(LOS ANGELES) — A California panel on Thursday recommended that Charles Manson follower Leslie Van Houten be paroled after serving nearly five decades in prison.
After a hearing at the women’s prison in Chino, California, commissioners of the Board of Parole Hearings found for the fourth time that Van Houten was suitable for release, according to the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
After a 120-day review process, her case will again rest with California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who could deny parole, although that move could be challenged in court.
Newsom blocked her release once and his predecessor Jerry Brown did it twice.
“As with any parole suitability recommendation, when the case reaches the Governor’s Office, it will be carefully reviewed on its merits,” Vicky Waters, Newsom’s press secretary, said in a statement.
Van Houten, 70, is serving a life sentence for helping Manson and others kill Los Angeles grocer Leno LaBianca and his wife, Rosemary, in August 1969.
Van Houten was 19 when she and other cult members fatally stabbed the LaBiancas, carved up Leno LaBianca’s body and smeared the couple’s blood on the walls.
The slayings came the day after other Manson followers, not including Van Houten, killed pregnant actress Sharon Tate and four others.
Details of the parole hearing weren’t immediately released but Van Houten’s attorney, Rich Pfeiffer, said in an email that it “went really well.”
Pfeiffer said he expects Newsom to reverse the decision again, “but the courts will have a harder time denying a writ than they did in the past.”
In May, an appeals court denied Pfeiffer’s request to release Van Houten on bail or her own recognizance. His motion argued that her age put her at high risk of contracting COVID-19 and noted that another prisoner in her housing unit had been infected.
At her 2017 parole hearing, Van Houten described a troubled childhood. She said she was devastated when her parents divorced when she was 14. Soon after, she said, she began hanging out with her school’s outcast crowd and using drugs. When she was 17, she and her boyfriend ran away to San Francisco’s Haight-Ashbury District during the city’s Summer of Love.
She was traveling up and down the California coast when acquaintances led her to Manson. He was holed up at an abandoned movie ranch on the outskirts of Los Angeles where he had recruited what he called a “family” to survive what he insisted would be a race war he would launch by committing a series of random, horrifying murders.
Manson died in 2017 of natural causes at a California hospital while serving a life sentence.
It's time to let this old woman out of prison and pay her own way. Would she did to Rosemary is unforgivable and she knows that. But there is no way that she is a danger to society unless she hits someone with her cane.
ReplyDeleteOff topic. The docuseries "Helter Skelter, An American Myth" will begin on Epix this Sunday. It is in 6 parts.
ReplyDeleteI will take a stab at this ( no pun intended) (Well, maybe a small one)
ReplyDeleteI think that being a danger to society has very little to do with why the rest of them will NEVER get out. Susan could barely open her eyes, or speak coherently at one of her last hearings when they used , in part, the same justification to not let her out even to die at home.
Nah... Lulu is stuck with being the "Who". that matters much more than the when or why. I think back to an old Interview video I watched on a now defunct site where Lulu was in a classroom style area with other inmates smiling and being the center of attention. In the same interview she predicted her own release in about 7 to 9 years based on a Matrix system she kept quoting. She acted completely sure she would be in her way shortly and this was just another stop on her long strange journey. ( Another pun lol)
Well, I think LULU gets it now. Nothing is certain, and if she does get out not, it will be at the very end of a long, wasted life. But, my guess is still that there is no chance that happens. I shed no tears for her loss. Is is small by comparison to the loss she caused to others. She had a ruined life, but she at least got to have one. It seems it has been long decided by those with more power than I- this will have to be good enough for Mrs. Van Houten.
Is that fair? Is that right?
I leave that to those smarter, and more thoughtful than I lol :)
And with better spelling/grammar...
ReplyDelete@St. Circumstance, Perfectly stated as well as logical.
ReplyDeleteMany will cry that she needs to be freed. But she belongs in her stable Hee Hawing about being a political prisoner.
Is she? Absolutely! You cannot let her or the other killers out. Sets a bad societal example to release any of the core group. All the singing, laughing, giggling,smirking about the victims in court remain embedded in Pop Culture in a horrific way. If Lou Lou doesn't like being stuck in prison she shouldn't have done the crime and the antics that followed.
In any case, I am 99.9% certain Lou Lou will be rejected by the Governor.
Agree. I remember how they laughed as a child but she has made good progress. However, she seems to downplay her responsibility. “I stabbed a dead person” and then ate their food from the refrigerator. The LaBiancas were terrorized.
