“I realized
then it was dangerous, dirty, criminal, and I did not care because I was
getting what I wanted”.
“I could
have, should have made different decisions. And I could have. But these are the
ones that I made. I chose to stay. I didn't care what he did. It never crossed
my mind to care”.
-Bruce Davis at his 2010 Parole
consideration hearing
Dear Mr.
Governor:
I am
writing you today to ask that you NOT grant parole to Bruce Davis. I understand
that this is a very difficult decision. Times are tough in the state of
California, and there must be many pressing issues on your plate. However, I
ask that you take a moment and hear me out on this matter which is surely going
to set precedents for not only the other defendants in this case, but many
others who may someday consider committing additional crimes of this heinous
nature. To help me make this case- I will point out some common arguments for
his release below in addition to some words that were never intended for my use
to debunk them. I chose to use the words
of those involved so as to make no mistake that my ideas were not made up to
support my claims, and that even those involved make the same arguments as I
do, although again, they never intended to do so. Please take the time to
consider my offering.
“So I
decided to be a counterculture dropout and an outlaw. That opened me up.”
-Bruce Davis at his 2010 Parole consideration hearing
You see Governor, Bruce made
this decision to go over to the dark side before he met Charlie Manson or
anyone in his family. Bruce was traveling all over the country, and world,
doing his own thing both before and during his time with Manson. There are several
other crimes out there that coincide with his presence in the areas. Bruce
Davis may have been involved with, or have knowledge of, some of these crimes.
In fact, another one of his co-defendants Steve Grogan led authorities to the
area where one of Bruce’s victims was buried for years. It is worth pointing
out that Grogan had no religious conversion aiding him with his decision to
help. Certainly Grogan had his own motivations, but wouldn’t Bruce Davis with
his search for forgiveness and his desire to make amends to the families under
the light of God have felt the need to do so as well, or sooner in his case in
light of his new belief system? It seems his actions are not as committed as
his words when it comes to easing the pain of his victims families. Letting him
out now would be doing so without having ever forced him to come completely
clean. That would be not such a great precedent to set in this citizen’s eyes. Everything Bruce and his attorney have said leads me to believe that if released Bruce would not be out there preaching, or talking to others about the errors of his ways, as much as sitting on a couch somewhere complaining about how unfairly he was treated.
“apply the law fairly and honestly and
give Mr. Davis the parole grant he's been owed for about 30 years. Courage that
the last 22 Panels with the exception of one Commissioner lacked.”
" Bruce Davis reached his base
term over 30 years ago and has to date been denied 22 straight times based
solely upon the life crime and other unchanging historical factors."
-
Attorney for Bruce Davis at 2010 Parole consideration hearing
This is my personal favorite reason you will hear Mr. Governor as to
why he should be released. The “time frame” argument. Nobody has yet been able to show me where life
sentence with a possibility or eligibility for parole becomes a guarantee for
parole after a certain amount of time. I wonder- Is there a matrix or time frame for when
Gary Hinman or Jerome Shea get to go home to their families? It seems to me that Bruce is getting frustrated that all these years haven't changed the fact he helped kill a couple of people. You mean after 22 straight parole hearings I still did that? You still want me to pay? Also- I remind you that
Bruce Davis initially fled when charged. He decided when to turn himself in to serve justice
for what he did. Are we now allowing him to decide when he is done based on a certain amount of
time? We OWE him something? My greatest concern regarding this is the message
it sends. If we tell our fellow citizens that taking a life from another may
cost your own- it may make people think twice. If we send a message that simple
math dictates how long you will serve- wont people start making judgments based
on how much time is worth how much damage they want to cause? Do we really want
people to start trying to figure out what is and isn’t worth doing. Don’t we
owe it to each other to make sure people understand that we will not tolerate
behavior which harms others, and if you take a life you need to be prepared to give
up your own? I don’t know a single person who would risk losing their freedom
forever. But there are people out there with nothing to lose and if they get
desperate or angry enough- 7 to 10 may not be the end of the world if they
don’t get away with it. Do we need/want to make the statement that nothing you
do has permanent consequences?
Q: Describe or explain the relationship
between Bruce Davis and Charles Manson.
A: It seemed to me that Bruce was
competing with Charlie. He was trying to be an equal with Charlie or even he --
he was loud-mouthed. Whereas when Charlie would generally speak most of the
people in the family would keep silent and listen, unless he asked them
something directly or he said, "What do you think," or, "Say something."
But Bruce would interrupt Charlie when he was talking and he talked in a real
loud voice, and it seemed like that he like the power that he had when Charlie
wasn't around because he could have one of the girls run and fetch him
something.
Q: You got the impression that Bruce Davis
wasn't subservient to Charlie either?
A: It seemed to me that he had more ego
than any of the other guys I ever saw there. So that he hadn't given it up to
Charlie.
