Contact Reporter Los Angeles Times
Leslie Van Houten, who was convicted along with other members of Charles Manson's cult in the 1969 killings of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca, was granted parole Wednesday by a panel of state commissioners in Chino.
It was the 21st time that Van Houten, 68, has appeared before a parole board, and the second time that commissioners found her suitable for release.
“She’s very thankful and relieved,” said Van Houten’s attorney, Rich Pfeiffer. “She’s going home. There’s no question she’s going home. The only question is when.”
Gov. Jerry Brown must now once again decide whether to release her after more than 40 years in prison. Brown rejected her parole last year, concluding that Van Houten — the youngest member of Manson’s so-called family — posed “an unreasonable danger to society if released from prison.”
Her attorneys have long argued that she was only 19 when she took part in the crimes and that she has been a model prisoner. But release has been strongly opposed by the families of the victims as well as prosecutors and many others.
State officials will begin a 120-day legal review of the panel’s finding, and after the process concludes, the decision goes to Brown. The governor would have 30 days to take one of five options. He could uphold, reverse or modify the decision, according to the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Brown could also send the decision to the full Board of Parole, or he could take no action, which would allow Wednesday’s decision to stand.
 |
| From left, Manson followers Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten walk into a morning court session in 1970. When Manson carved an "X" into his forehead during the trial, his "family" members followed suit. ( Los Angeles Times) |
She stabbed victim 14 times
Van Houten has been considered the least blameworthy member of the group and has been portrayed by supporters as a misguided teen under the influence of LSD on the night of the slayings.
A former homecoming queen from Monrovia, she did not join in the Aug. 9, 1969, murders of Sharon Tate, the pregnant wife of film director Roman Polanski, and four others at the Benedict Canyon home that Tate was renting.
But the following day, Van Houten was part of a group that stormed into the LaBiancas' home in Los Feliz. As Charles "Tex" Watson stabbed Leno LaBianca, Van Houten and another woman held down Rosemary LaBianca.
After Watson stabbed Rosemary LaBianca with a bayonet, he handed a knife to Van Houten. She testified to stabbing Rosemary in the back at least 14 more times. The blood of the victims was used to scrawl messages on the walls, as had been done at the Benedict Canyon home.
 |
| Leslie Van Houten, shown in 2002, has repeatedly been denied parole. (Peter Phun / Associated Press) |
A long, winding legal process
Van Houten, Manson and three others were convicted and sentenced to death, but after the California Supreme Court struck down the death penalty, their sentences were commuted to life in prison.
An appellate court overturned Van Houten’s conviction in 1976, and a second trial the following year ended in a hung jury. She was convicted of two counts of murder and one count of conspiracy in her third trial in 1978 and sentenced to seven years to life in prison. Starting in 1979, Van Houten has gone before the parole board regularly.
In recent years, Van Houten’s attorneys characterized her as a model inmate, earning a bachelor’s in English literature and master's degree in humanities while running self-help groups for incarcerated women.
At parole board hearing in 2002, Van Houten said she was “deeply ashamed” of what she had done, adding: “I take very seriously not just the murders, but what made me make myself available to someone like Manson.”
Manson, 82, and other acolytes involved in the slaying are still behind bars. Charles “Tex” Watson and Patricia Krenwinkel have each been denied parole several times. Susan Atkins, who was denied parole 13 times, died in prison in 2009.
FREEDOM BLOCKED
‘Shocking nature of the crimes left an indelible mark on society’
A two-member California review board first granted parole to Van Houten in April 2016.
In its first recommendation for release, the board based its decision in part on Van Houten’s age at the time of the crime, her length of incarceration, lack of violent crime as an adult and her spotless prison record: She has never been disciplined for serious misconduct while behind bars.
But Brown last year disagreed, saying in his five-page decision that all of these points were outweighed by other “negative factors that demonstrate she remains unsuitable for parole.”
He said the “shocking nature of the crimes left an indelible mark on society” and that the motive — to trigger a race war “by slaughtering innocent people chosen at random — is equally disturbing.”
In his statement, Brown said it remained unclear how Van Houten had transformed herself from a smart, driven young woman to “a member of one of the most notorious cults in history and an eager participant in the cold-blooded and gory murder of innocent victims.”
At her last parole hearing, she said: "I don't let myself off the hook. I don't find parts in any of this that makes me feel the slightest bit good about myself.”
A SECOND BID
‘She’s going home’
Pfeiffer, Van Houten’s attorney, said Wednesday’s decision by the parole board was an important milestone, calling it “the most difficult one to get.”
The panel was aware that the governor had previously rejected her release but still found her suitable for freedom.
Pfeiffer said he was hopeful that this time around, Brown will set aside public pressure and see that his client has been rehabilitated.
“If he rejects it, we’ll go back to court,” Pfeiffer vowed. “I’m not going away, and she’s going home.”
 |
| Charles Manson is escorted to court for a preliminary hearing in 1969 (Bill Murphy / Los Angeles Times) |
101 comments:
Hi there kidz!
Daily Mail website has a couple of three photos of Leslie from this Wednesday:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4859876/The-Latest-Youngest-Manson-follower-granted-parole-again.html
I think, when and if, Brown lets LULU will walk- it would be through a "No Decision". I don't think he would publicly affirm the decision. I think he would just let it stand.
Interestingly enough to myself lol I am starting to consider ways it could happen for this one, and this one alone.
Although I still hope she stays put personally, it wouldn't really shock my conscious any more if they did.
I know many people make good arguments she has done enough time....
But I still cant get over the vision of LULU dancing and laughing through the court room in front of all of the grieving victims families who had just lost so much.
I know all the technical arguments about her second sentence and her right to parole...
But I cant forget that LULU was the only one of the killers- WHO ASKED TO KILL.
I know that she was very young and impressionable and did had the least physical participation in the murders...
But I also think at any age, unless there is something really wrong and dangerous about you, it is beyond understanding how you are so little shaken about what you have just been a part of that your next thought is to have a snack
So.. while I get all of the arguments for her freedom, and I wont hold any rally's or protests if she gets it, I still would prefer LULU to spend the rest of her breathing moments behind bars.
While at certain levels I don't have a great deal of personal sympathy for LVH, for legal consistency she should have been out long before now, the length of her incarceration comparably unprecedented. Even the Squeakster is out and I consider her far more fanatical and questionably 'rehabilitated' than LVH. In particular, I can't imagine her being a threat now to society and it's time she start paying for her own room, board, clothing, food, health care, education and etc. rather than the taxpayer. The cost to keep her inside to-date has been roughly 1.5 million dollars, maybe more (avg. inmate cost $32k/yr).
