One final thought before I put my dumbass to bed....
I have met plenty of people on this board...their families...their children...their loved ones....blah blah blah....
If those same people found out that SPEEDY MCCREADY as a teenager, threatened to kill and eat his parents...threatened to kill and eat his girlfriends parents.....had a criminal record for sexual misconduct....and was then CONVICTED OF MURDER.....
I have a feeling NOT ONE of those people i have met on this board.....would be banning together with others to "FREE SPEEDY"....
as a matter of fact Im pretty sure all those people would try to get as far the fuck away from me as possible....
and im DAMNED SURE they wouldnt be sending any money for my defense......
They would if you had a few spare tickets for a PJ show, or a limited edition Eddie Vedder Hawaii t-shirt
One final thought before I put my dumbass to bed....
I have met plenty of people on this board...their families...their children...their loved ones....blah blah blah....
If those same people found out that SPEEDY MCCREADY as a teenager, threatened to kill and eat his parents...threatened to kill and eat his girlfriends parents.....had a criminal record for sexual misconduct....and was then CONVICTED OF MURDER.....
I have a feeling NOT ONE of those people i have met on this board.....would be banning together with others to "FREE SPEEDY"....
as a matter of fact Im pretty sure all those people would try to get as far the fuck away from me as possible....
and im DAMNED SURE they wouldnt be sending any money for my defense......
They would if you had a few spare tickets for a PJ show, or a limited edition Eddie Vedder Hawaii t-shirt
hehehehehehehehe.................
Why are people on this board so supportive of Damien Echols??????
Why do people on this board want Damien Echols set free???
Is it because they have read the facts of the case and believe him to be innocent???
Is it because they think his was a trial he had no chance of winning??
Is it because they think Damien Echols is a decent human being??
Is it because they think Damien Echols should be let out in to society?
I doubt it.....
Why do people here on this board support Damien Echols and the West Memphis 3?????
Because Eddie Vedder told them to................
Take me piece by piece..... Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
I didn't say that it was a miscarriage of justice simply because of the media spectacle. You said that. I said it was a media spectacle and a miscarriage of justice. Of course he had a role in the family. He was a part of that group. But he didn't go out and kill anyone and he didn't even know about the first murders at Polanski's home until the following day. Did Manson encourage the killings? Not that I'm aware of. Nothing in anything I've read on this case suggests he encouraged the killings. He may have taken a passive attitude to the killings, but that's not the same as encouraging and planning them.
Why was Nixon not sent to death row for his planning/encouraging of the bombing of Cambodia and Laos?
Just some random facts plucked from Wiki. I don't have the Bugliosi book with me here in which he states, amongst other things, that he knew Manson was innocent but that he was determined to see him prosecuted regardless:
During the trial a Los Angeles Times front page carried the headline "Manson Guilty, Nixon Declares".
Manson was denied the court's permission to question a prosecution witness whom the defense attorneys had declined to cross-examine.
On November 16, the prosecution rested its case. Three days later, after arguing standard dismissal motions, the defense stunned the court by resting as well, without calling a single witness.
In chambers, the women's lawyers told the judge their clients wanted to testify that they had planned and committed the crimes and that Manson had not been involved.[120] By resting their case, the defense lawyers had tried to stop this
The next day, Manson testified; but...the jury was removed from the courtroom.[122]
As the body of the trial concluded and with the closing arguments impending, attorney Ronald Hughes disappeared during a weekend trip.[124] When Maxwell Keith was appointed to represent Van Houten in Hughes' absence, a delay of more than two weeks was required to permit Keith to familiarize himself with the voluminous trial transcripts
I suppose you'll now claim that all of the above are normal and acceptable codes of practice?
Manson was charged as a co-conspirator. It's what we do to take down organized crime. You will never be able to prove that a mafia boss ever planned or actually committed a murder, but US law charges that those involved in an ongoing conspiracy, like an organized crime syndicate or Manson's Family, can all be charged together for all acts committed by a member of the conspiracy. You may think that's stupid, but it's the law and it legally applied to Manson. Not a miscarriage of justice.
The Nixon comments on their guilt are shameful, but there is little to be done about it. You can't not give them a trial and you're never going to find people that hadn't heard about it. They already had a jury picked and the judge was satisfied that the jury was not tainted by the comments. It's imperfect, but out justice system always has been and there was nothing else they could do. You can't release criminals because the President's a moron.