DeleteEven Barbara Hoyt said in an interview that Leslie wanted to go that night and Leslie admitted she knew what was going to happen.
ReplyDeleteNo way she will be released, especially now. Newsom has been very active with reversing paroles, even more than Brown. He has enough on his plate with reversing COVID-19 in CA. No way is he going to do something as polarizing as paroling Lulu. None of them stand a chance.
ReplyDeleteThrowing the review of an elected official into the parole process was a master stroke by Mrs.Tate. Had someone murdered my son or daughter, I might be thankful their parole was blocked by the same stroke. Had my son or daughter been a murderer who's parole was blocked, maybe not. Blood is strong.
ReplyDeleteI don't take her crime lightly and understand personally the pain that the families of the victims live with. My point is that under the law, she qualifies for release. Dangling the carrot of parole in front of her nose with no intention of release is cruel. She is not the person she was when she stabbed Rosemary and the painful nonsense she displayed during trial. I really don't care if she ever get paroled but I also do not think that she is a danger to society. The governors that have reversed her parole in the past also refer to the heinousness of the crime. How the hell is she supposed to change that. The other killers had there sentence commuted to life with parole due to a supreme court overturn. Leslie got her life with the possibility of parole from a retrial as well. But since there seems to be no possibility of parole for her due to politics, she is a political prisoner.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Sir...
ReplyDeleteI think you make fair points. I have moved off my original view on Parole for LULU a little bit over the years because of some of these very points you make.
I do not think I personally would go as far as political prisoner, but do understand why some have that opinion. I get where it comes from. In a sense, I guess that has sort of become so. I am just not comfortable going that far for someone who was supposed to die and ended up being allowed to live by a once in a lifetime quirk ( since reversed) by the same system some say is treating her unfairly.
But again. I am only saying it is my opinion she will NEVER get out. I feel strongly about that. The legality and fairness of it all is for someone much brighter and more thoughtful than I do debate.
If she is granted parole- I promise to be among the first to come here and say I was wrong for the last 10 years. I will not ever celebrate her release, but I would no longer put up the same stink that I would have when I first got into this. But that goes for LULU only. I could never change my stance on any of the others.
:)
Let Leslie out. Let's put Leslie's life in the context of the time. She was an emotionally devastated teenager (due to her parents divorce and a forced abortion) looking for love and stability. On top of that, she was in the epicenter of free love and free drugs. Long term drug use affect the neurological wiring of the brain. Put that mess together, add a charismatic schizophrenic leader, and you have the perfect storm that eradicates Leslie's moral and ethical compass. She has long taken responsibility for her part in the death of Mrs. LaBianca. Had she not met Manson, there is a strong possibility that she would have eventually grown up and become a wife and mother, with shag carpeting and a mini van. The governors's denial of her parole is nothing more than their fear of offending voters. It has nothing to do with Leslie herself, or her crime. If she had not been associated with Manson, and still had been part of a murder, she would have been out of jail and rolling around on the shag carpet decades ago.
ReplyDeleteAs I said .. It is about the "Who" - I agree there.
ReplyDeleteBut as for the rest... Not so much sorry.
Many people have it so much worse than Leslie did growing up. You have to know that. Divorced parents is so far from unusual then and now. Long term drug use? She was a teenager lol. She couldn't have been using drugs for more than 2 or 3 years at the very most. Also so not unusual for teenagers then or now.
This eradicates her for helping to break into someones house and help to murder them?
Look... I have made my best case for why I would, personally, understand if LULU should get some mercy at the very end of her life. But to make a martyr of her or to make it as if she should expect it- that is also more than I can personally stomach.
Sorry :)
Perhaps if she had stabbed a police officer, she would probably be released. Perhaps if she were a different race, Kim K would have been crying in the oval office for her release. But neither is the case, so she wiil have to live with her white privilege.
ReplyDeleteIt is a tragedy= by all expectations her incarceration should have been over in 1980. But my position has changed since I started this Internet TLB shit in 1998. Fuck Leslie. When she can bring the LaBiancas back to life she can get out.
ReplyDeleteSt. Circumstance said...
ReplyDeleteBut to make a martyr of her or to make it as if she should expect it- that is also more than I can personally stomach
She's not a martyr. However, it is naive to say that an inmate should not have some expectation of parole one day if they've got a sentence that includes the possibility of it and they've kept their nose clean for close to half a century, they've cleaned up and complied with all of LE's demands and helped many other inmates and been a model prisoner and have seen other murderers {including the two women on death row with her when she was first there} paroled. They may be wrong or misguided to expect it, but it's naive to imagine they wouldn't. You would. And so would I.
Many people have it so much worse than Leslie did growing up
And how exactly does one quantify this ?
What's worse, to kill your brother's wife or to have an affair with her ? Because some people would find it way easier to forgive the murder than the affair. So what you may consider as worse may not, in fact, be so to the person concerned.
She couldn't have been using drugs for more than 2 or 3 years at the very most. Also so not unusual for teenagers then or now
She was using acid from the age of 14 right up to when she killed at a week or two shy of her 20th birthday. I'm often bemused at how easily so many people dismiss the impact of acid in conjunction with other important factors in this saga, as if it's being used as an excuse. You know who actually blamed Beatle music and acid for the TLB murders ?
Charles Manson !
This eradicates her for helping to break into someones house and help to murder them?
She didn't help break into someone's house.
But that aside, the point is this; Leslie murdered and that didn't just come out of nowhere. She wasn't some cute chick from Monrovia that woke up one morning in early August '69 and decided to go out and murder someone. She took a path to reach that destination. No one should be afraid of looking at all the signposts and agents on that path. Her parents' divorce was one. Her abortion was another. Bobby Mackie was another. LSD usage from age 14 was another. Th self realization fellowship was another. Haight Ashbury and the counterculture was one. Charlie and the Family were another. And so on. It's not about blaming her actions on any one thing or even the combination of things. But to pretend that they played no part in shaping her doesn't make sense. We're human beings. We react in myriad ways to all events and agents in our lives.
Let the old bag out.
ReplyDeleteSorry...She doesn't deserve to be out.
ReplyDelete1. She was sentenced to death. That the law changed is incidental and certainly, in retrospect it would seem that the sentences should have been changed to "Without the possibility of parole"
2. She walked into a stranger's home and helped to bludgeon her to death. Close up and personal. She didn't commit a panic shooting in the middle of a robbery, she didn't kill a woman who was sleeping with her boyfriend. She viciously stabbed a complete stranger for NO REASON. She went to the house knowing what was going to happen. Comparing her to other prisoners is ridiculous. How many other people have done what she did? Walked into a strangers house and stabbed them to death, FOR NOR REASON other than Charlie told her to.
3. In her interviews, she mentions this action like saying "I went out to buy some bread"..her eyes are empty, she shows no capacity for empathy, she has no soul that I have ever seen.
4. She probably wouldn't be dangerous, but that it not the point. She has NOT served her true full term...the one that Rosemary LaBianca is serving.
She wasn't sentenced to die. That was overturned. Many murderers have been paroled. In peru they let that confirmed killer of HUNDREDS of children walk after 20 years
Deletegrimtraveller typed:
ReplyDeleteShe was using acid from the age of 14 right up to when she killed at a week or two shy of her 20th birthday.
I seriously doubt this. Leslie was 14 in 1963-64, when LSD use was not so widespread that teenyboppers in places like the 'burbs of L.A. would be able to get access to it. She most likely first tried acid in 1966 or 1967, when she would be 17.
Gorodish said...
ReplyDeleteI seriously doubt this. Leslie was 14 in 1963-64, when LSD use was not so widespread that teenyboppers in places like the 'burbs of L.A. would be able to get access to it. She most likely first tried acid in 1966 or 1967, when she would be 17
My bad. She was 14 when her parents split up. She was 15 when she first started smoking weed and taking acid according to what she said in her 2017 parole hearing. But in her 2019 hearing she said she first tried marijuana when her brother and his friend gave her some and tried acid about 6 months later and she had earlier stated that he was about to leave home at 18 and there's 4 years between them so that would have made her 14.
The thrust of my point was that she was a very young acid user. I agree that acid use wasn't so widespread in those years but it was getting wider and it was finding its way bit by bit into the lives of kids. Older kids, yes, but kids nonetheless. It was similar in England ~ although the Beatles and Stones started taking it in '65 and were seen as pioneers of sorts, kids had been dabbling with LSD the year before them. Syd Barrett's {of Pink Floyd} crowd in Cambridge had been doing acid in '64 as mid to late teens but the one that surprised me was Pete Way, the former UFO bassist and founder who said in his autobiography that he had his first shot of heroin at 13 and was doing acid around the same time ~ this also in 1964 in very sedate Enfield just shy of north London.
