The Col Rants

---ITEM--- Regular Blog Reader HEAVEN has suffered the loss of her mother. Our prayers and good thoughts go out to her and her family.

---ITEM--- Candygramma's stupid, illiterate attack blog is now almost pure comedy- nobody on there knows anything or makes any sense. Our bad thoughts and ill wishes go out to CG and the gang.

---ITEM--- The 1970 documentary MANSON supposedly will play on the internet tonight on a teeny tiny screen. The Col doesn't believe it. but Mark Turner does. I'm trying to sell him a bridge.

---ITEM---Look- something from the internet graveyard!

---ITEM--- This reminds me- I used to have heated email exchanges between me and Jenn Oakley at the Yahoo KTS site. She was a smug, ignorant bitch who liked to ban the Col. The Col liked to ask why the hell she'd want (since she was in the military) her friends going overseas to lose their lives in a stupid pointless war. She'd always attack me in ignorant ways. Well, Jenn, I am still here, making tons of money, having EintDave drive me around and married to a supermodel. You got any friends left or are they all over in Iraq getting blown up for oil?

---ITEM--- I encourage people to blog, and here is one that did. Unfortunately she was full of shit and went away.

---ITEM--- When was the last time this crap website was updated? Is Deb too busy dancing with her father's urn?


Can't stop the happy, boys and girls!

I Hear Sandy Left Charlie

Sandy was not real, she never killed anyone. She was just an uptight rich bitch looking to play hippy and get laid.

It was never real, I feel. Just attention seeking.

Here is an old CURRENT AFFAIR report.



You can go watch an old video I blogged where she says she never screwed Manson. Yet here she had his baby.

See what research in this case is so freakin' hard?

Real easy to cut back and forth and make her look even crazier by cutting to Charlie then.



Her smile just creeped me the fuck out. Sick chick.

He Blames Charlie So I Wouldn't Let Him Free (Just saying)

Parole debated for Charles Manson follower Bruce Davis

The Associated Press

SACRAMENTO Charles Manson's followers should never be freed from prison for the string of brutal slayings they committed in 1969, the sister of murdered actress Sharon Tate said outside a California parole hearing.

Bruce Davis, now a 63-year-old prison preacher with a doctorate in religion and philosophy, participated in the Manson family's first murder.

Manson doctored the crime scene in a vain attempt to trigger a race war, a pattern he and his followers repeated in the slayings of the pregnant Tate, grocery store chain owner Leno LaBianca and his wife, Rosemary, and four others.

"These people were all declared to be sociopaths. There is no recovery from this kind of mental illness," said Debra Tate, who lives in the Los Angeles area and is the last surviving member of her immediate family. "I'm concerned for the safety of the community."

The horrific nature of the crimes is what keeps them fascinating for the public 37 years later, Tate said Tuesday: "It's very fresh in my mind."

Davis is serving a double life sentence for two first-degree murder convictions and has been denied parole 22 times since he became eligible for release in 1977. A decision on his current appeal is expected next month.

Davis was not involved in the Tate-LaBianca murders. He was convicted with Manson and others in the cult's first murder, that of musician Gary Hinman in his Topanga Canyon home, and in the later slaying of former stuntman Donald "Shorty" Shea, who lived at the Spahn movie ranch in Chatsworth where Manson had his commune.

"They tried to make it look as if a Black Panther did (the Hinman murder) to start a race war," Los Angeles County Assistant Head Deputy District Attorney Patrick Sequeira said outside Tuesday's hearing. "That was the first time that they wrote 'political piggy' on the wall with the paw print of the Black Panthers, to try to blame it on blacks in general."

Beth Davis said the man she married in prison is being unfairly punished for his relationship with Manson when he was a young man addled by drugs.

"He was forced by Manson" to participate in the slayings, she said. "They all got involved, and there's no denying it."

Yet Davis is a changed man who has served a prison sentence far longer than those convicted of similar crimes, several family members and prison counselors told the parole board.

The entire Board of Prison Terms is hearing Davis' parole appeal because the commissioner and deputy commissioner assigned to his case split on their decision after an Aug. 31 hearing. That hearing was held at the California Men's Colony in San Luis Obispo, where Davis is imprisoned.

He was not present during Tuesday's hearing.

Manson and others convicted in the Tate-La Bianca killings have routinely been denied parole. But a Manson follower convicted with Davis in Shea's murder, Steve Grogan, was paroled after leading police to the victim's body.