Manson was denied any opportunity to speak because they had given it to him initially and he had used it as a circus style soapbox to rant about things that had nothing to do with the trial. So they wouldn't let him talk anymore because he had proven himself incompetent to represent himself and stick to the issues of the case. If he wanted to be able to personally cross witnesses, he shouldn't have acted like a jackass back when the court was letting him represent himself. He blew it himself.
Lawyers are ethically prohibited from presenting testimony they know is false. Thus, the defense attorneys would not put those girls on the stand knowing they were planning to lie about Manson's lack of involvement. Later down on the same page one or more of those female witnesses admit they were pressured/coerced into saying he wasn't involved, even though he was. They were right not to put them on the stand.
I don't see the issue in giving extra time for a new attorney to familiarize oneself with the trial transcripts. The court gave them time to replace their missing attorney. And it begs the question of why their attorney "disappeared" and gave them a whole extra 2 weeks to avoid a verdict. Wonder who was behind that?
Thus endeth the lesson in American criminal trial practice 101.
One final thought before I put my dumbass to bed....
I have met plenty of people on this board...their families...their children...their loved ones....blah blah blah....
If those same people found out that SPEEDY MCCREADY as a teenager, threatened to kill and eat his parents...threatened to kill and eat his girlfriends parents.....had a criminal record for sexual misconduct....and was then CONVICTED OF MURDER.....
I have a feeling NOT ONE of those people i have met on this board.....would be banning together with others to "FREE SPEEDY"....
as a matter of fact Im pretty sure all those people would try to get as far the fuck away from me as possible....
and im DAMNED SURE they wouldnt be sending any money for my defense......
I would give you money to refund your Cincy Tickets !!!
My drinking team has a hockey problem
The ONLY thing better than a glass of beer is tea with Miss McGill
A protuberance of flesh above the waistband of a tight pair of trousers
Manson was charged as a co-conspirator. It's what we do to take down organized crime. You will never be able to prove that a mafia boss ever planned or actually committed a murder, but US law charges that those involved in an ongoing conspiracy, like an organized crime syndicate or Manson's Family, can all be charged together for all acts committed by a member of the conspiracy. You may think that's stupid, but it's the law and it legally applied to Manson. Not a miscarriage of justice.
Do you have any evidence on which you base this? Can you provide an example? Mafia bosses are convicted on specific details, with specific charges, not on such vagaries as being 'co-conspirators'.
Lawyers are ethically prohibited from presenting testimony they know is false. Thus, the defense attorneys would not put those girls on the stand knowing they were planning to lie about Manson's lack of involvement.
Later down on the same page one or more of those female witnesses admit they were pressured/coerced into saying he wasn't involved, even though he was. They were right not to put them on the stand.
That's not what she said at all. You said that. This is what one of the co-defendants said:
'Speaking about the trial in a 1987 documentary, Krenwinkel said, "The entire proceedings were scripted — by Charlie."[121]
You will discover what a sick, disgusting, piece of human garbage that guy is.
Eddie must be a really bad judge of character. He spent 5 hours with him a week ago and regards him as a fine individual, and is convinced of his innocence. Maybe he should have consulted you first.
eddie is also switched on enough to realise, that he is brilliant and talented musician and not the messiah. not all of his fans are disciples and go along with whatever eddie believes in. speedy should be allowed to speak freely and have his opinions heard without the 'eddie vedder fan boy card' pulled on him.
would his having sex as a 17 year old with ihs 15 year old or his threats be admissable in court? not unless it was directly invovled with this case, right?
i don't think people think these things just because Eddie told them to, although, i'm sure there is that demographic, however i can only speak for myself.
There is NO evidence linking any of these 3 kids to the murders. NONE. Ed has nothing to do with that. The only evidence they have is a mentally retarded MINOR with an iq of 72 who was detained without any representation or his parents present and interrogated for TWELVE hours and was basically coerced into the confession. At the time the police thought at least 1 of the kids was raped, then Misskelley claims to have seen Echols rape 1 of the boys only it turns out NO ONE was actually raped...so where'd he get that idea from??
Post edited by Pepe Silvia on
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Then I suppose I don't know what your point is either. What has Ed's opinion on the WM3 got to do with anything?
well there
This is a Pearl Jam fans message board.
I'm not following. This is a political forum, supposedly for reasoned debate. "Ed thinks they're innocent" is not a good reason to believe they are.
well, there's also the point of there's being NO evidence other than a mentally retarded kid confessing he saw them kill and rape the kids (yet no one was raped) after being interrogated for 12 hours without his parents or a lawyer present.....
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Manson was charged as a co-conspirator. It's what we do to take down organized crime. You will never be able to prove that a mafia boss ever planned or actually committed a murder, but US law charges that those involved in an ongoing conspiracy, like an organized crime syndicate or Manson's Family, can all be charged together for all acts committed by a member of the conspiracy. You may think that's stupid, but it's the law and it legally applied to Manson. Not a miscarriage of justice.
Do you have any evidence on which you base this? Can you provide an example? Mafia bosses are convicted on specific details, with specific charges, not on such vagaries as being 'co-conspirators'.
He's definitely right about this, Byrnzie. When it comes to the mob, thanks to RICO laws and now the Patriot Act, you only need to be guilty of association to get brought down in one of those trials. It's pretty fucked up, actually.
Manson was charged as a co-conspirator. It's what we do to take down organized crime. You will never be able to prove that a mafia boss ever planned or actually committed a murder, but US law charges that those involved in an ongoing conspiracy, like an organized crime syndicate or Manson's Family, can all be charged together for all acts committed by a member of the conspiracy. You may think that's stupid, but it's the law and it legally applied to Manson. Not a miscarriage of justice.
Do you have any evidence on which you base this? Can you provide an example? Mafia bosses are convicted on specific details, with specific charges, not on such vagaries as being 'co-conspirators'.
He's definitely right about this, Byrnzie. When it comes to the mob, thanks to RICO laws and now the Patriot Act, you only need to be guilty of association to get brought down in one of those trials. It's pretty fucked up, actually.
O.k. Well there was no Patriot act in 1970, and Manson wasn't engaged in any Racketeering as far as I know. RICO was not applied in the Manson case.
If there's any doubt about how much of a sham the Manson trial was then read Bugliosi's book. Bugliosi's book is one long brag about how he managed to stitch Manson up.
well, there's also the point of there's being NO evidence other than a mentally retarded kid confessing he saw them kill and rape the kids (yet no one was raped) after being interrogated for 12 hours without his parents or a lawyer present.....
Oh, I'm with you there. I think there are serious problems with this case. Sadly, I've seen firsthand that even exonerating DNA evidence is sometimes insufficient to earn someone's release. Coerced or not, confessions carry too much weight. People don't understand the psychology of false confessions. And in a small town, circle the wagons kind of case like this, it's a VERY long and uphill battle to gain any ground.
I'm just saying alluding to Ed as some sort of authority for the guy's innocence means nothing.
Do you have any evidence on which you base this? Can you provide an example? Mafia bosses are convicted on specific details, with specific charges, not on such vagaries as being 'co-conspirators'.
He's definitely right about this, Byrnzie. When it comes to the mob, thanks to RICO laws and now the Patriot Act, you only need to be guilty of association to get brought down in one of those trials. It's pretty fucked up, actually.
O.k. Well there was no Patriot act in 1970, and Manson wasn't engaged in any Racketeering as far as I know. RICO was not applied in the Manson case.
RICO is not the only way to prove conspiracy. Conspiracy crimes predate RICO under US common law. It's settled in the US and has been for a very long time. The mafia example was just an illustration (the mafia could always be prosecuted under conspiracy laws, RICO just made it easier to do in certain circumstances). But there's no way for me to explain the ins and outs of the American criminal justice system in one post. I had to go to 3 years of law school to be qualified to do it here, so you'll forgive me if I don't feel like taking the hours and days it would take to explain it to you just so that you can ignore and resist and play willfully dumb to avoid having to admit that I'm probably right on this one and you don't know what you're talking about. We've gone head to head on American law before Byrnzie, and while I often am full of shit around here, this is one area where you know I know what I'm talking about. Manson was rightly convicted under legitimate conspiracy laws and the trial, while unusual, was not a miscarriage of justice.
