Vincent Bugliosi, the Los Angeles County deputy district attorney who
gained worldwide fame for his successful prosecutions of Charles Manson
and his followers for the brutal 1969 murders of actress Sharon Tate
and six others, has died. He was 80.
A couple years back, Bugliosi was scheduled to do a talk and book-signing in my area.
I knew in my gut, that this event would be my last chance to meet the man in person.
So, I bought tickets to the event at a nominal fee.
I think I paid $12 for the ticket, or something like that.
I was really excited about going...
At the last minute, the event was cancelled due to Bugliosi's failing health.
It was a real bummer.
I knew at that point, that I'd never see Bugliosi in person.
You can say what you want about the man, but there's no denying, he was a very effective lawyer AND a piece of American history.
79 comments:
A couple years back, Bugliosi was scheduled to do a talk and book-signing in my area.
I knew in my gut, that this event would be my last chance to meet the man in person.
So, I bought tickets to the event at a nominal fee.
I think I paid $12 for the ticket, or something like that.
I was really excited about going...
At the last minute, the event was cancelled due to Bugliosi's failing health.
It was a real bummer.
I knew at that point, that I'd never see Bugliosi in person.
You can say what you want about the man, but there's no denying, he was a very effective lawyer AND a piece of American history.
I'm sorry to hear about his passing. He was a brilliant prosecutor, and he managed to put those animals away so they couldn't go after other victims. I hope he rests in peace!!!
By LINDA DEUTSCH and ANDREW DALTON, Associated Press
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Vincent Bugliosi, a prosecutor who parlayed his handling of the Charles Manson trial into a career as a bestselling author, has died, his son said Monday night. He was 80 years old.
Bugliosi, who had struggled with cancer in recent years, died Saturday night at a hospital in Los Angeles, his son, Vincent Bugliosi Jr., told The Associated Press.
Bugliosi Jr. said his father had "an unflagging dedication to justice" in everything he did.
As an author, Bugliosi Sr. was best known for "Helter Skelter," which was his account of the Manson Family and the killings of pregnant actress Sharon Tate and six others by followers of the cult leader, Charles Manson.
Bugliosi had prosecuted Manson and his female followers, winning convictions in one of America's most sensational trials.
He was an unknown Los Angeles deputy district attorney on Aug. 9, 1969, when the bodies of Tate, the beautiful actress wife of Roman Polanski, and four others were discovered butchered by unknown assailants who left bloody scrawlings on the door of her elegant home.
The victims included members of Hollywood's glitterati: celebrity hairdresser Jay Sebring; coffee heiress Abigail Folger; Polish film director Voityck Frykowksi; Tate, who was 8½-months pregnant; and Steven Parent, the friend of a caretaker.
A night later, two more mutilated bodies were found across town in another upscale neighborhood. The crime scene was marked with the same bloody scrawlings of words including, "Pigs" and "Rise" and "Helter Skelter." The victims were grocers Rosemary and Leno LaBianca, who had no connection to Tate and her glamorous friends.
Bugliosi was one of those assigned to the team of prosecutors while the case was being investigated. When members of the rag tag Manson Family were caught and charged with the crimes months later, a more veteran prosecutor, Aaron Stovitz, was named head of the district attorney's team and Bugliosi was assigned the second chair. But before long, a dispute arose between Stovitz and his boss over a remark he made to the media. He was summarily removed from the case and the intense, ambitious Bugliosi stepped into the role of a lifetime.
The trial of Manson and three female followers, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten, lasted 9½ months and became a courtroom drama that rivaled any cinematic trial. It cost Los Angeles County $1 million.
Bugliosi set the tone in his opening statement and closing argument, denouncing Manson as a murderous cult leader and his followers as young killers willing to do his bidding. He called the women "robots" and "zombies," manipulated by Manson — "a dictatorial maharajah of a tribe of bootlicking slaves."
He first proposed the theory that Manson was inspired to violence by the Beatles song "Helter Skelter," which the cult leader thought predicted a race war that Manson and his followers would foment.
Determined to show the breadth of the Manson Family's reach, Bugliosi called 84 witnesses, most of them a parade of disaffected young people who joined up with Manson and fell under his sway.
