Monday, March 30, 2015

Helter Skelter

When I get to the bottom, I go back to the top of the slide.

It's a topic we’ve discussed 1000 times, and let’s face it, we’ll never reach a consensus.

Some folks believe the entire notion was fabricated by Vincent Bugliosi… and from there, he simply jammed it down everyone’s throat.

Other folks, like my good friend Kimchi, believe it all started with Paul Watkins and Brooks Poston.
As Kimchi said to me via email: “The HS thing appears to have emerged from the drug-fueled over-imagination of Paul Watkins and Brooks Poston“.

Some folks believe Charles Manson actually preached “HS” at the ranch… others don’t.

If it WAS preached at the ranch… did Manson actually believe it? Did the kids actually believe it?

This is a discussion that will never end… unless of course, a different motive is “solved” to everyone’s satisfaction. And trust me folks, that’s not gonna happen.

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

Manson utilized "Helter Skelter" as a means to an end.  Bugliosi also utilized "Helter Skelter" as a means to an end.  Both men fully understood that "Helter Skelter" was nothing more than a tall tale… but both men cultivated the story, because it was beneficial to them. It’s really that simple.

Below are my thoughts on “Helter Skelter” for what it’s worth. I’ll begin by discussing the significance of “HS” from Charles Manson’s perspective. I’ll then discuss the topic, as it pertains to Vincent Bugliosi. Lastly, I’ll conclude by explaining what this all means to us… the “researcher”.

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

Charlie: The diary of a two-bit entertainer, manipulator, opportunist, with a bitter streak.

Charlie had to keep the kids entertained. He used several methods to accomplish that goal. He sang, he played guitar, he told stories, he provided drugs, he provided sex… etc. etc.

Look…
A stand-up comic hones his act nightly, by utilizing audience feedback. If a joke goes over big (with the audience)… he continues to use that joke. In fact, if possible, he expands upon it. Conversely, if a joke bombs, he shit-cans it.

Charles Manson was an entertainer of sorts. He had to be. There were a boatload of places for a young kid to have fun in the 60’s… especially in California. If Manson was a boring old fart, they would have left.

My point:
I believe Manson had dozens of "raps" (i.e., stories) that he used to entertain the kids.  “HS” was simply one of them. One of dozens, in fact.

But for whatever the reason, the “HS story” caught-on with the kids. And Manson, (like any good entertainer), took note of this, and went with it.  He expanded upon the “act“. And somewhere along the line, Manson realized that he could use this “HS angle” to manipulate.

In a nutshell, that’s my honest opinion of “HS” (in regards to Charlie specifically). I think it probably started as nothing more than a “yarn” Charlie spun around the campfire (to entertain the kids), and it morphed into a convenient manipulation tool.

Heck…
"HS" wasn't even very original. There were lots of folks talking "revolution" in California at that time.

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

Bugliosi: The diary of a success-driven man, who had no boundaries, when it came to winning.

If Bugliosi could have proven another motive, he would have.

I’m sure Bugliosi was presented with several possible motives (just as we are). And just like the rest of us, Bugliosi was unable to prove another motive (without having major loopholes to contend with). To quote Dilligaf from 2 years ago: “This case had more loose ends, than tassels on a rug”. 

You can't stand-up to prosecute multiple defendants simultaneously, and say to the jury:
"Truth be told, the motive could be this... this.... or this... and likely, two of those combined.  Heck, I'm not quite sure myself.  I’ll probably never know for sure. Thanks for your time".  That doesn't win a case.

For all its shortcomings, “HS” is a fairly tidy package, which is somewhat easy to present (compared to the other possible motive theories). To prove “drugs” as the motive (for instance), you have to string together several intricate timelines and details. There are loopholes that are hard to fill.

You don’t have to “prove” a whole lot of tiny “details” with “HS“. For the most part, you just have to convince the jury that #1) Manson is completely “bat-shit crazy“, and #2) he was in-charge of the other loonies. (i.e., bat-shit crazy enough to concoct and implement a really bizarre scheme). And let’s face it folks… with several butchered bodies left behind, AND the actions of Manson and his minions (inside the courtroom and out), those concepts weren't difficult to sell.

Bottom Line:
Bugliosi knew these folks were going to act crazy. And moreover, he knew these kids were going to paint Manson as their leader. Clang-Bang goes the iron door.

Also…
The "HS package" implicated Manson... the "big tuna". I’m sure that was a big selling point for Bugliosi. Bugliosi wanted Manson, and he wasn't going to present a case that excluded him.

Let me make one thing clear:
Bugliosi knew “HS” was bullshit.

Bugliosi was asked in an interview (right around the time Susan was petitioning for "compassionate release“): "Do you still believe the motive was “Helter Skelter“?

His response: "It seems the motives were several and disparate".