"Van Houten has been considered the least blameworthy member of the group ..." Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Unfortunately, I think the Governor will reverse again. In one sense, I agree with St. that she chose her path on August 10, 1969 and you don't always get a second chance in life. The victims certainly didn't. But I also appreciate that this is not the law governing her release. I don't really have any strong feelings on whether she should stay in prison or go home, but I do feel strongly that she should be treated fairly and that the law should be applied to her in the same way it would be applied to anyone else and I don't feel confident that it is.
Oddly, or maybe predictably, Charlie still seems to control the lives of his "children." Where the others appear to have achieved a real remorse and have made significant efforts in rehabilitating themselves, Charlie continues to perpetuate his own myth and only seems to become less remorseful and more dangerous as the years pass. I think this, more than anything else, is what keeps the others - the women anyways - in prison. Perhaps it is because they are women, that they will always be seen as "Charlie's Girls," and so will always be more closely associated with Charlie in a way that Grogan or Beausoleil are not. It's an unfortunate irony, because this is essentially the same construct that lead them to the Family and enabled them to be so easily manipulated by Charlie in the first instance. Not to make excuses, human nature is what it is and people do things because it is what they want to do, but I can't help but feel that for most if not all of these girls, their fathers by nature seem to have failed them by any fair measure, their father by choice has treated them even worse. It's a sad waste all around for everyone involved. Fathers love and watch out for your daughters.
I believe that she regrets that she did this.It has been 48 years,
Peter that was a very good comment. Really good.
Robert C and Marlene- exactly right and no argument on the merits...
But let me ask all one question and there is no right or wrong answer:
I am not sure if you feel the purpose of prison is to punish or deter? But, in either case, the idea is to send a message that there are certain things in our society that are not acceptable. That you will pay a price if you cross certain lines. There are only a very few cases that give the Government a chance to remind people- You can trust us that this wont happen to you, or people will pay the ultimate price if it does.
Blame it on Manson, Blame it on Bugs's Book , Blame it on the Rain lol
Lulu got into one of those positions NO?
And I must remind you again - She is the only one who Asked to be there...
My Favorite Post of all the ones I have eve wrote for this site, or any other, was one that asked readers to consider...
"The Value of a Life Sentence Versus the Value of a Human Life".
Alisa Statman complimented me lol - blush)
When you consider LULU- you have to consider the victims families as well.
Lulu had a choice to do what she did. Rosemary did not.
When you start to tell people that there is a system or matrix that can calculate what price they will pay for specific acts- then people start to think. But in a few cases like this we get a chance to say- NO!!
If you do these things its over for you period.
Can anyone really argue with that?
Peter said: " Perhaps it is because they are women, that they will always be seen as "Charlie's Girls," and so will always be more closely associated with Charlie in a way that Grogan or Beausoleil are not. "
One thing I distinctly remember back then was how utterly smarmy and disrespectful the three girls were in front of the cameras which you can obviously still review today. While these days we see every type of bad public behavior almost routinely, back then it was a shock and virtually everyone was absolutely furious which I suspect is how they are still viewed today as opposed to those who didn't hit the big time on film like Davis, Grogan, Beausoleil, etc.
St. C. : Imprisonment is both to punish and deter but not torture. I think LVH was more controlled, a mindset far from what it is today. If we're going to give criminals a chance at parole, we need to give them a chance at redeeming themselves. I think LVH has clearly shown this and the board apparently has agreed.
I sense you are looking for unending revenge and retribution rather than justice.
The quality of mercy is not strained;
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
I would say that Lulu has not been tortured at all. Go look at some old footage of her in TV documentaries back in the day. Lulu smiled into the camera and make jokes in classroom. She told reporter about matrix and predicted her own release date according to the norm. Lol. She actually was released for awhile. I read all about it in Karlene Fsiths Book.
Lulu was not tortured. I ask not for her pain. I sweat not her release...
I just feel she should stay put and offer a possible explanation why she does.
Hello everyone! I've become obsessed with lurking this blog and have read the vast majority over the past couple months! I love the information, intelligent debate and in depth research!
I just wanted to answer the question St.C posed (this will be my first comment so be easy on me!).
While I understand there are good arguments on both sides of the coin regarding LVH's release and I can understand the deterrent aspect I also feel like keeping her imprisoned or continuously overturning parole could possibly create more harm than good. There's already a deep distrust in the 'system' and on paper, when it comes down to strictly parole guidelines, LVH should be released. There's an added moral argument that can be made to keep her locked up but in technical terms and with the last 2 decisions by the parole board she should be granted a date.
While I can see how her case and imprisonment could act as a deterrent for some I feel like those that would be impacted by it aren't the people who are most likely to commit such crimes in the first place. Even the death penalty hasn't shown any definitive evidence (that I am aware of) as acting as a deterrent. Crimes of passion that are committed in the heat of the moment probably won't be impacted by such a deterrent either.
I feel like many people look at cases like this where the offender has served much more time than others facing similar crimes, where the possibility of parole almost seems like just a label and unlikely regardless of any circumstances regarding 'rehabilitation' or parole guidelines and the constant overturning of decisions made by the parole board by the governor and see it as an example of how the system isn't fair and stacked against certain people (even if morally we could argue that certain people deserve it). I think it may deter people from the whole idea of rehabilitation and cause bitterness and anger to the system to grow into civil unrest and distrust in some.
At this point I don't believe any of them will ever be released (and maybe they shouldn't be). I do, however, think that they were given a sentence of life with the possibility of parole and not life without the possibility and therefore the letter of the law regarding the terms of being granted such parole should be handed out fairly. I also think it throws a wrench into things when the reason LVH and Bruce's parole is continuously reversed because no one wants to be the politician that released a 'Manson member'. I would've thought Bruce would've had an easier time with this considering not many people, unless familiar with the case, even know who he is but considering he's been granted and then denied how many times now? I don't think LVH has much of a chance. And yes, she made her own bed and can't blame anyone else but legally I think there is an argument to be made that this is a political issue and not so much a legal dilemma.
(St., I've thoroughly enjoyed reading your responses and well thought out posts throughout this blog!)
LVH was sentenced, not to death, not to life and not to life without parole. She was sentenced to seven years to life. Her minimum eligible parole date in 1978 was seven years. Even if convicted today her MEPD would be 25 years. The average sentence for a convicted 1st degree murderer in California was 24.3 years in 2013. She is way past that.
Prisons actually serve four recognized purposes: retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation. However, that said, in the last 20 years, rehabilitation has, for the most part, disappeared from corrections. Similarly, the prevailing view is that severe prison sentences don't deter anything (while increasing the certainty of being caught does deter crime: more cops = fewer prisons).
So, the justification for keeping LVH in prison is either retribution (punishment for the horrid nature of the crimes) or incapacitation (she remains a threat to society).
