Sunday, October 12, 2014

Was Manson "Railroaded"?


Every so often, I get that question:
"Lynyrd... in your opinion... do you think Charles Manson was railroaded?"

Heck... there's even a small book circulating with that title ("The Railroading of Charles Manson")... which by the way, I've never read.

Here's my opinion on the subject:

At the start of the trial, Manson had a chance to walk-away with a lesser sentence.  In fact, there's an outside possibility, that Manson could have walked-away clean.

There wasn't a large amount of hard evidence against Manson.

Unfortunately, Manson couldn't swallow his pride, and ultimately, that self-pride led to his demise.  Pride was Manson's Achilles' heel.

Here's the rub:
Bugliosi's prosecution completely hinged upon proving that Manson was in-charge of these kids.... and Manson (being a jackass) demonstrated his control over these kids (to the jury and the world), both inside the courtroom and out... for the entire duration of the trial.

In a nutshell, Manson made Bugliosi's case for him.

If Manson had shaved his face, got a decent haircut, put on a suit, and most importantly... kept his mouth shut, and acted like a complete nobody... a follower... Bugliosi would have had an uphill battle.

Problem is... Manson couldn't do that.

Manson had too much pride to "dethrone" himself (as the leader of these nitwits), and play by the court's rules. He was smug.  And because of that, he played right into Bugliosi's hands.

The genius of Bugliosi, was predicting how Manson would play his cards (right from the beginning).

Bugliosi knew Charlie's personality, and with that knowledge, he fashioned an effective noose to string Manson up.

Bugliosi may have been an asshole (on a personal level), but he was a great lawyer.  You can't take that away from him.  Manson on the other hand, was quite simply... a jackass.

Manson was full of pride. He was smug.  As I said... that was his Achilles' heel.  And as a result... Manson earned himself NINE murder convictions, that he'll never outlive.

My opinion:
Charles Manson "railroaded" himself.

267 comments:

1 – 200 of 267   Newer›   Newest»
Kimchi said...

Lynyrd! I've missed you! Great post....

I have some comments though!

Kimchi said...

"If Manson had shaved his face, got a decent haircut, put on a suit"

From what I understand, the DA and/or Sheriff's Dept. wouldn't allow him to shave nor get a hair cut....

Put on a suit? He was indigent...

Once the girls made that god awful red silk shirt, he did wear that, along with "the" vest...sure didn't help matters any.....jmo

katie8753 said...

KIMCHI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

katie8753 said...

If the DA or Sheriff's Dept wouldn't allow him a shave or haircut, how did he shave his head?

I think (I could be wrong and maybe it's only in Texas) an indigent defendant who can't afford a suit is given one by the State.

But, suit or no suit, Charlie could have sat still in his chair and not acted a fool, whether or not he dressed up, shaved or had a hair cut.

I think the bottom line here is that Charlie acted a fool because he wanted to show off for his "followers", hoping they'd believe that he could beat the rap.

It's too bad for him that he didn't just sit docile in his chair and not egg everything on.

katie8753 said...

Oh and that rope reminds me of Tex. I wish they had strung him up with it until his sphincter muscle released all his "bad stuff". LOL.

leary7 said...

LS, with nothing but utmost respect I honestly feel 'ego' and 'narcissism' are much more operable words than pride.
One simply cannot dismiss the notion that Charlie honestly thought of himself as Christ, as a teacher and savior of the world. He wouldn't have been the first.
Clearly Manson was on a uber-mindfuck of a trip in those days - his ego and love and hatred and paranoia and death obsession all knew no bounds. The wackadoodle gnome was flying in a different stratosphere. It is hard for anyone, even the greats like RH and such who have literally spent their lives studying Manson can completely relate or understand.

The simple truth is that despite his self-deprecating "I was just a nobody" proclamation, Charlie was truly unique in many ways, he knew it, and he was desperate that the world would know it too.
The cover of Rolling Stone...the Face of Evil....etc etc.
Charlie ran his own railroad.

St Circumstance said...

I agree with every word of this...

Bugs can be critiqued for many things, but he did an amazing job of letting Charlie bury himself...

They all did really. when I get into the debates over the years with those who feel they should be paroled for the crimes due to so much time served....

I wonder if they feel any time should be added for the way they acted at the trial in front of grieving families???

like it didn't matter, was a big joke, and was all in fun and games??

Hard to put a young girl in the gas chamber- until you see her dancing around and smiling at people who's child she just killed...

Venus said...

Great thread and posts, I agree with all of you!

katie8753 said...

Thanks Leary, St. & Venus! Good stuff!

Charlie had a "Napoleonic Complex". He was just a squatty body who tried to strut his stuff and look tough.

That guy couldn't whip his way out of a paper bag without some backup from his goofy "followers".

He needed TJ to go to Crowe's to settle a score.

He needed Bruce to take him to Hinman's to cut his ear off.

He needed a crew to waylay the Labiancas.

And he needed a team to subdue Shorty Shea.

Yeah Charlie is a coward. He doesn't do one on one. Always needs a backup. He's afraid he's not tough enough alone.

And yes St. I agree, those murderous fiends should stay in prison for the callous way they laughed at horrendous murder at the trials.

It was funny then....why isn't it funny now?

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hello Everyone... Kimchi, Leary, Saint and Venus!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Leary said:
"I honestly feel 'ego' and 'narcissism' are much more operable words than pride."

I'll go along with that.

In my mind, "ego" and "pride" are somewhat interchangeable concepts, but yeah... "ego" works too.

It's basically all three... pride, ego, and narcissism.

Because of his ego (i.e., pride), Charlie refused to "shrink himself" (for lack of a better word) in front of his minions.

Charlie is a guy, who would rather serve a lifetime in jail, than swallow his pride for a year.

There are some guys in this world, who would rather cut off their nose, than let their face win (sorta speak)... and Charlie is one of them.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Some have proposed, that Manson may have gone down in flames intentionally.

If you look at the whole picture, it's quite possible.

I mean... c'mon.
Manson isn't a complete fool.

Charlie HAD to know, that many of his actions during the trial would be very damaging (to his case).

Any fool knows, that lunging at the judge with a pencil, doesn't increase your chances of going free. LOL

"The Family" put on a circus, and everyone knows those actions were orchestrated and approved by Manson.

One might reasonably conclude, that Manson cut his own throat intentionally.

Look at it this way:
Manson was a guy who had spent a large part of his life in jail.
For him, (as fucked-up as he was)... one last "hoorah" on a big stage, may have been worth going back behind bars.

Let's not forget:
The last time he was released from prison, he asked the warden to stay-on, no?

I don't think Manson really minds jail... and faced with the proposition of swallowing his ego/pride... he chose to go back.

Lastly:
When Manson lost his right to defend himself, he said (to the judge) in so many words:
"You've left me no other alternative, than to cause you as much trouble as I possibly can".

Let's face it folks... that's basically what Manson did.
Manson made NO effort to win his case.

If you do all the math... it seems very possible that Manson did in fact, throw his case intentionally.

So... for those Manson supporters who hold that opinion... I say it's entirely possible.

katie8753 said...

Good point Lynyrd. Either he did it for ego, or he did it intentionally to save face.

But why would he whine the rest of his life that he was innocent?

MrPoirot said...

Squeaky copied Charlie's court room antics 5 years later by throwing an apple at the judge. She made the court carry her to trial every day. She'd wear her red robe garb to court. She'd stand at the judge's desk and run on and on about nothing. She requested to defend her self like Charlie did. Her antics landed her 35 long years in federal prison. That is a very long time. Few women ever serve that long. Squeaky would have gotten off with less time if she had behaved in court because it wasn't a certainty that she meant to kill Ford. No bullet in the chamber. Neither Squeaky nor Charlie directly killed anyone with their own hands yet they served decades of hard time.
Nancy Grace would have loved to have had a trial like Squeaky's to report on. She'd have been panting when Squeaky threw the apple. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa!

Courts don't allow defendants to perform today like what went on at Charlie and Squeaky's trials. I have to wonder why it was allowed back then.

beauders said...

I think in one sense Manson was railroaded and it's not because he was not alloweded to defend himself, it is because Bugliosi forced certain members of the Family-Paul Watkins, Juan Flynn, Brooks Posten, ect-to testify exactly how he wanted them to. Before Watkins died he send a man named Nick Bougas a cassette in which he confessed all. He told Bougas that Bugliosi basically had a script for the Family members to stick to while testifying and what was on that script were untruths. He encouraged these people to follow the script by telling them that if they didn't he would put them in the green room in San Quentin with Charlie. He also offered some pretty good deals for these witnesses such as getting Paul Watkins and Brooks Posten relieved from serving time in Vietnam. Hendrickson verifies this in "Death To Pigs." I've heard some say that Bugliosi didn't have the power to do that but remember who was Govenor of California and who was President at that time and how they felt about hippies. All Bugliosi had to do is make one phone call and the deal was made.

MrPoirot said...

Oh for Gods sake Beauders! Show me this tape. There were dozens of people whose experience with Manson mirrored Watkin's and Posten's testimony.
We have a tape of Watkins on CNN's Larry King with Maureen Reagan just before he died where Watkins is still in agreement with his court testimony and attitudes towards Manson.

Watkins and Posten could never have made it into the military. because of criminal records. Posten was mentally ill at that time. Both had already reported for draft duty and were denied before they mey Bug. Neither of them killed anybody. You need a dead person to convict them of murder. Who did Bug say Watkins and Posten murdered? Bug already had the strangest true life story of the 20th century without any need of blackmailing witnesses to create a fake story and giving scripts to witnesses.

MrPoirot said...

Beauders I am unaware of even a single man who was at Spahn Ranch that ended up being inducted into military service.

MrPoirot said...

Nobody wanted any of the people at Spahn Ranch. They were shunned by society. A couple of the girls made it back into civil socirty like Hoyt but most didn't. Stephanie Schram went on to college and graduated with honors intending to teach school but her past kept her from being hired as a teacher. She has to cut dog hair for a living.

katie8753 said...

He encouraged these people to follow the script by telling them that if they didn't he would put them in the green room in San Quentin with Charlie.

Beauders, first of all, a DA can't "put" anyone in the gas chamber. Only a judge or jury can sentence them.

Secondly, if the DA had threatened me to lie and perjure myself on the witness stand, I would have gone to the media and sold my story to the highest bidder.

That's ludicrous!

All Bugliosi was trying to prove to the jury was that Charlie had complete control of his minions and he didn't even have to do that.

Charlie proved it for him.

Cuntry Trash said...

The "he wasn't allowed to shave..." thing is silly.
Maybe when he was in Independence, and being looked at for murder, they did not want him to change his appearance.

But once back in LA, he shaved after a few weeks there and dressed pretty nicely at times.

And needing people to back you up, Katie, is not a Napoleon complex. Anyone in their right mind would have someone back them up. Bruce was no bigger than Manson, and surely if Manson was wanting someone else to do the dirty he would have chosen someone larger than Bruce!

And TJ was a wuss, a self-admitted pacifist, and Manson knew this. Not sure why he chose TJ aside from the fact that he was the only one who would go with him. Even Danny Decarlo was too scared to go to the Crowe situation.

As for being railroad, I think you are spot on - Manson convicted himself in many regards. However, when it comes to witnesses against him that a lot of the witnesses were duped and conned into testifing against Manson - whether they told the truth or not.

Dilligaf said...

By the way, Reagan was Governor at the time, a staunch Republican, and Bugliosi was a Democrat. I do not think a simple phone call would have done it...

MrPoirot said...

It was Paul Fitzgerald the defense atty who came up with the "no defense idea" by the defense. Fitzgerald even described his idea as "genius". The prosecution was shocked when it became the defenses' turn and they uttered the words, "the defense rests".
Charlie was railroaded by his own attys if he was railroaded at all. The prosecution had nothing to do with the craziness on the opposing side.

MrPoirot said...

Lynyrd said:

[quote]If Manson had shaved his face, got a decent haircut, put on a suit, and most importantly... kept his mouth shut, and acted like a complete nobody... a follower... Bugliosi would have had an uphill battle.[end quote]

Poirot replies:

Lynyrd let's turn this around.Do you think it is possible to make Buglioso discard his three piece suits and close crop hair cut and make force him to wear long haie and a beard with moccasins and deer hide clothing with a sword on his hip? Do you think it's possible to make Bugliosi play a guitar and sing songs while sitting on a rock while he is as high as a kite on pot? Could we teach Bugliosi to hot wire cars?

Bigliosi and Charlie: they are what they are and they can't be changed. Too much pride as you say.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P. What does that mean??? What does that even mean???

Ahhhh, I'm going to bed. Night.

beauders said...

You guys don't need to believe me, if I had access to the tape I would make it public. Hendrickson is over at Liz's site, he has also written about what the witnesses received for their testimony. He was there and has no reason to make things up.

MrPoirot said...

