SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California Gov. Jerry Brown
is denying parole for Leslie Van Houten, the youngest follower of
murderous cult leader Charles Manson.
The Democratic governor said Friday Van Houten's "inability to explain her willing participation in such horrific violence" leads him to believe she remains an unreasonable risk to society.
The couple were fatally stabbed a day after other "Manson family" members killed pregnant actress Sharon Tate and four others.
Brown's decision overturns a parole board recommendation that Van Houten be freed. Los Angeles District Attorney Jackie Lacey and relatives of the victims last month turned in signatures of 140,000 people opposing Van Houten's release.
**** You can read Governor Brown's entire letter at a website devoted to Leslie.
The Democratic governor said Friday Van Houten's "inability to explain her willing participation in such horrific violence" leads him to believe she remains an unreasonable risk to society.
 |
| Charles Manson follower Leslie Van Houten is seen during a hearing before the California Board of Parole Hearings at the California Institution for Women in Chino, Calif., Thursday, April 14, 2016. |
The couple were fatally stabbed a day after other "Manson family" members killed pregnant actress Sharon Tate and four others.
Brown's decision overturns a parole board recommendation that Van Houten be freed. Los Angeles District Attorney Jackie Lacey and relatives of the victims last month turned in signatures of 140,000 people opposing Van Houten's release.
**** You can read Governor Brown's entire letter at a website devoted to Leslie.
THX Patty! This is not surprising and I expect that Leslie did not believe that she would be released the first time she was granted parole considering that Bruce Davis has been granted three or four times now and hasn't actually gotten out.
ReplyDeleteGive me a break! Poses an unreasonable risk to society? REALLY? Does anyone really think if Leslie was released she's ever commit a crime more serious than littering or jaywalking?!
ReplyDeleteTake Manson out of the equation and she's have been out years ago.
I believe it is extremely unlikely Van Houten will ever receive parole. Her antics in 1970-71 simply displayed a completely callous disregard for what they did to her victims and, of course, those same antics be they some sort of 'street theater' or her true feelings- in either case did not help her. There is no governor who will parole a 'Manson killer'.
ReplyDeleteIt may be the wrong reason but it is reality.
Ya don't participate in one of the crimes of the century and expect to get paroled, especially when the final decision is in the hands of a career politician.
ReplyDeleteSad decision. Yes, she assisted in the murder of another human being. There is not another person who has served 45 plus years for one murder. This is not justice; this is politics.
ReplyDeleteNot lost in this is that Jerry Brown will be speaking at the DNC which begins Monday. I'm sure that weighed into this decision. How can he release a "Manson killer" and then expect people to perceive Democrats as tough on crime on this huge world stage in a few days.
ReplyDeleteWe did a post a while back on Linda Lee Haines, who was another young woman on death row at the same time as the Manson girls. In 1970 Haines murdered a 33 year old mother of 5 children because she wanted her out of the way so she could continue her affair with her husband. Pretty cold blooded. Haines was eventually paroled, and as far as we can tell still lives a free, comfortable life in CA. Haines no doubt was paroled quietly and without the bright lights of the press, while each tine Van Houten comes up for parole it is national news.
I am not advocating for anyone's release. I have no dog in the fight. I do firmly believe in leaving politics out of such decisions. If there are compelling reasons to keep someone locked up, then keep them locked up for those compelling reasons. No one's freedom should depend on political careers. That would be travesty of justice.
If Sharon's mother wanted to keep the Tate LaBianca killers in prison, getting the law passed giving the governor veto power was a master stroke. I have no dog in the fight either, just observing.
ReplyDeleteI'll admit I was surprised, given Van Houten's seemingly much lesser role in *one known instance only*, and not even knowing if she really murdered versus accessory to murder. Brown's decision is not rational at this point although I'm not grieving for Van Houten. But it now must be political based on high case profile and retribution for 'Family' murders of upper middle class and Hollywood people.
ReplyDeleteThen when Brown says she has been 'unable to explain' ... I think she's done that about 60 times already ... Brown is from that era like many of us and should have been able to recall from memory the essence of those times.
"The Democratic governor said Friday Van Houten's 'inability to explain her willing participation in such horrific violence' leads him to believe she remains an unreasonable risk to society."
