There is nothing online yet about the decision. I will update the post when something becomes available.
Update at CieloDrive.com
From the Associated Press which seems to have the most detailed article on the denial.
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Parole Denied
I've just heard from Cielodrive, via email, that Bobby has been denied parole. He will be able to have another hearing in three years.
There is nothing online yet about the decision. I will update the post when something becomes available.
Update at CieloDrive.com
From the Associated Press which seems to have the most detailed article on the denial.
There is nothing online yet about the decision. I will update the post when something becomes available.
Update at CieloDrive.com
From the Associated Press which seems to have the most detailed article on the denial.
I am not at all surprised, given 2402 (c)(1). I just don't know how he gets past that: “heinous, atrocious or cruel manner” standard, although I look forward to reading the decision.
ReplyDeleteAnd like Austin Ann said: "As long as BB keeps blabbing & blaming Gary Hinman for his own death, he isn't going to go anywhere."
According to Cielo it does not appear that there will be anything online tonight. The CDCR did not write up a press release because the hearing ran late. There was no media interest beforehand.
ReplyDeleteCielo also told me that Kay Martley, a cousin of Gary Hinman, participated by phone and that Debra provided victim support but did not speak.
Debra has posted about the denial on Twitter.
This news makes me very sad. Why can't people ever forgive? And those craven politicians... we all know Bobby would have been released decades ago if it hadn't been for that dread Manson stigma.
ReplyDeleteDeath sentence gets overturned so he gets a new sentence of 7 years to life. Ends up doing 46 years and counting....
ReplyDeleteI think its appropriate for someone who was originally sentenced to die for their crime to spend the rest of their life in jail. I think it is wildly inappropriate to even use the words "7 years" in the sentencing phrasing. It gives the impression, and hope I am sure, that it is potentially possible for the convict to get out that quickly, and it is offensive to suggest a person who did something so heinous they should die for it- should instead do, possibly, a handful of years and then go free.
Bobby got what he deserved in my opinion, but the system seems to leave much to be desired....
Saint,
ReplyDeleteNot to be too knit picky here but he was actually commuted to life in prison with a chance of parole not "7 years to life".
The indeterminate life sentence didn't exist then nor did the sentence 'life without parole". Thus when the death penalty was declared unconstitutional they were all re-sentenced to the only sentence that existed: life in prison (with the possibility of parole).
The "7 years' comes from the fact a person convicted of life in prison back then could not be eligible for parole for the first seven years.
Ok I misunderstood. Thanks for correcting that, because I thought the wording stunk lol
ReplyDeleteBelow is what I read most recently. I may have know the distinction and forgot, maybe I never was aware lol I went through a Bobby phase where I devoured his website and read every interaction and letter he exhanged plus all of his interviews. But it has been many years...
Beausoleil, now 68, has been incarcerated since June 23, 1970, serving a term of 7-years-to-life, for the 1969 murder of musician Gary Hinman. He was tried twice, the first resulting in hung jury and the second, a conviction. He was sentenced to death on April 15, 1970, but saw that sentence commuted to life when the death penalty was briefly outlawed.
I defer to you Dreath as this is your ballpark lol
ReplyDeleteBut if they could go through all the trouble to change a law- how much more would it have taken to add a provision dealing with people already sentenced to death??
It just seems like the change in this case was poorly thought out and executed.
Off-topic: "The Fearless Vampire Killers" starring Sharon Tate is on Turner Classic Movie channel tonight at 9:30 Eastern. Directed by Roman Polanski.
ReplyDeleteSt Circumstance said...
ReplyDeleteI think its appropriate for someone who was originally sentenced to die for their crime to spend the rest of their life in jail
It's hard to argue with this logic. After all, you escaped the ultimate sanction by the skin of your teeth and Bobby certainly did not want to die, nor, unlike many Family members did he believe that death was a mere illusion or that if you killed someone, you were actually killing yourself.
But I do argue with it.
