LESLIE'S TAPE WITH HER ATTORNEY MARVIN PART - DEC. 1969 - CIELODRIVE.COM

http://www.cielodrive.com/updates/

Wow, just wow... what can I say?

After many years of researching, meeting folks involved (including law enforcement)... reading all the books I could get my hands on, visiting first hand the places involved, I had come to a conclusion and personal belief that the TLB murders were committed "To get a brother out of jail"....meaning of course, Bobby B....

When George Stimson's book came out last year "Goodbye Helter Skelter", I was in TLB heaven.....I thought finally, someone who knows the original Family members, knows Manson very very well, has verified what I always concluded was the motive!   So I was satisfied, finally!

Until today... first thing this morning 5:00 a.m. Pacific, I listen to, and read the transcript of Leslie's tape recording of her meeting with her attorney at the time, December 29, 1969 - Marvin Part, on cielodrive.com.

I'm confused --- honestly---- it wasn't only Paul Watkins that believed and told Bugliosi the same tale of Helter Skelter...

I'm thinking twice now.......maybe three times...not done yet...I know, I am nobody...but Lynyrd lets me post here, lol...

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.

Vincent T. Bugliosi and Charles Manson 2013

Leary said:
"You'd think that given the HUGE role Manson played in his life and fame, that Vincent would have the human curiosity for maybe one more sit down with Charlie, just for history sake.  It would be grand theatre. I've never understood people who had within their means to create 'epic moments' and yet just never seemed the least bit interested in doing so".

Lynyrd Responds:

I'd pay good money to see the elderly Vincent T. Bugliosi and Charles Manson, square-off in an isolated room for one hour.  Old adversaries talking shop (as it were), one last time.  At this point, I bet the two old buzzards would probably get along pretty good.

I'd love to see them talk about "old times" (i.e., the girls' famous street corner vigil, etc)... and moreover... the crimes themselves, and the trial.  I'm sure Manson would probably crack a few jokes.

I wonder if the notion of meeting with Manson (one last time) has ever crossed Bugliosi's mind.  I also wonder, if Manson would actually accept Bugliosi's invitation.

Leary... this is one of your better "hypotheticals".  A meeting of these two adversaries after 4+ decades, would surely be... historic and epic.  As an enthusiast of TLB, it's hard to argue otherwise.

Manson utilized "Helter Skelter" as a means to an end.  Bugliosi ALSO utilized "Helter Skelter" as a means to an end.  Both men knew full-well that "Helter Skelter" was nothing more than a tall tale.

The question becomes:
Which man accomplished a better outcome by cultivating and manipulating "Helter Skelter" for his audience?  The answer to that question, should be self evident.

Having said all that:
The fact of the matter, is that WAY too much emphasis is placed on "Helter Skelter" in-general.

I don’t believe the jury bought into "Helter Skelter".  Fact is... they didn't have to.
(It should be noted here, that the prosecution doesn't even have to present a motive).

The jury convicted Manson, because they were convinced that Manson was NUTS... and the leader of this group.  That’s all they needed.  More specifically… the jury was convinced that Manson conspired to these murders... and beyond that… they most likely didn‘t care "why".

Look:
Bugliosi could have told the jury that Manson was completely crackers and communicating with space ships... and the jury STILL would have convicted Manson.
In fact… ANY motive theory that depicted Manson as “crazy, dangerous, and in-charge“, would have worked... because the jury was already convinced of those three elements, based on the defendant’s own actions.

Let's face it... Manson convicted himself.  The trial was a circus.  “The family” was acting like fools inside the courtroom, and out.  “The family” demonstrated to the world, that Manson was their leader.  The shaving of heads... the carving of "X"'s... the year-long sidewalk vigils... the crawling across town on hands and knees... (need I continue?)...  collectively convinced the world that these people were NUTS… and Manson was the "head nut"!  Manson even lunged at the judge.  As I said... "crazy, dangerous, and in-charge".

Bottom line:
The jury was convinced that Manson "saw to it" (if you will) that people were killed, and that's all they cared about.  They didn't give two shits about WHY a crazy man wanted people dead… they just wanted to see him behind bars.

Bugliosi convinced the jury that Manson was in-charge (with a lot of help from Manson)... and THAT'S why Manson is in jail.  The "Helter Skelter" motive wasn’t a big factor.  “Helter Skelter” was much more useful in the sale of books, than it ever was in the courtroom.
If anything, the jury convicted Manson in spite of "Helter Skelter".

I’m personally convinced that Manson was the “ringleader”… and my opinion has ZERO to do with “Helter Skelter” or Bugliosi’s book.  I could care less about Bugliosi’s book.

