I am not sure what you think VB deserves, but I would sure be interested in knowing. Mr. Kanarek's rough outline appears interesting but would only be his perspective. To claim a conspiracy on the part of the AG, L.A. County, and the White House exists, but then claim that the Wooly Hophead was not guilty of conspiracy will be interesting to read. The challenge in an adversarial system is that in the advocates mind, you are always right and the other person is wrong regardless of the outcome.
Yeah, I'm interested to see whether he means not guilty in the sense of being innocent of murder (as opposed to say "accessory to murder") or not guilty due to technical or legal improprieties in the State's conduct of the case.
I'm not FB of course, but I'd say being forced to listen to a tape loop of Revolution no 9 on 500 mics of acid would be about right... just kidding
@Crow. I had my answer to Dill all thought out when I read your posts. Priceless! Now I have to start again.... FB
Dill Said, I'm not sure what he deserves, I have few facts to work from. I want to know Kanarek's point of view. As crow asks in post #8, What does he mean by not guilty? Thats the question, much like Mr Clinton's statement "It depends upon what your definition of "is" is." What is Kanarek's definition of not guilty? What can he prove? If anything. Even if it turns out to be hogwash it's going to be an interesting read. Maybe I should have said "Perhaps he will give us what we deserve", that being the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
ah Cats this is just one of the reasons I love ya! Always at the forefront with the latest and greatest. TOTLB ROCKS! Fer sure!!!
how old is Irving again? He better get cracking. It will be interesting to read his "version" of events and to see things through his eyes although I can't believe that Charlie would have been acquitted myself.
Yes Jean I was thinking the same thing. First that it would be a good read and second he's no spring chicken! It would be a shame to miss out on hearing his story. As far as Charlie recieving an aquittal? I think he had a good chance for the first night, the LaBianca killings, not so much. All he had to do was distance himself from the Family, NOT be involved in an umbrella defense, and let his attorney's call the shots. Manson and the girls did Bugliosi a huge favor. He proved Bugs theory of Manson's control over the girls as they mocked every thing he did and said. I am pretty sure that he would have been convicted of conspiracy in the LaBianca killings but since he did not actually stab anyone he probably could have dodged the death penalty and possibly made parole in the future. I am glad it did not work out this way. Charlie was his own worst enemy. His desire for fame sealed his fate.