A Walking TIME BOMB

I'd like to meet Stephen Kay. I would ask him, in his obsession for the truth and to keep murderers in prison, why he never made sure the BUG went to jail for perjury during a death penalty trial.

I would ask him why he supports Steven Hodel's BULLSHIT Black Dahlia book.

I would ask who did his haircuts for all these years to have that person killed.

Note- Kasabian claims she handed him the bolt cutters. Is he still lying?

The box collecting interlude amuses me by its surreality.

From the Sunday NY Times

The Judge and the Auteur: Revisiting the Polanski Case

By CHARLES LYONS

LOS ANGELES

MARINA ZENOVICH’S office here looks as if it should belong to an absent-minded film professor. A cluttered room adjacent to an editing suite on the city’s west side, it is packed with file folders containing hundreds of press clippings and the inevitable stacks of videotape. But a corkboard on the wall betrays a preoccupation that stirs more than academic passions in these parts.

The board is dominated by two photographs. One shows an almost young Roman Polanski, dressed in a dapper suit, hair parted to one side, looking lean, boyish and handsome. The other reveals a man in a black robe, with thinning white hair and a roundish face supported by a stocky frame. The caption under it reads, “Laurence J. Rittenband, Judge.”

“These two men met their match in each other,” said Ms. Zenovich in an interview last month.

Laurence J. Rittenband, who died in 1993, was the California judge who almost 30 years ago presided over the notorious case in which Mr. Polanski pleaded guilty to having unlawful sex with a minor. Even after Mr. Polanski fled to France in advance of his sentencing date, the judge vowed to stay on the bench until he returned to the United States.

Instead, Mr. Polanski, now 73 and a French citizen, remained a fugitive, and prospered as a film director, winning an Oscar in 2003 for “The Pianist.” Judge Rittenband, who left the bench in 1989, died at 88 without completing his quest. But he left behind enough professional and personal drama to have joined Mr. Polanski as a central character in Ms. Zenovich’s forthcoming documentary, which promises to shed new light on one of modern Hollywood’s more perplexing episodes.

The new film, unfinished and untitled, is being produced by Jeffrey Levy-Hinte (“Thirteen”) and Lila Yacoub (“The Anniversary Party”), and has Steven Soderbergh as an executive producer. It was recently acquired for distribution in Britain by the BBC, and when it eventually appears here in theaters or on the festival circuit, it will likely renew the debate over whether Mr. Polanski still has a price to pay if he returns to the United States.

Ms. Zenovich, a 43-year-old former actress who once had a small part in “The Player,” said it is impossible to reach conclusions about Mr. Polanski without drawing Judge Rittenband into the equation.

“I’ve never set out to diminish the seriousness of what Polanski did, but it comes down to crime and punishment,” she explained. “How much do you have to pay for the crime? What I’ve always set out to prove is, despite what Polanski did, which was awful, he was treated unfairly by the judge. That’s the bottom line.”

Convinced that even reasonably well informed people do not completely understand the Polanski case, Ms. Zenovich pursued a doggedly reportorial course, undeterred by Mr. Polanski’s refusal to participate. (A spokesperson for Mr. Polanski confirmed that he has no involvement with the documentary.) She conducted on-camera interviews with nearly 100 people, including Samantha Geimer, the girl, now in her 40’s, with whom Mr. Polanski had sex and who has publicly forgiven him. Other interview subjects included figures connected with the director’s film career, among them Mia Farrow, Nastassja Kinski, Robert Evans and Robert Towne.

But considerable attention is reserved for Judge Rittenband, who was something of a legend in his own right, having overseen murder cases involving the so-called Billionaire Boys Club and Sarai Ribicoff, during his time on the California Superior Court. Ms. Zenovich sees both Mr. Polanski and Judge Rittenband as men who rose by force of will from humble roots. Mr. Polanski survived Nazi persecution and lost his mother in the Holocaust. The judge, from a less dire background, was a poor Brooklyn boy who, upon graduating high school at 15, bypassed undergraduate work for New York University Law School; he later attended Harvard, because he was too young to take the New York bar exam, graduating Phi Beta Kappa.

Ms. Zenovich describes the judge as having lived the kind of vibrant personal life easier to associate with Mr. Polanski. “He was never married, and he loved being kind of a swinging bachelor, juggling a couple of girlfriends at once,” she said. “What’s most interesting about him is that he tried to come across as so moralistic, but eventually I found out that this was a man who had a 20-year-old girlfriend when he was 54.”

