Vincent BugliosiBesprekingen
Auteur van Helter Skelter
Besprekingen
Final thought: I was surprised and titillated at how much the author threw the cops under the bus, it must have been quite controversial at the time.
Bugliosi's claim that atheists dismiss without justification the claims of deism, which he also hasn't addressed to this point, which goes to show how little he knows about atheism. If he had read the article in Wikipedia, particularly if he followed the links to other related forms of doubt, especially the article on Theological Noncognitivists (Igtheism), he would have known much more than he appears to. Deism has been discussed at some length by atheists, particularly in historical works. Many atheists look upon deists as forebears. I am not aware that there are many deists at this time, although there are other forms loosely defined deities in Christianity, such as the variations on the idea of God as not a being, but Being itself, or deities so transcendent as to be unable to interact with humanity, and of course, if we go outside the Abrahamic religions, there are thousands of deities. If the Epicurean Paradox applies only to traditional Christianity, then Bugliosi has his work cut out for him disproving all of those gods. Incidentally, Bugliosi said that he was going to deal with Deism, but it's not in the index. He does discuss Judaisim, Islam, Hindusim, and Buddhism briefly, in a chapter entitled, "Hey Look at Us, We're Just as Silly as They Are." He doesn't really build a case about why they are invalid, especially the latter two. He simply describes Hinduism and Buddhism, and apparently expects the reader to see them as ridiculous. At least Judaism and Islam could be said to share the same problem with the Epicurean Paradox as Christianity does.
The reader may guess that I am an atheist. The usual definition is one who believes that there are no gods, also called positive atheism. I prefer the definition that it is one who is without a set of beliefs about god(s), negative atheism, or Sir John Cheke's, who in 1540 "coined the use of the word 'Atheists' to describe people who do not 'care whether there be a God or no [...].'", also called apatheism. Bugliosi mentions the differences between positive and negative atheism in his end notes. The latter two could of course, include agnostics, but since most prefer to distinguish between themselves and atheists, I don't use it that way. Where people like theological noncognitivists place themselves, I couldn't say, but I recommend reading the article on them in Wikipedia and following all the links. I refer to myself as an agnostic atheist, meaning that, after much thought and reading, I believe and think that there is no God-of the Four Omnis (omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent), although I know that it cannot be proven empirically, so far. Since it cannot be proven one way or the other, I feel free to go with what my reasoning tells me. When it comes to all other gods, I am an apatheist. I don't believe in any of them, and I have neither the time nor the interest to study them as I have the God of the Four Omnis. If they cannot or will not end suffering, I see no point in thinking about them, although others are free to revere them.
In building his case against the traditional Christian god, Bugliosi ranged over writings from the Bronze age to modern times. In considering atheism, he thinks that it is adequate to allow three authors (Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins), whose famous or infamous books on atheism were published in the 21st century, to represent all the millennia of people questioning the existence of god(s). He claims that this is valid because they have the benefit of all the writings that came before them; that doesn't mean that all that thought was included in any particular work. I was an atheist 30 years before any of these books were published, and they didn't make the enormous impression on me that they did on society, so I would have to reread them to question the accuracy of Bugliosi's descriptions. He is claims that Hitchens and Harris are discussing organized religion more than the existence of god, which makes them a poor choice for his examination of atheism. As Bugliosi himself says, they are not the same thing. He also, with his high regard for logic and impatience with non-sequitors, finds that the atheistic argument is compromised because he doesn't agree with Christopher Hitchens' politics, and assumes that neither does the reader.
Given the sloppiness of Bugliosi's arguments, I reread the crucial fourth chapter of Dawkin's book. Bugliosi thinks that he has reduced the chapter to nonsense by pointing out that at the end of his life, Darwin had moved from being a theist to being an agnostic. That has nothing to do with Dawkin's book - he isn't making an argument from authority, i.e., that we should be atheists because Darwin was. If he claims somewhere else that Darwin was, he doesn't say it here. That's irrelevant. Dawkins is arguing that Darwin's theory of natural selection explains the complexity of life better than a creator. Moreover, the multiverses that Bugliosi mocks are not pulled out of Dawkins' imagination, as Bugliosi implies. Those, and other ideas of universes, including serial universes and daughter universes were thought up by physicists. Dawkins merely discusses them - he is clear that this is not his field.
