Monday, December 16, 2013

The Perjury of Mary Brunner

This is an extract from Judge Burton Katz's book Justice Over-ruled, from the chapter Co-conspirators

Mary Brunner

Many times it is very difficult to prove a crime against one or more individuals because of the absence of independent eyewitnesses. Resorting to the use of coconspirator witnesses is sometimes required.

Coconspirators present unique challenges. By definition, conspirators contrive to commit crimes in secrecy. Establishing guilt is especially difficult where the only proof against a defendant consists of the observations by a coconspirator (accomplice) of statements mad.e and actions performed by the other in the planning and preparation stages of the crime. Indeed, statements or conduct, standing alone may be perfectly legal and, when observed by a non-criminal witness, without more information, may be unremarkable and meaningless.
Here is an example: Suppose George Washington conspired to overthrow British colonial rule in America. In secret, he told Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson that they should publish a paper exhorting the colonists to "break the shackles of their servitude" to imperialist England, and to demand autonomy for the colonies. To that end, Jefferson and Hamilton proceed to legally purchase printing supplies consisting of paper and ink. Further, they arrange for the use of a printing press.

Those legal acts, standing alone, prove nothing without evidence of the unlawful purpose. Thus the testimony of Jefferson or Hamilton would be required to establish the fact of a conspiracy implicating washington. Then those acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, such as the purchase of the ink and paper, even if legal when standing alone, cab be used against all members of the conspiracy as evidence of the crime.
There is a catch, however. The law, in its wisdom, requires that the accomplice's testimony be corroborated because of the inherent "untrustworthiness" of its source! Because an accomplice has an obvious motive to fabricate, the jury is instructed to view an accomplice's testimony with caution.

Problems are compounded when the accomplice is relucant to testify and has an abiding allegiance to the defendant coconspirator. Such was the case with Mary Brunner, one of the most troubling witnesses I ever had. Mary was well on her way to earning a master's degree at the University Wisconsin,engaged to a "professional student", when she decided that being a faculty wife and giving tea parties was not what she wanted out of life. So she quit and moved to California, acquiring a job as a librarian at the prestigious University of California, Berkerey. She met and fell in love with Charles Manson, a charismatic iconoclast, spiritually light-years from her comfortable world of academia and books. She came from a stable and supportive family, though her parents were distant, displaying little outward affection. Mary was to become the first of the Manson family women, moving into an old, ratty school bus with Charlie in 1967. Manson sired her son,"Pooh Bear" legally named Michael Manson. She was attracted to what Manson seemingly had to offer: freedom to be a child, to be oneself, to love, to experience the warmth, sense of belonging, and adventure of communal living. This seductive lifestyle was later to transmigrate into "Charlie's death trip" culminating in her willing participation in the murder of Gary Hinman.

In return for an immunity agreement fashioned over several months of difficult negotiations with Mary and her attorney, veteran civil rights lawyer Hugh Manis, she reluctantly agreed to testify. The immunity was conditioned on Mary testifying truthfully in all of the Manson family cases involving the murder of musician Gary Hinman, including any Hinman murder testimony to be presented in the penalty phase of the Tate-LaBianca murder trial. In addition to Bobby Beausoleil, who was already charged, we were in the process of seeking murder indictments against Charles Manson, Bruce Davis, and Susan Atkins for the Hinman murder.

Mary, in fact, testified truthfully before the grand jury and in the guilt phase of the Bobby Beausoleil trial. Beausoleil, nicknamed "Cupid," was drop-dead handsome, and the alleged procurer for Manson, bringing new female blood to the family's quarters at Spahn Ranch. After the jury returned a verdict of first-degree murder, a death verdict was imposed by the same jury in the penalty phase. This so shook up Brunner, who felt enormous guilt over Beausoleil's plight and her perceived betrayal of Manson and the family, that she seriously contemplated suicide.

Following her guilt-phase testimony, Mary had returned to her mother's home in Wisconsin. Between the time of the rendering of the death verdict and the formal sentencing hearing, Squeaky Fromme, Sandy Good, and Brenda McCann paid Mary a goodwill visit. Shortly thereafter, we heard she was going to recant her testimony, alleging that sheriffs Charlie Guenther and Paul Whitely and the DA (me) forced her to testify against her will, falsely. The integrity of the jury's verdict rested on our discrediting her allegations. Our dilemma was not to undermine her credibility so much that her testimony before the grand jury and the Beausoleil jury was rendered useless. At times that seemed to be impossible.

When we originally struck a deal with Brunner, we were unaware of the true extent of her involvement in the Hinman killing. We had been led to believe that she was passivelv present while Bobby Beausoleil and Susan Atkins (a.k.a. Sadie Glutz) did Manson's bidding. After she agreed to cooperate, with the encouragement and support of her biological family, we were to learn disturbing additional facts. By then it was too late to withdraw our offer of immunity. I was heartsick that we had to give Brunner immunity knowing the things she had done.

Now we were at the Beausoleil sentencing hearing, where a motion for new trial was being sought. Beausoleil, having dismissed his public defender and acting as his own counsel, recalled Mary Brunner. He conducted a very credible and competent examination of Brunner. And here was Brunner, trying to wiggle out of her commitment. Before she testified for Beausoleil, I reminded her that the immunity agreement was off if she she stuck to her recantation story. Secretly, I was glad she was recanting her testimony; we would now be free to bring charges for her remorseless participation in a torture-murder in which Gary Hinman was told he should get ready to die. A murder in which he was given his religious beads so that he could chant to his God, after being stabbed in the chest. A murder in which he was told by Beausoleil "that he was a pig and that society did not need him…this was the best way for him to go…" Beausoleil had told Hinman that he was just doing him a favour! A day earlier, Manson himself had slashed Hinman's face with a sword, viciously cutting his left ear in half, before leaving his victim in the deathwatch, of Sadie, Mary, and Bobby, to suffer another day. of indignity and abuse before Manson ordered Beausoleil to kill him.No, I wanted all deals to be off. To this day, I still think of Hinman, a gentle soul, being tortured, debased, and snuffed; his blood used to write the words "Political Piggy" on the wail above his body. Tears still come to my eyes. I wanted to charge her with murder.

Brunner was obviously torn between her loyalty to Manson and Beausoleil and her own well-being. It was incredible to think that after being handed her life back she was going to throw it all away-including her son, whose custody she was desperately trying to regain. Her son, fathered by Charles Manson! Judge William B Keene presided over the Beausoleil case.  Keene was an imposing judge who commanded respect. He was later to become the TV judge in Divorce Court and, other TV judge-oriented shows, aided by his telegenic appearance and very droll wit. Keene began the hearing with a stern admonition to Brunner:

Keene: It's previously been established . . . in consideration of your testifying . . . in front of the grand jury and in front of the jury in the case of Mr. Beausoleil, both of which you have done, and in any future criminal trial that may arise out of the death of Gary Hinman, that you personally were to be granted immunity. . . . you have fulfilled only a portion of that agreement with the office of the district attorney. Now, in the event that you testify here in this case, it is my belief that you will be arrested upon leaving this courtroom and charged with the crime of murder in connection with the death of Gary Hinman. . . . In the event that does occur and you testify here today, anything that you say here . . . can and undoubtedly will be used against you in any trial in which you are charged with the crime of murder. Do you understand what I've told you?

Brunner: Yes, sir.

Keene: Do you understand. the serious ramifications to you personally by your giving any testimony in this court this morning?

Brunner: Yes, sir.

Keene: I might also suggest and point out to you, Miss Brunner, that if you do testify . . . in response to any questions asked you by Mr. Beausoleil, this court will ask you to answer all questions directed to you not only by Mr. Beausoleil but by

Mr. Katz: do you understand that?