ReplyDeleteWOWEE, HOLY MOLEE fellow Batburglers: Isn't that exactly WHY we ALL are somewhat mentally connected to this CASE ? The "inability to explain" WHY the Manson Murders even took place some 45 + years ago ? BUT could that NOT also be said about LBJ's mass murder of "Communists" in South East Asia ?
AND of course: The 'inability to explain' our OWN participation in horrific behavior is exactly what drives US to venture into the UNDERGROUND world of ALL of societie's miss-guided behavior.
GEE-WHIZZ: NOT even Hillary Clinton can explain WHY she USED private toilet servers for HER emails.
NOR can Donald Trump explain WHY he participates in "childish behavior."
AND Bernie Sanders can't even articulate why HE wants the once great Capitalist nation called America to become Communist.
For Fuck's Sake Jerry: the "inability to explain" our willing participation in horrific violence is what makes us human.
Well said, Mr Hendrickson. You ask a child "Why did you do that?" and you'll typically hear "I dunnoooo...". You ask a policeman in Miami why he shot a therapist trying to protect his patient while his hands were held high above his horizontal body and he says "I don't know". You ask your boyfriend why he slept with his ex-girlfriend when he said he was out with the boys and he says "I don't know".
ReplyDeleteThank you all for trying to make sense and explain the unexplainable.
Like I said before, my opinion is, you don't get a do-over after participating in something that atrocious. I don't think she is a danger to society anymore, and I know she has done everything possible to better herself, but you just don't get a second chance at freedom after knowingly & willingly participating in a deadly home invasion/murder, then parading around in front of the tv cameras, singing & smiling like she was at a damn circus.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me Leslie could make something plausible out of the, " I thought the end of the world as we know it was at hand", excuse.
ReplyDeleteI jut spent over a week writing a post on this which is now useless lol Sigh.... timing
ReplyDeletesuffice to say I concluded my piece by saying that I believe lulu deserves to get out but I hoped she wouldn't and didn't think she would be.
I guess Ill just have to be satisfied that I was right. You all get spared another long sermon :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAustinAnn said: "Like I said before, my opinion is, you don't get a do-over after participating in something that atrocious. I don't think she is a danger to society anymore, and I know she has done everything possible to better herself, but you just don't get a second chance at freedom after knowingly & willingly participating in a deadly home invasion/murder, then parading around in front of the tv cameras, singing & smiling like she was at a damn circus."
ReplyDeleteI say: bingo!!!!! and well said.
Saint, that just is a bummer.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteyeah- I am sorry for all the deletions. I am not going to copy and paste the post on some one else's comments sections. I will just have to take the bummer lol
ReplyDeleteHere is one single idea:
The last thing on Earth Leslie Van Houten should ever complain about in her life is what is fair. Rosemary had a right to live her life and she died, and Leslie was originally sentenced to die for causing that and she lived. So, I think Leslie did alright overall in the big picture when it comes to fairness.
The purpose of my post is to make sure that if LULU did get out it was because it was the right decision and not the "Fair" decision. And that is in LULU's own best interest. There are two sides to this. Leslie and the family of the Labaincas family. No matter what the decision- one side is going to think it wasn't fair. On one side you have a small group who support someone who killed another. On the other side a larger group who support the person killed. Who would you make sure you were fair to if you had to make choice? Easiest decision in the world an elected official.
That may not be fair, but you can bet its right.
Leslie at one point sued the court. How can she make the "I have come to emphasize and develop a deep understanding of my crime over time" and " I am political prisoner this is BS, I should have been out of here years ago" argument at the same time? I would bet you a 12 pack of coors-lights that has something to do with how they can keep making the "she still hasn't fully accepted blah blah blah" argument to keep her in. As long as your still complaining about yourself and how you have been treated, you are not fully committed to understand the impact you had on your victims.... or so they will say
Anyway... Susan was basically a baked potato at the end. She couldn't even walk or stay awake during her compassionate release hearing. They wouldn't even let her go home to die. What chance did LULU have really?
These parole hearings are a loose loose for everyone. The government looks silly when they call a paraplegic a threat to society and demonstrate different rules for different people. The victims families loose when they have to travel to relive the crimes. The convicts and their families loose when they keep getting there hopes crushed. I have read or watched almost every one of them. nobody ever wins. So much pain and crying, and disappointment. Bu they are entitles to them, so I guess they will not stop any time soon.
