Guillory later in life
Monday, March 26, 2018
Preston Guillory Interview
Castscradle77's interview with Preston Guillory who participated in the Spahn Ranch raid. He also testified at the trial. Word of his passing was shared by Cats on Twitter recently. He died last August in New Mexico. Political leanings aside, it's a terrific interview. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
90 comments:
Is he depicted in all of the photos or are they just stock photos from the raid?
AC, Guillory is not in any of the pics. I've been told though that he's in video footage from the raid.
Thanks Matt- do you know if there were ever any interviews with any of the responding Tate or LaBianca officers or sheriffs deputies? Great listening during my commutes back home to Long Island.
This is fascinating! Thanks Cats and Matt
Ditto -- it's a long interview but worth it.
That is an odd pic of Mr. Guillory. Is he naked?
There is one with Preston, myself and Irving Kanarek that goes on even longer. I reunited them after many years and it was crazy weird the amount of time Preston and I spent on the phone with Irving. Nothing ever was straight forward with Irving, and the back story on the whole thing is crazy. I have hours of Irving recorded that I promised to give Paul to prep and release but never did.
Preston was a good soul and my friend. He shared a lot with me, and it is priceless stuff. He loved his family, and stood tall by what he thought was right.
We didn't always agree, and I never made it out to Cali to go to Mae's grave with him. For this I carry a regret or two.
He lived life the way he saw fit, and never was afraid to tell you what he thought.
Carry on my friend, you are missed.
As far as the photo- I don't have the foggiest but it looks like it is from his Go Fund me page that was posted one month before he died from cancer. Who knows where his head was at... I respectfully leave it there.
That makes sense, Patty's dad didn't want to wear anything before he died of cancer. Clothes just hurt too much. RIP
CATSCRADLE77 said...
There is one with Preston, myself and Irving Kanarek that goes on even longer. I reunited them after many years and it was crazy weird the amount of time Preston and I spent on the phone with Irving. Nothing ever was straight forward with Irving
That was one of the first tape recorded interviews I listened to and it is still, to this day, one of the most eye opening ones I've ever come across. It was the first time it really came home to me that people can be so heavily associated with something yet not be in full receipt of details that are known to interested parties that have no first hand involvement. I'd known it beforehand as a keen reader of autobiographies and interviews, but that one really brought it home to me. Kanarek said a host of things that really surprised me, things that I thought he must surely have known. He also made me laugh sometimes, especially when he told Cats off when she said she'd chucked her copy of "Helter Skelter" away or when he made naughty innuendos about Susan Atkins.
If I remember correctly, there was an interesting little debate on Cats' site after that interview and without a doubt it's a great interview. And kind of sad too. He'd led a fascinating life even before becoming a lawyer.
Squeeky wasn't much of a housekeeper.
Hi Cats. First, I want to thank you for your website and assure you that it's missed. Secondly, please make the kanarek material available. Your interview with him was like a rare drop of water in the desert. There's so little available from the horse's mouth so to speak. Even the rough unedited version would be interesting. Finally, who paid him to defend manson? Is that person still alive? Thanks again Cats.
Thank you for your kind words. Basically, the site is sitting waiting for me to hit the release button but I really have not decided when/if to take part in things on that basis again. Irving will always be Irving-that frustrating person who you cannot help but like..there is a book worthy story of the things Preston and I did to try and assist him, only to find out, through documents he provided, that information he verbally told us was far from the truth.
I need to have Paul do his magic on the recordings..and then make the decision on how to get them out there if my mind sways that way.
Thank you again for your kind words. Have a lot going on, and I am on the fence on stuff.
Godspeed, Cats. Your site has been missed.
I finished the interview this morning. Thanks for posting as I was never a follower on Cat’s website as mentioned above.
I found it incredibly interesting and informative and would love to hear the Kanarek interview, too if it’s ever posted.
Crazy to think an operation of that magnitude was all for nothing although I think it served its purpose on a larger scale.
Thanks for posting this!
AstroCreep said...
would love to hear the Kanarek interview, too if it’s ever posted
Astro, you can find it here at the moment but I don't know for how long it will be there. It should still be available on YouTube.
CATSCRADLE77 said...