Taking the second first, the likelihood LVH would kill again (or commit any crime) is extraordinarily low, despite the media attention such cases receive.
Stanford University did a study of released lifers in 2011. The recidivism rate for paroled convicted murderers since 1995 was minuscule. Of the 860 murderers paroled since 1995, only five individuals returned to jail for new felonies. California’s overall inmate population recommitment rate for new crimes was 48.7 percent. The primary reason: age upon release.
So the only justification for denying LVH parole is retribution. But retribution for what? If it is taking a life then none of the 860 should have been paroled and no murderer should ever be paroled. Alternatively, we are applying a double standard that has no place in our system of justice. To those who disagree I ask: how do you justify her different treatment? Is her crime bloodier or more morally evil then all of those 860? Or are you really applying the double standard solely because she is one of ‘Charlie’s Girls’ (a creation of the media)?
"A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals."
Fyodor Dostoevsky
Welcome aboard Dani.
Welcome to the blog, Dani.
St Circumstance said...
If you do these things its over for you period.
Can anyone really argue with that?
Yes.
If it was last year she'd done these things, I doubt you'd get much argument. I always have in view that she was 19 at the time, that it was 48 years ago and most importantly, that she is not the person that she was then. And it's not so much that she's just gotten older and more feeble so she's gone through natural changes, it's that she had to face and then consciously embrace that which she had rejected in order to make changes in her life. The very system and modes of thought that she so famously stuck two fingers up at in her time with the Family are the exact system and modes of thought that she elected to pass through.
It's important not to be naive, it wasn't her initial decision to be rehabilitated. There were important people within the prison system that started that ball rolling, people whose names are not only lost to history, but who many of us haven't a clue about. But she did have to buy into it and admit that she was wrong and actively do something about it.
And for the majority of her life, she has done something positive about it. She has jumped through the hoops that have been set for her, she's made her errors in the public view and had most of her words and decisions placed under the most intensive of microscopes. She's endured being knocked back 20 times while doing what the parole boards recommend, knowing that a significant %age of the population were totally against her. The irony is that she has been subject to the kind of stringent law keeping that most of us would struggle with but everything she's done regarding parole has been set by the law. I don't like using words like "deserve" when it comes to parole. The law gives some people the possibility of another chance. I think 48 years is half a lifetime and when people say that for her to come out it gives the wrong message, I say "really ?" My little brother was born 48 years ago, it's a long, long time. The universe happens in that time. To have had to serve that length of time in jail, even if she walks out tomorrow, means the loss of far and away the most important years of one's life.
Don't get me wrong, it serves her right. She committed murder. Wilfully, deliberately. And I do believe some people should never leave jail but that is always dependent on the continuum of their life in prison because that is where they play out their life. It's the only place one can gauge whether or not they should ever be paroled.
Dani I appreciate your kind words and your thoughts very much :)
Grim- U2 lol
David- Always
she was 19 at the time
When I say that, I'm not making a case that she is somehow less culpable due to her age. I say it in the context that it was a very long time ago and that she has gone out of her way to become a different person since that time. There are some people I wouldn't say that about if they had remained on the same trajectory over a near 50 year period.
St Circumstance said...
But I still cant get over the vision of LULU dancing and laughing through the court room in front of all of the grieving victims families who had just lost so much
Well you need to. She did. For the last 40+ years, she's been no happier about it than you. What can she do about it ? It's happened. She acted like a blithering idiot. I don't know if the family members of the victims were there for every day of the trial. I hope not.
But she ceased to be that person a long time ago.
People can change.
Dani_P said...
St., I've thoroughly enjoyed reading your responses and well thought out posts throughout this blog!
There's few people that can touch the necessary strings and get a good debate raging like the St. He's worth his weight in £50 notes !
"I think 48 years is half a lifetime"
All the victims were under 48, so you may want to rethink that argument.
grimtraveller said...
When I say that, I'm not making a case that she is somehow less culpable due to her age.
I'll take the bait. I think some leniency and weight should be given to her age at the time. She did a horrible thing, no question. But, a 19 year old mind isn't fully developed. We are too idealistic and willing to assert ourselves without the full capacity to understand the gravity of our actions at 19. If she had been 30 I'd feel completely different regarding her understanding of the situation.
Realpolitik is what keeps her in jail. Kudos to Doris Tate for laying the responsibility at the Governor's feet. She continues to get the last laugh on all of them.
But the irony here is that the non-famous, violence prone, adult male, who spent his sentence weightlifting and raping fellow inmates, is released back into society every day in Cali, without a peep from the Governor, because the news isn't covering inmate #whatever's parole.
Feel safe everybody. ;-)
Matt said...
a 19 year old mind isn't fully developed. We are too idealistic and willing to assert ourselves without the full capacity to understand the gravity of our actions at 19. If she had been 30 I'd feel completely different regarding her understanding of the situation
Fair comment.
Peter said...
"I think 48 years is half a lifetime"
All the victims were under 48, so you may want to rethink that argument
The point being that it's no small amount of time. If you take 48 years out of anyone's life that's over 66, that's a pretty hefty slice. It's not like even 10 years.
How many lifetimes can you have in infinity?
Does anyone think that the governor will let the parole board ruling stand? Or will LVH and Bruce (and possibly BB in the coming years) be continuously granted parole and have it blocked until the day they die in prison?
St. C. said: " I would say that Lulu has not been tortured at all. "
48 years incarceration is pretty torturous to me when everyone else convicted of a same or similar crime, or even much worse, has long since been released.
Now that I have my tin foil hat on.....
If the governor quickly said 'let it stand' the Judge could easily say "the issue is moot" and the Tex tapes never see the light of day.
Nah....he won't say that.
Peter said...
How many lifetimes can you have in infinity?
Just the one. It's all you'll need.
Dani_P said...
I've become obsessed with lurking this blog
Yours was a well written and thought provoking post.
David said:
Prisons actually serve four recognized purposes: retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation. However, that said, in the last 20 years, rehabilitation has, for the most part, disappeared from corrections.
Thanks for raising that, David. I was gonna mention rehabilitation but you beat me to it. For what it's worth, many developed countries throughout the world still hold rehabilitation pretty high on the list of functions that the legal system (and prisons) serve. Recidivism rates are always high but nevertheless a percentage of inmates actually DO reform. A system that discounts or ignores this is really just creating more criminals I.M.O.
I have to agree that Van Houten's continued incarceration is based solely on the notoriety of the crimes.
David ALSO said:
Now that I have my tin foil hat on.....
If the governor quickly said 'let it stand' the Judge could easily say "the issue is moot" and the Tex tapes never see the light of day.