OK- one last thing and then I go to the beach lol :)
ReplyDeleteI have read, listened to or watched every parole hearing Leslie ever had except the most recent. Leslie- awhile back was getting very close. At one point she got a one year denial, and that board told her tot take it as a reward and a signal she was getting close. Then three people came along and the doors started swinging the other way. You can bet the ranch these 3 people had a huge influence on the long prison journey of Leslie Van Houten : The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly.
Doris Tate, Stephen Kay, Bill Nelson.
Doris- found out about Friends of LULU one year when LULU was really close to getting out and obtained thousands of signatures to match Leslies hundreds. Prop 8- victim impact statements at the hearings- ouch. No more sex in the clink either.
Stephen- Added the robbery charge at her later trial. Was DA at most of her early hearings where he consistently exaggerated and lied to the board.
Nelson- Brought the media. formed brief alliance with Doris. Hearings are precious to LULU, and she actually walked out of one to protest his presence.
these three would prove to be a real thorn in the side of Mrs. Van Houten...
OK I promise that's it... Everyone have a great day!
I'm not sure that being a threat to society means Leslie wielding a butcher knife at another 38 year old woman.
ReplyDeleteWould the same consideration be applied to a senior citizen Hitler if he were captured, and sentenced to life?
Or is the "threat" the message sent via releasing an individual, with some sort of apologist's cult status?
The death penalty was suspended, then reinstated via political actions. Just as Prop 89 was the product of political processes.
Vermont does not have the death penalty for murderers. But killing an intruder in your home is legal. Geesh, it was only a burglary, he wasn't armed, but it's legal to kill this person. Is that fair? Isn't the homeowner acting as judge, jury, and executioner? Where's the presumption of innocence?
Sometimes we parse things too finely, and lose some perspective.
"...is the "threat" the message sent via releasing an individual, with some sort of apologist's cult status?"
ReplyDeleteExcellent point, Farf. But, didn't he give his justification as her "not being able to explain why"? If she has apologists, that's not really her fault and isn't parole about the inmate rather than society?
My immediate answer is "I dunno."
ReplyDeleteThe lower the law broken (speeding) the more black and white the consequence.
You get a fine (defined as a financial PUNISHMENT). But prison is either a motif for rehab, or vessel of punishment.
Parole may be for the inmate, but justice is for the victim. What did a jury assign to Van Houten as rehab, a fine, or justice?
This is where I'm conflicted with the philosophies of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.
Should one abide by their social contract, defer to a greater intellect, or seek a superior society as a domicile?
Thus returning to my butt covering, initial response of; I dunno.
Sensationalism and macabre fascination is what is keeping her behind bars. Not justice or genuine payment for wrongdoing. She would have been out a long time ago if Manson didn't get a name drop 24/7.
ReplyDeleteHmm, I guess I haven't been following along closely enough because I thought the process was still in the 120-day period of review by the full board.
ReplyDeleteAs is, this is what you get when a one-man veto comes into play, especially when, as someone said, it's coming from a career politician.
I've been of the viewpoint that this is not about having 'paid' for the crime, because when we're talking about death, there is no exacting price for another human being in terms of an adequate number of years. This is/was about a vote of confidence in Leslie as she is now, as it would be about any convicted murderer who is released. IMO, if Leslie is not deemed to be suitable for release now, then she never will be. She has explained herself well enough, has taken responsibility and shown remorse and shame for her crimes and past behaviours. If it's not enough, I guess it's not enough. I'm still pleased that the parole board had the courage to do their job and come to an unpopular decision in Leslie's favor. Kudos to them. As for Gov. Jerry, I don't know. It seems like he was looking for an easy way out and found a wishy-washy way of manufacturing one.
This long-running drama could use an act of humanity and forgiveness in the mix. I guess Gov. Jerry disagrees.
Per usual - dead on Matt.
ReplyDeleteLeslie may be the classic example of someone who is not a political prisoner per se but is a prisoner of politics.
Did you guys catch my favorite football player, Gronk, getting on stage last week with Paul McCartney at Fenway Park for a rousing rendition of Helter Skelter?
Damn strange world.
