HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Something trump apologist...

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 08:36 AM

Something trump apologists need to think about:

Charlie Manson never killed anyone.

4 replies, 559 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 4 replies Author Time Post
Reply Something trump apologists need to think about: (Original post)
mobeau69 Friday OP
yardwork Friday #1
Funtatlaguy Friday #4
Guy Whitey Corngood Friday #2
Cary Friday #3

Response to mobeau69 (Original post)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 08:37 AM

1. There it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 08:56 AM

4. Michael Cohens testimony on this subject was instructive.

He said that Trump would never tell people to commit crimes in so many words.
But he used coded words or phrases to get his wishes across.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mobeau69 (Original post)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 08:37 AM

2. K&Fuckin'R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mobeau69 (Original post)

Fri Mar 15, 2019, 08:44 AM

3. And as stated in People v. Manson:

At trial, respondent's evidence strongly supported a theory that the homicides were the product of conspiratorial relationships and activities. An enormous amount of evidence bearing on the societal association between Manson, Atkins, Krenwinkel, Van Houten and certain third persons was introduced. The scope of these relationships in terms of time and intensity is germane. While it is true that mere association with the perpetrator of a crime does not prove criminal conspiracy, it is a starting place for examination. (People v. Lewis (1963) 222 Cal. App. 2d 136, 144 [35 Cal. Rptr. 1].)

The very nature of this case and the theory of the prosecution compel reference to circumstantial evidence of the conduct and relationship of the parties. [1] People v. Kobey (1951) 105 Cal. App. 2d 548 [234 P.2d 251] confirms that such reference is proper: "Virtually the only method by which a conspiracy can be proved is by circumstantial evidence -- the actions of the parties as they bear upon the common design. It is not necessary to show directly that the parties actually closeted themselves, attained the proverbial meeting of the minds and agreed to undertake the unlawful acts. [Citation.] It is a familiar principle of the law that in deriving whether an agreement was unlawful the triers of the fact may consider the events that occurred 'at or before' or 'subsequent' to the formation of the agreement. From the proof of the occurrences beforehand and at the time of the agreement linked with evidence of the overt acts a jury may determine that a criminal conspiracy was formed. [Citations.] The major portion of the evidence might consist of the conversations and writings of the conspirators or it may consist of the overt acts done pursuant to the conspiracy. Such acts may establish the purpose and intent of the conspiracy and relate back to the agreement whose purpose may be otherwise enshrouded in the hush-hush admonitions of the conspirators. Whatever be the order of proof the jury has finally to determine whether the alleged conspiracy has been established." (People v. Kobey, supra, p. 562; see also, People v. Steccone (1950) 36 Cal. 2d 234, 237-238 [223 P.2d 17]; People v. Wheeler (1972) 23 Cal. App. 3d 290, 307 [100 Cal. Rptr. 198]; People v. Finch (1963) 213 Cal. App. 2d 752 [29 Cal. Rptr. 420].)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread