Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Cease To Exist

this apparently is part of a new documentary that this film student guy is making. Most of the information seems to be not new. It also is poor quality video. And he probably hasn't cleared it legally so it will come down soon.

But it is worth your ten minutes.

39 comments:

deadwoodhbo said...

Col!! YOU ROCK!!!!!! thank you

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

I got the message "This video is no longer available", so some legal eagles somewhere have apparently swooped down and feathered their nests. Hope one of youse caught it in a file...

Pristash said...

Me too... could have watched it lst night but was too engrossed in local yokel election results....

deadwoodhbo said...

I also got the message it was no longer avalible,but i seen it on youtube before it was wiped.

Brian Davis said...

VERY INTERESTING VIDEO !
I had always wondered what the Beach Boys thoughts were on Dennis
Wilson's involvement with the Family.

Also, does the fact that the Beach Boys as a group used a Manson song on their album, say that the other members of the BB also thought Manson was a talented musician ? Or did Dennis Wilson demand the song to be on the album ?

In the video, Al Jardine and Brian Wilson sure did'nt seem to like Manson and the Family.

I also love that rare scene of Charlie in the recording studio.
Great stuff !

Even if Manson would have been signed to a label, Manson would never have been able to conform to the industry. I just can not imagine some record producer or label telling Charlie what songs to write, how to write them and which ones would be on a album and such.

deadwoodhbo said...

where did everyone go?how about a new topic Col:P:P.

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Darn it, now I wish I'd seen & heard this video. People tend to forget that Charles was all about the music. He is still playing beautiful tunes. For some newer stuff, you can check out the "All the Way Aware" music site on My Space. (For once I'm not making up the acronym.) Don't know who runs this site but it's mega-kewl, has some of Charles's more recent artwork and music, from before the staff put the boots on his sending it out from CSP.

catscradle77 said...

Here is a link to the studio recordings and if you type in Charles Manson in the search box you come up with a lot more too:

http://www.archive.org/
details/
CharlesMansonAnthology2

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Here is another, more recent one:

www.mansonmusic.blogspot.com

Has nigh everything.

deadwoodhbo said...

Happy birtday Charlie!

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Whoops, that was me, sorry, Col. Trying again.

Wishing Charles a most blessed, safe and peaceful 73rd birthday. And wishing for many more in glorious FREEDOM.

Heaven said...

Hey,

Does anyone here know anything perjury in a death
penalty trial itself carring the death penalty punishment?

There seems to be some in CG's group who don't believe this to be true and I know I've read it here at least twice...

So I was just wondering if anyone here knows what I'm talking about...

=)

Heaven said...

Nevermind, I found it...

It's amazing what a useful tool Google can be. It can even prove the untrue LOL

=)

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

IS it true, Heaven? We haven't a death penalty here on the frontier.


On another subject, nice new pix of Charles up on Manson Direct.

Heaven said...

It's true in the state of California.

http://www.defend-me.com/California/perjury.asp

Every person who, by willful perjury or subornation of perjury
procures the conviction and execution of any innocent person, is
punishable by death or life imprisonment without possibility of
parole. The penalty shall be determined pursuant to Sections 190.3
and 190.4.


It became a law in 1977

=)

Pristash said...

So, in other words, the perjury has to actually lead to the death of another person...not just the conviction...before the perjurer him or herself would be subject to such punishment. So, Bugliosi's apparent perjury would amount to nothing...even if proven.

Heaven said...

Right.. It has to have caused the execution of an innocent person.

Since it didn't become a law until 1977, it wouldn't have applied to anything Bugliosi may have done.

=)

Pristash said...

And for all of you working tirelessly to get Charlie et al released from prison, here is a new trick...from yesterdays NY Times. Enjoy!

Sidebar: Contemplating the Meaning of 'Life'
By ADAM LIPTAK
Being sentenced to life in prison means something different today than it has meant in the past.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/us/12bar.html?ei=5070&en=752c1a3d474cf068&ex=1195534800&adxnnl=1&emc=eta-1&adxnnlx=1194962786-7zy8+TlFHHG2/AgBH35i2g

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

For Bugliosi it'd be irrelevant because the crime was committed before the law was enacted. And, um, prosecutors aren't supposed to give testimony at all. They are supposed to make opening statements, question wintnesses, present evidence, and summarize others' testimony, not testify. To do so is a conflict of interest. So Bugliosi should be disbarred.

Thank you Heaven & Pristash for information. I'll take a look at that...

agnostic monk said...

disbarred for what? I doubt very much that a prosecutor could be disbarred for testifying if he is indeed called to the stand by the judge.

Wasn't it the defense that wanted him called to the stand to describe his run-in with Sandra Good outside the courtroom where he claimed she threatened him with her buck knife in her hand and he called her a bitch? I don't recall the entire story...

A judge would not call a prosecutor to the stand if it was something for which the prosecutor could get disbarred.