And now, I'm off to go do some studying for the bar. Maybe I'll do criminal law and evidence review today, since the wheels are already turning. Or maybe I should write those sections off since Byrnzie says I'm hopelessly wrong about them. :roll:
this is one area where you know I know what I'm talking about. Manson was rightly convicted under legitimate conspiracy laws and the trial, while unusual, was not a miscarriage of justice.
Funny, but earlier in this thread you stated that you weren't interested in the Manson case, and yet now you want me to regard you as an expert? So which is it?
this is one area where you know I know what I'm talking about. Manson was rightly convicted under legitimate conspiracy laws and the trial, while unusual, was not a miscarriage of justice.
Funny, but earlier in this thread you stated that you weren't interested in the Manson case, and yet now you want me to regard you as an expert? So which is it?
I can be an "expert" on American criminal trial practice without being particularly interested in the Manson case. You offered a bunch of smoke about problems with the trial, I simply pointed out that none of the things you mentioned discredit his conviction. I know that by virtue of my "expertise" in American law. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
this is one area where you know I know what I'm talking about. Manson was rightly convicted under legitimate conspiracy laws and the trial, while unusual, was not a miscarriage of justice.
Funny, but earlier in this thread you stated that you weren't interested in the Manson case, and yet now you want me to regard you as an expert? So which is it?
I can be an "expert" on American criminal trial practice without being particularly interested in the Manson case. You offered a bunch of smoke about problems with the trial, I simply pointed out that none of the things you mentioned discredit his conviction. I know that by virtue of my "expertise" in American law. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
The conviction rested on Bugliosi convincing the jury that Manson was a devil worshipper, capable of mind-control, who coerced others into killing for him. There was no evidence for any of this. It was all just a load of sensationalistic gibberish. Therefore the co-conspiracy charge was a sham.
'Since Charles Manson was not one of the actual killers of the seven victims, and since Susan Atkins was not one of the killers of Mr. and Mrs. LaBianca, under what rule of law are they guilty of these murders?
Manson is guilty of all seven counts of murder under the vicarious liability rule of conspiracy. It is also called the joint responsibility rule of conspiracy.
And likewise, Susan Atkins is guilty of the two LaBianca murders because of the vicarious liability rule, the joint liability rule of conspiracy.
The law is clear then that once a conspiracy is formed, each member of the conspiracy is criminally responsible for and equally guilty of crimes committed by his co-conspirators which were in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy.
As I stated in my opening argument, if A and B conspired to murder X, and pursuant to that agreement B murders X, A, even though he was not the actual killer, is equally guilty of that murder. I don't care where he was; he could have been playing tennis, badminton, anywhere; he was [a] member of that conspiracy. He was guilty of that murder. That is the law of conspiracy, and there just are no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Even if Charles Manson was merely a member, just a member of this conspiracy to commit these murders, and never killed anyone, he would still be guilty of all seven murders, but here he is not only a member, he is a leader, the leading force behind all of these conspiracies...'
How does this apply when Manson wasn't even aware of the Tate murders until the following morning?
The conviction rested on Bugliosi convincing the jury that Manson was a devil worshipper, capable of mind-control, who coerced others into killing for him. There was no evidence for any of this.
is this a serious statement? or another one of those tipping is for faggots moments?
You offered a bunch of smoke about problems with the trial
'A bunch of smoke' such as the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson
'On November 16, the prosecution rested its case. Three days later, after arguing standard dismissal motions,the defense stunned the court by resting as well, without calling a single witness.'
[the defendants] being denied the court's permission to question a prosecution witness whom the defense attorneys had declined to cross-examine
In chambers, the women's lawyers told the judge their clients wanted to testify that they had planned and committed the crimes and that Manson had not been involved.[120] By resting their case, the defense lawyers had tried to stop this..'
The defense doing the work of the prosecution is just a bunch of smoke?
Funny, but earlier in this thread you stated that you weren't interested in the Manson case, and yet now you want me to regard you as an expert? So which is it?
I can be an "expert" on American criminal trial practice without being particularly interested in the Manson case. You offered a bunch of smoke about problems with the trial, I simply pointed out that none of the things you mentioned discredit his conviction. I know that by virtue of my "expertise" in American law. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
The conviction rested on Bugliosi convincing the jury that Manson was a devil worshipper, capable of mind-control, who coerced others into killing for him. There was no evidence for any of this. It was all just a load of sensationalistic gibberish. Therefore the co-conspiracy charge was a sham.
