Vincent Bugliosi Dies

[CenturyDeprived]

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Vincent-Bugliosi-Dies-at-80-306583811.html

Another peripheral person from the BB saga has passed. Did Bugliosi interview Denny, or try to get Denny peripherally involved in the Manson murder case? I imagine that Denny had stories/info which prosecutors would have found valuable to the case, at least tangentially speaking.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Ed would know better, but my impression is that DW flat out refused.

[JakeH]

Apologies in advance for this long-winded reply, but... the prosecution in this case would have certainly interviewed, or questioned Dennis, as would the LAPD of course. What Dennis didn't do was testify in court.  For obvious reasons (death threats) he was reluctant, if not outright unwilling to testify. Yet the prosecution needed Dennis for the nuts-and-bolts purpose of linking the defendants with the actual location of the crime: the house was Terry Melcher's former residence, so anyone who could serve as a link between Melcher and Manson was critical.  Dennis was such a person, but so was Gregg Jakobson. The fact that Gregg Jakobson was, in fact, willing to testify at the grand jury proceedings and at trial, meant that the prosecution did not need Dennis. Terry Melcher also testified at the grand jury and at trial. Melcher too couldn't have been very happy about being there, and I can only speculate as to whether the prosecution applied a little more pressure on him than Dennis.  They also ended up getting the critical testimony of the guy who actually owned the property, who had personally witnessed Manson lurking on the property months before.

One gets the impression that Gregg Jakobson was an important witness in the case (one of many), and, in terms of history, an important and relatively reliable (he wasn't a member of the "Family," nor is he a convicted killer) source of information about whatever life was like in the "Family." Jakobson testified about the White Album fixation, for instance.  To my knowledge, no one has ever speculated about the fact that the prosecution didn't push Dennis too hard not only because they had Jakobson, but because Dennis wouldn't have been a very good witness.  I'm speculating again, but I sort of think that everyone was lucky all around (except the defendants) that they had Jakobson, Melcher and the property owner's testimony and therefore could do without Dennis.

The Beach Boys as a whole benefitted from Dennis's low profile. Still, it's sort of amazing that there was so little publicity in the press that Manson was connected to one of the Beach Boys. While the LA Times had articles with headlines about "Doris Day's Son," there's maybe one mention of Dennis buried in some article. I think that it was a a recent book - I think the Stebbins & Rusten book - where they make the astute comment that this is actually a reflection of how far the Beach Boys had drifted from the public consciousness (in the USA at least).

By the way, in the movie Love & Mercy there is if I'm not mistaken a veiled reference to Dennis's involvement in this nightmare. It's the gloomy foreboding scene with the three brothers up on the patio at the house that is supposed to be Laurel Way. Dennis gazes out into the canyon and makes a dark, cryptic comment about loss.

[urbanite]

Bugliosi has said that he talked to Dennis about Manson and that Dennis was afraid of him.  Of course, he talked to him after Manson and Co. killed a number of people in a gruesome manner.

[filledeplage]

Apologies in advance for this long-winded reply, but... the prosecution in this case would have certainly interviewed, or questioned Dennis, as would the LAPD of course. What Dennis didn't do was testify in court.  For obvious reasons (death threats) he was reluctant, if not outright unwilling to testify. Yet the prosecution needed Dennis for the nuts-and-bolts purpose of linking the defendants with the actual location of the crime: the house was Terry Melcher's former residence, so anyone who could serve as a link between Melcher and Manson was critical.  Dennis was such a person, but so was Gregg Jakobson. The fact that Gregg Jakobson was, in fact, willing to testify at the grand jury proceedings and at trial, meant that the prosecution did not need Dennis. Terry Melcher also testified at the grand jury and at trial. Melcher too couldn't have been very happy about being there, and I can only speculate as to whether the prosecution applied a little more pressure on him than Dennis.  They also ended up getting the critical testimony of the guy who actually owned the property, who had personally witnessed Manson lurking on the property months before.

One gets the impression that Gregg Jakobson was an important witness in the case (one of many), and, in terms of history, an important and relatively reliable (he wasn't a member of the "Family," nor is he a convicted killer) source of information about whatever life was like in the "Family." Jakobson testified about the White Album fixation, for instance.  To my knowledge, no one has ever speculated about the fact that the prosecution didn't push Dennis too hard not only because they had Jakobson, but because Dennis wouldn't have been a very good witness.  I'm speculating again, but I sort of think that everyone was lucky all around (except the defendants) that they had Jakobson, Melcher and the property owner's testimony and therefore could do without Dennis.