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

If Mr. Bugliosi was called as a witness, shouldn't he have been taken off the case as a prosecutor? Please help us out here, oh mighty and knowledgable Colonel.

agnostic monk said...

no, I do not think that's how the law works. I am reminded of the michael jackson molestation case wherein the district attorney of santa barbara was called as a witness during one of the hearings (a case he himself was trying).

If a prosecutor could be removed for being called as a witness, we would have every defense attorney in the country pulling that stunt as a means to upset the prosecutorial strategy and weaken the prosecution in the eyes of the jury.

I am not a lawyer, however.

Heaven said...

Bugliosi wouldn't have been called as a witness though..

As the prosecutor, what could he possibly have witnessed that he'd be required to testify to?

He'd be privy to most everything anyway..

The Sandra/knife incident would have been a separate matter had he filed criminal charges against her and if that was the case he would have been the plaintiff, not the prosecutor...

=)

deadwoodhbo said...

Well although im not tuned in really to the manson trial,i would like to add a comment.tex watson was allowed to marry in prison have children and grandchildren,linda Kasabian after charlie let her stay at the ranch because her husband was beating her,turned state evidence put on a awesome act and walked free even though she was involved in the murders.
And now the Bugliosi goings on.I think the whole justice system in america and also here in canada is more insane than charlie could ever be.

Pristash said...

If I remember correctly, in an effort to find out who had leaked information to the press during one of the trials in direct violation of the judge's gag order, that ALL of the attorneys involved were put under oath and questioned on the stand by the judge.

I believe the Col found evidence that it was Bugliosi who leaked the info and then lied from his box of tricks that he bought on ebay a while ago.

Heaven said...

I believe the Col found evidence that it was Bugliosi who leaked the info and then lied from his box of tricks that he bought on ebay a while ago.


No, it was not Bugliosi, it was Daye Shinn, Susan's attorney..

Everyone accuses Bugliosi but it wasn't him.

=)

agnostic monk said...

and wasn't Daye Shinn subsequently disbarred on an unrelated matter?

I think Stovitz also blabbed to the press which got him yanked from the case, although it was speculated that it was a political move on the part of his boss who didn't like the attention Bugliosi and Stovitz were getting in the media.

agnostic monk said...

I also could have sworn that Bugliosi was questioned on the stand about the confrontation with Sandy and two male family people that occurred in the Hall of Justice parking lot, where he talked about her threatening him and stroking her knife menacingly and he called her a bitch. His wife was pulling up to pick him up and kept on driving because she was scared, or something. I may very well be remembering this incorrectly though.

(mutters under his breath to deadwood: "it wasn't an act," LOL)

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

I'm told that none of the defense attorneys actually called any witnesses... true?

Heaven said...

Yes that's true.

The defense rested w/o calling a single witness


=)

angeLos said...

Heaven a dit...

Yes that's true.

The defense rested w/o calling a single witness


=)

Yes probably because they felt they where guilty...I'm not a lawyer either , but where they not guilty ?...even CM ? guilty of conspiracy to commit murder ? or have I missed something ?

agnostic monk said...

the defense attorneys knew they were all guilty, or at least Paul Fitzgerald certainly did, and I don't think he was shy about saying so. but it's still very strange that no witnesses were called. I understand why the defense didn't want the girls to testify (because they would have exonerated Charlie at their own peril) but why no one else? Seems the united defense strategy was a bad one.

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Um, perhaps the women would've exonerated Charles because they were guilty, and he was not?

Accessory after the fact, at best.

Pristash said...

Fromk Monk: I also could have sworn that Bugliosi was questioned on the stand about the confrontation with Sandy and two male family people that occurred in the Hall of Justice parking lot, where he talked about her threatening him and stroking her knife menacingly and he called her a bitch. His wife was pulling up to pick him up and kept on driving because she was scared, or something.

Well, THAT explains Bugliosi's subsequent infidelity!

agnostic monk said...

ace, you are aware that by his own admission, Charlie was the first to get out of the Ford on Waverly Drive and enter the LaBianca household, whereupon he and Tex tied up the terrified couple and told them to be quiet?

Then the good man split, knowing full well what Tex had done the night before.

That is far more than accessory after the fact.

And that doesn't even take into account the "question" of whether or not he was in on the actual conspiracy (i.e. instructing Tex to do it and giving him tips on how to do it - "last night was too messy").

A case could perhaps have been made for felony murder, if the conspiracy and murder charges didn't stick.

agnostic monk said...

LOL pristash!!!! but the way he explained it, he wanted her to keep driving, like she looked at his facial expression and knew to do so or something. He didn't want her to be seen by them. I wouldn't either.

Heaven said...

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...
Um, perhaps the women would've exonerated Charles because they were guilty, and he was not?

Accessory after the fact, at best.



Manson was never going to be exonerated... Manson tied up Leno and Rosemary knowing Tex was going to kill them. That makes him just as guilty of their murders in the eyes of the law.

An accessory after the fact doesn't tie people up so they can be slaughtered in an orderly fashion.

=)

Pristash said...

Thanks, Monk! But your explanation makes Bugliosi a better man than I....I'd have hopped on the hood of the car and said, "Honey, hit the gas! Get me away from Sandy straight away!"