Nah....he won't say that.
Being an occasional tin foil hat enthusiast, I have to say... "Wow... good point!" and of course "paranoia is total awareness" :-)
Dani_P said...
Does anyone think that the governor will let the parole board ruling stand?
Having now blocked 6 parole recommendations, it's becoming a matter of how much brass neck he has left.
In the case of Leslie in particular, his reasons for blocking her last time, even if you hate Leslie and think she should die in jail, were cringeworthy. To say that she couldn't explain in a satisfactory manner how she turned from teen to murderer is ludicrous. She spent virtually the whole of her hearing doing that and indeed, she's spent more years than many of us care to remember doing that. Check out all the parole transcripts on Cielo's site. Her answers are a psychology smorgasbord and more to the point, she is constantly asked questions that push her to think deep and hard about how she got where she did. In spite of that, the guv'nor still blocked it.
Whatever his reasons were last time around, I think they will become harder and harder for him to justify and retain any serious credibility, should the blockages continue.
Peter said...
Oddly, or maybe predictably, Charlie still seems to control the lives of his "children." Where the others appear to have achieved a real remorse and have made significant efforts in rehabilitating themselves, Charlie continues to perpetuate his own myth and only seems to become less remorseful and more dangerous as the years pass. I think this, more than anything else, is what keeps the others - the women anyways - in prison
I don't know whether it's the main reason but it seems to be one and I think this is a really good point that Peter makes. A bit like the trial itself, it's quite fascinating how so much of the attention is on Charlie during the parole hearings, almost as though when some people see any of the imprisoned, what they really see is Charlie, even though they left him behind at least 40 years ago and haven't hidden their disdain for him or regret at ever meeting him. It's almost as though some of them are paying for his attitude. But only in part.
Those are some hairy legs!
LVH will not be allowed out of prison, EVER!!!! California, just like the rest of the Pacific Northwest is surrounded by wildfires. Jerry Brown has much bigger fish to fry. The easiest legal action to do is to disregard the decision by the parole board and and say "NO", once again. If you looked at all of the other MSM boards most people think "She killed Sharon tate, She carved WAR in LL's body, She killed RML (you all know she was already dead). Brown will never release a member of the "Manson Family".
Just some random thoughts that are best put in point-form...
- Nothing LVH did back in 1968-1971 can be defended in any way. Trying to walk this thing back 48 years to get inside her head is kinda useless. It's all well-worn road and highly-illogical from a 2017 perspective. To this day, the killers' reasons for doing what they did is still unclear at best. I have to believe if LVH could further clarify her thinking at that time, she would. Not that it would make anyone feel any better about what happened of course.
- I always find it kind of offensive that there might be an incarceration matrix for a life taken. Rosemary LaBianca's life was not worth x number of years. Not 1 year and not 1000 years. It simply cannot be quantified in such a way. Something else needs to be the real reason for LVH's release. This is life, emotions, loss and understanding ... not arithmetic.
- The idea that LVH has not paid substantially for her crimes is ridiculous. 48 years of unrealized freedom is a helluva price to pay. Is it enough? That's for anyone to decide for themself. But let's not pretend that it is inconsequential.
- As with last year, I'm pleased that the PB is not afraid of doing their job. Whether LVH is released or not is something I go back and forth on. But I like that the PB is at leasting operating from a place of courage.
- Governor Moonbeam may as well make a decision here once and for all. If he has no intention of ever rubber-stamping her release, just say so now. The factors regarding her suitability and incarceration won't change now. Using sketchy, vague reasoning to keep her in prison is cowardly ... nothing but a politician's crutch.
- It can easily be argued that the notoriety of the case itself has cost LVH many years if freedom. Take Manson's name out of the equation and she would have been released 20 years ago. Susan was correct, they are political prisoners. But they foolishly made themselves into that. For being a generation of people resentful of The Man, why on earth would they chance putting their fate in his hands? I never understood that in this case, among a myriad of other things.
Governor Moonbeam will never free Lulu.
Is being tortured having people break into your home, kill your husband while you listen, then stabbing you to death while you fight for your life...
Or is being tortured having to pay for that?
Lulu gets to eat. She has a roof over her head. She gets To have friends and relationships.
The labiancas got to bleed to death. Leo got a carving fork left sticking out of him.
Leslie gets to go on TV and plead her case. She gets hearings.
Labiancas got buried in dirt.
Lulu is where Lulu belongs.
On another blog I asked the following question, why are the parole boards finding Van Houten and Davis eligible for parole? These people are conservative and many are former police officers so why is this happening? They must seeing something in her or Davis that many on these blogs do not see.
Because according to the rules and guidelines they are both technically fit, and probably deserve release based on there records and guidelines..
I personally see that :)
I have said a few times, and once wrote a post stating, it might be time to let this one go...
But then, and now, I am entitled to my personal opinion as well. As you all are.
I think that a teenage girl who makes a bad mistake like DUI, or playing with matches, or pulling a prank on a friend that goes wrong- any of these type things- deserves a second chance if they follow the program for a certain amount of time. You can excuse their actions to some degree to their age, and inexperience in life- if it was stupid mistake, reckless judgment, or an accident.
But there are a few things that cross the line in such a heinous manner that society has a responsibility to send a message that this is not going to be accepted, and if you are going to go this far- you will pay the ultimate price. LULU didn't make a silly childish mistake, or have an accident that resulted in loss of life. She asked to go and break into a house and literally torture and terrorize people. Then she desecrated their home and had a snack. She laughed about it at trial and danced and sang in front of the families of the people she did this to. She was spiting these people and mocking them after what she did, not crying and apologizing. What is your line for God sakes? 40 or 50 years is enough if that was your mom or dad, or brother, or sister?
But I get thats not the "law", or how the "System" works... I do understand that.
So let her walk if you wish,or must...I wont bitch or write any letters of complaint if she does.
But, so long as we are giving our opinions of the Gov's decision- I sure wanted to have mine lol
This is actually the first thing that crossed my mind. But wouldn't taking a position that he was going to let it stand is essentially the same as approving it. I think he "lets it stand" by doing nothing. To end the process now he would actually have to affirmatively approve. Someone needs to convince one of the others to implead themselves and join in the motion.
Mot my area of law at all but If there is no privilege and no ongoing investigation why wouldn't those documents be subject to FOIA?
I have to get ready for a hurricane but I leave you all with one last thought...
Its true Lulu has been in for 40 something years or whatever. Part of her parole eligibility is accepting responsibility for her actions and showing remorse.
She has said herself on camera that she expected to do about 7 to 15 years. She has been fighting hat she ha been improperly treated ever since. This became about whats fair to LULU at some point.