Leslie was an experienced tripper by the time Charlie Manson first encountered LSD. She was a 'head' long before Tex and Susan. And Dianne Lake was tripping out younger than even Leslie and Ruth Moorehouse. It's interesting how these things replicate themselves because part of the problem some of the young women had in Mendocino involved acid and teenagers....
gina said...
ReplyDeleteShe was sentenced to death. That the law changed is incidental
Here's an irony for you. Her original sentence was set aside. If she had gone through the appeals process, failed in that and then the death sentence carried out by say, December 1971, before the Supreme court ruling, the topic of debate surrounding Leslie would be that of a miscarriage of justice, given that it was deemed in effect, that she hadn't had a fair trial !
gina said...
ReplyDeleteComparing her to other prisoners is ridiculous
Not really. The two women on death row when she arrived there in '71 were there for equally brutal murders. One had killed an elderly woman while robbing her place and the other had murdered her lover's wife. The latter had malice aforethought, clearly. The former was more than prepared to snuff out the life of anyone that got in the way of her robbery. Within a short space of time of the Supreme court ruling on the death penalty, both women were subsumed into the general inmate population whereas it was some years before the 3 Manson troupe killers were. And then within 10 years both of those women got paroled and have not reoffended. I'd happily bet that hardly anyone could name those two women or even one of them or even one of their first names.
I heartily dislike this idea of some kind of league table of badness of murder as if taking away someone's life wasn't enough. Now, in saying that, I do wholeheartedly accept that there are some murderers that should never leave a prison given the circumstances of their murder[s] and fortunately in the USA there is the sentence of life without parole. I mean, I would not be letting out Ed Kemper any time soon.
In her interviews, she mentions this action like saying "I went out to buy some bread"..her eyes are empty, she shows no capacity for empathy, she has no soul that I have ever seen
If she cried and broke down, you'd probably say she was putting on a sympathy act. The truth is that it is impossible to read empathy in a person one only sees in specific scenarios on TV. We don't know if she empathizes or if she's a hollow shell. And let's face it, there are loads of situations in which we don't empathize either. Way too many to count.
Dan S said...
Many murderers have been paroled. In peru they let that confirmed killer of HUNDREDS of children walk after 20 years
Is that Pedro Lopez ?
In Norway the most a murderer can get is 21 years which to me is crazy talk. There is a caveat though. If after the sentence is complete the offender is still considered dangerous, the sentence can be extended by up to 5 years at a time and gets reviewed at the end.
Grim I have no desire to go back and forth all weekend with you lol. You will win because you just have more energy and are much more thoughtful and well spoken that I...
ReplyDeleteHowever- I guess what I was trying to say is that people make the same excuses over and over. Charlie was the influence and they were doing sooo many drugs and listening to Charlie. Charlie was only with most of them, and part of that scene, for less than 2 years total. Thats alot of drugs and influence in such a short time to do the things they ended up doing.
Most importantly, Grim I am not sure what things are like where you grew up. I am not being snarky when I say that. Maybe its different?
But I grew up in a suburban Americana and I promise you I knew dozens and dozens of kids who dropped out of school, took drugs every day, and even a few who got pregnant as teens. One or two I knew had abortions and a couple others became young parents....
But I am not aware of a single one who killed anyone or was involved in murder.
Charlie, teen pregnancy, drugs. Not good - especially when combined. But I remind you - even within that group- plenty ran away or said no.
Lulu stayed and not only didn't say no- she asked to go along. Again- I think she got a pretty fair deal at the end of the day.
But Grim- you are a very smart guy and you are entitled to your opinion and say as well. I respect what your saying :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOh and one last thought and then the rest can have the last words on this :)
ReplyDeleteAs far as her reasonable expectation someday for parole...
I wish you could still go to that site and see this video of early 20's Leslie Van Houten. She is laughing her ass off in front of the camera. She is telling the interviewer, with utter confidence, that she will be out in less than 10 years. She didn't have an expectation. She spoke with entitlement. Have you read and/or watched the parole hearings over the years?
They weren't showing more and more remorse over the years. Not at all. They were showing more and more frustration they weren't getting out. It went from " I am really sorry" to
" I am being treated really unfairly" pretty damn quick if you really pay attention.