Beauders we have Grag Jacobsen saying that if the cops would have released the fact that "helter skelter" was scribbled on the Labianca refrigerator he would have known immediately who the killers were.

Buglioso did not fabricate this case. Bugliosi did not write the script for what the Family did. He merely presented what they did in court. This case id the most accurately documented murder case in the world and yet people keep trying to expouse that something different happened than what was presented in court.

beauders said...

I've never said I didn't think Helter Skelter wasn't used by Manson. I think most of the women believed in Helter Skelter, the guys had their own reason's for the massacre.
Poirot if everything Bugliosi presented at the trial is true, why bother debating any of it?
As far as Bugliosi being a Democrat and Reagan & Nixon being Republicans they had the same goal. Bugliosi wanted to put Manson in prison, Reagan & Nixon hated hippies and wanted Manson in prison to discredit the hippies.

katie8753 said...

Oooh, boxing's on Showtime!! I've gotta watch it! Y'all fight amongst yourselves for a while.

See ya tomorrow!

MrPoirot said...

Beauders I think /helter skelter's effect on the Famiy and contribution to the murders is misunderstood.
Charlie taught peace and love until Xmas 68. The Family was a peaceful bunch.
After Xmas 68 Charlie began teaching everyone to use knives. He appointed Decarlo as chief gun manager. Everyone practiced shooting and stabbing. Stephanie Schram's famous quote Murder school" says it all.
Whether men or women they all became violent.
This aggression is one of the primary motives behind ALL the murders. Without this dramatic shift from peace and love to killing there would not have been any murders at all.
If Charlie had ordered Beausoleil and Tex to kill in August 1968 they would not have done so because they had not been brainwashed to kill yet. They had not been taught to be violent. Charlie had not yet invented helter skelter in August 68. It took Charlie 8 months of constant indoctrination to teach his Family to kill for him.

AustinAnn74 said...

Railroaded as in not getting a fair trial, but definitely not railroaded in his guilt of being involved in human slaughter. He was the first one who broke into the LaBianca's home & tied their hands, so they couldn't defend themselves from being stabbed to death. Also, he stood there witnessing the brutal slicing of Shorty. Of, and he, personally shot a man, and cut another man across the face open with a sword. He wasn't some peaceful, sandal-wearing, love guru. He had/has a very violent side to him, and for that, he needs to live in an extremely controlled environment.

leary7 said...

Has the complete story of Manson been written? We've gotten dozens of versions but the one I always wanted to see was "The Rise And Fall of Charles Manson". You know, like Shirer's seminal "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich".

See, of course there would be a wide variety of opinions on Manson. And the most common, championed by folk like Katie, is that Manson is a worthless piece of shit coward who is undeserving of any of the fame or infamy he has garnered.
Hard to argue with that.
Except....except...
The simple truth is that both the "rise" and the "fall" of Manson is fascinating. One just cannot ignore that this loser, straight of the pen, slithered into Haight Ashbury in '67 a penniless and talentless gnome and three years later HE WAS on the cover of Rolling Stone as the Man of the Year.
How the fuck that happened is of course why we are all still here. So denounce and condemn the evil asshole till the cows come home, he will remain a big part of American history for what he represents - whether it is nothingness or pure evil or just a court jester gone mad on acid.
The asshole is only going to be around a few more years...I still want to turn him upside down and shake to see what comes out of his pockets or head.

MrPoirot said...

Charlie is Charlie.

MrPoirot said...

I really thought that after it was more than obvious that Ebama could not handle the reigns of power that Charlie would step in and take over and Squeaky would be 1st lady.

katie8753 said...

Hendrickson is over at Liz's site, he has also written about what the witnesses received for their testimony. He was there and has no reason to make things up.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Okay, excuse me. And what exactly did they receive?

katie8753 said...

2 free tickets to Disneyland?

A "get out of jail free" card?

6 free car washes?

Dinner for 4 at In-N-Out Burger?

katie8753 said...

Oh wait, maybe it was 2 free passes to Midnight Cowboy?

3 massages with "happy endings"?

A NEW CAR!

An OLD CAR!

A chauffeur driven limo ride to see The Cowsills?

A year's supply of Frosted Flakes?

A complimentary addition to the phone book?

2 free airline tickets to the Des Moines potato festival?

Come on Beauders, I'm just DYING to know what the prize was for lying and perjuring oneself on the witness stand, which could lead to jail time!!!

beauders said...

Okay Katie well Watkins and Posten didn't have to go to Vietman, DeCarlo had police charges thrown out, and Kasabian had seven counts of first degree murdered tossed.

MrPoirot said...

As far as going to Nam I can't think of any of the 60s rock stars who were drafted. They were mysteriously "left" out of the draft that trapped hundreds of thousands of young men. yet no rock stars.
The death sentences for the Manson Family disappeared in a timely manner too. Luckily the courts were sympatico with anyone who hated Nixon. When Charlie raised up that news paper with "Nixon Declares Manson Guilty" he in effect got a get of death free card.

louis365 said...

Mr. P., ya aughta know rock stars get away with everything.:)

...except when the boink a prime ministers's wife LOL.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Cuntry Trash said:
"The "he wasn't allowed to shave..." thing is silly.
Maybe when he was in Independence, and being looked at for murder, they did not want him to change his appearance.
But once back in LA, he shaved after a few weeks there and dressed pretty nicely at times."


I agree.

The authorities may have prevented Manson from altering his appearance initially... but I can't imagine they could legally deny a defendant the right to personal hygiene (ie., a shave and normal haircut) for an entire trial.
The trial lasted for months.

As for having no suit:
The girls crawled across town on their hands and knees.
I'm pretty sure they would've come-up with a suit for Charlie (if he requested one). LOL

Heck... Tex looked like a New York lawyer at his trial.

katie8753 said...

Okay Katie well Watkins and Posten didn't have to go to Vietman, DeCarlo had police charges thrown out, and Kasabian had seven counts of first degree murdered tossed.

Beauders I know you're smarter than that.

Watkins was already afraid of Charlie and hiding from him when Bugliosi talked to him. Why would he have to lie for Bugliosi?

And Kasabian was offered a deal because she didn't kill anyone and Bugliosi needed someone to testify against them. Is that right? That's debatable. But the DA used that for convictions. He never told her to lie about anything. End of Story.

As far as threatening someone to lie on the stand, that's just stupid. That never happened.

Period!

MrPoirot said...

Though I doubt Bug ever gave Watkins a script even more I doubt that Wakins would follow a script if he did make comments about his testimony I would be very interested in what he had to say. It is a real shame that he died before the internet age. A lot of knowledge of this case went with him. He was about the only person who wasn't afraid to speak about TLB. In fact he tried to speak more than he did.

beauders said...

Don't get me wrong I am not a Manson apologist---he should spend his life in prison for beating up DeCarlo's wife because she wanted her kid back. I just don't think Bugliosi was as squeaky clean as everyone assumes. Do not forget Bugliosi beat up his mistress and stalked his milkman. Why would Hendrickson lie about Watkins and Posten getting out of Vietnam for their testimony? It really didn't add anything.

St Circumstance said...

Would it interest you to know that as far as rock stars and the military...

Frank and Gail Zappa
Jim Morrsion
Steven Stills
Jackson Browne
John Phillips
Davis Crosby
Beckley,Pete,Bunnell- (America)
Mike Nesmith- Monkees
Corey Wells- 3 dog nite
Grahm Parsons

All rock Stars from the Laurel Canyon of L.A. area and all with military in their family backgrounds...

All these folks gathered nearly simultaneously along the narrow, winding roads of Laurel Canyon. They came from across the country – although the Washington, DC area was noticeably over-represented – as well as from Canada and England. They came even though, at the time, there wasn't much of a pop music industry in Los Angeles. They came even though, at the time, there was no live pop music scene to speak of. They came even though, in retrospect, there was no discernable reason for them to do so. ( Quote from Inside the LC series)

- There was a secret military base near the Canyon though...

maybe family friends/ties are what kept them all out. Although I have read biographies about most of them and they all seem to have there own stories about how they stayed out...

bobby said...

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=49150

St. C,

There are a bunch of these type of researched stories on the web & I enjoy reading them more for the history than any belief in conspiracies. All the young rock & stars & the likes with parents in the " military industrial complex " is very fascinating.

bobby said...

I'm sure you have seen this video too.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Beauders.

Beauders said:
"Don't get me wrong I am not a Manson apologist---he should spend his life in prison for beating up DeCarlo's wife because she wanted her kid back. I just don't think Bugliosi was as squeaky clean as everyone assumes. Do not forget Bugliosi beat up his mistress and stalked his milkman. Why would Hendrickson lie about Watkins and Posten getting out of Vietnam for their testimony? It really didn't add anything."

No one said that Bugliosi was "squeaky clean".

We already know about the milkman and the mistress.
That's old news.

We also know about Bugliosi's deal with Kasabian and Decarlo... again, old news.

In a murder case of this magnitude, is it really that unusual for a prosecutor to pull strings and make deals???
I don't think so.
(I'd love to hear from Dilligaf on that question).

Bugliosi made deals to convince these folks to testify against their cohorts and crime partners.
There's no doubt about that.

Bugliosi pursued Manson aggressively.
Again, there's no doubt about that.

Heck...
At one point, Bugliosi even tried to work-out a deal with Susan Atkins.
What does THAT tell ya?!

Bugliosi wanted Manson behind bars.
He knew Manson was the head of the snake, and he wasn't going to leave the courtroom, until Manson was convicted.

However...
Making deals and convincing witnesses to testify, and asking them to straight-up lie, are two different things.

There's no hard proof that Bugliosi ever asked anyone to lie... or, that things were "scripted".
The "word" of Paul Watkins, is a far cry from hard proof.

Paul Watkins isn't the most credible person in the world.
He switched teams and loyalties, like most people change socks.

I doubt Paul Watkins needed a whole lot of coaxing from Bugliosi, to throw Manson under the bus.

Watkins had already run-off to Paul Crockett, before Bugliosi even came on the scene.

Also, Watkins gave Manson a verbal beating throughout RH's original "Manson" movie.
He lambastes Manson throughout the entire show:

"There was none of me left. Everything I had, I gave to Charlie. In the end, I WAS Charlie... and everyone else was Charlie too."

""Death was Charlie's trip... etc, etc, etc."

He goes on, and on, and on... and gets very graphic.
He explains ad-nauseam, how Manson was fully in-charge of everyone... and how Manson was fixated on death, killing and violence.

Was Bugliosi holding a gun to Paul's head for the taping of RH's "Manson" movie as well???

Paul Watkins was more than willing to shit all over Charlie... and in turn, he was pretty much full of shit himself.

I'm convinced, that Paul Watkins (and other Family members) brought the "Helter Skelter" story to Bugliosi... and not vice-versa.

Continued...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Manson cut his own throat.

Even WITH the testimony of Kasabian, Watkins, DeCarlo and Posten... Manson still had a decent shot at a lesser sentence, if he played his cards right.

If Manson had sat quietly like a little school boy for the entire trial... the idea of HIM being in-charge, would have been a very hard sell.
The man is barely over 5 feet tall for cripes sakes.
He certainly doesn’t LOOK like the leader of anything.

Manson sold Bugliosi’s story to the jury, and the world.
There’s no two ways around it.

I believe Manson was in-charge.
You wanna know why?

NOT because Bugliosi said so… but because I observed it with my own eyes!
The kids mimicked everything Charlie did, and did everything he asked.
They were feverishly loyal to the gnome.

Charlie made it obvious that he was in-charge.
Manson railroaded himself... he got what he deserved... and he's right where he belongs.

==============================

As for Bugliosi pulling strings:

I’m sure he had lots of cooperation from many people and agencies.

Let’s put this situation into perspective:

These murders were a huge blood bath.
This was arguably the biggest legal case in US history to date.
People in Hollywood were afraid to fall asleep in their own homes.
Society was outraged and tired of the counter-culture.
It was the first time, that large-scale violence was attributed to “cult activity” in our mainstream media.

The Bottom line:
Everyone wanted heads to ROLL!
People wanted these animals behind bars, so they could sleep soundly at night!
They wanted these ass clowns, who outwardly GIGGLED at the concept of murder, to pay!

In every regard… these criminals were domestic terrorists.
The Hawthorne shootout was supposed to garner guns, so they could hi-jack a plane and kill hostages until Manson et al, were released!

Of course the cops threatened these bozos with the green room!
Are you kidding me?

I’m sure Bugliosi had the help and cooperation of many people and departments to pull strings… and I say, more power to the him!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Bob.

Good to see you!

MrPoirot said...

As far as the trial being scripted that would apply more to Manson. Krenwinkle discusses Manson telling the other defendants how to act and what to say. Charlie was a very powerful cult leader at his very peak of control when he was arrested but that didn't end his control. Judges, witnesses and attys feared Charlie and his girls. Watkins and Barbara Hoyt were nearly killed in order to stop them from testifying against Charlie. I know of no other defendabt in US history who had the power Charlie had in 1971.
Charlie was the script writer not Bugliosi.

CarolMR said...

I don't think Bugliosi's "milkman and mistress" has any bearing on TLB. Who cares about Vince's personal life?

bobby said...

CarolMR said...
I don't think Bugliosi's "milkman and mistress" has any bearing on TLB. Who cares about Vince's personal life?

I Agree CarolMR, Exactly right. Just like all the other deflecting that goes on including Debra Tate & any of her actions.

Hi LS. Thanks for the post.

katie8753 said...

However...
Making deals and convincing witnesses to testify, and asking them to straight-up lie, are two different things.


Right on Lynyrd! Those are 2 VERY different things.

Carol & Bobby, I agree, Vincent's personal life had nothing to do with TLB. Neither does Debra's.

It's just another ploy the whiners use to say that Manson is innocent, blah, blah, blah.

Manson is more guilty than any of the others. He was the causative agent for all these murders.

Kimchi said...

I think I need to clarify something...

I'm not an apologist for the perps...

I'm old enough to remember (very clearly) when this came down...

I was terrified... being a Beatles fan I wouldn't listen to Side 2 of the White Album for years and years believing it was "evil"...

But, getting interested in this case, reading everything I could find, visiting all the sites to become well acquainted, probably too close...I tend to look at both sides....

I was "exposed" to the "naughty" side of County Officials....no, I wasn't incarcerated... I was on "their (the officials) side" of business...I could write a book on it...but never will...

I've seen a lot....both good and bad...some get caught, some don't - some just did in LA...

And yep, deals get made everyday...makes life for everyone a whole lot easier!

So there you have it...I DO look at both sides before I judge anyone...(in my own mind)...

St Circumstance said...

L/S- Again- I agree with every word!

Hey Bobby- I had not seen that- Thanks! I got my info from a series of essays called

Inside The LC: The Strange but Mostly True Story of Laurel Canyon and the Birth of the Hippie Generation

( how reassuring that the title itself calls it MOSTLY true lol- but I made sure it was factual about these Rock Stars)

I always wondered how Paul was able to hang with the family ( as shown in the Hendrickson Docs) and still testify against Charlie and work with Bugs at the same time?? But he did become a politician later in life lol....

L/S- have a great weekend and here is one for you!!

Malibu Police Chief: I don't like your jerk-off name, I don't like your jerk-off face and I don't like you. Jerk-off. Do I make myself clear?

The Dude: I'm sorry I wasn't listening, can you repeat that?

katie8753 said...

I was "exposed" to the "naughty" side of County Officials....no, I wasn't incarcerated... I was on "their (the officials) side" of business...I could write a book on it...but never will...

Well thanks Kimchi. You basically said nothing at all. YES!! More for our side.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Saint! LOL

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Great movie!

"Easy man... there's a beverage here!" LOL

Where's the money Lebowski???!!
"I think it's down there. Let me take another look." LMAO

"Nobody fucks with the Jeezus." LOL

"This aggression will not stand man."

"That rug really pulled the room together."

"Don't you get it... you threw out a ringer, for another ringer."

The Dude abides... LOL

Kimchi said...

Katie said:

Well thanks Kimchi. You basically said nothing at all. YES!! More for our side.

What do you mean by that?

What "exactly" do you want to know?

Kimchi said...

Katie, go fuck yourself...

katie8753 said...

Why don't you, in the meantime, go fuck yourself?

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

LMAO!

You two are cracking me up!

katie8753 said...

I was "exposed" to the "naughty" side of County Officials....no, I wasn't incarcerated... I was on "their (the officials) side" of business...I could write a book on it...but never will...

Kimchi what does that mean? And I don't appreciate you telling me to fuck myself.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Why don't you BOTH go fuck yourselves??!!

Ahahahaha!

OMG... that's just too funny...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIt9hmTrFvM

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Great scene:

"He shoots him in the foot, he tells him to go fuck himself..."

LOLOL!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Sorry ladies.

I've got a sick sense of humor... LOL

katie8753 said...

I'm gonna tell you one god-damn thing. I'm under a lot of stress right now, but if you've got something to spew, then spew it!

Don't keep on with this stupid "I know a lot of things but can't tell" bullshit.

Spew it. Or shut the fuck up!!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Kimchi's point (if I may intervene), was that she's seen the criminal justice system operate from the inside... and in her personal experience, deals DO get made (by county officials) every day.

I thought that was pretty clear...

katie8753 said...

Well, Lynyrd I'm tired. And I'm going to bed. If Kimchi wants to keep giving signals about some obtuse revalation, so be it.

I'm going to bed. Now where did I put my angels???

MrPoirot said...

Well, it looks like they both fucked off.

MrPoirot said...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2797673/Easy-Rider-chopper-auction-phony.html

The "Easy Rider" chopper ridden by Peter Fonda is being auctioned off. It is a fake. Both the movie bikes used in the 1969 film are long ago stolen, pieced out and sold off. Dan Haggerty who has authenticated these bikes being periodically auctioned gets a cut from the ill-derived proceeds. I'm surprised he hasn't been charged with fraud.

beauders said...

The reason I brought up Bugliosi's mistress and milkman was because it shows his character.

bobby said...

http://bewareofbugliosi.com/

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I have to admit, I lost a lot of respect for Bugliosi when he wrote that book "Divinity of Doubt".

I mean seriously...
Who takes the time to compile an entire book of reasons why God doesn't exist? LOL

The guy is so smug, that he even puts God on trial from his death bed. LMAO
(Ok... it was a few years before his death bed, but he was pretty freakin' old)

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

It's an interesting debate.

Where does one's personal life and character end, and professional life and character begin?

Bill Clinton was receiving oral sex from Monica Lewinski.
And regardless of one's feelings about extra-marital sex... he did lie to the American people time-and-again about it.

Who can forget:
"I did NOT have sexual relations with that women".

If nothing else, one could safely call him a liar.

BUT yet...
He WAS a pretty damn good President.

The economy was doing very well... and we were (for the most part) on good terms with everyone globally.

I'm not even a Democrat.
I'm registered as an Independent, who leans Republican.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Harold True said (paraphrasing):
"The way that Booga-loosi wheels and deals...etc, etc."

All lawyers "wheel and deal" to some extent.

I think it's safe to assume, that Bugliosi probably "wheeled and dealed" more than most.

What'cha gonna do?

I'm sure Manson was "wheeling and dealing" from his side too.

Sometimes in life, you have to fight fire with fire to win.

And, Bugliosi certainly won.

A passive, less-aggressive lawyer probably would have lost the case against Manson.
That's a reality.
Would that have made everyone happy?

Manson will never get out of jail.
And I for one, am not losing much sleep over that fact.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

In essence, Bugliosi was prosecuting an entire mob of criminals simultaneously.

They were a close-knit group, and Bugliosi was clearly outnumbered.

Bugliosi HAD to get a few of those "mob members" on his side, to have a chance at winning.

That's reality... and that's exactly what Bugliosi did (through every means possible).

We've been discussing this shit for years.
Let's stop splitting hairs.
That's the bottom line.

MrPoirot said...

Bugliosi got death sentences for four defendants at one time. That may be a record in American history. I think this angered to appeal courts at the time in California and Washington who hated Nixon as much as Charlie did so they abolished the verdicts. The courts saw the Manson Family death sentences as proxy political victories for Nixon.

johnnyseattle said...

Lynyrd
I agree. He Railroaded himself.
Exhibit A for why you hire a professional as your legal representative.

Charlie was the Train Conductor of the KooKoo Express with the Girls and Tex riding in the Caboose and drove it right to the death house.

Dilligaf said...

As I read the various comments, the first thing that becomes apparent is that there is not an agreed upon definition of pulling strings or wheeling and dealing. Until there is an agreed upon definition, there will always be suspicions, allegations, and baseless claims.

"Deals" are an unfortunate reality of the justice system. It would be great to be able to prosecute an accused with an airtight case, with demonstrable evidence that leaves no doubt as to the guild of a defendant, however, this is not Law & Order, this is the real world. You can find yourself will little alternatives at times, forced to offer a deal in order to garner a conviction. Does it sometimes backfire? Yes. Does that deal allow someone to escape a greater punishment that they deserve? Yes. Is the person getting the deal at times a questionable person? Most of the time. We do not get to choose the players in a case. Most of those involved in a criminal case are not the types that you want at your dinner table, or at your child's school play. But we do not get to pick and choose the players, we have to deal the hand, and use the system in a lawful and legal manner in order to do the work of the people. I had to hold my nose at times when making a deal for lesser time, or no charges at all, but had to balance my personal disdain against the likely outcome of a conviction of those who were more involved in that particular crime.

We were not able to "pull strings" as was implied by offering special consideration via other agencies, departments, or governmental entities. Does that mean that it did not happen 40 years ago? No, but even then, pulling strings is not as easy as making the claim of doing so. You have different jurisdictions, with different agendas, policies, and even egos. Things are not done for favors which can be repaid in the future, it has to be a win-win scenario for all parties involved, or the "wheeling" will not happen.

I believe the offer made to Kasabian was the correct one. I believe that Watkins was coached, but no more than what a defense witness is coached. You never, ever, put a witness on the stand that you do not know the outcome of in advance. You phrase your questions based upon your strategy, taking the witness where you need them to go, while leaving the least amount of opportunity for opposing counsel to challenge. The tactics are similar on either side of the table, it is only the payoff that is different.

Bottom line is that if the Wooly Hophead was railroaded, he was the engineer, conductor, baggage handler, and Caboose man, all rolled into one. No one has room to contest the fairness of their case when they do their best to throw it. If there were glaring examples of judicial bias or unfairness, which could have impacted or threatened the rights of the accused, I can guarantee that an appeals court would have found it. Can anyone tell me where the appeals court ruled so? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
That is because the trial, verdict, and sentence, was just, fair, and legal.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hello Dilligaf.

Thank You so much for your input.

Your post is hands-down the best commentary that I've read in a very long time.

Your input is always welcome, respected and appreciated.

My Best Regards.

LS

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Johnny.

I couldn't agree more.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

"If the Wooly Hophead was railroaded, he was the engineer, conductor, baggage handler, and Caboose man, all rolled into one. No one has room to contest the fairness of their case when they do their best to throw it."

Jeez...

That's one of those rare TLB quotes, that gives me a chill up my spine.
Talk about hitting the nail on the head.

I just might post that brilliance in the sidebar.

paul said...

I'd call that a brilliant definition of injustice. The behavior, demeanor and intentions of the accused should have absolutely no bearing on the verdict... they are supposed to be being judged on the charges and the the charges only. The acceptance of anything else disgusts me... especially from an alleged legal mind.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

MPaul said:
"The behavior, demeanor and intentions of the accused should have absolutely no bearing on the verdict..."

Really?
What planet are you from?

Everything a defendant says (and does) in the courtroom, has some bearing on the verdict.

That's why defense attorneys earn advanced degrees before they're allowed to practice law.

That's also why, anyone with a brain, gets the best lawyer they can possibly afford, and from there, they do and say everything that their lawyer advises!

If you lunge at the judge with a pencil, that doesn't have any bearing on the final outcome?
That doesn't demonstrate your character to the jury?

Being on trial for your life, is much like attending a job interview.
If you're smart (and you value your life), you do everything in your power to sell yourself to the jury.

It's common sense.

katie8753 said...

Bravo Dill. I love your comment. So true.

Lynyrd, I agree. The defendant's behavior in the courtroom is crucial to his/her case.

Paul, why do you think Jodi Arias and the Blue Eyed Butcher showed up at court looking like school marms with coke bottle glasses?

Because any defense lawyer knows that the jury's perception of the defendant has to be a favorable one. Jumping up and down, threatening people, lunging at judges and pretending to be crucified on the cross are not actions that any jury would embrace.

I can't believe how long Charlie & Co. got away with all these antics anyway. That sure wouldn't happen today.

I remember in the Casey Anthony trial, some guy came in and sat in the audience and shot the bird at someone, and Judge Perry called him before the bench, made him look and feel about 2 inches tall, and ordered him to spend 2 nights in jail. And I think he told him that if he was ever caught in his courtroom again, he would be prosecuted.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Case in point:

I was involved in a trial once.

My lawyer sized me up, in 30 minutes.

My lawyer told me point-blank:
"You're obviously a guy who likes to talk a lot. DON'T DO THAT!"

He repeated a second time:
"DON'T DO THAT!"

He then grabbed my arm, and said:
Answer EVERY question with as FEW words as possible!
If you can answer a question with "Yes"... say "Yes" ONLY!
If you can answer a question with "No"... say "No" ONLY!
If you don't remember something, say "I don't remember" PERIOD!


