himself in check just a bit- if he would have gotten any further in the Music industry...
I mean- getting over on the teenage runaway girls is one thing, but he got in pretty close with Melcher Jackobson and Wilson- who were a bit older and much more street wise ( at least the first two) and everything I have read says they moved away from him more about his behavior than lack of talent...
Probably he would have never crossed over to any mainstream significance- but that maybe the one and only way he might have..
otherwise- the only thing that made him special was the words of the maniacs who told him it was so....
There were then and are now many guys out there running there small cliques/gangs/crews...
who act like absolute monarchs over there peeps- but only come to our attention when they cross lines which lead them all to the same place where they can compare notes and rank each others deeds behind bars...
( and those are the wrong type of bars for heated debates- they dont serve cold cocktails in those type of bars )
in my opinion :)
I think that Manson would have still been Manson with or without a group.
I think the way it became unraveled at the end resulted in the outcome. Charlie was pissed off and ordered his followers to "get back at" those who rejected him.
If he hadn't had followers to order to kill, would he have done the killing himself.
I think he would have. He didn't hesitate to shoot Crowe. He thought he killed him. Didn't bother him at all except for fear of retaliation. He never felt bad about shooting him, only worried about what might happen to him as a result.
He didn't hesitate to cut Gary's ear almost completely off. Never felt bad about that one either.
If we believe the events of August 10th, according to those in the car, Charlie was ready, willing and able to kill some motorist in the next lane, but the light turned green and he escaped.
I think Charlie would have killed alone if he had not had a group to do his bidding.
Maybe true Katie-
but - I think- the point is....
Would have anyone known or cared about it- if he was a lone nut and not a " Hippy mind control guru" lol
He may very well have gone on to do some equally bad things on his own- but without all the " zombie followers" and other trappings...
would it have ever made it to our attention?
I guess it would just come down to whether he would have gone as far as Tex/Katie did...
I am not sure even Charlie was that brutal personally....
Katie and Tex were some seriously disturbed people...
I mean all the stigma and fear and hate that come from this entire fiasco is built on the horror that basically- predominantly was caused by two people on two nights...
Never let us forget- neither of those two people were Charlie...
Hi Circumstance!
I think the real reason it captured our attention are the victims. The rest of it just made it more interesting.
This case had national and international attention when it first happened. Long before we knew who did it.
Hollywood was frozen and the "movie stars" were afraid of each other. Not because of WHO did it, but because of WHAT was done, HOW it was done, and WHO it was done to.
When we found out it was a bunch of zombie hippies lead by a hippy cult leader, it only made the case more interesting.
That being said, if Charlie had killed on his own, his notoriety would be based on WHO he killed. If he had chosen to kill some unknown drug dealer....no we wouldn't follow it.
But if he had chosen to kill at Cielo Drive on his own....we would definitely know who he is.
Agreed :)
I'm not sure exactly how brutal Charlie could actually be, but he spoke of brutality quite a bit.
But speaking about it and actually doing it...that's 2 different things.
He did say he could "beat somebody to death with a book and think nothing of it".
Saying and doing are very different...
I have no doubt he threw threats around left and right...
I also believe he could have killed on his own- you pointed out some great examples of him showing no regard for human life...
I just wonder if he could have done the gore that the other two did, and while I do agree with you the WHO was killed is a good part of why this became so big...
They way they were butchered makes this story larger as well...
Could/Would Charlie have done it on that level is my only question????
Had he broke in and shot them, or burned the house when they were sleeping...
would that have made this story what it is today just the same??
or was the fascination- the x number of stab wounds- the writing on the walls... the Legend of the Black magic, and Devil stuff...
not really sure....
There are quite a few people like Tom describes out there,,,
what exactly makes Charlie larger than others????
maybe some of all of this- but I truly believe he NEEDED the rest of them to do what they did to get as uniquely infamous as he became,...
St., I agree that the "hippy cult leader" aspect of this case has given it quite a bit of fascination. Even though Charlie denies being the leader of anybody. But the proof is in the pudding. There was way too many people who have stated that he was indeed, the Leader.
As to Charlie's level of brutality, who knows? He did teach them to shoot, teach them to them best way to knife, various methods of killing.
Why have so many buck knives? They didn't hunt for food that I know of. They didn't need knives to kill or skin animals. So the only other reason to have them is to use them as weapons. And that was Charlie's idea.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that, in my opinion, without Charlie's brainwashing, his teachings and urgings, and without the constant drug use, I personally don't think that Tex and Pat would have done what they did.
Saint said:
>>>>"I do sometimes wonder if he had kept himself in check just a bit- if he would have gotten any further in the Music industry...
...he got in pretty close with Melcher Jackobson and Wilson
... everything I have read says they moved away from him more about his behavior than lack of talent".<<<<
----------------------------------------
I agree.
Melcher, Jakobson and Wilson were very big names in the music industry.
Some of the biggest...
Manson likely got a lot closer to fame, than most detractors would like to believe.
He certainly got a lot closer to fame, than most aspiring musicians ever do.
As Paul Watkins said on television:
"Folks wouldn't 'cop' to it now, but we were in studios... which most musicians would have given their right arm to record in".
And Yes, Saint:
Everything I've read... indicates these producers moved away from Manson primarily regarding his behavior.
They never say much about any other reasons for abandoning Manson as a prospect.
It does give one cause for wonder...
Katie said:
>>>>"I think he would have. He didn't hesitate to shoot Crowe. He thought he killed him. Didn't bother him at all except for fear of retaliation. He never felt bad about shooting him, only worried about what might happen to him as a result".
"He didn't hesitate to cut Gary's ear almost completely off. Never felt bad about that one either".
-----------------------------------------
I think in Manson's mind, Crowe was self-defense.
I think Manson was at some level afraid of Crowe... or, at a minimum, respectful of the very real danger involved with that confrontation.
I think Manson simply wanted to get out of there in one piece... and in his mind, that was the only way.
That was two street criminals playing the "survival game".
The old "live by the sword" proverb.
"Kill or be killed", etc.
Of course, the best thing to do... is avoid crime, and drug dealings altogether, and not place one's-self in that situation.
I'm not condoning Manson's actions... I'm simply stating, that I don't think the Crowe incident (alone), indicates (without question), that Manson was ruthless.
Now... the Hinman "motive", was a bit different.
Much more "ruthless" behavior here...
'Course... Manson never actually attempted to murder Hinman himself.
Slicing an ear... although pretty sucky... is not murder.
Shea may be our best example of Manson killing as a ruthless act.
But, then again... his degree of involvement varies with every account told...
The beat goes on...
This might be the silliest point I have ever made- but I think it might be worth mentioning...
Take Aug 9/10 and the gore and victims and the carnage/wall painting out of the equation...
would Crowe/Hinman/Shea incidents in of themselves made the family and Charlie what it is today???
Becuase without those two nights- he really is just what Tom said- a dime a dozen petty thief...
the rest of it can be written off- as L/S said- as sefl-defense- or drug deal gone bad or any of the other nonsense...
but when you add in those nights- and what happened at those houses...
different ball game no?
A different ballgame? Absolutely. However, we had thrown into the mix drugs, sex, Hollywood, hippies that we were told to watch out for, et al. This was a tabloid story written for real life.
When you then add the manipulations both told to us, and witnessed by us, of CM, the story reached atmospheric levels of sensationalism. CM thought he could continue to manipulate the courts, but he found himself being manipulated. The case took on a life of its own.