MR.
BUGLIOSI: Thank you. No further
questions.
-Exchange between DA Bugliosi and Brooks
Poston during Tex Watson Trial
As well
Governor- you will hear many say that Bruce Davis was simply a follower, and
under Charlie’s spell. But again I point out that he was much older, and more
educated than most of the teenage girls following Charlie around. This was a
man in his mid to late twenties during this time who had done quite a bit of traveling
around. This was not some young dumb hick just getting off the farm for the first time. In the Oscar nominated Documentary Manson by
Robert Hendrickson- there is a scene in which Lynette Fromme goes on and on
about a ceremonial vest all the girls made, and contributed their own hair to.
She gleefully points out that only Charlie is allowed to wear it. Not 5 minutes
later in the same film- Bruce Davis is strutting around in this same vest
designated only for the leader. Today they tell us to be weary of the internet
and email- for once words are sent out into cyberspace- they are public domain
forever, and can’t be taken back. So too was this true for video in the early
70’s. What Bruce wants you to believe now about his role then, and his actual actions and words from back
then are very different. If you listen to his words he will tell you he was following Charlie and desperate to please him. Nobody else who was around them says that.
INMATE
BEAUSOLEIL: Bruce Davis came with Charlie. He's the person who originally -- he
and Dan DeCarlo from Straight Satan's were the two individuals that drove me to
Hinman's place in the first place and dropped me off. Then Bruce Davis came in
with Charles Manson. As the information that you have, that part is true. He
came with Manson. He didn't do anything to Hinman, but the gun that I had was
his gun, and he was concerned about that.
- Bobby
Beausoleil from his 2010 parole consideration hearing
Finally
Governor, you will hear people say he Bruce didn’t directly kill anyone himself.
Well to that I would say aside from him personally stabbing Shorty Shea- the murder of Gary
Hinman could not have happened without the participation of Bruce Davis, and
that Bruce Davis specifically had the power to stop the murder from occurring.
He drove them to the scene and gave them the weapon to make it possible. The knife may have done the damage, but the gun set the tone and made escape thoughts much more imprudent. If
Bruce was concerned about the gun- it had to be his own interest he was
concerned about. He did nothing to stop it from harming Gary. He left the gun with them despite knowing the intention of the
visit. He never took it away, or told them they couldn’t have it. In fact when
he got there and saw that Gary was being tortured and held captive in his own
home- instead of offering help- he stole a car and left. Bruce didn’t deliver
the fatal blow, but Bruce did nothing to stop it either and he was in a
position on at least two occasions to do so. If Linda Kasabian was guilty
for driving to the locations at the Tate and Labianca homes, and Susan Atkins
was guilty at Labianca for just being in the car- how can Bruce not be guilty
for driving the car and supplying the weapon he purchased (illegally by the
way) at Hinman, or with Shorty Shea who he physically, personally contributed
to slaughtering with his own hands??
So Mr.
Governor I ask you to take all of this into consideration. I ask you to follow
not only the law, but your heart in making the just choice of keeping Bruce
Davis right where he belongs. In prison, working with others through programs
and correspondence to make sure that people understand what happens when you
get involved with taking lives from others. He will do more good, and can touch more people right there. I understand that with the passing of time it becomes
more and more difficult to remember the atrocities this man helped to commit,
and although he has behaved himself in prison quite well- it is fair to point
out that from Scientology to Charlie to Christianity- he still is seeking for a
higher power to lead him. He has spent most of his adult life searching for the
right answers. Yet, if he would just listen to his own heart and read between
the lines of his own words, the answer and most important issue in all of this
has been there all along. What and who have been the bottom line. This is
not about attorneys or matrix’s. This is about life and death, and what we do
for each other as a community and society to protect each other and look out for
one another and Bruce Davis said it best himself….
“Admitting
I had indeed influenced the others brought out a struggle between my old habit
of denying my influence in general and my conscious awakening to my true
responsibility for my crimes. I struggled with fear of condemnation and pride
as I came to terms with the truth about myself. I had not only done dreadful
things, but I also influenced others to participate in horrible crimes. I
experienced a shattering impact of my crimes when from deep within with my
mind's eye I saw two gravestones, Gary Alan Hinman and Donald Jerome Shea."
"I know that
the real focus of this was thinking about Donald Shea and Gary Hinman and their
families that will never get over it. And the very fact that nothing I could ever
do will ever change that for them.”
- Bruce
Davis Parole consideration hearing 2010
But Mr.
Governor- there is something you can do for others who have yet to have to go through a
tragedy like this. Send a message loud and clear. Let them hear your message
from California to New York, and all places they are listening in between. We will not
forget, and will not tolerate what this man did. We will not make this type of
crime something you can wash away with time, or jailhouse accomplishments. I
agree with Bruce on this one point- some things can never be changed. I am not a lawyer myself. I have no real knowledge of the California correctional system or its guidelines. I am not trying to make a legal argument to keep him in. I am just one voice out here trying to remind you of what Bruce and his Attorneys won't tell you. Just to remind you of two voices you wont hear from.Two lives so savagely taken. To shout one out for the memories of Gary Hinman, and Jerome Shea.