The Beach Boys as a whole benefitted from Dennis's low profile. Still, it's sort of amazing that there was so little publicity in the press that Manson was connected to one of the Beach Boys. While the LA Times had articles with headlines about "Doris Day's Son," there's maybe one mention of Dennis buried in some article. I think that it was a a recent book - I think the Stebbins & Rusten book - where they make the astute comment that this is actually a reflection of how far the Beach Boys had drifted from the public consciousness (in the USA at least).

By the way, in the movie Love & Mercy there is if I'm not mistaken a veiled reference to Dennis's involvement in this nightmare. It's the gloomy foreboding scene with the three brothers up on the patio at the house that is supposed to be Laurel Way. Dennis gazes out into the canyon and makes a dark, cryptic comment about loss.

Excellent post! 

[sea of tunes]

By the way, in the movie Love & Mercy there is if I'm not mistaken a veiled reference to Dennis's involvement in this nightmare. It's the gloomy foreboding scene with the three brothers up on the patio at the house that is supposed to be Laurel Way. Dennis gazes out into the canyon and makes a dark, cryptic comment about loss.

I took the comment in LOVE & MERCY to be more forshadowing his drowning, than  anything else.

Regarding Vincent Bugliosi, I have always appreciated his level-headedness regarding the JFK assasination.  And I'll leave it at that.

[Mike's Beard]

Dennis never did give up what he knew about the case, at least publicly. I know he didn't believe that Manson killed or ordered anyone to be killed, an opinion I also lean towards.

[ash]

By the way, in the movie Love & Mercy there is if I'm not mistaken a veiled reference to Dennis's involvement in this nightmare. It's the gloomy foreboding scene with the three brothers up on the patio at the house that is supposed to be Laurel Way. Dennis gazes out into the canyon and makes a dark, cryptic comment about loss.

I took the comment in LOVE & MERCY to be more forshadowing his drowning, than  anything else.

Regarding Vincent Bugliosi, I have always appreciated his level-headedness regarding the JFK assasination.  And I'll leave it at that.

I have always appreciated his level-headedness regarding the RFK assassination.

[wilsonart1]

The small town of Hibbing , Mn. is the place Vincent Bugliosi was born .  Bob Dylan 's home town, such a small town to have such well known people from. More worthless info!

[Howie Edelson]

What's fascinating about Jakobson is that he was totally unfazed and fearless over supplying testimony. I've talked to him at length about Manson, etc. and when I asked him about fear of retaliation, Gregg said -- and I'm paraphrasing -- that Manson probably didn't even mind that Jakobson was on the stand for the prosecution because he was telling THE TRUTH. Essentially, if he had spoken to Bugliosi and testified and LIED about conversations and occurrences, then Manson would've been pissed, but speaking honestly evidently didn't raise Manson's ire.

Kinda like "But to live outside the law you must be honest. . . ."


Jakobson's a fascinating character -- as are most of the people Dennis surrounded himself with.

Great shot of Jakobson entering court, 1971:
http://murderpedia.org/male.M/images/manson-charles/charles-manson-247.jpg

[JakeH]

What's fascinating about Jakobson is that he was totally unfazed and fearless over supplying testimony. I've talked to him at length about Manson, etc. and when I asked him about fear of retaliation, Gregg said -- and I'm paraphrasing -- that Manson probably didn't even mind that Jakobson was on the stand for the prosecution because he was telling THE TRUTH. Essentially, if he had spoken to Bugliosi and testified and LIED about conversations and occurrences, then Manson would've been pissed, but speaking honestly evidently didn't raise Manson's ire.

Kinda like "But to live outside the law you must be honest. . . ."

Yes, and thank you for dropping this tidbit. I'd never heard this in any of the published material about Jakobson. Based on what I've read about this whole horrid affair, I can totally believe this. Manson didn't (doesn't) really care about going to prison; he knew nothing else in life. It was the way that he was convicted that drives him crazy, so to speak.

[guitarfool2002]

One issue about the Bugliosi-Manson connection is that there was quite a bundle of information that did not make it to either the court through Bugliosi's prosecution, nor did it get into most if not every period report of the events. There are reasons for this, or it could be implied there are reasons for this by digging a little deeper under the surface of all involved, as well as the scene in which Manson waltzed in and out of surrounding LA and Hollywood at the time.

Put it this way: Vincent Bugliosi had a job to do as prosecutor for his area, and that was to win a conviction in a jury trial. He had to write what amounted to a narrative and support that narrative using the evidence, research, and witnesses that he had to work with, and write that narrative into a story convincing enough to win over a jury enough to convict based on the evidence they heard.