Would these killings have garnered as much attention in South Dakota? Hard to say. Look how the killings by Starkweather & Fugate made its way into crime folklore. Of course there were killings during that time, but this shocked the psyche of the nation nonethess.
I can say that if the TLB killings occurred today, along with Shea & Hinman, cable news would bury our senses in a manner never imagined. Nancy Grace would be orgasmic, and Court TV would be more mainstream than it was with OJ.
Hello Dilligaf.
Dilligaf said:
>>>>"A different ballgame? Absolutely. However, we had thrown into the mix drugs, sex, Hollywood, hippies that we were told to watch out for, et al. This was a tabloid story written for real life".<<<<
This point has been made in the past, by Leary.
As Leary always says:
"This case has several interesting elements".
Ed Sanders (newest edition), begins with this forward:
"The manson case had everything - it ripped aside enough of the veils of Hollywood to titillate the nation's, and even the world's interest. It had rock and roll, it had the lure of the Wild West, it had the essence of the 1960's with it's sexual liberation, it's love of outdoors, it's ferocity and it's psychedelic drugs. It had hunger for stardom and renown; it had religions of all kinds, it had warfare and homegrown slaughter, it had it all in a huge moiling story of sex, drugs and violent transgression".
It's all true.
There are indeed, many interesting elements.
But again... as Saint suggested... if one subtracts August 9th, and 10th from the equation... the rest essentially dis-appears... the court fiascos... the girls on the street corner... everything.
It truly was a "stars aligning" chain of multiple events.
One big "aligning star"... goes back to my initial question.
Would August 9th and 10th have taken place, minus the "family experience"?
Was that the biggest and earliest essential element?
Just a thought...
Hello dilligaf..
we have never met- it is nice to meet you:)
not sure if this furthers my point or makes me look stupid but ...
I never heard of those people you mention in South Dakota...
unless those are the people they based the Oliver Stone movie on with Juliette Lewis and Woody Harrelson
and if it is them- I can only say I never would have known about them if it weren't for the movie and one MSNBC special I watched...
I had known who Charlie Manson was since the fifth grade...
SOMETHING does separate him from the rest in many many cases...
Dilligaf:
My point was not that these crimes wouldn't make national news in 2011, S. Dakota.
My point... was that Manson may have been less successful at "amassing a family" in 2011, S. Dakota.
And hence... Manson may have been left committing lesser crimes... primarily alone.
I believe the 60's culture... in California... was very conducive to Manson's success with the young ladies... and the formation of the "family".
Folks were very open to "gurus", and "communal living"... "drugs", "anti-establishment"... at that place, and time... more-so than most places and times, in our country's history.
The 1960's in California were "fertile ground" for what Manson eventualy created... and what eventually resulted.
Young kids from all over the country... miles from home... seeking "truth", "love", etc.
1960's California, was arguably much more "fertile ground" for what lie ahead, than say 2011, S. Dakota.
That was my point.
Not that heinous crimes would not be widely publicized in 2011, S. Dakota.
I agree.
Today's thirst for these media stories, is second to none in history.
They would "eat this up" more-so now... than ever.
Look at the Casey Anthony trial. LOL
To quote myself (LOL):
---------------------------------------
I believe "the times"... and "very unique social circumstances" allowed Manson... (an otherwise small-time criminal)... to "blossom" into something much more.
Given different circumstances (say 2011, in S. Dakota)... it's likely Manson (as Tom suggests), would have been an unknown con-man... in-and-out of prison (mostly in), for lesser crimes. Essentaially... a bum.
Circumstances came together... much like planets aligning (in the 60's)... and Manson was given "free reign". Things deteriorated.
There's an old proverb which applies here, which I quote often:
"Absolute power, corrupts absolutely".
It's my opinion... that the "group experience" corrupted Manson... every bit as much... as it corrupted the others.
----------------------------------------
Bottom Line folks:
#1) I believe, without "60's California"... the likelihood of a "family" forming, is diminished.
#2) I believe, without the "family", and the "family experience"... Manson likely would have been an unknown criminal in jail, like thousands of others.
Moreover... these crimes as we know them, may not have happened at all.
It's a chain of events, which are all (arguably) necessary.
Hi Dilligaf!
>>>Dilligaf said: Look how the killings by Starkweather & Fugate made its way into crime folklore. Of course there were killings during that time, but this shocked the psyche of the nation nonethess.>>>
That's a good point. Look at the murder of the Clutter family in Kansas in 1959. They weren't rich or famous, they weren't stabbed, hung, shot and carved up.
But the senselessness of the brutality was what was so shocking.
But...I don't know if there are "Hickock and Smith" blogs. LOL.
>>>CM thought he could continue to manipulate the courts, but he found himself being manipulated. The case took on a life of its own.>>>
That's another big reason that this case was notorious. Charlie's behavior.
Not just Charlie's behavior, but the strange behavior of his followers, who were obviously being ordered by him to act out during the trial.
I don't think he was manipulated at all. It was obvious that the objection to him representing himself was due to his inability to act sanely. That was his doing, not the court's.
>>>Lynyrd said: I believe, without "60's California"... the likelihood of a "family" forming, is diminished.>>>
Not necessarily. There are still cults all over the world. "Families" if you will.
The recently prosecuted Warren Jeffs is a perfect example. His polygamous cult didn't kill people, but it's still a "cult".
Who is to say that one of those cults couldn't turn deadly if the leader got pissed off?
I'll add a number 3, because Circumstance is correct. LOL
It's called "Interesting Elements". LOL
#3) Without the August 9th and 10th murders... the other "interesting elements" of the story, become moot.
Without the murders, you just have a fabulous story of the 1960's... which there are many.
Example:
"The Electric Kool-Aid Acid test" by Tom Wolf... is my favorite book of all-time.
Katie...
I didn't say the possibility of Manson forming a cult at a different place and time was impossible.
I said, the possibilty would be "diminished".
It's widely accepted, that the 1960's in California, were fertile ground for a newly-released Manson.
I'm really not sure why this concept is meeting such opposition. LOLOL
I've gotta get some exercise.
Have fun folks!
Honestly, I must defer to Tom's original quote.
He's much more concise, than I.
Ton G:
"Charlie Manson is a five foot seven schizophrenic, who if it weren't for the murder of Sharon Tate, would never be known or discussed. And I'm not saying he isn't funny and entertaining. I'm saying he's a dime a dozen criminal-class punk, who had the good fortune of running into some middle class pseudo-revolutionary white girls".
Tom's statement kicks some serious ass.
One of the best I've read in a long time.
Although I have a few reservations... his points are hard to argue.
Katie said..."That's another big reason that this case was notorious. Charlie's behavior..."
Yes Katie, and I think one huge factor in the impact & ongoing notoriety of the case is Charlie's face-pulling to camera during the trial.
Images of the infamous bug-eyed hippy-cult brainwasher have really been planted firmly in the public imagination perhaps equal in true crime to the commonly held image of a cloaked & top-hatted Jack The Ripper.
I think the crazed-eyed press photos took this to another level... to visually accompany the tales of music, mayhem & celebrity-murder in such an interesting time & place setting.
Great post Cease2.
Thanks!
Ya know... I like Tom's quote so friggin' much, I added it to the blog's header.
That quote kicks ass.
It will remain there, until I get sick of looking at it... like those jelly beans. LOL
Like Harold True....
Whom I still listen to when I need a laugh...
Cease makes the great point -
Tex and Katie didn't have that wild eyed picture on the Cover of time imagine...