I have heard the argument about the complexity of god more than once, but Bugliosi often takes it out of context. It is a rebuttal to the argument that the universe is too complex to have arisen by chance, it must have a creator. The rebuttal is that a creator must be more complex than their design, so a creator god would be even more complex than the universe, and therefore is even less likely to arise by chance. It is not a stand-alone argument that a creator is too complex to exist. Bugliosi seems to be trying to get around this when he asks if computer designers are more complex than computers, but the comparison is inapt. Computers, like most complex technologies, develop incrementally with later designers adding to what already exists - one might say that they evolve. Who is arguing that computers do not have designers? Bugliosi triumphantly tells us that between the printing of the hardcover edition of his book, and the paperback, he appeared before two groups of people, many of them atheists, and refuted their arguments for atheism, at least in his own opinion. I'd be interested in a poll of the audience. By the time I finished this chapter, I began to wonder about the first three chapters as well.
Early in Chapter 5, "Darwin and Evolution," Bugliosi says, "I may be wrong about this . . ." He is. He seems to have read a scattershot collection of pieces about evolution, but he has never quite put it all together. We are not descended from modern monkeys. Parent species may or may not exist at the same time as daughter species. The evidence for evolution isn't solely fossils, it is also based on things like anatomy, embryology, and more recently, genetics. Moreover, one can't describe current evolutionary thinking solely by consulting Darwin's work. The theory has been expanded and refined several times by other work, and is referred to as Neo-Darwinism or the Modern Synthesis. Bugliosi then abandons evidence and logic to decide on the basis of personal anecdotes that evolution is hard pressed to explain memory and it is more likely the gift of a creator, and it is possible that the origin of life is with a creator who then let it evolve. He may remember that Dawkins refers to that as an Argument from Personal Incredulity and idea of the Lazy God. He quotes popes on the subject, as if he hadn't previously argued on the basis of the Epicurean Paradox that the Christian God can't exist. That, I guess, is his idea of arguing that one shouldn't disbelieve in gods.
I leafed through the rest of the book, but it's nothing that I haven't read before in atheist writings, and I was finding Bugliosi annoying. He's put a lot into debunking religion, especially Christianity, but his arguments for why an atheist should become an agnostic are very weak.
A waste of anyone's time.
What this book does is give a very lawyer-ly examination of why the prosecution botched this case completely, even against a poorly constructed defense. I think this would be a great read for a law student or for anyone really interested in the Simpson case. Unfortunately, I fit neither of those two categories. Bugliosi manages to entertain by being sarcastically arrogant in a way that some readers will really hate, but frankly I found to be necessary to really hold my attention. Needless to say, it is pretty scary how many factors came together to let O.J. Simpson off the hook. This book seemingly addresses every single one, but according to Bugliosi, there were even more small things that were done improperly. Let's just leave it to say that this book is carefully done, well done, but you just need to really care about the subject matter to find it a compelling read.
Last year I read a novel that might have been partly inspired by this true crime case. The author mentioned this book in her notes at the end of her novel, which triggered a memory of both this book and the made for television mini-series based on it. Although the novel jogged my memory- reminding me of the bare basics of this case, I had long forgotten the specifics. So, I thought I’d try to locate a copy of this book and re-read it sometime.
Though this edition was published in 2006- the book was originally published in early 1990s. The case in question began way back in the mid-1970s, when an affluent couple- Mac and Muff Graham took off on a long voyage aboard their sailboat- ‘The Sea Wind’- (this boat is actually called at ketch).
Apparently, Muff had a strong feeling of foreboding before embarking on this journey- and sadly, her intuitions proved correct.
Expecting the island of Palmyra to be uninhabited, the Graham’s were a bit irritated by the presence of Buck and Jennifer- a scrappy looking couple who were obviously ill prepared-the seaworthiness of their vessel is highly debatable- they are very low on provisions and are hanging around waiting for someone to bring them more supplies.