And here's the clincher.
He looked me straight in the eyes and said:
"Speak as if every word from your mouth, is costing you $1,000 dollars".

How's them for apples???

My lawyer told me straight-away to shut the fuck up... and that's EXACTLY what I did!

That's a true story... and I've told it many times.

Everything you say (and do) in the courtroom, has some bearing on the final outcome.

Anyone who believes otherwise, is sniffing glue.

MrPoirot said...

How many people in the whole entire history of the werld would stand up in court and mimic Jesus on the cross? It is not a good defense strategy. Charlie not only did that but he then has the nerve to complain after his conviction that he was railroaded and his robot followers till this day repeat his claim that he was railroaded.

Cuntry Trash said...

Regarding "Helter Skelter"

Just because it was spoken about, preached, and believed doesn't automatically make every action a result or a process of Helter Skelter.

That is where the prosecution went way wrong.

1+1 may equal 2, but so does 10 (binary), and so does (500/1 x 1/200)x(2^3 x 2^-1) ... that being said, Bug chose an easy to understand motive, and one that would not be forgivable/excusable and went with it tenfold.

What the Helter Skelter thing equates is much like drinking coffee in the morning and on the way to work you run a red light and kill someone. You killed them because you're a dumbass not following the law, not because you grabbed that cup of coffee. But a good prosecutor could make the coffee the reason.

Not a good analogy, but still.

And when it comes to the defense "resting without putting up a case", I am quite sure where the defense stood, not calling witnesses was for the best.

Remember, anyone put on the stand would be cross-examined. Could you imagine someone like Sandra Good being crossed? Or Clem? Then the defendants wanted to testify, and again, that would also surely not go well.

As much as I feel like Manson should have been able to put on a case, that Fitzgerald made the best choice by resting. At the best, it could have resulted in a hung jury wanting to hear the defense before making a decision. And that too may have been what Fitzgerald expected.

Kimchi said...

OK Lynyrd,

"Why don't you BOTH go fuck yourselves??!!"

I'm better now, thanks....lol

Dilligaf, that was a graceful post..very well presented...

I still put myself in Manson's position and wonder how frustrated I would have felt during the proceedings...

Not sure if I would have acted like that, maybe, but after all, everything was so dramatized in the press... the media, the President, the politics, the money, it just was not fair...what is a man to do?

And I am NOT speaking about Watson...

Cuntry Trash, you confuse me, really...(not an insult, just saying)

Beauders, I know where you're coming from...

Paul, right on.....

paul said...

Uh, just to say that the key word of my post was "should"... I'm well aware that principle and practice are more likely to be strangers than friends...

MrPoirot said...

OK now that we've all gone and fucked ourselves can we get back to discussing the binary system?

katie8753 said...

I deleted my last comment. It was pretty rough.

I'll re-word it nicely. LOL.

leary7 said...

I don't have anything to say...
I just like it when a thread hits a hundred, like getting three 7's.

But railroaded? Seriously? Moaning about media influence in today's world (and yes, in '69 too) is like railing against the rain. Imagine if TLB were held today what with the internet and Nancy Grace and CourtTV and such.

I agree, Diligaf said it best, long live Steve Dallas and my old pal Berke.
But we sure do need some new topics here. Anything new on Star and Grey Wolf? HOw about the Monfort boys? How about my favorite girls, Stephanie S. or Ella Jo?

Of course it has gotten to the point where the posters are often more interesting than the subject matter. I still fantasize about a bar-b-que and volleyball game between Matt's regulars and Lynyrd's pals.
I just want to see Katie spike the ball off of Col Scott's noggin.

Cuntry Trash said...

I guess my post was confusing.
I was just saying that in prosecution the motive doesn't have to be exact, it just has to be simple for the jury to understand, and be able to prosecute beyond reasonable doubt.

Motives are rarely spot on, I don't think. It just has to be able to be backed up with the evidence admissible in court.

It has to be 1+1=2 for the jury, even if the true motive isn't that simplistic.

If Bugliosi went into the real motives, the jury would have been way too confused and Bugliosi knew that. He had to keep it Helter Skelter.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Paul,

With all do respect, you're not making any sense.

Character assessment is most certainly, one of the many duties of a juror.

If the prosecutor is trying to convince the jury, that the defendant is mentally disturbed (to the point of orchestrating murder)... and as a juror, I witness the defendant acting mentally disturbed right inside the courtroom... I "shouldn't" take note of that??
Are you serious?

Charles Manson carved an "X" in the middle of his forehead during the trial! LOL
That doesn't "suggest" mental instability???

Charles Manson re-enacted the crucifixion in the courtroom.
That doesn't "suggest" to a juror, that he might be a quack?
That doesn't "suggest" to a juror, that maybe the prosecutor's assessment (of the defendant) is accurate?

Moreover...
If the prosecutor is trying to convince the jury, that the defendant is the leader of a criminal group... and as a juror, I witness a portion of this "criminal group" following the defendant's lead right inside the courtroom for MONTHS on end... I "shouldn't" take a mental note of that??

WTF Paul?
Have you lost your marbles, since the last time I saw you?
Evidently, you've already had enough glue.

Not only "should" jurors be doing character assessment and taking mental notes during a trial, but indeed, it's their duty!

A juror is supposed to be using all five senses, to assess the entire situation... not just waiting for lunch time to roll around.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Cuntry Trash said:
"I was just saying that in prosecution the motive doesn't have to be exact, it just has to be simple for the jury to understand, and be able to prosecute beyond reasonable doubt.

Motives are rarely spot on, I don't think. It just has to be able to be backed up with the evidence admissible in court.

It has to be 1+1=2 for the jury, even if the true motive isn't that simplistic.

If Bugliosi went into the real motives, the jury would have been way too confused and Bugliosi knew that. He had to keep it Helter Skelter."


=============================================================

You're absolutely correct.

Moreover...
A prosecutor doesn't have to present any motive at all, to gain a conviction.
It's generally better to present a motive, but it's not mandatory.

Bugliosi knew of other possible motives.
There's no doubt about that.
He actually admitted to that, in later years.

When asked if he still believed HS was the real motive, he replied:
"It seems the motive(s) were several and disparate"

Bugliosi chose HS intentionally, because the other possible motives (such as drugs) would have been much too cumbersome and complex, to sell to the jury.
(Especially, with multiple defendants to prosecute)

"HS" was a fairly streamlined net, with few intricate details.

Bugliosi had to prove two key points, to sell HS to the jury:
#1) He had to prove that Manson (and company) were all nuts.
#2) He had to prove that Manson was the head nut.
(That of course, is a gross over-simplification... but never-the-less, those indeed, were the two key points).

Luckily for Bugliosi... (and as he successfully predicted would happen)... the defendants themselves, went a LONG way, in proving both key factors (ie, that they were all nuts, and that Manson was the head nut).

Which of course... is the main point of this thread.

A drug motive, would have required a much more complex presentation.
There are tons of tiny details which must be strung together, to fully understand the drug motive.

ALSO... and very worthy of note:.
Bugliosi chose "HS", because it was aimed at Manson.
The drug motive probably wouldn't have been successful in convicting Manson.

leary7 said...

I've always loved the fact that Lynyrd becomes such a warrior whenever someone seeks to inflame the quest for the Unholy Grail, i.e., the "true" TLB motive. The quest is of course kept alive by the Col and others who belittle and demean anyone who even remotely buys into HS. It's not exactly Aristotle versus Socrates. but the discussion never ceases to be passionate.

Are folk still waiting for RH to drop a bombshell when Charlie kicks it? Does anyone really expect the Tex Tapes to change the terrain?
What exactly does the anti-HS zealots hang their hats on these days? Besides their fanatical hatred of Bugliosi that is.

It's funny, isn't it...who do you believe - Monica or Bill? OJ or Tom Furman? Or how about the ultimate - Charlie or Tex?
Doesn't it all come down to exactly what was said between the two Charles as the took a walk right before the gang headed off to Cielo Drive. And of course we'll never know. You believe one or the other. How fucked up is it to believe the more savage of the two? But we do.
100.

leary7 said...

wait, I got a weird idea. I am headed back to Austin next week for the winter. I was thinking of trying to meet up with the wonderful amazing poster AustinAnn. I am hopin she would grant me an audience. There are several posters I want to meet up with - candy and nuts, seattlejohnny and such.

But I was daydreamin again...what if AustinAnn was interested and we somehow organized a Ruby Pearl Texas Hold Em Tournament in Austin during the next South by Southwest. And what if in order to enter the tournament you had to be a registered member of at least one TLB blog. Do you think folk would come?
What if for prizes instead of cash there would be a top prize of a visit with Charlie, or lunch with Squeeky or a Donkey Dan dildo signed by a couple of the girls (what would that be worth in fifty years?). What is Manson paraphernalia going for these days.
Ah hell, I am just having a boring afternoon. Still, there are a bunch of folk on the TLB blogs I would love to meet and sit at a poker table with.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Leary.

I always enjoy your posts.

I'm glad you're doing well.

"Unholy Grail". LOL!
(That sounds like a sexual reference).
I think I used to date her... LOL

Katie's in Texas.
Maybe you should add her, to your itinerary.
I'm sure she'd appreciate a few drinks, and some good conversation. : )

"I don't have anything to say... I just like it when a thread hits a hundred, like getting three 7's."

Yup...
You had the honor of posting the "100th" comment.
As a blog admin, that's always a good feeling.

We haven't reached "100" in quite a while... but then again, I haven't been around much (in quite a while) either... LOL
(A blog generally suffers, when the chief admin disappears). LOL!
I couldn't keep-up this pace year-round (like I used to)... nor, would I want to.
There's more to life, than sitting at a keyboard.

I'd love to hear from Frank and Starship.
Frank's been gone for a long time... and Starship has mysteriously disappeared recently.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Speaking of which...

Sunset and Prokes haven't been around lately either.

I hope they're both doing well.

CarolMR said...

Lynyrd said:

"Bugliosi chose HS intentionally, because the other possible motives (such as drugs) would have been much too cumbersome and complex, to sell to the jury.
(Especially, with multiple defendants to prosecute)."

I don't know, Lynyrd. I would think that, especially in the late 60s, the drug motive would have been an easy sell; HS seems the more complex motive.

paul said...

Katie,

I wasn't offended by your "glue" comment, but now it's gone could you please delete my "glue" response ? It obviously makes no sense now... I know, I know... some would say it's still consistent !

katie8753 said...

Paul: Done!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Carol said:
"I don't know, Lynyrd. I would think that, especially in the late 60s, the drug motive would have been an easy sell; HS seems the more complex motive."


Hi Carol,

I hear what you're saying.

On the surface, "HS" seems more complex (and much less believable) than a drug motive.

I'll agree with you there.

In fact, in many ways, "HS" IS much less believable.
It's certainly more bizarre... no doubt.

Drugs is a much more "practical" motive.

But sometimes, there's more to things, than meets the eye.

Schreck compiled a 900-page book, in an earnest attempt at proving the drug motive.
And yet, he still hasn't proven it, to everyone's satisfaction.

The drug motive is quite complex.

In order to prove the drug motive, Bugliosi would have had to discuss (in detail) specifics about Sebring, Frykowski, possibly Rostau... some Canadians... etc., etc, etc.

He'd have to string together dozens of intricate details and timeline's with superb accuracy... to the jury's satisfaction.

Quite honestly Carol:
I don't think Bugliosi HIMSELF, had the drug motive completely solved 45 years ago!
I really don't.

I'm sure Bugliosi knew drugs were a probable motive... but suspecting a drug motive is one thing.... solving it, and then "proving it" in a courtroom, is quite another.

We've been working on the drug angle for 45 years now, and there are still loopholes.
You can't have loopholes in a courtroom.

And remember...
When you're dealing with lots of intricate details... it leaves more space for the defense to contest things.
In a word, it's easier to screw-up.

Also...
The drug motive may not have garnered a conviction against Manson.

Bugliosi was willing to roll the dice on "HS", in order to lasso Manson.

"HS" was basically an all-or-nothing proposition.
It was either going to work, or it was going to fail miserably.

As it turned-out... it worked.

Without the help of the defendants themselves, I believe that "HS" would have failed (regarding Manson specifically).
That's not a fact, it's my personal opinion.

I definitely hear what you're saying though Carol.

It's a matter of opinion... and ultimately, we'll never know exactly how much ammunition Bugliosi actually had 45 years ago (to prove a drug motive).

I personally don't think that Bugliosi would have been able to "prove" the drug motive 45 years ago.
I don't think, he had it all pieced together.

We've had 45 years to digest this stuff.
Bugliosi didn't have 45 years to work with, at the time of the trial.

It's hard to say.

"HS" is crazy, but it's fairly simple... and when you're prosecuting crazy people... maybe it's not so hard to sell... LOL

They certainly operated and acted like a cult.
They met all the generally accepted definitions of cult behavior.

Ultimately, you may be right...