Having read the Governor's letter he actually appeared to rely on two things: (1.) the aggravated nature of the crimes. It appears that the courts of California have decided that factor, alone, is enough deny parole based upon her being an unreasonable risk and (2.) the fact he thinks she's dodging her responsibility.
ReplyDeleteThe first factor is the Manson murderers just will not get parole factor. It is/was too big and her own behaviors helped make it that way- giggling while someone describes a murder is not going to suit you well in a parole hearing.
The second factor I think its all summed up by him right here: "These are not the actions of someone who was in a state of disarray and “wasn’t really conscious.” They are actions of someone who had trained to kill, weighed the consequences of her actions, and executed them."
Before making this statement he compares what she said to a therapist and the board about 'drugs, my youth and Manson led me to be unaware of what I was doing, blindly following orders and under Manson's control' with her actual actions and finds the two inconsistent. here it appears her diminished capacity defense arguments aren't helping her. It does not appear you are going to get out by blaming Charlie and LSD.
So...with regards to the first factor - we have now written NOTORIETY in as a central factor in the parole process??? Yeah, that sounds like justice.
ReplyDeleteSecond factor...Leslie should lie if she wants a chance at parole??? Didn't she ask her father to cut holes in the back of a jacket or something he brought her in jail so she could get her angel wings through it?
The girl was coocoo for coco puffs in those days. No question about it. She WAS diminished. Should that factor just be ignored.
Man, that is one hell of a system....factor in the celebrity notoriety but throw out the real medical condition. I've worked in psych hospitals - diminished capacity is a very real condition.
I suppose in this age of Trump that rational applications are just simply to much to ask for.
by the way...is a "diminished capacity" (in this case - stupidity) the reason Steve Grogan has been walking around a free man for the past thirty years.
ReplyDeleteOr was it just that the bashing in of a stunt man's head was less notorious than the stabbing of a wealthy woman?
I am not sure I disagree with you but offer this:
ReplyDeleteThe highest court in California apparently ruled the Governor could act solely based upon 'aggravating circumstances'. This strikes me as rather odd since aggravating circumstances are already part of the parole 'matrix' at least in my state. So this is saying it counts twice. Rather odd.
Now as I sit here typing this I am watching a show on Reelz about the murders - see post below- on this. That is why you are not getting out.
She giggled herself to where she sits today.
@ MAtt says: No one's freedom should depend on political careers. That would be travesty of justice . . . . . .......
ReplyDeleteTruth.... Shame on you U.S. of A.
Leslie "giggled" herself into a lifetime confinement.
ReplyDeleteHow exactly have we evolved since the days of Henry VIIIth? Did I type that right?
Leslie horrified her way to a death sentence, with some brutal murders. Believe it or not, the death penalty was thrown around like manhole covers. Just the worst received death, even in the late 60's.
ReplyDeleteThen a half dozen lawyers, and as many judges, decided California's death penalty was.... That's right... Unconstitutional. This was Feb '72.
What was the citizen's response?
Prop 17, which was passed less than 9 months later... With a super majority. Gee Wally, what say those tea leaves?
Seething, boiling, unified rage against that self appointed Star Chamber.
Just some California history, to augment what many millions recall about the Family, and others from the Class of '72.
leary7 said... by the way...is a "diminished capacity" (in this case - stupidity) the reason Steve Grogan has been walking around a free man for the past thirty years. Or was it just that the bashing in of a stunt man's head was less notorious than the stabbing of a wealthy woman?
ReplyDeleteThe way I understand it, the powers that be wanted to find Shorty's body so badly that they made a deal with Clem. Both parties kept their side of the bargan and Clem walked. Kind of like Linda walked.
LEARY is really on to something and others are really a rock'in, so here's a TREAT:
ReplyDeleteBack in the day, there was a group of THE BEST "studio BACK-UP musicians" who were knick-named "The Wrecking Crew." In December 1968 Dean Martin's Matt Helm movie "the Wrecking Crew" was released which also featured SHARON TATE.
Later Dean Martin was so distraught over the loss of Sharon HE decided NOT to make the next Matt Helm movie, which was also to feature Frank Sinatra, and the series ENDED.
Charlie would have likely met some of these Laural Canyon musicians and of course "the Democrats" don't like you messing around with THEIR celebrities.
JUST a triva TREAT!