Brunner: Yeah, I understand that.

Brunner prepared to lay down her life for Beausoleil as he began his coolly delivered examination.

Beausoleil: Are you also aware of the fact that beyond being charged with murder that you could be charged with perjury?

Brunner: Yeah, that occurred. to me.

Beausoleil: And very probably violation of probation, isn'r that correct?

This was important, because this would affect her ability to get her baby back. Beausoleil began to focus on Paul Whitely and charlie Guenther's first visit to Madison, wisconsin, in December 1969. He probed into the alleged threats and attempts used to induce her to testify against him and Manson. I was impressed with his ability to frame a comprehensible question and ask appropriate follow-up questions. He also interposed objections, and while they fell on deaf ears, they were quite well done. I couldn't help thinking about Beausoleil's natural gifts. He was handsome, articulate, intelligent, a quick study and a gifted poet, artist, and musician who had his own rock group in Berkeley, competing favorably with the emerging but still relatively unknown credence clearwater Revival band. what seed or gene had distorted an otherwise almost perfect genetic blueprint, allowing him to execute another human being, a friend with whom he had lived? He had mortgaged his life on ..Charlie's death trip"! What a waste!

His questions were deceptively simple, demonstrating a skill far beyond many lawyers' reach. Brunner and Beausoleil were rocking to each other's rhythm. yet Beausoleil was given virtually no time alone with Brunner for preparation. His communication was limited to his Manson family visitors, such as Sandy and Squeaky, who were his conduits.

Beausoleil: In reference to how you feel about your child, how do you feel about your child? Let me rephrase the question. You love your child very much, don't you?

Brunner: Yes.

Beausoleil: I would imagine that he probably means more to you than anything else in the world-isn't that correct?

Brunner: Than most anything else.

Beausoleil: Anything means more to you?

Brunner: Yeah.

Beausoleil: Could you tell the court what it is?

Brunner: It means more to me, Bobby, that I undo what I did to you.

Beausoleil: When you say that-to undo what you did, did you not tell the truth at that time?

Brunner: That's right.

He's done it. She has recanted her testimony, and now Judge Keene is saddled with a real problem. There is not a chance in the world that a death verdict in 1970 will stand the scrutiny of the California Supreme Court on that record. Just two years later, that court was to declare California's death penalty law un-constitutional. The ruling was retroactively applied to all on death row, including Sirhan Sirhan, Manson, and serial killer Juan Corona, who slaughtered twenty-six victims. On top of this, the guilty verdict was also in grave jeopardy as Beausoleil returned to the theme of Guenther's alleged undue influence. She told the court of Guenther's approach: "He got very soft-voiced and very earnest and very, you know, look you real deep in the eye . . . type emotion." Evidently, Charlie Guenther had met his match with this young woman, who was indeed very, very hard.

Judge Keene, over the protestations of Beausoleil, now took over the questioning.

Keene: What did he [Guenther] say?

Brunner: He was telling me how wonderful they were being to me, and how everybody out here was ratting on me and bad-mouthing me and how if I felt anything for my son that I owed it to him to give a statement against Bobby.

Keene: Did that end the conversation then, between you and Deputy Guenther?

Brunner: Around this time I got to crying and Whitely came back into the room.

Keene: Now tell us what was said.

Beausoleil: Your Honor, I object to the court questioning the witness. I am completely capable. She is my witness. I'd like to question her now, if I may.

The court refused, but I've always thought that Beausoleil was right. He was addressing issues relevant to this hearing-namely, what were the pressures brought to bear on Brunner. Had such pressures caused her to testify falsely because she feared she would lose her child, be imprisoned and charged with murder? In fact, she was warned repeatedly of the consequence of a capital charge if she failed to cooperate. These are tough questions. While it is not unlawful to spell out to a coconspirator what her options are, and the consequences of failure to cooperate, there is a point where the onerous consequences might influence testimony. Judge Keene had the unhappy task of trying to sort it out, to determine whether these factors over-came free will and caused her to give false testimony. I was not envious of the judge's position. He overruled Beausoleil's objection and pursued the witness, pressing her to repeat what she had told Guenther and Whitely about the Hinman killing. I watched with fascination as Beausoleil fought Keene, toe to toe.for his life.

Keene: All right, tell us what you said, what you told the officers.

Beausoleil: Your Honor, she's given this information already. She told the court that it was the same as what she testified to, or at least basically. There's a forty-page written statement, Your Honor, of a conversation that happened later after she gave her original statement and it has been testified to by Sergeant Whitely that the questions that he asked were based on statements given-

Keene:Just a minute, Mr. Beausoleil. Your objection is overruled. Tell us what you told the officers.

Brunner: I told the officers that Bobby killed Gary. That is the main thing-I told the officers.

Keene: What else did you tell them?

Brunner: I told them that Bobby and Gary had a fight. I told them that Charlie cut Gary with a sword. I told them we had been in that house for a couple of days, Bobby and Sadie and I.

Keene: Was that statement true?

Brunner: Parts of it.

Keene: All right, what parts were true and what parts were not true?

Brunner: Bobby didn't kill Cary.

Now the confrontation is focused. If Bobby didn't, who did? Brunner is backed into a corner. She can't selectively pick and choose which questions she will answer. And the judge goes for the jugular.

Keene: Who killed Gary?

Brunner: I don't have to answer that.

Keene: Yes, you do have to answer that and-

Beausoleil quickly jumps in to save Brunner's testimonial recantation!

Beausoleil: Your Honoq I object-Your Honor-

Keene: -you are ordered to answer that by this court.

Brunner: I'll take the Fifth Amendment on that.

Keene: You may not take the Fifth Amendment. As I indicated to you, you could not pick and choose what questions you were going to answer.

Brunner: I have the right not to incriminate myself.

Bobby and Mary had anticipated everything. Or so they thought. But this judge was not to be intimidated by a claim of self-incrimination-even in a capital case. Contrast this with the Simpson case, where Judge Ito let Mark Furhman take the Fifth after fully testifying before a jury just weeks before.Judge Keene was an exceptionally strong judge who did not look over his shoulder in anticipation of an adverse appellate ruling. The OJ. team would have fared quite differently under Keene's iron fist.

Beausoleil: May I be heard?

Keene: Mr. Beausoleil, you may not. Your objection is overruled.

Beausoleil: You haven't heard my objection, how can it be overruled?

Keene:Just a minute, Mr. Beausoleil. [To Brunner.] I've ordered you to answer that question as to who killed Gary Hinman.

Brunner: I'm telling you that I don't have to incriminate myself, as you advised me.

The courtroom was packed to standing-room capacity, filled with media from all over the world, including the Soviet bloc nations. The tension was so palpable you could skate on it. I wondered how we were playing in the Iron Curtain countries, whose correspondents were feverishly scribbling in their pads, eager to show the "disintegration of a corrupt capitalistic society."

Keene: . . . you tell me in your own words truthfully what occurred in that Hinman house to the best of your knowledge, and I want the truth.

Beausoleil: Judge Keene, you are denying this woman a fair trial according to Miranda v. Arizona, according to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, the due process clause, according to the rights under the Fifth Amendment, according to her rights to have an attorney present.

Keene: Mr. Beausoleil, your objections, all of them, are overruled.

Beausoleil: All of my objections are overruled, even the ones I'm going to make?

Pretty quick thinking for a non-lawyer, unschooled in trial tactics.

Keene: (to the witness): Go ahead and tell me what happened.

Beausoleil: In other words-

Keene: Mr. Beausoleil, this is the last time I am going to tell you. When I am finished talking to this witness, I will tell you so, and you may ask her some questions. I do not want You to interrupt me.

Bobby stayed a steady course, cool and deliberate. No anger. Just control. It made me wonder how cool he must have been when he ended Hinman's life!

Beausoleil: Your Honor, I have a duty to interrupt you. I have a duty to make my objections.

Judge Keene continues to sidestep Beausoleil. But Brunner won't budge. She tellsJudge Keene she will not answer the question because of self-incrimination.

Keene: You refuse to answer any questions as to what occurred in that house?

Brunner: You've told me-your question was that I tell you everything that went on. That was your question?

Keene: Yes, that's what I want.

Brunner: And if that is your question, I can't answer that because it would be self-incriminating.

Keene: I am instructing you to answer the question.

Brunner: (defiantly): I've answered it.

We had reached an impasse. Judge Keene could proceed no further. The record was a shambles. The court had the option of striking her testimony of recantation because of her refusal to answer all questions on the issue. But, as noted, this was a capital case that must stand the scrutiny of a strongly anti-capital-punishment California Supreme Court-and it was unlikely to pass constitutional muster. Judge Keene found Brunner in contempt of court, and ordered her remanded until she answered the questions. But first he allowed Beausoleil to continue his questioning of Brunner.

Again, Beausoleil's facileness surprised me. Beausoleil was sharp enough to ask her if there was a tape recorder at the sheriffs office when she claimed they told her that if she didn't "bring Charlie into it now that this whole business of immunity would be dropped . . . that her probation would be violated and she would not be able to see her baby when she was charged with murder."

Beausoleil pressed further, asking her whether anyone had turned the tape recorder on. He then got her to say that it wasn't in any written statement she had seen! Not bad. He also wanted to know if anyone had turned the tape recorder off for any interval. Shades of Nixon's secretary, Rosemary Woods, and the infamous "eighteen-minute gap" of Watergate fame. I'd say that was damn good lawyering for a twenty-two-year-old man with little formal education.

Judge Keene stopped the proceedings again, telling Brunner that she had filed an affidavit stating that her testimony before the grand jury and before the Beausoleil jury was false. He now wanted her entire statement. She refused, and was remanded to the custody of the sheriff over the lunch hour. Over her initial objection, attorney Ernest Graves was appointed by the court to represent her, owing to Manis's unavailability. Beausoleil was permitted to have a short meeting with Graves and Brunner.

In the afternoon session, she appeared with Graves. This time Brunner appeared tired and confused. Graves asked for a clarification of Brunner's status, if she were to testify fully and truthfully at this hearing. The immunity agreement was reiterated, with emphasis that she was obligated, as jointly agreed, to testify in future proceedings against Charlie Manson and other family members. Judge Keene, sensing a change, immediately withdrew the contempt charge, making it clear that he would not use this to compel her testimony, and emphasizing that what she was about to do must be totally free and voluntary. Brunner wanted to know if she was free to go back to Wisconsin, "if I testify for the prosecution." We were at a critical point, and Beausoleil looked pale and scared as he sensed what was coming.

Brunner: If I testify, today, then I can just walk out of the courtroom and go back to Wisconsin?

The court told her she could, as long as she remained available for the other trials.

Brunner: Is that the DA's contention, too?

She was told it was. Present in the packed courtroom were Squeaky, Sandy, Catherine Share, and Kitry Lutesinger (Bobby's girlfriend), among others. Brunner was obviously highly stressed. She appeared to be communicating nonverbally with Squeaky and the others. We were all standing on earthen clods, crumbling into a sinkhole of unknown depth. Would Mary turn on Bobby in front of the girls, in front of her "sisters"? Unknown to me at that time was the enormously powerful pull of the family women-these women were the eyes, ears, and legs of Charlie. They also carried buck knives openly displayed on their hips while they camped out at the corner of the Hall of Justice, proudly exhibiting the X's carved on their foreheads, just like Charlie Manson, Sadie, Leslie, and Katie. A1l, X'd out of society. And those knives were virtually identical to the ones used in the Tate-LaBianca massacres. Sandy, Squeaky, Brenda, and Gypsy were fond of rubbing their hands up and down the handles of the knives as I passed them each day on my way to court. Graves, sensing he was losing Mary, asked for some time to confer with her. I began to wonder: What's this justice system all about? Does the foreign press have contempt for all of this nonsense, for our way of justice? I was lost in thought when Graves's voice suddenly startled me.

Graves: Your Honor, I believe the witness is again prepared to meet the question whether she is prepared to testify, in this case.

Keene: What's your decision, now, Miss Brunner?

Brunner: I'll testify.

Keene: . . . Do I have your assurance that anything that you are going to testify to at this time is going to be the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Brunner: Yes.

Keene: In its entirety, without question-is that correct?

Brunner: That's right.

Mary told the court why she filed the false affidavit.

Brunner: Bobby got the gas chamber, and that to me, is the same-you're doing the same thing to him as he did to Gary, and you made me a part of the second one, too. . . . So I filed it hoping that Bobby could get a retrial and not get the death penalty.

The court again asked who had stabbed Gary, and who had sliced Gary's face with the sword, to which she replied it was Bobby and Charlie. Keene turned over the examination to me. I wanted to nail down her testimony against Charlie, Bruce Davis, and Susan Atkins, to give her less wiggle room when she was called to testify at their trials. She confirmed her earlier testimony. I had her confirm that she andSusan put the pillow over the dying Gary's face to silence his death rattle. I also wanted to pin her down on her alleged reason for filing the false affidavit.

Katz: You contrived the fact that you would execute a false affidavit to secure a new trial for Mr. Beausoleil in the hopes that he would nor receive the death penalty; is that correct, as you told Judge Keene.

Her pithy "Yeah" locked her in, or so I thought. I then directed a series of short questions on key points to forever lay to rest the accuracy of her testimony: Did she have any doubt that Beausoleil stabbed Hinman? any doubt that she and Susan Atkins put a pillow over Gary's head? any doubt that she drove to Hinman's house with Susan Atkins and Bobby Beausoleil? any doubt that Charlie Manson and Bruce Davis arrived together at Hinman's house? any doubt that Manson struck Hinman with a sword, severing his left ear? Finally she admitted that the affidavit she had filed was false.

A disheartened Beausoleil gamely tried to come back, but Mary wouldn't look at him. "Mary, look at me, please. . . ." He suggested that she was testifying this way because of the same fear she had felt before, with Guenther and Whitely, that she would be charged with a capital murder and would lose her baby. Bobby decided to go for it.

Beausoleil: Okay, I'll ask one question and hope that I do get the truth. You testified in my trial previously in April that you saw me sanding over Gary,s body, but you didn't actually see me stab Gary, but you saw me standing over Gary's body with the knife. Was that statement correct or incorrect?

Brunner: That I saw you standing over - it's like one of those questions, Bobby, that the DA feeds me, you know, and it comes out, well, could it have happened this way, you know, but I can'r say that it did happen that way. Right now what happened at Gary's house, you know-like well did I actually see you standing over him? I can't recall right now. I can't picture it right now.

Mary was at the point of emotional collapse, and Bobby took a final shot at her.

Beausoleil: would you lie to save your child? would you please tell me the truth?

Brunner: It's a hard question to answer.

Beausoleil: That isn't an answer.

Brunner: What did you say?

Beausoleil: That isn't an answer.

Brunner: You're right, it isn't an answer.

Beausoleil: Would you give me the answer to the question? Mary, look at me. Would you give me the answer to the question and give me the truth. you know the truth, and you know that I know the truth.

Brunner: Bobby, you know I,d do anything.

Beausoleil: Anything for the child?

Brunner: Uh-huh.