Meanwhile, the two couples would have to resign themselves to sharing the island. But, when the Graham’s go silent, not answering any attempts at communication, it raises serious questions. When Buck and Jennifer subsequently arrive in Hawaii aboard the Sea Wind attempting to pass the boat off as their own, they don’t fool anyone- and are eventually arrested for theft.
Years pass-
Then the skeletal remains of Muff Graham are discovered. Buck and Jennifer are arrested for murder- But they are tried separately.
This is where Bugliosi comes in. The attorney became a household name when he prosecuted Charles Manson. But at this time, he is trying to transition from prosecution to criminal defense -and this case would a good one bulk up his reputation- which is how he came to be Jennifer Jenkin’s attorney.
In this book, Bugliosi takes the reader through the entire case from start to finish. Although Bugliosi was a very good attorney- no matter what side of the debate- he is not exactly humble, and this comes through in the tone of this book. He is also verbose to the extreme. The book really should have been trimmed down by half- I’m not joking- because the author tended to go on long diatribes that made for dry reading at times.
Eventually, he gets down to brass tacks, leading to the ultimate courtroom showdown.
The argument was that Buck was guilty of murder- but Jennifer was totally clueless about it. Bugliosi was convinced of her innocence. But, even after reading this book twice now- I still don’t feel like we know the whole truth of what happened on that island.
To this day the body of Mac Graham has never surfaced…
Overall, despite being overly long this is a compelling murder mystery and a riveting courtroom drama.
3.5 stars
Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away with Murder (Paperback)
by Vincent Bugliosi
I loved this book, not just because of the compelling case Bugliosi makes but because of his musings on life which I found to be utterly delightful and a few of which I have taken to heart.
This is a really good book for Non Fiction readers. It really lays out the case and shows how the trial was so bungled.
It is long and rather wordy as his books tend to be but it is a great book and I'd highly recommend it.
― Vincent Bugliosi, And the Sea Will Tell
I like a good True crime book every now and then and I had already read Bugliosi's book about OJ Simpson so I tried this one. It is extremely long and very wordy. It is also a creeper of a book, all together more of a creeper because you are reading non fiction.
So I had a few thoughts. The first one is that there was so much packed in here and some parts were more interesting then others. There was ALOT of courtroom jargon and some aspects of this book were extremely difficult to follow. I also did feel my mind wander at some of the more legal aspects of the book.
But it is exceptionally well written and just horrifying to read about. It is much different then his book about Simpson.
So yes it is a well written and interesting book but it is quite long and took me awhile. If you are a true crime fan you will most likely want to read this.
The murders committed by the Family/Manson were the most vicious and barbaric killings I have ever read. I didn't realize either that it seemed to take law enforcement a long time to figure out who committed the murders, but in an era (1969) where DNA/forensic science didn't even exist, it doesn't surprise me that they were not able to find out who did it so easily. Also VICAP (Violent Criminal Apprehension Program) didn't exist either which if it had been around in 1969, Manson and his family would have been tracked down sooner.
Charles Manson was the worst of the worst kind of criminal and just seeing pictures of him, you can see the fruit loop craziness emanating towards you. He thought that the Beatles white album had hidden messages in their songs and that he was to obey them by killing people. His followers which were considered his family worshipped the ground he walked on and that anything he said they were to obey him immediately.
The author gives a very detailed account of the crimes that Manson and the Family committed and everything that law enforcement had to endure to bring this lunatic to justice. In my opinion, Manson sat on death row way too long and they should have sent him to the electric chair long time ago. Other known killers (Bundy, Ridgeway, etc.) did not sit on death row for a long time like Manson did, but thankfully he is no longer in this world. Giving this book four stars!
All around a fantastic, fascinating read for those interested in criminal psychology, the justice system, or even just wanting to know more about one of the most infamous criminals of all time.
I’m not saying Manson is innocent, but I inherently distrust prosecutors and should have known better than to read a book by one. I hear that more recent histories of the Manson Family actually critique the “Helter Skelter” narrative as their starting point, so maybe I’ll be better equipped to read one of those someday if I care enough.
Not Recommended.