The trial became an exploration of the cult and its drug and sex fueled adoration of Manson whom members venerated as Jesus. He introduced 290 pieces of evidence.
At times, the defendants sought to taunt the prosecutor, jumping up and singing in court or grabbing at his papers on his lectern. The trial went on for so long that a defense lawyer disappeared and was found dead in the woods. Bugliosi maintained there was foul play but none was found.
Bugliosi's death was first reported Monday night by KNBC-TV.
Bugliosi was born in 1934 in Hibbing, Minn. He attended the University of Miami at Coral Gables, Fla., on a tennis scholarship and graduated from the law school of the University of California, Los Angeles.
After the Manson trial, he wrote "Helter Skelter" with collaborator Curt Gentry, and it became one of the bestselling crime books of all time.
He tried running for public office and lost, tried his hand on practicing defense law but ultimately returned to writing books. He wrote a dozen books, including the true-crime books, "Till Death Do Us Part," and "And The Sea Will Tell."
His non-fiction efforts, which took on controversial subjects, included "Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O. J. Simpson Got Away With Murder," and "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder."
Bugliosi Jr. said his father was most proud of his nearly 2,000-page examination of the Kennedy Assassination, "Reclaiming History," which took over 20 years to write.
But Bugliosi remained most associated with the Manson case for the rest of his life. Reflecting on it 40 years later, he said, "These murders were probably the most bizarre in the recorded annals of American crime...Evil has its lure and Manson has become a metaphor for evil."
Bugliosi and his wife of 59 years, Gail, had two children, Wendy and Vince Jr.
Thanks Stormy!!!! :)
Thank You Stormsurge.
It's always a pleasure to have you on the blog.
I always wondered if Ed Sander's book "The Family" would have been a mega seller had he named it Helter Skelter. They've tried reissuing Sander's book under different titles but sales never approached the numbers Bug sold despite Sander's book coming out in 71. Bug's book wasn't published till 1975 and sold like hotcakes. A good title sells the book. Imagine if Bug had named his book "Check Your Game Girl". Or worse what if Bug named it "Her Majesty"?
Bugliosi won death penalties for all four defendants in the TLB trial No other prosecutor has ever won four at one time. Prosecutors today can't even prosecute Cayleigh Anthony, OJ or Robert Blake.
They should have sent Bugliosi to Boulder to take on the Jon Benet Ramsey case.
Shhhh! Do you guys hear that? A strange sound off in the distance? Not sure if it's Charlie celebrating outliving Vince, or Vince spinning in his (soon to be) grave that even in death, he still gets upstaged by Manson!
Seriously though, sad to hear that the Bug has passed. Would have liked to pick his brain sometime.
Then again, after a few months in the ground we might still r chance!
I'm sorry......that's just wrong. Gonna go stand in the corner now! 'Night all!
RIP, Vincent Bugliosi.
Charlie outlived Vince because Vince couldn't afford Obamacare. Charlie got it for free.
LOL, MrPoirot!
LURCH!!!
OMG! I just mentioned your name to Katie two days ago!
Wow. It's been a long time!
Any more flashlight tours of Spahn's Ranch at midnight? LOL!
When Bugliosi first died, I had the same thought as Lurch, that Manson was probably celebrating.
More specifically, that Manson was probably getting some satisfaction from the fact that he outlived Bugliosi.
And yes, I'm sure there's an ounce of truth to that notion.
BUT...
I can also tell you from personal experience, that when someone from your era dies.... it makes you feel very old.
It makes you realize, that your own life is nearing a close.
You get that "end of an era" feeling, as I call it. And sometimes, that feeling hits really hard.
I'm sure Bugliosi's death also reminds Manson, that he's spent his entire life behind bars.
I'm sure Bugliosi's death also reminds Manson, that his "glory days" were a lifetime ago, and his road will soon end too.
I know older dogs like Leary, will relate to what I'm saying.
That "end of an era" feeling. It's a tough one.
Katie,
I swapped-out that ugly ass picture of Manson, for a photo of Bugliosi.
It seems more appropriate.