The face of evil lol put right out there so nobody could possibly get it wrong...
I don't think that Charlie would be successful in starting a cult or "family" in 2011 at his age now. He might still have the charisma but definitely not the stamina.
But if he was 33 years old in 2011, I think he could start one with no more effort or trouble than it took in 1967.
There are still plenty of empty-headed targets running around looking for love, validation, people with no self esteem that need someone to tell them what to do and why, a "daddy", etc.
Hi Cease. You're right.
That picture of Charlie on Life Magazine is probably the image most people still have of him.
And not just Charlie. We saw the killer-girls giggling, singing, making a mockery of one of the most sensational murder trials of the century, which made it even more chilling.
So what we have here then is ....
A guy who wasn't much more than a " petty five and dime thief"..
Who didn't personally do any of the most famous of the horrible things he is associated with
but somehow it all would lead him to become-
the most evil man alive
???
some pictures ( Time cover) really are worth a 1,000 words huh
Katie...
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
I really think girls in Boston today, would tell a 30+ year old, 5 foot 2 inch, ex-con, where to stuff his acoustic guitar... but, I could be wrong.
I know one thing...
He'd probably have to scrape a LOT closer to the bottom of the barrel... i.e., "crackhead chicks" and such.
I highly doubt college girls would be interested in a guitar-toting "minstrel", the size of a leprachaun... twice their age... fresh out of prison... these days.
BUT... as I said, I could be dead wrong.
Manson has been known to "re-invent" himself when needed.
I'll give you that.
He certainly IS a "survivor".
I'm sure he'd find someone to exploit, and survive.
I just think it would (likely) be on a smaller... (at least different) scale.
And remember... kids like "Star" are clinging to an already famous (or infamous) character.
I think he'd have to work much harder... (and have a bit more luck today), as compared to the 60's playground... that he was dealing with, back then.
I think the chances of Manson forming a "family" are "less likely" today.
"Less likely"... that's all I'm saying.
I rarely deal in absolutes...
And without the family... etc., etc., etc...
As, I already said ad-nauseam, so I'll stop.
Saint...
The reason (after some reflection), that I like Tom's comment so much is this:
Folks always make Manson out to be some sort of "genius"... a "mastermind"... a "mystery enigma".
I don't believe that.
What we really have here, is a "piece of shit"... plain and simple.
Manson was a mentally-ill criminal, very adept at exploiting others.
Moreover, he was in a "great arena" for this... i.e., the 60's in California.
A "gold mine" for a guy like Manson.
There's really no big "mystery", "genius", or "mastermind" to Manson.
Maybe the crimes and motive have those elements... but not Manson himself.
Manson's eventual incarceration was predictable, and inevitable.
Manson Exploited others until they had nothing left to give.
He made bad decisions... had constant criminal dealings.
He dealt with all the elements that eventually lead a person to jail.
Not surprisingly, that's where he ended-up... and where he belongs.
There's no "genius" or "mastermind" here.
Only the story of a man, who constantly flirted with the chemistry set of chemicals, which lead one to jail... and succeeded.
What we have here Saint is this:
"A piece of shit"...
Fill-in the rest of the story with whatever motive grabs ya... LOLOL
Guys like V717, constantly remind us, how Manson was "villified" by the media.
There's a great deal of truth to that... he was villified.
What folks like V717, fail to recognize or convey... is that the door swings both ways.
There's also a great deal of folks "sensationalizing" things in the other direction as well.
Positive spins, such as...
Manson is a "guru"... "a Shaman".... all this crap.
All these extremes (on both sides) are distorted.
He's neither "the boogey-man"... "the ultimate architect of evil"... OR "a Guru".
The man is:
A mentally-ill criminal, very adept at exploiting others.
That's all folks...
Now, the case itself, has "several interesting elements".
Manson himself, is really not Jesus or the Devil.
Take my word for it folks... or Tom's. LOL
>>Lynyrd said: Manson was a mentally-ill criminal, very adept at exploiting others.>>>
That's exactly right. He didn't have special powers, he was just adept at getting into people's minds and finding out what they wanted to hear.
>>>I really think girls in Boston today, would tell a 30+ year old, 5 foot 2 inch, ex-con, where to stuff his acoustic guitar... but, I could be wrong.>>>
The reason I disagree with you is that there are plenty of "cult leaders" today that are extremely unattractive and unappealing, yet have plenty of women followers who will do whatever they say.
In fact, I can't think of one cult leader who was good looking.
This goes back to the cult activity we discussed on a previous thread.
But, Lynyrd, we have to recognise that Charlie had some qualities that your common & garden variety mentally sick criminal rarely has: charisma & a way with words.
Always struck me that if Charlie wasn't illiterate that he coulda made a living as a preacher of sorts. Abused flock and all.
Okay I just read where the new craze to save money on groceries is to "dumpster dive".
They now refer to it as being a "freegan". HA HA.
Next thing we know it'll be popular to "creepy crawl".
That'll make the Birdbrain of Corcoran smile :)
>>>That'll make the Birdbrain of Corcoran smile :)>>>
Yeah Cease! HA HA.
Charlie could have been a traveling preacher, bilking congregations out of money. He could even have had the "healing ceremonies" with his followers being the "fake sick". I guess it was more exciting and lucrative to steal and kill. LOL.
"healing ceremonies" LOL. I can just imagine!
The young Jim Jones was a door-to-door monkey salesman. I was thinkin Charlie coulda done that. "Ya can't make a monkey outta Manson", coulda called it maybe.
Cease2 said:
>>>>"But, Lynyrd, we have to recognise that Charlie had some qualities that your common & garden variety mentally sick criminal rarely has: charisma & a way with words".<<<<
Don't get me wrong Cease2, I like Manson on a personal level.
Like Mike Tyson... I could listen to Manson rap for hours.
Heck... I already HAVE listened to Manson rap for hours... albeit, by way of video. LOL
He's funny as hell... and amazingly, after all these years, he still sees the humor in the whole mess.
He's a likable guy... on a personal level.
I've often said:
If I were in jail, Manson would be my first choice as a cellmate.
He'd entertain me for hours... and, if he got his guitar back... it would be phenomenal... we could jam!
With any luck at all... Star would visit once in a while.
YES!
... or who knows, maybe AC from Michigan once a year.
What with all the free gifts in the mail... and all the "yarn scorpions" one could desire... what's not to love?
I wonder if any young female fans still send nude photos? LOL
Besides... I'd take my chances with a 5 foot 2, aging hippie, over... well... let's just say... "many other cellmate possibilites" in prison. LOL
But C'mon... "Guru"? "enlightened"?... that's taking it a little too far.
The world is evidently in desperate need of a hero.
I think the case 'collectively" is very interesting and complex.
Manson's "MIND" is complex... I'll give you that!
Heck... a psychologist could spend a lifetime rolling-around in there.
AHahahaha
But, all-in-all... I really don't think Manson would have been anything special, under different circumstances.
('Course, I guess we could apply that logic to almost ANY famous person, couldn't we?
What would Beethoven have been known for "sans music", I suppose.)
...and we're back to square one. LOLOL
The beauty of blogging... you always end-up, right where you started, and hence, never run out of material!!!! hahaha
Manson's being in prison, is not at all shocking, or mysterious... that's for darn sure.
I guess that's the one "absolute" we can take from this.
That guy was going to end-up back in the slams, one way or another, regardless of TLB, time or place!
"He was made for prison, and prison was made for him"
TOM G.