I’m personally convinced of Charlie’s “leadership role” as a result of viewing countless hours of film footage, photos, and transcripts.  I’ve inspected these types of media with my own eyes and ears.  I've drawn my own conclusions, with my own common sense.

I've been everywhere the grass grows green... and I don't need Vincent T. Bugliosi, to tell me what time it is.  Manson was a 34 year-old hardened criminal, dealing with suburban kids... primarily females.  It doesn't take a genius to figure-out who was at the top of that totem pole.

C'mon folks...
How often do you see women crawling across town… and holding a (one year) "sidewalk vigil" for a “follower”???

I give the TLB jury the same credit.  I believe the jury saw through to “the truth” with their own five senses.  “Helter Skelter” was a small factor in their verdict.

Here’s where it gets a bit hazy.  The next logical question becomes:
If you jail the right person, for the right crime(s)… does it matter if the premise (or motive) presented by the prosecution may have been inaccurate?
I mean (as a juror)… if you know someone is guilty… does the prosecution have to present the correct motive to you, for you to vote guilty?

Dilligaf could certainly answer that question, better than I… but my personal guess, is No… it shouldn’t matter.  As a juror, you’re voting on the defendant‘s “guilt” related directly to the crime at hand… not on the prosecutor‘s ability to guess accurately at “motive“ or “motivation“.

Legalities aside… from an ethical standpoint… I suppose the answer to that question, relates strongly to how much of a “purist” one is.
Personally… I’d rather see a guilty man convicted despite an inaccurate motive presentation by the prosecution, than see him walk free on a technicality.
The prosecution doesn’t have a crystal ball… and remember, at the end of the day, they don’t have to present a “motive” at all.
Again… (as a juror) you’re voting on the guilt/innocence of the defendant in regards to the crime(s) specifically… not the legal skill of the prosecutor in determining motive.

I’m sure the TLB jurors are sleeping very well at night these days… and, I really don’t think they care what Manson’s “motive” was.  (The jurors who are still alive, that is).

How anyone can possibly watch the “sidewalk vigil footage”… see the girls’ famous “crawl”… listen to the testimony of various “family members”… watch Hendrickson’s films… read the transcripts… witness Lynn and Sandy’s fanatical life-long devotion… and STILL remain unconvinced that Manson was the “ringleader”, is beyond my personal comprehension.

The “Slippie” conspired… he played his cards poorly during the trial (because he couldn‘t swallow his pride)… and now he’s in jail.  End of story.

New JFK movie "Parkland" will be based on Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, and produced by Tom Hanks.

Liza Foreman - Reuters 6:21 p.m. CDT, October 30, 2012

LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) - Paul Giamatti, Billy Bob Thornton, and Jacki Weaver have signed on to the John F. Kennedy feature film "Parkland," the filmmakers announced on Tuesday.

Playtone partners Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman are producing the film in association with Exclusive Media, who will also be financing. 

The movie is based on Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy."

A former L.A. County Deputy D.A. Bugliosi was best known for prosecuting Charles Manson. A three-time Edgar Award winner, he also wrote the number-one New York Times bestsellers; "Helter Skelter," based on the Manson case; "And The Sea Will Tell"; and "Outrage."

The adapted screenplay for "Parkland" is written by Peter Landesman, who will also make his directorial debut with the film, which recounts the chaotic events that occurred at Dallas' Parkland Hospital on the day Kennedy was assassinated .

To be shot in Austin, Tex., it's set to be released in 2013, for the 50th anniversary of the assassination.

"Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman are two exceptional producers with great taste, so we are delighted to be collaborating with them on this fascinating film about such a significant chapter in American history," Exclusive Media's Nigel Sinclair and Guy East said in a statement. "Paul, Billy Bob and Jacki are perfectly cast to bring Vincent's book to life."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-rt-us-paulgiamatti-billybobthorntonbre89t1ug-20121030,0,1911748.story

Vincent Bugliosi coming soon to a theatre near you? 
“The Prosecution of an American President”

Official Trailer

 

Movie Review by ANDY WEBSTER - NY Times - October 11, 2012 

In “The Prosecution of an American President,” the former Los Angeles deputy district attorney Vincent T. Bugliosi (famous for prosecuting Charles Manson) presents his case for trying George W. Bush for murder, given his pursuit of war against Iraq. He contends that the Bush White House sold a lie to the American public: that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent fatal threat. Killing is justified only when mortal peril to a person (or citizenry) looms, and in the matter of Iraq, Mr. Bugliosi argues, it didn’t.
 

