By Dennis Lund
You know my heart keeps tellin’ me
You’re not a kid at thirty-three
You play around you lose your wife,
You play too long, you lose your life
Some gotta win, some gotta lose
Good Time Charlie’s got the blues
— Danny O’Keefe
CHARLIE MANSON’S NAME, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY CONTINUES TO COME UP PERIODICALLY, was once again in the news recently amid talk that he may soon get married. Judging from pictures of the 25-year-old fiancée of the infamous swastika-emblazoned Charlie, she would appear to be as bat-guano crazy as her beau.
In 1967, Charlie, age 33 and newly released from prison, found a predatory haven in the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco. Available there were plenty of nubile young women to fall for his smooth talk, disarming personality and powerful methods. Lots of drugs also helped.
Yes, he was not a kid at 33, but he found many “kids” to prey upon, some of whom followed him to infamy when he relocated his growing entourage to the Hollywood Hills and later the San Fernando Valley.
The Tate-LaBianca murders in the summer of 1969 was a pretty frightening time in Los Angeles. I recall my aunt and uncle, who lived in the Los Feliz area where the LaBiancas were gruesomely slaughtered, spending a few nights with us and then with other family at the height of the scare.
After the murders the Manson “family” would party: sex, drugs and rock and roll. Yes, “good-time” Charlie was the ring leader and life of the party, but he played too long and too hard and in a just world he should have lost his life at San Quentin’s death row, as a jury decided.
Now, instead, he may be getting married. Thank you very much Jerry and Rose.
I am not a strong advocate of the death penalty myself, but for Charlie, I’d make an exception.
* * *
VINCENT BUGLIOSI, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHO PROSECUTED CHARLIE, is one reason I say that. When I was in college in the late ’70s, Mr. Bugliosi was a guest speaker to a small group of 30-40 interested students; having read “Helter Skelter,” I was among them. I still vividly recall two things he said.
First, of all the murderers, muggers, buggerers, thieves, criminals and con men he had interacted with over the years, the only one who deeply frightened him was Charlie Manson.
Second, bear in mind the difficulty of Bugliosi’s task: proving Manson’s guilt in a crime committed when he was not at the scene. Bugliosi said the turning point in the case came when Charlie entered the courtroom with an X carved in his forehead, the fresh wound still dripping blood. A recess was called, Charlie’s self-inflicted wound was bandaged and the court was re-adjourned.
It was when Charlie’s girls entered the courtroom to take their first-row seats that Charlie’s fate was sealed: Some of the girls had similarly carved X’s into their own foreheads. Bugliosi immediately looked at the jurors and realized from the stunned looks on their faces that the girls had made his case for him. Charlie indeed had that much power over others.
I became an admirer of Bugliosi’s after that lecture and have now read four of his books, including “And the Sea Will Tell,” about the double murders that occurred on remote Palmyra Atoll; “Outrage,” about how O.J. got away with murder; and “Betrayal,” about the SCOTUS decision regarding the election of 2000.
Bugliosi is one of the best legal minds in the country and a brilliant trial lawyer. Regarding the Supreme Court Bush-Gore decision, legally he is right — the proper forum for the decision was at the state level, not the federal. But one question not answered was: Since the Florida Supreme Court’s actions were illegal as determined by SCOTUS in a 7-2 decision, who else was available to stop them?
In that case two wrongs made a right.
* * *
FOR THE LAST MONTH THE HERALD has featured a series on locals’ memories of the day JFK was shot 50 years ago. On the paper’s blog, beniciaherald.me, a discussion has arisen on who was actually responsible for the assassination.
It’s a discussion that, there and elsewhere, will probably never conclude, in large part because of the unlimited variables and theories involved. One current book even proclaims LBJ to be the “man behind the man.” The consensus of opinion seems to be that Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy, just as he claimed at the time.
However, one person — Vince Bugliosi — does not buy into any of the “tin foil hat” theories. He has written two books on the subject; one, “Reclaiming History,” makes the claim that the much-maligned Warren Report actually got it right, and Oswald was indeed the lone gunman.
I myself have not made the commitment to take on this weighty tome, which is more than 1,500 pages, but in an interview Mr. Bugliosi made an excellent point: “To anyone who disputes the Warren Report I ask one simple question: Have you read it? And not the 900-page summary, the full 26 volumes. I have, and they got it right.”
His boastfulness notwithstanding, the man has researched the subject in far more depth than most and his opinion deserves respect.
Personally, I never bought into the lone gunman theory. A few years ago, with longtime friend, Dallas native and fellow JFK assassination buff Don Silverthorne I visited Dealey Plaza, the school book depository and the Oak Cliff area where Officer Tippit was killed and Oswald captured.
That visit served to reinforce for me that Oswald was not acting alone. But sometimes you only see what you are looking for and not what is there.
Maybe it is time to read another Bugliosi book.
Dennis Lund is a mechanical engineer who lived in Benicia for more than 20 years.
Sharing is caring!
Good article Dennis, I had that same book “Helter Skelter”, loaned it to a friend and never saw the book again.
I think it was a hit, Ruby was paid to silence Ozwald, Mob job
Thanks RKJ
loaned it to a friend and never saw the book again
Sometimes ‘loans’ are actually ‘gifts’ which you did not realize you were giving at the time.