In a rough edit of the film, Richard Brenneman, who covered the case for The Santa Monica Evening Outlook, recalls drafting an affidavit immediately after Judge Rittenband’s death, in which he documented his conversations with the judge in chambers: “Most specifically, how he asked me what sentence to impose on Polanski, which was illegal.”

In another clip the producer Hawk Koch recounts that his father, the late Howard W. Koch, recalled overhearing Judge Rittenband at the exclusive Hillcrest Country Club, where the judge was a popular member.

“One of the gentlemen at Hillcrest came up to Rittenband,” Mr. Koch tells Ms. Zenovich, “and said, ‘Are you really going to let that little Polish blah-blah-blah off?’ And Rittenband said: ‘Well, he thinks so, but no way. We’re going to put that little blank-blank away for the rest of his life.’ ”But Judge Rittenband certainly has his devotees, including his nephew, Elliot Rittenband.

“He felt an obligation and a duty to do what he felt was best, and he always stuck to it,” Mr. Rittenband tells Ms. Zenovich. Marsh Goldstein, one of the judge’s calendar deputies, recalls to Ms. Zenovich: “He was one of the most intelligent men I’ve run across — literate, well read, with a wonderful vocabulary, a wonderful way of quoting famous writers and philosophers in the course of your calling calendar.”

A key revelation, Ms. Zenovich said, came from the case’s retired prosecutor, Roger Gunson, who suggests in the film that Judge Rittenband acted improperly before Mr. Polanski decided to skip the country in 1978. At first all sides had agreed that the only sentence he should serve would be a 90-day psychiatric evaluation in prison at Chino, Calif. But when Chino authorities, fearing for Mr. Polanski’s safety, released him after 42 days, an infuriated Judge Rittenband called in both sets of lawyers and announced a new plan. He wanted to put Mr. Polanski back in prison for another 48 days or deport him, Mr. Gunson says in an interview with Ms. Zenovich.

Mr. Gunson also says the judge told the assembled lawyers how he wanted them to argue their sides of the case. Recalling that day in chambers, Larry Silver, one of the lawyers present — he still represents Ms. Geimer — tells Ms. Zenovich how he, Mr. Gunson and Mr. Polanski’s lawyer, Douglas Dalton, had afterward sat together in stunned silence. In all their years in the legal profession, Mr. Silver says, none of them had ever seen anything like that.

(Mr. Polanski’s defense submitted an affidavit charging Judge Rittenband with bias, prejudice and unprofessional conduct, and Judge Rittenband ultimately agreed to allow another judge to handle the case.)

Still, Ms. Zenovich said she was determined to create a balanced film, and her preliminary edit includes views from people who appear less concerned with whether Mr. Rittenband botched the case than with Mr. Polanski’s actions.

“This man committed a rape, committed a bunch of other atrocities and got away essentially with nothing,” says Philip Vannatter, a former Los Angeles police officer. “And I don’t think that’s right.”

Even from the unfinished film, it is apparent that Ms. Zenovich — who made an earlier documentary, “Who Is Bernard Tapie?” without the participation of its subject, the French financier and politician — has become intent, like documentary filmmakers before her, on using the form to delve deeper than the written word or television usually allow.

“A sense of truthfulness is like a drug that hooks you and won’t let you go,” said Barbara Kopple, the documentary filmmaker and two-time Academy Award winner, reached by telephone in her New York office, where, with Cecilia Peck, she is completing “Dixie Chicks: Shut Up and Sing.” “Once you’ve seen it it’s hard to go back. I think that’s why the audience for documentaries keeps growing.”

For her part Ms. Zenovich said her feelings toward Mr. Polanski, as well as those of her mostly female crew, have vacillated in the course of their work.

“You love him one day,” she explained. “You hate him the next. I tell some people I’m doing this and they say: ‘That pedophile! That child molester!’ But all my research leads me to believe he’s misunderstood and endlessly fascinating.”

Today's Video Treat

From the legendary Manson 70 Video

My first blogged video was the sequence on that legendary tape when Bruce Davis surrendered. How crazy that shit was. Here is some more footage from those halcyon days- a lot of Charlie walking the halls. Look closely and learn.

Beating a Dead Horse, the Mark Turner Version

Mark said on his terrific website:
I've been helping the History Channel with an episode for a new show to be called "Our Generation." The tentative broadcast date is October 19. I connected them with Catherine Share who has agreed to do an interview for the show. Others are still under consideration. I have also been told that Vincent Bugliosi will be doing an interview. Each episode of the series will focus on a major event of the 1960s and 1970s.