I agree that it can be appropriate. It may well be appropriate most, or let's say much, of the time. But I also think it's too absolute a concept to apply in absolutely every case. Not only that, much of the "appropriateness" is dependent on whether one believes in the death penalty in the first place or whether one believes human beings can change for the better.
I take the matter on a case by case basis because people are different, their approaches in prison can differ from period to period and if your sentence opens up the possibility of parole, one would be daft not to try for it unless you had good reasons. The possibility of parole does not mean the guarantee of it.
I think it is wildly inappropriate to even use the words "7 years" in the sentencing phrasing. It gives the impression, and hope I am sure, that it is potentially possible for the convict to get out that quickly
It sure used to. Doesn't Bugliosi state in his book that Leslie spoke of being out in 7 years and Bobby saying he'd start his own "Family" when he got out ?
If true, the reality has been something of a rude awakening for both. And that's an important consideration. Regardless of the impression something may give, that impression isn't carved in law or in stone. Who gleans the impression ? Does the fact that someone gleans an impression mean that whatever they think it means is actually what it does mean ?
It's a very different system in the UK where, even for heinous offences, most prisoners do not serve the full term ~ and they know it before they go in. Even when murderers get life, except for in truly exceptional circumstances, they won't be in a la Bobby.
But the inmate is often the key. If someone shows a willingness to turn their life around in jail and they do it, not just over a year or two but for close to half a century, should they still be in the same category as someone who has been totally unrepentant for the same length of time ? Because if so, what's the point of bothering to try to be productive once incarcerated ?
LVH once said that she didn't get too worried about her death sentence because she would never have to face what she done. Reality set in for the women in particular when their sentences became life. I know people will slate her for it but I can understand what Karlene Faith meant when she said that a life sentence was in some ways worse than a death sentence.
Dreath said...
ReplyDeleteNot to be too knit picky here
I don't think you are being nit ~ picky when you inform someone that you can see has made an inaccurate statement, with the right thing or something that is intended to aid their understanding. So often on TLB blogs, the complaint is made about lazy journalism or how mythology has become paraded as verifiable fact and much of that is because quite often, little things creep under the radar unchallenged or those little things get repeated regularly or even semi regularly.....and become huge things. We all make little errors in our memories of what is such a vast case with so many twists and turns and information and supposition from the players in the saga; it's natural that we'll get some things a little out of kilter from time to time. I'm often grateful that someone will point out any discrepancies or inaccuracies that I may have trotted out. It actually spurs me on to concentrate and think more about various matters. I can't think of a single time that it has not paid dividends.
I am not at all surprised
Neither am I. On Cielo's site, in the comments section, one guy states that he is surprised. I'm fairly confident that he will be in a tiny minority.
Some things just aren't surprising. Leslie's reversal was not a surprise. I remember when Amy Winehouse died, my second thought was that I just wasn't surprised. Her death was no less tragic and Bobby's denial is no less disappointing for him, but I'm just not surprised. I wonder whether he seriously is.
starviego said...
This news makes me very sad. Why can't people ever forgive?
It takes a certain amount of love, courage or a solid belief that the forgiveness achieves something to do that. I'm with you on that though. Trouble is, I know from fairly regular experience just how difficult it is to forgive and that's from someone that believes in it ! I don't always want to. In fact, more often than I'd care to face, I don't want to.
And those craven politicians... we all know Bobby would have been released decades ago if it hadn't been for that dread Manson stigma
I think you are right about that. However, what it does demonstrate is just how deep the entire Manson saga drove a piledriver into the heart of a certain segment of America and how things, even from 50 years ago resonate. Let's face it, people are carrying on ancient enmities from more than 3000 years ago.
If you haven't already, a good book worth reading is David R. Williams' "Searching for God in the sixties." He has a great chapter on Charlie but it only makes sense in the context of the whole book which is about things that many people simply don't recognize or want to face up to. But when one thinks of the basic thrust of his book, reactions to any of the Family members and parole make perfect sense.
Saint said: "But if they could go through all the trouble to change a law- how much more would it have taken to add a provision dealing with people already sentenced to death??"
