45 Years Later, Defense Attorney in Manson Case Speaks Irving Kanarek was assigned as Charles Mansons attorney during the Tate-LaBianca trial, after his 6th Amendment Right of self-representation was violated. In a recent article by TheGuardian, Kanarek, now 94, claims that Manson was legally innocent, and actually innocent. He gives his take on Manson, the trial, and the debilitating media frenzy surrounding it all. “I would defend a client who I knew was guilty of horrific crimes. They have to be proved guilty. Ive had cases where people were guilty as hell but they couldnt prove it. And if they cant prove it, hes not guilty. In that case, the person walks free. Thats American justice. I got a reversal of Jimmy Lees death sentence, and he had been accused of killing a police officer. That made me the victim of police non-objectivity. They pulled me over, gave me tickets undeservedly. It wasnt a difficult decision to take the Manson case. My purpose was to fight legally admissible evidence, and the amount of that was scant. His guilt was based on a few hearsay words, inadmissible in court, that he supposedly told this guy to do a number on the Tate residence. No question he was legally innocent. And, more than that, he was actually innocent. There was no evidence connecting him to those murders. The newspapers, the magazines, the motion pictures got people all excited – Manson as the embodiment of human evil. Charlie wasnt a monster. When you look at the legally admissible evidence, you come to a very different conclusion. Just looking at him from objective considerations, hes a personable person.” “Ive thought a lot about the case in terms of the legalities. I havent dwelt much on the human tragedy of it. Theres a lot of myth, for example that the baby was taken out of Tates body. Not so. The wounds were not in the abdomen. The wounds were primarily in the breast area. I didnt spend much time [thinking about Tate and the other victims], because they were victims of disputes that Charlie had nothing to do with. I think his direct involvement has been woefully extrapolated. By the time I visited the house, the bodies were gone. The scene was what Id call mechanical. Nothing about it was gruesome, per se. Theyd marked where they were in chalk. So it isnt as overwhelming as some people may feel. None of it stayed with me. The tools of the courtroom make such scenes less than human. I didnt think about it emotionally. The victims are part of the case, but are not that tangible. I lost sleep on other cases, but not on this one. People ask me, have I ever felt in the presence of evil, I dont know how to respond to that. I dont dream or even think much about Charlie. I have regrets about every case where someone is killed or injured. Murder is unappetising. But Ive never defended anyone whos been accused of horrible criminal acts on children.” - Irving Kanarek TheGuardian, June 27, 2014
Posted on: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 06:44:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015