Also, years earlier, Bugliosi said on a talk show (paraphrasing):
“Charles Manson probably didn’t even believe the HS story himself.”

Bottom Line:
Bugliosi chose the one motive (he was presented with), that would implicate Manson AND be successful through the corroboration of the defendants themselves (and the “Family” collectively).

Lacking enough evidence to “sell” a more traditional motive, Bugliosi rolled his dice on “HS”… and thankfully for society, it worked. It worked, because Manson and his minions did all the work for him… as Bugliosi predicted they would.

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


Here’s a few reasons why I think “HS” was not the true motive:

The Manson men took care of Shorty Shea quite handily... and that had nothing to do with a race war (HS).

Manson and TJ left Bernard Crowe for dead, and that had nothing to do with a race war (HS), either.

The Manson men clearly demonstrated that they were capable of committing crimes (up to, and including murder) for practical reasons (i.e., reasons they perceived as practical). They didn't need "HS" as a motive.

In keeping, I don’t believe the Cielo and Waverly locations were chosen randomly either.

They went to Crowe's place intentionally. They went to Hinman's place intentionally. They killed Shorty Shea intentionally. Heck... you can add the Willetts to the list, if you want. None of those victims were complete random strangers. They knew Crowe... they knew Hinman... and they knew Shorty... and they knew where to find them.

These perpetrators went to locations intentionally... and killed people they knew... for a reason. (Albeit really shitty reasons... but for a “reason” nonetheless.) They weren't random serial killers, with a race war in mind. That wasn’t their MO.

HS was a piece of this puzzle... but, it wasn't the entire enchilada. Tex Watson, Charles Manson (and the "upper management" LOL) had their sights set on Cielo Drive and Waverly for reasons beyond HS.

HS was a manipulation tool Manson used (among many manipulation tools) to execute TLB, but it wasn't the underlying motive.

Here’s something else to chew on:

If Manson was completely sold on an Armageddon race war, why did he stop killing after just 48 hours?

I mean...
If Manson really believed that the end of the world (as we know it) was at hand... and moreover, he was going to emerge victorious... why would he throw-in the towel so quickly???

Ya gotta admit:
For an idea that Manson was supposed to be completely consumed with... he certainly gave-up pretty easily.

Peace!

60 comments:

MrPoirot said...

To say it was just Watkins and Poston who invented Helter Skelter is BS. There are many people who were very aware of Helter Skelter.
Lynyrd posted a letter of a former Family member who sent him a story about her days with the Family.(no, not the Jenny letter) I can't remember who this chick was. Well anyhow, she mentioned how powerful the Helter Skelter philosophy was in those days even though she had NEVER met Manson. Helter Skelter was not a Bug creation nor was it the only murder motive as Bug himself stated to the jurors in his opening statement. Big never said it was the only motive. Anybody who says he did is either lying or mimicking The Colonel's words. Bug himself explained other motives as well.

katie8753 said...

Ahh, finally I agree with Mr. P. I don't think Lynyrd was trying to say that Charlie never talked about HS. Of course he did.

He was only trying to convey that HS was not the true motive. Charlie was doing a razzle dazzle song and dance about a lot of things, and HS was just one of them, to see which one would give the biggest "draw".

And we all know that, but Charlie was definitely talking about Helter Skelter before the murders. Hence, Pat wrote it on the LB's fridge....

I think people get confused if you say "Helter Skelter" that we think that was the motive, but it's only one of Charlie's "charms" to "bewitch" his stupid followers.

Krissy Deen said...

Sorry, I tried to edit my above comment after realizing I repeated it twice but it deleted instead.

beauders said...

Lynyrd, first I'm not advocating this, I'm just curious, if this is true and a judge found that Bugliosi was just using the Helter Skelter theory and no one was really murdered for Helter Skelter, would Manson's conviction then be thrown out? I know the prosecutor does not need to prove motive, but if he/she presents a false motive can the conviction be thrown out?

louis365 said...

Katie and Mr. P. agreeing??

Now this is Helter Skelter

MrPoirot said...

Charlie's death sentence has already been thrown out. Any verdict in any case can be thrown out for any reason whatsoever.

When the Calfornia and US Supreme Court threw out Charlie's DP they used the excuse of it being cruel which was BS. They overturned it because they hated Nixon and Charlie hated Nixon. Executing Charlie would have been, in their sick minds, like Nixon executing Charlie. The whole DP overturning thing was nothing but liberal judges giving Nixon the finger.
If Jane Fonda had been sentenced to death for Treason for going to Hanoi and making an ass of herself the liberal courts would have overturned her DP because the original judge forgot to say "Simon says" at her sentencing.

I'm surprised Charlie's sentence hasn't been overturned because of inadequate legal representation which allowed him to be convicted without his defense attys defensive offering a rebuttal.

MrPoirot said...

Leslie's conviction no.1 was overturned after her atty Ronald Hughes disappeared at the end of her trial just before the verdict.

Explain to me the difference between Hughes disappearing after Leslie's defense team had already completed her defense and rested
AND
Charlie's defense team offering no defense at all. I'm really surprised Charlie was never retried.

MrPoirot said...

Leslie was retried. Why not Charlie? At the end of Charlie and Leslie's trials something really weird went on.

starship said...

Great points again, Lynyrd.

Katie making a good point, HS was written in one of the victim's blood at one of the crime scenes, so it definitely had something to do with it. It was written on the door at Spahn Ranch (because it was the name of their club?)and if the LAPD had released the refrigerator writing then CM would have been arrested within 24 hours. Plenty of people had heard CM's rap about HS, and plenty were already suspicious of CM already.

But it was a means to an end, for sure....

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Beauders asked:
"Lynyrd, first I'm not advocating this, I'm just curious, if this is true and a judge found that Bugliosi was just using the Helter Skelter theory and no one was really murdered for Helter Skelter, would Manson's conviction then be thrown out? I know the prosecutor does not need to prove motive, but if he/she presents a false motive can the conviction be thrown out?"

That's an excellent question Beauders, and a very complex one.

Things get very complex, because in a very real sense, we probably had two separate motives operating simultaneously during the nights of the TLB murders.

Hence Bugliosi's words:
"It seems the motives were several and disparate".

I think the girls truly believed the "Helter Skelter" story (during the TLB murders).
At that place and time, that was their mental state.
So in reality, "Helter Skelter" WAS their motive.

Conversely...
It's likely that Manson (and Tex) were operating with a completely different motive in mind... (the "real motive" sorta speak).

So in reality, we have 2 "real motives".
It really depends upon which perpetrator you're referring to (or "conspirator" in Manson's case).

It gets muddy.

As some folks have suggested, Manson and Tex may not have been completely on the same page either.
Under that scenario, we essentially have 3 motives.

At the end of the day, Manson's real underlying "motive" may have simply been "bitterness" (for bitterness sake)... which I've always believed, is just as likely as any other motive theory.

Tex's "motive" may have simply been that he owed Charlie for the Crowe incident, etc.

I'm sure we could easily generate 12 other motive scenarios... but, you get my point.

So the real question becomes:
Can a prosecutor choose just ONE motive theory (to utilize), when he's presented with 2 (or more) possibilites?

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

Bear in mind... it would be nearly impossible to "prove" or "disprove" what Bugliosi actually knew (or didn't know) at the time of the trial.

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

Here's another good (and very similar) question:

If a juror honestly believes that a defendant is guilty... HOWEVER the juror does not believe the "motive" (presented by the prosecutor) is accurate, can that juror legally vote "guilty" with a clear conscience?

Such questions are probably best left for lawyers such as Dilligaf, but here's my two cents:

If I was a juror on the TLB trial, I would have voted Charles Manson "guilty" with a clear conscience... even IF, I suspected "HS" was only half the puzzle.

I believe Manson was in-charge of the operation (regardless of motive), and thusly a conspirator to the murders.

Manson himself (and "the family“ collectively) convinced me of those two facts… NOT Vincent Bugliosi.

I would vote "guilty" with a clear conscience.

MrPoirot said...

Helter Skelter as Charlie preached it has its roots in the biblical Exodus of the Jews. Charlie was a 60s era Moses who fled from LA to Death Valley rather than fleeing Egypt to the Sinai Desert as Moses did.
Moses reappeared with the Jews after 40 years in exile from the Pharoah. Charlie too planned on reappearing after an extended stay in Death Valley in exile from Nixon.
Charlie suffered from schizophrenia as many mystics and gurus do. Was Moses also a schizophrenic?
Did Moses suffer a skidzo breakdown after hearing 4 lute players singing about Armageddon in Egypt telling Moses to gather the Jews and leave Egypt to flee to the desert?
After hearing the guitar playing Beatles group Charlie dreamed up his Helter Skelter theory. The majority of the Family Charlie took to Death Valley were jewish.
Charlie was just a schizophrenic mad man imitating Moses and the Exodus of the Jews.

katie8753 said...

Well, Helter Skelter was definitely "preached" by Charlie before the murders, and as Lynyrd pointed out, it was just one of his "jargons" to throw against the wall and see what stuck.

Evidently, Helter Skelter did stick because Pat thought enough of it to write it on the fridge, and a lot of family members remember the preaching.

And as Starship pointed out, it was written on a door at Spahn's. So please folks, stop saying that Helter Skelter was never discussed prior to the murders by Charlie.

katie8753 said...