Thanks Lynyrd, I'm glad you changed that pic. I meant to do that and I kept forgetting. This is about Vincent Bugliosi, not Charles Manson.
And I agree, when someone your age dies, it reminds one of mortality....
MrPoirot said...
"I always wondered if Ed Sander's book "The Family" would have been a mega seller had he named it Helter Skelter..... They've tried reissuing Sander's book under different titles but sales never approached the numbers Bug sold despite Sander's book coming out in 71. A good title sells the book."
To people that love reading, I'm not so sure the title sells the book.
But Bugliosi's book has endured because it's a damn good book. The suspense and drama are kept up right from the little bit at the front that speaks of no fault being ascribed to the Beatles for Manson's interpretations. There are very few bits that drag on or get boring, it flows really well and contains a huge amount of info. I've read it more than 20 times and like some of the better books I've read multiple times, it opens up new vistas every time.
Now, there are aspects of the book that aren't entirely accurate in retrospect and some of Bugliosi's speculations have been shown to be wrong. But as a book that brings together the clash of two very different worlds, there are few better that I've seen.
He gets a lot of flak but I think that if one can try and put biases aside, it's a surprisingly balanced book, considering he's telling the story of what happened and his thoughts on it.
In a very real sense, few of us are really qualified to gauge his life as a human being simply because we can't be anything but biased, due to how he came into most of our lives. I would never have heard of him or taken any real notice of him had I not walked into Kingsway, a shop in a Nigerian city, one Monday in the October of 1978 as a 15 year old looking for a Christmas present to buy for my sister before I blew the money ! From tiny acorns do mighty oaks grow......
There are a bunch of TLB/Manson books that are page turners. Helter Skelter is definitely a page turner even if you think Bugs is nonsense. Of course there is the classic Ed Sanders' book "The Family" which is where we get the classic internet phrase OO-EE-OO. For those of you who think it's bad taste to laugh while reading about a bunch of heinous murders don't read this book. Ed seemed to see a lot of humor in heinous murders. Gotta wonder about that guy. Bugliosi is a classier guy. He doesn't use even one OO-EE-OO in his entire book although I would have cut him some slack if he OO-EE-OO'd after Charlie stopped his watch in court.
Hey Mr. P. What about "Coyotenoia?
On a lighter note, can you imagine the smell in the 1959 Ford when they headed out the 2nd night? Charlie, Linda, Clem, Leslie, Susan, Pat & Tex? All those stinky feet & bodies in that car. And the BO factor. Could even be BBO. The Beast!!! I'll bet that car never got over that smell, and had to be put down...
There are some people who wonder if Linda Kasabian would spill her guts now that VB is dead. Why? Why would she do that? What would she spill? I'm really just curious.
They first went to Sadie because she blabbed and they wanted her to testify and get immunity from the death penalty. Bugliosi was hesitant about this because Sadie's hands were dirty. She later recanted, Bugliosi breathed a sigh of relief, and offered it to Leslie. She said "no way".
Then it was offered to Linda K. She was third choice.
Not saying she's any kind of angel, just wondering what people think she would spill?
Wow, that's amazing! They've had every opportunity to say what Linda would say, but they didn't. It's been 3 hours, and they still don't know.
Well I guess they just don't know!!! And I'm assuming they will never know. So we won't have to hear about any of that forever!!! Nice!
I don't say night anymore.
Nice to see some respect shown for Mr. Bugliosi wether we agree with him & Helter Skelter or not I Believe to most of us H.S was our 1st introduction to the case
Hello Lynynrd nice to see you again & my sweet Katie big hugs thought I'd let you know Katie it seems I've managed to kick the Cancers ass back to Hell were it belongs
William!!! That's FANTASTIC NEWS!!! Big hugs for you my friend!!! SMOOCH!!
Hi William.
I'm glad your cancer is completely gone.
Here's wishing you many more years of health and happiness!
Thank You both wishing all a safe & awesome weekend
William, although I don't know you I have read about your struggle on this board and I want to tell you how happy I am that you are now doing well health wise. I am sure you have been to hell and back. I have watched many loved ones have to fight this horrible disease and know how devastating it is. It is so wonderful to read that sometimes the dreaded " C" word can be beaten. Stay strong and be happy friend!