So my point is = although she has served for many years, Just a very few of them were spent by her actually taking responsibility and showing remorse. She quit showing compassion for her victim and started asking for compassion for herself very early in this process.
So is that really accepting responsibility? You will accept punishment for what you did as long as you think you should?
OK- enough from me. You get where I stand...
If LULU gets out Ill buy her a Coors-light and say congrats. But I am not having one with her. That will have to be fair enough- its the very best I can do.
St Circumstance said...
"But there are a few things that cross the line in such a heinous manner that society has a responsibility to send a message that this is not going to be accepted, and if you are going to go this far- you will pay the ultimate price."
Lorena Bobbitt was acquitted, Saint. 🍻
People who see this case from an emotional rather than a legal viewpoint tend to be like a lynch-mob concerned only with revenge, not justice.
Like any other system applied to human nature, the law doesn't always have a satisfactory answer for every problem.
Hope you stay safe Saint :)
I agree with all of that - especially you Chris lol ;)
Using a knife to cut off ...
this is a perfect time for me to bow out lol
I am emotional, but not "lynch mob" either. If it is LULU's time to be free- then o.k.
And yes, I also agree sometimes there are no good answers.
Peace and love peeps- Que Sera, Que Sera as we say here in Miami lol which I guess is pretty fitting.
I couldn't agree with ya more, St.
ziggyosterberg said...
Lorena Bobbitt was acquitted, Saint
Yeeouch !!
{Eyes watering}
Zelda Formaldehyde said..
Governor Moonbeam may as well make a decision here once and for all. If he has no intention of ever rubber-stamping her release, just say so now. The factors regarding her suitability and incarceration won't change now
Do people think the Guv'nor has already made up his mind regardless of the decision and transcripts ?
Trying to walk this thing back 48 years to get inside her head is kinda useless
I think it's one way, not perfect by any means, but one way that the panel can attempt to gauge where she's at today. Our ability to look back and assess our past actions and fit them into the present is one of the things we have that helps us to enable others to understand us, if we choose.
For Leslie, being able to see how she ended up in the Family is pretty easy. After all, thousands of her generation, if not millions, held similar thoughts of disaffection. Working out how she ended up killing and in prison for life demonstrates to a board that she's taking steps to ensure she is able to recognize the signs so she is never a threat to public safety.
To this day, the killers' reasons for doing what they did is still unclear at best
Are they ? Leslie's have always been pretty clear. It's perhaps worth commenting that initially, Leslie didn't see anything wrong in what she did, seeing it as something that "had to be done." That's why her desire to join the fray, although it sounds particularly wicked, isn't as off the beam as it could otherwise be, when looked at from the perspective of someone that thought they were part of some divinely chosen mission.
Always dug you Ann and always will ;)
Robert C said...
People who see this case from an emotional rather than a legal viewpoint tend to be like a lynch-mob concerned only with revenge, not justice
I don't know Robert, there are people that see it emotionally that are on the Leslie side of the mountain too. I think at different times, both sides use the law to try an bolster their own arguments but emotion often precedes this.
Peter said...
Like any other system applied to human nature, the law doesn't always have a satisfactory answer for every problem
As we saw only too clearly in the recent post about Roman Polanski.
If one believes there's a God and stories about that God, well, even God had to acknowledge that the law could only go so far and was not always a satisfactory route to take.
St Circumstance said...
So my point is = although she has served for many years, Just a very few of them were spent by her actually taking responsibility and showing remorse. She quit showing compassion for her victim and started asking for compassion for herself very early in this process
The presence of one does not immediately exclude the truth of the other. Even if she were asking for justice for herself, that doesn't mean that she had stopped showing remorse or taking responsibility or ceasing to care about the relatives of her victims. If you were in the clink and you severely regretted what you'd done to get you there and the prison stopped issuing you with toilet roll and gave you newspaper instead, you banging on about it doesn't invalidate your remorse over your crime. It just means you have one extra thing to deal with.
But there are a few things that cross the line in such a heinous manner that society has a responsibility to send a message that this is not going to be accepted, and if you are going to go this far- you will pay the ultimate price
Society has definitely sent that message. I doubt there are really many people out there that think "oh well, I can commit this murder/rape/slice of sexual abuse because I'll be out in 48 years."
I could do 48 years standing on my head
REHABILITATION. The USA lost site of this long ago, and not for the better. The law has it that she is eligible for parole. So if she spends her time as a model prisoner, betters herself, and generally does everything that she is asked, and if the people charged with deciding whether she should be paroled decide indeed that she should, then that should be that. Holding her any longer just makes her a political prisoner - a anti-american concept for sure.
And so it's no longer even about punishment, but rather vengeance. And they're two different things.
It may become a interesting lesson for us all if LVH is released, and how she lives out the rest of her life. It's possible she may influence the system for the better. But we'll never know unless it happens.
Reading all these posts (hello and warm welcome Dani) except Grim's because I value my time, and using my legal knowledge prior to disbarment, everyone skips the real reason that LVH stays put.
BUG's narrative.
At the beginning of each parole charade they read the record. The record become REALITY for the prisoner. If the prisoner objects to the record then they are avoiding responsibility for their crime and cannot be paroled.
And in BUG's narrative the goal was some bullshit worldwide race war by killing a hair stylist an heiress a b actress and a druggie. Sure.
All Gov has to say is "This is an unusual case. The killer wanted to destroy all people. Too dangerous. Denied."
starship said...
Holding her any longer just makes her a political prisoner - a anti-american concept for sure.
YES
And so it's no longer even about punishment, but rather vengeance. And they're two different things.
In going along with your political prisoner comment, I'll deviate a little to say that it's not so much vengeance but an unwillingness on the Governor's part to take the "political" backlash attached to allowing her release.
Austin Ann? Was she here?
St. C. -- if you're in Miami, don't underestimate this storm. Do more than you think necessary to be safe. I've BTDT.
Grim said: " Do people think the Guv'nor has already made up his mind regardless of the decision and transcripts ? "
Most definitely to me but more importantly is how he feels on decision day and who has been chewing on his ear.
Grim said: [People who see this case from an emotional rather than a legal viewpoint tend to be like a lynch-mob concerned only with revenge, not justice]
" I don't know Robert, there are people that see it emotionally that are on the Leslie side of the mountain too. I think at different times, both sides use the law to try an bolster their own arguments but emotion often precedes this."
Well Grim, I DID say 'tend to be' meaning not all emotionals are anti-LVH ;-)
Personally I'm not in her corner beyond wishing the State of California (and elsewhere) would be more consistent legally so the people could give more credibility to the law. What I've seen over a long time is a tremendous decline in perceived legal fairness and credibility followed by contempt and anger.