Maybe THAT should be the blog header, instead?
Circumstance... sorry for bringing you into this.
My deepest apologies...
AHahahahaha
One thing's for sure... Dilligaf will never be back. LOL
Sorry dude...
It gets "passionate" in here. : )
I'm very good, as long as people keep telling me, I'm correct. LOL
OK... here's Tom's other great "Manson quote", from his "1995 Fantasy parole Thread"...
Regarding Tom's "Fantasy parole" prediction for Manson:
"Manson would be scooped-up within a week or two for parole violations. Charlie was never a rules guy. He would learn that maybe they didn't take fraternizing with minors too seriously in the 60's. In the 90's, they took it very seriously. This fellow was meant for prison and prison was meant for him".
LOLOL That seriously Rocks!
I'm not sure which quote, I like better... or which is more accurate.
>>>Lynyrd said: I've often said:
If I were in jail, Manson would be my first choice as a cellmate.
He'd entertain me for hours... and, if he got his guitar back... it would be phenomenal... we could jam!
With any luck at all... Star would visit once in a while.
YES!>>>
Okay somebody dial 9-1-1. Lynyrd has snapped.
Lynyrd, do you see a pod lying near you? Don't go to sleep...just run like hell buddy! HA HA.
: )
I've gone over to the "other side" Katie!
AHahahaha
This is Epic!
The blog has been torn in two, like the famous shroud in the bible!
LOLOL
Saint has gone to ponder the unponderable, I expect ...Whos the biggest conman? Manson, Bug or Life Magazine? Are Manson Bloggers victims too? Who's on first?
Okay that's it Lynyrd.
According to the official handbook of the LSB3.com blog, I am assuming command of this blog.
Chief of the Blog, take Lynyrd below to his quarters. I'm taking over the Con.
Lynyrd, when I have regained control of the con, you will be allowed to return, but only if you agree to do no more than drool, shake your head in a confused daze and clap your hands together in droll, monotone beat.
When we have excised the "them" out of you, things will resume to normal.
HA HA HA.
Sorry LS,
I have taken far worse over the past 25 years. I am just enjoying the banter for now. I tend to look at CM from a prosecutor's perspective is all, so I find this entertaining.
Having seen CM in his PHU, I would agree that he is not physically intimidating in the least...
Party on, Garth.... :)
>>>Cease said: Saint has gone to ponder the unponderable, I expect ...Whos the biggest conman? Manson, Bug or Life Magazine? Are Manson Bloggers victims too? Who's on first?>>>
HA HA.
First of all he needs to know that it's not Time Magazine like he said, it's Life Magazine.
That might make a lot of difference in his deliberation.
I don't know's on second. LOL.
Dilligaf said:
>>>>"Sorry LS,
I have taken far worse over the past 25 years. I am just enjoying the banter for now. I tend to look at CM from a prosecutor's perspective is all, so I find this entertaining.
Having seen CM in his PHU, I would agree that he is not physically intimidating in the least...
Party on, Garth.... :)"<<<<
----------------------------------------
If we're nothing else here at LSB3.COM, we're entertaining. LOL
As my late great uncle used to say (literally):
"If you can't dazzl'em with facts, baffl'em with bullshit"!
AHahahaha
On a much more serious note...
I wrote a couple threads concerning Bugliosi, Motive, Prosecution, Conviction and Manson.
If you're a prosecutor, I'd like you to take a serious look at them both (when you have the chance),
and tell me what you think.
I'm quite proud of those threads actually, and I believe they're pretty accurate, from a layman's perspective.
If your assessment is positive, you can post your response right here on this thread... or, whatever thread we're on at the time. LOL
If I missed the mark by too much... just give me your thoughts in an e-mail.
AHahahaha
Lynyrdskynyrdband@gmail.com
(It's also listed in the sidebar.)
Here's the threads:
http://www.lsb3.com/2011/07/my-two-cents-on-bugliosi-and-helter.html
http://www.lsb3.com/2011/09/i-was-reading-colonels-blog-as-i.html
The poor bastard shows-up for one comment, and I give him homework. LOL
Dilligaf... if you're too busy to read those threads and critique', then don't bother.
No offense taken, at all...
Peace... Lynyrd
Why doesn't Charlie ever get a cellmate?
Mr. P., Charlie doesn't get a cellmate because (a) he bores them to death, (b) he goes into his psycho rages and makes them sick, (c) he plays the gi-tar and and makes them want to kill thangs, (d) he tries to control them and get them to get him candy and such and it makes them mad, (e) he tries to get Star to give them favors so he can get out, (f) he reminds them of an incestuous cousin, (g) he threatens that Sandy will make sure they will die, (h) he promises them they will get out and get to live with Squeaky, or (i) he irritates them with visions of the apocalypse and hiding in the desert so much they try to kill him.
Take your pick. HA HA.
Well Casey Anthony's old defense attorney, Cheney Mason, was taken to the horspital yesterday because of chest pains.
He was trying to swallow what he sold to the jury.
HA HA.
But seriously folks, if I had to have a job in the court system, I'd like to be the court clerk.
That gal doesn't do anything but swear people in..."Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...so help you God?"
And then, she's the one who gets to read the verdict.
"In The State of California versus Charles Manson, Case #____, In Charge #1, Conspiracy to Commit Murder, We the Jury Find the Defendant...GUILTY."
HA HA.
That's the job I want!!! LOL.
In watching these court cases, I'm amazed at how much control the Judge has.
Here come da judge. HA HA.
Seriously, this guy has control over who can move, breathe and say anything in his courtroom. Wow! Talk about control.
This guy is like the Darth Vader of the courtroom.
You can't approach the witness without his permission. You can't bring up stuff that's not in evidence. You can't bring up stuff that's not in deposition.
You can't do ANYTHING without his permission.
How do you become a judge? That's what I wanna know. LOL.
I like Judge Mathis. I like it when he brings that hammer down and says "you're in contempt of court because you're a crack-head. Case dismissed".
HA HA.
All the judge has to say is "sustained" or "overruled".
And it's at his/her discretion.
Can you imagine that power. Wow!
I like hearing this so I'll sustain it, or I don't like this so I'll overrule it.
Oh, I'm just kidding. (Doyle Hargraves). HA HA.
Do you know who you're talkin' to???
My name is SHERIFF BUFORD T JUSTICE...
A distinguished officer, of over 30 years seniority!
And THAT car is EVIDENCE... VALUABLE EVIDENCE... that's gonna convict a MANIAC! AHahahaha
LYNYRD!!! YOU'RE BACK!!!
I knew those scalywags couldn't hold you. HA HA HA.
I knew you'd come back!
I'm tired of "filling in" and doing "shadow pictures" and knock-knock jokes and such.
Oh I didn't do my knock-knock jokes. Well...another time.
Wow this has been a long set. Pheeewwwww.
I'm taarrrarrred. HA HA. I'm hitting the hay.
Others of you can feel free to carry on. LOL.
LS,
In Re Two Cents, for the most part I concur. While it is not necessary to argue motive to win a conviction, it goes a long way in helping the jury to understand your case and reach the appropriate conclusion. As such, Reason #3 most fit the needs of Bugliosi. It wrapped the common thread around the necks of all defendants, pulling together for an effective noose. Though there was certainly individual reasons for the involvement of each, it would have been too abstract to present, especially since all were tried in a single trial. There were certainly strategic benefits in presenting a common HS motive. It also allowed Bugliosi to play upon the deep psychological fears that many harbored about a hippie lifestyle, and the perceived threat.