I've also been meaning to pay my respects to Mr. Bugliosi. My condolences to his family and loved ones.
( and how anyone can think Manson somehow " beat" him by living longer boggles my mind. Would you rather live longer than another but spend your life locked in a cage with no say of how your life is run from day to day? I don't even think Manson has as much animosity towards the man as some people want to believe. He himself told Mr. B. that he thought he was giving him a fair trial- his problem seemed to be with the Judge who wouldn't let him represent himself more than Bugliosi- but that's for a different thread. I'm sure he was not a perfect human being, none of us are but I respect the man for his professional talents and contributions to seeking justice.) RIP Sir.
Thanks Krissy!!! :)
And thanks William you have a fantastic weekend yourself! Love, love, love!!!
I was always glad that Bugliosi beat up the milk man. I never held that against him.
Best wishes William Marshall! I hope you continue to be healthy!
Krissy & Starship thank You so much for the kindness it means a lot Krissy you're a regular on the other blog I follow
Katie sending Love you're such a sweet kind person
William, I didn't know about your health problems. I hope and pray you continue to enjoy good health.
Katie, I don't really believe Linda K. has anything left to spill. But, legally, if she wanted to say more, I don't think Vince's death would change anything. Isn't she still bound by her plea deal?
Carol, you're probably right. She might get in trouble if she started the talk show circuit...
I'm sure Linda would go on tv if she needs money to pay attys help get her daughter off drug charges. Is Lady Dangerous in any legal trouble now? If not then no you aint gonna see Linda talk.
Bugliosi had a slamdunk court win that he failed to make political capital out of but co-wrote, or assisted a ghost writer to produce perhaps the best true crime fiction book ever published. Bugliosi's most irresponsible action was to help create manson as a bigger than life persona of evil incarnate. He reduced the killers to the world as being supporting players because he sought to overplay his battle of wits in getting Manson a death sentence for conspiracy. The real killers were inept at giving him a difficult prosecution. Manson's psychological flaws aided him throughout the trial. Even without a prosecutor the Manson family could not have done anything but convict themselves. The bigger story was martyrdom and a world stage. Bugliosi was reactive not active.
Chris if I remember right Charlie was world famous almost instantly after his arrest. The Monday eve after the weekend of Cielo it exploded on the news shows. The case was famous instantly. I wish I could remember when I heard of Helter Skelter but I think I heard it was connected to the murders pretty fast since it leaked out that it was written at the scene of Labianca murders. As to when I knew it was a motive /I cant say. Certainly it was known when HS was out in 74 but did I know earlier? Cant remember. Charlie was world famous before he left independence Ca.
However, I think it was Charlie who made Charlie Charlie. VB did not make Charlie Charlie. Does that make sense sense?
Manson is a douchebag, who brainwarshed a bunch of kids to kill for him, and then he tried to use them to get away with it. Jesus how many times can I say that? And I will never quit saying it. He's a creepy asshole.
These kids were used! Make no mistake about it!! A grown man gathering young kids to do his dirty deeds, he knew exactly what he was doing. He reminds me of Fagin. Remember him?
You can call it Helter Skelter, you can call it whatever you want, but Manson did it. He's the author of these killings, no doubt about it. Anyone who wants to say it's not so can write Dear Abby.
That's not true Bob.
Long-time lurker here. Katie8753, I appreciate and respect your opinion, but what "proof" can you point to that Manson ordered the killings? Because bottom line, that's the only thing that would make him guilty. "Brainwashing" is not against the law. Being an asshole is not against the law. Being crazy is not against the law. These people were not babies. It was their responsibility to make sure they didn't get led down the wrong road by some creepy douchebag asshole (and I don't disagree that that's what he was). So can you point me to actual proof and not just an opinion of his guilt with regard to Tate-Labianca specifically?
Hi Nobody. Thanks for your comment.
I don't have any physical proof I can pull out of my pocket and say "here, take a look at this". But I can add, and if 1+1=2, then I'm pretty sure it's right. All of the killers have said at some point in their lives that they killed because they thought it was what Charlie wanted them to do. And if they thought that, they must have gotten that idea from someone. Could it be Charlie? And that's not just TLB, that's Shorty & Hinman too.