'Since Charles Manson was not one of the actual killers of the seven victims, and since Susan Atkins was not one of the killers of Mr. and Mrs. LaBianca, under what rule of law are they guilty of these murders?
Manson is guilty of all seven counts of murder under the vicarious liability rule of conspiracy. It is also called the joint responsibility rule of conspiracy.
And likewise, Susan Atkins is guilty of the two LaBianca murders because of the vicarious liability rule, the joint liability rule of conspiracy.
The law is clear then that once a conspiracy is formed, each member of the conspiracy is criminally responsible for and equally guilty of crimes committed by his co-conspirators which were in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy.
As I stated in my opening argument, if A and B conspired to murder X, and pursuant to that agreement B murders X, A, even though he was not the actual killer, is equally guilty of that murder. I don't care where he was; he could have been playing tennis, badminton, anywhere; he was [a] member of that conspiracy. He was guilty of that murder. That is the law of conspiracy, and there just are no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Even if Charles Manson was merely a member, just a member of this conspiracy to commit these murders, and never killed anyone, he would still be guilty of all seven murders, but here he is not only a member, he is a leader, the leading force behind all of these conspiracies...'
How does this apply when Manson wasn't even aware of the Tate murders until the following morning?
That assumes he wasn't, which seems an unlikely assumption at best. But even if not, the fact that he was part of the conspiracy, lead it, and encouraged the behaviors and intent behind them, it does not absolve him that he stayed purposefully ignorant of the actual date they were committed.
If I'm Al Capone and I say "I want to make a statement and I want X to go down, but I don't want to know how it gets done, just do it." The fact that I don't actually hand someone a gun and tell them when or how to kill X doesn't relieve me of guilt for the conspiracy to murder. Manson orchestrated the Family and set it on its path. The fact that he was smart enough to try to remain ignorant of details doesn't make him innocent. Just savvy.
You offered a bunch of smoke about problems with the trial
'A bunch of smoke' such as the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson
'On November 16, the prosecution rested its case. Three days later, after arguing standard dismissal motions,the defense stunned the court by resting as well, without calling a single witness.'
[the defendants] being denied the court's permission to question a prosecution witness whom the defense attorneys had declined to cross-examine
In chambers, the women's lawyers told the judge their clients wanted to testify that they had planned and committed the crimes and that Manson had not been involved.[120] By resting their case, the defense lawyers had tried to stop this..'
The defense doing the work of the prosecution is just a bunch of smoke?
I already covered this. You ignored it the last time. Go back and read.
The conviction rested on Bugliosi convincing the jury that Manson was a devil worshipper, capable of mind-control, who coerced others into killing for him. There was no evidence for any of this.
is this a serious statement? or another one of those tipping is for faggots moments?
That's right, keep chewing on that crumb. I expect it will have a long shelf-life for you along with your crowning achievement concerning U.S law and racial hatred on the internet.
You offered a bunch of smoke about problems with the trial
'A bunch of smoke' such as the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson
'On November 16, the prosecution rested its case. Three days later, after arguing standard dismissal motions,the defense stunned the court by resting as well, without calling a single witness.'
[the defendants] being denied the court's permission to question a prosecution witness whom the defense attorneys had declined to cross-examine
In chambers, the women's lawyers told the judge their clients wanted to testify that they had planned and committed the crimes and that Manson had not been involved.[120] By resting their case, the defense lawyers had tried to stop this..'
The defense doing the work of the prosecution is just a bunch of smoke?
I already covered this. You ignored it the last time. Go back and read.
I didn't ignore it. I responded to it. Go back and read.
The conviction rested on Bugliosi convincing the jury that Manson was a devil worshipper, capable of mind-control, who coerced others into killing for him. There was no evidence for any of this.
is this a serious statement? or another one of those tipping is for faggots moments?