Except you can go to the History Channel site yourself and see that there is no such show scheduled for that date or mentioned at all on the site.

What happened? Did the people at THC wake up and realize that Mark was a wanker, ala pretty much every place and Bill Nelson?

I was looking forward to people asking Gypsy why she repeatedly fired her guns at policemen, committed major credit fraud, married a felon so she ended up in "witness protection" and yet still prays to Jesus.

Maybe she could have hugged the Bug again too!

Fucking hypocrites- all of them!

Mark Turner Wakes Up

Only a week later....

OCTOBER NEWS: It can now be revealed. On Halloween night, Robert Hendrickson will broadcast his "Manson" documentary on his website for free! Read about it here. There was a bit of talk about some possible bonus material but I'm not sure if that's definite yet. Either way, if you've never seen "Manson" then you'll absolutely want to set aside some time. It has never been legally released on DVD and hasn't been available on video tape in about twenty years.


Now neither Mark Turner nor Robert Hendrickson want you to see this

That will maybe help you download the Manson viewing and make their heads explode. I don't know, I'm just linking.

Does the COL care? RELEASE THE DVD WITH EXTRAS AND SHUT UP ALREADY. I will buy ten of them if you just release the damn thing.

RIP Karen McCoy Montecillo

Karen McCoy Montecillo was a member of the original, now legendary, Clark Ronson Tate LaBianca Message Board. She lived in Hemet California. She was wicked smart. She was a schoolteacher who loved her son and supported the school band. She took them on tours.

Karen was a friend of Steven Parent before he was murdered by Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel and Linda Kasabian. She remained a friend of the Parent family for her whole life.

Karen started out in the internet ether world actually as a friend of the child molesting, stalking Bill Nelson. She was deluded into thinking he was in it for anything except himself. She quickly caught on. Later, when Steven's sister Janet started to come to the Nelson side, she helped prevent her exploitation by Nellie. Karen missed Steven even later in life. You could say she loved that boy.

The Col and Karen mixed it up quite a bit on Ronson's site. You see, she wanted us to believe that Steven was not just her friend, but her boyfriend. Which is fine, except Steven was definitely gay. We eventually had a $500 bet. Turns out she WAS his friend, but not his girlfriend so the Col paid $250 to her son's band trip. I can't tell you much else.

About two years ago a very grumpy Karen appeared on KTS and attacked the Col because she felt that revealing Steven's interest in men was speaking ill of the dead. She showed up at one of the Sadie hearings- she was a BIG lady. I am not sure what she died of, but she could not have been healthy at that size.

I sort of recall her talking about her husband, but he's not mentioned in the obituary, so either I am wrong, or he died first, or who knows. She collaborated with a guy named Bob on putting a memorial up for Steven on the web.

Some of her positions were confused to say the very least. Here's one that shows her feisty attitude and somewhat odd ideas about who to support. In any case, she wanted justice for her dead friend, doing her part to keep Sadie, Tex et al behind bars. She is dead now, like we all will be one day, never having found the true reasons for the death of her pal Steven. May we in her memory someday find that truth.

------------------------------OBITUARY--------------------------------------

Karen Margaret Montecillo, 55, of Hemet, died July 21, 2006, at Hemet Valley Medical Center. A memorial service will be at 11am July 31 at Miller-Jones Mortuary, 1501 W. Florida Ave., Hemet.

Mrs. Montecillo, who was born in El Monte, lived in Hemet 14 years. She was employed by Hemet Unified School District as a teacher's aide at Fruitvale Elementary School and then Santa Fe Middle School. She is survived by her son, Salvador; and mother, Wilma McCoy, both of Hemet.

A Variety of Things

--- We had to go on moderation again because of some toolboxes out there who want to stop the great work of the Col. You can't stop the truth. You just cannot. We'll stay on moderation and then go off, and then on. The children will play and there is nothing we can do about it.

--- Reader Reply- I don't know Savage and I don't care what he/she does. It's their life and their right but don't lump us together, please.

--- Reader Reply- No, I am not associated with Don Murphy either.

--- Reader Reply- No, YepYep, I am not taking Bill Nelson's place. I don't show up at the parole hearings. I don't really have much to do with any of the killers at the moment. Bobby is a friend, that's it. Davis BELONGS in prison because his Christian ministry is horseshit. LVH can come or go, I don't care, but don't claim she is remorseful- she isn't.

--- Reader Reply- No, YepYep I never sent letters to ANYONE in prison.