Why do you think a 30-something year old man like Charlie would hang around with teenagers and young adults? Because people his age wouldn't be as easy to manipulate. Those kids were the perfect target for Charlie.
And I agree, those killers are just as responsible for murder as Charlie is. They should have known better than to join a cult and do all the things they did. In my opinion, they're all guilty.
Okay I have a question for you Nobody. If you think Charlie is innocent, why do you think he's a creepy douchebag asshole?
Bobby, I love your comments! Keep 'em coming!!
Let's not forget that Manson orchestrated who was to go on night #2, told them what to bring with them including rope and knives, and that he - knowing what his minions had done the night before - entered into the Labiancas home and tied them up then left them all prepped like a couple of Thanksgiving turkeys for his gang to slaughter. At some point one has to conclude that he was running the show at least THAT night when two more people got slaughtered. He knew how that show was going to end too. It was going to end with two more dead bodies and he was going to help prep the whole thing for his "children." That's enough in my mind to put him away for life.
Antisocial personality types and sociopathic personality types are unable to understand Western culture's legal concept of Conspiracy to murder.
Katie I agree with you as far as the women. Krenwinkel, Atkins, and Van Houten were brainwashed by Manson. Tex on the other hand knew what he was doing the whole time. He has even claimed in his book that he killed so brutally because he wanted the women to view him as another Manson and that his goal was to rule the Family with Manson or take over himself. He also told a girlfriend in Texas that he and another guy was in charge of a commune in California. Of course at trial Tex claimed he was just as brainwashed and as much a follower as everyone else. Beausoleil also had his own reasons for killing Hinman. For Beausoleil I think it came down to him feeling like a boy not a man and he was trying to prove something to himself as well as Manson and the others. Davis participated because he was arrogant and thought he would not get caught.
Katie8753, to answer your question, I didn't say I thought he was innocent. He was a bad guy, but just because he was guilty of some things doesn't automatically make him guilty of everything by default. Based on what I've seen, he was complicit in the Shea and Hinman cases.
Bobby, Katie doesn't "need" to provide me with proof. I'm just asking. Please re-read my comment. And juries can be wrong. I'm not saying they were wrong in this case. It's just a question mark.
MrPoirot, thanks for that, but I do understand conspiracy. If he told them to go do it and they did it, he's guilty of conspiracy. But again, my question is what proof is there that he actually did that.
I'm not picking any fights here. But since I have been lurking for a while, I assume that you all have access to investigative material that I haven't seen online, so that's why I was asking about proof. Everyone is free to think what they want, but proof is needed in a courtroom, and that's the piece that I seem to be missing.
Yeah, I said "proof," and you said why does Katie "need" to give you proof and I said she doesn't "need" to give proof, that I was just wondering what proof could she point to other than "brainwashed," which is not a crime, and "he's an asshole," which is not a crime. I'm sorry that you misread it also. I just don't think that people should be sent to death row because somebody "thinks" they're guilty. Proof is not needed in the court of public opinion, but it is needed in a real-life courtroom. I understand about circumstantial evidence, but that's a problem for me also. There was a guy in Texas who got convicted and sent to death row for killing his wife based on circumstantial evidence. He looked guilty for sure, had a mistress, financial problems. Turns out he didn't do it. They were able to match DNA with a transient in the area who had killed another person. So anyway, I'm not advocating for Manson, just curious as to what actual proof there was that he was complicit in TLB.
Nobody, it's obvious that Charlie was in charge of these people. He knew exactly what the killers did at Cielo Drive, and as Stormy pointed out, he drove the killers the next night to the Labiancas, tied them up, and left them for slaughter. You say "Based on what I've seen, he was complicit in the Shea and Hinman cases." How does that NOT make him complicit in the LaBianca murders?
As far as the Cielo Drive murders go, we only have Tex's word that he told Tex to go there and kill everyone. That's not proof, but if you look at all the other murders, and how Charlie was involved in them, as I said, 1+1=2.
So if you think he was complicit in the Shea & Hinman cases, but have doubts about his involvement in the TLB murders for some reason, isn't Shea & Hinman enough for a death penalty sentence? Please explain how you think that was unfair.