Hendrickson said: "AND Bernie Sanders can't even articulate why HE wants the once great Capitalist nation called America to become Communist."
ReplyDeleteApparently you cannot distinguished between communism and socialism, and Sanders simply wants to expand our all ready existing social programs...and let me explain socialism since many relate it to communism.
Our public and interstate road system is socialism, or one would have to build their own road to the location they desire. Our public sewer system is socialism, or one would be responsible to dispose of their own shit everyday...public school system = socialism, public library...etc, etc.
As for Van Houten, I'm amazed that say the only reason she was denied because of the high profile case, so i ask...Why are they here? Because it is a high profile case...Why are these same people not involved with the Joe Blow from Idaho case who killed his Family and trying to be paroled?? Because Joe Blow is not a high profile case so those comments are hypocritical.
Are you people aware of the Cutter Family (In Cold Blood) case?? Home invasion and murder and the perps were hung for it...No one was screaming for their parole prior to execution...Why is Van Houten different, especially since her crimes were much worse?
Denied parole...GOOD!
"Didn't she ask her father to cut holes in the back of a jacket or something he brought her in jail so she could get her angel wings through it? "
ReplyDeleteDo not confuse diminished capacity (insanity) with stupidity, truly insane criminals do not try to cover up their crimes...Ed Gein was insane, Jack the Ripper was insane...BTK and Jeffery Dahmer were not.
Actually, diminished capacity and insanity (not guilty by reason of) are not the same defense.
ReplyDeleteDiminished capacity is a defense that says the defendant due to mental impairment can't form the intent to commit the crime charged but only could form the intent necessary for a lesser charge. Thus a 'murder' charge becomes a 'manslaughter' verdict.
Insanity is a complete defense to the crime charged meaning it usually (most states) leads to a not guilty verdict.
yeah, I may have been negligent from a legal standpoint using the term diminished capacity. Honestly, it just burns me personally when someone who has never know the effect of one LSD trip let alone a couple of hundred passes judgement on the 'tripper's' mental state. As someone who joined the 100 trip club when I was Leslie's TLB age, I know how obliterated your constructs of reality become when you put that much distortive chemicals in your brain.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the Moonbeam gov ever dropped.
Leslie was proud of the fact over the years there was nothing wrong with her mentally..
ReplyDeleteHer lawyers bragged about it in her parole hearings:
"In her 2010 Psych report the Doctor noted that since the early 70's there is a general consensus among evaluators that Ms. Van Houten does not meet the criteria for axis I or II diagnosis."
This basically means she is not retarded, schizophrenic, suffering from depression, or mentally slow in any way.They mention these reports at every hearing she ever had. The problem with using that defense is that when you get convicted anyway- you have to try and explain it, and how you really aren't, forever...
Van Houten used the diminished capacity defense to reach a mistrial in 1977: a split between murder and manslaughter on the jury, I believe.
ReplyDeleteThen the DA changed the ground rules and recharged her with 'felony murder' for her last trial. The change made her defense all but pointless.
The charge of felony murder basically means you committed a felony and someone died during the felony so you are guilty of murder as long as you intended to commit the felony. You don't need an 'intent to kill'.
So by recharging her Mr. Kay made the LSD defense irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteIs Van Houten's lawyer just going through the motions here? :
Van Houten's lawyer, Rich Pfeiffer, said he expected Brown's decision because of the political pressure put upon him. He said he will challenge the decision in Los Angeles County Superior Court, where he hopes Van Houten's parole will fare better "because the judges and the courts have less political pressure than does someone like the governor."
I Yield to the distinguished Gentleman Dreath lol
ReplyDeleteMaybe not. She can appeal to state court via habeas corpus and if she wins the boards decision is reinstated. I believe.
ReplyDelete"Distinguished" not sure I have ever been called that.
leary7 said...
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the Moonbeam gov ever dropped.
I believe that crossed my mind the first time he was gov.
Found this:
ReplyDeleteBut when the court grants a habeas pe- tition after a governor denial, then the court vacates the governor’s decision and reinstates the BPH’s finding of parole suitability, thereby leading to the inmate’s release.
Successfully appealing a parole denial in state court to obtain one of these remedies is not an easy feat. No matter which executive branch entity denied the parole, the court must apply the same vague standard—the some evidence standard.
Meaning there only has to be 'some evidence' to support the governor's decision.