Basically, the site is sitting waiting for me to hit the release button
As are many folk on the outside !
If only as an archive resource, like this one, it's worth its weight in whatever precious jewels one cares to name. It reminds me of a line from Rush's "The Spirit of Radio" which for years I thought was called The Spirit of the Radio !
"Bearing a gift beyond price, almost free..."
I noticed that you were credited in that "Manson, the final words" documentary.
Thank you all.
Grim- it would return in the interactive state of the past if it is to return at all. I just have to figure out if I want to do it again or not. Or maybe just for a few. Dunno.
And yes on the credit. Did things behind the scenes for a little bit.
21- I forgot to answer about who paid. Irving would never directly state who but I ran a hypothetical by him and he basically confirmed my thoughts. And, if you read the transcripts, during the Penalty Phase the money and payment dried up. He asked for compensation from the court. Which makes sense because everyone was found guilty, and no mouths were opened.
I think it would either be Harold True or Phil Kaufman. They were the ones that allegedly received the rights to his music or had an interest in The Family Jams.
Umm why would that even matter? Record sales during the trial were most likely crap (in all honesty, a deaf children's choir or a rabid dog sounds better but then again who says my taste in music is good)and afterwards probably even worse for I don't believe the great race to own things killers/accused killers/conspirators produced had caught on in society. So the pennies that would have been present, after production costs were taken out, wouldn't have kept Kanarek in ketchup.
So it was just some good Samaritan who ponied up the "good chunk of loot" to pay Kanarek's fee?
http://www.cielodrive.com/archive/manson-family-legal-fee-paid-by-da/
"Mr. Manson’s lawyer, Irving Kanarek, to our knowledge, has received no funds. It is speculated that Mr. Shinn did provide him with certain expense money. The ‘Manson Family’ advertised in a publication known as the ‘Free Press’ asking for funds. We do not know how much was raised. But we have been informed that a very small amount came in from that source.”
Shinn also had a stake in Family Jams. I don't see anyone filing motion one for Charlie unless they have some skin in the game.
The article also says that Shinn spent $12,000 Atkins made from her story. It was probably Kanarek and Shinn that leaked the story and that's why he's so adamant about blaming Bugliosi.
"Lie" only sold 300 copies. That's not going to pay for anything.
But I always thought Kanarek didn't get paid so what was the hypothetical, if you are willing to share.
Define good. And to their knowledge.
"Good chunk of loot" is Irving's words. And judging from the fact that he was probably living out of his car at the time he said it, I would set the bar pretty low. And "to our knowledge" is from a contemporaneous nationally syndicated news item which I place a lot more faith in than Kanarek's "remembrances."
I think that at the time, there were a lot of people who recognized that these crimes and the defendants were potential money makers. Whether they actually were able to monetize was yet to be seen. But that people were out there speculating is fact. True and Shinn had a stake in Family Jams, Kaufman had tapes and allegedly still holds copyrights. Frykowski's estate filed a lawsuit, possibly La Bianca's as well. Linda's and her attorneys had a book deal, Bugliosi wrote a book. I think at least one juror wrote a book. Little Paul and Brooks sold their story to the press. It's not uncommon for people, even lawyers, to work on future points. It's not ethical in a criminal case and will get you disbarred, but I wouldn't put that past any of the defense attorneys here.
Well bravo to you and your beliefs and bravo to me for mine. Potential moneymakers perhaps but ask yourself why Linda’s book never was published etc. As for me, I fear this discussion with you, Peter, is treading on “I read this on the internet” vs “I have talked to people involved” and I refuse at this juncture to have poop thrown at me by a mind enclosed in its own making. Believe what you want, it’s a free world.
David- it’s not my story to tell but the pieces are there if you look.
Melba Kronkight
Because if there is one thing we all can agree on it's that the people involved all have perfect memories, tell the truth, and have no reason to lie.
Don't be coy. Share all this first-hand knowledge. Put it out there where we can see it. Whats the point in hinting about it if you aren't going to back it up. My mind isn't so enclosed that i wont give it a fair reading. For instance, Im not so blinkered that i would throw away Bugliosi's book because I thought it was all lies.
Not for nothing but Kanarak gets like 20 things wrong about the case. Some are minor and likely unintentional but others are more important and deliberate. Why do you think he keeps asking you where you are reading your facts from. He wants to see if you have a source in front of you and will be able to contradict him on the spot. He's gauging where and how much he can bullshit.
I think it's great that you do the research and you go out and do these interviews and you share them. And you deserve a lot of credit for that. But they're not facts just because Kanarak or Guillory told them to you. And to accept them and present them as such just means your agenda and their agendas are aligned not that there is no agenda.
I would rather be blinkered than whatever small minded state you have landed but thanks anyways. As I have taken part in the conversations in their whole, I think I am quite able to judge the attitudes of said participants.
As this is a thread to honor Preston’s memory, I am going to refrain from any type of engagement with you. But being that he was present during and after these, I can tell you we were not engaging in believing of things we couldn’t prove.
And yes I chucked the Bugliosi book. I had police reports, trial transcripts and contact with people who were part of the story .. why would I need it?
"He died last August in New Mexico."
Does anybody know where exactly? When did Guillory pass on? When was this interview done?
With respect to all involved, I've learned over the years of TLB blogging to rely more on documentation than taped interviews. I've seen my share of "facts" that were taken as gospel because players in the story "said so". Then, when I see documentation that debunks it, I'm given pause for what I previously believed.
That said, sometimes there is no documentation. All you have are taped interviews or unscripted footage. Then I have no choice but to take it for what it is until something else surfaces.
Agreed. And when things are conflicting, one must analyze the conflict and draw ones own conclusion. As I have stated in the past we all hav different ideas and it doesn’t make one right and the other wrong.
It sometimes just is.
Cats, you were a big part of my early Manson research. Thanks for everything. The Kanarek interview is wonderful.
Grim- thanks for the link. I’m just now getting to the part where the Manson case enters the discussion.
I realize that Kanarek is not the masterful delay tactician that he was made out to be in Helter Skelter. He’s almost borderline savant who thinks in such great detail that he can’t answer direct questions easily.
Anyway, interesting stuff and thanks for the link.
Thank you GreenWhite. Please continue researching and looking for answers. They are still out there, and the people that can answer are becoming fewer and fewer.
Irving is Irving. I grew to have a soft spot for him even though he was tremendously frustrating. Someday, I will tell the full tale of Preston and I trying to help him and the true game playing that was a way of life for Irving.
That said, we were chatting one day and he remarked (he was storytelling which he loved to do) about how he loved this book called Lad by Albert Payson Terhune. After we got off the phone with Irving, Preston and I were chatting and I really wanted to send him a copy because he didn't have one. Irving has always been a real pack rat and we discussed the fact that we had learned that the living conditions of where Irving was staying were...ummm...horders worthy.
I didn't want to add to that, but I did.
So even though we had a lot of frustration in trying to sort things out, one had to love Irving.
Last Irving and Preston story for now- Irving would take the bus to the hospital for his blood work or something on a weekly basis. Irving because he is Irving, got on the hospital phone to call us and we tried to explain to him that he could not tie up the hospital line. It was deeply frustrating but totally Irving.
Hey, Sorry for being a dick. I need to step back and recognize all the work you've done over many years and I apologize.
Hi Cats, hows it been?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkqgDoo_eZE
Peter, for acknowledging your assholism, you get a pass and I accept your apology.
Cielo- its been good. Busy but good. And you?
Alas, where is the Col?
Peter that Fonzie clip nearly made me choke on a Tic Tac!!!
I'm well, thanks. As usual, I'm busy running in circles. Glad you hear you're doing good.
So when will we see your wonderful site again? Seems overdue for a return
Preston's testimony starts on page 9588
Thanks Cielo. I have it already to launch I just haven’t yet. Don’t know if or when I will bring it back or how public it will be if it happens.
But thanks for your kind words.
Cats good to see you posting. Your site is greatly missed.
I'm disappointed that Guillory didn't get into what he claimed at the time--that the Sheriff's department was giving Charlie a pass on his crimes, and what that might have meant. He apparently backed away from that in his later years.