Thanks Beauders, and I agree with you. I think the girls were totally clueless on why they killed anyone, just following Charlie's nonsensical illogic. The guys are a different story, and even though I doubt they knew the reason for the murders (other than Bobby) they had their own agendas. I think Bobby just killed Gary because he wanted to.
Nobody, I also wanted to add that the jury in the TLB trial saw a LOT of crap going on in that courtroom, which, if I had been on the jury and had seen what Charlie was saying and doing, it would have been enough for me to believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was complicit in the TLB murders, and a death penalty verdict would be justified.
Katie, as I said before, just because he was guilty in two other cases doesn't make him guilty of everything. Each case has to be proven on its own merits. I never said his death penalty was unfair. You're making too many assumptions. I understand you can't stand him and that's fine by me. I'm not asking you to like him. But there's no law against brainwashing, witchcraft, devil worship, being an asshole, etc., and those people were not children. Watson was 23 years old when he slaughtered those people. So I'm not saying I'm a fan of Manson, but his guilt in TLB is a question mark for me personally. I don't care what he acted like in the courtroom. Again, that's not proof.
Well Nobody, as I've said many times before, and I'll say again, if Manson had just come to court every day dressed in a nice suit, sat still and kept his mouth shut, I doubt the jury would have even found him guilty of anything. That story was so far fetched it was pretty much unbelievable. But instead, he comes to court with his head shaved, a bloody "X" carved on his forehead, constantly stands up and interrupts, pretends like he's hanging from a cross, jumping on the judge, and the girls following his every action, helped Bugliosi prove his case to the jury that he was definitely in charge and definitely had a screw loose, so his involvement in murder was definitely possible. When a jury witnesses that kind of aggressive and strange behavior, it certainly takes that into account in their decision.
Let me ask you a question. If you've studied the TLB trial, tell me exactly what was it about the trial proceedings that make you feel that he didn't get a fair trial, or whatever it is that you're trying to discuss...
Katie, I didn't say he didn't get a fair trial. There you go again making assumptions. Just go back and read again what I wrote. I've made my points clear. It's not rocket science.
Well let's see Nobody. You don't think his death penalty was unfair, and you think he got a fair trial. And I already went over the proof.
Can I make another assumption? That you're talking in circles on purpose?
Sweetie, calm down. Just read what I wrote and stop making assumptions. I don't know how many times I have to say it. It's really not that complicated. I understand why you're hostile to Manson, but I don't understand why you're hostile to me. I have been respectful so far. May I assume that you like to fight? May I assume that you're not playing with a full deck? Emotional and/or mental problems perhaps? Personality disorder?
Why don't you read what I wrote and stop making assumptions. And you haven't even been near hostile yet...
You know Nobody, on second thought, your coming in here and calling me names isn't going to work. No one here called you names. It sounds like you're trying to start a fight instead of discussing the case.
Clean up your comments or they won't be posted in the future.
Katie, as I said before, just because he was guilty in two other cases doesn't make him guilty of everything. Each case has to be proven on its own merits.
Well, not really. If he is guilty of orchestrating the butchering of two human beings then he deserves to be put away for the rest of his life. Whether he also orchestrated it for five other people is in my humble opinion not needed to put him away until he assumes room temperature and is hauled outta the prison in a body bag.
Yes, I agree, Mrstormsurge. But my question was what was the proof presented in the courtroom. But, yes, if he is guilty of TLB, he deserves to be put away, and even if he isn't guilty of TLB, he still deserves to be put away because of his guilt in Shea and Hinman. So I'm not disagreeing with those that say "if" he is guilty.
It is not a matter of "if" he is guilty. A superior court jury "did" find that he was guilty, that the legal burden was met for both the Tate & LaBianca murders. That issue was settled...
Dilligaf, I know, but like I said before, juries can be wrong. Convictions get overturned all the time. It's not the fault of the juries. Lawyers play their little games, judges allow or not allow whatever, and the juries have to go based on what they hear in that courtroom, which may or may not be truth, but they assume that it is. So you can't just say, "The jury found him guilty, therefore he is."