It looks unlikely.
All paths lead to the "Class of '72", and the killing fields of legal paternalism.
ReplyDeleteThe California supreme court started this mess by using a death penalty appeal, as a strawman.
Did they review the trial for due process, fairness, and cross check the right person was convicted? Nope. And they never intended to do that because he was patently guilty. So let's make the DP unconstitutional. But did the supreme court believe their own BS?
Apparently not, since they didn't disbar, dismiss, or prosecute a single judge, or lawyer, for handing down penalties which were clearly NOT in the constitution. What a bunch of sick phuqs, right? The duplicity, simply overwhelms the layman.
This had the lifespan of a plankton bloom, but with half the IQ, and none of the charm.
Then Prop 17 invalidates, and de-legitimizes the California supreme court for several generations. Well done boys.
The DP is reinstated, but the douchebaggery continued in the form of Brown's appointment of his classmate, Rose Bird.
Her reviews of DP cases ended with the penalty being overturned, every time. Did Rose believe her own BS? Of course not, none of them do. One would think the misapplication of the DP, 61 out of 61 times would be the cause of a censure, or dismissal of some judges who so willingly handed out death. But no, Rose simply never pursued any of the sick phuqs killing prisoners.
All the while the electorate was treated like ignorant, unwashed masses. Bad move judges. How do they become so detached? Arrogant? And grandoise?
Rose was voted out of office. An ignoble first. The next judge to thumb his nose at the parole of another from the Class of '72, triggered the passage of Prop 89, which gave Brown (ironically) the power to deny parole to Van Houten (Class of '72).
See a trend yet?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAn unreasonable risk to Governor Brown's legacy.
ReplyDeleteJeez St C, way too much credit for Nelson, and I hope the Governor never even heard of him.
ReplyDeleteA comment and a question.
ReplyDeleteLeslie is often referred to as the youngest of the Manson killers. Actually, Steve Grogan is a couple years younger than LVH. SG turned 65 on the 13th of this month. He is also a very lucky SOB on many levels. He was found guilty in his second trial (after an initial mistrial) and the jury recommended the death penalty. The judge sentenced Grogan to life bc he thought SG was young and too addled by the whole Manson experience to be executed.
Grogan eventually ('77) wrote the former prosecutor Burton Katz a letter and offered information re: the location of Shorty Shea's body. This proved to be accurate and Shorty's body was found in the Spahn Ranch area. That set the wheels in motion for Grogan's eventual release on parole. Irving Kanarek claimed that the whole chain of actions that resulted in Grogan's parole were orchestrated by SG's brother who was in the California State Police.
In late '85, the Bureau of Prison Terms announced that Grogan would be released in '88. This set off the usual hue and cry. In Feb '86, they announced Steve G would be released in October of '86!. On Nov 11 '86 (I think, this date is tough to track down) Steve Grogan was released in the dead of night with little to no media coverage. About a week later, they announced the release and basically said, "he's out and there is nothing anyone can do about it". If they want to let somebody out, they can find a way to do it. In Van Houten's case, they don't want to let her out and they ain't gonna do it.
I also have a question for any of our legal eagles on here. Shouldn't Leslie's counsel fought the burglary stipulation in her 3rd trial very aggressively? Less that $10 and a few articles of clothing doesn't seem to add up to a burglary charge.
Also, wouldn't habeus corpus be applied on the burglary. I doubt they actually had the money or clothing? What do you lawyerly types think about that point?
Van Houten's third trial added the charge of "robbery", not burglary.
ReplyDeleteSo what's the difference? Most use the terms interchangeably, until they commit the crime, or are victims of them.
Robbery is always a felony in California, is categorized as a violent crime (with murder, rape, and assault), and makes no accommodation to the amount taken.
If you threaten someone, and demand money, they show you an empty wallet, and pull out their pockets, showing $0. Congratulations, you just comitted a felony, but can try the "I didn't get nuddin" defense, and let us know how it worked out in 3 to 5 years.
If you're going to do this, I would suggest San Francisco County, and avoid Kern County.
Leary7 said: "yeah, I may have been negligent from a legal standpoint using the term diminished capacity. Honestly, it just burns me personally when someone who has never know the effect of one LSD trip let alone a couple of hundred passes judgement on the 'tripper's' mental state. As someone who joined the 100 trip club when I was Leslie's TLB age, I know how obliterated your constructs of reality become when you put that much distortive chemicals in your brain."