Hi Cats. Thanks for your responses. I have another question for you regarding Kanarek. Did he ever tell you why he rested the defense without calling a single witness? I read somewhere else that he felt there was no need since the prosecution hadn't proven their case, but was he really that bad of a attorney that he believed a jury was going to let his client go after the shenanigans Manson had pulled during the trial? I understand that for the girls, every day in the courtroom with Charlie was a day in which the loose around their necks tightened a little bit more. Plus, the girls wanted to testify. So I get why their attorneys didn't want to prolong the trial, but what about Kanarek? Also, my understanding is that Kanarek stayed on with Charlie for the Hinman trial as well. Why did Manson accept him again?
Regarding who paid for Kanarek during the guilt phase, I guess you agreed to Kanarek not to reveal any names. I respect that. I remember your description of that from your own forum as well and I recall thinking that Kanarek's non-confirmation/confirmation by not disagreeing with your hypothetical was a bit like how Woodward and Bernstein's sources in "All the President's Men." If you recall, those sources would confirm a hypothesis that one of the journalists had by, for instance, staying on the line or hanging up the phone, coughing, etc.
So, can we play a journalism game? If I'm wrong, can you cough twice? I think Kanarek was paid by someone who didn't want something to come out in the mainstream media and my best guess would be Dennis Wilson. I think that Brother Records didn't want the extent of Dennis' involvement in drugs and underaged girls to sully the All-American image of the clean, surfing boys. Charlie's defense could have called Wilson as a witness. I think Dennis would have been happy enough to have paid to ensure that that didn't happen. Plus, Dennis was scared of Charlie, didn't want to cross him, but also knew that whatever happened CM would be going away for a long time due to, at least, parole violations.
Are you coughing?
Thanks Christopher.
21 Days- I don't think I ever asked him why the defense rested but I will look through my stuff and see. During the penalty phase, Manson ended up punching Irving and getting thrown out of the courtroom. I would have to go reread the testimony and see what was going on, unless Cielo can quick link, so maybe Irving at that point realized he better try and save Manson. Pure conjecture on my point until I go back and refresh my memory.
I don't remember if the court appointed Irving at Hinman or if Manson agreed to keep him. I don't remember if Manson tried to have Irving removed and the court rejected that....or if after being found guilty at the TLB if it was just a "screw it" moment where since he was already in jail, so keeping the annoying to the court Irving was just a finger to the court.
I am unable to play the game, for all I have it someone's word with very little proof of the validity of statements, and only my belief that it is true.(by the reaction). I will say it was not Dennis, but will say that Irving said (before I laid my thoughts out there) that it is someone everyone knows. We argued, quite vehemently at times, about it. He said he was calling attorney/client privilege, since this person actually paid him.
(LOL. and it made me feel kinda weird. All that popped in my head was Ted Bundy talking to the two authors in the third person about how a person might kidnap and murder people. I need to step back from True Crime. LOL).
There is no attorney client privilege that covers that information. That is just wrong. Irving just didn't want to tell.
Thank you Cats. Good luck with all and thanks for your contribution in all things tlb related.
Thanks 21.
And Peter, I know this and thusly the argument about it. He called that privilege on a lot of stuff. Sometimes, it got so frustrating, I hung up on him. But it was the game of Irving, and often ended in a stalemate.
The discussion on the decision to not mount a defense begins on page 17,947 of Vol. 150.
KANAREK: I believe, down deep in my heart, and I say this to the Court, I don't believe there is a case against Mr. Manson, a legitimate case. I believe, your Honor, that this was done for publicity. I am responding to your Honor. I think that if this case had not been publicized, they wouldn't even have filed on Mr. Manson. I believe that he is a victim of Mr. Younger's what has now been a successful attempt to become Attorney General. The publicity, I believe, in this --
THE COURT" All right, Mr. Kanarek.
KANAREK: i sincerely believe that Mr. Manson is innocent.
MANSON: He knows that. That has nothing to do with it.
KANAREK: I believe your Honor, that there is no case against him.
17,965-66.
Starviego said: "I'm disappointed that Guillory didn't get into what he claimed at the time--that the Sheriff's department was giving Charlie a pass on his crimes, and what that might have meant. He apparently backed away from that in his later years."