What I'd like to know is this:

When did Vincent Bugliosi go from being a hero in 1971 for getting convictions for all these monsters, to be a lying jackass for using the Helter Skelter motive?

Somewhere during the years this morphed into VB being a lying jackass and a treasonal monster himself.

How did this happen?

Was it because the Col. told us that VB chased his milkman? Did we suddenly decide that if you chase a milkman, you can't possibly have a clear conviction of a madman?

I don't get that. When exactly did VB go from being the "good guy" to Manson being the "wronged guy"?

I think it occurred when everyone started writing these "books" and basing them on what "Charlie said".

katie8753 said...

Most of you might not be old enough to remember when the "Manson Family" got the death penalty, but I am, and those of you who are can remember the "sigh of relief" when these monsters got death. We all breathed a little easier, knowing that crazed hippies can't just come into your house and wreak havoc.

There was finally a sense of calm and order when that verdict was reached.

But now, so many years later, you have young people, who don't even remember the crimes, trying to get these savages out of prison because of some stupid "facebook, hashtag" crap, social media, and they don't have a clue about what happened in 1969.

Vincent Bugliosi is still a hero in my mind. He can chase the milkman all he wants, and I don't care. As long as he got the trash off the streets, and made the homes of CA & elsewhere USA safe back in 1971.

He could have used any motive he wanted to, I don't care. He got the job done!

And my hat is off to him!

katie8753 said...

Okay I'm on a roll now. I'll say a few more things, then I'll "stifle".

I agree with Lynyrd, I wouldn't have felt guilty at all giving these people the death penalty, even if I didn't buy the "Helter Skelter" theory, because of the way these defendants mocked, not only the judicial system, but sadly and scarily mocked the victims, laughing when their wounds were talked about.

Yes, this really happened!

Charles Manson is a no-talent jerkoff asshole who got out of prison and took advantage of young girls.

Bottom line...that's what he is.

If he wants to make it into something else, have at it old bat. But that's REALITY!

He wasn't good enough to get a recording contract. Why? Because he SUCKED!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's REALITY!

He was bitter and pissed off because society didn't think he was "talented" and he decided to kill.

And the people at Cielo Drive and Waverly Drive were just "in the way". They were people that Charlie hated because they had something he didn't have. But of course, they had JOBS, which he didn't have.

He wanted a free ride from society. He figured he was just as good as The Beach Boys, etc. but he wasn't. He was a no-talent, no-name HACK.

I don't even know why that freak is still alive. But when he dies, which he will,I hope they flush him out into the ocean and the sharks eat him. Although they'd probably spit him out because even THEY have standards.

katie8753 said...

Starting in 1972 when the DP was abolished, did Charlie even try to build a defense? NO!

Did he even try to better himself? NO!

Did he even try to build a case for an appeal? NO!

Did he even try to get some education to learn to read and write? NO!

Did he even try to help the environment? NO!

Did he even try to protect his co-defendants? NO!

All he has done since his conviction is give interviews, speaking scat nonsense, write letters to people with silliness, trying to get record contracts, sending them dumb things he made, steal cell phones, have contraband in his cell, get in trouble, and basically just be himself.

He hasn't tried in all these years to make a better person of himself.

Not once....

Now he's got some girl interested in him, for whatever that means.

He's a loser..don't be fooled by him. He's still the same foot-stomping, rebel-rousing, musician-pretending, cult leading, lambasting, liar wielding, young people mis-leading, promise lending, ass-kissing, cause lying crippled up psycho knuckle-bending, lying asshole you might ever meet up with.

And if that's what you're looking for.. then call him at 555-Dead.

Because that's what you'll get. A dead man walking....

katie8753 said...

And I'll say one more thing.

This isn't just about the TLB victims, or Gary Hinman, or Shorty Shea.

This is about ME...and everyone else in the USA or other countries.

We should all have the right to lay our heads down on our pillows and expect to have a good night's sleep, without some hippy zealots ordered by a madman deciding that we should die.

Charlie had no right to do that to people. No right at all.

And I hope you all realize what I'm saying. It's about the rights of ALL of us! Because what happened in 1969 could have happened to you and me. And if we don't quell that, it could still happen.

Not by lump-ass Charlie but some new psycho. Society has to put a stop to senseless killing.

katie8753 said...

Should we all have to wonder if a hippy cult leader was mad at the guy that "used to live in our house" and come after us?

That's what TLB is about. Charlie is a madman locked up for life. His cohorts are just as mad, locked up for life.

Let's feel safe for a while. I did in 1971...

louis365 said...

OK....OK....NOW I get it. Charlie doesn't think he's Jesus...He thinks he's Moses!

MrPoirot said...

You left out the Devil. He said he's the Devil too. Or was that Tex? No it was both I think.