Peter said: "I could do 48 years standing on my head "
I only have about 20 years left at best so standing on my head for 48 at this point is simply out of the question ;-)
Matt said: " ... it's not so much vengeance but an unwillingness on the Governor's part to take the "political" backlash attached to allowing her release. "
Yes and ... back then because she was acting so snarky and remorseless everyone wanted to see her swing, even the so-called hippies. Many if not most of those people are gone now. New generations tend to be far more sympathetic coupled with what has transpired since such as unprecedented 48 years incarceration and counting plus her nice rehabilitation record. But ... Moonbeam is from back then and remembers and knows the inside Hollywood crowd and that kind of power and control and once upon a time LVH scared the shit out of them by snuffing some of their own and they vowed these people would either be gassed or stay put for life so that's the hot seat the Guv is on. I mean, when Atkins was clearly incapacitated and confined to a gurney they could have done a symbolic compassion release just to be a little humanitarian. But they didn't.
grimtraveller said...
Do people think the Guv'nor has already made up his mind regardless of the decision and transcripts ?
Without a doubt. His decision is set, all he needs is any reason to keep her in. This year's reasoning will probably be a slight twist of last year's. Brown is a lifelong politician, he isn't interested in rocking his own boat.
Thanks!
September 5, 2017 Rick Stevens, former lead singer for Tower of Power died of cancer at age 77. Stevens sang with the band from 1969 through 1972. He was the voice who sang Tower of Power's signature hit "You're Still a Young Man". Rick Stevens was asked to leave the band in 1972 due to his out of control heroin use.
Rick Stevens, true name Donald Charles Stevenson, was convicted of murdering three men in 1976. Feb. 12 1976 Stevens and two accomplices driving their own car met with a male friend who had two women with him in his car. The friend was suppose to take them where two brothers lived so they could get some drugs. When they all arrived at the brothers house they basically strong armed the friend and two women, putting the women in the trunk of each car. Then they had the friend go to the door of the brother's house and knock on the door telling one of the brothers everything was cool.
When that brother opened the door Stevens shot and killed him, he proceeded into the house and shot and killed the other brother. Stevens and his accomplices then robbed the house, even taking a safe. They left the scene and dropped the friend off somewhere, took both cars with the women still in the trunks of the cars. They ditched the cars on city streets leaving the women in the trunks of the cars. The women were able to come out of it alive though terrified.
A day and a half later Stevens, on his own, then shot and killed a different friend who had allowed him to hide out at his home. All three of the perpetrators were arrested within a few days. In November of the same year Stevens went to trial, he was found guilty of two murders (the brothers), manslaughter for the friend he killed because he claimed that friend pulled a gun on him, kidnapping, burglary and auto theft. The prosecution was seeking the death penalty but by some quirk of fate, between the time of the conviction and the sentencing California declared the death penalty unconstitutional. Stevens received a sentence of life in prison.
Stevens was paroled by Governor Jerry Brown in 2012 after 36 years in prison. He resumed his music career after being released. In 2016 he was invited back to Vacaville Prison to play a concert for the inmates.
That's the short version of a long story. What I question is, why was Stevens allowed to be released on parole? If you compare the crimes that Stevens committed to the crimes that Leslie committed, what tipped the balance in Stevens favor? Stevens crimes were every bit as heinous as Leslie's. Unless justice can be meted out equally we will be here at the blog batting this question of parole back and forth for eternity.
DebS: Interesting. I had not heard of that case. I'll have to add Stevenson to my informal list of musicians who committed murder along with Jim Gordon, Leadbelly, Spade Cooley, etc. Back in my scholastic days, I recall reading a book that posited that a powerful determinant in the punishment meted out to murderers is the race (and sex), not of murderer, but of the victim. In the book, various statistics were presented to make the point that killers of white people, and white women in particular, received disproportionally worse sentences than black people, black men in particular. Long story short, though knowing none of the details of the Stevenson case, I wonder what race/sex the victims were? (Disproving that theory is the lightweight sentence, and early release, given to the blackhearted Spade Cooley.) Peace.
Chris I do not know the races of the victims. I'm even a little unsure of Stevens race. I thought Tower of Power was a black band and Stevens is pictured back in the day with a gigantic afro. Though after his release I read something about him saying he had Latino roots. Perhaps he is of mixed race.
The Spade Cooley case is unbelievable. What a cruel and heartless man. As far as I'm concerned he got what he deserved except that he died a little too quickly.
Good one, Deb.
I'll add some fuel to the fire.
If the board finds an inmate unsuitable for parole based upon 'static factors' the panel must support their decision by showing “some evidence” that “those facts support the ultimate conclusion that an inmate continues to pose an unreasonable risk to public safety [today].” In re Lawrence 44 Cal.4th 1181 (2008)
What is a 'static factor'? One the convict can't change such as the facts surrounding the crime.
What does this legal mumbo-jumbo mean? The facts of the crime (alone) must show that LVH is likely to do it again otherwise the crime cannot be used as a factor.
The real answer here would require a post. LVH meets all the suitability criteria and while a couple unsuitability criteria hurt her case those relate to the crime and what the board has determined (reading their minds, of course) is there is no evidence from just the nature of the crime that she will do it again. And if you step back and look at it objectively: there is none.
Here is how the crime could hurt her: If she were to repeat her Part interview in front of the Board.
Put another way: assuming the 'authorities' can't use the facts surrounding the crime (her giggling - which isn't a factor, blood on the walls she didn't write, 14 stab wounds, or the horror of the event) why is she still in prison if she otherwise exceeds all of the suitability factors?
Answer: Manson
When judges, governors or a parole board make their decisions for 'political' reasons they are exceeding the authority given them by the people and that does, indeed, make her a prisoner of the politics of the situation.
I can almost guarantee you if Manson had died last winter-spring she'd be out. And that is not what the system we (yes, "we") created intended.
Be safe Saint and let us know you are.
Sharon dad was there every day
Deep
Will her release open the doors for the other three to be released? Charlie, Tex, and Pat?
My opinion is that Charlie, Tex and Pat will never be released under any circumstances. Leslie's release is still subject to a 120 day review by state parole officials, depending on the out come of that review the governor will have 30 days after that review is completed to decide whether to uphold, reverse or modify the parole. If the governor does nothing Leslie will get paroled.
D. Jones said...
Will her release open the doors for the other three to be released? Charlie, Tex, and Pat?
I doubt it. Charlie's next hearing isn't until something like 2027, Pat's last refusal was punctuated by the "Intimate partner battering" investigation followed by the board giving some pretty watertight reasons {to them} why she wasn't suitable and she ended up with a 5 year denial and Tex, while given encouraging noises last time round, got a 5 year denial.