I haven't heard the interview yet but....
Guillory's testimony linked up there by Bo doesn't appear to say or even hint at any 'backing off'. Quite the opposite, it appears Kanarek was trying to use his testimony to say LASO had a long standing vendetta against Manson (a theme Kanarek expressed in the trials). Kanarek's argument was that Manson was framed.
For example Guillory mentions being briefed repeatedly on "Manson and his followers" starting when he first was assigned to the Malibu Station in June of 1969 and continuing through and past the raid on August 16th into September. He also mentions a unit called the 'Special Enforcement Bureau' who was the instigator of the raid: "specially trained in riot techniques; and they also collect-- they collect information on certain groups for the Sheriff's Department." pp 9588-9
He also mentions certain memos/reports on Manson and his followers being removed from files immediately after the final arrest.
That last bit suggests to me a certain embarrassment that LASO was actively after Manson and fumbled Hinman and Tate/LaBianca.
I thought the guy in the photo holding Danny by the arm looked like Guillory.
That can't be Preston though, that guy is CHP
David said...
"Guillory's testimony..."
Pardon my ignorance, but did Guillory testify in the TLB trial? If so, when and for what reasons?
He testified in the penalty phase of Manson's trial for the Hinman/Shea murders. He did not testify in the TLB trial
Cielodrive posted a link above. Kanarek’s stated purpose was to prove Manson was framed.
Mr. Humphrat - I had the same thought and I asked Preston about that. He said it was not him. And sent me photographs that had him in them. Among those, was the most precious one of him and his son as a baby. You can tell it isn't him.
Mr. Humphrat said: "I thought the guy in the photo holding Danny by the arm looked like Guillory."
He was shown about 40 photos from the raid during his testimony and thought his arm might be in one of them. Otherwise he stated he was not in any of them.
Of the 40 he was shown at trial, that is correct he was not in any of those. Of photos that were not turned in as exhibits, he may be in those. Just saying.
Oh sure. Of course. We don’t even know which ones make up the 40.
I seem to remember on Cats site were a few bits and pieces from Kanarek's book about the trial. Wasn't he still writing it at that point looking for a publisher?
Cielodrive.com said...
"(Guillory) testified in the penalty phase of Manson's trial for the Hinman/Shea murders. He did not testify in the TLB trial."
Thanks for that. What was the nature of his testimony? Why him out of all the other patrol officers?
Starviego,
Kanarek put him on as what is known as a 'mitigation' witness during the penalty phase. When challenged by the court as to the relevance of Guillory's testimony Kanarek stated this:
K: "Yes, this--is in the aggravation or mitigation on penalty, we have a right to know--we have a right to--if they are-- if they are framing Mr. Manson on these charges, we have a right to know it, if law enforcement is doing that."
Court: "All right. You intend to prove, then, that this-- through this officer, that they're framing Mr. Manson?
K: Yes
Court: Basically, that's your offer of proof?
K: Yes. The inference--the inference can be made, from what he's going to testify to, yes, that Mr. Manson has been framed; that Mr. Manson-- [he goes on] pp 9570
Guillory had quit the LASO. reading between the lines from Wkanarek's unanswered (objection sustained) questions he was given a choice resign or be fired. It appears to have been due to his complaints about planted dope and other such acts by LASO officers.
He also said he was afraid for his personal safety because he testified for Manson- afraid of the LASO that is.
PS: Aside from the fact "Manson and his followers" were on LASO's radar months before the murders he provides no testimony that Manson was framed.
An interesting tidbit: Guillory took the call when Hinman's friend called the sheriffs office and dispatched the officers who found his body. I, for one, didn't know that.
All of this discussion is enormously intetesting and, facilitating some great back-and-forth dialogue...kinda "stoking the coals" of a fire that had lost a bit of momentum after CM's passing (not to mention the resultant sideshow circus surrounding his will and, estate)!
Thank you Cats! I was a great fan of your pioneering web forum and, really appreciate your input here!
And, thank to my rather quiet friend in the UK (Grim) for the link to Kanarek's archived interview w/Cats on Vimeo!
Cheers!
Matt said...
