West Memphis Three

12357…11

Comments

  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    soulsinging wrote:
    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?
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Byrnzie wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    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?

    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.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Byrnzie wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    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.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    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.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    soulsinging wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    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.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    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.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    soulsinging wrote:
    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?
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Byrnzie wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    '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.

    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?
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    it was a serious question. you're one of the few people who actually believe Manson is innocent and should be walking the streets.

    Where did I say he should be walking the streets? You said that.
    jlew24asu wrote:
    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.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    edited July 2009
    soulsinging wrote:
    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?
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Byrnzie wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    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?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    edited July 2009
    Byrnzie wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    it was a serious question. you're one of the few people who actually believe Manson is innocent and should be walking the streets.

    Where did I say he should be walking the streets? You said that.

    you believe he is innocent, yes or no?

    jlew24asu wrote:
    for someone to say "there is no evidence" of his wrong doing is simply mind boggling.
    Byrnzie wrote:
    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 ?
    Post edited by jlew24asu on
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Byrnzie wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    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?
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    soulsinging wrote:
    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.
    soulsinging wrote:
    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.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Byrnzie wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    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.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    soulsinging wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    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'.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    soulsinging wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    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.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Anyway, I'm off to bed. You and Jlew keep pecking away and I'll catch up with this shit again tomorrow.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Was he a dangerous person. Maybe?


    only on AMT
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Byrnzie wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    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.

Categories