In Mose's Exedus you have the burning bush incident in the Sanai Desert where God spoke to Moses.
In Helter Skelter you have the burning road grader incident where cops spoke to Charlie.

Dilligaf said...

Lynyrd,

In reference to your question as to whether a juror can vote for a conviction even if they do not believe the motive, the answer is yes. Remember, providing, or proving a motive, is not necessary in order to obtain a conviction, however, it does help a jury to understand why the crime was committed. VB was able to tie all defendants to the crime, in a manner which allowed the jury to become convinced that the standard of proof was met.

Did VB play off of the courtroom antics? Absolutely. Trial strategy is just like a battlefield strategy, it goes sideways the moment the first shot is fired. You continually refine your case as you go. I believe that concept of HS was thrown around early enough in the Family circles, and VB realized it was easier to use this than any other motive. The drug burn theory had many holes in it, and as such, ran a greater risk of falling apart in court.

leary7 said...

Ah, the great Dilligaf weighs in and clears it up for me. I was afraid to show my ignorance and to lazy to do the research but I always thought that a prosecutor DID NOT have to prove motive but often in circumstantial cases, as it was with Manson, offering up a possible motive was seen as essential.
I have asked this before but does anyone know if the 12 jurors in the TLB case were ever asked if the individually or collectively believed in Helter Skelter? My gut tells me that only half of them did but the ones that didn't still believed Charlie "ORDERED AND OCHESTRATED" the murders.

That is why, with all due respect to the anti-HS folk and their indomitable leader Col Scott, trying to prove an alternative motive seems a 'pie in the sky' type of venture.
Yeah, yeah, yeah Col, I agree that the pursuit of truth is always a noble quest and often a necessary one....but the TLB reality sandwich is that no one gives a shit anymore.
In the 80's the Gallup people did a poll that showed that while 78% of Americans did not think Oswald acted alone, only 11% thought the matter worth further investigation.
I believe if the Gallup folk did a similar TLB poll it would show that 99.99% of Americans feel Manson ordered the killings and the even if 30 or 40% didn't quite buy HS only maybe 0.0001% would argue for further investigation.

As I said in another post recently, if one sees Charlie as a psychopath, it is common for psychopaths to act violently without cause - or with fifty different causes.
Maybe it wasn't a race war or a drug burn or a revenge killing...maybe Charlie was just really really constipated on 8/8/69. Maybe that is the big secret he supposedly told Mr. Hendrickson.

For me, chasing the alternative motive thing is a waste of time. And railing against the injustice of Manson's conviction because he was not allowed to put on his own defense (as is Robert H's obsession) is likewise a silly indulgence - does anyone in their right mind think Charlie would have put on a legal defense that lessened his odds of conviction??? Given his conduct both during the trial and in countless interviews afterwards that viewpoint is illogical to the point of insanity.

No, for me personally the reason why I remain transfixed by Manson is honest and truly trying to figure out why he has insisted on his innocence for the past 47 years? He seemingly has no desire whatsoever to leave prison, so why deny the obvious and what everyone else regards as irrefutable?
I've thought allot about that and recently offered up a possible theory but Bobby shot me down right quick. But I still think there might be something to it. I'll offer it up again sometime soon when I have developed it more. It has something to do with Charlie's self-image and his Confederate roots. Yeah, dime-store psychoanalysis. But it's my dime. And that's what blogs are for in my opinion.

candy and nuts said...

murdered or going to be fuck canada seal hunts!🌹hi katie💝

MrPoirot said...



Leary can you name me another murder case where the defendants faced the death penalty but the defense offered no rebuttal for the defendants? When Charlie said "they wouldn't let us put on a defense" who was "they". Why?

Leary I don't understand why you think it's "silly" to ask why no defense was offered. Four defendants facing the DP and their lawyers put on no rebuttal.
Name me another DP case in US history where that wasn't done? Four people got the DP because of it which is the most I have ever heard of in one trial.
Look how Jodi Arias beat a sure DP sentence by offering a rigorous defense.

I saw a Utube once where Paul Fitzgerald said the no-defense defense was "genius". I've yet to figure out what the Hell he meant. I don't think it was the government that stopped Charlie from offering a defense. Was it Charlie? Was it Fitzgerald? I personally think it was incompetence by the defense attys that led to 4 DPs. Perhaps it is a moot point since the DPs were all overturned but most times the defendant offers a defense to beat the DP verdict in cases where guilt is certain.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P said: Look how Jodi Arias beat a sure DP sentence by offering a rigorous defense.

Jodi beat the death penalty because there was a whack job on the jury that was mad at Juan Martinez because he sent her ex-hubby up the river. It was 11-1 in favor of death. That lone juror ruined it for all of them.

And I agree with Leary, if Charlie had put on his own defense, it would have been a joke. Charlie only wanted to defend himself to (1) call the shots and (2) intimidate the witnesses.