And as Bruce said himself- that should be the real focus…
Yours Truly,
Saint Circumstance
(Transcripts from Trials and Parole hearings can be read in full at Cielodrive.com)
Amen, Saint. Very well written. Keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteFirst time I heard DeCarlo mentioned
ReplyDeleteGreat job ST
Very good read ST.,
ReplyDeleteBut you have to consider Grogan in all of this. He got out almost 20 years ago and hasn't screwed up in any way. He's even managed to have a successful music career. So why can't Davis have his second chance like Clem got?
Very good read ST.,
ReplyDeleteBut you have to consider Grogan in all of this. He got out almost 20 years ago and hasn't screwed up in any way. He's even managed to have a successful music career. So why can't Davis have his second chance like Clem got?
Thanks all :)
ReplyDeleteBing my brother:
I am willing to conceed that Bruce may never break another law- doesn't matter to me. I do not disagree that a couple of them are not suitable by now- just that they should not be eligible...
I would not have let Clem out either- but he did help them. Bruce stayed quiet and that is why Clem got the chance and Bruce has not...
funny that Grogan was considered the idiot of the group even within the group..
think Bobby and Bruce still think he is so dumb today??
Great letter, St. Is it Jerome Shea or Donald Shea?
ReplyDeleteSupposedly Davis gave himself up (from where?) because "Manson told him to" (from jail?) If true it doesn't jive with Davis competing with Manson.
ReplyDeleteFrom the text: "It seemed to me that he had more ego than any of the other guys I ever saw there. So that he hadn't given it up to Charlie."
The YouTube video of Davis' surrender show him to be a babbling Manson parrot, not a strong individual. Just my two cents.
Very impressive and powerful St.
ReplyDeleteEviilz Liz been wondering when you'd return
Carol-
ReplyDeleteDonald Jerome Shea?
Goomba your 2 cents is appreciated :)
ReplyDeletegoomba said: "The YouTube video of Davis' surrender show him to be a babbling Manson parrot, not a strong individual. Just my two cents."
ReplyDeleteHe was also apparently blasted on Orange Sunshine when that vid was taken. He's definitely acting high as fuck.
Check out Bruce's cameo appearence in "Inside The Manson Gang." He does this whole Charile rap that reveals his dominant nature.
I really don't know enough about Bruce Davis' role in all this to have much of an opinion about whether or not he should ever be considered for parole. But two things bother me.
ReplyDeleteFirst, can we now at long last, start making decisions based NOT on the notoriety of the case or on Vincent Bugliosi's Helter Skelter fantasy but on what actually happened as best as we can determine? (Side note: For that I would refer the reader to the new Susan Atkins book "The Myth of Helter Skelter" published in Nov.? 2012) I don't see what Davis's connection to the "family" has to do with anything. He either committed certain crimes or he didn't. He should be punished based on his own actions. Not on who his associates were or what they did.
And, second, I'm not the least bit impressed by these jail house conversions. And I am absolutely DISGUSTED that someone's religious beliefs should carry the tiniest bit of weight with parole boards. But they do.
It annoys me beyond measure that if I were to commit a crime and appear before a board that my ability to see through the nonsense of religion (and particularly Christianity with its 2,000+ year history of violence and stupidity) that I would be punished more severely than someone who buys into that nonsense.
If anything the religious should be punished MORE severely than nonbelievers. Because those who can be convinced to believe absurdities can be convinced to commit atrocities. Why wouldn't someone commit mass murder if they believe everyone is going to Hell in a few days anyway? Why not lash out in violence if you think you're saving souls by doing so? "Jesus made me do it" is no more impressive to me as a defense than saying "Charlie made me do it."
I'd like to see Bruce Davis brought before a parole board without them even knowing who he is. Look at his specific actions. He provided a gun that was used in a crime. OK what else did he do? And then punish him accordingly.
If that means that he's served his time and should be released then fine. Let him out. If not then keep him in. But keep religion and other people's actions out of it.
I really don't know enough about Bruce Davis' role in all this to have much of an opinion about whether or not he should ever be considered for parole. But two things bother me.
ReplyDeleteFirst, can we now at long last, start making decisions based NOT on the notoriety of the case or on Vincent Bugliosi's Helter Skelter fantasy but on what actually happened as best as we can determine? (Side note: For that I would refer the reader to the new Susan Atkins book "The Myth of Helter Skelter" published in Nov.? 2012) I don't see what Davis's connection to the "family" has to do with anything. He either committed certain crimes or he didn't. He should be punished based on his own actions. Not on who his associates were or what they did.