The comments about Bugliosi's ego is accurate for most of us. We enter law school with an ego, law school just helps hone and define it.
However, I do not find the use of HS to be unethical. As I said, motive is not required for a conviction, and you do not have to believe in the motive you present, you just cannot present something that you know is false. People have been trying to prove HS was n creation of the District Attorney's office since the trial, and it still has not been proven such yet.
As far as Manson convicting himself, you are pretty much on the mark. It is not often that you have a defendant with the level of self-confidence that Manson had, when you do, you attempt to manipulate it as much as you can. Manson, the classic institutionalized manipulator, found himself manipulated. He could not bear the thought that he was not in control of himself. He had to prove that while he was not responsible for anyone but himself, he also could not allow himself to be portrayed as a follower same as the rest.
It did not help that Kanarek was a wrong choice of an attorney. The defense case quickly became a train wreck, though not by design. The benefit of it though, was that it helped the jury to buy into a theory in with Manson was in charge of the family.
Bottom line, I have always felt that the District Attorney's office, and Bugliosi did a masterful job on a case that had more loose ends than tassles on a rug.
Hello Dilligaf.
Thanks for your time, input, and opinion.
Jeez... that was well-written!
You've included so much information, in such a concise manner... it's going to take me three days to absorb it all! LOL
Responding may take a week. : )
I'll just say thanks for now... and work at it for a few days.
Now I see what Kanarek was up against! LOL
Thanks Again... Lynyrd
Dilligaf said:
>>>>"It wrapped the common thread around the necks of all defendants, pulling together for an effective noose. Though there was certainly individual reasons for the involvement of each, it would have been too abstract to present, especially since all were tried in a single trial. There were certainly strategic benefits in presenting a common HS motive".<<<<
I definitely agree with that statement.
Dilligaf said:
People have been trying to prove HS was n creation of the District Attorney's office since the trial, and it still has not been proven such yet.[end quote]
Poirot replies:
Touche'.
A more important question [imo] is why the defense rested immediately after the prosecution rested. I don't understand how Judge Older allowed that. I don't see why Charlie didn't appeal his conviction on those grounds.
Dilligaf said:
>>>>"People have been trying to prove HS was n creation of the District Attorney's office since the trial, and it still has not been proven such yet".<<<<
I believe Manson preached "Helter Skelter" at the ranch.
I believe that 100%.
Whether Manson believed it himself, or just used it as a manipulation tool, is beside the point.
It was discussed at the ranch.
"Helter Skelter" has been echoed by way to many people who were actually there, to be a complete fabrication (by Bugliosi).
Was it the "true motive"... I couldn't say.
But, I'm personally convinced it was discussed at the ranch, and not a fabrication from thin air, as some would have us believe.
Dilligaf said:
>>>>"It is not often that you have a defendant with the level of self-confidence that Manson had, when you do, you attempt to manipulate it as much as you can. Manson, the classic institutionalized manipulator, found himself manipulated. He could not bear the thought that he was not in control of himself. He had to prove that while he was not responsible for anyone but himself, he also could not allow himself to be portrayed as a follower same as the rest".<<<<
I Agree.
Dilligaf said:
>>>>"Bottom line, I have always felt that the District Attorney's office, and Bugliosi did a masterful job on a case that had more loose ends than tassles on a rug".<<<<
Bugliosi was a GENIUS.
There's no two ways about it.
The man was president of his graduating class at UCLA.
He lost only one... "ONE"... out of 106 felony cases he tried as a prosecutor.
He won 21 out of 21 murder cases.
That's a .990566% success rate as a prosecutor!
Love him or hate him... the guy was a brilliant attorney.
Bugliosi successfully predicted how Manson was going to play his cards... and played him like a used fiddle. LOL
in new hampshire a set of murders occured which i believe are worse that tate/labianca. they are the petit family murders look it up, it's disgusting beyond belief, but i don't know the killers names. there is something different about manson, etc. i knew who he was when i was six years old. why are the petit murders, not making the national crime arena more?
also i think manson could mesmirize kids today, he would have to change his image though to maybe a punk, with a lot more tattoo's and maybe a skateboard. i live in portland, oregon and we have a huge amount of homeless youth here--the police don't bother them as much here, so they head here when they hear that. all manson would have to do is 15-20 of these kids give them crack or meth and they'll be a lot more violent that the Family ever thought of being. mesmerizing and persuasive speaking abilities + drugs + people who are angry and easy to persuade = tate/labianca 2011.
Hey Beauders!!
Assuming Manson was still in his thirties, and being released soon... it's definitely possible.
I'm sure Manson would "scope-out" all the "prime" locations, before his release.
He'd probably head immediately to some "hot-bed" run-away spot (like the Portland area you're describing)... where "down and out" kids abound, and laws are lax... and "set out on his exploitation tasks".
It's probably no surprise, that Manson chose California in the 60's either... when you think about it.
I suppose exploitation is exploitation, and it happens somewhere in all societies.
By all accounts... Manson WAS a very effective Con-Man.
Maybe, at the end of the day... You and Katie are correct.
Like Frank Sinatra... maybe a young Manson, would have "made it anywhere". LOL
I moved Tom's quote to the sidebar.
It was bothering me in the header. LOL
LynyrdSkynyrdBand
He says: "Positive spins, such as...
Manson is a "guru"... "a Shaman".... all this crap.
All these extremes (on both sides) are distorted.
He's neither "the boogey-man"... "the ultimate architect of evil"... OR "a Guru".
The man is:
A mentally-ill criminal, very adept at exploiting others."
-You think that when i mention Manson as a "Shaman" (and he is) it was meant as a positive declaration from my side. You associate "Shaman" with something essentially "Good." I Do not.
Manson has powers that goes beyond what most people can fathom. But that dosen´t necessarily signify that he is a good person. All spirits are not divine, you know. I am not so naive that you might think I am. Although I personally don´t think he instigated those murders (for various reasons); I belive that such a commune that he was the spiritual leader of can´t exist within the ordinary society.
That was the reason Manson took the members out in the desert and promised them they would all live in a literal land of milk and honey. He had to tell them stories of that kind because those uneducated hippie kids and drop outs wouldn´t have understood that all the talk of the bottomless pit and the battle of Armageddon was just a rewriting for a "spiritual trip" not meant to be taken literal.
But everyone have to decide for themselves what is true or not. As Manson says: "Home is were you happy."
V717 said:
>>>>"Manson has powers that goes beyond what most people can fathom.<<<<
Powers???
He's just a man.
You really need to find a new hero.
V717 said:
>>>>"He had to tell them stories of that kind because those uneducated hippie kids and drop outs wouldn´t have understood that all the talk of the bottomless pit and the battle of Armageddon was just a rewriting for a "spiritual trip" not meant to be taken literal:.
Most of the kids, were better educated than Manson himself.
LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...
Most of the kids, were better educated than Manson himself.
-I was not talking about intellectualism.
>>>>"Manson has powers that goes beyond what most people can fathom.<<<<
Powers???
He's just a man.
-You just gave an answer to your own question.-
-Hero there are no heroes here.-
Beauders, I have been following the trials of the 2 killers of the Petit family, Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky.
Hayes was convicted and given the death penalty. Kominsarjevsky was just found guilty and they are going through the punishment phase of his trial now. I'm sure he will get the death penalty.
During Kominsarjevsky's trial, his defense lawyers tried to blame the victims. That back-fired big time.
