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?
Because he was convicted in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt and I have seen no evidence to indicate that there were any improprieties in the trial. In addition, there is plenty of evidence that Manson was basically the guru of his little harem.
So answer me Byrnzie, since you keep artfully dodging the question. Do you think Manson was totally innocent, had no power over the Family, and never once advocated violence to his followers? Is that really what you are saying here?
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.
again, this is mind boggling. is this a HAHA moment? if he didnt get people to kill for him like you say, what wrong doing is he guilty of ?
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 chisen to replace them with your own words. Is that a tactic you learned at law school?
From your post:
"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]"
What does that mean if not that Manson was scripting the entire trial?
Because he was convicted in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt and I have seen no evidence to indicate that there were any improprieties in the trial. In addition, there is plenty of evidence that Manson was basically the guru of his little harem.
Being the guru of a harem doesn't a murderer make.
So answer me Byrnzie, since you keep artfully dodging the question. Do you think Manson was totally innocent, had no power over the Family, and never once advocated violence to his followers? Is that really what you are saying here?
Your questions are all deliberately vague.
What does 'totally innocent' mean?
And what 'power of the family' are you talking about? Is the father of a murderer also guilty simply because he wielded power over his family?
And if Manson stated 'Fuck the police!' or 'Fuck the pigs!' once, twice, or regularly, does that constitute advocating violence thereby directly implicating him in the Tate-La Bianca murders?
Do I think Manson was a threat to society? Probably. He'd been in and out of jail most of his life prior to 1969. Was he a dangerous person. Maybe? Should he have been institutionalized? Yeah, probably.
Was he guilty of brainwashing people and of masterminding the murder of half a dozen people as part of some satanic quest on behalf of the hippies? No, that's just a load of bollocks.
Because he was convicted in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt and I have seen no evidence to indicate that there were any improprieties in the trial. In addition, there is plenty of evidence that Manson was basically the guru of his little harem.
Being the guru of a harem doesn't a murderer make.
Being the guru of a harem over which he exercised almost complete control does a conspirator make though, under American law.
Yeah, your wiki quotes say: 1) the prosecution felt Manson was improperly influencing testimony and 2) the defendant'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 chisen to replace them with your own words. Is that a tactic you learned at law school?
From your post:
"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]"
What does that mean if not that Manson was scripting the entire trial?
One of the defendants, 17 years after the trial. Not 'the defendants'.
Because he was convicted in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt and I have seen no evidence to indicate that there were any improprieties in the trial. In addition, there is plenty of evidence that Manson was basically the guru of his little harem.
Being the guru of a harem doesn't a murderer make.
Being the guru of a harem over which he exercised almost complete control does a conspirator make though, under American law.
Strange, but I'd have thought that a guru who exercised complete control over a bunch of people would have at least been tipped off that these same people were planning to go off and commit murder.
Being the guru of a harem doesn't a murderer make.
Being the guru of a harem over which he exercised almost complete control does a conspirator make though, under American law.
Strange, but I'd have thought that a guru who exercised complete control over a bunch of people would have at least been tipped off that these same people were planning to go off and commit murder.
Your speculation does not a miscarriage of justice make.
Strange, but I'd have thought that a guru who exercised complete control over a bunch of people would have at least been tipped off that these same people were planning to go off and commit murder.
Your speculation does not a miscarriage of justice make.
And your speculation doesn't a sound conviction make. Goodnight.
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......
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................
speedy, i think you confuse 'support and want to set him free'...with simply seeing that this case was not handled properly, and if nothing else, deserving of another look. will it prove his innocence? maybe, maybe not. as i and others have said, he could well be guilty, and be right where he should be. however, this case, the trial, not handled well so absolutely no matter who it was, or their past history.....at the very least.....a retrial is in order imo. so whether you, damien echols or whomever...i would support your rights to a fair trial or retrial if necessary as i would want and hope for anyone. that is all. and it absolutely has nada to do with eddie vedder. the man is on death row....does he deserve to be? THAT is the question.
Strange, but I'd have thought that a guru who exercised complete control over a bunch of people would have at least been tipped off that these same people were planning to go off and commit murder.
Your speculation does not a miscarriage of justice make.
And your speculation doesn't a sound conviction make. Goodnight.