--- Reader Reply- The Railroading of Charles Manson is not really a book- it was read by 6 people, maybe.

--- Reader Reply- For those of you conversing with James Whitehouse- invite him to do a live interview with us- we'd love to hear why he thinks Sadie should be released. Probably be a funnier film than BEERFEST.

--- There seems to be a semi-active forum here. Seems to be some of the people who cause shit at the only Official Tate-LaBianca Murders Blog. But let's try it.

Congratulations Roman

Didn't know about that documentary footage with Sharon... will be on thelook out for that.


Fellini Foundation honours Polanski

Director to receive lifetime achievement award (ANSA) - Rimini, October 4 - Top director Roman Polanski is to be given a lifetime achievement award by Italy's prestigious Federico Fellini Foundation .

The 73-year-old filmmaker, actor and writer will collect the Fellini Foundation Prize - a gold-leaf statue bearing a dream-like drawing by the Italian maestro - in December .

Foundation Chairman and filmmaker Pupi Avati praised Polanski on Tuesday as "a director of remarkable stature and courage whose resourcefulness is unmatched" .

Polanski was particularly pleased by the honour as he is a life-long admirer of Fellini, ranking him alongside Orson Welles and Akira Kurosawa as one of the most inspirational directors ever born .

Fellini, who died in 1993 at the age of 73, is also known to have admired Polanski, rating his 1967 Rosemary's Baby among his 40 favourite films. The pair actually met in 1969, on the set of Fellini's surreal Ancient Rome dreamscape movie Satyricon .

The encounter was filmed by Gideon Bachmann who made a documentary about the making of Satyricon called Ciao Federico .

The documentary includes possibly the last-ever footage of Polanski's tragic actress wife Sharon Tate, who was murdered not long afterwards by followers of cult leader Charles Manson .

Polanski, who was born in France but grew up in Poland, will also pick up a lifetime achievement award from the European Film Academy in December .

The director's films include The Tragedy of Macbeth, Chinatown, Tess, Frantic, Bitter Moon and The Pianist, for which he won an Oscar in 2002 along with its star, Adrien Brody .

Polanski escaped from Poland during the Second World War but his parents were sent to a Nazi concentration camp and his mother died in the gas chambers .

The director's experiences were evoked in The Pianist, which recounts the true story of Wladyslaw Szpilman, a Polish virtuoso pianist who miraculously survived the Warsaw Ghetto and the Holocaust but was the only member of his family to escape deportation .

The film also won the coveted Palme d'Or at Cannes and the Donatello David for best foreign film, Italy's equivalent of an Oscar .

Polanski will receive his Fellini award in Rimini, the Italian director's hometown, on December 16 .

The Fellini Foundation, which is based in Rimini, was set up in 1995 at the request of Fellini's sister Maddalena with the aim of conserving and promoting the memory of her brother and his work .

The foundation's career award was assigned last year to Hollywood director Martin Scorsese .

More on the Manson Doc

So- what has Hendrickson been doing rather than releasing MANSON 2 for 6 years? Setting legal history in two historic cases- both of which he lost and lost badly.
__________
...cases have considered the safe harbor provisions. In the case of Hendrickson v. Amazon.com (2003), the court held that a take down notice sent by a copyright holder did not remain in effect for an unlimited period of time. The notice was only effective for the item described in the letter. The information requirements which must be set forth in any letter or take down notice are very specific, and if certain information is left out, an ISP can argue that the letter did not give actual knowledge of the infringement. In the Amazon case, Hendrickson brought suit because he owned the copyright in a DVD movie, not yet released, which was for sale on Amazon's website. In this case, the court ended up finding in favor of Amazon because Hendrickson's notice was insufficient. Of special importance to the court was that Amazon had no control over third party sellers (Barker, 2005). ___________________

Robert Hendrickson v. Ebay, Inc., et al.

Court grants defendants' motion for summary judgment, and dismisses claims brought by plaintiff, the owner of a copyright in the documentary "Manson", against defendant eBay arising out of the use by unaffiliated third parties of the eBay auction site to sell unauthorized copies of the Manson documentary. The Court held that plaintiff's claims for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement were barred by operation of Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA offers service providers such as eBay protection from copyright infringement claims arising out of the storage of material on their web site provided, inter alia, (i) they do not have actual knowledge of the infringing activity or promptly upon gaining such knowledge move to prevent the use of their service to further it, (ii) do not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to infringing activity they have the ability to control, and (iii) expeditiously remove material from their service on receipt of an appropriate notice. The court held that eBay was entitled to protection under this section because (i) it did not have actual notice of the infringing activity, (ii) could not control it as the transactions were consummated off-line without eBay's involvement, and (iii) eBay had not received the requisite notice of infringing activity because, inter alia, the infringing articles were not appropriately specified in the notice sent by plaintiff. Plaintiff's claims for trademark infringement were mooted, held the Court, because of eBay's status as an innocent infringer, and its removal from its site of those advertisements plaintiff identified as improperly offering infringing copies of his movie for sale.