Part of that process involves the psychological elements of trying to convince a group of strangers of something you're telling them, so they believe you over the defense. Related to that is the process of deciding which specific elements of the case and exactly what evidence and testimony you can use to convince those strangers in the jury to believe you, and eliminating elements that may be more difficult to prove, or which may put the case in general in a different perspective than you might want in order to be most convincing in proving your case.

Bugliosi did that masterfully with the Manson case, and the way he did it is well documented in the book Helter Skelter. He achieved the goal he was given as prosecutor, which was to convict Manson and any number of his followers in jury trials.

However, consider there were other elements, not "conspiracy theory" stuff, but just some basic historical events and happenings that surrounded the Manson case as a whole, and which Bugliosi left out of the narrative he used to get the convictions in court.

Among them: The role drugs and Manson's involvement with the drug trade played in his life. Bugliosi spins the story as Manson "The Wizard" with all associated implications, and that could be because if the drug-trade angle were played up, it could have been taken as just another series of drug deals gone bad, and never mind the sensationalism, a jury would look at a case built atop convicting a drug dealer in crimes related to drug dealing perhaps differently than the way Manson's case played out.

Again, Bugliosi as the prosecutor did this masterfully, and won the case much to his credit. But there are still questions about the events he left out of the case: Not at all questioning what he did, but just saying a read into more elements of the Manson saga reveals more than what Helter Skelter might have suggested was in play.

Manson's story, some might suggest, would make "Hollywood Babylon" look like a nursery rhyme. It wasn't just what he did, but also who he interacted with and why he even got the access to interact with them. Obviously if some of the Babylon-type rumors and whispers were or are true, there could have been a lot of wrecked careers in the entertainment business had it gotten out in 1969-70. Perhaps not wanting to drag some names and reputations through the mud could have been a factor, and perhaps things were done to ensure that anonymity as the case was heard in open court.

I might compare it to the old film cliche of a Madam character who has a little black book full of names of the powerful and connected, and if anything happens to go wrong where that book could be made public, it would be a bomb going off.

Again I'm not into conspiracies, I'm not challenging or questioning Bugliosi because he ultimately won the case and did his job, but for those interested in the history of the era, the scene around LA in the 60's, and the whole saga in general, try to dig a little deeper and see how many connections start to appear, things like the drug trade and who was involved (and also who happened to be at the Tate house that day and what they are said to have been involved with), and it leads down many interesting paths.

As far as Manson killing anyone, check into what happened regarding a certain drug dealer prior to the Tate-LaBianca killings, and how Manson was said to be involved in that, too. But again, the big fish Bugliosi had to reel in during the trial wasn't a drug deal gone bad, it was the Tate-LaBianca "hippy murderers" angle that he used to almost guarantee a win in court. But there was a lot of evidence still on the table after the guilty verdict. And some of that can be the more interesting stuff.

Just think about this: Neil Young bought Manson a motorcycle. Neil freakin' Young...who also was a guest of the Manson clan and heard Charlie's music. In what kind of friendship circles around the LA scene did Neil Young end up coming to the decision to buy this guy a motorcycle? Then apply that to Hollywood TV-film circles beyond musicians and artists, and consider just what Manson may have been doing in order to have access in those circles.

So these conspiracy theories about Charlie's guilt or innocence - Just take 'em with a grain of salt and if interested, dig a little deeper into what this guy was doing in LA at that time and who he was rolling with. It's not quite the same perspective as Helter Skelter writes with, and not the same perspective Vincent Bugliosi used to get those convictions in court.

[Mike's Beard]

With Bug gone I'd like to see a new hardball interview with Linda Kasabian happen. I've never seen Linda been interviewed without him beside her, monitoring every word that came out of her mouth. Who knows what she might let slip without the Bug to coach her responses?

[Mike's Beard]

One issue about the Bugliosi-Manson connection is that there was quite a bundle of information that did not make it to either the court through Bugliosi's prosecution, nor did it get into most if not every period report of the events. There are reasons for this, or it could be implied there are reasons for this by digging a little deeper under the surface of all involved, as well as the scene in which Manson waltzed in and out of surrounding LA and Hollywood at the time.

Put it this way: Vincent Bugliosi had a job to do as prosecutor for his area, and that was to win a conviction in a jury trial. He had to write what amounted to a narrative and support that narrative using the evidence, research, and witnesses that he had to work with, and write that narrative into a story convincing enough to win over a jury enough to convict based on the evidence they heard.

Part of that process involves the psychological elements of trying to convince a group of strangers of something you're telling them, so they believe you over the defense. Related to that is the process of deciding which specific elements of the case and exactly what evidence and testimony you can use to convince those strangers in the jury to believe you, and eliminating elements that may be more difficult to prove, or which may put the case in general in a different perspective than you might want in order to be most convincing in proving your case.