Warren Jeffs did the same thing. He was allowed to defend himself and he lost. And at the end of the trial he cursed the jury and the judge and said that "God will kill you if you pronounce me guilty." And (to the judge) "God will give you a disease that will cripple you."

To which the Judge replied "He already did, I've had Polio since I was a young girl".

katie8753 said...

BTW Ted Bundy defended himself, and he was a lot more polished than Manson, and he lost too.

MrPoirot said...

The first thing the defense could have done was subpoena Richard Nixon.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P, the reason the defense rested was because the girls were going to go on the stand and say that Charlie was innocent and their attorneys didn't want that.

And the only reason they were going to do that was because Charlie said...

Charlie tried to be in control, but the court won't allow clowns dominating the court.

louis365 said...

Canada is the place to do murder....you'll be out in three years

katie8753 said...

Beauders, Louis, Candy, Leary, Dill, Starship..HI! :)

katie8753 said...

Mr. P, you might remember that Charlie is the one who threw the paper down about Nixon saying he was guilty in the courtroom in front of the jury.

No one else did.

MrPoirot said...

Fitzgerald smuggled in the paper.

katie8753 said...

So what?

katie8753 said...

That's got nothing to do with Bugliosi.

katie8753 said...

You know what y'all. I'm gonna eat something, and watch the 3 stooges. and have a good night...

Night y'all! :)

katie8753 said...

Okay, I'm going to bed! LOL.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Leary asked:

I have asked this before but does anyone know if the 12 jurors in the TLB case were ever asked if the individually or collectively believed in Helter Skelter? My gut tells me that only half of them did but the ones that didn't still believed Charlie "ORDERED AND OCHESTRATED" the murders.

That's something that I've often wondered about myself.
In short Leary, I have no idea what each juror really believed in regards to HS specifically.

One of the jurors (William Zamora) wrote a book, but I've never read it.
The other 11 jurors, seem to have slipped into obscurity.

See Zamora's book here:
http://www.lsb3.com/search/label/Juror%20William%20Zamora

I'm told, that Zamora spends most of his time (in the book) gossiping about the other jurors.
But again... I never read the book myself.


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

Leary said:
"That is why, with all due respect to the anti-HS folk and their indomitable leader Col Scott, trying to prove an alternative motive seems a 'pie in the sky' type of venture.
Yeah, yeah, yeah Col, I agree that the pursuit of truth is always a noble quest and often a necessary one....but the TLB reality sandwich is that no one gives a shit anymore.
In the 80's the Gallup people did a poll that showed that while 78% of Americans did not think Oswald acted alone, only 11% thought the matter worth further investigation.
I believe if the Gallup folk did a similar TLB poll it would show that 99.99% of Americans feel Manson ordered the killings and the even if 30 or 40% didn't quite buy HS only maybe 0.0001% would argue for further investigation."


I agree.

Paul Fitzgerald said himself:
This case is a "why done it"... not a "who done it".

Society feels very content that they jailed the right criminals.
We know "who" done it.
And at this point, the only people who still care about the "why" aspect (of this case), are the folks on these blogs.
And let's face it, "bloggers" probably represent 0.00001% of the total population. (IF that).


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

Leary said:
"Railing against the injustice of Manson's conviction because he was not allowed to put on his own defense (as is Robert H's obsession) is likewise a silly indulgence - does anyone in their right mind think Charlie would have put on a legal defense that lessened his odds of conviction??? Given his conduct both during the trial and in countless interviews afterwards that viewpoint is illogical to the point of insanity."

I agree.
If Manson was granted "pro per" (a second time!), he would have simply used it, to dig an even deeper hole for himself.
Manson would never have launched a legal defense, that would have lessened his chance of conviction.

IN FACT...
Allowing Charles Manson to defend himself in a court of law, would have been such a miscarriage of justice, it would have likely constituted grounds for a mistrial. (Which may have been Manson's ultimate goal in requesting "prop per", in the first place).

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Leary said:
"No, for me personally the reason why I remain transfixed by Manson is honest and truly trying to figure out why he has insisted on his innocence for the past 47 years? He seemingly has no desire whatsoever to leave prison, so why deny the obvious and what everyone else regards as irrefutable?
I've thought allot about that and recently offered up a possible theory but Bobby shot me down right quick. But I still think there might be something to it. I'll offer it up again sometime soon when I have developed it more. It has something to do with Charlie's self-image and his Confederate roots. Yeah, dime-store psychoanalysis. But it's my dime. And that's what blogs are for in my opinion."


Write it up, and I'll post it as a thread.

I think you're dead-on with the "self image" part.
I think Manson threw the entire trial, simply because he couldn't swallow his pride.