YOU decide! LOL

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Paul,

You signed-up for my blog when it first opened, and you never showed-up... not even once.

Three and a half years has passed since my blog opened, and you waltz in here (for the very first time), and make snarky remarks.

Dilligaf is not an "alleged legal mind", he IS a legal mind.

Moreover...
He's a valued participant here.

I've invested considerable time responding to your post(s).

I just deleted your last comment.

At this point, you're just being intentionally difficult and ridiculous.

Quite frankly, I'm annoyed.

I'm not investing any more time, volleying with you.

I've laid things out, as plainly as I possibly can.

If you don't agree, or can't understand, that's your problem.

Charles Manson was convicted because he was a conspirator.
The jury made that decision 45 years ago.

In addition to the evidence which Bugliosi presented against him... and the testimony of his cohorts and crime partners (which confirmed Bugliosi's claims)... Manson further hindered his chances, by acting like a jackass.

If anything, the court granted Manson more leniency than most defendants would receive today.

It's pretty simple really.

Good Day.

CarolMR said...

"HS" is crazy, but it's fairly simple... and when you're prosecuting crazy people... maybe it's not so hard to sell... LOL - Lynyrd

Very true, Lynyrd! Thank you for your thoughts on the drugs/HS motives.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

You're welcome Carol.

It's good to see you.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Kimchi said:
"I still put myself in Manson's position and wonder how frustrated I would have felt during the proceedings..."

Not sure if I would have acted like that, maybe, but after all, everything was so dramatized in the press... the media, the President, the politics, the money, it just was not fair...what is a man to do?

And I am NOT speaking about Watson..."


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'm not really sure, what that last disclaimer is all about.
You're NOT speaking about Tex Watson?
Tex Watson doesn't deserve a fair trial?

That sniffs of hypocrisy.

Tex Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Susan Atkins and Leslie Van Houton ALL deserved a fair trial... just as Charles Manson did.

No US citizen deserves to be railroaded, and everyone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Manson is no exception to any rule... and neither is Tex Watson.
The law applies to both equally.

Lastly...

"The Family" did more to incite the media, than anyone else.
They wanted to be in the public eye.
They wanted to shock the world.
They succeeded.

katie8753 said...

I agree with everything Lynyrd says. I'm not going to repeat it all, so read for yourselves.

Carol, the drug motive would have been much harder to prove. First of all, none of the victims acknowledged knowing the killers.

Voytek said, when he was kicked awake "who are you?"

Same goes for Sebring. He didn't acknowledge knowing any of them.

Now if I was a drug dealer and had just sold drugs to a person, I think I would know who he was. But they didn't.

Moreso, NONE of the killers have EVER acknowledged knowing ANY of the victims. NEVER!

So if there is widespread drug dealing going on, why does NO ONE KNOW ANYONE???? Are they that easy to forget??

All of the killers said the victims were "blobs". No recognition whatsoever. And if everyone is agreement, I agree too.

katie8753 said...

Kimchi said: Dilligaf, that was a graceful post..very well presented...

I still put myself in Manson's position and wonder how frustrated I would have felt during the proceedings...

Not sure if I would have acted like that, maybe, but after all, everything was so dramatized in the press... the media, the President, the politics, the money, it just was not fair...what is a man to do?


The politics? The money? What are you talking about? And you put yourself in Manson's place? How could you possibly know what he was thinking? Have you ever cut an "X" in your forehead? Have you ever lunged at a judge? I would think a sane and sensible person would defer those activities. I hope you are such.

And I am NOT speaking about Watson...

I'm with Lynyrd. Watson doesn't deserve a fair trial? Since when?

Beauders, I know where you're coming from...

Paul, right on.....


Well it's funny Kimchi that you say Dill made a graceful post, but then you say "Paul, right on".

Paul was making fun of Dill. Explain please....

katie8753 said...

And finally, MPaul you had a chance for the last several years to come on this blog and make comments.

You didn't.

And now, for some reason, you feel a vomitus urge to continue this fall-da-ral to throw a wrench in the works.

It don't work that way fellah!!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Kimchi said:
"I still put myself in Manson's position and wonder how frustrated I would have felt during the proceedings..."

Put yourself in the judge's shoes.

The poor bastard was wearing a GUN under his robe, by the end of the trial !

What does THAT tell ya??

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Seriously...

How many Judges feel the need to wear a gun into the courtroom???

katie8753 said...

And another thing. When Tex came into Cielo Drive, he never said a DAMN THING about drugs, drug burns, drug deficiencies, bad drugs, no drugs, scruffy drugs, shitty drugs, half-ass drugs, too much drugs, weak drugs, strong drugs, not enough drugs or wrong drugs.

All he said was "I'm the devil, and I'm here to do the devil's business."

He never mentioned names, dates or activities.

The drug motive is bullshit, and surely we all know that by now.

leary7 said...

yeah, L/S, I clashed with Frank allot but I loved his intelligence. ANd it is hockey season so Matt Prokes should resurface. There are lots of posters who I miss. Hell, I miss Thelma and Louise whose site was where I first met the Saint and L/S and Katie. Was it really four years ago? damn.
THe hell with updates on Family members...what we need is some updates on fallen posters. Send out the bat signal, Lynyrd.
I suspect all the lost ones might check back in when something monumental happens like Charlie kicking it or such. But it sure would be nice to hear from a few.

katie8753 said...

Leary, I LOVE your comments. Me spiking the Col. HA HA HA.

katie8753 said...

Lynyrd said: Lastly...

"The Family" did more to incite the media, than anyone else.
They wanted to be in the public eye.
They wanted to shock the world.
They succeeded.


That's right Lynyrd. They wanted to shock the world. They hated society and wanted to be gone from it.

Well, they managed it. Now they've changed their minds. They want out, to be a part of society.

Too fucking bad. They made their choice a long time ago.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Leary said:
"THe hell with updates on Family members...what we need is some updates on fallen posters. Send out the bat signal, Lynyrd."

Maybe not such a bad idea...

I'll make a post in the coming weeks, asking the old regulars to emerge... just for shits and giggles.
We'll see what happens...

Maybe on Halloween. LOL

Remember Lurch?
Who can forget that guy?
He checked-in while walking around Spawn's Ranch with a flashlight... at midnight... on the August Anniversary?! LOL

Remember that young kid V717?
He was a misguided Manson Supporter, but I admired his tenacity.
The kid checked-in every day for over a year, and never had one person agree with him.
I give that kid an A+ for "heart" anyway.
I hope he's Okay.

Miss Spiritual Tramp?

Lynn?

Cease2!?

Stormsurge!?

Doc?

MARY!!

Wharf Rat?!

MrPoirot said...

Well Pistorius got off with justb5 years for an extremely violent style of domestic violence. My guess is he got a bribe through to that dumb looking judge.

Jodi Arias' sentencing trial starts today. Her trial is unfair as well. I would have told that first jury to go back into deliberations and decide or stay there forever. A separate jury for deciding a death sentence is not very smart. If the first trial could not give a death verdict it should have been taken off the table.
Jodi should never have dated a Morman even once. Especially a Morman who was a phony. Poor Travis I think was partially to blame for getting his ass murdered. Plus I think he was too interested in his friends opinions about who he dated. It was none of their biz. If they didn't like Jodi they should have quietly moved on from being friends with Travis.

christopher butche said...

Lynyrd, you may be mistaken that his sentence will outlive him. At his next parole hearing he will only be around 93.

That said, anything planned for his 80th birthday next month?

Dilligaf said...

Mr. P,

Most states, Arizona included, re-wrote many of it's laws, post Furman v. Georgia. this allowed the states that so desired the DP, to adjudicate criminal cases in a manner which would remain within the constitutional requirements for the implementation of the DP. In this case, Arizona chose to use a bifurcated system in which one trial determines guilt, while a separate trial determines punishment. This is actually beneficial to the defendant, as the jury in a sentencing trial is not biased by the evidence presented during the guilt phase. Their role is to work from the perspective that the defendant was found guilty as a matter of law, and they then are to determine not only what sentence should be imposed, but if there exist mitigating factors which could impact the sentence.

In so far as the victim carrying some of the blame for being murdered, how far do you wish to take that? If a person is killed in a car-jacking, do they bear some responsibility because they drove to the exact spot in which the car-jacking and murder occurred? Sorry, but I see this a solely at the feet of Ms. Arias, and no further.

CarolMR said...

"The drug motive is bullshit, and surely we all know that by now." - Katie

I agree with you, Katie. I just thought that a drug motive would be easier to prove than the HS motive, but I have seen the error of my ways. And, as Lynyrd (I think) said, prosecutors are not required to prove a motive.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Chris!
Great to see you!

There's nothing planned as of now... LOL

MrPoirot said...

Dilligaf
If you are going to use an analogy you need to come up with a better one than the carjacking analogy.

Ive already given you an example of how he dug his own grave.

Here's another example: Travis is butt boinking this chick who has converted to Mormanism to please him while at the same time he's letting her know he's looking to marry a proper Morman girl. Do you see any hypocracy in that? Would you say that qualifies as messing with her head? (messing with her head) that is a street term you may have heard.

Here's another: would you say Travis was being a user by keeping Jodi for sex while at the same time hiding her from his pious friends because he wasn't man enough to tell them it wasn't their business who he dated? So you think that type of unfeeling behavior would weigh heavy on a woman's mind if the guy she loves was treating her that way?

Don't play dumb on me Dilli while at the same time as you're slinging bombastic legal terminology. You are trying to tell me you see nothing dangerously duplicitous about the way Travis treated Jodi. Ever heard the biblical term "you reap what you sew"?

Travis' biggest mistake was he went off on this chick calling her a whore, slut, satan, sociopath, nymphomanic etc as if he wasn't the other person in their sexual trysts. Eight days later she killed him. I'd call that poetic justice. Ever heard that term?

katie8753 said...

Mr. P, have you lost your mind? Jodi Arias is a sick, psychotic sociopath.

Here's another example: Travis is butt boinking this chick who has converted to Mormanism to please him while at the same time he's letting her know he's looking to marry a proper Morman girl. Do you see any hypocracy in that? Would you say that qualifies as messing with her head? (messing with her head) that is a street term you may have heard.

First of all, she changed her life every time she met a new man to fit his lifestyle. That was her MO. Her turning Mormon was just another way to "snag a man".

And are you saying that every man who "boinks" a woman and doesn't plan to marry her deserves to be cut up like a Christmas turkey?

Here's another: would you say Travis was being a user by keeping Jodi for sex while at the same time hiding her from his pious friends because he wasn't man enough to tell them it wasn't their business who he dated?

That's not true. Travis didn't hide her at all. There are videos of them together at parties, he acting like he cares about her, her yawning and looking bored.

Travis' biggest mistake was he went off on this chick calling her a whore, slut, satan, sociopath, nymphomanic etc as if he wasn't the other person in their sexual trysts. Eight days later she killed him. I'd call that poetic justice. Ever heard that term?

Hello!!! Is anyone home??? He didn't call her names because of the sex, he called her names because she was stalking him, stalking his friends, hacking his e-mail, using his cell phone to text other girls, breaking into his house. She's a F*CKING LUNATIC!

And the scariest part of all, to me, was that after she shot him, stabbed him, tried to decapitate him, dragged him to the shower, stripped the bed, threw sheets & towels into the washer, tried to clean the blood, locked Travis' bedroom door, left the dog to starve, and stupidly threw the camera in the washer, she drove to Utah to hook up with a ANOTHER Mormon guy, acting sexy and sassy when she got there. And and BTW, on the way to Utah, she called Travis' cell phone and left a giggly message about "getting together" next week (knowing he was stiff as a board in the shower) and later admitted it was just a plan to throw the cops off her track.

When questioned by the cops, she first said she wasn't anywhere near Travis' home that day. Of course, that lie didn't work because the cops had pics of her sorry naked ass on the date of the murder on his bed.

Then, she decided that some "ninjas" broke in and killed Travis, but for some reason, let her go.

That went on until the trial, and THEN the story changed to "oh, yeah I killed him, but that was self defense".

Mr. P, if you can defend these actions, you probably need some mental health help. And I'm not talking about an $80/hour psychiatrist. I'm talking about a TEAM in Vienna.

Dilligaf said...

Mr. P,

I am trying to understand how you believe that not treating a person in a respectful manner justifies, or lays the foundation of contributory homicide. I'm sorry, but I just do not see it.

If one is involved in a criminal act, and is murdered as a result, then one could say that the contributory activity lead to the death, and that had no such activity occurred, the person would still be alive. But that is not the case here. The victim, though he may have been a bad person morally, certainly did not deserve to be shot nor stabbed by a person with psychological disorders. The two just do not go hand in hand, regardless of how you may want to spin it.

I am sorry if you choose to not like my analogy. Would you like it better if it was a person in a bar, mad dogging a gang banger who is causing a scene better? After all, a person who is in a bar must be committing some sort of moral act which would offend someone else.

