Not sure what Vera the Disinformation girl is on about- here is Bryn's mug shot from when he was arrested. It is a public document. He doesn't own the copyright. I am not sure what lawsuit she is ranting about.
---------------------
Yes he does resemble the guy in the other arrest foto. But I cannot tell.
----------------------
How does Bryn relate to Crowe?
How does Crowe relate to Dawson?
Why does Crowe not retaliate?
Does Charlie think he killed him?
Why did the BUG never call him?
How does all of this relate to Wilson?
42 comments:
Ok, Col, now read my lips:
Post any of the mug shots taken on August 16 (if you need 'em I'll be happy to supply them if you enable me to post a pictures up here) and your readers will see that the booking info on each and every one of them is entirely different than "Bryn's" info (ie: different booking number sequence, case file #, DATE AND LOCATION OF ARREST, charge, etc., the last of which are curiously missing from yours mug shot of "Bryn" entirely!).
And, NO, he hardly resembles Mr. Sideways photo.
Oh, yes, silly me: the arresting officers section is listed there in the first line under "Bryn's" chin and next to his DIFFERENT file case #: "W. HWD."
Which is the West Hollywood subdivision of LASO, while on the mugs of the kids arrested 8/16 you'll see "LASO -- MALIBU." The subdivision covering the Spahn Ranch.
Like I said, Col, post those 8/16 shots ASAP, or you lose what little respect that remains in my ice-cold heart.
Love and lollipops,
VD
Vera has referenced the 8-16-69 arrests several times.
I uploaded the Booking Sheets for 8-16-69, on my site. It's a 4 page set.
Click on the small tab, under each page, which says "Read More"... and each page will open, full size.
There were 26 arrested, and 5 detained.
All the names are clearly listed.
Hope this is helpful.
Peace... Lynyrd
Mr. Bugliosi never called him because what this guy had to say likely conflicted with the prosecutor's theory.
And perhaps becauase Mr. Bryn's boss paid Mr. Bugliosi not to. Not fact or testimony, pure speculation.
Col.,
The reason for not calling Crowe at the Trial itself was there was no direct evidence linking Crowe with the murders (which you know already). Crowe was called during the penalty phase to show that CM was capable of shooting another person and not just another peace loving hippie.
I do not see a reason to call Bryn as a witness to the shooting if the actual person who was shot testified. Perhaps one of the defence attorney could have called him - for that matter one of the defence attorneys could have called TJ or someone else if they had wanted to. Perhaps and I am speculating here they didn't know Bryn's identity at the time of the trial.
All very interesting information all the same. Thanks
The defense called no one. Didn't put on a defense.
Never understood that.
People who could've been called, had they put on a defense, to get closer to the truth:
"Bryn," Dennis Wilson, Carol Wilson, Carol Jakobson, Bill Vance, Suzan Struthers, Rosine Kroner, David Neale, Charlene CaFritz... and those are just the names you might recognize.
Why did Crowe not retaliate? Because he nearly died from Charlie's gunshot wound. Though he may have been released after 2 weeks in hospital I doubt he was strong enough to reacquire his mormal life until after Charlie was arrested in early December.
I never understand that in any case...the defense not calling witnesses. I suppose the idea is to let the case rest with how it was presented by the prosecutor, hoping they inserted enough objection and confusion to cause doubt in the DA's burden of proof? I don't know.
Nor did I understand the no-defense strategy but just the prosecution's side lasted many months. Bugliosi never offered much of a guess either as to why the defense rested. Did Charlie cause that? The defense did rebutt in the sentencing phase. However, I don't think Charlie had very good attorneys on purpose. I don't think there was a chance of acquittal. Bug probably could have convicted Kasabian as well just because of the Family's bizarre behavior during the trial.
I think that after rejecting Mr. Hallopeter's council, Charles was given the very worst free defense attorney that could be found.
Amerika will not have truly fair trials until the defense has a team to find facts, equal to the prosecution's team, at any rate.
AC writes: "...Charles was given the very worst free defense attorney that could be found."
Not given, sought and acquired by your friend, Charles, with the self-proclaimed intention of finding the worst, dear.
that's what makes it even stranger, Vera. Charles never struck me as suicidal, and yet he was intelligent enough to know that a conviction probably meant death. Even with Vincent's fancifulness, the circumstantial evidence and direct witness testimony were strong enough to convict and Manson couldn't have been blind to that. The question is did he basicaly throw in the towel or did he truly believe the combination of his own bizarre behavior and the ineptitude of his lawyers would be a way out?