It seems like maybe a hierarchy is unconsciously developing about the Family killers, on the one hand, those that are viewed as the heavier killers and those that are seen as the not so heavy.
Aw, shucks, St....back at ya, kid!
Hi, Patty!
DebS said: " Stevens crimes were every bit as heinous as Leslie's. "
To me Steven's crimes were way, way worse than LVH's. I mean I'm not convinced that LVH technically killed anyone. She's done 48 years and counting for stabbing a dead person in the lower back and as far as I know that's all. Not a nice thing but way far apart from Atkins, Krenwinkle and Watson.
D. Jones said: " Will her release open the doors for the other three to be released? Charlie, Tex, and Pat? "
No way for Charlie and I think he agrees he's now better off where he's at. Highly unlikely for Tex and Pat too although I personally think Pat has also done enough time and rehabilitated herself. If Charlie died tomorrow would Tex get parole soon ? Flip a coin but I'd say not. Now LVH's release 'may' have a bearing on Davis' chances. I don't think the Guv is gonna let Beausoleil go.
DebS said...
Stevens crimes were every bit as heinous as Leslie's. Unless justice can be meted out equally we will be here at the blog batting this question of parole back and forth for eternity.
THAT hit it right on the head. I'm not some sympathizer who wants them all released, I'm just incensed that the parole boards and Governors have treated equal people unequally.
There are two differences between Lulu and The Manson murderers and the case Deb brings up as well as most others.
First the way Lulu and others acted at the trial and post trial. They went from laughing at their crimes to arguing they were treated unfairly with very little time for being truely remorseful in between. No matter what the guidelines were or are- showing remorse has always been a requirement. Does anyone think Lulu or the others feel worse for their victims families as they do for themselves? Pat once said as much she felt she hurt herself more than anyone else.
Second - fair or not- the notoriety. Governors get very few slam dunks to show the voting public they are tough on vicious killers. That's the way the public perceives the Manson Family. All those other crimes may be as violent but they are not as known.
It may not be fair but I honestly feel those are the two things that separate this case from others like it. I mean you can do all kinds of vicious things and make excuses for it. But when you sing and dance around and make jokes about what they did - people aren't going to forget....
I think that's the one thing none of them counted on. I really do. They were getting raiddd and busted and released so often I'm not sure that some of them realized how really big of a deal what they did would be. I I keep going back to Lulu in that TV piece where she is smiling while telling her interviewer how long she would serve according to matrix. I don't believe they understood them or now just what affect what they did had.
This really will have to be my last comment lol but this may be Lulus last best chance as well because before her next hearing I think the Tarantino movie might come out and once a high profile major movie brings Manson back into public conscious- it will be even harder to make people forget what those monsters did....
Have a great weekend.
I would be shocked if Governor Brown doesn't reverse.
He reversed Bruce Davis. Jerry Brown and Linda Ronstadt had a high profile relationship in the 1970s. Ronstadt met LVH in Venice Beach in between her two trials (spent the day with her, as you do) and wrote about it in her bio. Ronstadt pieced together who exactly LVH was after a short time. She almost certainly must have told Jerry. No freaking way does he let her out.
St Circumstance said...
There are two differences between Lulu and The Manson murderers and the case Deb brings up as well as most others.
First the way Lulu and others acted at the trial and post trial. They went from laughing at their crimes to arguing they were treated unfairly with very little time for being truly remorseful in between
I'm not sure where you get the remorse bit from. But to back up a bit ~ yes they were laughing and singing at their trial but they had also pleaded 'not guilty.'
Secondly, can anyone, and I mean anyone honestly argue that Leslie has been treated fairly ? Even if you hate her guts and think she should have been put to death, she did not then and does not now make the laws. When the original death sentence was commuted, Leslie says that this was the start of her troubles because she now had a lifetime to face what she did. She was actually content to go along with the death sentence. It's not her doing that it didn't happen ! People often go on about it as though it was.
Furthermore, there were two women in the wing of her prison awaiting a death sentence for murders every bit as brutal as Leslie's. That there wasn't a race war "domestic terrorism" element involved is irrelevant, life was taken, in both cases for selfish reasons and in callous manner. Yet in both cases, both women were eventually paroled. Each served less than 10 years. She's been inside nearly 3 times longer than the two of them put together ~ women originally sentenced to death for murder. If you had 2 kids and they were naughty and had done the same thing and you sent them to their rooms and you let one out after two days but left the other in there for 10 days, even as kids they would say "that's not fair."
So even if you hate LVH, even if she was a heartless murderer, can it be denied that she is not being given equal treatment under the law, a law that she did not make but nonetheless lives under ? And is it wrong if she points this out ? If laws are used wrongly/unfairly by the authorities against people who themselves have transgressed those laws, should everyone just shurrup because the transgressor is merely that ? Or should we remember that they are human beings and erring dreadfully doesn't strip them of that ?
Back to remorse for a moment, why does pointing out the unfairness of a law that you are required to obey invalidate any remorse you have shown ? That doesn't come across in Leslie's parole hearing transcript. It has to be stressed over and over that it's not Leslie '69 or '70 that is being judged but Leslie 2017.
Grim- Fairly compared to what??
My parents had two kids - my brother and I. And when we did something wrong we got punished. Sometimes we got caught doing things we weren't supposed to with neighbors kids, and they got lesser punishment from there parents than we did from ours, and my dad told us the same thing every time. " I am not worried about what happens to them- I care about you" We learned that we would pay a price of we broke rules, and that worrying about what happened to anyone else was a waste of time. We were accountable for ourselves.
It was a great lesson to learn I think.
Lulu has been treated pretty fairly in my estimation. She got to live. She got to get an education, she got to have sex ( albeit prison sex)- Tex got to have kids for christ sakes, Lulu has a network of friends and visitors, Lulu got out for awhile and got to go to the beach, and have a job. Leslie has had a chance to have many accomplishments and made many famous friends even. Grim- you read Faiths book- you know all about this. Leslie got to grow old....
Wanna ask Rosemary what was fair?? Oh wait, we cant...
Fair? Are you sure that was the word you wanted to use lol?? She may not have been treated like others with similar sentences, but how many of the the others got saved by the bell from dying thanks to a court ruling that would shortly be overturned???
If I stop responding Grim its not out of disrespect- its cause the power went out ;)
And Grim- you are absolutely supposed to show remorse as part pf your parole eligibility. That is a part of it. I have listened to and/or read all of them almost. As soon as Leslie felt she was in longer than she was supposed to be she started fighting. Even filed a suit at one point....
This woman never thought for one minute she would spend her entire life in prison. She has always felt a sense that she was owed freedom at some point. The moment she started to sense she was really going to have to pay-the real LULU came out. I mentioned Faiths Book- that book came out about 15 to 16 years ago, and back then they were making a huge amount of noise that she had been in way too long. BACK THEN....