That's right, keep chewing on that crumb. I expect it will have a long shelf-life for you along with your crowning achievement concerning U.S law and racial hatred on the internet.
it was a serious question. you're one of the few people who actually believe Manson is innocent and should be walking the streets.
for someone to say "there is no evidence" of his wrong doing is simply mind boggling. so I needed to confirm that wasn't one of your HAHA moments since you apparently do that alot and we keep missing it.
the fact that he was part of the conspiracy, lead it, and encouraged the behaviors and intent behind them, it does not absolve him that he stayed purposefully ignorant of the actual date they were committed.
That's dependent on whether he was part of a conspiracy, lead it, and encouraged the behaviors and intent behind it. You say he was. But then you admitted yourself that you have no interest in this case, so why are you now assuming that he was guilty of all of the above when you don't know if he was or he wasn't?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson
'On November 16, the prosecution rested its case. Three days later, after arguing standard dismissal motions,the defense stunned the court by resting as well, without calling a single witness.'
[the defendants] being denied the court's permission to question a prosecution witness whom the defense attorneys had declined to cross-examine
In chambers, the women's lawyers told the judge their clients wanted to testify that they had planned and committed the crimes and that Manson had not been involved.[120] By resting their case, the defense lawyers had tried to stop this..'
The defense doing the work of the prosecution is just a bunch of smoke?
I already covered this. You ignored it the last time. Go back and read.
I didn't ignore it. I responded to it. Go back and read.
Yeah, your wiki quotes say: 1) the prosecution felt Manson was improperly influencing testimony and 2) the defendan's admitted Manson orchestrated the whole thing. So the prosecutors were right. And it rather stands to reason that the defense counsel were also aware of Manson's influence on the testimony, thus triggering their obligation not to put those women on the stand to give false testimony. You expect wikipedia to give a comprehensive rundown of every legal issue and motion decision in the case?
for someone to say "there is no evidence" of his wrong doing is simply mind boggling.
I didn't say that there was no evidence of his wrong doing. Again, you said that. I said that there is no evidence that he brainwashed people into murdering for him.
Keep trying to put words in my mouth. It's working out real well for you so far.
Yeah, your wiki quotes say: 1) the prosecution felt Manson was improperly influencing testimony and 2) the defendan's admitted Manson orchestrated the whole thing. So the prosecutors were right.
That's not what the wiki quotes say, which is why you've chosen to replace them with your own words. Is that a tactic you learned at law school?
Comments
They would if you had a few spare tickets for a PJ show, or a limited edition Eddie Vedder Hawaii t-shirt
Why are people on this board so supportive of Damien Echols??????
Why do people on this board want Damien Echols set free???
Is it because they have read the facts of the case and believe him to be innocent???
Is it because they think his was a trial he had no chance of winning??
Is it because they think Damien Echols is a decent human being??
Is it because they think Damien Echols should be let out in to society?
I doubt it.....
Why do people here on this board support Damien Echols and the West Memphis 3?????
Because Eddie Vedder told them to................
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
Manson was charged as a co-conspirator. It's what we do to take down organized crime. You will never be able to prove that a mafia boss ever planned or actually committed a murder, but US law charges that those involved in an ongoing conspiracy, like an organized crime syndicate or Manson's Family, can all be charged together for all acts committed by a member of the conspiracy. You may think that's stupid, but it's the law and it legally applied to Manson. Not a miscarriage of justice.
The Nixon comments on their guilt are shameful, but there is little to be done about it. You can't not give them a trial and you're never going to find people that hadn't heard about it. They already had a jury picked and the judge was satisfied that the jury was not tainted by the comments. It's imperfect, but out justice system always has been and there was nothing else they could do. You can't release criminals because the President's a moron.
Manson was denied any opportunity to speak because they had given it to him initially and he had used it as a circus style soapbox to rant about things that had nothing to do with the trial. So they wouldn't let him talk anymore because he had proven himself incompetent to represent himself and stick to the issues of the case. If he wanted to be able to personally cross witnesses, he shouldn't have acted like a jackass back when the court was letting him represent himself. He blew it himself.
Lawyers are ethically prohibited from presenting testimony they know is false. Thus, the defense attorneys would not put those girls on the stand knowing they were planning to lie about Manson's lack of involvement. Later down on the same page one or more of those female witnesses admit they were pressured/coerced into saying he wasn't involved, even though he was. They were right not to put them on the stand.