On camera, the Harvard legal scholar Alan M. Dershowitz disputes the viability of the case, and the film’s principal sequence — a Bugliosi address to the University of California, Los Angeles, law school — has a formal rigor that proves repetitious. But there is no mistaking Mr. Bugliosi’s conviction, nor the thoroughness of his research, which largely concerns the Bush administration’s claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Theories about Mr. Bush’s motives are presented, but, Mr. Bugliosi says, prosecutors are not burdened with proving a motive.
 

Emotional support comes in grisly news footage: civilians being shot; gravely wounded troops; a father’s self-immolation after learning his son, a Marine, is dead. These images remind us of how American lives are used as political chess pieces, and how agonizing it is when the game’s larger objective remains unclear.

View the website here

I was reading Colonel’s blog (as I usually do), and found the Bugliosi/HS conversation on his second thread “Shrugs” particularly interesting.  It’s very, very good stuff!  Heck… those topics are essentially the “cruxt” of blogging this subject.

Anywho… I was going to post a couple boring documents today… and then decided… it would be more fun… to participate in the Bugliosi/HS topic. 
But… here’s the twist:  Rather than write-up an entire thread… I’m uploading my “notes” only… in “outline form”.  You folks fill-in the blanks!  Fill-in the blanks, or tear it apart… your choice.  As always, I could be completely full of shit… you decide!

My thoughts on the importance of Bugliosi today… in regards to solving the case/motive question:

1) Essentially, Manson convicted himself.

2) Bugliosi’s only, REAL, “claim to fame“ was successfully predicting how Manson would “play his cards”.  Bugliosi knew… if he gave Manson enough rope… Manson would hang himself.

 3) Bugliosi had little (if any) concrete evidence against Manson… so he designed a plan, which would allow Manson to convict himself… with his own personality… and demons.

Think of the movie “A few Good Men”.  Tom Cruise had little concrete evidence on Nicholson.  BUT… Cruise knew Nicholson was a big lion, who wanted to “roar”… and he painted him into that corner… and got a confession.  OK… a really cheesy analogy,…and not 100% “analogous” (LOL)… but, it’s a similar concept.
The actions of Manson and his “family”... were essentially a confession in action form… a confession that Manson was the leader.  Bugliosi predicted these idiots were going to “act-out” this dramatic real-life play.  Through his research, Bugliosi had already observed all the necessary elements in action, to make that prediction!
Bottom Line:
Bugliosi KNEW… Manson and company… were…. (at that time) in-capable of practicing ‘self-control”… as a means of winning the case for Manson.  These folks were FAR beyond switching gears.  “The family” was NOT going to portray Manson as a mere follower!  That wasn’t going to happen… and Bugliosi knew it.  That’s how Bugliosi won the case.

4) The jury did NOT convict Manson because they were sold on the Helter Skelter story.  The jury convicted Manson, because they were convinced Manson was in-charge, and thusly a conspirator to the murders.  Manson himself (and ‘the family“ collectively)… convinced the jury of those two facts… NOT Bugliosi.  The HS story (beyond Bugliosi‘s book) was secondary.

5) Bobby (blogger Bobby) made a great point.  OJ Simpson was a wife-beater, and a murderer… but there’s absolutely no denying… he was a great football player.  You have to separate personal life, from professional assessment.  Bill Clinton was a great president.  The economy was fabulous… jobs and overtime were everywhere.  Internationally, we were on good terms with the world.  His blowjobs from Monica… were between him and his wife… he and God.  But professionally… the man did a great job.  The presidency, is a job. 
A blowjob? LOL
If you hire a carpenter to build you a house…. and he’s does a spectacular… highly-skilled job,…at a fair price… do you care who he’s banging or stalking on his own time?  Does it make him a bad carpenter?

6) Bashing Bugliosi, although great fun… adds nothing towards finding the true motive.

7) Bugliosi was the prosecutor… he prosecuted.  Folks need to get over that simple fact. 
If you really want to bash an incompetent man (who completely screwed Manson)… take a good look at Kanarek.  Kanarek was Manson’s defense attorney for cripes sakes… and he NEVER put on a defense!!!  Now THAT guy committed a crime.  Sure, Bugliosi threw Kanarek a few compliments out of “professional courtesy” in the past… i.e., “Kanarek scored some points”, etc.  But C’mon… Kanarek sucked!

8) Starship said… “I have bigger fish to fry”… and that says it all.  At the end of the day, bashing Bugliosi is a fruitless endeavor.  It will never produce a real motive, or solve the case.  As Leary said: Bugliosi is not a hero or a villain… he did a job.

9) Why did Manson screw himself??
I’ve always believed it was pride.  Manson wasn’t going to eat a big piece of humble pie, and play by “the man’s” rules.  He wasn’t going to sit there like a deaf/mute… a nobody… a follower.  If Manson couldn’t win on his terms, he didn’t want to play.
MattP has also suggested: Manson was convinced… he couldn’t be convicted of murder, without actually killing.  Truth be told… it was likely heavy elements of both.