No it doesn't. But a trial conducted according to the rule of law in the US and the state of California does. And the whining of a man that resides in China and relies solely on his own gross misinterpretations of American law and a handful of odd sources, with a complete lack of understanding of American criminal trial practice, is not remotely compelling. You keep saying "Charlie didn't know." You have no clue what he knew, all you have is speculation and his self-serving statements. The prosecution proved he lead a little harem of his own and members of that harem committed murder in furtherance of what they thought were the group's objectives. In America, that is sufficient to convict. You haven't even bothered to deny that. You just keep reiterating that Charlie didn't know about the murders and I tell you that is irrelevant.
speedy, i think you confuse 'support and want to set him free'...with simply seeing that this case was not handled properly, and if nothing else, deserving of another look. will it prove his innocence? maybe, maybe not. as i and others have said, he could well be guilty, and be right where he should be. however, this case, the trial, not handled well so absolutely no matter who it was, or their past history.....at the very least.....a retrial is in order imo. so whether you, damien echols or whomever...i would support your rights to a fair trial or retrial if necessary as i would want and hope for anyone. that is all. and it absolutely has nada to do with eddie vedder. the man is on death row....does he deserve to be? THAT is the question.
Which means that all the supporters of this website are also confused....right??? "Free The West Memphis 3"
speedy, i think you confuse 'support and want to set him free'...with simply seeing that this case was not handled properly, and if nothing else, deserving of another look. will it prove his innocence? maybe, maybe not. as i and others have said, he could well be guilty, and be right where he should be. however, this case, the trial, not handled well so absolutely no matter who it was, or their past history.....at the very least.....a retrial is in order imo. so whether you, damien echols or whomever...i would support your rights to a fair trial or retrial if necessary as i would want and hope for anyone. that is all. and it absolutely has nada to do with eddie vedder. the man is on death row....does he deserve to be? THAT is the question.
Which means that all the supporters of this website are also confused....right??? "Free The West Memphis 3"
isnt this the "official " website of the West Memphis 3???????
and this viewforum.php?f=13
is to discuss
Politics, current events - reasoned debate and discussion - we can all learn something new.
Byrnize saw something about this recently and asked about it, are you saying discussion should only be made on the WM3 official website??
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'
speedy, i think you confuse 'support and want to set him free'...with simply seeing that this case was not handled properly, and if nothing else, deserving of another look. will it prove his innocence? maybe, maybe not. as i and others have said, he could well be guilty, and be right where he should be. however, this case, the trial, not handled well so absolutely no matter who it was, or their past history.....at the very least.....a retrial is in order imo. so whether you, damien echols or whomever...i would support your rights to a fair trial or retrial if necessary as i would want and hope for anyone. that is all. and it absolutely has nada to do with eddie vedder. the man is on death row....does he deserve to be? THAT is the question.
Which means that all the supporters of this website are also confused....right??? "Free The West Memphis 3"
isnt this the "official " website of the West Memphis 3???????
no.
different website and agenda, no?
you stated earlier that the 'people on this board' support and want them free. i was merely clarifying that many of us, myself included, do not necessarily want that....all we would want to see is true justice. it does not appear that damien echols was given a fair trial. it seems there is a LOT of questionable evidence. so the point is, whether echols, you, me or anyone....i would certainly hope and want any of us to get a fair trial. a retrial seems in order.
obviously, people on an official website to free the west memphis three DO want them freed. thos of us discussing the topic HERE may or may not want that......and i think a great # of us simply see the situation for what it is. as i said, the man is on death row and the question is, does he deserve to be? you may believe he was 100% rightfully convicted, many believe he was not. another - fair and just - trial will simply clarify it, innocent or guilty. i can see nothing bad about that and really, all good...no matter what the outcome may be, as long as it is the right outcome. the first trial leaves way too much doubt, and no person's life should be destroyed with so much doubt/uncertainty.
And your speculation doesn't a sound conviction make. Goodnight.
No it doesn't. But a trial conducted according to the rule of law in the US and the state of California does. And the whining of a man that resides in China and relies solely on his own gross misinterpretations of American law and a handful of odd sources, with a complete lack of understanding of American criminal trial practice, is not remotely compelling. You keep saying "Charlie didn't know." You have no clue what he knew, all you have is speculation and his self-serving statements. The prosecution proved he lead a little harem of his own and members of that harem committed murder in furtherance of what they thought were the group's objectives. In America, that is sufficient to convict. You haven't even bothered to deny that. You just keep reiterating that Charlie didn't know about the murders and I tell you that is irrelevant.
The fact that I reside in China is irrelevant. It would make no difference if I resided on the fucking moon. Your understanding of this case rests solely on your reading of the info available on Wikipedia. You now declare yourself an expert on the case. You say that 'The prosecution proved he lead a little harem of his own and members of that harem committed murder in furtherance of what they thought were the group's objectives.' This is bullshit, and you have provided nothing to support this statement. At what point did Wikipedia point to anything which outlined 'the groups objectives'?