I have heard the term "you reap what you sew". I have also heard Sheldon Cooper quote his mailman saying "bitches be crazy." I have also heard a U.S. President say that oral sex is not sex, but there have been tens of thousands of men & women arrested for performing that as a sexual act. My point is, just because someone said it does not make it so.

bobby said...

Leary,

I'm deeply hurt. I was right there at your debut & I don't even get a honorable mention ?

I guess that's what people call " don't get all butt hurt "

well I'm all butt hurt.

katie8753 said...

B.O.B.B.Y.

Don't get butt hurt, get happy!!! :)

katie8753 said...

Thanks Carol! I agree with you! :)

bobby said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOiKa51ll-k

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Wow...
I said "Spawn's Ranch" earlier. LMAO!

Freudian slip???

Well...
There certainly WAS a lot of "spawning" going-on there. LOL

That's what happens when you get tired... : (

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Poirot...

If everything you're saying is true... (and I have no idea, cuz I didn't follow the trial):

Jodi should have slapped Travis across the face, called him a few choice words, and dumped him.

When you're in a bad relationship, you walk away... you don't butcher people.

That's "sanity 101".

If she let the air out of his truck tires, egged his house, or toilet-papered his yard... no one would give a shit.
She'd be free.

Bro:
The chick carved the dude up like a Thanksgiving turkey, and left him in a disgusting bloody lump!

Can you say Cray-Cray???
Can you say EXCESSIVE?
Can you say extremely "criminal behavior"?

Poirot...
This is one of those times, when you're starting to worry me...

MrPoirot said...

Dilligaf
Your analogies are pure sophistry. You are "spinning" to yourself.

Let me make it simpler for you. And this is to you Lynyrd.

If you go and mess with somebody, anybody and you use them and knowingly degrade them and deliberately piss them off(in this case gang members-which I don't see why you even mentioned unless changing the subject is a maneuver you use when you feel threatened) and they come look you up and kick your ass; don't be surprised if they cut you to pieces. Don't come running to me demanding "justice".

If Jodi is crazy then what Travis did was even more incredibly stupid. Who goes and kicks sleeping dogs? Who is stupid enough to use a crazy woman? He had no business having a two year sexual relationship with a woman he knew was crazy and in love with him. Jodi even says Travis made her feel like a hooker. Hint, hint, hint.

Another words treat people with dignity and honesty and you will find your chances of getting murdered drop significantly.
Another words don't fuck with people. Travis was fucking with that chick's head in a very degrading way. He knew she loved him and yet he knowingly let her read all of his text messages by never changing his pin security number. Why did he continue to let Jodi learn of all his other girls? Travis knew Jodi was reading everything every girl was writing him. Why didn't he just change his security code? Was he fucking with her head deliberately?

Travis' couldn't have begged this woman to kill him and got her to do it any sooner than she did. Travis was an idiot with women. He was also a severely hypocritical in his faith. He's telling everybody he is a virgin while he is sodomizing his girlfriend. Do you see any duplicity in that type of behavior? Is that ok in your world Dilligaf?

If an old lady is murdered walking her little dog by a stranger then by any standard that is blatant unprovoked crime.
But Travis was not a lily white little Angel who was murdered by a strange woman he never met. Travis was murdered by his girlfriend. Travis' whole life was a big fucking lie. Even the legal services company he worked for and made a hundred thousand bucks a year from was a rip off. Even the DA in court stated that the company was a pyramid scheme.

Travis sexually used and abused Jodi up until the very second she put a bullet in his head. Travis is telling all his friends that Jodi is only in his life because she stalks her way into his life when the fact is she calls him ahead of time and he waits up for her late into the night to arrive from a thousand mile journey she makes just to see him.
These types of ultra-phonies and pseudo-saints get their asses murdered all the time by their own deceitful actions. Travis dug his own grave because he treated all his women with a plethora of lies about who he was and how he lived his life.
All of the good-Morman-girls he dated knew he was not the virgin he told them he was. Who the hell in their right mind goes around telling everybody they are a virgin while they are sodomizing their girlfriend? Who?? I'll tell you who. Travis did that and he got his ass murdered for it.

katie8753 said...

Oooohhh, Mr. P, I think I smell desperation here!

Are you all dressed up in your Sunday best to go marry Jodi?

Well I have 2 pieces of advice.

Do not, and I repeat DO NOT turn your back on her in the shower.

And if you have plans to boink that putrid asshole of hers that LOTS of other guys have boinked (and BTW, they didn't marry her either and they're not dead...yet), then you'd better wear a strap on. You don't wanna get lost in that "rotting pumpkin".

And you might want to make sure your Last Will & Testament is up to date....

katie8753 said...

And I can't think of a religion, off hand, that condones sex before marriage. I think they all pretty much think that's taboo. Except maybe some voodoo shit tribe.

But most people do it anyway. So why keep saying stuff about the MORMONS?

MrPoirot said...

Katie I don't like either one of them. One dropped out of high chool and worshipped the devil and the other was a high school grad whose parents were drug addicts.
Travis was 11 years old before he was exposed to the religious concept of reality. It showed in his everyday life
Jodi's parents had her arrested in the 8th grade for growing pot on the roof. Both of these people had some pretty sick parents.I'm not surprised this murder happened. Travis and Jodi were two damaged souls that met head on in a duel to the death.

Is Jodi guilty of murder? Yep. The law says you can't go around killing phonies. But we aren't talking about the law. We are talking about what happened. What caused this crash and burn disaster?

Look at the guy Jodi dated previous to Travis. Their ages doomed their relationship but he was a moral man who treated her with dignity and she treated him the same.
Neither Jodi nor Travis had any decent role models in their early youth and it destroyed them both. They are both culpable in how they ended up. Saying Jodi was a crazy whore and Travis was both a saint and knight in shining armor is a dishonest and simplistic analogy. This is not a black and white case.
Travis and Jodi were very dishonest people who could not grasp the concept of honesty. Jodi is world famous for telling lies but look at Travis. He was right there matching her whopper for whopper.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P, you're right about Travis. His parents were drug addicts. His father left and he and his siblings only had their mother, who was either passed out on the bed or getting high. He said in his blog that he "didn't even know how to open a can with a can opener". That's how desperate he and his siblings were to eat something.

Then his grandmother took them in, and yes he joined the Mormon church, of which his grandmother was a member.

Meanwhile, yes Jodi was arrested for growing pot on the roof, but the rest of the stuff she spewed about her parents was untrue.

She DID have parents who cared. She didn't care about them.

She spent her early youth living with a lot of different men, working waitress jobs. She finally met a guy she liked at a resort that she worked at, and that guy actually GOT DEMOTED so he could date her.

She moved in with him. He was older and had a kid. He didn't want to marry her. At least not yet.

Then she meets Travis. And she left that guy for Travis. Her decision.

And yes he was working for a pyramid company, but he was making money. And it wasn't under the table. It was legit money. He came from NOTHING and made something for himself.

I'll tell you what, I've read his blog and he had a lot of passion for life and the need to make something of himself. There's nothing wrong with that. Hard work and perseverance is how he made money.

He meets Jodi at one of those meetings. You can say what happened after that is his fault, but I say nay.

Men like to have sex. There's no doubt about it. And there are millions of men who have sex with women they don't want to marry.

Do they deserve death? NO!

But there are women, like Jodi, who have learned enough in life to know that you can control men with sex. And that's exactly what she did. She tried her best to control him. But in the end, it didn't work.

That's why she killed him.

Did he deserve to die? No. Does she? Yes! She took a life and should be willing to give hers.

MrPoirot said...

She DID have parents who cared. She didn't care about them.[end quote]

Jodi's Dad said she started lying after the pot on the roof thing. Jodi's parents had problems too because the decision to call the cops on Jodi at age 14 was a very bad choice. It traumatized her and she never trusted them again.
Apparently the cops overdid their part in scaring Jodi straight.

There is a story Alfred Hitchcock told about an uncle who took him down to a police station when he was a kid and had Hitchcock put in a cell for a few minutes. Hitchcock remained terrified of the police the rest of his life he said. Unless it is a serious crime a child has no business being put in a jail cell for even a few minutes.

katie8753 said...

In June of 2008, Jodi Arias dyed her hair dark brown, rented a car, filled up 3 5-gal gas cans and drove to Mesa, AZ. She was supposed to be going to Utah to meet up with another Mormon boy, who was expecting her.

She knew that the neighbors would recognize her car or her peroxided hair, so she decided to be incognito. She also didn't want any record of filling up with gas in AZ, hence the gas cans.

Pre-meditated murder.

She went to Mesa to see Travis. She knew the back door was always unlocked. She went in and found Travis asleep in front of his computer.

Why he let her stay there is a mystery to me. He knew she was mentally unstable.

But he did. His last mistake.

Does that mean he deserved to die? Me thinks thou dost protest too much!!

MrPoirot said...

But there are women, like Jodi, who have learned enough in life to know that you can control men with sex. And that's exactly what she did. She tried her best to control him. But in the end, it didn't work.

That's why she killed him.[end quote]

No. It was more complicated. Travis would take Jodi on weekend trips telling her he loved her and he'd get home Monday night and go on dates with other women.

None of those hot young Morman virgins were going to marry Travis because everybody knew Travis was lying about his virgin status. You could put Travis and Jodi on the Sunday morning political talk shows and they could match Susan Rice whopper for whopper. Travis a Jodi were terrible liars. They didn't just tell little white lies. They told whoppers. Both were on their own too early in life and were forced to resort to living off their wits.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P, what would you do if your 14 year old was growing pot on the roof?

I don't think that Jodi's parents contributed to her sociopathic behavior.

You know, shooting and stabbing is bad enough, but cutting someone's head off? That's beyond belief. Sawing away through the cartilage & windpipe, listening to the gasping for air? ARGHHHH!

And we know that she didn't want Travis to get to his bedroom door, because she didn't want a blood trail outside his room. It would give her a few days if the roommates didn't notice any blood. That's why she tried to cut his head off. It was right at the door.

Yeah, your girlfriend sounds like a real winner!

Well, I'm gonna head to the sack. I'm tard.

katie8753 said...

And BTW, he didn't take Jodi on weekend trips and tell her he loved her. They went on LOTS of trips, and he never told her he loved her. In fact, it was on those trips they had the most fights!

Where are you getting that information?

Dilligaf said...

Mr. P.,

Thanks for the laugh but no, I am not feeling threatened in the least. It seems as if there might be something in your past that this case has stirred up, though that may be a guess. Either way, I do not know how many murders you have been involved with, but I can tell you that regardless how bad a person may be, it is only the very worst that would have had it coming, as you might say. The victim here may have been a less than honorable person, but he was very far from being part of the very worst.

What ever it is that has you so riled up, I sincerely wish you peace in the future.

katie8753 said...

This case reminds me of "Play Misty For Me".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH4mbbXOXsY

MrPoirot said...

Where did I get it? When you and Dilligaf feel your position threatened you both change the subject.
As far as my girlfriend Ive only dated acouple of gals who had dishonesty issues on Jodi's level. It was too much stress dealing with chicks like that.
After big tits and long legs honesty is one of my favorite qualities in a woman. Beauty is truly skin deep.

If you listen to Jodi they were monagamous she thought, for seven months. However she found out that was not true. Travis did cheat as she stated many times.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P, did you not know that Jodi is a FUCKING LIAR? She has lied throughout this whole thing.

Did you not read my posts how she lied and lied and lied to the cops about her involvement?

She tries to lie as good as Casey Anthony, but she doesn't have the Panache.

I'll say again, where did you get that? From Jodi? That's a HUGE joke! HA HA.

MrPoirot said...

Use logic on what Jodi's Dad said. "She hasn't been honest since she was 14". That means she was basically honest until her parents had her busted for pot on the roof which should have been handled within the family.

Look at how quick both parents turned on Jodi when talking to the detective. Within 5 minutes they were sending Jodi up the river. I found that stunning. What a couple od assholes@

MrPoirot said...

Katie you take that liar declaration and over apply it. Ted Bundy was a liar too but did he always lie? No. He told us where the bodies were. You lean too much towards the all-or-nothing approach.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P, tomorrow I'm gonna put some things on my blog about Jodi, her police interrogations where she lied for 10 hours, her parents interrogations, in which they say Jodi lied about everything, she did a hand stand, sang a stupid song and kept talking to herself about why didn't she put her makeup on.

It's all on tape. She did it.

And BTW, Mr. P, Jodi's mother was there every day for the trial, listening to her stupid lies, and just looking sad. A sad thing for a mother to have to do.

If one of my kids committed such a horrible act, I can't say I'd even be there. I'd be too pissed off and embarrassed.

And now, I'm gonna exit Stage Left!

MrPoirot said...