Nobody, not sure how anything I've written in this thread would imply that I think Manson's guilt in TLB was an "if." Let me say that I believe his guilt in TLB is anything but an unproven. I believe that the evidence of guilt against Manson and the others was overwhelming and that they all deserved to be sent to prison for the rest of their lives.
As to material presented in court, I laid out in my first post in this thread Manson's actions in the LB part of TLB. All of what I said in my first post was presented in court and none of it was ever successfully refuted by the defense. Do you not believe these TLB facts as presented in court or do you believe these TLB facts but just not believe that it should merit a life sentence? Or do you believe something else?
I will say this about the TLB jury: They wasted 9 months of their lives listening to constant interruptions, nonsense and horrific testimony, and were able to render a verdict of guilty, and also a sentence of the death penalty, for all of them, based upon what was presented to them, both orally and visually, in spite of death threats which were issued by Charlie's minions on a constant basis, and continuing on even after they were released from jury duty. They knew that they and their families might face certain death, but were courageous enough to do the right thing. My hat is off to them.
Nobody, juries can be wrong. Look at the Casey Anthony trial. But this jury was dead-on right. I agree with Stormy & Dill, the jury heard the testimony and rendered a correct verdict.
The jury knew that Susan, Leslie, Pat & Tex killed those people. That is a fact. All they had to determine was if Charlie influenced them to do so. And the evidence was overwhelming to support that. Like I said, the antics in the courtroom proved Charlie was in charge of all of these women. There was absolutely no doubt about it. None!
I know, I know, I know. He's guilty. But my question was what proof was presented in the courtroom to prove his guilt, not just "there's evidence" and "there's facts," but actual specific proof, not just he was an asshole, he was acting up in the courtroom, he committed other crimes. I know all that. As for a defense, he didn't get one. So that's another problem. So bottom line, I think it's possible that he was behind it, but I don't think there was sufficient proof to convict much less put him on death row for TLB. But before you start crying again, like I said before, he was guilty in the other two cases.
Nobody said: As for a defense, he didn't get one. So that's another problem.
Whoa Nellie, you just said earlier that he DID get a fair trial. Are you vacillating?? Webster's defines vacillate as: to waver in mind, will, or feeling : hesitate in choice of opinions or course.
You keep changing streams!! That's why I said earlier that you are talking in circles on purpose.
You know Nobody, no one is crying over here. This blog is pretty conservative and I can't speak for everyone on this blog, but I pretty much think that we feel Manson is guilty. If you don't think so that's fine and that's your prerogative. Well, why don't you go to another blog that embraces your theories. Or just open your own blog. Because you're not going to change opinions on this one. As far as I know.
This blog has comment moderation, which means anyone who is not a member is subject to moderation, which includes you. I called Lynyrd tonight and left him a message to check the blog. All of which means, I won't be posting any more of your comments because I'm tired of arguing stupid points that seem to go round and round.
Having said all that, I'll bid you good night. We'll see what Lynyrd has to say. If you make more comments, they will be in the "holding bin" until he can review them, because frankly, I'm tired of this rat-maze conversation.
I wish you well, and have a good night.
Historically there have been many people who sympathize or empathize or even worship Manson. This isn't restricted to Nobody. For example look at the California Supeme Court back in the day. It was a very pro Manson court. It even overturned every DP verdict in California in order to escape public condemnation it would have received if it had just overthrown Charlie's DP. Charlie had the California Supreme Court on his side. I'm surprised the court judges weren't hanging out at Spahn Ranch. They loved Charlie's counter Christian culture ideology as do many online TLBers like nobody. If you are going to kick out the pro Manson folks then you are basically saying this to 40% of the online TLBers. Even The Col wouldn't be welcomed here.
Who do you think the people are who don't like the Helter Skelter motive? It isn't the motive they don't like. Its the fact that Helter Skelter is exactly what got him convicted. They see Helter Skelter as an attack on the counter culture. You have to realize this counter culture crowd lacks a God so they need a Charlie. They need Global Warming and ATWA so they can have something to believe in.