What Mark Turner was Babbling About

It is my pleasure to burst Mr. Turner's exclusive announcement since my opinion is he is a bad man and an idiot who has no idea what he is doing.

This is what he was alluding to this month on his terrific website.

No, he never responded to my well written list of questions.

And be forewarned- Hendrickson has been promising to release this shit for years and was too busy suing people to actually do anything about it. So who knows.

Anyway------------------

http://www.exclusivefilmnet.com/

Experience MANSON for Free

In order to thank you for your patience, we are going to treat you to a free viewing of the original MANSON. From sundown New York time to sun-up California time, MANSON will be available for viewing on certain Exclusive Film Network websites. Unfortunately, downloads to disks will not be permitted.

As you are aware, the motion picture industry is struggling to find its place in the internet community. You will be offered everything from old TV shows to newly made hard core, but we are going to provide you with something truly unique, the REAL. For example, besides the exclusive Manson Family films, over the years, we have obtained never before seen films taken during World War II. "My Father's War" is in post production, and will put you right inside the cockpit of an American fighter as it dog-fights with a Japanese Zero. (ALL IN COLOR)

You will dive bomb and fire upon Japanese warships, but your aircraft carrier will be directly hit by Jap Zeros. (ALL IN COLOR) You will advance on Japanese held islands, and using a flame thrower, flush enemy soldiers out of their bunkers. (ALL IN COLOR) And yes, you will also experience what it was like back in the states, during the war years. (ALL IN COLOR)

There will also be many more unique one-of-kind films brought to you by Exclusive Films.com.

Because we actually create the finished product, it may take us a little longer, but in the end, we will provide you with something worthwhile. Again, we thank you for your generous understanding.

--------------------------------------

The original MANSON movie is being updated for a special edition release

Also:

MANSON II is due out in 2006

info at exclusivefilmnet.com

"Absolutely nothing on earth could have prepared me for my passing through the gates of Hell."

"I finally realized that Helter Skelter may have been the reason the killers thought they were doing a massacre that night, but the real motive was known only to one."

"Because the heart of the prosecution's theory was that Charles Manson manipulated the minds of his devoted Family, the fact that, right before the eyes of the whole world, he was actually controlling the very destiny of the Tate-LaBianca murder trial became even more bizarre."

from The Making of MANSON II

for release in theaters 2006

Riding a Bummer

This is nothing short of brilliant. And if it doesn't make you hug the person closest to you then you are already dead. It belongs on the blog because of Sharon's inclusion. Col Tate is NOT included because the videographer could not get into Debra's bedroom.

Squeaky is SOOOO Dangerous, Isn't She?

Check out Couric!

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 4^th 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 16^th 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 16^th 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 16^th 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.

Bobby Beausoleil Interrogates Mary Brunner

Like I said in the earlier post, this was during Bobby's hearing for a new trial.

Remember- If they can abuse and manipulate the guilty, what prevents them from coming after and doing the same to you and me?

_____________________________

Q. I believe the best place for us to start is December 4. Do you recall that date?

A. Yes.

Q. And what happened on that date?

A. Starting when?

Q. Let’s say on December 4. Sometime on December 4, you made contact with a Lieutenant Brown; isn’t that correct?

A. He called me first –

Q. He called –

A. -- at work.

Q. And from that point, would you in a narrative from tell us what happened?

A. Yeah. He told me that there were a couple of people here from California that wanted to see me, and I was at work, and I asked them would it be okay if I called them up as soon as I got home from work. Okay, you know, and he said, yeah, that would be all right.

Q. Let me go back over that just a second. You say that a couple of people from California; isn’t that correct?

A. He didn’t say who it was at that time.

Q. Did he even imply to you with any words that it might be police officers?

A. I don’t really recall. I just know it was from the Sheriff’s Department.

Q. Do you recall exactly what he said to you on the phone, or any of what he said to you on the phone?

A. Actually, all I remember him saying is that there were a couple of people there from California that wanted to talk to me.