Bugliosi did that masterfully with the Manson case, and the way he did it is well documented in the book Helter Skelter. He achieved the goal he was given as prosecutor, which was to convict Manson and any number of his followers in jury trials.

However, consider there were other elements, not "conspiracy theory" stuff, but just some basic historical events and happenings that surrounded the Manson case as a whole, and which Bugliosi left out of the narrative he used to get the convictions in court.

Among them: The role drugs and Manson's involvement with the drug trade played in his life. Bugliosi spins the story as Manson "The Wizard" with all associated implications, and that could be because if the drug-trade angle were played up, it could have been taken as just another series of drug deals gone bad, and never mind the sensationalism, a jury would look at a case built atop convicting a drug dealer in crimes related to drug dealing perhaps differently than the way Manson's case played out.

Again, Bugliosi as the prosecutor did this masterfully, and won the case much to his credit. But there are still questions about the events he left out of the case: Not at all questioning what he did, but just saying a read into more elements of the Manson saga reveals more than what Helter Skelter might have suggested was in play.

Manson's story, some might suggest, would make "Hollywood Babylon" look like a nursery rhyme. It wasn't just what he did, but also who he interacted with and why he even got the access to interact with them. Obviously if some of the Babylon-type rumors and whispers were or are true, there could have been a lot of wrecked careers in the entertainment business had it gotten out in 1969-70. Perhaps not wanting to drag some names and reputations through the mud could have been a factor, and perhaps things were done to ensure that anonymity as the case was heard in open court.

I might compare it to the old film cliche of a Madam character who has a little black book full of names of the powerful and connected, and if anything happens to go wrong where that book could be made public, it would be a bomb going off.

Again I'm not into conspiracies, I'm not challenging or questioning Bugliosi because he ultimately won the case and did his job, but for those interested in the history of the era, the scene around LA in the 60's, and the whole saga in general, try to dig a little deeper and see how many connections start to appear, things like the drug trade and who was involved (and also who happened to be at the Tate house that day and what they are said to have been involved with), and it leads down many interesting paths.

As far as Manson killing anyone, check into what happened regarding a certain drug dealer prior to the Tate-LaBianca killings, and how Manson was said to be involved in that, too. But again, the big fish Bugliosi had to reel in during the trial wasn't a drug deal gone bad, it was the Tate-LaBianca "hippy murderers" angle that he used to almost guarantee a win in court. But there was a lot of evidence still on the table after the guilty verdict. And some of that can be the more interesting stuff.

Just think about this: Neil Young bought Manson a motorcycle. Neil freakin' Young...who also was a guest of the Manson clan and heard Charlie's music. In what kind of friendship circles around the LA scene did Neil Young end up coming to the decision to buy this guy a motorcycle? Then apply that to Hollywood TV-film circles beyond musicians and artists, and consider just what Manson may have been doing in order to have access in those circles.

So these conspiracy theories about Charlie's guilt or innocence - Just take 'em with a grain of salt and if interested, dig a little deeper into what this guy was doing in LA at that time and who he was rolling with. It's not quite the same perspective as Helter Skelter writes with, and not the same perspective Vincent Bugliosi used to get those convictions in court.

I do believe strings were pulled and favors were called in to keep Sebring and Frykowski's drug dealings out of the picture.

[Ed Roach]

One thing about Dennis, (at least right on through the early 80's), was that when he was adamant about something, there was absolutely no way he could be budged.  He said right from the gate that he would never take the stand, and to his credit, he didn't.  If you research the timeframe when the case/witnesses were being assembled, you would see these tours, (and sometimes they were mini-tours), which Nick Grillo threw together to keep Dennis unavailable.  Every time they managed to serve him, they would get a response that it was impossible as The Beach Boys were on tour.

Eventually Bugliosi wasn't going to stand for it any longer, and so Dennis agreed to meet with him privately for an interview.  I believe they talked for quite some time, perhaps most of an afternoon, but at the end Dennis told him that was it, and not to waste his time trying to get him on the stand.  Pretty sure it was within this context that it was agreed Gregg could sufficiently testify to avoid any further need of Dennis.


On a side note, I do remember a Rolling Stone interview with Gregg around the time of his testimony, where he was referred to by a fictitious name  

[ash]

One issue about the Bugliosi-Manson connection is that there was quite a bundle of information that did not make it to either the court through Bugliosi's prosecution, nor did it get into most if not every period report of the events. There are reasons for this, or it could be implied there are reasons for this by digging a little deeper under the surface of all involved, as well as the scene in which Manson waltzed in and out of surrounding LA and Hollywood at the time.