You mention 'the groups objectives', and in the next sentence you mention the fact that Manson was unaware of the Sharon Tate murders. So which is it? Either 'the group' - including Manson - had objectives, or Manson was unaware of the murders. You can't have it both ways.
I told you that the case was a sham. I base this conclusion on having read the details of the trial in the book written by the chief prosecutor for the case. You're defending the conviction having once watched a wacky video and having read the Wikipedia summary. Like I said before, even Bugliosi knew that Manson was innocent of these crimes. He said so in his book. But you know better, right?
The fact that I reside in China is irrelevant. It would make no difference if I resided on the fucking moon. Your understanding of this case rests solely on your reading of the info available on Wikipedia. You now declare yourself an expert on the case.
Once again, I never declared myself an expert on this case. I declared myself an expert on American justice. That is why you being in China is relevant... because you don't know jack shit about the American justice system outside what YOU read in a few articles and saw in whacky videos... as I have demonstrated in the past. I have provided no proof because I don't care enough to find it. Manson was convicted and you've given me no proof that there was anything wrong with the conviction. All the "problems" you've raised only demonstrate your ignorance of American criminal trial practice. You THINK it was a sham, but it's not. What you don't understand is that Bugliosi admitting that Manson wasn't directly involved with the murders is not the same thing as saying the conviction was a sham. If you understood the US criminal justice system, you'd get it. But you don't. I do. And so does Bugliosi. Which is how he got the conviction and why you're pathetically sitting on a message board trying to convince people you know more about criminal law in a country you've never resided in than someone who has a degree in law in that country.
The fact that I reside in China is irrelevant. It would make no difference if I resided on the fucking moon. Your understanding of this case rests solely on your reading of the info available on Wikipedia. You now declare yourself an expert on the case.
Manson was convicted and you've given me no proof that there was anything wrong with the conviction. All the "problems" you've raised only demonstrate your ignorance of American criminal trial practice. You THINK it was a sham, but it's not.
I presented numerous examples of why the trial was a sham. Here's another:
WHY CHARLES MANSON IS ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL
Of all the multitudinous violations of Charles Manson's rights which have occurred since his arrest in 1969 none is so substantial as the denial of his constitutional (Sixth Amendment) right to defend himself at his trials.
From the very beginning Manson has always voiced his desire to represent himself. On December 17, 1969 Manson made a formal request to do so in the courtroom of Judge William Keene. "Your Honor," Manson said, "There is no way I can give up my voice in this matter. If I can't speak, then our whole thing is done. If I can't speak in my own defense and converse freely in this courtroom, then it ties my hands behind my back, and if I have no voice, then there is no sense in having a defense. Lawyers play with people, and I am a person and I don't want to be played with in this matter. The news media has already executed and buried me.... If anyone is hypnotized, the people are being hypnotized by the lies being told them.... There is no attorney in the world who can represent me as a person. I have to do it myself."
Manson was examined by Joseph Ball, a former president of the California State Bar Association. Ball's assessment of Manson, presented in court on Christmas eve 1969, was that he was "an able, intelligent young man, quiet-spoken and mild-mannered. We went over different problems of law, and I found he had a ready understanding.... Remarkable understanding. As a matter of fact, he has a very fine brain. I complimented him on the fact. I think I told you that he had a high I.Q. Must have, to be able to converse as he did. And he feels that if he goes to trial and he is able to permit jurors and the Court to hear him and see him, they will realize he is not the kind of man who would perpetrate horrible crimes."
Judge Keene relented. "It is, in this Court's opinion, a sad and tragic mistake you are making by taking this course of action, but I can't talk you out ot it.... Mr. Manson, you are your own lawyer."
This situation existed until March 6, 1970. At that time Judge Keene, upset over some supposedly "outlandish" and "nonsensical" motions filed by Manson, vacated his status as his own attorney. Why the "outlandish and nonsensical" motions were not simply overruled was not explained. Whatever the real reason, Keene's action violated Manson's constitutional right to defend himself. Any defense presented after that ruling (and in fact there was none) was invalid, and in direct opposition to the Sixth Amendment right to self representation.
This issue was brought up in Manson's Appeal. In that appeal the California Justices denied Manson's request for a new trial claiming that a federal ruling which affirmed the Sixth Amendment right did not apply to Manson because the decision came after his trial and "was not to be given retroactive application". This interpretation of the law was later overruled in Bittaker v. Enomoto, wherein a United States Federal Appeals Court ruled "Although California defendant's trial occurred prior to United States Supreme Court's Faretta decision confirming to state defendants the constitutional right to self-representation, denial of the California defendant's right of self-representation was a federal constitutional defect requiring setting aside of his conviction". Manson is mentioned specifically in footnote # 2 of this decision.
