Catherine Share and Sandy Good shout at the judge:"You are a mockery of justice, You are a joke"! LOLOLThis must have been friggin' priceless! : )Can you imagine how awesome video footage of this entire trial would be?!!I think I'd watch it 12 times at least.You could just run it 2 hours after work, every night, for a year. AHahahaI'd have to stock-up on beer and popcorn.Sandy Good: “You wouldn’t let him speak no more, so we can speak”!Mark Ross: “I certainly am in contempt of this court”! LOLThey really freaked, after Manson lost, as Star says... his "pro-per".Manson losing his ability to defend himself, was quite a milestone, in this trial.
Anyone know much about this Mark Ross character?
Hmm, Mark Ross, well, wasn't it his house (28 Club House, Venice) where Zero was shot? I always heard Venice was a biker paradise...never heard if he was a biker or not, just that he set up the Hendrickson film...
Kimchi...As always, you're amazing! LOLGreat to see you!!How's things??
Here's a picture of Mark Ross. He looks familiar.http://charlesmansonfamily.tumblr.com/post/769306073/via-daysrunaway-mark-ross-squeaky-gypsyCharles Hollowpeter??? That sounds nasty!! Or disgusting. HA HA.Leave it to good old Sandy to scream the loudest. "You're a mockery of justice."Then Gypsy said the same thing. I guess she couldn't think of anything better. LOL. Except she added, "you're a joke".Come on now folks. If you're really gonna insult a mouthpiece or a judge, let's come up with something more original than that!!!Then Mark says “I certainly am in contempt of this court”! Well he who speaks last, laughs last. HA HA.You've gotta leave it up to those Mansonites. They know how to put on a show. And Charlie's sitting back laughing. As usual.HA...HA....HA.....
Hi Kimchi. Good to see you!
Some fast facts:ROSS, Mark Stephen M/W DOB: 2-27-45 POB: New York28 Clubhouse Dr. Venice, CA.Spahn Vehicle: 61 VW micro bus, Grey #76255 D.Zero was arrested with the family in the October 12, 1969 Barker Ranch raid. After getting out of jail, Zero moved with other family members to a Venice Beach house, rented by a man named Mark Ross. I also found this:"Ross owned the gun that that resulted in the demise of Zero".I have doubts about that one, as I've only read it in one place.Anyone?
Lynyrd this comment was on the previous thread. I just wanted you to see it. It's from Lynn:>>>I just want to make one comment- I realize this comment section is closed. I typically read all the blogs but do not post. I have decided to post here as it seems like a nice group of folks and Lynrd, you are a class act. Thank you>>>Lynn, so glad you posted!!You are most welcome!!! Glad to have you. Join in anytime!!
Thanks Katie!I have a photo or two I could add, but I'm at work.My "hard-drives" are at home.LOLOLYeah... he's got a full beard, in all the photos I've seen.
You're welcome Lynyrd!!! He looks VERY familiar!!! I'll have to do some looking.
Thank you for your warm welcome. I don't know how much I will have to add. I followed the case many years ago and have sort of lost touch with it, so I am again a student. I will contribute when I can.I was interested in the Scientology thread and found it quite interesting. I am very familiar with this "religion"Thanks again, Katie and Lynyrd
Lynn!!!!Great to See You!!Glad you enjoyed the scientology discussion.Lynn, we're all students of this subject, and no one is an expert.Don't feel intimidated, and feel free to join-in anytime... even if you just want to ask a question.Questions are usually the best conversation starters, and most folks are eager to help others.If you want to discuss something off-topic, current news, or even tell a good joke... that's cool with me.I actually prefer an informal format.Hope to see much more of you!Peace... Lynyrd
Lynn, whatever you can add to this blog, will be most welcome.Most of us, except for St. Circumstance, and any others I'm not sure of, are really not that familiar with Scientology.And since it played a big part in this case, any comments you have are very interesting. Maybe you can explain some interactions that Charlie had with his family in this vein.Thanks for your time and interest!!
Mark Ross is in the M documentary- I think he was starring in a film Hendrickson was working on, and while filming- he came across some of the family who were hanging around Ross...This of course would mean he was hanging around them AFTER the murders wouldnt it????
Hi Circumstance!>>>Mark Ross is in the M documentary- I think he was starring in a film Hendrickson was working on, and while filming- he came across some of the family who were hanging around Ross...This of course would mean he was hanging around them AFTER the murders wouldnt it????>>>Thanks for the info. I would assume that you are correct, that he was hanging around after. Don't remember him being mentioned before. I wonder if he knew about the murders??
Hello everyone :)
Hey Circumstance!I was reading the other night, that Mark Ross had done some acting... was an acting student... or something to that effect, and he and Hendrickson met, or at least knew each other, through those channels.So, you're on the right track there. They did meet along those lines.Unfortunately, the excerpt I read was very vague, regarding dates, or a timeline.The article was about Hendrickson specifically, and there was only one brief sentence dedicated to Mark Ross.Is it possible Ross knew the "Family" before he met Hendrickson?I have no idea.
Katie said>>>>"Charles Hollowpeter??? That sounds nasty!! Or disgusting. HA HA".Actually... there's no "w".It's Charles Hollopeter.But yeah... a pretty weird name, nonetheless.This attorney isn't mentioned often.I'm wondering if Manson quickly swapped him for Kanarek.The "Obstructionist". LOL
>>>Lynyrd said: Actually... there's no "w".It's Charles Hollopeter.But yeah... a pretty weird name, nonetheless.This attorney isn't mentioned often.I'm wondering if Manson quickly swapped him for Kanarek.The "Obstructionist". LOL>>>Ooopppss. My mistake. I'm guessing he got rid of ole Hollopeter pretty quick. I've never neard of him!! LOL.
Star says in her video, that Manson only "acted-out" after he lost his right to defend himself.Bugliosi says in his video, the opposite... that Manson lost his right to defend himself, because he had been acting-out.The Ol' chicken or the egg first argument.Court documents (including this one) seem to back Bugliosi's assertion... siting Manson as "indigent" etc.Manson was (at least initially) granted the right to defend himself.One has to wonder why this decision would be over-turned... for no apparent reason.It does strongly suggest, there must have been a reason(s).I suppose one would need to have access to all the court transcripts (and read them), regarding actions prior this "pro-per" ruling... to see what specifically, did or did not take place for certain.That would be the only definitive solution, to this argument.What does seem clear, is that Manson (and the Family) began to act-out, with much more fervor, after he lost his ability to defend himself.
The Court decided that Charlie couldn't represent himself because he was indigent. I wonder why that we be a reason to not represent himself.I'm not sure if Charlie was acting out then, but his family sure was, so I'm assuming he was too. They never did anything without his cue or instruction.
Post a Comment