I don't see the issue in giving extra time for a new attorney to familiarize oneself with the trial transcripts. The court gave them time to replace their missing attorney. And it begs the question of why their attorney "disappeared" and gave them a whole extra 2 weeks to avoid a verdict. Wonder who was behind that?
Thus endeth the lesson in American criminal trial practice 101.
I would give you money to refund your Cincy Tickets !!!
The ONLY thing better than a glass of beer is tea with Miss McGill
A protuberance of flesh above the waistband of a tight pair of trousers
Do you have any evidence on which you base this? Can you provide an example? Mafia bosses are convicted on specific details, with specific charges, not on such vagaries as being 'co-conspirators'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson
'In the prosecutor's view, it was Manson who was advising the women to testify in this way as a means of saving himself.[120]'
In the prosecutors view. Not the view of the defense.
That's not what she said at all. You said that. This is what one of the co-defendants said:
'Speaking about the trial in a 1987 documentary, Krenwinkel said, "The entire proceedings were scripted — by Charlie."[121]
Sorry, but that lesson left me none the wiser. Can I have my money back? :roll:
would his having sex as a 17 year old with ihs 15 year old or his threats be admissable in court? not unless it was directly invovled with this case, right?
i don't think people think these things just because Eddie told them to, although, i'm sure there is that demographic, however i can only speak for myself.
There is NO evidence linking any of these 3 kids to the murders. NONE. Ed has nothing to do with that. The only evidence they have is a mentally retarded MINOR with an iq of 72 who was detained without any representation or his parents present and interrogated for TWELVE hours and was basically coerced into the confession. At the time the police thought at least 1 of the kids was raped, then Misskelley claims to have seen Echols rape 1 of the boys only it turns out NO ONE was actually raped...so where'd he get that idea from??
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
well, there's also the point of there's being NO evidence other than a mentally retarded kid confessing he saw them kill and rape the kids (yet no one was raped) after being interrogated for 12 hours without his parents or a lawyer present.....
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
He's definitely right about this, Byrnzie. When it comes to the mob, thanks to RICO laws and now the Patriot Act, you only need to be guilty of association to get brought down in one of those trials. It's pretty fucked up, actually.
O.k. Well there was no Patriot act in 1970, and Manson wasn't engaged in any Racketeering as far as I know. RICO was not applied in the Manson case.
glad to see class is still in session soul
Oh, I'm with you there. I think there are serious problems with this case. Sadly, I've seen firsthand that even exonerating DNA evidence is sometimes insufficient to earn someone's release. Coerced or not, confessions carry too much weight. People don't understand the psychology of false confessions. And in a small town, circle the wagons kind of case like this, it's a VERY long and uphill battle to gain any ground.
I'm just saying alluding to Ed as some sort of authority for the guy's innocence means nothing.
Where was he praised? I must have missed that.
no you didn't
RICO is not the only way to prove conspiracy. Conspiracy crimes predate RICO under US common law. It's settled in the US and has been for a very long time. The mafia example was just an illustration (the mafia could always be prosecuted under conspiracy laws, RICO just made it easier to do in certain circumstances). But there's no way for me to explain the ins and outs of the American criminal justice system in one post. I had to go to 3 years of law school to be qualified to do it here, so you'll forgive me if I don't feel like taking the hours and days it would take to explain it to you just so that you can ignore and resist and play willfully dumb to avoid having to admit that I'm probably right on this one and you don't know what you're talking about. We've gone head to head on American law before Byrnzie, and while I often am full of shit around here, this is one area where you know I know what I'm talking about. Manson was rightly convicted under legitimate conspiracy laws and the trial, while unusual, was not a miscarriage of justice.
And now, I'm off to go do some studying for the bar. Maybe I'll do criminal law and evidence review today, since the wheels are already turning. Or maybe I should write those sections off since Byrnzie says I'm hopelessly wrong about them. :roll:
No I didn't what?
Funny, but earlier in this thread you stated that you weren't interested in the Manson case, and yet now you want me to regard you as an expert? So which is it?