Q. Okay. Proceed.

A. And then I told them I’d call them back at 4:30 when I got off work, and then I called two attorneys, neither of whom I could reach at the moment; and then I tried to have – I asked them to call me back; and before either of them called me back, Lieutenant Brown came to work to talk to my boss and arrange for me to get off right then and there – right then; and then he took me up to the Holiday Inn Restaurant to meet Mr. Guenther and Mr. – and Whiteley.

Q. When you first met with Lieutenant Brown, did he at any time read any rights to you?

A. No.

Q. When you left with Lieutenant Brown, did you have any inkling of who you were going to see?

A. He may have told me at that time, that it was a couple of people from the Sheriff’s Department.

Q. He might have; you’re not sure?

A. He did, either at work of on the way out to the restaurant.

Q. Once he had you in the car; is that correct?

A. Sometime between getting me out of the office at work and before we got to meet them, he told me about it.

Q. And then you said you arrived at the Holiday Restaurant?

A. Holiday Inn.

Q. The restaurant at the Holiday Inn?

A. Right.

Q. There you made the acquaintance of Sergeant Paul Whiteley and Deputy Guenther; is that right?

A. That’s right.

Q. From the Homocide Sheriff’s Department in Los Angeles?

A. Right.

Q. From that point, would you proceed in your tesitmony?

A. First of all, they offered me a drink, and I took one. And I think it was Whiteley said that –

Q. Just a moment. You said they offered you a drink?

A. Yeah.

Q. Was that hard liquor?

A. Yes, that’s right.

Q. And you took a hard liquor drink?

A. And I took a hard liquor drink.

Q. So you took a drink. Did you have just one, or did you have –

A. I had two.

Q. You had two drinks?

A. That’s right.

Q. What were you drinking?

A. Manhattans, I believe.

Q. That’s a pretty powerful drink?

A. I believe so.

Q. Did it make you high at all?

A. Yeah.

Q. In other words, you’re not accustomed to drinking?

A. I don’t hardly ever drink.

Q. And then while you were drinking these Manhattans what did Deputy Guenther and Sergeant Whiteley say to you?

A. They said that they had found my fingerprints at the Hinman house. That they had witnesses who had definitely placed me in a stolen car.

Q. Did they name those witnesses?

A. No.

Q. Not at that time?

A. Not ever. Not ever, but a stolen car. He said that you had been doing a lot of talking about me and Sadie was doing a lot of talking about me.

Q. Let me go back to this a little bit. You say, ‘They’ told you. Who was speaking?

A. Whiteley most of the time.

Q. That is Sergeant Whiteley? That is that man there in the green coat?

A. Yes.

MR. BEAUSOLEIL: Will the record so reflect that she is pointing to Sergeant Whiteley from Homocide.

THE COURT: Yes, it may.

BY MR. BEAUSOLEIL:

Q. And he told you, he mentioned my name to you, in other words?

A. Yes.

Q. And he mentioned Sadie’s name?

A. Yes.

Q. Sadie Mae Glutz?

A. Yes.

Q. Susan Denise Atkins?

A. Yes. He was probably calling her Susan most of the time.

Q. Did he sometimes say Sadie, too?

A. I don’t really recall.

Q. And in what way did he say that I was using your name?

A. Like saying that I committed the Hinman murder. That you were putting the blame of the Hinman murder on me.

Q. Did he say that I was putting all the blame on you?

A. He never really got specific about it.

Q. But he said I was putting the blame on you?

A. Yes.

Q. What about Sadie, did he say Sadie also was putting the blame on you?

A. He didn’t really say anything to – he just said that you two were putting me responsible in a large part for the Hinman murder. I don’t know how much of a part.

Q. Now, let me backtrack a little bit. Before you had a conversation with – before Sergeant Whiteley began speaking to you along those lines that you have just been testifying to, neither one of the officers, Sergeant Guenther, Sergeant Whiteley, or Lieutenant Brown, either, had read any rights to you; is that correct?

A. That’s right.

Q. Proceed.

A. I don’t really know where I was at.

Q. You testified that Sergeant Whiteley was telling you that I had put all the blame – that I had put the blame on you; isn’t that correct?

A. That’s correct.

Q. And Sadie had also done that?

A. And Sadie had done that, and he said that he knew that you had done the murder and that I knew – he told me that I knew that had done the murder and that in exchange for my telling him about you killing Gary I would get immunity, I’d get my probation dropped, me restitution dropped, I could get custody of the baby again.