You got me, Leary. Maybe AC could ask her bud, but I doubt she'd get an honest (or coherent) answer.
I suppose, Vera, that it is a silly exercise to try and assign logic to delusional behavior. Clearly Tex had fried his brain. And Leslie's dad talks about her wanting to cut holes in the back of her shirt so that her angel wings could sprout. I think it has always been underestimated how fried these folks were from excessive acid taking. ANd Charles having sociopathic tendencies to begin with...I've always thought the whole shebang was a random clusterfuck - a perfect storm of paranoia, delusion, hatred and ego. Maybe CM really believed he could manipulate the court.
or more likely it was tied into his whole trip about being Jesus, and purposefully emulating how Christ did little to defend himself before Pilate. Maybe Charles really believed mere mortals could not judge him.
Strangley, with all that has been written on Manson and TLB, there has been very little professional analysis about their belief system and personal beliefs and how delusional they had all become. I will always remember Gypsy's comment on how it took a full ten years to unscramble here brain from the Spahn mindset.
Clearly, Charlie never has. Or Sandy or Squeeky or a few others. I really do wonder if Lynn still feels the TLB killings were justified as she stated in that
80's video. That is beyond a delusional belief, it is insane.
Leary, I personally don't think it was the acid. If acid did that to people I would have been done in 1982.
I think what they had was an unnatural desire to be different & freaky and the willingness to go to any lengths to accomplish it.
Actually Doctor Smith of the free clinic did do a group study of the family and published it...
A case study of the Charles Manson group marriage commune.
Smith DE, Rose AJ.
It can be googled...
Charlie was arrested so many times- and even while on probation they picked him up over and over- from rape to possession, to stealing- he never stayed in Jail...
in the case of TLB- he didn't even personally kill anyone- so why would he figure things would change then??
If he didn't get arrested when he did participate in crime- why should he worry when he didn't participate???
wasn't held in jail was what I meant - not arrested- obviously he was constantly arrested...
The Acid thing never made sense to me either from personal experience- but when I read they did speed- that made perfect sense for What they did...
Not sure what you mean, St. Circumstance. He spent most of his life locked up...juvenile detention and reform schools, jails, big time prison. He was just out after several years at Terminal Island. Nothing like conspiracy to murder...still, he knew...
Yeah Marliese- It is a bit contradictory ...
I know that- and that is the only reason why I give any credence at all to the people who talk conspiracy and MK ultra and all that other stuff- that normally I would laugh off..
He was constantly in jail as a kid- and has been in jail ever since TLB-
Ah... but the summer of love- and then going forward
in the time he was out- and in the environment he was in- he had to be a known trouble maker- and despite the fact that he kept violating parole- over and over- they kept letting him go????
It really doesn't make much sense... unless " They" put him back where he belonged after he served his purpose...
That is a stretch- And I dont buy the conspiracy stuff-
But I still cannot come up with better reason why they kept letting Charlie loose- when he was in so many cases in such blatant violation of his parole...
They were looking back then for answers to how society could produce children capable of such things...
today we would be examining a system that would allow for a guy like Charlie to be around these children in the first place...
I was an Orange Sunshine boy in the 70's too Matt. But these folk ate the stuff like Pez. And like Timothy Leary said, it's all set and setting. It isn't just the chemical altering of the mind, it is what takes place while in that altered state. The Garbage People weren't watching Fantasia and such. They were being taught by the Evilmeister himself.
Charlie was continually let go from arrests because he was perceived as just a crazy little man. No one thought he should be taken seriously. No one outside of the Family ever concluded that Manson was capable of anything as violent as the TLB murders. Not even Melcher and Jacobson ever had an inkling of Charlie was about even though Charlie had threatened both of them and had been at Cielo.
Just wondering...does anyone know whatever happened to Rosina?
Marliese-
I am not a recruiter for any site- I like them all, and spend equal time in reading most of them...
But this was my first, and you told me about Truth on TLB ( Kat's site) site- and I joined there on your advice...
I would like to suggest one for you :)
http://lynyrd-skynyrds-manson-family-forum.blogspot.com/?zx=be05bc34da01c324
you might like talking about the case there...
It is not unethical or wrong to not call certain witnesses. You try not to overly complicate a case that was already very complicated. VB is a damn good attorney. Charles was not fortunate when he took over the case, but them's the breaks... Maybe it was Charles' karma at work.
I think VB really believed CM was behind these murders and he did his best to get a convuction that would not. be overturned on appeal.