All those Morman gals who Travis was dating were gong to leave him or had already left him because they knew he was telling whoppers.

Travis had serios issues when it came to telling the truth. Travis was a liar of equal stature to Jodi. They were two peas in a pod. They were perfect for each other. Travis' friends should have left them alone and let them marry. Chris and Sky Hughes meddled in Travis' personal affairs and led him to his death on their advice.

katie8753 said...

Chris and Sky Hughes didn't do anything to Travis. Get outta here.



MrPoirot said...

Chris and Sky started the whole get rid of Jodi thing. Jodi wasn't just dealing with Travis. She was having all of that Morman bunch ganging up on her. They were the reason Travis hid Jodi.

Its all public if you care to watch it all on film.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P, you must have bought into the defense's claim that Jodi was "Travis' dirty little secret". Everything the defense said was a big lie. They were trying to defend an indefensible client.

Chris & Sky liked Jodi at first. She certainly wasn't a secret. Then they started noticing her odd behavior and they felt that Travis shouldn't be associating with that type of person. Nothing wrong with that at all.

BTW, Jodi's defense team has been trying to get rid of her for months. Neither one of them can stand Jodi, but Judge Stephens keeps telling them they have to represent her whether they like it or not.

katie8753 said...

The day Jodi was convicted of murder last year, she contacted several local affiliates to do interviews in her jail. Her defense team said NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT!! She did it anyway.

She told the world that she would prefer the death penalty because she figured she was going to live a long time and would just prefer to die.

The next day, her defense attorneys begged Judge Stephens to let them off the case because their client wasn't doing anything they told her. Stephens said no.

If her own attorneys can't stand her, how can anyone??

Krissy Deen said...

I agree with you Katie. I don't believe it was lies and deceit that led to Travis Alexander being butchered- I think it was honesty. Jodi Arias knew he didn't look at her as a serious or long term relationship- and in the end she decided she wasn't going to let him get away with rejecting her. Remember the tape of her in the interrogation room laughing and saying " I still beat you brat?" Most or all of us have been used or hurt in relationships but we pick ourselves up, dust off our pride, and move on but not this whack job. Her butchery skills are right up there with Tex Watson. She's as evil as they come IMO and there are NO excuses for what she did. I hope she gets the DP- not because I necessarily want her to die, she probably won't anyway. I think she deserves to sit in solitary and not be in the general population where she will forever taunt Travis Alexander's family. She has no empathy or remorse for other people. That's the type of person that's truly scary and I don't think there is anything there that can be rehabilitated. JMO.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hello Poirot,

You started this discussion with the following statement:
"Poor Travis I think was partially to blame for getting his ass murdered."

Notwithstanding all the details (of this discussion)... that seems to be the core cruxt of your position.

I really have to ask:
Could you assign a percentage to your concept of "partially" responsible?

I mean...
Exactly to what extent, do you feel Travis was responsible for his own death?

Was he 50% responsible for his own murder?

10%?

80%?

2%?

This number should prove very revealing to everyone, as well as yourself.

I think you may be surprised at your own answer.

katie8753 said...

I agree Krissy. It's funny that you compare her butchery skills to Tex Watson. Even Tex didn't do what she did. The ME said that she "sawed" his head almost off. The only reason she didn't decapitate him completely was because the knife wasn't sharp enough to saw through his spinal cord.

I just hope he was already dead by the time she got to that.

Evidently she's doing the same thing in this trial as she did in her others. She's staring down certain jurors.

She is as evil as the Manson killers, simply because she looks on this trial as a big joke, and a way she can get her ugly face in the limelight again. She has no remorse or compunction, and I truly believe she would do it again.

Whether or not she gets the DP I don't really care. If they put her away for life, she won't have the opportunity to tweet and other social media things she has been doing. And obscurity would most certainly cause her demise anyway.

MrPoirot said...

Lynyrd I couldn't give Travis less than 51% responsibility for what happened.

leary7 said...

Tweren't Mormons.

It's my favorite line from my all-time favorite flick - 'Jeremiah Johnson' with Robert Redford.
Dell is buried up to his neck and RR asks him if the Indians did it to him and he replies...

Tweren't Mormons.

Cracks me up everytime.
I guess you had to be there.
Or know a whole bunch of Mormons like I do.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Poirot said:
"Lynyrd I couldn't give Travis less than 51% responsibility for what happened."

Try as I might...
I honestly can't understand where you're coming from.

I mean...
If Travis miraculously survived his attack, and they sewed his head back on... you feel he deserves more jail time for this crime, than Jodi?

At 51%... that's what you're saying.

You're saying that Travis was more responsible for his own murder, than his attacker.

Do you realize how strange that sounds?

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

There was a Book written called "The Burning Bed" by Faith McNulty.

It's the true story of Francine Hughes.

"The deeply moving and shocking biography of a battered wife (Hughes) who, after 12 years of enduring torture at the hands of her husband, killed him rather than be killed and was acquitted."

The book was later made into a tv movie starring Farrah Fawcett.

The book of course, was a bit more accurate (than the movie).
It's difficult to depict 12 years of abuse in 95 minutes.

Also...
The movie depicts the Hughes' family as having 3 kids.
In reality (and in the book), they had 4.

Nonetheless...
The movie was very good, and can be viewed in it's entirety here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSCeL-QRcd0

A woman on IMDB wrote this synopsis in the comments section, and I thought it was very good:


"I have seen this movie many times and still it has an effect on me. I have read the book and I can say that the movie does stick closely to the book regarding the events in Francine's life.

Of course, they can not fit 12 years of abuse into a 2 hour film and so there are many events that are not included in the movie. Also another major fact missing from the movie is the children. In real life Mickey and Francine had four children, in the movie, there is only three. Why I think that happened is on the night that Francine did kill Mickey, her third child (son Dana) was not at home and at a friend's house. When she drove to the police station, she only had three of the children in the car with her.

Francine's mother did herself suffer from violence (but not to the extent of Francine's abuse).

Her mother didn't approve of the abuse, but only that Francine had to at least try and live with it.

Francine had literally no where to go. She had four children with Mickey and no matter where she went, he would find her.

As someone pointed out, Mickey was the only man who abused his wife in his family. There were three other brothers in the Hughes household and not one of them, hit their wife. In fact, Mickey's mother was a very strong women and his father didn't abuse his mother either.

Mickey's family were always there to help Francine and they were the ones that she would go to during the early years. Towards the end, they were getting old themselves and couldn't handle Mickey's violence and told her, not to come running to them anymore.

The mother did a complete turn around at the court case and said that Mickey never abused Francine at all.

Just to make the ending a bit more understandable---

When Francine came home from school that day on 7th March 1977. She took the children to go shopping. When they came back from the shopping, that is when the abuse started. Mickey didn't like what Francine had brought and it started from that. He then was telling her that she would have to quit school and she wouldn't agree. He started to beat her and nearly strangled her. He made her burn her books. Francine went out to burn the books and when she came back into the house, he asked her again, are you going to quit school and she replied. No Mickey, I am still going. That is when all the abuse, really started. The children called the police. The police came and had a talk with Mickey.

It was after they left and half an hour later when Francine and the kids were sitting to have dinner, that is when Mickey came back into the kitchen and started to beat Francine again. He then made her have sex with him. It was after all of that and when he finally went to sleep, that is when Francine lost it and burned the bed.

A must read book, to truly understand the movie but also saying that, the movie does stick to the book, as best as it could."

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I get that Travis may have "toyed" with Jodi's "head" and emotions.

I also understand, that mental and emotional abuse, can be just as damaging as physical abuse.

If you read the book "The Burning Bed"... you will see however, that Francine Hughes had endured much more abuse, than Jodi.
Francine's life was in danger daily.
It's very likely, that Mickey would have killed her eventually.

Also, Francine was married to Mickey and had 4 of his children.

Jodi was in no real danger on a daily basis (or, arguably ever), and had no real ties to Travis, other than emotional (and maybe delusional).

To my knowledge, they were just kids dating.

Jodi was a willing participant in the entire dysfunctional situation.
She not only chose to stay with Travis voluntarily, but she pursued him... one might even say she stalked him obsessively.

There were distinct differences in the two situations.

If Jodi keyed Travis' car... I wouldn't approve of that behavior... but I might say, that he got what he had coming.

Cutting the dudes head off was WAY over-the-top crazy.

She brought the word "extreme" to mythical proportions.

They were just kids dating.
She could have walked at any point.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

ALSO...

The time frame of the Hughes situation, is also of the essence.

The "night of the burning bed" took place in 1977.

Francine had been abused for 12 years.

It's easy to extrapolate through simple mathematics, that her abuse started in roughly 1965.

From 1965-1977 there were few places that a woman could hide with FOUR children.

Francine tried to leave Mickey several times, but Mickey would always find her.
She wasn't going to bail, without her kids. (I don't blame her)

ALSO...
When Francine would call the cops... they would "talk" to Mickey, and then leave.
Domestic violence was not considered important in those days.
As I said... it was a different time in history.

In fact...
The police gave Mickey a "talking to" on the night he was murdered!
Mickey resumed physically abusing Francine, as soon as the cops walked out the door!

"She took the children to go shopping. When they came back from the shopping, that is when the abuse started. Mickey didn't like what Francine had brought and it started from that. He then was telling her that she would have to quit school and she wouldn't agree. He started to beat her and nearly strangled her. He made her burn her books. Francine went out to burn the books and when she came back into the house, he asked her again, are you going to quit school and she replied. No Mickey, I am still going. That is when all the abuse, really started. The children called the police. The police came and had a talk with Mickey.

It was after they left and half an hour later when Francine and the kids were sitting to have dinner, that is when Mickey came back into the kitchen and started to beat Francine again. He then made her have sex with him."


It's apples and oranges Poirot...

St Circumstance said...

While you wacka-doodles are off topic lol

( I happen to love this blog of inbred wacka-doodles and always have)

Check this out....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOaSrnd6mPE

An old friend sent that to me today.

It is a video clip of the first song I ever saw live by the Dead. It is the actual show. I was a preppy little arrogant prick who had read much, but knew nothing about, the whole scene. I was a few years out of high School. I walked onto the floor and saw everyone dancing everywhere. I looked up to the outer most levels of Giants Stadium in NJ, and could see shadows of people dancing in the entry ways that led to the walk-ways... People were moving everywhere I looked.

It was rocking like nothing I had ever seen in my life... It made an impression on me that changed me forever, and redirected my interests and it was this song lol that started it all.

I wouldn't be here today to play with you if not for this song on that day- because my love for all things 60's and the Haight scene led me to Charlie and started when I heard this song on that day in NJ...

You may have guessed the title by now...

katie8753 said...

You guys are way off base. Travis never abused Jodi. PERIOD.

He was a guy dating a girl that he really liked at first, then started getting turned off by her persistent hounding.

If anything, Travis was killed because he was honest with Jodi. He told her he didn't want to marry her. Is that a crime? He could have lead her on, but he didn't.

It was Jodi who chose to keep seeing him and having sex, because she was obsessed with him. I guess in her twisted mind, he would change his mind and marry her.

The only thing I can think of that Travis did wrong was to let her stay at his house that fateful night in 2008. But I can only imagine, knowing the lies that spewed out of her mouth, that she apologized for all of her stalking behavior and just wanted to have sex one more time, or something to that effect.

And he fell for it, I'm sure never dreaming that she would turn into a screaming banshee and carve him up like she did.

You know, that's gotta be so unexpected. He was a lot bigger than her, so the element of surprise was crucial for her.

She waited until he was in the shower with his back to her, to start stabbing him. I can't imagine the look of shock and disbelief on his face.

She stabbed him in the back, and when he turned around, she stabbed him in the front part of his body. He stumbled out of the shower and went to the sink, looked in the mirror in horror, spit blood out on the sink and watched Jodi continue to stab his back.

Then he somehow tried to crawl down the hallway to his bedroom door. When he almost got there, that's when she knew he had to die before he got out of his room. She didn't want bloodstains outside his door. So that's when she put the knife under his throat, pulled up his head, and started sawing his head off.

How can you guys even talk about abuse? Travis was brutalized beyond imagination. And the Medical Examiner thinks that he was still breathing and alive when she tried to cut his head off. He felt the knife carve his throat and cut his windpipe.

katie8753 said...

And after she dragged his body back to the bathroom, she put a bullet in his head, just for good measure. Then she stuffed him in the shower.

Jodi and Travis had a "sex conversation" on the phone, which she recorded without his knowledge. She later tried to blackmail him into taking her to Mexico. That's why he called her all those names.

Travis is the victim here. And if any of you guys out there want to think back to maybe you were having a relationship with a girl that you liked having sex with, but didn't really want to marry her, ask yourself this question:

Did that give her license to kill me too?

MrPoirot said...

