Discussion in 'Irving Kanarek' started by jollywest, Jun 3, 2007.
if he had any evidence, he would've presented it. He was just trying to confuse the jury, and disrupt the D.A's case.
Kanarek liked to raise a fuss, didn't he?
And why weren't these questions raised on appeal if they were so important/ Kanarek and Fitzgerald could have done some investigation in their own, if things mattered so much to them and if they weren't doing things to make distractions. Prejudice, hell no--they had several eyewitnesses to the crimes. Why waste more state tax dollars on investigations that were not needed?
If Kanarek had evidence that would've raised doubt, and didn't present it, he would be disbarred. Simple as that. Why on earth would he not back up his accusations if he had proof?
He was doing everything he could to cast doubt... that's what a good attorney is forced to do when all the evidence shows he's fighting a losing battle.
And again.... unidentified fingerprints are simply that. They don't necessarily mean prints left by an unidentified person, you are reading too much into that. They could actually be smudged prints that were unreadable. They could've been old prints and who knows or cares who might have been in the house the day before? Either way, it's not relevant.
Laughing at the Kanarek. Manson himself told him to shut up and told him he really wasn't helping.
I dont think disbarrment would have bothered Kanarek-he finally did get disbarred for mental reasons I think. And yes he is still alive.
wow... didn't know where to start, so i'll just quote the whole thing..
[quote author=YepYep link=topic=1471.msg3692#msg3692 date=1181062017]
[quote author=CuriousGeorge link=topic=1471.msg3689#msg3689 date=1181057201]
Kanarek liked to raise a fuss, didn't he?[/quote]
He sure did. No doubt about that one.
If my memory serves me well Fitzgerald did make attempts to investigate the fingerprint issue during the '71, but don't you need a cooperative DA office if you want to do it properly? What if the DA office and the police weren't interested in digging into it any further?
Who says the DA's office is supposed to cooperate? Their job is to get a conviction, based on the evidence that supports a conviction. It's up to the defense to find evidence that contradicts the case, or to shoot holes in the presented evidence.
As far as the appeals goes, my guess is that maybe the people involved didn't feel the need to investigate it further. They weren't exactly cooperating, were they?
Well you can't deny that these people were already crucified by the press in pre-trial publicity. So just how impartial was the trial, really? There wasn't a living soul in the United States who hadn't heard or read things in the media, let alone in Los Angeles.
Don't get me wrong: There's no doubt about these people's guilt, not in my mind.
That doesn't address the part about the witnesses actually being the conspirators/murders themselves. Sadie didn't have to open her mouth to begin with... and everyone else else for the past nearly 40 years, while changing the story now and then have never implicated another person or exonerated any of the convicted persons. Looks like regardless of all the theories, the DA got the right people
Then it's a total mystery to me why the prosecution didn't press for evidence...
That's the $10,000 question, isn't it? I'd like to know that too. Isn't he still alive? Someone should ask him about it.
I don't think the question is worth a dime. He didn't back it up, because he couldn't back it up. He was just trying to throw doubt out there and it backfired a little bit
Oh absolutely. But I wonder if he felt it worthwhile to risk getting disbarred in the process, that's all.
Maybe I am reading too much into it, that's very well possible, but from what I read in that newspaper article the prints were clear. Not smudged. This means they can be tied to a person.
Despite the fact it's totally unimportant, I do wonder if the police ever matched (or tried to match) the prints they couldn't ID to any of the other people in the Family. There's no info on that. As far as the Tate residence goes, Manson has admitted he went in there after the murders and that he planted the glasses as a false lead. So maybe some of these unidentified prints belong to him and other people he brought along (rumouredly Clem and Nancy Pitman).
The way I see it, as long as there are lots of unidentified fingerprints - that are actually the majority of the total prints found - there's this possibility (albeit small) that some people might have gotten away with (being an accessory to) murder. You find that irrelevant?
Heck, you could argue this whole case is irrelevant because it was officially solved decades ago already. Why are we here still talking about it?
I wonder how many prints are in my house right now. If someone came in and killed me tonight, I guess the police would have to get them all. And the chances of one of those prints being linked to my killer... pretty much nil. (I hope! LOL)
Well, seeing he wouldn't shut up and continued to go into contempt of court all the time even back then, and was called an obstructionist by his peers, I figure it really didn't mean that much to him as serving his client well, even if that meant breaking court rules and getting contempt charges.
[quote author=YepYep link=topic=1471.msg3695#msg3695 date=1181063550]
The DA office must hand over all evidence to the defense. It's not required vice versa. That's what I always heard. So what if they supress evidence? The defense may never find out it happened. Or the public, for that matter.
Yeah they have to turn over whatever evidence they are using to convict. They are not going to hold the defense attorney's hand and help them find any contradicting evidence. period.
Well in both residences they did find fingerprints belonging to the killers, so the chances aren't that small. However, as Fitzgerald pointed out, all the unidentified fingerprints were found close to the bodies. He concluded that because of the close proximity to the bodies, these fingerprints must've belonged to the killer(s) of these people. Pat's fingerprint was on a back door, not close to any of the victims. I don't blame him for pointing this out to the jury in an attempt to get his client off.
He has a point IMO. Why am I the only one thinking he has a point there?
what point? Pat has admitted to killing. Linda and the others said they saw her chasing Abby with a knife raised over her head. Why are these fingerprint issues so crucial to you? What Pat touched in the house is meaningless.
no, i hear what you're saying, i'm just saying that these people weren't convicted on fingerprint evidence... the fingerprints were just used to show that, yes, they were definitely there, just as they said they were. So if they said they were there, and they said they killed those people, the fingerprints agree. Just as the gun and clothing found about where they said they tossed them also matches the story.
Put it this way... without the fingerprints, say they'd all worn gloves. The same people would all still be convicted, just without a little less confusion from the defense.
No one implicated anyone else, so fingerprints can't be used to put anyone else at the murder scene.
irv had it down pat
good defense wins championships
just ask jimmy smith
Looks like it should be a laxative commercial.