Beausoleil: Including lying for him-isn't that correct? Is your answer yes?

Brunner: Yes.

Bobby, having nothing to lose, takes another stab at it:

Beausoleil: I want the truth. Did I kill Gary Hinman? And please look at me when you answer me.

We all waited for the answer. Then Mary's lawyer made an objection. The court jumped in, over Beausoleil's protest. Beausoleil was forced to surrender his witness to the court for the last time. The stakes were too high.

Keene: Did he stab Mr. Hinman?

Brunner: Yeah.

For now it was over. But not for Mary Brunner-she was to perjure herself in the penalty phase of the trial of Charles Manson for the Tate and LaBianca killings, and once again in the Hinman prosecutions. And she was to be charged with the murder of Gary Hinman and with perjury, just as Guenther and Whitely and I had promised. Howard Weitzman and James Patterson now represented Brunner. They filed a motion to dismiss the charges, contending that Brunner had fulfilled her obligations under the immunity agreement. To my amazement, the court agreed. We appealed, and the appellate court upheld the trial judge's ruling, likening the conditional offer of immunity to a simple contract in which the people had substantially received what they had bargained for. The appellate court was to note that, even with her false recantation, she had unwittingly helped the prosecution by setting the groundwork for the use of her grand-jury and Beausoleil trial testimony in the subsequent trials. Legal sophistry notwithstanding, we could not prosecute Brunner. To this day I still don't understand why the DA is not free to enter into a voluntary agreement with a witness, who is represented by counsel, and offer immunity conditioned on her truthful testimony in multiple proceedings, regardless of where it may fall. In such a situation there is no more danger of inducing an untruthful story than there is when someone is offered immunity for her testimony in a single proceeding. But who am I to say?

73 comments:

leary7 said...

yowza, I feel like I deserve course credit for reading that whole piece. As always great work by Chris B. I gotta find that book on Amazon.

Can I be an asshole here and ask an off track question. I just got a Kindle and downloaded Helter Skelter since I hadn't read it in thirty years. Two items really piqued my curiosity.
I love the name King Baggot. His actual name was Stephan King Baggot and his father was Robert King (my name) Baggot.
King Baggot was the cameraman in the crew that found the clothes worn at Cielo. And he actually filmed the scene when the cops, whom the crew had called, finally arrived to check out the scene. Does anyone know if that footage is anywhere?

The second item was the Warren Commission link to TLB. Judge Keene, reluctant to allow Manson to act as his own attorney, brought in one Joseph Ball, former senior counsel to the Warren Commission, to assess Manson and try to convince him to have an attorney. From what is written in HS Ball really liked Manson, found him highly intelligent and personable. What I wonder is if Ball wrote up his assessment of Manson and if it is public record and if someone like Cielo Drive has a link to it. I did find some stuff over on Manson Direct about Ball and his testimony regarding Manson's competence but I still wonder if he ever wrote something comprehensive about Manson.

I did check Google and Youtube for King Baggot's film footage but nothing there.

Sorry to sidetrack. This Mary stuff is fascinating. The girl sure rode the roller coaster that day she testified in the BB penalty phase and initially tried to recant her testimony against Bobby but then came back after lunch and flipped again - despite the presence of Sgueaky et all in the courtroom.
Not that I have any sympathy for her - she absolutely deserves to be in prison every bit as much as Leslie, Pat etc. She killed Gary, no question about it.

katie8753 said...

Mary & Clem should both be in prison.

jeffrey jeff said...

I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but Mary Brunner played the courts like a fiddle on this deal.

katie8753 said...

I wonder what the Library Cop, Mr. Bookman, would have to say about Mary Brunner's librarian skills. LOL.

katie8753 said...

Secretly, I was glad she was recanting her testimony; we would now be free to bring charges for her remorseless participation in a torture-murder in which Gary Hinman was told he should get ready to die. A murder in which he was given his religious beads so that he could chant to his God, after being stabbed in the chest. A murder in which he was told by Beausoleil "that he was a pig and that society did not need him…this was the best way for him to go…" Beausoleil had told Hinman that he was just doing him a favour! A day earlier, Manson himself had slashed Hinman's face with a sword, viciously cutting his left ear in half, before leaving his victim in the deathwatch, of Sadie, Mary, and Bobby, to suffer another day. of indignity and abuse before Manson ordered Beausoleil to kill him.No, I wanted all deals to be off. To this day, I still think of Hinman, a gentle soul, being tortured, debased, and snuffed; his blood used to write the words "Political Piggy" on the wail above his body. Tears still come to my eyes. I wanted to charge her with murder.

Bobby & Mary were both a piece of work. Gary Hinman had been Bobby AND Mary's friend for a long time. He let Bobby stay in his basement when he had nowhere else to go, and he also kept Mary's baby when he was going to be taken away from her, so she could get him back.

And this is how they repay him? Mary held a pillow on his face to suffocate him, because he wasn't dying fast enough to suit her.

They're both dogs. Woof woof.

sunset77 said...

Leary asked about the film crew that found the clothes, Al Wiman was the reporter for "channel 7" news, I'm not sure if this clip includes the video you are looking for or not:

HERE

Also, after the prosecutors reneged on the deal they made with Mary Brunner and attempted to charge her with crimes they had given her immunity from, and probably intended to stage another "farce" trial, Mary Brunner and her attorneys appealed.

The opinion of Fleming, J., with Roth, P. J., and Herndon, J., concurring in the case of People v. Brunner 32 Cal. App. 3d 908, can be read HERE.

"The People's final contention is that Brunner waived her claim to immunity by invoking her privilege against self-incrimination at the Manson trial and refusing to testify. Had the People complied with section 1324 in the manner we have outlined, this argument might possess validity, for Brunner's refusal to testify would have amounted to a repudiation of her agreement. Yet in circumstances where the People have received substantially what they bargained for, we are not inclined to find a technical waiver by Brunner of substantial rights acquired under an oral agreement whose terms she may not have fully understood.

The order dismissing the indictment and restraining Brunner's further prosecution for the Hinman murder is affirmed."-Justia US Law website

Similarly, many years earlier, Henry Methvin received a "deal" to place Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker "on the spot" which he did. Bonnie and Clyde were gunned down by law enforcement officers on May 23, 1934 near Gibsland LA without firing a shot or receiving a trial of any type.

Prosecutors reneged on the deal they made with Methvin also, claiming the pardon he received from the Texas governor and the Texas Bureau of Prisons, did not apply to a crime he committed in OK.

Methvin was sentenced to death after 2 trials, his sentence was finally reduced after an appeal. Methvin was released from prison after serving 10 years.

katie8753 said...

Casus Belli. LOL.

MrPoirot said...

Mary was the original Family tree hugger. She's the one who taught Charlie all that tree hugging crap she slurped up while at the U of Wisconsin. Listen to Mary talk and you can see why environmentalism has the reputation today of being antihumanist. Mary could rub up against a rock and shed her skin.

MrPoirot said...

Leary you can get credit for reading this but it's only a pass/fail course.

CarolMR said...

Thanks, Christopher.

katie8753 said...

Librarian Mary: Look at all the trees that had to die for these books. Now SHHHH!

And if you believe that Mary worried about trees, I've got some good swamp land to sell you. LOL.

leary7 said...

"Mary could rub up against a rock and shed her skin."
Great line, Mr P.
Thanks Sunset for that link. And I am with you 100% that someone in Bonnie or Clyde's family should have sued the State of Texas and Frank Hammer. That was a stone cold execution.

MrPoirot said...