I've learned over the years of TLB blogging to rely more on documentation than taped interviews
That's what kind of caused me to raise an eyebrow or two when I listened to Irving's interview. Some of the documented stuff that he contradicts fall into the realm of me refusing to acknowledge my foot is not my kidney....
CATSCRADLE77 said...
I have it already to launch I just haven’t yet. Don’t know if or when I will bring it back or how public it will be if it happens
As a nosey Englishman, I'm curious as to what prevents you from relaunching. Is it the work involved, the cost or the sheer hassle of, well, people ?
21 Days Stop Smoking Programme said...
Did he ever tell you why he rested the defense without calling a single witness? I read somewhere else that he felt there was no need since the prosecution hadn't proven their case
That was precisely it according to him. He said in an interview; "If it wasn't for all of that prejudicial publicity, Manson never would've been convicted of anything. First, he's on the cover of Life, then Nixon declares him guilty, and then Bugliosi leaks Susan Atkins' claim they were going to kill Frank Sinatra and Elizabeth Taylor! They had no case against Manson, that's why I rested without putting on a defense. He had nothing to do with those murders."
He also said in another article in '98: "Manson was a personable guy. He had nothing to do with those murders. The people who testified against him are all criminals."
For me, the most insightful thing Kanarek ever said was: "I would defend a client who I knew was guilty of horrific crimes. They have to be proved guilty. I've had cases where people were guilty as hell but they couldn't prove it. And if they can't prove it, he's not guilty. In that case, the person walks free. That's American justice."
So when he talks of Charlie being innocent, he rather speak with forked tongue given that he was found guilty. Still, I'm reminded of a line from the song "Justice":
Everybody likes to see justice done........
....on someone else.
Grim,
I have always truly enjoyed your posts...may not always agree but, thank you.
I agree with Irving: if you cannot prove my client is guilty, he's not. That is the foundation of the system. And you have to do it beyond a reasonable doubt'.
But, Bugliosi 'proved' Manson was guilty.
While I hate to give him the credit, Ed Sanders is absolutely right: as soon as Linda Kasabian described the murder of Frykowski the trial was over. Nothing else mattered. The horrific nature of that testimony convicted everyone in that room: not the courtroom antics or Helter Skelter, but that single moment.
All he needed was that testimony about Frykowski falling into the bushes and looking Kasabian in the eye.
Case over.
What is odd to me is that given his prior cases including The Onion Field Case; that he didn't understand the impact of that testimony.
David said...
I agree with Irving: if you cannot prove my client is guilty, he's not. That is the foundation of the system
Legally, I totally agree. But we don't just discuss and argue around legalities. Cases in general and this one in particular elicit more than stone cold legality. What I found interesting about what Irving said, is his emphasis on knowing someone to be guilty of horrific crimes, whatever 'horrific' may entail. The mind recoils if one follows that to anywhere close to a logical conclusion.
However, it's also an odd statement given his schtick about proving guilt.
I completely agree that Linda's testimony completely kippered the Cielo defendants and Tex and went a long way towards frying Leslie {although Dianne kind of really put the kibosh on her there}. That none of the defence lawyers could undo anything she said about the murders was significant and all of the making her look like a lying, drug sodden scumbucket paled in insignificance against her descriptions of the deaths of Steven, Wojiciech and Abigail.
Lots of other stuff was necessary though and I find William Zamora's and the wife of John Baer's accounts of the trial fascinating from that perspective.
Christopher- there was a book proposal that I received from Irving that was years old. I don't believe he had any takers, and I don't recall how far he had taken it.
Thank you Doug. Your kind words are appreciated.
Grim- it isn't nosey at all. It all kind of went away abruptly. It is more a peace of mind thing at this juncture. It took a lot of time and effort to get the site started and to maintain and I had the help of a lot of good people. Within like two years, two of them died suddenly. With all the bashing and hatred toward each other that this subject seems to cause, I had enough. Things are rebuilt- I just haven't decided when or if to open things back up and who should have access. Its a debate between myself. I don't want to leave out people because of the bad behavior of a few..but I really don't need the hassle anymore.
I'm among the first to agree with you, Cats. The behavior of a few have made it un-fun (is that a word?) from time to time. Luckily I have thick skin or I'd have walked away long ago.