The right to self-representation is as fundamental and undeniable as any other right. It is every citizen's constitutional right. That is why Colin Ferguson, the seemingly deranged Long Island Railroad gunman, was allowed to defend himself at his trial. It doesn't matter if the defendant's defense may be unconventional. Self-representation is his constitutional right.
The denial of Charles Manson's right to represent himself during his trials is a fatal flaw in the legitimacy of those trials. Manson's convictions, and his present incarceration, are illegal.
Over the years Manson has filed several habeas corpus petitions with the Los Angeles County Superior Court protesting his imprisonment based on the claim that he was denied the right to defend himself. All of these petitions have been dismissed at the Superior Court level with no explanation other than that the petitioner (Manson) had failed to establish that the claims made in the petitions warranted the granting of the writ. This is a standard rubber-stamp denial. None of the legal arguments advanced in any of these writs has ever been addressed. This is to be expected. The California Court System knows what it has done to Charles Manson and is afraid of the consequences it faces if Manson is given his rights. Manson will never get any relief on this question from the California court system. Only if he appeals a new writ through the California legal system to the Federal level will he ever get a fair hearing. Then he would get a new trial.
No convicted person in the United States is more entitled to a new trial than Charles Manson.'
Charles Manson Trial: 1970-71 - Case Draws Presidential Remark
Kanarek's interruptions of Kasabian's testimony were so incessant that Judge Older sentenced him to a night in jail for contempt. Kasabian was about to be cross-examined when the trial was shaken by comment from an unexpected source. President Richard M. Nixon told reporters in Denver, Colorado, Manson was "guilty, directly or indirectly of eight murders." Nixon's remarks were meant to criticize what he perceived as a tendency of the media to glorify criminals, and the White House quickly issued a statement denying any intent to prejudice the case. Nevertheless, Manson's defense, arguing that such a statement by the president made a fair trial impossible, motioned for a mistrial and demanded that the charges against him be dropped. Judge Older denied the motion.
The next day in court, Manson stood and displayed a newspaper with the headline, "Manson Guilty, Nixon Declares." Judge Older questioned the jurors about their reaction to the headline. Satisfied that they would remain impartial, he ordered the trial to resume and sentenced Atkins' attorney, Daye Shinn, to three nights in jail for leaving the newspaper within Manson's reach.
Former "Family" members and visitors to the Manson commune at the isolated Spahn Movie Ranch testified for the prosecution. Danny De Carlo, one of the motorcycle gang members who furnished police with tips, said that Manson had frequently spoken to him of starting a race war. Once again, Judge Older ordered attorney Kanarek jailed for contempt because of his frequent interruptions.
Former "Family" member Barbara Hoyt testified that she had overheard Atkins describing the murders. Juan Flynn, a Spahn Ranch worker, told the court that Manson had tried to frighten him by holding a knife to his throat and saying, "You son of a bitch, don't you know I'm the one who's doing all of these killings?"
On October 5, Manson demanded to be allowed to cross-examine a detective who had just testified. When Judge Older refused, Manson began to argue. Manson leaped toward the judge with a pencil clutched in his hand, screaming, "In the name of Christian justice, someone should cut your head off!" Atkins, Krenwinkel, and Van Houten chanted as bailiffs struggled to subdue Manson. When the trial resumed, the prosecution called Atkins' former cellmates, who described her bloody account of the Tate murders. Under the Aranda rule, their testimony was limited to Atkins' participation in the killings.
After nearly four months of testimony by prosecution witnesses, the state rested. Attorney Paul Fitzgerald stunned the court by resting the collective defense without calling a single witness. The three "Manson girls" suddenly announced that they wanted to testify on their own behalf, apparently to free Manson by taking sole responsibility for the murders. Fearing their clients would incriminate themselves, the defense attorneys threatened to quit if the judge allowed the testimony. Judge Older accused the defense of trying to wreck the trial.'
or just another Byzine TIpping is for faggots joke?
Funny, but nobody on this message board took any issue with that frivolous, throw-away comment of mine for two weeks until you returned from your banning with that familiar chip on your shoulder, pretending to be outraged and shocked. But you just keep chewing on that crumb. You really should make the most of it after I've been slapping you like a red-headed stepchild on this message board for the past 3 years.
Funny, but nobody on this message board took any issue with that frivolous, throw-away comment of mine for two weeks until you returned from your banning with that familiar chip on your shoulder, pretending to be outraged and shocked. But you just keep chewing on that crumb. You really should make the most of it after I've been slapping you like a red-headed stepchild on this message board for the past 3 years.
Enjoy your night out on the town.
Actually, I did. "stay classy Byrnzie." You probably thought I was joking.
Your second cut and paste job here is just a repeat of everything I've already covered from wikipedia. Same tired arguments I've already addressed. They're a bunch of examples of why YOU THINK it was a sham, and I rebutted them with a number of reasons why I KNOW that legally those weren't sufficient.
The first thing you posted is totally unsourced and unattributed. The one case it mentions discusses retroactivity, NOT the actual right to counsel, which is not absolute and can (and has) been limited in certain circumstances. Not that you'll see or understand the distinction.
The one case it mentions discusses retroactivity, NOT the actual right to counsel, which is not absolute and can (and has) been limited in certain circumstances.
And what circumstances are those? And how do they apply to the case in question? Is the Sixth Amendment right to self representation open to negotiation?
Not that you'll see or understand the distinction.
No, of course not. Only a man of superior intellect such as yourself can be privy to such complex intricacies. You think having studied law has imbued you with some advanced wisdom out of the reach of us mere mortals? I tell you what, go read the three main books of Emmanuel Kant's critical philosophy and let me know how you get on.
wow a cut and paste party praising Charles Manson's innocence. fucking classic. its Friday night, I'm out, have a good time with this.
that was a short night out! what was it, like 30 min? was it a blockbuster night?
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'
And what circumstances are those? And how do they apply to the case in question? Is the Sixth Amendment right to self representation open to negotiation?
No, of course not. Only a man of superior intellect such as yourself can be privy to such complex intricacies. You think having studied law has imbued you with some advanced wisdom out of the reach of us mere mortals? I tell you what, go read the three main books of Emmanuel Kant's critical philosophy and let me know how you get on.
I could write a whole paper on limits to the right of self representation. I don't much care to do it now, seeing as how I've got other, far more important things to do than give you a lesson and you're not interested in learning anything about it anyway. You're just trying desperately to salvage some credibility here. If you really want to know, go to a law school.
And no, there's nothing superior in my intellect, nor do I have wisdom outside the reach of mere mortals. What I do have is knowledge of American law outside the reach of someone (aka you) that has never studied American law. I've no doubt you could school me on Kant because I've never read Kant, just as you've not read dozens of cases and treatises on American criminal trial practice. But we're not discussing Kant here. We're discussing American criminal justice.
You're the kind of self-important jack-of-all-trades that would tell a surgeon you know how to do triple bypass better than they do because you read a book about it, if it suited your political soapboxing :roll:
I could write a whole paper on limits to the right of self representation. I don't much care to do it now, seeing as how I've got other, far more important things to do...
I didn't ask you to write me a whole paper on limits to the right of self representation. I asked you to address the specific points raised above in that article as they relate to the Manson case - which seems to be what you've successfully made this thread on the West Memphis 3 all about.
But hey, you're not really interested anyway, so why bother?
Comments
Because he was convicted in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt and I have seen no evidence to indicate that there were any improprieties in the trial. In addition, there is plenty of evidence that Manson was basically the guru of his little harem.
So answer me Byrnzie, since you keep artfully dodging the question. Do you think Manson was totally innocent, had no power over the Family, and never once advocated violence to his followers? Is that really what you are saying here?
you believe he is innocent, yes or no?
again, this is mind boggling. is this a HAHA moment? if he didnt get people to kill for him like you say, what wrong doing is he guilty of ?
From your post:
"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]"
What does that mean if not that Manson was scripting the entire trial?
Being the guru of a harem doesn't a murderer make.
Your questions are all deliberately vague.
What does 'totally innocent' mean?
And what 'power of the family' are you talking about? Is the father of a murderer also guilty simply because he wielded power over his family?
And if Manson stated 'Fuck the police!' or 'Fuck the pigs!' once, twice, or regularly, does that constitute advocating violence thereby directly implicating him in the Tate-La Bianca murders?
Do I think Manson was a threat to society? Probably. He'd been in and out of jail most of his life prior to 1969. Was he a dangerous person. Maybe? Should he have been institutionalized? Yeah, probably.
Was he guilty of brainwashing people and of masterminding the murder of half a dozen people as part of some satanic quest on behalf of the hippies? No, that's just a load of bollocks.
Being the guru of a harem over which he exercised almost complete control does a conspirator make though, under American law.
One of the defendants, 17 years after the trial. Not 'the defendants'.
Strange, but I'd have thought that a guru who exercised complete control over a bunch of people would have at least been tipped off that these same people were planning to go off and commit murder.
only on AMT
Your speculation does not a miscarriage of justice make.