I feel badly for Dr. Petit because he had to sit through 2 trials and listen to the grisly details twice and during the 2nd trial he had to listen to how it was all his fault. Amazingly low and cruel of the defense. There is no defense for what they did.
It's finally over for him.
Manson set to study Scientology, hypnotism and other isms while in prison in the early 60s. His intention was to utilize said knowledge to better control his hookers once he was released. He planned to go back to pimping only when he was released he met up with hippie chicks who were more apt to belive the new isms he had so studiously acquired. Manson did have powers beyond what he relized. either that or hippies were dumber than he thought.
It's a typical defense tactic to do a "shotgun blame" at everyone to try to minimize the blame of their client. But to blame murder victims who were raped and set on fire is pretty low.
I don't recall the defense attorneys in the Manson trial ever blaming the victims. At least, as far as I can recall they didn't.
Mr. P. I agree totally. Manson's goal was to control women to work for him as hookers. He was a pimp. In prison, he learned new ways to do that.
>>>Manson did have powers beyond what he relized. either that or hippies were dumber than he thought.>>>
I don't think Manson had any power at all except a good line of bullshit. And...the hippy chicks he chose weren't so much dumb, as gullible and ripe for the picking.
"The fact that you are a sheriff in Arkansas is not germaine to the subject"...
" The Goddamn Germans got nothing to do with it"
- Buford T Justice
Sorry it was Life not Time- BUT
I am still pondering :)
Not the Bugs debate again-
I think he was a great attorney with an excellent record. A terrible person- with many personal issues. regardless of all or any of this....
Never in our history has society wanted to be able to feel safe that we had secured the monster so our kids could sleep. Never in our history have defendants tried less to go free. never has a Defendant( Charlie) done more to act the part of the Devil he is being portrayed as- right down to shaving head/carving X / attacking judge...
loos ends in the case??? he may or not have done an excellent job in this case- he really didn't have to do anything but show up every day and let Charlie and Company validate everyone's worst fears about how crazy these people really were
NO?
He was handed a slam dunk
Hi St.!
>>>he really didn't have to do anything but show up every day and let Charlie and Company validate everyone's worst fears about how crazy these people really were>>>
Well I wouldn't simplify it like that. Even though Charlie & Co. acted like heathens and made a mockery of the trial, Bugliosi still had lots of homework to do and witnesses to find to testify as to Charlie's involvement in the murders. If he had just showed up every day and done nothing, he probably wouldn't have convicted Charlie for more than being a nutjob.
These witnesses were fearful to testify against Charlie, and justifiably so. The girls who weren't in jail were making death threats left and right. And given their proclivity for killing, that was a pretty scary threat.
nobody could testify to Charlie killing anyone on either of those nights- because it just didn't happen :)
didn't matter- they still sentenced him to die for it...
people wanted someone to pay, and to know the boogeyman was locked up...
Charlie offered himself right up for it- he did NOTHING to help himself or EVEN TRY to explain he wasn't the with the knives...
Wouldn't you at least try and make an argument for yourself facing death???
HE DID NOTHING BUT MAKE IT LOOK WORSE AND WORSE - DAY BY DAY... He accepted and relished the role of EVIL leader- he played it up!!!
How could any prosecutor ask for more????
now somebody get me a Diablo Sandwich and a doctor Pepper and make it snappy I'm in a goddamn hurry...
:)
St., I really think, as has been mentioned by Lynyrd and Dilligaf, that Charlie's mouth and ego were his own worst enemies.
It was all a big game for Charlie. A game he thought he could win. And that played right into Bugliosi's hands.
Give him enough rope.....
And it worked.
Yes Katie- I agree with 99% of whats written by all on this entire thread...
It is just one paragraph- and one alone I take issue with:
Bottom line, I have always felt that the District Attorney's office, and Bugliosi did a masterful job on a case that had more loose ends than tassles on a rug.
And I like and agree with everything else Dilligaf said....
But I would not call Bugs job masterful... and dont think all the loose ends in the world would have mattered considering the defendants personal indifference during the trial...
Corpus Dilecti - Read this book. It is the story of the first case in US history where a guilty verdict and Death Penalty were awarded without an actual body of the victim...
It will redefine your opinion of a Masterful job of prosecution...
what Bugs did was very very easy in the big picture of things...
Someone did unspeakable things- that nobody had ever heard of before- when your accused are playing games in the court room and shaving there heads and singing- laughing... and there friends are walking around outside with knives threatening people...
How hard do you possibly think that could have been for Bugs??? I make the argument that loosing that case would have been a career ender- worse than OJ or Casey Anthony- who at least tried to act innocent...
imagine Casey Anthony getting up in court and lunging at the judge or shaving her head and laughing through the trial...
Or OJ giving a speech at the close of his trial threatening others???
lol Bugs got all that and more
St. I understand what you are saying and I agree with you 100%.
Convicting the girls was easy. Physical evidence and testimony placed them at the murders and proved they were willing participants.
But convicting Charlie was different. Bugliosi’s main job was tying Charlie into this mess, with no physical evidence. Trying to convince the jury that a short con man could turn these seemingly normal young people into “zombie-minded” killers. That was not an easy job.
The jury could see that Charlie had mental problems and that he was controlling these girls, but….did he get them to commit murder? That was the question. And Bugliosi proved it to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
As far as if Casey Anthony had tried to attack the judge, I can't say if the jury would have convicted her. They were all dumber than dirt anyway.
Last comment by me on the subject- because I dont want to be argumentative
BUT lol Katie you said :
Trying to convince the jury that a short con man could turn these seemingly normal young people into “zombie-minded” killers. That was not an easy job.
The jury could see that Charlie had mental problems and that he was controlling these girls, but….did he get them to commit murder? That was the question. And Bugliosi proved it to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
NOT in my opinion...
How hard was it for the jury to believe Charlie had power over them of SOME kind- when they were right in front of the jury mimicking Charlie- amen-ing him after he spoke- Shaving there heads and Xing there heads after Charlie...
it was right in front of there eyes... The jury did not have to take Bugs words for it- they Girls PERFORMED IT...
I say they could not have made it any easier for Bug " if they tried"- barbecue in my opinion the were proud of it and DID TRY... They not only didn't try to prove Charlie wasn't the mastermind- they made it clear he was the Master in any and every way...
I mean if someone is standing next to you and I am told you are a zombie follower to this person- I would need it proved to me Becuase that sounds crazy. But- If I was told the same thing- and you are dressed the same as the person next to you, and every time they spoke you said Amen, and every time this person acted or dressed more bizarrely- you followed suit-
Maybe I dont need so much proving any more????
>>>St. said: How hard was it for the jury to believe Charlie had power over them of SOME kind- when they were right in front of the jury mimicking Charlie- amen-ing him after he spoke- Shaving there heads and Xing there heads after Charlie...>>>
St. I agree. But "amen-ing, shaving and x-ing their heads" is light years away from cold-bloodedly killing complete strangers, just because he told them to.
Well your right about that Katie...
I see the point there
it is a stretch from pricking yourself with a bobby pin, and sticking a knife into a pregnant women....
I cant argue with that :)
Okay St. We'll call it a draw! :)
LOL- Katie- you got it!!
If I may weigh-in. LOLOL
Without Charlie's antics, and the "antics" of the family collectively (inside the courtroom and out)... it's very likely Bugliosi would have lost his case against Manson.
It's almost certain.
Charlie... and "the family" collectively... demonstrated to the jury, time and time again... unceasingly actually... through their own actions... that "Manson was in-charge".