Matt- if un-fun isn't a word it should be.
Its been a wild ride.
Amen, Cats.
David said...
as soon as Linda Kasabian described the murder of Frykowski the trial was over. Nothing else mattered. The horrific nature of that testimony convicted everyone in that room: not the courtroom antics or Helter Skelter, but that single moment
Thinking about it further, I don't think it did convict everyone in the room but I think it certainly did for Pat and Susan. Especially with no defence put on. And had they put on the defence they wanted {in effect what transpired in the penalty phase}, I doubt that would have saved them. But tying Manson to as much of the proceedings as possible and showing conspiracy was partly why there were so many witnesses to HS, Family life, weapons, Charlie's domination etc.
It's quite interesting; George in his book posits the theory that if one takes the entirety of Linda's testimony, there's not really a great deal of corroborated stuff that sticks to Charlie. He may have a point. However, with all the other stuff that came in {as Simon Davies shows in his book}, the argument set forth in "Goodbye HS" falls down to the ground.
CATSCRADLE77 said...
With all the bashing and hatred toward each other that this subject seems to cause, I had enough....I don't want to leave out people because of the bad behavior of a few..but I really don't need the hassle anymore
I get you.
I might have thought TLB sites were worse than any others had I not frequented other sites on other subjects. Even sites about kids TV programmes or parental sites have a level of vitriol that makes one wonder at times. When I was on a home recording website, they used to have a section that had, as its intention, no holds barred nastiness. It was pitched as a biker bar where anyone could say pretty much anything to anyone ~ and people did. It actually came with a "enter at your peril" warning. But in all honesty, it was not vastly different to much of the spirit that found itself in the supposedly sanitized pages. Certain folk used to almost take pride in getting banned and the word 'butthurt' became a standard justification for basically treating others like toilet paper ~ lower than the shit itself. But they got rid of it in the end !
I guess the downside of democracy and free speech and the encouraging of people sharing opinions is that at various points, we are so tied to what we think that it can sometimes feel that some disagreements are, in fact, an attack and of course, that's not helped when people do attack.
Oh well.
Grim said: "Thinking about it further, I don't think it did convict everyone in the room but I think it certainly did for Pat and Susan. "
Many years ago I participated in a jury 'study'. This was likely before professionals advised attorneys on jury panels, etc. and 'picking the jury' became a profession of its own.
We ran some mock trials/partial trials for 'jurors' chosen by race and sex on purpose. While I have not read Zamora's book (and likely should) a couple of things from the results stood out to me. First, very few jurors actually understood the concept of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and most in their feedback sessions asked if that could be better explained to them.
They also almost to a man/woman ignored scientific evidence that did not answer the question 'why'. In other words if an engineer explained why a bridge collapsed, they listened. But 'Granado-Type' evidence was Charlie Brown's teacher. Of course this was early DNA, pre-OJ trial.
To your point, when multiple defendants were present and the evidence was 'emotional' the responses were overwhelmingly that 'all' of the defendants were classed together. In one scenario- a drive by shooting- there were six individuals 'in the car'. In that scenario there was fairly emotional 'testimony' (from a drama student at the local college) about her BF being shot. The 'jurors' uniformly held everyone in the car responsible and cited the GF's testimony as the reason, even though the 'legalities' of the guilt of four in the car was at best 'questionable'. They found all six 'guilty'.
It also didn't seem to matter if someone 'made a deal' to testify. The typical response given was that 'they would do the same thing'. The conclusion we- ok 'they' drew was that if the juror 'identified' with the witness their background didn't matter but also if the jury identified with the emotional experience of the witness they tended to believe them.
So I respectfully disagree. The defendants at TLB were not viewed as four individuals but as a group when those words were spoken by Kasabian.
In fact, I could easily argue that Manson's decision to control the trial and the defense and keep the four 'together' likely enhanced the probability he would be convicted. After all but for three statements attributed to him there is no conspiracy the first night. Second night- welcome to life in prison. But, of course Bugliosi wanted him for both. Hence HS.
David said...