LOL, yes exactly
Oh, Dennis…watch the entire Zapruder film and not that pablum-snippet we have been fed for so many years…as early or late as 1975 extended frames witheld from the public show a frontal entry shot clearly blowing off a large rear area of JFK’s skull and brain…Momentum as you may recall from high school and college and Newton’s laws of physics trumps anything Bugliosi can conjure up from 400 readings of the collected works of the Warren Report…Frontal impact causes rearward skull motion, rear impact causes forward motion…interview all the witnesses, listen to all their observations not just those that follow an agenda-driven conclusion before the facts. I believe Newton, the only thing worse than a “tin-hat theorist” is a non-science book writer adhering to a shop-worn, agenda driven coverup story…pb
If they were witheld from the public how could we see them Peter? Peter you again are on the losing team with no concrete evidence. Just you and Harvey.
Peter,
You’re preaching to the choir, as I have long felt there was in fact a conspiracy. Part of what interests me about reading Bugliosi’s book is that of all the JFK assassination books I have read (8), I have not yet read one which defends the Warren Report or the lone gunman theory.
Always best to look at both sides.
Dennis we differ on this.
Bob doesn’t believe in looking at both sides.
Hank you now that is not true. It appears Hank you again are looking into the mirror and seeing someone else. Just own up to your own beliefs and
we will all be very happy. I may not agree Hank with your beliefs but I do believe you and many others know I stand behind my beliefs and the JFK issue is over and done. I have for many years looked at both sides and have come to my own conclusion like it or not.
Just going by what you wrote. And your entire history on this blog.
Hank I could say that about you and many local Liberals as well. You have not followed my LTTE on the City which are very positive nor my LttE on the Mayor which are factual. Just saying Hank. You have an opinion of me and you do not even know me. Yes many Liberals in town do not like what I stand for. It appears the local Liberals are more vocal and into name calling. I do not see that in the local Conservatives. Could it be the local Conservatives are more comfortable in their life style and quietly contribute to the goodwill of others without looking for recognition. Just a different and effective approach.
Bob said: Could it be the local Conservatives are more comfortable in their life style and quietly contribute to the goodwill of others without looking for recognition.
Exactly right Bob.
On top of that, Conservatives use their money to help others while the neo-progs like to use the money of others to help those of their choosing.
The problem with liberals is if you had a life boat with a capacity of 30 and 200 people in the water they would try to get everyone into the boat even if it would sink it. It’s nice to save everybody but at some point common sense has to be applied
Who decides the capacity of this “lifeboat”?
Conservatives think Scrooge was right.
Where did you hear that Hank? This is not make believe land this is a comment section. Just where have you been. I know, trying to manipulate the Presidents figure to make him and his loyal local Liberals look good. Thats Ok it will hang in there for some time and could get worse. But Hank and his fellow local Liberals will just continue to play make believe.
No manipulation Bob. The president and his party will be fine. As the old white folks die out, your party will wither and shrink to the fringe, like it already has here in California. California is the future Bob. I know it frightens you. It should. The things you hold dear are slipping from your grasp. As you point out, liberals already have the cities. That’s where the people are, Bob.
As for Scrooge, “Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons?” Sound familiar Bob? It might as well be a plank in the GOP platform.
You could say that Bob, but you’d be wrong by way of being simplistic. Also there are too few conservatives in Benicia to matter.
That’s OK Bob. There are enough conspiracy theories for every one.
Personally, I think Jim Garrison was on the right track with Clay ‘Bertrum’ Shaw.
But then maybe it was Oswald, a commie left wing nut job.
None of us know for sure.
Gasp!!!!!!
Peter anything you say about this issue has never been proven and you know it. Many people have ideas but the simple thing is none have been proven Peter stick to the Warren Report. Maybe better yet think UFO’s and Area 51. You lose on all of them.
JFK’s death will remain a mystery forever, probably. Lincoln was killed almost 150 years ago and there are still conspiracy theories floating around, including one that says Mrs. Lincoln was involved, one that says J W Booth wasn’t killed in the barn but escaped and died in the 1920s in Oklahoma, and one that says Sec. Seward was the mastermind. We will probably never really know unless a deathbed confession turns up!
http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-can-remember-exactly-where-he-was-what-he,34647/
What about the vampires?
Good column D.
Very enjoyable read.
And my vote goes to LBJ…
-John
Thank you John. I am glad you enjoyed the piece.
Regarding the assassination we need to consider motivation.
The two most obvious are: Retribution for acts committed (Bay of Pigs, Mob mols) or acts not committed (further escalation in Vietnam).
If LBJ did it, those motivations are likely out. Which brings us to:
Control of Power.
But this has two sides: Being in control (LBJ) and being controlled (by the CIA or others).
If LBJ decided he desired to be President so much that he conspired to have the President killed, why then did he relinquish power after such a short time? It would be interesting to see how Stone covers that aspect in his book.
The obvious answer is that Vietnam broke him, as can happen, but I think LBJ was made of tougher mettle.
I still fall back on the bulk of the ‘conspiracies’ came after the fact as many people were trying to save their ass (guilt by association or implication) under the guise of ‘protecting the nation’.
Good points Dennis.
But I probably have to recuse myself here…
I’m in the middle of the book: LBJ – The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination, and am being swayed by it!
-John
I would be interested in your take on the book after you finish it.