I was in sixth grade when the principal came into the room to tell the teacher what happened. I remember the somber look of the principal, and the tears of mteacher.
Later that day, I asked my father to take me to be with my grandmother. A staunch Democrat, she very much was in favor of JFK. A stanch republication, my mother also was saddened by the brutality of the murder.
On November 22, 1963, at Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas, a skinny, angry man who was working at the book depository,, close enough so that when the presidential car rounded the corner, Lee Harvey Oswald positioned his gun and shot. There would be enough shots so that the back of the president's head was blown away.
Governor Connelly was in the limo with his wife. He too was shot, though he sustained his wounds. Both Connelly and Kennedy were immediately driven in a fast manner that the car actually flew in the air en route to the Parkland Hospital.
It is there that Kennedy, while still showing a small sound of a heart beat, died. His wife, Jackie Kennedy, sat in the corner of the room. Wearing her blood stain hat, and carrying a piece of the president's brain matter, she prayed, but she knew without a doubt her prayers for his ability to continue to live were futile.
This book is fascinating in the portrayal of the events and those who also would lose their lives as a result of that day.
Robert Kennedy, his brother and Attorney General was told via phone as he was eating his tuna sandwich, that his brother was dead. Told in a cold, clip manner, the director of the CIA, J. Edgar Hoover showed no remorse in the way in which he bluntly told his enemy Bobby Kennedy.
Bobby never recovered the loss of his brother. His hatred of J. Edgar Hoover grew. He slipped into long-lasting depression.
While I knew many of the facts, there were many things that I did not know.
In 1969, Charles Manson and a few of his “family” committed multiple murders two nights in a row. Vincent Bugliosi was the DA who got them convicted and sentenced to death. This book looked at the murders, the investigation, and the trials.
I listened to the audio, and unfortunately, this ended up being an abridged version of the book. As I ask in all my reviews of abridged audios – why? Why not record the entire book? Anyway, I read this when I was in high school (a few decades ago!), and it wasn’t as creepy as I remember. I can’t say for sure if the abridged version was the reason for that, but in part, I’m certain not seeing the photos was part of that. Charles Manson was a creepy creepy looking man. Since this was abridged, I still want to reread the entire thing. Overall, it appeared that the abridgement was done fairly well, though I’d much rather read the entire book.
Vincent Bugliosi worked the murder cases from the start, relentlessly investigating, then prosecuting. With this book, he provides one of the most intimate accounts of a criminal case ever published.
This book is heavy on details, but I found it all fascinating. Because this is written by a contemporary of the times, rather than by someone researching a crime from an earlier period, the emotions and experiences feel as tense and urgent as if this case were current. Through his writing, Bugliosi provides tremendous behind-the-scenes insight into the police investigation and drawn-out court proceedings.
Manson often claimed that, because he was brought up in the system, society, by default, created him. While this in no way excuses him, it does make for an interesting launching point in discussing our punitive system, particularly in how we treat our youth, which has changed little over the ensuing decades.
Onze site gebruikt cookies om diensten te leveren, prestaties te verbeteren, voor analyse en (indien je niet ingelogd bent) voor advertenties. Door LibraryThing te gebruiken erken je dat je onze Servicevoorwaarden en Privacybeleid gelezen en begrepen hebt. Je gebruik van de site en diensten is onderhevig aan dit beleid en deze voorwaarden.
The first page on the book reads: "The Story in Which You Are About to Read Will Scare the Hell Out of You". That is not an understatement.
looking down on an excruciating scene of human barbarity. Not ONE detail is left to the imagination.
You will feel like you are inside the investigation, working with Bugliosi to pinpoint these motives, journeying with the killers step by step as they act out there darkest fantasies. You will begin to second guess "The White Album" and be disturbed by Manson's seemingly psychotic interpretation of it. (Make a point to listen to this album afterwards, and you will feel transported back to the Spahn Ranch where the madness soon ensued) You will feel yourself singing crazy ballads with the Family, you will become ancy inside Susan Atkins' jail cell. You will be scared alongside Linda Kasabian on the long night ride to the Tate house. All these feelings and more will incorporate your senses whilst reading this horrifying story.