They did indeed seal the case for Bugliosi.
Saint is correct on that point.
BUT...
Bugliosi was keen enough, to observe these clowns before the trial, and successfully predict they would behave that way.
He predicted their behavior "ahead of time"... and he was correct.
HE THEN... fashioned his entire case around that prediction... rolled those dice, and won.
THAT'S the genius of Bugliosi in this particular case.
Bugliosi knew Manson had too much pride to "relinquish" his throne... and the kids were too fried, to switch gears.
Bugliosi used the entire sitution as leverage... to his EXTREME advantage... and of course, it worked.
Bugliosi made it look easy, but a lesser lawyer (like say Kanarek)... may have failed.
A lesser lawyer may not have recognized those tools AHEAD, and using them to his advantage.
Keep in mind...
All this seems ridiculously simplistic to us "monday morning quarterbacks" now.
The events have already taken place... and we KNOW what happened.
But remember... Bugliosi was working the case of the Century... prosecuting several defendents simultaneously... primarily working alone... with little time to prepare... with the weight (as Saint admitted) of society counting on him, to exact swift justice... and the guy fashioned just the right sword... again, "ahead of time", to take Manson down... with little to zero physical evidence.
The guy was pretty sharp.
ALSO... a side order of HS... LOL
I really believe the jury convicted Manson... because Bugliosi, Manson and "the family" proved to them (the jury)... that Manson was in-charge.
They were convinced that Manson was in-charge, and thusly a conspirator.
That's why they returned a guilty verdict.
The Helter Skelter motive was never completely sold to the jury... and hence, it didn't have to be.
Bugliosi only needed a motive which necessitated Manson at the reigns... and HS did.
Another pretty sharp move by Bugliosi...
Bottom line:
If a shitty lawyer, played his cards wrong, he could have lost this case.
There was really only one route to convicting Manson (with all the lack of physical evidence on him)... Bugliosi recognized that one route "ahead of time"... and took it.
Bottom Line #2:
The case was GIVEN to Bugliosi by Manson and "the Family".
It WAS a "slam-dunk".. but, ONLY because Bugliosi set-up his case that way.
Hope I made some sense...
I'm late for a dentist appointment. LOL
"And that f#ckin' Booga-loosey man... the way he wheels-and-deals..."
Harold True
Lynyrd you're right. But we haven't mentioned that Bugliosi faced all kinds of obstacles when he was doing discovery, pre-trial investigation and live trial testimony.
He had to contend with the LAPD & LASO screw-ups, which set him back countless hours. He had to deal with uncooperative witnesses who were afraid of Manson. He had to deal with lying family members who refused to implicate Manson. He had to deal with literal death threats and worry about his and his family's safety. He had to deal with Kanarek who spent 99% of his time objecting to testimony and questioning which costs hours of lost time and was confusing to the jury. Not to mention that the trial lasted for months.
Also, Bugliosi had no guarantees that Charlie wouldn't wise up sometime during the trial and order the girls to stop imitating him.
Manson at any time could have picked up on the signals the girls were sending out and realize that it was hurting him...not helping him.
If he had done that, Bugliosi would have had a much harder time making his case, in my opinion.
All the Manson Family lost all their cases. Even Leslie had three trials and blew it when she made a field goal late in the 1st trial to tie it up only to lose in the third overtime.
Right on Mr. P.
That must have been a huge disappointment to the High School Princess to find out she wasn't going free after all. HA HA.
I wonder what Leslie's thoughts are today about Bobby Beausoleil. After all it was Bobby's stupid murder/robbery attempt that led to Leslie volunteering the Labianca mission in the stupid hope of getting Bobby released from jail. Surely she must have thought a thousand times how unfortunant it was for her to fall for Bobby because it was he who led her to Manson. Did Leslie become a murderer for Manson or to save Bobby? I've never heard Leslie ever mention Bobby even once in interviews. Leslie was involved in a threesome with Bobby and Gail. Bobby dumped Leslie.
Bobby has some thoughts on the subject on his website...
Actually- he tried to keep LULU from going with the other girls back to meet Charlie when they all first crossed paths- but LULU was insistent she wanted to go back to the ranch with the girls she had met- and Bobby felt that the " possession thing" was not something that people did in those times, so he let her go...
he does acknowledge the fact that not for him- she might not have met the others, and he makes a token show of feeling over it- but not much else...
LULU was a seeker- and doing very wild things before she met any of the family....
very kinky swinger couple sex stuff- early age abortion...
Bobby didn't deliver an angel to the devil...
He pointed out the direction to hell to a fellow traveler
:)
St C do you suspect that Bobby thought Manson was trouble? Charlie really liked Bobby but Bobby never joined the Family officially. bobby only visited the Ranch. there are no pics of Bobby at the Rsnch so he apparently didn't even visit there that much. Bobby hung around Garey's house more than Spahn's Ranch.
Poirot made a point earlier, which intrigues me.
Essentially, Poirot's point was this:
"To hell with the prosecution... we've studied it to death... is there any information on the defense?"
I agree...
Dilligaf... you seem to be our best resource for this topic.
Please shed some light on exactly what (or, what didn't) happen with the defense.
We've exhausted the prosecution side... but, the defense in this case is rarely... if ever... discussed.
Can someone... anyone... please gives us a glimpse into what the hell happened with the defense... other than the usual "Charlie got rail-roaded" speech?
I mean, legal specifics?...
That's a subject, which would interest me as well.
I dont think Bobby - at that time- thought Charlie was trouble....
He had hung around some serious people already at that age of his life...
Kenneth Anger was into some serious shit- and Bobby went along for that ride Pre- Charlie
I have read Bobby's entire site- including all of his interviews, and every reply to an email he has ever put on there....
He is an ARROGANT MAN!!! He is very much in love with himself, he shows all the signs and take that from someone who would know :)
I think - at that phase of things- he was too full of himself, and had more interest in his own thing and keeping that going....
I think Charlies was a place to go for easy fun- but as far as joining full time- too much competition, He worshiped himself much too much- to give over complete control to Charlie or anyone else...
Some have egos that strong...
Pre- Charlie- Bobby had his own harem- had his own Rock and Roll contacts- had played music with more relevant poeple than Charlie- and had appeared in a movie ( Mondo Hollywood) with some of the most hip people of that time...
I dont think he would play second to Charlie- but he probably sucked up to him a few times when it suited his needs....
That is how I feel based on what I have read
L/S- there isn't much said about the defense- because there wasn't one.
They changed attorneys at every chance they were allowed. They would not cooperate in any way. The only thing the Defense Attorneys could do by the end of the trial that was within the law, and in there own clients best interest- was to end it as quickly as possible....
what is very interesting- and what I once researched and posted on Col's site....
is how successful and wealthy most of them wound up later in life...
what and if that had anything to do with the trial association- I leave to you- but the percentage of them who wound up being big time in one way or another is pretty stunning...
Mr. P., Horseteeth, in her own words "volunteered with her eyes" to go on the LaBianca mission.
Not because of Bobby, but because she wanted to kill.
Why? Because she wanted to get in favor with Manson.
I will say this about the defense.
As St. said, they changed attorneys more often than they changed their underwear.
Why? Because Charlie said.
Anyone who knows anything about defending someone in a murder trial knows that it takes hours, weeks, maybe months to go through all the exhibits and evidence and familiarize themselves with the case.
These new attorneys didn't have that luxury. It was "okay Tuesday it's Mr. "X" and Wednesday it's Mr. "Y".