And your speculation doesn't a sound conviction make. Goodnight.
speedy, i think you confuse 'support and want to set him free'...with simply seeing that this case was not handled properly, and if nothing else, deserving of another look. will it prove his innocence? maybe, maybe not. as i and others have said, he could well be guilty, and be right where he should be. however, this case, the trial, not handled well so absolutely no matter who it was, or their past history.....at the very least.....a retrial is in order imo. so whether you, damien echols or whomever...i would support your rights to a fair trial or retrial if necessary as i would want and hope for anyone. that is all. and it absolutely has nada to do with eddie vedder. the man is on death row....does he deserve to be? THAT is the question.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
No it doesn't. But a trial conducted according to the rule of law in the US and the state of California does. And the whining of a man that resides in China and relies solely on his own gross misinterpretations of American law and a handful of odd sources, with a complete lack of understanding of American criminal trial practice, is not remotely compelling. You keep saying "Charlie didn't know." You have no clue what he knew, all you have is speculation and his self-serving statements. The prosecution proved he lead a little harem of his own and members of that harem committed murder in furtherance of what they thought were the group's objectives. In America, that is sufficient to convict. You haven't even bothered to deny that. You just keep reiterating that Charlie didn't know about the murders and I tell you that is irrelevant.
http://www.wm3.org/
isnt this the "official " website of the West Memphis 3???????
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
viewforum.php?f=13
is to discuss
Politics, current events - reasoned debate and discussion - we can all learn something new.
Byrnize saw something about this recently and asked about it, are you saying discussion should only be made on the WM3 official website??
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'
no.
different website and agenda, no?
you stated earlier that the 'people on this board' support and want them free. i was merely clarifying that many of us, myself included, do not necessarily want that....all we would want to see is true justice. it does not appear that damien echols was given a fair trial. it seems there is a LOT of questionable evidence. so the point is, whether echols, you, me or anyone....i would certainly hope and want any of us to get a fair trial. a retrial seems in order.
obviously, people on an official website to free the west memphis three DO want them freed. thos of us discussing the topic HERE may or may not want that......and i think a great # of us simply see the situation for what it is. as i said, the man is on death row and the question is, does he deserve to be? you may believe he was 100% rightfully convicted, many believe he was not. another - fair and just - trial will simply clarify it, innocent or guilty. i can see nothing bad about that and really, all good...no matter what the outcome may be, as long as it is the right outcome. the first trial leaves way too much doubt, and no person's life should be destroyed with so much doubt/uncertainty.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
The fact that I reside in China is irrelevant. It would make no difference if I resided on the fucking moon. Your understanding of this case rests solely on your reading of the info available on Wikipedia. You now declare yourself an expert on the case. You say that 'The prosecution proved he lead a little harem of his own and members of that harem committed murder in furtherance of what they thought were the group's objectives.' This is bullshit, and you have provided nothing to support this statement. At what point did Wikipedia point to anything which outlined 'the groups objectives'?
You mention 'the groups objectives', and in the next sentence you mention the fact that Manson was unaware of the Sharon Tate murders. So which is it? Either 'the group' - including Manson - had objectives, or Manson was unaware of the murders. You can't have it both ways.
I told you that the case was a sham. I base this conclusion on having read the details of the trial in the book written by the chief prosecutor for the case. You're defending the conviction having once watched a wacky video and having read the Wikipedia summary. Like I said before, even Bugliosi knew that Manson was innocent of these crimes. He said so in his book. But you know better, right?
Once again, I never declared myself an expert on this case. I declared myself an expert on American justice. That is why you being in China is relevant... because you don't know jack shit about the American justice system outside what YOU read in a few articles and saw in whacky videos... as I have demonstrated in the past. I have provided no proof because I don't care enough to find it. Manson was convicted and you've given me no proof that there was anything wrong with the conviction. All the "problems" you've raised only demonstrate your ignorance of American criminal trial practice. You THINK it was a sham, but it's not. What you don't understand is that Bugliosi admitting that Manson wasn't directly involved with the murders is not the same thing as saying the conviction was a sham. If you understood the US criminal justice system, you'd get it. But you don't. I do. And so does Bugliosi. Which is how he got the conviction and why you're pathetically sitting on a message board trying to convince people you know more about criminal law in a country you've never resided in than someone who has a degree in law in that country.
I presented numerous examples of why the trial was a sham. Here's another:
WHY CHARLES MANSON IS ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL
Of all the multitudinous violations of Charles Manson's rights which have occurred since his arrest in 1969 none is so substantial as the denial of his constitutional (Sixth Amendment) right to defend himself at his trials.