Manson would rather spend an entire lifetime in jail, than "dethrone" himself as "leader", and play by "the man's" rules.
He refused to embarrass himself, in front of his minions.

If Manson had played his cards right, Bugliosi would have had a real uphill battle!
BUT unfortunately... Manson would have had to eat a big piece of humble pie (to make that happen)... and he refused to do that.

In short, I agree with you.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Thank You Dilligaf for your expertise.
I agree with everything you said...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Leary said:
""No, for me personally the reason why I remain transfixed by Manson is honest and truly trying to figure out why he has insisted on his innocence for the past 47 years? He seemingly has no desire whatsoever to leave prison, so why deny the obvious and what everyone else regards as irrefutable?
I've thought allot about that and recently offered up a possible theory but Bobby shot me down right quick. But I still think there might be something to it. I'll offer it up again sometime soon when I have developed it more. It has something to do with Charlie's self-image and his Confederate roots. Yeah, dime-store psychoanalysis. But it's my dime. And that's what blogs are for in my opinion."


Leary,

The more I think about your hypothesis, the more I agree with you.

Manson likes to play the "martyr" role.
Ultimately, that's his schtick.
He wants to be known as an innocent man (who got a raw deal)... because that way, his "followers" can view him as "the underdog who got an unfair shake".

Bottom line:
It allows him to have sympathizers and supporters.
In short, every loser who ever felt like a mistreated "underdog" can sympathize (and align himself) with Manson.

If Manson ever outright admitted his guilt, then he'd simply be a douchebag, who got exactly what he deserved.
And at that point, there'd be nothing left to support or sympathize with... and hence, he'd be completely isolated.

He likes having a "following".
What else has he got?

So yeah, it's all about "image".

He's not defending his "innocence" in hopes of release. LOL
He KNOWS he's never getting out.

He defends his "innocence" so he can enjoy a few friends and supporters, while he's in there.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Beyond that...

By maintaining his innocence, it perpetuates the mystery and mystique of the case.
It give writers, movie makers, and folks like ourselves "fodder".
He wants that!

If Charlie simply confessed ALL, there wouldn't be anything left to discuss... and he knows that.

Manson's hope, is to go down in history as a mysterious, defiant "Billy the Kid" type... not a John Wayne Gacy.

(That angle is probably more in keeping with your original point).

leary7 said...

I'm going to show both my ignorance and laziness again, but Mr. P, while I know Charlie and the girls put on no defense in the guilt phase of the trial, did they not all speak in the penalty phase. Isn't that when the girls tried to accept full responsibility and exonerate Manson. And Charlie himself gave his famous "we're just reflecting you" schtick. Am I wrong about this? I could very well be, my head is muddled with allergies.
But you're right, the trial was not without various degrees of injustice. I hate to sound simple, but I think the length and cost of it just wore everyone out.

Yeah Lynyrd, the obvious is that Manson loves playing the wronged martyr. I just think there is a bit more pathology at play.

And I apologize to any of the anti-HS crowd or injustice folk if I offended. If thinking of those aspects of TLB is what turns you on then by all means go for it. I suppose both pursuits just seem moot to me nearing the half century mark.
Speculating on motive is always a weird trip. I always recall that Lee and Marina's biographer, Priscilla McMillan, seriously believed and concluded that Lee shot JFK out of a jealous rage because JFK physically resembled one of Marina's ex-lovers.

Sometimes, as Willy S. said, 'a rose is but a rose'. And likewise - a pathological asshole is but a pathological asshole.

MrPoirot said...

Leary any statements verbalized by Charlie or the girl defendants were made without the jury being in the courtroom. I have no idea what good that did for either side. I think Charlie spoke uninterrupted for an hour. No jurors ever heard his testimony.
Charlie's trial was a very, very strange trial. Without a single defendant filing an appeal all four death penalty verdicts were overthrown.

An interesting note about the no-defense defense:

the attys couldn'y offer a defense f it meant the girls would all take the blame for Charlie because this would prove one of Bug's claim that Charlie ordered the murders in order to start helter skelter. The defense attys had to make sure they didn't inadvertently substantiate the HS motive. Therefore the defense promptly rested after the prosecution's case was finished.

Leary I can't think of another reason to explain the no-defense defence. BTW this reason is mostly derived off of what you just said about the girls wanting to accept the heat.

MrPoirot said...

If a defense had been offered and the girls took the heat for Charlie to get him off that would have proved Bug's assertion that nothing happened without Charlie's say so. What would have been the point of offering a defense that proved the prosecution's case?

katie8753 said...

Mr. P said: the attys couldn'y offer a defense f it meant the girls would all take the blame for Charlie because this would prove one of Bug's claim that Charlie ordered the murders in order to start helter skelter.