I can be an "expert" on American criminal trial practice without being particularly interested in the Manson case. You offered a bunch of smoke about problems with the trial, I simply pointed out that none of the things you mentioned discredit his conviction. I know that by virtue of my "expertise" in American law. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
The conviction rested on Bugliosi convincing the jury that Manson was a devil worshipper, capable of mind-control, who coerced others into killing for him. There was no evidence for any of this. It was all just a load of sensationalistic gibberish. Therefore the co-conspiracy charge was a sham.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... ation.html
Bugiosi:
'Since Charles Manson was not one of the actual killers of the seven victims, and since Susan Atkins was not one of the killers of Mr. and Mrs. LaBianca, under what rule of law are they guilty of these murders?
Manson is guilty of all seven counts of murder under the vicarious liability rule of conspiracy. It is also called the joint responsibility rule of conspiracy.
And likewise, Susan Atkins is guilty of the two LaBianca murders because of the vicarious liability rule, the joint liability rule of conspiracy.
The law is clear then that once a conspiracy is formed, each member of the conspiracy is criminally responsible for and equally guilty of crimes committed by his co-conspirators which were in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy.
As I stated in my opening argument, if A and B conspired to murder X, and pursuant to that agreement B murders X, A, even though he was not the actual killer, is equally guilty of that murder. I don't care where he was; he could have been playing tennis, badminton, anywhere; he was [a] member of that conspiracy. He was guilty of that murder. That is the law of conspiracy, and there just are no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Even if Charles Manson was merely a member, just a member of this conspiracy to commit these murders, and never killed anyone, he would still be guilty of all seven murders, but here he is not only a member, he is a leader, the leading force behind all of these conspiracies...'
How does this apply when Manson wasn't even aware of the Tate murders until the following morning?
is this a serious statement? or another one of those tipping is for faggots moments?
'A bunch of smoke' such as the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson
'On November 16, the prosecution rested its case. Three days later, after arguing standard dismissal motions, the defense stunned the court by resting as well, without calling a single witness.'
[the defendants] being denied the court's permission to question a prosecution witness whom the defense attorneys had declined to cross-examine
In chambers, the women's lawyers told the judge their clients wanted to testify that they had planned and committed the crimes and that Manson had not been involved.[120] By resting their case, the defense lawyers had tried to stop this..'
The defense doing the work of the prosecution is just a bunch of smoke?
That assumes he wasn't, which seems an unlikely assumption at best. But even if not, the fact that he was part of the conspiracy, lead it, and encouraged the behaviors and intent behind them, it does not absolve him that he stayed purposefully ignorant of the actual date they were committed.
If I'm Al Capone and I say "I want to make a statement and I want X to go down, but I don't want to know how it gets done, just do it." The fact that I don't actually hand someone a gun and tell them when or how to kill X doesn't relieve me of guilt for the conspiracy to murder. Manson orchestrated the Family and set it on its path. The fact that he was smart enough to try to remain ignorant of details doesn't make him innocent. Just savvy.
I already covered this. You ignored it the last time. Go back and read.
That's right, keep chewing on that crumb. I expect it will have a long shelf-life for you along with your crowning achievement concerning U.S law and racial hatred on the internet.
I didn't ignore it. I responded to it. Go back and read.
it was a serious question. you're one of the few people who actually believe Manson is innocent and should be walking the streets.
for someone to say "there is no evidence" of his wrong doing is simply mind boggling. so I needed to confirm that wasn't one of your HAHA moments since you apparently do that alot and we keep missing it.
That's dependent on whether he was part of a conspiracy, lead it, and encouraged the behaviors and intent behind it. You say he was. But then you admitted yourself that you have no interest in this case, so why are you now assuming that he was guilty of all of the above when you don't know if he was or he wasn't?
Yeah, your wiki quotes say: 1) the prosecution felt Manson was improperly influencing testimony and 2) the defendan's admitted Manson orchestrated the whole thing. So the prosecutors were right. And it rather stands to reason that the defense counsel were also aware of Manson's influence on the testimony, thus triggering their obligation not to put those women on the stand to give false testimony. You expect wikipedia to give a comprehensive rundown of every legal issue and motion decision in the case?
Where did I say he should be walking the streets? You said that.
I didn't say that there was no evidence of his wrong doing. Again, you said that. I said that there is no evidence that he brainwashed people into murdering for him.
Keep trying to put words in my mouth. It's working out real well for you so far.
That's not what the wiki quotes say, which is why you've chosen to replace them with your own words. Is that a tactic you learned at law school?