Trial By Your Peers is out of print. It is long. It is one of the first, if not THE first, books written on the case. It has more typos and sloppy layout than a professional book should have, but fewer in total than a single page of a Bill Nelson book. It is published by Girodias Associates. A quick Google lends one to think the company published this book and a few others and then went under. The cover could not be less imaginatively designed or less attention grabbing if two three year olds had made it out of construction paper. It’s also the most fun I had this week.
I had read the book maybe twice before but never this closely. It is really TWO books in one. In the main throughline, Juror-Author (as he refers to himself many times) William Zamora, a six foot two, good-looking (he describes his looks about 20 times in the book) Nicaraguan immigrant decides to do his duty and sit as a juror in the Charles Manson Murder Trial. We learn about all the hardships (only one free cocktail a night!) the jurors suffered during sequestration. We go behind the scenes during deliberations.
The other book is trial transcripts, restructured for easy reading. MUCH trial transcript- like literally three or four times what we have in the Bug’s book. If you pay close attention you can learn that according to Judas Kasabian they called the kids “elks”; that they hung string things near their waterfall encampment that they called “witchy things”; that Linda actually thought she was a witch while at Spahn and called herself “Yana”… and so on.
In the main book, we learn about
The biggest discovery in this section is that
In the trial transcript section (and follow me, it is not a book in two sections- they are mixed up in a jumble which makes it very hard to follow) if one pays close attention one can pick up some MAJOR shit. At the end of one day Kasabian testifies that Charlie told her to HIDE Rosemary LaBianca’s wallet inside a toilet; early the next day, I am sure after Bug prep, she states that Charlie told her simply to leave it in the bathroom. Also later in the book one gets the sense that Fitzgerald (one of the attorneys) is making a great case but is being undermined by Kanarek. Finally, one gets the sense that STOVITZ was actually the brilliant prosecutor, eventually replaced by Bug, and that Stovitz doesn’t support some of the Bug’s crazy theories.
Oh yeah, back to the review- the book is interesting as a relic, superseded by the fact strewn lunacy of Sanders’ THE FAMILY and the novel fairy tale of the Bug’s own HELTER SKELTER. I find it AMAZING and HIPOCRITICAL that
Since I have been transferring all my Aes-Nihil tapes to DVD I have gotten to see
In 1976, riding on the coattails of the Bug’s book, TRIAL BY YOUR PEERS was re-issued as a paperback with a lurid, derivative cover and the title BLOOD FAMILY. It seems to be the same book. It doesn’t seem like it sold that well, because copies are hard to find. Good.
Mr. Zamora, you sent people to the gas chamber because you didn’t like their lawyer. Wherever you are, know that we laugh at your ploy for the spotlight and know that your rubbish book is all but forgotten.
BOOK ABOUT THE JURORS * (OUT OF *****)
BOOK OF TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS ** (OUT OF *****)
1 comment:
"The biggest discovery in this section is that Zamora and several of his closest friends in the jury pool HATE Manson’s attorney, Kanarek, almost from the first day of the trial. I mean they hate the guy. Sure he sounds annoying and out of control- but for a juror to admit hatred of the attorney for the main accused from day one- what chance at an impartial trial did these people have?"
I read the book specifically with one eye on this because I wanted to see if it was true.
It isn't.
Sure, he states that Kanarek was boring and confusing but not once does he state that he hates him or anything akin to hate. He says Kanarek's tactics got the jurors to "feel exasperated and quite truthfully, fed up." He obviously wasn't impressed by Kanarek but he says that even the courtroom antics of the defendants were not going to influence his view and every now and then throws in a statement showing his impartiality. One example;
"Morally, I owe the victims, and not so much the victims as the defendants, the fairness of a trial, the fairness of the verdict. I don't want to condemn them because they had been there or because they were accused. I didn't want to accept it. I didn't want to believe it. I wanted them to know to make sure that I, as an individual could put myself in their place and not let circumstantial evidence make them appear guilty, but unfortunately, nothing came out in the trial that would indicate otherwise" or
"Public opinion and that of President Nixon's, could not have influenced the juror's minds. Mr Nixon and everybody else could have stated before the trial began that Charles Manson was guilty and it wouldn't have affected us jurors at all. We 18 selected jurors were the only ones facing the evidence day after day and 12 of us would eventually balance the verdict of guilty or not guilty, regardless of Mr Nixon's or anyone else's opinion."
"Mr. Zamora, you sent people to the gas chamber because you didn’t like their lawyer"
As for sending them to the gas chamber because he "didn't like their lawyer", that's so way off the path that it speaks of your own bias. He voted gas chamber because having pleaded not guilty, then been found guilty by the evidence presented, the women came out and told horror tales of how they slaughtered the victims and how they didn't feel remorse or care ~ this, in the phase of the trial that was meant to determine whether they got life or death !
Members of the jury were undecided initially about the death penalty, some voting that certain defendants got life and others death. Zamora himself voted death because of the circumstances under which the murders were committed but crucially added "however, if there's anyone who can convince me otherwise, I'd be glad to change my verdict." And when they get the Sunday off he said "I was glad we had the Sunday off. It gave me the opportunity to look deeper into my decision. I wanted to find a reason ~ a moral reason to give life to the killers in question.....with tearful eyes I asked God to give me the strength to make the right decision ~ I asked forgiveness for the accused and for myself..." And later still he suggests "why don't we start using the testimony of each witness, including those of the defendants and see if we can find something that will give us a hint as to save their lives."
I'm surprised that one so usually fact based as yourself would be so off the track with some of your statements.
Post a Comment