From the very beginning Manson has always voiced his desire to represent himself. On December 17, 1969 Manson made a formal request to do so in the courtroom of Judge William Keene. "Your Honor," Manson said, "There is no way I can give up my voice in this matter. If I can't speak, then our whole thing is done. If I can't speak in my own defense and converse freely in this courtroom, then it ties my hands behind my back, and if I have no voice, then there is no sense in having a defense. Lawyers play with people, and I am a person and I don't want to be played with in this matter. The news media has already executed and buried me.... If anyone is hypnotized, the people are being hypnotized by the lies being told them.... There is no attorney in the world who can represent me as a person. I have to do it myself."
Manson was examined by Joseph Ball, a former president of the California State Bar Association. Ball's assessment of Manson, presented in court on Christmas eve 1969, was that he was "an able, intelligent young man, quiet-spoken and mild-mannered. We went over different problems of law, and I found he had a ready understanding.... Remarkable understanding. As a matter of fact, he has a very fine brain. I complimented him on the fact. I think I told you that he had a high I.Q. Must have, to be able to converse as he did. And he feels that if he goes to trial and he is able to permit jurors and the Court to hear him and see him, they will realize he is not the kind of man who would perpetrate horrible crimes."
Judge Keene relented. "It is, in this Court's opinion, a sad and tragic mistake you are making by taking this course of action, but I can't talk you out ot it.... Mr. Manson, you are your own lawyer."
This situation existed until March 6, 1970. At that time Judge Keene, upset over some supposedly "outlandish" and "nonsensical" motions filed by Manson, vacated his status as his own attorney. Why the "outlandish and nonsensical" motions were not simply overruled was not explained. Whatever the real reason, Keene's action violated Manson's constitutional right to defend himself. Any defense presented after that ruling (and in fact there was none) was invalid, and in direct opposition to the Sixth Amendment right to self representation.
This issue was brought up in Manson's Appeal. In that appeal the California Justices denied Manson's request for a new trial claiming that a federal ruling which affirmed the Sixth Amendment right did not apply to Manson because the decision came after his trial and "was not to be given retroactive application". This interpretation of the law was later overruled in Bittaker v. Enomoto, wherein a United States Federal Appeals Court ruled "Although California defendant's trial occurred prior to United States Supreme Court's Faretta decision confirming to state defendants the constitutional right to self-representation, denial of the California defendant's right of self-representation was a federal constitutional defect requiring setting aside of his conviction". Manson is mentioned specifically in footnote # 2 of this decision.
The right to self-representation is as fundamental and undeniable as any other right. It is every citizen's constitutional right. That is why Colin Ferguson, the seemingly deranged Long Island Railroad gunman, was allowed to defend himself at his trial. It doesn't matter if the defendant's defense may be unconventional. Self-representation is his constitutional right.
The denial of Charles Manson's right to represent himself during his trials is a fatal flaw in the legitimacy of those trials. Manson's convictions, and his present incarceration, are illegal.
Over the years Manson has filed several habeas corpus petitions with the Los Angeles County Superior Court protesting his imprisonment based on the claim that he was denied the right to defend himself. All of these petitions have been dismissed at the Superior Court level with no explanation other than that the petitioner (Manson) had failed to establish that the claims made in the petitions warranted the granting of the writ. This is a standard rubber-stamp denial. None of the legal arguments advanced in any of these writs has ever been addressed. This is to be expected. The California Court System knows what it has done to Charles Manson and is afraid of the consequences it faces if Manson is given his rights. Manson will never get any relief on this question from the California court system. Only if he appeals a new writ through the California legal system to the Federal level will he ever get a fair hearing. Then he would get a new trial.
No convicted person in the United States is more entitled to a new trial than Charles Manson.'
http://law.jrank.org/pages/3202/Charles ... emark.html
Charles Manson Trial: 1970-71 - Case Draws Presidential Remark
Kanarek's interruptions of Kasabian's testimony were so incessant that Judge Older sentenced him to a night in jail for contempt. Kasabian was about to be cross-examined when the trial was shaken by comment from an unexpected source. President Richard M. Nixon told reporters in Denver, Colorado, Manson was "guilty, directly or indirectly of eight murders." Nixon's remarks were meant to criticize what he perceived as a tendency of the media to glorify criminals, and the White House quickly issued a statement denying any intent to prejudice the case. Nevertheless, Manson's defense, arguing that such a statement by the president made a fair trial impossible, motioned for a mistrial and demanded that the charges against him be dropped. Judge Older denied the motion.
