John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat
Pages on The New Democrat
- Comments: What People Say on This Blog
- About Erik Schneider
- About Derik Schneider
- About Ederik Schneider
- About Kire Schneider
- About Rik Schneider
- About Fred Schneider
- Women's Style
- Jim Morrison and The Doors
- Libertarians: If You Think This is About Libertari...
- Comedy: The Lighter Side of Life
- Progressives: Progressives and Progressivism, Not Socialists and Socialism
- Classical Conservatives: Conservatives Who Believe...
- Classical Liberals: Real Liberals and Real Liberal...
Sunday, March 8, 2015
Michaels Backporch: Video: NBC Nightly News: Charles Manson Family Trial 1970-71
This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress
I couldn’t dream up a stranger trial than the Manson Family trial of the 1970s. It’s not just that you had so-called Hippies involved, except for Charlie Manson who was label all to himself. He was just purely anti-establishment to the point that he didn’t believe that any laws applied to him because of how society screwed with him his whole life. And that he was entitled to get back in any way he saw fit. So perhaps criminal anarchist would be the best way to describe him. And then you throw in his so-called family, a crime family criminal gang really and his soldiers being doped up all the time and you have a script that Hollywood couldn’t dream up.
What California or I guess Los Angeles County had against Charles Manson was the facts. And an army of witness’s that could back up the facts. Including Manson’s own soldiers former soldiers. Now since Manson never physically acted in the murders except for ordering them, the prosecutors led by Vince Bugliosi had to prove that Manson ordered them. And prove which solders that he selected to carry out these murders of actress Sharon Tate and several others. And that is where the witness’s come in and all the evidence that they left at the Spawn Ranch where the Manson Family lived.
Not a conventional case where you have lets say one murderer whose guilty of murdering at least one person. And you basically know the defendant is guilty based on the current evidence at hand. And it is just a matter of showing and proving how murder or murders by the defendant happened. The motive, the opportunity, the weapon and everything else. And looking at things like DNA, witness’s if any, lack of an alibi and everything else. With this case you have to prove that one man ordered a certain group of people to murder several others. Without the leader actually saying, “go murder these people over here and at this time.”