ReplyDeleteOk...why does that not apply to DUI and vehicular homicide? No doubt that one is suffering from diminished capacity when intoxicated. Van Houten chose to do LSD just like a drunk driver chooses to get hammered than drive...and if someone is killed, not my fault I was drunk...or tripping?? C'mon!!
Most people who chose to do LSD do not run around killing people...something different about these killers as many family members left after they became aware that the family was involved with the murders...Lesley stayed and said she would have killed again. There is something wrong with her as compared with other family members...something that cannot be changed no matter how good she is in prison.
Farflung said: "If you threaten someone, and demand money, they show you an empty wallet, and pull out their pockets, showing $0. Congratulations, you just comitted a felony, but can try the "I didn't get nuddin" defense,"
ReplyDeleteEXACTLY!!
"Insanity is a complete defense to the crime charged meaning it usually (most states) leads to a not guilty verdict. "
ReplyDeleteEd Gein was deemed insane and was still convicted and spent the rest of his life in a state mental institution...So if Van Houten was paroled, should she not spend the rest of her life in a mental institution?
Did Grogan's IQ jump up 10 points from his prison stay? I think not.
LULU is the same person she was the night of the murders, just older, and sorry she was caught, sorry she is in prison. She begged to go out killing after she heard about the murders the previous night when others wanted nothing to do with it...it is what she is and should be punished accordingly.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletei guess nobody is surprised.
ReplyDeleteJustice said: Ok...why does that not apply to DUI and vehicular homicide? No doubt that one is suffering from diminished capacity when intoxicated. Van Houten chose to do LSD just like a drunk driver chooses to get hammered than drive...and if someone is killed, not my fault I was drunk...or tripping?? C'mon!!
ReplyDeleteand....
"Insanity is a complete defense to the crime charged meaning it usually (most states) leads to a not guilty verdict. "
Ed Gein was deemed insane and was still convicted and spent the rest of his life in a state mental institution...So if Van Houten was paroled, should she not spend the rest of her life in a mental institution?
I should have been clearer a not guilty by reason of insanity result does result in confinement in a mental institution.
Van Houten never received the 'benefit' of the defense of diminished capacity except to a mistrial in 1977. That mistrial is why Kay changed the charges.
These crimes: DUII and aggravated vehicular homicide are crimes directed at the act of being intoxicated. A fairer comparison would be if there was a crime 'murder while under the influence'. In states where diminished capacity exists as a defense it can be used as a defense to any crime.
If it makes everyone feel better California did away with the defense of diminished capacity in 1982 (?) following the 'Twinkie Defense' and many states either did away with it or limited its use at about the same time.
Farflung said...
ReplyDelete"Would the same consideration be applied to a senior citizen Hitler if he were captured, and sentenced to life?"
Hitler was responsible for the death of 6 million citizens PLUS the lives of all the combatants of WWII European theater. This is far from a fair comparison to Leslie's situation.
leary7 said...
by the way...is a "diminished capacity" (in this case - stupidity) the reason Steve Grogan has been walking around a free man for the past thirty years.
Or was it just that the bashing in of a stunt man's head was less notorious than the stabbing of a wealthy woman?
Yeah, I get that Grogan gave the state some information they desperately wanted. That's how he managed to get paroled, but it is just so unfair that a man who went about murder with as much gusto as Grogan could be given release so soon and LULU is still sitting in prison for her crime perpetrated on a deceased victim. Why was there no outrage when Grogan was granted parole?
Had the family's victims all been average U.S. citizens, those among the masses with no fame or fortune attached to them, I believe all Manson family members would have been released long ago. Of course, most of us would have probably never heard of the crimes, in that scenario.
My outrage is not focused on the fact that Leslie was not paroled. No, my anger is directed towards the bias in the country towards the wealthy, famous and infamous.
StillGrooving said...