ReplyDeleteThe problem is you can do that but you can't then apply it to BB. You see you can only be sentenced under the laws that existed at the time of your conviction. In other words changes to the criminal laws can't be retroactive only prospective. Article I, section 9 of the Constitution- "No ....... ex post facto law shall be passed [by Congress].
So when these guys went off death row they have to be given a sentence 'as if' it was 1970. The alternative sentence for First Degree Murder was life in prison with a change for parole.
Today in California you have:
Capital Murder- death or life without parole (LWOP)
First Degree Murder- 25 years to life to LWOP
Second Degree Murder- 15 years to life up to 25 years to life
There has never ben a 7 to life category for murder that I am aware of the '7' is too short.
Grim said: "And those craven politicians... we all know Bobby would have been released decades ago if it hadn't been for that dread Manson stigma
I think you are right about that."
I'm not so sure. If the laws today were in effect in 1970 and if BB (or any of them save perhaps LVH) had avoided death the likely sentence would have been LWOP. I think that fact may play a role in the decisions. BB convicted in 2016 would never get a parole hearing unless they commuted his sentence down to 25-Life, which happens.
He also still has that section 2402 (c)(1) problem.
I have a difficult time feeling sorry for someone with an ego like Bobby's.
ReplyDeleteIn the AP article. See that reference to the 'heinous nature of the crime'? She is alluding to Section 2402 (c)(1). It can keep them all in prison for life as there is no way to get rid of the factors.
ReplyDeleteAnd here's the link to the state website regarding what happened to them all when the death penalty was declared unconstitutional: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Capital_Punishment/history_of_capital_punishment.html
"In February 1972, the California Supreme Court found that the death penalty constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the California state constitution and 107 condemned inmates were resentenced to life with the possibility of parole and removed from California’s death row."
107: our gang is a statistically relevant percentage of that number.
And here is where the 'seven year' reference comes from: http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/3046.html
California Penal Code Section 3046.
(a) An inmate imprisoned under a life sentence shall not be paroled until he or she has served the greater of the following:
(1) A term of at least seven calendar years.
(2) A term as established pursuant to any other law that establishes a minimum term or minimum period of confinement under a life sentence before eligibility for parole.
#1 is our boy (and the rest). #2 is if he had actually received a sentence like say 20 years to life.
#1 is also why they all had their first parole hearing in 1978- sentenced in 1971. I think Manson's last sentencing was in 1972 but recall his first parole hearing was 1979 ????
They got the deal of the century in 1972. They walked away from the gas chamber and they received a chance at parole. If the current death penalty in California were to be declared unconstitutional (it has been by a lower Federal court) they would get L-WOPed- life without parole.
Thanks Dreath can you come to my imaginary dinner party so i can pick your brain ? ..I find the US justice system interestingly horrific and fucked up so thanks for the links ...I recall watching a doco about an african american man on death row when i was about 12.. Blew my mind and its never left me ...
ReplyDeleteYeah it's great to have people like Dreath around to separate fact from fiction and let us know who is blowing smoke lol
ReplyDeleteEven if in this case it's me lol
But I wasn't trying to mislead. Just repeating and repasting what I read. I'm glad to know the literal law and not just be left with someone's interpretation of it.
Saint: didn't think you were I was spurred on by the idea BB is saying 7-life. Like he wants to create the fiction they are denying him a release date.
ReplyDeletePenny, be happy to. Stay away from death penalty stats. They will make you mad and cry whichever side you are on. Too many DNA innocents (some too late) and the expense could fund college for many. Plus more pass away from natural causes then by the state.
For me it ought to go. It deters nothing and I am personally not a fan of retribution.
And thank you both.
Beausoleil is not saying 7 to life. It's the Board of Parole Hearings. In almost every hearing they state that he is serving 7 to life with the minimum eligible parole date of 8/4/76
ReplyDeleteTo late Dreath Im drawn to death penalty stats like a fly to shit and your SO right it makes me so furious I weep . I just cant fathom how in this day and age it still exists...but then turn on the news and see Trump and think...thats how :(
ReplyDeletegrimtraveller said...