Interesting Lynyrd. Francis was facing physical AND mental abuse but the result in simple sexual and mental abuse is the same: somebody gets murdered. If Mickey is beating Francine then Mickey does not get my sympathy. Mickey got his ass kicked in a fight where he threw the first punch. So now society has to come in and defend mickey and give him justice. The battered, stressed out Francine murdered him....or did she just happen to be the one who survived the fight? Or are both Mickey and Francine equally culpable?

Remember Lynyrd we are discussing if Mickey was also responsible for his own murder. We aren't discussing if murder is or isn't legal. It isn't.

We just want to know what caused Francis to kill Mickey. We don't care about the legal aspect. Francis is going to prison.

Was Mickey culpable in his own murder? Yes.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Poirot,

Francine was acquitted.

MrPoirot said...

So Mickey was ruled 100% culpable in his own murder. We can easily understand physical abuse but the mental abuse we can't as easily comprehend.

I find it almost unique that there was no drugs or alcohol involved in the Travis Alexander murder. I'll bet Mickey drank.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Katie:

With all due respect, I think you're being a little naive'.

This is my "take" on the situation, based on very, very little knowledge of the case:

I think Travis was using her for sex.

I think he led Jodi to believe, that they were a couple... etc., etc., to keep her coming back.
(The pussy was good).

When Travis had enough of her pussy and ass, he threw her back in the pond... well, he tried to anyway...

By then...
Jodi was "in love"... and wasn't going to take "no" for an answer.

She figured by continuing to harass him... stalk him... and give him crazy sex... she would win him over.

Her plan worked... for a while.

Enjoying the sex... Travis kept conceding, and going back for more.

He gave the girl hope.
In a sense, he led her on.

THEN...
When Travis had COMPLETELY had his fill of her pussy and ass, he made it COMPLETELY clear to her, that he was absolutely done.

She continued her antics of stalking, harassing, and offering him sex... thinking it would continue to work.

It didn't.

When she FINALLY realized that Travis was NOT going to be her man... that she had been DUMPED... that is was OVER... that she had been USED...that all of her antics had finally failed... that the inevitable had finally arrived... She became psycho-bitch, and killed him.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EVERYONE has been used and hurt in the context of dating.

As the song so aptly goes:
"Everybody plays the fool sometimes".

This type of thing happens ALL THE TIME, with kids who are dating!

You get hurt... you lick your wounds... you learn your lesson... and you smarten-up.

You DON'T BEHEAD the other person!!!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

They were BOTH participants in a very dysfunctional (albeit fairly common) situation.
As I said... it happens all the time.

Unfortunately for Travis... Jodi was BONKERS.

(That's my unprofessional opinion, because I watched about 11 minutes of the case). LOL

When I saw the picture of Jodi's asshole, I put 2+2 together.
I was born at night, but it wasn't LAST night! LOL

As Lynyrd Skynyrd said it best:
"I know a little 'bout love, and baby I can guess the rest!" LOL!

Peace... LOL

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Saint Circum-motherfucking-Stance!!!!! LOLOL!

Good to see you Bro!!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Poirot said:
"I'll bet Mickey drank."

Yeah... well...
His name WAS "Mickey". LMAO

: )

Pa-dum-pum... LOL

MrPoirot said...

That medical couple in Indiana got married but neither survived the wedding. The Dr groom murdered his nurse bride and himself. The sheriff had a stunning line: "we will never know what happened because everybody is dead. There's nobody to ask".

katie8753 said...

Hey check this out. The death photos. Yeah, Travis got what he deserved, right M. P?

That guy should have been drawn and quartered. How dare he tell a girl he likes her but doesn't want to marry her.

Hey Mr. P. Have you ever had sex with a girl (or boy) you didn't marry? Do you deserve this?

http://blogaboutnothing7.blogspot.com/

katie8753 said...

I don't know why I'm arguing with a bunch of demented juveniles.

If telling a sexual partner you don't want to marry them should result in getting your head cut off, we'd all be dead by now.

I've had sexual relations with men that asked me to marry them and I said no.

So FUCKING WHAT?

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Poirot,

All kidding aside Bro...

You really think that dude deserved to have his head cut off???

Maybe kicked in the jimmies, or a few flattened tires, but beheaded???

C'mon man, you can't be THAT twisted...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Talk about extreme consequences!

Jeezus...

MrPoirot said...

Lynyrd I think Jodi committed murder and the verdict is accurate.

Folks need to take a look at this Travis dude. He could take a room full of people and mesmerize them with his sales motivation speeches. Look at all the people who gave almost messianic personal testiment about Travis. He had an amazing effect on many people yet when he got around women in private he would do strange things. He was dating every 20 yr old hot virgin Morman chick in his ward and telling every one of them he was a virgin. Jodi knew what he was doing because Travis willingly gave Jodi the security codes to ALL his social media. She read every text he sent for the last 20 months of his life. Jodi saw that Travis had used her as his no holes barred
sexual punching bag at the same time he was parading these Snow White virgins in her face. He drove her deeper and deeper into a jealous rage as if it were a special gift he dispenced to only the upper level, inner circle of his Family. Travis had gathered a lot of control over this Jodi chick.
One day Jodi rents a car with long distance wing tanks and she flew a 3200 mile mission and bombed him with precision guided knives while under radar blackout without any collateral damage. She wiped Travis off the map. Mission accomplished.

Lynyrd those Snow White virgins Travis paraded in Jodi's face? That was the most disasterous sales pitch in history. His Prepaid Legal Insurance Company had to change their name because of his heavy handed sales pitch he made in front of Jodi

You're asking the wrong person if Travis deserved to be beheaded. Ask Jodi if he deserved it. Be polite when you ask her though.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hmm...

I threw you a lifeline Poirot... and you didn't take it.

I was shooting for a simple "no".

With a simple "no", you could have redeemed yourself.

====================================

"Ask Jodi if he deserved it."

I know Jodi's opinion, she's obviously a maniac.

Hopefully, you don't share the same opinion as a maniac.
However, much to my dismay, that seems to be the case.

leary7 said...

Katie's telling the truth - she said no to my proposal.
On to 200.
Though I must admit I am not partial to beheading debates. I had enough of that with Henry the VIII.

leary7 said...

what you guys really really need is a Manson quote on Arias - though I doubt he even knows who she is.
I say that because my all-time favorite Manson quote is his comment on Ted Bundy...
"Bundy is a poop butt, he's a momma's boy."
Charlie tellin it like it is, priceless.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Leary said
"what you guys really really need is a Manson quote on Arias - though I doubt he even knows who she is.
I say that because my all-time favorite Manson quote is his comment on Ted Bundy...
"Bundy is a poop butt, he's a momma's boy."
Charlie tellin it like it is, priceless."


That's true Leary.
We need a Manson quote.

How's this:
"Bitch be crazy... but I was crazy, when crazy meant somethin'. Ya know... before it became popala" LOL

Or, better yet:
"That was some high stakes ass. That ass came at a high price." LOL

Here ya go:
"Say no to crack." LOL

Weigh-in with your Manson quotes folks!! LOL!

MrPoirot said...


I know Jodi's opinion, she's obviously a maniac.[end quote]

Poirot replies:

Jodi at the time of the murder had been driven past her breaking point and Travis was doing the driving.

katie8753 said...

Manson: If I'd had Jodi in my murderous cult family, there'd be none of you left. And we wouldn't feel a thing! It'd be like walking to the drug store.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P, Prepaid Legal changed its name in 2011 to LegalShield, 3 years after Jodi murdered Travis. It had to do with a merger. Nothing at all to do with Travis.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

"Jodi could beat you to death with this book... and it'd be like going to the drug store."

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

LOL

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Poirot,

Please...
Stop making excuses for that crazy bitch.

Travis may have deserved a wedgie for being "ungentlemanly", but that bitch is barking mad cray-cray.

MrPoirot said...

Lynyrd many do think she is crazy but I don't think she was crazy when she met Travis. It wasn't just bad timing on Travis' part that got him killed.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P must have fallen in love with Jodi's butthole pic.

Krissy Deen said...

I think she was not crazy in the legal sense when she met Travis, I agree with that point. She had a personality disorder. That's not my opinion- that's the diagnosis given at trial by the professional who diagnosed her. It's not considered a mental illness in the sense that it doesn't change her ability to know the difference between right and wrong. There has been no mental illness proven that changes her responsibilities for her actions. She showed some pretty aggressive behavior from a young age...hitting her brother over the head with a baseball bat, she got mad and squeezed a cat so hard at one time that she nearly killed it ( I'm not making this up- you can hear the attorneys discussing it on a sidebar- the judge dismissed it- too prejudicial) Mr. P asked who would kick a sleeping dog in response to the way Travis allegedly treated Jodi. I never heard of Travis kicking a sleeping dog- but Jodi did. She admitted getting mad at the family dog once and kicking it- according to her the dog took off and nobody ever saw it again. ( Although according to her it was also always kept on a chain in the backyard.) Hmmm. Makes me wonder what REALLY happened to the dog. A lot of people who become murderers do start out with animal abuse. Travis also didn't willingly let her know all of his pin numbers and personal information. Those are the words of Jodi Arias- a pathological liar. SHE says that, and maybe for a time he did with certain things who knows but as usual her lies caught up to her in this regard as well. There are messages going back and forth between them where he talks about her illegally hacking into his accounts and phones...and he wasn't happy about it. This was said to be what one of their last big arguments was about, according to his close friend who said Travis had talked to him about Jodi's stalking behavior. This is evidence...not just words from someone who has lied about everything. He also wasn't dating every young hot Mormom around. They talked about, and had on the stand, three that I know of. One that DID think he was a virgin, another that only dated him as a friend, and one that he had a serious long term relationship with. She admitted they had regular sex during their relationship so he wasn't lying about that to everyone. How many people are completely open and honest about their sex life anyway? It was just a way to make him look like a bad guy and garner sympathy towards Jodi Arias for butchering the man. She kept coming back for more, and in many ways it seems to me she used him. He even told her he was nothing more to her than a dildo with a heartbeat. Also as far as Travis calling her names, I never heard of that until towards the end when he was fed up with her hacking into his accounts, stalking him when he was on dates, slashing his tires, etc. I would have had a few choice names for her too. Poor Jodi got called a slut and a few other things. How sad. Travis was labeled a physical abuser and a pedophile after he was murdered and unable to defend himself. I still think we give females who do horrific crimes such as this one a break and try and find ways to blame the victim. It's sad and unfair. I don't think if the roles were reversed there would even be a second penalty trial going on. The man would probably be sitting on death row already and be considered a monster. Here the man is six foot under, being blamed by some for his own death, and people even joke about that's what men get for thinking with their penis instead of their brain. Pretty messed up. ( not saying that is what people on here are doing by the way but I've seen plenty of it!)

leary7 said...

I confess to having no knowledge of or interest in Jodi. There just isn't any room left in my head for more whack jobs - to much space already taken up by the Mansons and Oswalds and such.

Weird though, that the two newest "newsie" serial killers - the one in Virginia with the UVA student and the one in Gary Indiana - are black. The profilers are going have to alter their models as traditionally serial killers were thought of as mostly white. The one in Indiana is going to explode, his numbers may be up there with the Green River Killer. Nobody talks much about Ridgeway, I guess the guy just isn't interesting - just a killing dog.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hello Krissy,

Thanks for your input.
I enjoyed reading your post.

: )

Krissy Deen said...

Thank you Lynryd, I really enjoy your blog too. I read it every day but tend to be more of a lurker. Once in a while I'll jump in however and have something to say. I enjoy all the different opinions on things whether I agree with them or not. It makes for some interesting conversations that's for sure!

katie8753 said...

Thanks Krissy. I enjoyed your comment too. You brought something up that I forgot to mention.

The testimony of Jodi Arias, unless it's backed up with solid evidence, like text messages or witness statements, is useless.

We all know she's a pathological liar. She's been lying since Day 1.

Travis has never been able to give his side of the story, nor will he ever get to do that. She silenced him on June 4, 2008.

Her story about him baptizing her and then lifting up her baptismal gown to boink her is just her word. Which is worthless. As well as all of her other stories she spouts, including him being a pedophile.

It's a crying shame that a dead guy gets accused of this, and can't defend himself.

She claims she has a fog about what happened, but she sure had clarity driving to Utah and calling Travis' cell phone for an excuse.

Her claims of Travis physically abusing her can not be substantiated, and nor are they to be believed.

She's just a big, fat LIAR!

louis365 said...

Well...a post goes up asking if Manson was railroaded, and the comments go through the roof...

leary7 said...

I'm still reeling from the disclosure that Katie has had sexual relations.
on that nore I've teed up the 200th for you Lynyrd. Hit it down the middle.

katie8753 said...

Leary, I'm #200!!! HA HA HA HA.

Sex-sual re-LA-tions. Yeah I've got 2 kids. They weren't virgin births.

I've done the horizontal mamba at its best!! And I never killed anybody! HA!

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 267   Newer› Newest»