Q. What did he tell you the consequences were if you did not give him the statement?

A. If I didn’t give him a statement my probation would be violated. I’d be arrested for Gary’s murder. I could forget about seeing Bear.

Q. You said – what was that again? Could you tell us exactly what happened? You said something to the effect that you could forget about seeing Bear?

A Seeing the baby.

Q. First, Bear, who’s Bear?

A. My son.

Q. Your son, and how old is your son?

A. Two years.

Q. Is that his nickname, Bear?

A. That’s right.

Q. Is that just part of the nickname or is that a complete nickname?

A. Oh, he’s got other nicknames.

Q. Would you tell the Court the nicknames of the child.

A. His full name is Sunstone.

Q. And the last name?

A. Sunstone Hawk.

Q. And he was referred to, at least when he was an infant, as Pooh Bear; isn’t that correct?

A. That’s right.

MR. KATZ: Perhaps, your Honorm for the record, could we have the spelling by Miss Brunner of those names?

MR. BEAUSOLEIL: I’ll spell it.

THE COURT: Spell the names of the baby for the record.

THE WITNESS: S-u-n-s-t-o-n-e H-a-w-k.

BY MR. BEAUSOLEIL:

Q. And Pooh Bear, would you spell Pooh Bear, please:

A. That is spelled a lot of different ways. Some people spell it P-o-o-h

B-e-a-r and some P-u B-e-a-r.

Q. I hope Mr. Katz is satisfied. Now, you say Sergeant Whiteley said something to the effect that you could forget about seeing Bear. Would you in more detail tell us what was going on.

A. Well it’s like the Court already has custody of him and I just won’t get it again.

Q. Now, in reference to not being able to see Bear, you were also told before this that you might be charged with murder, is that correct?

A. That’s right.

Q. Was there anything implied between the murder charge and the custody of the child?

A. The two sort of go hand in hand.

Q. Could you tell me how Sergeant Whiteley or Deputy Guenther, whoever it was telling you this, put them hand in hand, if they did?

A. If I’m arrested for murder, I’m going to the California courts and Bear is not going to be anywhere around.

Q. Is that pretty much a quote?

A. That is a rephrasing.

Q. Rephrasing, but that is what they told you; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Was there any other conversation – let me ask you – I’ll withdraw that last question. Did either officer get emotional during that conversation?

A. Guenther – at one time Whiteley left the room and Guenther got quite emotional and I got crying.

Q. Did you get emotional, too?

A. I started to cry, yes.

Q. What was Deputy Charles Guenther saying to you? What was he doing when he got emotional?

A. He was – he was telling me how wonderful they were being, really trying to save me from a mess and how you people were putting things on me and how rotten everyone out here had been, you know, how – about what you were supposed to have done with Gary, and it was – and he was just telling me how hard they were trying to see to it that I could stay back East and start a new life, you know, that sort of business, and, you know, get my son and how I really ought to go along with them.

Q. You stated several times they mentioned your son. Did they mention your son several times?

A. They did because they know how a baby would affect me.

Q. A reference to how you feel about your child, how do you feel about your child? Let me rephrase the question. You love your child very much, don’t you?

A. Yes.

Q. I would imagine he probably means more to you than anything else in the world; isn’t that correct?

A. Than most anything else.

Q. Anything means more to you?

A. Yeah.

Q. Could you tell the Court what it is?

A. It means more to me, Bobby, that I undo what I did to you.

Q. When you say that – to undo, what you did, what you did, did you not tell the truth at that time?

A. That’s right.

Q. I’ll continue. I’ll go back to where you were and we were talking about how you felt about your child. You love him dearly; isn’t that correct?

A. That’s right.

Q. You’d do what you could to protect him from any kind of harm; wouldn’t you?

A. Yes.

Q. Just about anything?

A. Just about. Just about.

Q. You feel it is the best thing for him to be in the custody of his mother?

A. Yes.

Q. At this time, or do you think he would be better – it would be better for him if he was in your custody?

A. You said in the custody of his mother, that’s me.

Q. I’m sorry. In the custody of your mother.

A. Right at this moment, you know, there is nothing that – you know, I tried to change that but I wouldn’t because it was stopped.

Q. What do you mean by it was stopped?

A. I tried to get custody back of him but I couldn’t.

Q. That was promised to you; is that correct?

A. No, this was last December I tried but it was stopped from this end. It was okayed by the Social Work Department but it was stopped by someone else.

Q. Do you know who that someone else is?

A. No one volunteered that they did it, no. I can imagine who did it.