At the time, the defense attorneys felt it was best that the girls (their clients) not take the stand, even though Charlie wanted them to.
They knew that these girls were going to sacrifice themselves to get Charlie off, and they felt that they would be violating an oath if they allowed their client(s) to throw themselves "under the bus" to save their master.
Today in California (and in every state I guess), a defendant has the right to make their own decision to take the stand.
i.e., Conrad Murray, in California, recently was told at great length by the judge that the decision to take the stand was his alone, that it wasn't up to his attorneys or anyone else, and "did he understand that right as it was read to him?"
I guess back in 1969, that "right" didn't exist.
If you will all remember, Charlie was able to testify, but I believe it was when the jury was out of the room, and that famous soliloquy is probably now recorded in the annals of crime.
He ranted and raved about how society was to blame, everyone's parents were to blame, poor me, blah, blah, blah.
If Charles Manson had been serious about this mess, if he was getting a little nervous about the fact that he might be found guilty, he could have calmed down and made a sane plea to the jury that he was misunderstood.
That he was just a pawn.
That he wasn't in charge of anything.
That he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
That Tex was running the show.
That Linda Kasabian was lying.
But...he didn't. Why? Because he couldn't relinquish the reins. He couldn't admit to anyone, especially himself, that he wasn't in charge.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Charles Manson, convicted murderer, convicted narcissus, convicted sociopath, convicted liar and convicted dumbass. HA HA.
Katie, that right existed in '69 as well.
I always look forward to when a defendant takes the stand, for they mistakenly believe that they can always convince the jury they did not do it. Being on the stand can create anxiety and can be nerve-wracking, and that is just on Direct. On Cross is when the fun begins and most defendants show their true side. Emotions come out that they wish would not, and the jury gets a more complete picture. If I can get a rise out of them early, they not only show aggressiveness in their response, but then are combative in nature, and short in their responses, which typically does not sit well with juries. But you have to be careful to not be seen as being antagonistic by the jury or it will backfire.
Bugliosi would have loved to have CM on the stand, but if you thought the 18 days with Kasabian was something, this would have been a real doozy. You typically would have had objections coming from the other defense attorneys besides CM's. It would have been unmanagable for the judge, taking on another of it's own.
Dilligaf, thanks for replying.
I was going to say, that when a defendant makes the decision to take the stand, it can be the only chance to tell his/her side of the story, but it also puts him/her underfire to be torn to pieces by the prosecution, as you say "under cross".
Anyone with any brains (or should I say, anyone who is guilty) won't take the stand, but someone with Charlie's "chutzpah" would love to be in the limelight.
I know in reading Bugliosi's book that he made notes the entire time, hoping the get a chance to pop Charlie's cherry. Alas, it didn't happen.
>>>But you have to be careful to not be seen as being antagonistic by the jury or it will backfire.>>>
Yes indeed. There's a fine line to be crossed, and the jury can take it either way. However, it's a colossal time to get the jury to understand the mindset of the defendant, even though the defense attorneys have dressed the defendant up to look as they wish, advised the defendant to look sad and remorseful, etc.
In reality, if the defendant is indeed guilty, it's always a great tool to get the defendant angry enough to show his/her bad side to the jury.
Dilligaf, if the right to take the stand existed in 1969, why was that right denied to the girls by their attorneys. How did they get away with it?
>>>St said: what is very interesting- and what I once researched and posted on Col's site....
is how successful and wealthy most of them wound up later in life...>>>
St. I never heard this. Please fill us in on a new thread!!! :)
Yeah- I can go back and look it up- I mean its no surprise that LA defense Attorneys make money- but I remember a few went way beyond and above...
one became a DA of LA
a couple had really thriving Beverly hills practices...
stuff like that-
not a life working de gratis liberal cause cases if you get my drift...
like maybe poor Ron Hughes would have done...
Yeah St., poor Ron Hughes. He was definitely in the wrong place.
I don't think his death was due to the Manson family. I truly think it was an accident. I don't think they were that smart.
Thanks for your help!!!
Well in honor of Tex's parole hearing, I was thinking of a "Beverly Hillbillies vs. the Manson Family".
Enter the Manson family into the Beverly Hillbillies pad:
Tex: I'm the devil and I'm here to do the devil's business.
Jed: Weeeeeeellllll.....doggies.
Tex: Everybody get in the parlor so I can tie your necks to the rope.
Jed: Well, I don't think Granny's gonna cotton to that, seein' as she's been spring cleanin'. But if you'd like to jump into the cement pond, we could see if Jethro could fetch you out.
Or we could go into that fancy dining room and use them pot passers. Granny can cook up some collard greens and hog jowls.
Tex: You old hayseed, I need money now.
Jed: Well Mr. Drysdale keeps my money but I guess he could pass you some. What is it you need?
Tex: You're all gonna die.
Jed: Well now I don't see any reason to be that unfriendly.
Jethro: Uncle Jed, should I whomp him now?
Jed: Yeah boy, I guess it's time.
Granny: I can see that you're not saluting the US flag that Jeff Davis sewed up. You're nuthin' but a scalywag. Jethro whomp him.
Jethro: Yes Ma'am Granny.
Tex: You can't take me, I'm the devil.
Jethro: Whomp!!!! (Tex dead)
Elly May: Granny, I've got that dandy sling-shot. Should I use it against them girls?
Granny: Yes darlin' I guess it's time. Aim right between the eyes.
Girls: I'm outta here! Fuck Charlie and his kill those pigs crap.
HA HA HA.
Or Tex Vs Green Acres:
Oliver Wendell Douglas: Well hi, who are you?
Tex: I'm the devil and here to do the devil's business.
OWD: Oh, well step right in and taste my wife's cooking.
Lisa: Oohh Ah-le-vah, who is dis?
OWD: Oh, it's an old friend of mine. He stepped in for breakfast.
Lisa: Ohhhh...I'm soooo glad. You can taste my hots-cakes.
HA HA HA
St. Circumstance said...
Yeah- I can go back and look it up- I mean its no surprise that LA defense Attorneys make money- but I remember a few went way beyond and above...
one became a DA of LA
a couple had really thriving Beverly hills practices...
stuff like that-
not a life working de gratis liberal cause cases if you get my drift...
like maybe poor Ron Hughes would have done...
November 15, 2011[end quote]
Poirot replies:
I thought I read where Kanarek died penniless and insane. Not that I'm saying he was ever sane in the 1st place. Kanarek's style of extreme obfuscation drove everyone away from him
But back to LuLu a second. Bobby took her and Gail to Spahn's. Gail never got in up to her neck like LuLu did. Perhaps Gail was pregnant? I can't recall. For some reason LuLu must have realized that she had lost Bobby so she went with Manson. If LuLu volunteered for Labianca she would be helping both Bobby and Charlie even though both of them couldn't care less about her. Odd that the beautiful homecoming queen kept getting dumped. even her parents adopted other kids which I think LuLu saw as a demotion in her biological family. I can see why she had low self esteem and was submissive.
Actually Mr. P
Bobby took Gail and LULU North of LA- he got a call from the ranch that a few of the girls were up his way on in a broken down vehicle- and Bobby took his girls to help the other girls...
While on this Rendezvous LULU met the other girls and left Bobby to go back to the ranch with them...
Bobby did not take LULU directly to the ranch for the first time...
There were a couple of exceptions- Interestingly enough- Kanarak was a very accomplished and successful person already when he came into the case... unlike the others who would get there much later
Post a Comment