My Two Cents on Bugliosi and the Helter Skelter Motive

Hello Friends!  Below is my personal opinion/summation of a topic (Bugliosi and HS), which got pretty heavy (and interesting) in the previous thread.  This is my “two cents” (on the subject) for what it’s worth… and not intended to be taken as “provable fact”.  I asked Mary, if I could use one of her comments (from an older thread) as a “springboard” for this discussion, and she agreed.  Thanks Mary!


Mary said:
>>>>"You cannot present 5 - 6 motives to a jury and expect them to follow the motives and all the evidence. You need to simplify the case"<<<<

Mary... You're right.
That's one major reason why Bugliosi presented "Helter Skelter".  There are 3 reasons.

Reason #1)
It's a tidy package, which is easy to present.
You can't stand-up to prosecute 4 defendants simultaneously (single-handedly), 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 probably will never know... thanks for you time".  That doesn't win a case.

Reason #2)
The "HS package" implicated Manson... the "big tuna".
Bugliosi wanted Manson, and wasn’t going to use a motive which excluded him.

Reason #3)
Bugliosi needed a motive which everyone involved, would corroborate.
So… while interviewing, researching, and observing everyone… he searched for a “common thread”.
The one common thread Bugliosi found, was this:
Everyone’s words AND actions, echoed “Charlie is in-charge”.
That was the only “constant”, or “common thread” he could rely on... consistently, and across the board.  So… he utilized that one common thread, for all it was worth.

The HS "motive" painted Manson as the leader… in fact, completely “hinged” around that concept.  The words and actions of “the family” inside (and outside) the courthouse (as Bugliosi predicted), painted “Charlie” as leader… and cemented an otherwise weak case against Manson.

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".
Several and disparate motives folks.  That’s lawyer-talk for “No”.

There’s no doubt, Bugliosi was presented with several possible motives, just as we are.
I honestly believe, Bugliosi had no idea which motive was correct… and still has no idea today.  Honestly, how could he?  Realistically… it’s impossible.  He’d have to be an all-knowing deity, with a crystal ball.

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.
I say “presented with”, because it’s my humble opinion, that the Helter Skelter motive, was indeed “presented” to him (along with many others), and not “concocted” by him.
That portion is just my humble opinion.  Either way… “presented” or “concocted”, everything above, is why (I believe) Bugliosi used the HS motive.

Bottom line:
Bugliosi got the right folks, for the right crime, but based on the wrong motive… or, if nothing else, a motive he couldn’t possibly have been sure of.
Ethical?
Probably Not.
Effective?
Yes.

Bugliosi is smug.  He has an inflated ego the size of Texas.  He’s a strange and irritating sorta man, who uses bizarre words like “megolomaniac”.  Heck, he’s downright irritating at times.  Most importantly… his tactic of using a motive he couldn’t possibly have been 100% sure of (to effectively prosecute folks), was, and is, arguably un-ethical.
But, is he stupid?  My opinion is no… not at all.

California Residents... Clear Your Calendars!
Here's Your Chance to Meet Vincent Bugliosi! LOL
That's Right... You Heard It From Lynyrd First. : )

Vincent Bugliosi, will be at the Glendale Public Library... 222 East Harvard Street, Glendale, CA 91205... on Wednesday, July 27, at 7 pm... in the Central Library Auditorium, to discuss his new book, "Divinity of Doubt".

This free lecture is sponsored by the Friends of the Glendale Public Library.  Information: (818) 548-2042.

Glendale Public Library
222 East Harvard Street
Glendale, CA 91205

Full Story here: http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/library/AuthorEvent_VincentBugliosi_072711.asp

Information Submitted By Lynn!!!  Thanks Lynn!!!

Vincent Bugliosi has written another book.  "Divinity of Doubt: The God Question" 

Evidently, he's taking-on God now. 

The book essentially revolves around Bug, proving God doesn't exist.

Bugliosi was a skilled lawyer in his day. 

Love him, or hate him, he won 105 of 106 felony cases as a prosecutor, which included winning 21 out of 21 murder cases.

Unfortunately, it seems over the years, his mind has deteriorated in direct converse proportion to his ever-growing ego. 

Evidently, Bugliosi believes he's a master on every subject now.

 

Even a championship Boxer, must know when to hang-up his gloves.  If he fights too long, and too old, he'll make a fool of himself.  It's time Bugliosi, the champ of yester-year, hangs-up his gloves. 

A legal consultant great.  A theologian? ... not so much.