I am sorry. This is much like Polanski to me. Criminals and there supporters do not get to decide when enough is enough. If you don't want to go to jail- don't hurt other people. If you do - be prepared to pay for it. Killing people is not shopping at the mall for pants where one size fits all. If you don't want trouble- don't ask for it.
And for goodness sakes... when you request to go along on a trip to torture people and write in their blood, and then laugh at their children...
You don't get to say whats fair when it comes time to pay for that...
But Grim you can have your opinion about it lol :)
Lulu not so much ....
St Circumstance said...
As soon as Leslie felt she was in longer than she was supposed to be she started fighting
Life with possibility of parole puts the prisoner in an odd situation, particularly if they are genuinely remorseful. Because on the one hand, you don't want to seem like you think you "deserve" to be free. Yet at the same time, you are given something to aim at and are in effect told that if you make good for long enough, there's a chance you will be out.
This woman never thought for one minute she would spend her entire life in prison
And why was that ? Because the sentence she was given stated there would be a possibility that one day she might get out. All a desperate person needs is that chink of light that "possibility of parole" represents.
She has always felt a sense that she was owed freedom at some point
Do you think so ?
She saw 2 women sentenced to death, like she was. She saw those two women go into the general population of the prison some years before she did. She then saw those two women walk free less than 10 years after being sentenced to death. She had already begun renouncing Charlie. She had begun the process of trying to stitch her life back together. Rather than "owed" I'd say as she moved further and further away from Leslie circa '68-'72 and saw sentenced to death murderers like herself walk free, she would naturally want to one day be out of jail. Wouldn't you ?
Faiths Book...came out about 15 to 16 years ago, and back then they were making a huge amount of noise that she had been in way too long. BACK THEN....
Which only goes to show that many of the concerns people had back then regarding the "Manson case" and the way it's stained his co~defendants have been alive and well for a while.
Criminals and there supporters do not get to decide when enough is enough. If you don't want to go to jail- don't hurt other people. If you do - be prepared to pay for it
While I can dig the logic of that, it's kind of a moot point isn't it ? Criminals rarely want to go to jail. We used to have a comedy series here called "Porridge" which was a slang term for being in jail and in the blurb at the start, the Judge is talking to the main protagonist of the show and he says to him that prison has become for him "an occupational hazard." That's how many cons view jail. They certainly do here.
But all of this misses the point of what's being talked about. If someone else creates a law that you have to live under and they do not administer it fairly, do you not have any recourse simply because you are a jailbird ? How does anything then change ? At what point do those who do not administer their law fairly start to do so ? At what point do the public start to see the upholders of the law as being little different from those that break it ?
Yeah I know. Technically she deserves to go.
I just dont feel too bad she hasn't. But if it's her time so be it...
Lots of virtue signaling in the perpetual outrage at LVH's acts. It is rather tiresome.
The labiancas deaths are perpetual
As well....
But sorry to bore ya lol
St Circumstance said...
Sometimes we got caught doing things we weren't supposed to with neighbors kids, and they got lesser punishment from there parents than we did from ours
Ah yes, but your parents weren't responsible for the neighbour's kids and the neighbour's kids parents weren't responsible for you. If say, their Dad was responsible for you all and you all did the same thing but got different punishments, that would not be fair, those that got the worst of it would resent him and find it hard to take him seriously as time went on.
We learned that we would pay a price if we broke rules, and that worrying about what happened to anyone else was a waste of time. We were accountable for ourselves
I completely agree with you. However, that only really makes sense if you're all under the same authority and that is what we have been discussing. Leslie can't complain about being tried and sentenced. She can't complain about having done most of her life in jail. Like I said somewhere earlier, it serves her right ~ and I doubt she'd argue with that. But if you have the sentence she had, taking on board that a possibility of parole does not mean a guarantee of one, if you've been pretty much exemplary for all of that time and you've done everything that 19 boards over 39 years have asked of you, then I think you are entitled to look at other situations of people who did what you did, received the same sentence but walked free having done a quarter of the time you have done. I'd know I should have died for what I did but believe me, if my nation was merciful and gave me a shot at freedom, I'd go for it and I'd point out inconsistencies if I found them.
Technically she deserves to go
It's not about "deserve." There's an aspect of entitlement that comes with the concept of deserving that leaves me cold.
Lulu has been treated pretty fairly in my estimation. She got to live
That was nothing to do with her. And it wasn't granted her through some sympathy towards her.
She got to get an education
That was a major turnaround for her because that meant walking away from much of where her life had gone circa '68~'73. It turned out to be good for her but it represented a huge admission of defeat on her part. Education for her came through the establishment and was part of deprogramming her from her years in the Family.
Leslie got to grow old
The downside being that possibly the most significant years of her life were spent languishing in jail as a murderer. And she knows it.
Wanna ask Rosemary what was fair?? Oh wait, we cant...
Nothing that happened to the LaBiancas was fair, we all know that and only a bumfluff would argue it.
It is worth remembering that Rosemary's daughter was able to get past the murders, and advocate forgiveness for at least one of the killers {the worst one} and make positive noises about their parole. And the murders had originally caused her to have a breakdown.
Can a person ever change from one that commits murder ? I think they can. Changing paths from the wrong one is at the heart of parole which is why the past can't be forgotten but the present has to be embraced.
but how many of the the others got saved by the bell from dying thanks to a court ruling that would shortly be overturned???
105.
Lol. You ask. You get. Well done
Ultimately, whatever you or I think of her fate is irrelevant. One of us seems to realize that.
I do get that bud, or maam but the point here is to give comments and opinions..
And I like to give mine in great detail lol- my apologies if it grated on you
Hello doll
JC said...
Ultimately, whatever you or I think of her fate is irrelevant
I reckon Guv'nor Jerry and a few people connected with the case past and present take sneak peeks into this blog.....😀
Grim, if they did they would get the facts right.
It's coming down FAST!!!!! (yeesssss it issss)
I have read and followed you all for a couple of years. This is my first post so be gentle please. Every time Leslie is up for parole I always read comments left by the public on the MSM's stories. Most people still believe that Sharon's baby was cut from the womb and also believe that LVH was there that night as well. I always try to tell them that LVH was not at the Tate house and the baby was not cut from the womb. I have had people argue with me and tell me I am wrong. There may be 1 or 2 out of 100 comments that believe she should be paroled. Any Governor that would parole her would be judged severely in the court of public opinion. I doubt it would be worth it to them even if they thought she was suitable. I believe she will stay right where she is until she dies from old age. Is it fair? I don't know. I'm just glad its not me who has to make the final decision!
Post a Comment