ReplyDeleteOn Cielo's site, in the comments section, one guy states that he is surprised. I'm fairly confident that he will be in a tiny minority
Well, actually, he said he didn't understand the decision as he wasn't involved in TLB while the other one said he wasn't too surprised........
Dreath said...
I'm not so sure. If the laws today were in effect in 1970 and if BB (or any of them save perhaps LVH) had avoided death the likely sentence would have been LWOP
I wouldn't dispute that, if the laws today were in effect in 1970, but they weren't. I thought the weight of Starviego's point was that the Manson connection to Bobby has scuppered him pretty much all the way ~ though I would add that his changing stories, his prison disciplinary record and some of his choices, given the position he's been in, have been just as damaging, if not more so.
It is, however, interesting just viewing the nature of some of the questions put to him about Charlie and that entire milieu or the connections to Charlie that LE bring up during various parole hearings, even to the extent of a board member saying in 2005:
"Had you been involved in any other instances or present in any other times when someone was killed by Manson or an associate ?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: You've never been. You weren't in a car at any point in time -
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, no, never. If I heard – let me tell you – I'm going to tell you something that – if I had seen or if I had had any inkling that the people I was involved with were headed in the direction that they were going, in terms of violence towards other people, I'd have been out of there so damn fast it would have been their heads spin and mine.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Well I'm glad you mentioned that, and I can't site the reference because I've looked at – I've tried to, in your own favor, review as much of the information in your voluminous three files as I could, and I thought I saw some notation at some point that prior to this you had been in a car and someone was killed – not by you, you stayed in the car "
Sounds like the guy is referring to Shorty's demise, but it's a Manson connection and Bobby is a Manson connection so.......
Sometimes, it seems like the name Manson simply brings about a certain reflex action among the great and the good despite what his incarcerated associates have been saying for 30~40 years. I'm not in the "Bobby deserves parole" camp because for me it's never a case of a lifer deserving it, rather, it's something the state grants. However, I think the Manson connection has not done Bobby any favours and that if he had been a lone wolf case, he may have been paroled by now.
I'm not bothered or surprised by the news Bobby will be staying put. I've always felt that his story-changing was a hole he wouldn't be able to dig himself out of.
ReplyDeleteInmate Beausoleil and an eternal prison cell are made for each other...I hope the floors gets a little colder, his cell bed a little harder and each comfort fall short for him
ReplyDeletekathleen digregorio said...
ReplyDeleteI hope the floors gets a little colder, his cell bed a little harder and each comfort fall short for him
I guess when you've been in jail for 47 years, had various parts of you busted up so that you end up in the prison hospital for extended periods and had numerous parole applications turned down, people's wishes for your discomfort, if you're ever aware of them, become like a cobweb in a corner of the room you never look in.....
grimtraveller said...
ReplyDeletekathleen digregorio said...
I hope the floors gets a little colder, his cell bed a little harder and each comfort fall short for him
I guess when you've been in jail for 47 years, had various parts of you busted up so that you end up in the prison hospital for extended periods and had numerous parole applications turned down, people's wishes for your discomfort, if you're ever aware of them, become like a cobweb in a corner of the room you never look in.....
______________________________________________________________________________________
Well as a former Manson follower, Bobby certainly is aware of the [Universal Mind]
and Kathleen's hopes are more like spiders in his hard bed than spaced out webs in the corner.
Hey I'm in DC and can't really dig. But...
ReplyDeleteI read an article on plane from ABC news that said Bobby was denied " in part" because he sold music for profit without permission ...
I am too sick with a cold to respond. I usually have numerous opinions to state on this jerk, but....alas, I am miserable....
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnother spoiled brat is just whining over his well-deserved fate. Who's going to believe? He presented himself as an artist-musician but acted as a nerd with a hollow head.
ReplyDeleteToo bad...so sad (not really)
ReplyDeleteI will add, that my husband looks like the young Bobby but he's a lover, not a killer.
ReplyDeleteBut Van Houten they grant?
ReplyDelete