That's not true Mr. P. The girls were gonna offer the "copy cat" motive to get Charlie off.

Although you're right, they were "ordered" to get him off whatever the motive was, by Charlie.

And they would have solidified Bugliosi's motive that Charlie was commanding them what to do.

Which, of course, he was.

He was the one whole told them to blabber the copy cat motive at the punishment phase.

So he's still a lying Mofo....

MrPoirot said...

I can't say that was why the defense never offered a rebuttal because I don't know why. I was postulating and theorizing as to why they didn't. I was hoping somebody may have a link to an interview with Fitzgeral or Kanarek where they explained why they rested with no defense.
I know of no other case in American history where no defense was offered in a death penalty case. I can not even imagine why Judge Older allowed the defense attys to rest at the conclusion of the 9 month prosecutions case.

I am certain this had to be ok'd through Older prior to the defense resting. I am also sure Older could have denied the defenses request to not present any rebuttal what so ever.

MrPoirot said...

The Manson Family was a fanatical. radical, hippie, group-marriage commune that was so fevent in their belief that they had all the answers and it was they who would "save the world" from itself to the point that they were butchering, hanging, stabbing and beating random victims to death. Yet when it came time to explain why they murdered women and babies they simply shrugged their shoulders and kept silent.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P, who could they have called for defense? There was no defense. These fuckers killed folks. What defense could you offer?

Insanity? They wouldn't do that.

The girls were told by Charlie to get him off, and tell the jury that he wasn't involved. To say it was "copy cat" not "helter skelter".

If you were a defense attorney for the girls, would you let your client get up and say that Charlie was innocent and assume the blame?

MrPoirot said...

But that is the question: why no defense? Why did the defense abdicate their role? There definitely was a reason they rested with no defense. Why doesn't one of us Manson Family experts know the answer to this question? Was it never publically discussed? How did we miss this?

MrPoirot said...

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

At the 3:00 point Fitzgerald gives an incredibly stupid explanation as to why no defense. He appears to be proud of his bizarre logic.
If what he says was logical then why would any defendant charged with murder ever offer a defense at all? It is as if Fitzgerald is saying they don't have to answer to these silly charges. as if he is saying, "murder?" "What murder?"

MrPoirot said...

Everyone assumes it was Kanarek who was the whacky atty but was he? Fitzgerald had his famous sexual tryst with Squeaky and Blue. Was Fitzgerald overcome by Charlie's spell just like the killers were? Was it really Fitzgerald who was the real whack job among the defense attys? There you have it in the Youtube link above. Fitzgerald is calmly telling us he plans on not answering to the prosecutions murder charges. He even states the defense isn't even required to put on a defense by law. It is as if Fitzgerald is saying the best thing to do if you are charged with murder is to simply ignore the charge. Jusy go on about your business. The district atty will probably forget he even charged you in the first place.
Fitzgerald is bonkers. His brain had been Charliefied.

katie8753 said...

Well Mr. P, it's a lesson learned I guess. If you're gonna break into homes and kill complete strangers with horrific savagery because your hippy cult leader told you to, you'd better have the money for a good defense lawyer instead of getting stuck with "the help".

MrPoirot said...

Katie you don't think Charlie deliberately selected the worst attys he could get just to show his hatred of the system?

Why else select Kanarek or a guy fresh outta law school?
I don't think any of the defense lawyers helped their clients at all. No other prosecutor ever won 4 death penaltie at one time before. The defense attys were helpless vs Bug and their 4 bizzaro world clients.

katie8753 said...

Well Mr. P, I would say that backfired on Charlie if so. You can (1) show your hatred of the system and stay in prison forever or (2) act normal and try to get off.

I would think the 2nd option would be better, but we're talking about big-mouthed Charlie.

MrPoirot said...

It didn't backfire on him. It was deliberate. Charlie had just served ten years for stealing $35 so he knew he was going to the gas chamber for mass murder so he selected the four most undesirable attys he could find so he could piss off as many people in the system as he could and take down all his friends with him at the same time. Everybody would have to pay.

katie8753 said...

Hmmm...sounds like a plan! :)

louis365 said...

According to Manson's
Parole Officer, it wasn't a check for 35.00, but one for 43.

So, if he got 35 for it, he got ripped off!

katie8753 said...

Thanks Louis. Manson was/is still a dirtbag.

Manson will never reveal the truth, because if he does, he'll be forgotten in a New York minute.

He'd rather be remembered as a "wronged guy" instead of a "Mad guy" that killed people for no reason. If he ever told the truth, people would blow him off. And he's smart enough to know that.

Not smart enough to try to better himself, which he never bothered to do, just street smart.

So there.

louis365 said...

Manson is "Street smart" ??

He got nailed for everything...

katie8753 said...

Yeah Louis you're right. He wasn't smart at all!