Put it this way: Vincent Bugliosi had a job to do as prosecutor for his area, and that was to win a conviction in a jury trial. He had to write what amounted to a narrative and support that narrative using the evidence, research, and witnesses that he had to work with, and write that narrative into a story convincing enough to win over a jury enough to convict based on the evidence they heard.

Part of that process involves the psychological elements of trying to convince a group of strangers of something you're telling them, so they believe you over the defense. Related to that is the process of deciding which specific elements of the case and exactly what evidence and testimony you can use to convince those strangers in the jury to believe you, and eliminating elements that may be more difficult to prove, or which may put the case in general in a different perspective than you might want in order to be most convincing in proving your case.

Bugliosi did that masterfully with the Manson case, and the way he did it is well documented in the book Helter Skelter. He achieved the goal he was given as prosecutor, which was to convict Manson and any number of his followers in jury trials.

However, consider there were other elements, not "conspiracy theory" stuff, but just some basic historical events and happenings that surrounded the Manson case as a whole, and which Bugliosi left out of the narrative he used to get the convictions in court.

Among them: The role drugs and Manson's involvement with the drug trade played in his life. Bugliosi spins the story as Manson "The Wizard" with all associated implications, and that could be because if the drug-trade angle were played up, it could have been taken as just another series of drug deals gone bad, and never mind the sensationalism, a jury would look at a case built atop convicting a drug dealer in crimes related to drug dealing perhaps differently than the way Manson's case played out.

Again, Bugliosi as the prosecutor did this masterfully, and won the case much to his credit. But there are still questions about the events he left out of the case: Not at all questioning what he did, but just saying a read into more elements of the Manson saga reveals more than what Helter Skelter might have suggested was in play.

Manson's story, some might suggest, would make "Hollywood Babylon" look like a nursery rhyme. It wasn't just what he did, but also who he interacted with and why he even got the access to interact with them. Obviously if some of the Babylon-type rumors and whispers were or are true, there could have been a lot of wrecked careers in the entertainment business had it gotten out in 1969-70. Perhaps not wanting to drag some names and reputations through the mud could have been a factor, and perhaps things were done to ensure that anonymity as the case was heard in open court.

I might compare it to the old film cliche of a Madam character who has a little black book full of names of the powerful and connected, and if anything happens to go wrong where that book could be made public, it would be a bomb going off.

Again I'm not into conspiracies, I'm not challenging or questioning Bugliosi because he ultimately won the case and did his job, but for those interested in the history of the era, the scene around LA in the 60's, and the whole saga in general, try to dig a little deeper and see how many connections start to appear, things like the drug trade and who was involved (and also who happened to be at the Tate house that day and what they are said to have been involved with), and it leads down many interesting paths.

As far as Manson killing anyone, check into what happened regarding a certain drug dealer prior to the Tate-LaBianca killings, and how Manson was said to be involved in that, too. But again, the big fish Bugliosi had to reel in during the trial wasn't a drug deal gone bad, it was the Tate-LaBianca "hippy murderers" angle that he used to almost guarantee a win in court. But there was a lot of evidence still on the table after the guilty verdict. And some of that can be the more interesting stuff.

Just think about this: Neil Young bought Manson a motorcycle. Neil freakin' Young...who also was a guest of the Manson clan and heard Charlie's music. In what kind of friendship circles around the LA scene did Neil Young end up coming to the decision to buy this guy a motorcycle? Then apply that to Hollywood TV-film circles beyond musicians and artists, and consider just what Manson may have been doing in order to have access in those circles.

So these conspiracy theories about Charlie's guilt or innocence - Just take 'em with a grain of salt and if interested, dig a little deeper into what this guy was doing in LA at that time and who he was rolling with. It's not quite the same perspective as Helter Skelter writes with, and not the same perspective Vincent Bugliosi used to get those convictions in court.

I very much agree. While Bug essentially got the right verdict in court, i find the rest of  his story   re Manson deeply unconvincing. There appears to have been a certain protection of Hollywood elite/ celeb lifestyle/ drug dealing going on. Does anyone really believe that the reasons for those awful murders  was as given in Helter Skelter etc..? The whole case is so horrible it is easier to blame things like the White Album rather than take a good hard look at other areas of scrutiny. There again, Yoko's singing on Bungalow Bill is pretty offensive and does sometimes make me want to kill. Maybe i'm wrong.
 He did have things right in the RFK case though. I wish he'd done something about it. It would have been really interesting to see where that would have lead.