Odd that there is chat in here on Hamer being over aggressive 75 years ago yet no talk on our present day NSA spys prying into everybodies phone conversations. German Prime Minister Merkel just accused Obama of being the new Stasi and no one cares. Merkel's own cell phone was bugged by the NSA. Snowden just picked NSA clean and left the country with the info. Next week Snowden will testify in front of the EU parliament about OUR illegal spying yet where is the outrage? It was a huge mistake to let Obama in office for everyone is afraid to place any responsibility on his desk fearing being called a racist. The media rubber stamps his every action like oppression is a good thing as long as it's their guy in the White House. Surely we haven't become that stupid but I fear we have.

leary7 said...

yeah, Mr P, the NSA today is the Texas Rangers of yesteryear - lawless lawmen.

bobby said...

thank you for the post christopher butche,

Mary Scary & Contrary.

Having read her various testimony's & statements seen her in videos she just sends a shiver down my spine.

leary7 said...

This was great work by Chris B.
But I do wish....
The Soviet bloc was represented in the media? I've never read any of their coverage.
That lunchtime meeting between Mary, Bobby B and Mary's lawyer - not enough info.
Mary flipped 180 on Bobby because she suddenly developed a devouring desire to return to Wisconsin that day. There must have been some quotes from Bobby and the girls on Mary's flip. But it seems as if she was almost immediately forgiven for doing so. Strange given the result - death to Bobby.

leary7 said...

I say strange because Manson and the Family preached 'truth' so intensely and then come the trials they actively practiced 'non-truth' so decidedly. It must have caused at least a bit of confusion or angst amongst them.

Panamint Patty said...

Don't forget that all kinds of threats were being made about Mary never seeing her baby, ever again. EVER. Patty has never been a momma but she hears its a pretty strong bond that will make you do or say just about anything...

MrPoirot said...

I'm always suspicious when I hear someone say they seek truth. Usually it means they have heard the truth and are seeking a loophole to get around it.

The "truth" Charlie preached about was "prison truth".

bobby said...

Anyone know of anything more recent than the 1993 info on Michael Brunner ? 20 years out of site seems like a long time for a child of Chuck & Mary don't it ?

katie8753 said...

When the family was together it was all about the kids, blah, blah, blah, passing them around, no one really being responsible, but when push came to shove, most of these mothers didn't want anything to do with their kids. They shoved them off on family members or strangers.

And the kids who were raised by someone else, i.e., Mary's kid, Gypsy's kid, Susan's kid & Sandy's kid, turned out pretty well. Successful and happy.

On the other hand, the kids that were raised by their mothers, i.e. Pittman & Kasabian, have been in trouble time after time.

katie8753 said...

I wonder how Mary can live with herself. How can she look herself in the mirror and not puke?

It's one thing to do something horrendous when you're under a drug induced, hypnotic aura, but it's another thing to wake up and realize what you did and not feel lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut, which she is. Her son is lucky that she didn't raise him.

To vacillate over and over again about what happened is criminally insane. She's a pathetic piece of crap.

If I had put a pillow on the face of a "friend" who had helped me in the past until he stopped breathing, I couldn't live with myself.

Has she ever contacted Gary's family and said she's sorry? Has she ever been to Gary's grave with a nice bouquet and told him she's sorry?

Bobby's no better than she is, but at least he's done time. She's as free as a bird. Free to do her "walks".

Where's the justice???

I don't like Mary Brunner. ARGGHHHH!!!

katie8753 said...

And as far as Gary "making" mescaline, there's no proof of that at all.

There was no mention in the police report of a "drug lab" in his house. And if Mary & Susan were in Bobby's and Gary's presence for 2 or 3 days of this torture, wouldn't one of them heard Bobby say "hey man, you sold me some bad mesc." Neither of them mentioned it in the interrogations.

It wasn't until Bobby mentioned it that it became an item.

So being a chemist = making drugs? Since when?

Bobby was trying to make himself look less bad by making up that story about the drugs.

The reason they were there is because Ella Jo told Charlie that Gary inherited money. Charlie tried to get Gary to join the family so he could get the money, and Gary blew him off.

Then Charlie sent Bobby to get the "supposed" money.

Everyone tries to make this case look so mysterious, but actually it's very simple. Charles Manson was nuts and pissed off. He wanted people dead and he wanted money to get to the desert. That's pretty much the story.

If Charlie had told the whole truth back in 1969 or 1970, "yeah, I was pissed off and wanted folks dead" nobody would even be following this case.

bobby said...

Panamint Patty said...
Don't forget that all kinds of threats were being made about Mary never seeing her baby, ever again. EVER. Patty has never been a momma but she hears its a pretty strong bond that will make you do or say just about anything...

Patti, I'm Problably just not getting your point here so forgive me please.

Anyway was Mary really trying to maintain custody of a baby or was she trying to beat a murder rap ? I mean after all she did help murder Gary so was she testifing to save herself from the death penalty, life in prison or for child custody ?

Am i making any sense ?

MrPoirot said...

I agree Bobby. I think the prosecution knew Mary could care less about her kid but they knew she needed an excuse to rat on Bobby to make her look like she had no choice but to rat.

Example 2
Would Mary have helped kill Gary after he had saved Pooh Bear from protective services if she cared about Pooh Bear?

example 3
Mary never told Pooh Bear she was his mother. He thought Mary was his sister.

MrPoirot said...

Remember also that the DA had already seen Susan Atkins turn down her free ticket away from the gas chamber. Susan gave up her child and her life for Charlie. Mary damn near did the same thing for Bobby.

katie8753 said...

Vote for Pedro.

katie8753 said...

These pretzels..are making me THIRSTY!....

katie8753 said...

3 Stooges:

Gentlemen!

"Who came in?"
HA HA.

christopher butche said...

The DA must have been aware that Brunner was unreliable, Bugliosi writes as much in Helter Skelter, when he decided not to use her as a prosecution witness.

09 April, Upon turning up at the Hall of Justice, Calif. to give evidence against Beausoleil, Brunner was promptly arrested for a parole violation (from her original Aug 69 arrest with Good).

So at the time of giving evidence Brunner was in Sybil Brand in jail.

In addition to testifying she was then taken to testify in front of a grand jury that handed down indictments against Manson, Davis, and Atkins (again) for Hinman.

After re-canting she was jailed for five days for contempt.

When she later appeared in the public gallery at the re-trial motion she shouted out "Bobby isn't guilty. I told you that Friday. I would have stuck with that if you hadn't come up with your jackass statements and your silly legal deal. My lawyer told me to go along with you and you indicated I would be arrested for murder. You are a corruption of the Constitution."

During TLB penalty phase in 1971 she denied participating, and in August 1971 during Manson's Hinman trial she invoke her privilege against self-incrimination.

She was indicted for Hinman a month later in September 1971.

When she won her appeal against the indictment in 1973 she was of course in prison in Calif Inst for Women with Atkins, van Houten, Krenwinkle and Share.

“Are you kidding?” Mary Brunner’s reply when asked if she had any regrets about life with Manson 1970.



MrPoirot said...

Chris thanks for the focus on Mary. Just from reading your articles I can see now how combative and slippery Mary was in the Hinman case. She appears to have turned states evidence vs Bobby then recanted then turned back then recanted again and only escaped a murder rap by appealing her indictment after trying to recant again. Throw in a failure to Testify using the 5th amend. It's easy to see why it took two trials to convict Bobby. It may have been tougher to convict Bobby than Manson and his Family because of Mary. The DA had to be extremely aggressive in dealing with Mary. as an example: DAs don't usually bother filing parole violations against somebody already in jail but it was necessary in combating the wiley Mary.

https://maps.google.com/maps?hq=http://maps.google.com/help/maps/streetview/mapleft.kml#utm_campaign=en&utm_source=en-ha-na-us-sk-svr&utm_medium=ha&utm_term=street%20view

I notice there has been earthmoving done on the hill behind Spahn recently: as if a parking lot or homes are being built. It's easy to find Spahns if you look for the Ronald Reagan Freeway.

christopher butche said...