In fact, I could easily argue that Manson's decision to control the trial and the defense and keep the four 'together' likely enhanced the probability he would be convicted
Totally agree on that one. Probably one of the best lessons in irony that I could come up with. Ironic because separated from him, all of the defendants had blabbed to someone. So one can see why he'd feel the need to direct operations. But it kind of turned out worse.
That said, given Charlie's attempts at a life of crime, it's really not a surprise of earth shattering proportions. One could almost say 'twas par for the course.
When the girls were about to testify, Kanarek moved to sever. The Charlie made his speech and the girls changed their minds.
Grim/David-
This is the same point I’ve made several times. The courtroom antics, the followers on the street corner, the absolute control Charlie displayed throughout in the courtroom etc is what convicted them. Bugliosi would have been an idiot not to have capitalized on the damage the family did to itself on a daily basis. The Family served up their leader like a fat Thanksgiving turkey-
The jury was not aware of the followers on the street corner and Charlie spent much of the trial shouting out for all to hear that Kanarek was not doing as he wanted him to do so his courtroom control being there for all to see is debatable.
I don't even think Bugliosi overtly needed to capitalize on the damage the Family did to themselves because the centrepiece of his case against Manson was his domination of the family. He already had his case and made sure that he presented the witnesses that helped make and bolster his case.
But they did serve up Charlie as you describe it ~ primarily because they couldn't do anything other. In a way they were in a position where it was catch 22 for them; abandoning him might have been the best thing they could have done for him but by showing unity and 'love' they only demonstrated how much in thrall they were to him ~ and the jury noted that. Their greatest strength was his undoing.
Of course this is being wise after the event ~ if he'd been acquitted it wouldn't even be a thought worth considering.
Correct- was thinking more court of public opinion in terms of the riffraff on the corner.
In terms of courtroom antics, I don’t think there’s an example of Charlie echoing or parroting the girls- only them following his lead.
People here tend to like arguing other motives and so I’ve tried to continually point out that the families behavior supports the HS motive.
AstroCreep said...
People here tend to like arguing other motives and so I’ve tried to continually point out that the families behavior supports the HS motive
I agree.
Reading through Leslie's November '69 interviews with Sergeant Mike McGann, it's amazing to me that Susan Atkins is generally pegged as the one that rolled over and snitched. Leslie fills in so many gaps in that interview that I wouldn't at all be surprised if McGann walked away from there feeling in his bones that he was on the verge of sorting his case. And in the run up to the trial, the Family gave credence to HS, particularly in that incendiary Rolling Stone article. Even with the benefit of hindsight and all that, it's an insane article and Charlie's part is the centre of that particular universe. Then concurrently, with some of the stuff that makes it into Robert Hendrickson's documentary and the later one, phew ! For people that have tried to scotch HS from when the 4 defendants were found guilty, the Family sure shone a light on HS. I'm still fascinated by the way the leading {and not so leading} protagonists just couldn't keep their mouths closed. But like I said earlier, the overall events and their outcome reflect Charles Manson's life of crime.
He is the Napoleon of crime, Watson. He is the organizer of half that is evil and of nearly all that is undetected in this great city, He is a genius, a philosopher, an abstract thinker. He has a brain of the first order. He sits motionless, like a spider in the center of its web, but that web has a thousand radiations, and he knows well every quiver of each of them. He does little himself. He only plans.
How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
That wouldn't really apply to this case. All the motives mooted were possible.
Possibility didn't make them actual though.
Cats your site was the first site that I found Manson related. I truly miss it. Please bring it back if you can.
Longtime lurker here & elsewhere. I just would like to say thank you, both to the hosts, & also to the posters. I find so very much value in your prodigious research & knowledge, & I am in awe of it. I also find value in the occasional fights: errm, "differences of opinion".
Much of it doesn't really matter, on the surface: what was done on those terrible summer nights is long over, with seemingly some justice done. But there are unresolved questions & issues, & it's both fascinating to me, & somehow comforting, to know that you are all still fighting for truth. Thank you.
I met Preston at a traffic school he was teaching.We became friends and I found him to be a smart and extremely interesting person.His life experiences were fascinating and his love of home and country was admirable.He loved the Renaissance Fair and I have fond memories of attending in costume with him and having a great time.
Post a Comment