Friday, September 22, 2006

Kanarek Sums Up during the Shea Trial

Here's a small part of Kanarek's summation during the penalty phase of the Shea trial. He asks a lot of questions, some off the wall. But the Col likes questions.

The best point he raises in the 400 pages I have read so far is basically, how can you give Charlie a fair trial for this one murder when everybody already knows he has the death sentence for SEVEN other murders.

A good point, no?

anyway-----------------

Court of Appeal of the State of California

Second Appeallate District

Pages 10,778-10,783

Any Adult Authority that would release Charles Manson in his lifetime, well, they just wouldn’t be there the next day. I mean, there is no – I think that we would al agree that – on that.

Because the focus that’s been put on Mr. Manson, we don’t have to worry – we don’t have to worry, if any of us does so worry, that Mr. Manson is ever going to be released in his lifetime again.

But when you have a police officer like Officer Guillory, taking the stand and testifying to the things that he testified to – under oath – we know by exhibits that we’ll have in the jury room, concerning Mary Brunner, we know the naked power that the prosecution has.

I can’t bring a perjury charge. None of us on the jury can bring a perjury charge. The only person that can present evidence to a Grand Jury – or a file a criminal charge is a prosecuting officer.

So – so when this man, Officer Guillory, takes this witness stand and under oath tells us certain things, there is the test of truth.

Because we see, in the case of Mary Brunner, when you incur the wrath of the District Attorney’s office, what happens. You get prosecuted of murder, and you get prosecuted for perjury

So when Officer Guillory says that he’s been a police officer – for what? Some three and a half years? When he says that on December the 4th 1969 he no longer was a police officer because of something concerning Charles Manson, does this tell us anything? Does this mean anything?

It’s something to turn over. It’s something to turn over in our minds.

Now, therefore, the test of truth, as far as Mr. Guillory is concerned, I think is there. And he knows it. And when he tells us, for instance, that in the August 16th raid – recognizing that guilt or innocence is still before us in the penalty phase, and the Court’s going to so instruct us – when he tells us that Danny Decals is sleeping on August the 16th with a .45 caliber gun and a full clip at the time that they come in there, does that mean anything, in connection with the possibility – forget reasonable doubt; but is there a possibility that what we’ve heard in this courtroom is in fact a charade? And a play? And a show?

Is there a possibility that Danny DeCarlo had something to do with Mr. Hinman’s passing away? Is that possible? Remembering that his friend took that sword?

And remembering that that sword was found in a motel, cut in two? And all that we’ve spoken of previously concerning that sword?

It doesn’t have to be, to have happen the way – the way the prosecution would have us believe.

Is that something to consider, as to whether or not we should invoke the death penalty?

“He was lying on the floor, on the floor of the store front that we entered, and he was reaching for the .45. It was on the floor next to him.”

Danny DeCarlo, why would he be doing that? Why would he be sleeping and reaching for a .45?

Now, again – now, in connection with – now, we’ve heard from Officer Guillory the more or less incises planning that went on in connection with this – with this August the 16th raid. It’s a most incredible kind of event, to – to – we have gone through it, and we are not going to belabor it. But doesn’t it sort of make us wonder how come 120 police officers of the crack – what they call the S.E.B., the Special Enforcement Bureau of the Sheriff’s department, all of that surveillance that we’ve spoken about of the Spahn Ranch, does that tell us – does that tell us something concerning a possible doubt as to whether or not Charles Manson is guilty?

When you look at the – when you look at the scene there, Charles Manson, a guy that’s been in – a guy that’s been in prison. He’s walking around with a sword. He gets to a house with his sword. Now, the evidence is he has this hanging onto his person, from the testimony that we have there.

Is this – is this the kind of thinking that is a first-degree murder situation? Or is it one of those that the prosecutor has told us about?

As I say – I’m sure the prosecutor wouldn’t call it an accident. But it is one of those situations where a man walking around with a sword, and coming to the Gary Hinman house – if we assume those facts, just for the sake of argument, are true – that a first-degree murder situation arises out of that/ or is it something else?

It’s something to think about.

Now, the – Officer Guillory tell us about the
–- tells us about the intelligence department of the Sheriff’s department. It seems – and we’ll just mention this briefly in passing – that there’s – it would seem, no doubt, that at the Spahn Ranch, if they’ve heard about, that they had intelligence officers, people posing as the kind of people who would live at the Spahn Ranch; that they would be there before this raid took place.

And they undoubtedly fed information to the intelligence department of the Sheriff. Is this – is this the kind of thing that means it’s impossible for any kind of a conspiracy to rob and kill Gary Hinman? Is it possible? Is it that we can consider? And remembering that the prosecution has not offered a single bit of evidence in connection with aggravation, I think it should be considered.

Now, let’s put it this way: That’s why the psychology and the relationship of these people are more important than words uttered on the witness stand.

If the District Attorney of Los Angeles County wants us to bring in a death penalty, why don’t they put on some – evidence in aggravation?

See, they’re – they’re perfectly free, during the penalty phase, to put on ag- -- in evidence aggravation.

Mr. Barrett was here, with a think file on Charles Manson – which we had to literally pull out of the arms of the federal government. We were all in the courtroom and we know that file came with – with great – with great trouble.

4 comments:

deadwoodhbo said...

Interesting read Col Thank You.

catscradle77 said...

Now, the – Officer Guillory tell us about the
–- tells us about the intelligence department of the Sheriff’s department. It seems – and we’ll just mention this briefly in passing – that there’s – it would seem, no doubt, that at the Spahn Ranch, if they’ve heard about, that they had intelligence officers, people posing as the kind of people who would live at the Spahn Ranch; that they would be there before this raid took place. And they undoubtedly fed information to the intelligence department of the Sheriff.

>>Okay, so there were intelligence officers infiltrating the Ranch-why?


So when Officer Guillory says that he’s been a police officer – for what? Some three and a half years? When he says that on December the 4th 1969 he no longer was a police officer because of something concerning Charles Manson, does this tell us anything?

>>>What happened with this officer? And for all this planning and watching-what went wrong with the warrant?


And remembering that that sword was found in a motel, cut in two?


>>>What hotel and who choppped it in half?


Mr. Barrett was here, with a think file on Charles Manson – which we had to literally pull out of the arms of the federal government. We were all in the courtroom and we know that file came with – with great – with great trouble.


>>What's a think tank file and what was in it?

Pristash said...

All great questions, Cats. Hope somebody can help us!

catscradle77 said...

thanks Pristash..I think the warrant was dated wrong or something along that line..but one would think with all the activity being monitored that someone would have at least made sure the warrant was valid..unless it was done on purpose, or maybe it was just a human error..