The next day in court, Manson stood and displayed a newspaper with the headline, "Manson Guilty, Nixon Declares." Judge Older questioned the jurors about their reaction to the headline. Satisfied that they would remain impartial, he ordered the trial to resume and sentenced Atkins' attorney, Daye Shinn, to three nights in jail for leaving the newspaper within Manson's reach.
Former "Family" members and visitors to the Manson commune at the isolated Spahn Movie Ranch testified for the prosecution. Danny De Carlo, one of the motorcycle gang members who furnished police with tips, said that Manson had frequently spoken to him of starting a race war. Once again, Judge Older ordered attorney Kanarek jailed for contempt because of his frequent interruptions.
Former "Family" member Barbara Hoyt testified that she had overheard Atkins describing the murders. Juan Flynn, a Spahn Ranch worker, told the court that Manson had tried to frighten him by holding a knife to his throat and saying, "You son of a bitch, don't you know I'm the one who's doing all of these killings?"
On October 5, Manson demanded to be allowed to cross-examine a detective who had just testified. When Judge Older refused, Manson began to argue. Manson leaped toward the judge with a pencil clutched in his hand, screaming, "In the name of Christian justice, someone should cut your head off!" Atkins, Krenwinkel, and Van Houten chanted as bailiffs struggled to subdue Manson. When the trial resumed, the prosecution called Atkins' former cellmates, who described her bloody account of the Tate murders. Under the Aranda rule, their testimony was limited to Atkins' participation in the killings.
After nearly four months of testimony by prosecution witnesses, the state rested. Attorney Paul Fitzgerald stunned the court by resting the collective defense without calling a single witness. The three "Manson girls" suddenly announced that they wanted to testify on their own behalf, apparently to free Manson by taking sole responsibility for the murders. Fearing their clients would incriminate themselves, the defense attorneys threatened to quit if the judge allowed the testimony. Judge Older accused the defense of trying to wreck the trial.'
It's Saturday morning here.
Just how do you praise someone's innocence?
Maybe you can explain this to us when you get home from your wild night out on the town.
tell me something...was this a serious question and answer
or just another Byzine TIpping is for faggots joke?
It was, so go on and explain how you praise someone's innocence. I'm waiting.
Funny, but nobody on this message board took any issue with that frivolous, throw-away comment of mine for two weeks until you returned from your banning with that familiar chip on your shoulder, pretending to be outraged and shocked. But you just keep chewing on that crumb. You really should make the most of it after I've been slapping you like a red-headed stepchild on this message board for the past 3 years.
Enjoy your night out on the town.
Actually, I did. "stay classy Byrnzie." You probably thought I was joking.
Your second cut and paste job here is just a repeat of everything I've already covered from wikipedia. Same tired arguments I've already addressed. They're a bunch of examples of why YOU THINK it was a sham, and I rebutted them with a number of reasons why I KNOW that legally those weren't sufficient.
The first thing you posted is totally unsourced and unattributed. The one case it mentions discusses retroactivity, NOT the actual right to counsel, which is not absolute and can (and has) been limited in certain circumstances. Not that you'll see or understand the distinction.
So what? Are the points he raises valid, or not?
And what circumstances are those? And how do they apply to the case in question? Is the Sixth Amendment right to self representation open to negotiation?
No, of course not. Only a man of superior intellect such as yourself can be privy to such complex intricacies. You think having studied law has imbued you with some advanced wisdom out of the reach of us mere mortals? I tell you what, go read the three main books of Emmanuel Kant's critical philosophy and let me know how you get on.
that was a short night out! what was it, like 30 min? was it a blockbuster night?
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'
Nah, I just forgot about your comment almost as soon as I'd read it. My brain doesn't tend to retain irrelevancies.
I could write a whole paper on limits to the right of self representation. I don't much care to do it now, seeing as how I've got other, far more important things to do than give you a lesson and you're not interested in learning anything about it anyway. You're just trying desperately to salvage some credibility here. If you really want to know, go to a law school.
And no, there's nothing superior in my intellect, nor do I have wisdom outside the reach of mere mortals. What I do have is knowledge of American law outside the reach of someone (aka you) that has never studied American law. I've no doubt you could school me on Kant because I've never read Kant, just as you've not read dozens of cases and treatises on American criminal trial practice. But we're not discussing Kant here. We're discussing American criminal justice.
You're the kind of self-important jack-of-all-trades that would tell a surgeon you know how to do triple bypass better than they do because you read a book about it, if it suited your political soapboxing :roll:
I didn't ask you to write me a whole paper on limits to the right of self representation. I asked you to address the specific points raised above in that article as they relate to the Manson case - which seems to be what you've successfully made this thread on the West Memphis 3 all about.
But hey, you're not really interested anyway, so why bother?