Correction.

The question Brunner is asked is "Do you think your life has been wasted at all?".

To which she replies "You gotta be kidding."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUryIyrb7eY
Brunner interview begins about 2min10sec.

christopher butche said...

MrPoiret, I do get the impression that convicting Manson was not a definite at the outset of TLB, and that perhaps indicting him on Hinman would present the DA with a better opportunity for a guilty verdict.

Manson was present, he did assault the victim. Brunner would make a deal with the DA to testify as a chief or star witness.

The nature of DeCarlo's deal (whatever it was) meant that he could be expected to testify in all trials and not just Beausoleil's first one (late 1969).

In an alternate reality Beausoleil could have taken Kasabian or DeCarlo's role in the TLB trial. I do wonder if the DA ever approached him with regard to this.

Brunner could be offered a deal for participating in one murder, and of course Kasabian was offered a deal after participating in seven.

MrPoirot said...


Blogger christopher butche said...
MrPoiret, I do get the impression that convicting Manson was not a definite at the outset of TLB, and that perhaps indicting him on Hinman would present the DA with a better opportunity for a guilty verdict.(end quote)

Poirot reples:

Chris I would have agreed that the Hinman case gave the DA a better chance of conviction than the TLB case until I read your threads here. Bobby was a helluva pro per lawyer and Mary was the toughest witness I've ever seen. Bug must have seen very quickly that it would be to invite Mary to his TLB case. Mary may look a dunce in some of her pics but she is anything but that. Especially watching her in the youtube you just posted. You can see she is very confidant, aware and in control of herself in that video. She could have done a better job managing the Family's defense than Manson did. She doesn't look befuddled by drugs like the rest of them.
But she was so damn evil. That's why she ended up doing 6 yrs for the Hawthorne robbery

leary7 said...

AN ODE TO HELTER SKELTER


Patty has a great piece over on Liz's site. You really should read it. Her thesis seeks to interact the story of Ginny Good, Sandra's sister with the rise of the drug trade and thus eventually to TLB. It is a provocative piece and got me to thinking the following thoughts, which, I am most certain, many will disagree.




Ruby shot Oswald. No question. Ruby had mob ties - no question. Prior to his death in '67 Ruby begged authorities to take him to Washington so he "could tell the whole story". It is impossible to read these facts, and others, and not conclude that Ruby was part of a conspiracy to silence the assassin of the president. Impossible.

And yet, Ruby's actions in the moments before he shot Oswald were NOT the actions of someone on assignment. He dallied getting up that morning, took his beloved dog with him, dallied at the Western Union where if he had remained even two or three minutes longer he would have missed the Oswald transfer. And a half century later there is still not one piece of conclusive proof that Ruby acted upon instructions. And there is strong circumstantial proof that Ruby honestly believed he would be hailed as a hero, that he would not even be arrested for shooting Oswald, that Humphrey Bogart would play him in a movie. Ruby honestly thought he would be regarded by both society and history as another Lindberg, another Babe Ruth.

The point is that the Ruby story has multiple storylines, all valid. There was of course the mob storyline, the anti-Castro storyline, the police corruption storyline, etc etc. The question, the 64,000 dollar question, is if these storylines simply interwove or were the inexorably interconnected. Did they co-exist, or were they co-dependent?




We all are greatly aware that the TLB story has multiple storylines. The Charlie Manson story indisputably interweaves with the Grateful Dead storyline, with the Haight storyline, with the student and anti-war storyline, with the Watts riots storyline, with the rise in drug trafficking storyline, with the sexual revolution storyline, with the corruption of the Inyo County sheriff department storyline, with the Vietnam war storyline, with the Joel Rosteau storyline, with the Tex Watson drug burns storyline....and a hundred others.

The question again is are these varied and valid storylines merely interwoven or are they interconnected. Did they simply co-exist in time or were they fundamentally co-dependent.




Obviously there is a school of thought that EVERYTHING is interconnected, that it has to be, that these storylines simply could not exist independent of each other. They have to be linked.

leary7 said...

I really like Patty's thesis. I think you can see the Ginny Good storyline being thoroughly interconnected to the rise of the drug culture and thus to TLB.

Somewhat regrettably, I have been much less enthusiastic about other attempts to interconnect the storylines made by prominent Mansonologists. In fact, I rarely post over on Liz's site anymore because there are several zealous proponents of the "everything is connected" mindset that I have clashed with, the famous and respected (yes, by me too) Robert Hendrickson among them.

It is a question worth pondering, both from a historical and cultural perspective - the concept of interwoven storylines versus interconnected storylines. I seriously doubt, for example, that ANYONE would try and claim that the storyline of my favorite all-time band, The Grateful Dead, is in anyway interconnected with the TLB storyline. But it is undeniable that they co-existed, that they interwove.

What has gotten me into hot water with the conspiracy folk on the Manson blogs is my reluctance to automatically accept the interconnected storyline perspective. I don't, and never will, believe our government was behind the Boston Marathon bombings or 9/11. I do acknowledge there were interwoven storylines with 9/11, but I just can't make the leap to the belief that there was some evil Dr. No sitting behind a desk in Langley pushing the buttons. It doesn't work for me.




Recently, there was a poster on here, Louis365, that I don't recall seeing before so I think he may have been one of my longtime antagonists in disguise, who posted these two thoughts...

"To be antigov is to have a clue as to what is really going on."

And when I objected to that sentiment, he posted...

"From the blind man's eye".

Yes, quite witty. Clearly Louis365 is an enlightened and original thinker whereas I am nothing but a programmed robot.

leary7 said...

One HAS TO BE anti-govt, anti- America, anti-establishment, anti-disco, anti-country club, anti-sports, anti-toothpaste and so on to "have a clue as to what is really going on".

Helter Skelter is total crap. Everyone knows that. Col Scott has declared a jihad on anyone who even mentions it or Bugliosi's name. HS is an abomination, an affront to anyone with even a modicum of awareness. It has to be. No thinking person could see it otherwise.

I just read the book again for the first time in forty years.

Let me ask you this. What was Charlie Manson doing in the very last 'out of jail ' moments that he had in his life?

As he was riding through the night air in the back of a sheriff's pick-up from Barker Ranch to Independence he was consumed with preaching to the sheriff's deputies about the impending revolution and how the blacks were going to take over and how the establishment wouldn't let Charlie and his clan do what they wanted and how the deputies themselves were in the crosshairs and if they knew what was best for them they'd hightail it out into the desert.

Since those moments the world has not know Charlie Manson outside of a courtroom or a prison room. He has been enclosed ever since.

Thus it is indisputable that while Charlie Manson was sucking in the last free air her would ever taste, he was in fact preaching Helter Skelter. As they say, that's a fact, Jack.

I understand the impulse to reject Helter Skelter as crap and seek a more meaningful and less bizarre motive for TLB. And there are in truth some attractive storylines that you can plug in. There is of course Tex's drug mania, there is the supposed female concoction of a copycat strategy to free Bobby, there is Rosemary's money and Leno's gambling, there is Victor and Jay's dealings, there is Pic and other sullied characters, there is the Melcher revenge theory and Mafia theories and even Charlie as a government agent theories. And one can always fall back on the unimaginative basic drug and robbery theories. And last but not least - the great secret that Manson told Robert Hendrickson and Robert promised not to reveal until after Charlie's death...when we will all find out that Charlie just really really didn't like Folger's coffee.