Mr P i agree i mean kicking out people now? I like this blog, but even at Mansonblog everyone has a say,,,and many like Manson the girls, many dont,,but threatening to kick out and call Lynard on someone,,,omg,,,letme head back to the otherblogs good thing i like Seinfeld or id bekicked out too because half the threads here are Seinfeld quotes and have nothing to do with tlb butwe all have to suffer through it
Candy I didn't kick anybody out. All I said was I wasn't going to post his comments, and if Lynyrd wants to he can. I'm not in the mood to fight with this guy, but if others are in the mood have at it...
And I thought I had already made this clear, but I guess not. The reason I'm not posting his comments has nothing to do with his feelings for Manson, it has to do with his snippy attitude. I know this guy is just trying to start trouble in here. If Lynyrd feels differently and wants to post the guy's comments, fine with me.
Well if somebody asks me to prove the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West
I'm not going to try and prove that. They noticed where the Sun was this morning. I'm not going to play that game.
If somebody wants proof that Charlie conspired to murder they can read Helter Skelter. It's an entire book about how a prosecutor got Manson on Conspiracy to murder charges. If they want to disavow the book as fiction then they can read the court transcripts detailing the conspiracy evidence in detail. I'm not going to read it for them mainly because I know they've already read that. They won't admit Charlie's guilt because they need him for they bought what he was selling. They're never going to admit their King has no clothes because their entire world would come to an end. They're having enough trouble having to accept that Nixon was right about Charlie being guilty. They've never gotten over that. They've never gotten over Nixon metaphorically bitch slapping them.
Currently, there are no comments awaiting approval (from "Nobody"), and there hasnt been, for over 24 hours.
I can't "approve" comments that don't exist, so I'm not quite sure what Katie is referring to.
It seems "Nobody" is looking for an in-depth answer. (i.e., the kind of answer which requires considerable time and effort).
I was considering investing my own personal time, to answer "Nobody's" question (at my own convenience), but it seems he/she is gone, so I'm not gonna waste my breath.
Contrary to Katie's belief, this blog is not intentionally designed with any predetermined slant.
I really don't care which side of the fence someone is on.
I'm not sure what he wanted. First he wanted proof that Manson was guilty, and we all went over that with him, then he just kept saying "Go back and read my comments", like we were all idiots. Then he started contradicting himself.
If I have some free time later in the week (and I'm in the mood), I'll answer "Nobody's" question.
However, I have no intention of re-trying the entire case.
In order to fully answer "Nobody's" question, one would have to recount every pertinent detail of the case.
Because, for fuck's sake, it's the many "pertinent details" that convicted Manson!
The bottom line:
When people come into these rooms, they're expected to have a rudimentary understanding of this case, it's inherent details, and how those details led to the outcome.
I can't go back and explain the entire case against Manson, in the comments section.
If someone wants to learn the entire case against Manson, they'd have to go back and read every fucking thread on this blog.
The case against Manson has already been presented and documented... and now, you're either convinced by the supporting evidence (like the jury was), or you're not.
If Nobody genuinely wants to know the evidence presented that convicted Manson, he or she can read Bugliosi's summation in the trial: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonsummation.html
Also, it should be kept in mind that it was not simply one jury that has kept Manson locked up all these years. He and his gang have had 45 years to convince various parole boards, judges, and anyone else of their innocence. They have had nearly a half century to convince someone to give them a new trial.
To date the main 6 (now minus Atkins) have all failed.
Thanks Stormy. But you're wasting your time. Nobody wasn't interested in that, he was only trying to cause trouble on this blog, but I stopped him. Believe me...I know.
Nobody said...
"Based on what I've seen, he was complicit in the Shea and Hinman cases"
Complicit ? In George Stimson's recent book, he admits to being involved in both of these though he kind of minimizes his impact and makes it seem that the victims were basically to blame for their own demise, even going so far as to say about Gary Hinman that "Hinman killed Hinman, that's what it comes down to."
He goes into detail about whacking Hinman with the sword and this is his undoing. If you read the August 8th Hinman autopsy, that sword slice is described as "possibly fatal."
That's huge. That's complicit.
Thanks Grim! Charlie always minimizes his involvement in these murders. That's the problem....
Post a Comment