No, a man named Bobby Beausoleil was convicted of that. I’ve seen it attributed to Manson before, though.
I haven’t questioned the mainstream accounts of those other cases. Sorry. Why would you call all those cases “railroading” though? Is that something you’ve looked into?
Not all so-called conspiracy theories are false. But if I see one where there are obvious assumptions being made, that are not backed up, I do give a second look.
To avoid the hijack in the other thread, I’m going to quote you here:
[QUOTE=Tapu]
Who testified, and what evidence is there, that Manson went into the LaBianca’s first and tied up the victims for Tex and the girls to kill?
I’m not saying there isn’t any, but I know it’s not included in all accounts.
And I sold 43 books on and/or by the Manson Family because I needed the bucks, and now I can’t get back all my original research…
I do agree that if Charlie went the second night then he is culpable in that case. Of conspiracy. I’m not saying Manson is guiltless in any of this. But I believe that the association between him and the murders is looser than say, Tex Watson and the murders. And that the politics of the times built up this uber monster, Manson, when really there is less mystique about it all–the media creates uber-persons around persons that get into the Zeitgeist, for their own purposes and for the purposes of the politics in power.
[/QUOTE]
You said that you had 43 books on (or by) the Manson Family, but you aren’t familiar with any evidence that Manson was at the LaBianca house?
Well, for one, there’s the testimony of Linda Kasabian, one of the Family members who was present at the LaBiance murder.
Then, there’s the testimonyof Juan Flynn, another Family member who saw Manson and the other murderers drive off on the night of the LaBianca murders, after Susan Atkins said “We’re going to get us some pigs.”
There’s also the testimonyof Richard Caballero, an attorney who had represented Susan Atkins, and who said that she had told him that Manson went to the LaBianca house and tied up the victims.
Tex Watson also testifiedthat Manson and he rode out together to commit the LaBianca murders.
That’s just from looking through contemporary newspaper accounts…I’d be hard pressed to completely rehash all of the testimony and evidence here, considering the length of the trial.
But you really aren’t aware of anything suggesting that Manson went to the LaBianca house?
I’ll throw the same challenge at you that I threw at hh in the JFK thread: Give us one verifiable fact of consequence that conflicts with the official Manson prosecution record. To make it easy, we’ll take Helter Skelter as “official.”
One. One that’s not generalized handwaving about how everyone being assured of Manson’s guilt is in and of itself proof that he was framed.
ETA: Since you’re following this thread, hh, I might remind you we’re still waiting for your One.
RESPONSE TO MORIARTY:
I’m aware of it. I’m also aware that it is self-serving and/or hearsay in each instance. It was not used at trial. (significant, no?)
Look, I can easily believe that Charlie did that. But what I’m saying is that Charlie was not some big mastermind, commanding murder by saying, “Do something witchy.”
The people who committed the actual murders–really, most significantly Charles “Tex” Watson–are the most clearly guilty parties. Much of the rest of the story is myth or uncorroborated. It was a political/media ploy that made Charlie Manson into the icon of our fears. Our fears back then, specifically, being the “Other,” the hippie, the anti-establishment. I’m saying that like back then, our media and its political drivers can draw a picture of the monster for us–Arab Terrorist, e.g.,–that is a caricature and that can keep us from assessing cases and people objectively.
Is there really any call for refuting this? On The Straight Dope?
I’m not sure what you’re asking of me, but it doesn’t matter because I cannot possibly “take ‘Helter Skelter’ as ‘official’”. Who would, in a serious discussion? It’s a mass market book designed to sell. It’s not “official”–surely that’s OBVIOUS.
Tapu, do you have any evidence to support the theory that Watson, not Manson, was the real instigator? Stuff like statements by Watson or Manson or other people that were involved?
Watson is convicted of the direct murder of all victims in the Tate/La Bianca killings. Watson’s book, “Will you kill for me?”, details in his own words how he killed each victim. All the women along on the nights of the murders testify to the same basic account of the events–that Tex killed the people. I don’t think there is any doubt in the minds of anyone on the side of the prosecution or the defense that Tex Watson personally killed everyone who was murdered those two nights.
How’s that? 
Against that, you’ve got Charlie saying to Susan Atkins, “Do something witchy.” Come on, people, throw your brains into this one. Do you all think that the official Manson Family story couldn’t havev been manipulated a bit? Do you believe Charlie could stop the Prosecutor’s watch? For real?
The link on Watson doesn’t say anything about Manson being present at the LaBianca house, as far as I can see. It says Manson sent him off with the girls and remained behind.
Are you using hearsay as a term of art, or in a lay sense?
This makes me feel sorry for Gerald Ford … [click click]
As for “hearsay,” I’m referring to when Someone’s Lawyer Said That Someone Told Him That Thing. That is, as far as I know, what hearsay is. And wasn’t that, like, the 2nd and/or 3rd item yuo cited? I don’t know anything about ‘hearsay’ as a “term of art”??? Or in a “lay” sense.??
That’s a reference to the first night, when the murders at the Tate house occurred. Later, the article says, “Before stepping down from the witness box, Watson said that the following day Manson gave him a knife and some acid and that they set out in a car”. The next night was when the LaBianca’s were killed.
Admittedly, it’s not a point blank description. But I was just going by contemporary newspaper accounts, and skimming to see what I could find to corroborate the argument that Manson did in fact drive to the LaBianca house and tied up the victims. I’ll see if I can find something more definitive.
[QUOTE=Tapu]
I’m aware of it. I’m also aware that it is self-serving and/or hearsay in each instance. It was not used at trial. (significant, no?)
[/QUOTE]
All of the cites I provided were from contemporary newspaper accounts of the trial; the information was most certainly used at the trial - that’s why I referred to it as “testimony.”
You’re saying that there was evidence given at Trial that Manson went along on the La Bianca killings? You may be right–I can’t remember everything from this complex and diverging record of events.
My whole point about this is: What you think you (or anyone) know about the “Manson Family Murders” may not be right or true because there was a ton of manipulation by the establishment and the willing media. The “real” story is lost. The myth grows beyond its initial conception and justification.
You asked what testimony, or evidence, supported the contention that Manson was present. I gave some examples, after just skimming online for a little bit.
Now it’s your turn; what evidence do you have that rebuts the examples I gave?
Your blog was mentioned in the OP and you mentioned your blog in post #10. I’m beginning to see your blog as, possibly, the real issue here.
“So and so said” is hearsay as a lay sense. That is, as a non-lawyer would use the word.
Hearsay as a term of art (that is, the technical legal sense) is “an out of court declarative statement offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” In the legal sense, it doesn’t matter if hearsay came from a third party or directly from the witness; what matters is whether it was made under oath.
Compare the statements “I didn’t kill him” and “I told my wife I didn’t kill him.” They both convey the same general information, but the latter is generally inadmissible (if offered to prove that the witness did not in fact do it) while the former is just fine.
Whether the attorney’s testimony about what his former client said is hearsay depends on why it was offered into evidence.
Ah, thank you for the clarification.
This is hilarious. You indicated that at one time you had 43 books on the murder, and have written a blog in defense of Manson, but now you admit that you aren’t certain about the evidence presented at trial. Yet you criticize those who have drawn conclusions based on a review of the trial evidence. You have no particular evidence to contradict those conclusions, just a belief that the evidence that is out there isn’t right.
As Amateur Barbarian said upthread, “Ohhh-kayyyy”.
You can certainly characterize me that way if you wish. It’s no reason to accept everything you’ve ever been fed, all your life, about this particular event in history. Maybe I’m just an idiot. And everyone else who hasn’t studied it at all or just started is right.