I suspect Col Scott and Robert Hendrickson and other anti-HS zealots see themselves as the Last Man Standing. They are the final holdouts, the brave few who have withstood BIg Brother programing and institutionalized thinking. God bless em. It must be hell to live with such responsibility.




I just think, as Billy Shakespeare loosely said, sometimes a rose is just a rose. With regards to Manson, sometimes an asshole is just an asshole.

And sometimes, storylines really do just co-exist.

sunset77 said...

Off topic comment:

I've been reading a book entitled "On The Run With Bonnie and Clyde" by John Gilmore. It's interesting reading, although I don't know how much is "yarn", and how much is "truth". From what I know of that case it seems to be well researched, I haven't ran across anything that appears to be blatantly "wrong" so far.

The book is available on Amazon in various formats and prices HERE.

Mr. Gilmore also apparently wrote a book about the Manson gang entitled "The Garbage People". Apparently, that book has been updated and retitled. I hope to have a copy of it in the future, if/when I do, I'll post a thread about it.

I've noticed various comments on here about "police spies". The FBI released info about their investigation into the Barrow gang. They were apparently recording the phone conversations at Clyde Barrow's mother's house. There are "logs" of what Cumie Barrow said on the phone. The police also apparently paid a relative to visit the Barrow house and tell the police what was said.

NSA/CSS didn't exist in 1934. As best I can tell, their main headquarters is at Ft. Meade, MD. I'm not sure what all their activities entail, but I think it was created to ascertain military intelligence. From acoustical sensors under the ocean, to optical/infrared sensors in orbit, and probably everything in between.

MrPoirot said...

I found it interesting that The Col, Robert Hendrickson, Abraham Zapruder and Jack Ruby all own dachshunds

katie8753 said...

Leary, Patty did an excellent job on that piece. But sometimes I think we complicate simple things by connecting too many dots.

Just like the Ruby thing. If Oswald had been moved on time, he would have been long gone by the time Ruby got there. Couldn't it be just simply that he was pissed at Oswald for shooting JFK and took his pound of flesh?

bobby said...

leary7 said...
Thus it is indisputable that while Charlie Manson was sucking in the last free air her would ever taste, he was in fact preaching Helter Skelter. As they say, that's a fact, Jack

See Leary that is what is wrong with you. You believe that CM told the cop that. When what really happened is the GOV. & MK Ultra forced that cop to say that CM said that in the car ride. It never happened. CM was not even into the Beatles you dope. Leary, all the time you have been on the blogs you havn't learned anything have you. LOL. Bob.

bobby said...

I wish I could remember which fine Lady on the blog refered me to that book about Ginny by her boy friend because it was a great read & I really want to say thanks again.

Have you read it Leary ?

Panamint Patty said...

Oh hey y'all are talkin about Patty's piece and that's good. Thanks Katie, Patty is cool with us disagreeing and it is encouraging to her that we can now have real discussion without feeling disloyal to our friends. WOOT

Theres more. Please hear her out. PEACE

katie8753 said...

Patty you did an excellent job on that thread. Lots of good research and info.

I like it too that we don't always have to agree, but we can still be friends. You ROCK!

leary7 said...

Wait a second Bobby, you aren't serious are you? It was the deputy, Pullsar I think his name was, that gave an affidavit that Manson preached the race war the whole ride back from Barker to jail.
No, you can't be serious. You have to be pulling my leg. There is testimony from TWO DOZEN, maybe more, witnesses that Manson was obsessed with the White Album.

You're just being a provocateur, right?
Which begs the other question...why?

bobby said...

Leary, all the time you have been on the blogs you havn't learned anything have you. LOL. Bob.

Leary very heavey on the LOL. Sorry I was trying to agree with you completly in a funny sarcastic way to all the conspiracy folks.

You know like HS was really painted on a door at the sloon of Spahn the CIA planted it there. That kinda thing Leary.

And that Ginny Good book really is a very good & sad read. You can find it on line free

leary7 said...

My sincere apologies Bobby. Sometimes sarcasm just passes me by. You seemed a bit ticked off at me on a previous thread so I wasn't sure if you were just zinging me or not. Sorry.

leary7 said...

I am always happy to see Katie spreading the love.
And I agree Katie, that was the point I was trying to make in my long winded piece. The compulsion some have to always connect the dots and declare everything interconnected fascinates me. It is like an OCD thing.
And when it is coupled with righteousness, inferring that only the anti-govt and conspiracy folk "know the truth" and the rest of us are simple blockheads...well, that is when I get my Irish up.
Sometimes, actually often, the dots don't connect.

starship said...

Yes, leary you make a good point about Helter Skelter. Bobby does too. It was painted on the door at the ranch. IT WAS SPELLED OUT IN BLOOD AT ONE OF THE MURDER SCENES, albeit misspelled. And if the po po had only made that little bit of info public than Charlie and the Fam would have been jail by August 12th. Why? Because so many people who knew Charlie knew about his hang up, had been preached to, etc. by Charlie. A dime would have been dropped for sure.

So, leary, anyone who suggests other wise is a fool. The Col among them.

Rob King said...

yeah, Starship, dead on. I've never argued that Helter Skelter was the sole or possibly even the primary motive (I am a 'dirty hands' proponent). But when the anti-HS zealots insist that Bugliosi made the whole thing up it just defies reason, logic and gravity.
IT WAS WRITTEN IN BLOOD, as you say. And on the Spahn door. And testified to by Springer, DeCarlo and Jakkobson, by Crockett and Posten and Watkins, by Kitty and Sadie herself, by dozens in fact.

But as I said, I just love the fact that in his final 'unjailed' moments Charlie was in fact preaching Helter Skelter NOT TO HIS FAMILY BUT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.

And yet 44 years later we still have folk insisting it was all a Bugliosi lie.
Go figure.

katie8753 said...

Leary why do you keep changing into Rob King?

leary7 said...

Dammit, I did it again, or is it the new google format that has me screwed up.
Rob King is actually my real name and my main email account, Katie. I just use aleary to blog with.

katie8753 said...

Leary, LOL. I don't know if you've noticed this, but when you post as Rob King, I have to publish your comment because it's under moderation. When you post as Leary, it posts immediately.

Panamint Patty said...

It has occurred to Patty that what happened in 1969 and why we still talk about it would be a moot point if it happened today. There'd be wikileaks and tweets and videoes and surveillance cameras and the perpetrators would end up on talk shows. Wait a minute...some things never change, eh?

bobby said...

Leary, I sure didn't mean to come across against you on any other post either so i am very sorry that I did that to you.

katie8753 said...

Patty I think the reason we still talk about it is because we don't know "why". We can surmise, speculate, wonder and cajole all we want, but the only person on this earth who knows why is Charlie. And he's not talking.

Why? I don't think it's because he's so stalwart to not be a snitch. I rather think it's because it gives him power. That's why he will never tell.

Just like Jodi Arias. She's the only person who knows why it happened and how it happened. And she'll never tell either.

They both crave attention.

louis365 said...

leary7 said...

Recently, there was a poster on here, Louis365, that I don't recall seeing before so I think he
may have been one of my longtime antagonists in disguise, who posted these two thoughts...

"To be antigov is to have a clue as to what is really going on."

And when I objected to that sentiment, he posted...

"From the blind man's eye".

Yes, quite witty. Clearly Louis365 is an enlightened and original thinker whereas I am nothing but a programmed robot.


No Leary, I am not one of your longtime antagonists. Please don't be disappointed :)

I've actually been around awhile. Mr. P. knows me from quite a ways back.