ReplyDeleteYeah, I get that Grogan gave the state some information they desperately wanted. That's how he managed to get paroled
He gave the state the info in 1977, the body was recovered that year but he wasn't paroled until 1985. I think it's rather simplistic to say "he told them where Shea's body was and that got him paroled." There's more to it than that.
and LULU is still sitting in prison for her crime perpetrated on a deceased victim
If there is one myth that needs to be deflated for evermore, it's this one. I do believe that Leslie thought that Rosemary was already dead or at the very least might have been. But that's rather besides the point. The point is, was she ? And the evidence is now and was then unhaltingly clear on this. Leslie has always said she stabbed Mrs LaBianca's body 14~16 times. But only 13 of the stab wounds occurred after death. So even if all of the after death wounds were perpetrated by Leslie, that still leaves 1~3 that Leslie did that occurred while Rosemary was alive. So that means that either her first or second or third stab occurred while Mrs LaBianca was alive. She may have been on the way out, she may have died from the other fatal wounds but the point to forever remember is that as Leslie began her "do something" Rosemary LaBianca was not dead and that is scientific fact. It sits outside of any moral questions.
Also what makes Leslie unique is that alone among the killers, she wanted to go and kill. She wasn't the only one that necessarily wanted to kill {we know of at least Ouisch} but she's the only one that wanted to and did. Everyone else either had it sprung on them or did so {or so they have subsequently told us} with some reluctance.
I say all that only for the purposes of laying out the facts. Some people could be in jail for 47 years and never change. Leslie Van Houten isn't one of those. I admire the fact that she holds her life up as an example to countless others of how one can mess up one's life by actions committed even when relatively young. She easily could have stayed in Family mode.
Why was there no outrage when Grogan was granted parole?
For one, he wasn't one of the TLB killers. Although the extra curricular activity of the Family made for fascinating reading and drama, I suspect that most people's focus was on TLB and that few could even recall the names of Gary Hinman, Donald Shea and Bernard Crowe.
Also, I think that perhaps time was on his side, not meaning his age, but because by the mid 80s, much of the furore surrounding the whole "Manson thing" had died down a bit and there were other really scary criminals that were commandeering the airwaves. The name "Steve Grogan" didn't exactly strike fear into the psyche of the nation.
I'd add that we shouldn't discount the lack of an internet then too. Although many say that "The Manson Family" isn't really such big news anymore, that tends to get disproved when there's a parole hearing; on top of that, all matters simply get around with a speed and fervour that just wasn't there in 1985.
DebS said...
ReplyDeleteThis is not surprising and I expect that Leslie did not believe that she would be released the first time she was granted parole considering that Bruce Davis has been granted three or four times now and hasn't actually gotten out
The Guv Browns, Barbara Hoyts and Debbie Tates of this world kind of remind me of Germany and Japan in 1945 in the sense that as it became ever more likely that they were losing ground, they seemed to step up the fervour and went for it despite the evidence that confronted them.
Perhaps Leslie and Bruce will stay in jail for ever but I suspect that those that seek to keep them in are at that point where they are demonstrably clutching at straws. Stating that after 47 years Leslie is unable to explain how she got to the point she did shows that the man is not listening. Blimey, a cursory read of the book Karlene Faith wrote about her explains all of that ! The transcript of the parole hearing that led to her being granted parole explains all that. I've made a point of understanding where all that crowd are coming from and understanding their journey. It's not at all difficult. It doesn't mean that anyone automatically has a right to parole but it does mean that one needs to acknowledge the journey a person has made.
justice_4_all2010 said...
Lesley stayed and said she would have killed again. There is something wrong with her as compared with other family members...something that cannot be changed no matter how good she is in prison
Leslie stayed and said she may have killed again.....but the reality is that she didn't. It's also a reality that she baulked when it actually came to being a hard nut murderer. Her interviews with Mike McGann & Marvin Part back in '69 shed some intriguing illumination on her, especially when one considers how she went on to act through 1970.
But this is not 1970.
Parole considerations are about today and whether or not someone is suitable now. In order to get there, all kinds of things have to be taken into consideration. And to be pigeonholed in that place you were nearly half a century ago when you were a 19 and 20 year old, unless you have demonstrably and deliberately remained in that place, is not realistic. Especially when the person in question has been openly jumping through hoops to show that they are no longer the person they were 47 years ago.
St Circumstance said...
lulu deserves to get out
This however, I don't agree with. I think the word 'deserve' should never be part of any talk of parole.
Grim go read my newest post. I give my case but I respect if you disagree bud
ReplyDelete