Showing posts with label Lynyrd's Opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lynyrd's Opinion. Show all posts

Friday, September 9, 2011

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.

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Sometimes... 
I think the Girls' Dedication to Manson is WAY Under-Estimated.

Video Donated by MattProkes!  Thanks Matt!

Manson was a grown man… a life-long criminal at that… dealing with young kids… primarily females.  In every arena of life, there’s a “pecking order”… school, sports teams, work, friendship circles, military life, even blogdom.  Manson was at the top of the pyramid, in regards to the “Manson Micro-cosm”.  My African friend always said... “even a bear, knows which tree to wipe it’s ass on”.  For years, I never fully understood his analogy. 
One day, he explained:
“A young, soft, weak, supple tree with smooth bark, will bend to the bear’s ass… it’s comfortable.  Whereas, an older mighty oak, with thick bark, will make for rough toilet paper”.
Bottom line: none of these kids were wiping their ass on Manson… he was in-charge. 
That fact was observable.  Bugliosi observed this phenomena, and fashioned a sword with it.  He later used that sword to slay Manson.  For that reason, I often have difficulty being overly sympathetic with Manson.  Ultimately, Manson “cooked his own goose”.

You can spin it any way you like... "dedication", "mind-fucking", "love of brother"... it all ends at the same destination.  Charlie had these kids by the short hairs. 
I was born at night, but it wasn't last night.  We all know what time it is.
Or, as I like to say:  "You can't make chicken salad, out of chicken shit, no matter how much mayonnaise you use".

Thursday, July 14, 2011

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.