And, second, I'm not the least bit impressed by these jail house conversions. And I am absolutely DISGUSTED that someone's religious beliefs should carry the tiniest bit of weight with parole boards. But they do.
It annoys me beyond measure that if I were to commit a crime and appear before a board that my ability to see through the nonsense of religion (and particularly Christianity with its 2,000+ year history of violence and stupidity) that I would be punished more severely than someone who buys into that nonsense.
If anything the religious should be punished MORE severely than nonbelievers. Because those who can be convinced to believe absurdities can be convinced to commit atrocities. Why wouldn't someone commit mass murder if they believe everyone is going to Hell in a few days anyway? Why not lash out in violence if you think you're saving souls by doing so? "Jesus made me do it" is no more impressive to me as a defense than saying "Charlie made me do it."
I'd like to see Bruce Davis brought before a parole board without them even knowing who he is. Look at his specific actions. He provided a gun that was used in a crime. OK what else did he do? And then punish him accordingly.
If that means that he's served his time and should be released then fine. Let him out. If not then keep him in. But keep religion and other people's actions out of it.
Very well said, Marq.
ReplyDeleteGood post Marq-
ReplyDeleteThe Atkins book is not new. Her husband put it up on her website right after she passed away with some facts about Steven Kay...
The story is new though lol she has tweaked her version of the motive again. She explains Charlie put her in time out alot in an area next to where the guys had there secret conversation away from the girls, so she got to overhear alot...
I think she included this new tidbit so we would put more stock in what she says this time...
but she has changed her story way too many times for me
but Matt and Leary will be happy to know she says the motive all started with Crowe...
This is one where I do totally disagree, with respect, Mary.
ReplyDeleteBruce Davis was at the Hinmann murder site, certainly knew about the TLB murders within hours of them happening, and participated in the Shorty Shea murder. He was a full fledged Manson Family member who was complicit in all the Family crimes.
If the TLB murders had occurred decades later all the Family members would probably have been chraged under the RICO Act. Seperating them or treating them as individual criminals is absurd.
And parole boards are set up for the express purpose of determining if someone has reformed and rehabilitated themselves. Adopting a Judeo-Christian life philosophy as opposed to a nihilistic life philosophy is OF COURSE RELEVANT. To argue otherwise is beyond ridiculous.
Obviously you have strong anti-Christian or even anti-religous beliefs, which is fine. But prisoner does not exist in a test tube, they can't be judged solely on an emperical basis. What Bruce Davis has done to improve his mind, his attitude, and his belief structure HAS TO BE considered.
Sorry, no offense, but your post is pure nonsense.
I'm sorry, I read that as Mary Goldberg but then realized from Matt's post that is was Marq Goldberg. My apologies.
ReplyDeleteBruce’s lawyer says with oblivious detachment:
ReplyDelete“… give Mr. Davis the parole grant he’s been OWED for about 30 years.”
This is the ultimate outcome of the parole system where a person who was convicted, by a jury of his peers, and sentenced to death, can somehow reserve the temerity to be OWED parole. This is truly the definition of hubris, and another reason to deny him.
I guess parole has become an entitlement during the passing years and current economic crisis. Parole has been the third nipple, on the crazy aunt, locked in the judicial basement, of America for a long time. I’m at best ambivalent on the subject, and have never viewed parole as being ‘owed’ to anyone. Serve the time the law assigned, and you WILL be released. Be that on foot or a pine box is another layer in the judicial cake of duplicity. But that doesn’t mean you rub everyone’s nose in it because you view yourself as being punished more for some murders than someone else.
Parole is a FIFO-esque system which allows for the reduction of overhead associated with running a society. The base name of penitentiary has to do with penitence, rather than time served or comparisons to others. Parole is an opportunity and not a second ‘chance’. Chance is fortuitous and or accidental, and infers that the reason someone is in prison and you are not, is based upon nothing more than statistics. Insulting.
So here’s where the parole board enters the picture as an appointed entity, typically by the governor, to review individuals and recommend their release, in pseudo violation of our view of being a country of laws and not men.
After such careful jury selection, due process, judicial review and sentences prescribed by legislation passed by a two house system, a parole board of appointees will somehow determine the risk associated with an early release.
The parole concept is based upon good intentions, where a person can redeem themselves and walk the path of ‘leaving others alone’ if not righteousness. But like every other ‘good intention’, it will ultimately serve as a cobble in the path to hell. This is evidenced by the political nature of his potential release, the lamentations that Bruce has already served more time than others, and how he is old and lost his ability or desire to murder. Tertiary to the parole process appears to be contrition, redemption or reformation of the convict in favor of time served or the volume of killings in Bruce’s case.
I feel the parole system should be denied parole, until it can be defined, validated and administered with some greater and measurable benefit to society. There, I feel better now.