As to my post "To be antigov is to have a clue as to what is really going on", it had nothing to do with TLB. I was thinking completely off-topic and I was just really talking about the Drug War, which was started under Nixon with a budget of 101 million dollars. As of 2000, that budget has ballooned to
20 Billion dollars, and what has it accomplished? Theres more drugs on the streets, they are
cheaper, and they are of better quality. Indeed, there's something much bigger going on.

As for being anti-gov, I've become anti alot of things. Mind you, I'm speaking from Canada. Our
politicians are so liberal up here, they would make Obama blush.

My secound post, "From a bind man's eye", had nothing to do with anything lol. I was listening
to Page/Plant's album "Walking into Clarksdale", and thats a line from one of the songs that was playing.

But I have been wondering if Star will manage to become pregnant by Manson. Some people will think imposssible, but Bundy managed to have a daughter while being on Death Row.

leary7 said...

no worries Bobby. I've always really enjoyed your posts and interacting with you. Blog bumps are just part of the journey.

Really nice post Louis. And I lived in Calgary for several years so I get the Canadian perspective. I apologize for over reacting. Can I blame it on the winter blues? I thought I was back in Texas forever and done with these sub-zero days.
Just when I thought I was out...they pulled me back in again.
Yeah, Bundy's daughter. Imagine being in those shoes.
If Star got pregnant it might be the first State ordered abortion in history. America would recoil and revolt at the notion of Manson reproducing.

leary7 said...

yes, duh, he already has, but not in his present decrepit gnome condition.

Panamint Patty said...

You know, everyone has to live by a code. Anyone who makes it to a ripe old age, that is. If you don't have a code to live by, you lose yourself and burn the hell right out.

So many people out gunning for Charlie in the jail: setting him on fire, trying to "get behind" him, trying to make a name for themselves. Why isnt he dead? Why to the Aryans love him so much? Because he follows the prison code. He grew up with it. It is the law of the land, and the best way to survive in that environment. To be seen as an "honorable" criminal among criminals is the best way to go.

Rule number one of the prison code: NEVER SNITCH.

Panamint Patty said...

It makes Patty laugh when people refer to Eviliz as "them." Like, we are an army with a specific agenda, with marching orders that come from Matt.

The simpler and more direct explanation for our individual behaviors is just that: the are individual, not programmed, actions. Even the most obedient of children still hide their guilty little secrets from their parents. No sense biting the hand that feeds you!

Patty's little secret from Mr Patty right now is that she ate the See's candy that was supposed to go into his sock.

Anyway, when we discuss this stuff, it is important to remember that the individual players had other things that were just as important if not more important to them than being in "the family."

johnnyseattle said...

Lear7 said:
"And yet, Ruby's actions in the moments before he shot Oswald were NOT the actions of someone on assignment. He dallied getting up that morning, took his beloved dog with him, dallied at the Western Union where if he had remained even two or three minutes longer he would have missed the Oswald transfer. And a half century later there is still not one piece of conclusive proof that Ruby acted upon instructions. And there is strong circumstantial proof that Ruby honestly believed he would be hailed as a hero, that he would not even be arrested for shooting Oswald, that Humphrey Bogart would play him in a movie. Ruby honestly thought he would be regarded by both society and history as another Lindberg, another Babe Ruth."

I always wondered about the timing ie Ruby had these other things to do and just made it in time to shoot Oswald.

Flip it around. If you look at it this way, Oswald was not going to be brought out until Ruby was ready to be in position. Oswald was delayed quite awhile before being brought downstairs from the Jail to where he was shot.

Ruby shoot Oswald and then points to the circumstances Leery7 lists above as reasons why it wasn't planned, rather it was a spontaneous shooting and gets a lighter sentence.

One damn interesting fact is where Oswald was going prior to shooting Officer Tippit. If you look at Oswald's rooming house and where he shot Officer Tippit it is a less than half a mile from Jack Ruby's apartment.

MrPoirot said...

Maybe Oswald was going to Ruby's apartment to feed Ruby's dachshunds.

starship said...

No, Johnny you're just speculating about something that has absolutely no evidence for. It would be calling for an exponential jump in the size of the conspiracy, which would probably make it easier to prove, not harder.

katie8753 said...

All this conspiracy stuff reminds me of that episode on Seinfeld where Jerry & George pretended to be O'Brian & Murphy to get a free limo ride, and then Kramer turned it into the fact that Jerry was the new leader of the Aryan Nation and they probably knew who killed Kennedy.

You can take something so simple and build a mountain out of it. LOL.

johnnyseattle said...

Blogger starship said...

No, Johnny you're just speculating about something that has absolutely no evidence for. It would be calling for an exponential jump in the size of the conspiracy, which would probably make it easier to prove, not harder.

December 21, 2013 at 9:55 AM


And the reason the 'speculation' continues is that the original investigation (Warren Report) was done so poorly.
Unless of course, you want to posit here Starship that you find the Warren Report to be without error or fault.



johnnyseattle said...

Forgot to add, Starship this piece that helps to support my speculation.

From a recent New Yorker Article 'A word in favor of conspiracy'
"In its 1979 report, the House Select Committee on Assassinations said that it “believed that Ruby’s shooting of Oswald was not a spontaneous act, in that it involved some premeditation. Similarly, the Committee believed that it was less likely that Ruby entered the police basement without assistance, even though the assistance may have been provided with no knowledge of Ruby’s intentions.”
And if you want to go to the HSCA report section here it is:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0094a.htm

johnnyseattle said...

So Starship, as you can see not all 'speculation' is easily dismissed as I actually cited where I got that information. I understand those that those who have read Posner's 'Case Closed' or Bugliosi's 'History Reclaimed' may have issues.

There are a lot of crap conspiracy books out there. I would highly recommend you take a look at 'Parkland Reclaimed', Jim Douglas 'JFK and the Unspeakable' or Joseph McBride 'Into the Nightmare' for a deep look at Oswald, Ruby and JD Tippit if you want to get up to speed. These books are written with the benefit of documents released from the Assassination Review Board.

leary7 said...

Nobody with an open mind can conclude that either Oswald or Ruby acted on their own.

Nobody with a fair mind can reject the possibility that both Oswald and Ruby just might have acted on their own.

So where does an open and fair minded person stand?

It is impossible to argue the JFK assassination with more than a 70/30 certainty either way. If one does, then they have an agenda.
The evidence. as circumstantial as most of it is, simply is far to strong from both sides to be conclusive either way.
It's a bitch.

johnnyseattle said...

Spot on Leary. Spot on.
And the reason it is so difficult to understand is that the original investigation by the Warren Commission was so flawed.
Some would say that this was by design others would say that it was a rush to judgment to pin it solely on Oswald with no outside help for fear that would show Cuban or Russian involvement. After all, we had twice come to the brink of nuclear holocaust between 1961-63.
But I will say this, if it was only Oswald involved then why the continued involvement of the CIA over the years.

johnnyseattle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
johnnyseattle said...

Even the Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry could never satisfy himself about where Oswald was headed after leaving his rooming house.

It is amazing if you take a look at this map when you see that the direction Oswald was going -before encountering Tippit- was on the most direct route to Ruby's apartment. He was less than a half mile from Ruby's place. Direct route, less than a half mile until getting into it with Officer Tippit. Weird, eh? You know, the man who would be gunning him down a couple days later...but hey, speculation and a quarter will get you a cup of coffee.

http://www.jfkhistory.com/pix/newmap.gif

johnnyseattle said...

anyone interested, prof joseph mcbride wrote a heckuva book on the Tippit murder. here is an article that discusses his journey.


http://www.sfweekly.com/2013-08-28/culture/joseph-mcbride-into-the-nightmare-jd-tippitt/