The defense rested because there was nothing more to say ... they blew it..., and CM in the first place.
And to assume CM was not the bad guy is very strange, because, of course TW was the bad guy, but CM was at the same level, even worse if you ask me.
angeLos said...
The defense rested because there was nothing more to say ... they blew it..., and CM in the first place.
And to assume CM was not the bad guy is very strange, because, of course TW was the bad guy, but CM was at the same level, even worse if you ask me.
3:40 PM, April 23, 2011[end quote]
Nr Poirot replies:
Charlie asked several people to commit dirty deeds prior to TLB. All said no. Charlie had been testing the waters and no one met the job qualifications.
Charlie has stated that after Tex swallowed telache that he was never in his right mind again.
Charlie knew by Aug 8, 69 that Tex had mentally degenerated sufficiently so as to commit murder if ordered to.
The "facts" are that Charles Manson walked into a private home, tied up the occupants, told them they wouldn't be hurt and then sent in killers to stab them to death...acts which make him as guilty as the killers. As I understand it, the truth being sought here is why. Isn't it possible the defense rested believing the DA hadn't met his burden of proof, hopeful they'd established the minimum of a shadow of a doubt in their cross examinations and various objections?
I don't have a Manson library so I can't check this, but I suppose the question is, Marliese, to what degree Manson suported the "no defense" strategy. The motive the prosecution had offered was a fantastic tale of the Beatles and a race war. Maybe Charlie and his suits felt it was to bizzare a story for the jury to buy. I have always wondered if CM the girls had acted half way normal during the trial if that would have made a difference in the jury buying HS as the motive. But their behavior was so absurd I think it made it easier for the jury to believe the whole 'rising from the bottom of the pit' nonsense.
I have always dreamed of another go-around with this stuff - maybe a trial on Hughes or Pugh or such. It would be interesting to see how Manson and the girls behaved in a courtroom forty years later.
I have always dreamed of another go-around with this stuff - maybe a trial on Hughes or Pugh or such.
Unlikely - there's really no evidence to justify either and never has been.
Frank
you're right of course Frank. I should have written fantasy dream. Still, I wonder why nobody ever filed civil charges against CM or any of the others, like the Brown and Goldman families did against OJ. I have no law expertise so maybe I am just pissin into the wind, but you would think maybe someone like the Willet's kid or even Shorty's wife could have filed a civil suit and collected damages. Obvioulsy while there is no statute of limitations on murder I seem to recall there is on filing civil suits. Still, the fantasy dream would be to see these players in court one more time.
Yes,I think he did support the no defense plan, but I think it's more accurate to say they chose to let it rest as it was put forth by the prosecution. They presented defense during cross examinations and voicing objections etc during the prosecution's turn.
I don't think there was much Manson didn't control...he had the girls firing attorneys and acting out. And he did testify without the jury present...the I killed no one and ordered no one be killed, they're your children that come at you with knives ramblings, even admitted he may have implied he was Jesus Christ etc etc and when he was finished told the girls 'now you don't have to testify'...something like that. Did he decide not to repeat it for the jury? i don't know.
And it's not like the defense attorneys could have let the girls testify...they'd have incriminated themselves to protect Charlie. I think Charlie controlled it all. He'd have acted as his own attorney if it had been allowed.
Charlie was in control of everything and everybody but himself. You have to wonder, sitting in a box for the last forty years, how often he has said to himself, "Man, I wish Stephanie and I had just kept driving, maybe headed off the that concert in upstate New York."
"Man, I wish Stephanie and I had just kept driving, maybe headed off the that concert in upstate New York."
shudder...shudder....
Charlie at Woodstock...it is like one of those Zen contemplations of incongruities.
like Hitler at the beach.
or the Col in the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. I wonder what's happened to the dastardly rascal.
Dastardly Rascal, where art thou?
Where ever he is, i hope he's having a good time.
Marliese said...
"Just wondering...does anyone know whatever happened to Rosina?"
I'm less interested in knowing what happened to Rosina as I am in knowing what happened to Rosina !
Point being, where was she even back in 1970, 71 ? In his first book, Tex calls her Luella but whatever her name is or was, why has she never come forward to verify Charlie's story ? Why was she not found and subpoenaed ? Isn't it interesting that she has never corroborated Charlie's story, told to Emmons and Stimson of his rescue of her from "the evil clutches of Lotsapoppa" which Charlie uses to justify shooting him.
I think Rosina, like so many other aspects of this case that have been given a certain prominence by Helter sceptics, is an almighty red herring.
Post a Comment