Finally- more than I think about Leslies reasonable expectation to go free....
I think about the Labiancas reasonable expectation to breathe and live their lives.
Maybe that's just me?
Sorry St. C. but you're (and some others) basing your entire premise on emotion. If the law ran that way we'd have some really weird rulings in this country.
ReplyDeleteBeing for Van Houten's release is not the same thing as being for Van Houten.
To me it's more a matter of legal consistency and fairness as others have explained.
I could care less about Van Houten but why incarcerate for life with pseudo parole promises when she literally didn't murder anyone - just stabbed an already dead body in non-lethal areas.
And even if she had literally murdered, there are numerous others who got out long before for murder in CA.
So because she laughed and joked about it as a teenager -- we need that revenge to show how our national judicial system should work ?
BTW -- I agree with Monica's statement earlier but perhaps for slightly different reasons.
ReplyDeleteNo way any CA politician wants to be the one to release political prisoners.
Newsom in particular who has his eye on the future presidency has a lot at stake not to mention his handling of Covid-19 and other pending issues.
But I've been surprised before when I thought at least Van Houten would have been out long ago.
Honestly, after participating in such horror, I don't think the woman should stroll out of the prison to a welcoming committee of gleeful admirers, simply because it happened a long time ago, but it just might happen. It has nothing to do with revenge. It has to do with having empathy for murdered people and the families they left behind. Is that somehow wrong?
ReplyDeleteShe laughed and joked in her twenties when she was supposedly showing remorse.
ReplyDelete" Yes I am so very sorry. I was really wrong and understand the damage I caused. I am willing to do my 7 to 9 years and then get on with my life and be a much better person". All with a big smile on her face while saying it.She never really took any real responsibility.
I said in my my first comment- I understand it might be time to let her go home and die with some dignity. I have empathy. I would have let Susan die at home if it were up to me. I have more mercy for them, than either of them had for those they harmed. Susan looked right into the eyes of a pregnant woman and told her so. But I have empathy for the people and family who care about Susan and LULU too. They are semi-victims as well. If it would give some comfort to those who have suffered and waited all these years to spend some final time with these old woman- I wold not put up a fight.
But only for LULU. Susan only because she was more or less a baked potato. The others should count there lucky stars every day just to be alive.
And it LULU gets to go home ever- which I seriously doubt- it may well be fair and consistent with the law. As I said, I will leave that up to people who know better than I. And, again, if that happens- I will say I was wrong and wont make a stink...
But you are right about one thing lol
Emotionally speaking- If she rots in jail with the others- thats ok with me too
These are among the most heinous scumbags to ever walk the Earth. Leslie volunteered to go do something that she knew was going to lead to people suffering. She made a joke out of the whole thing at trial. She bragged about getting out in a very short time, and then spent the rest of her life bitching that SHE was treated unfairly.
Let her die on some misguided "Fan"'s couch or Frontera Prison. At the end of the day...
It no longer really matters. She paid for the life she took with her own. I cant even recognize that old bat anymore.
I am personally no longer interested in revenge. In ways it is better she suffered ignorantly believing she had a chance all these years. In a sense she had to die over and over slowly with each decision...
That good enough for me :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnn :) my old friend lol
ReplyDeleteI was typing my comment before your posted. My Empathy comments were not directed at you personally.
St! How ya doing? I didn't read everyone's comments and just skimmed over it all, so no offense of any kind taken. Tata!!
DeleteGRIM:
ReplyDeleteComparing her to other prisoners is ridiculous -- me
Not really. The two women on death row when she arrived there in '71 were there for equally brutal murders. One had killed an elderly woman while robbing her place and the other had murdered her lover's wife. -- Grim
However heinous, however brutal, both of those women had some semblance of a reason. Some other motive other than "I'm going to a house to kill a stranger".
It's not the same. She walked out of Spahn with the intention of walking into somebody's home and killing them. No robbery, no jealousy, just MURDER...and not only murder, but STABBING. Not randomly shooting a faceless person, but stabbing a human being while looking into their face. Sorry..to me, it's just not the same.
I agree with Matthew's viewpoint .... there really needs to be a legal reason to keep her in prison. I no longer see one. It's not about supporting Leslie, it's about proper application of the legal system in her circumstances. I personally don't care if she is released or not, only that the premise of her sentence is adhered to.
ReplyDeleteLeslie's early childhood was not a bad one, but there was trauma. Many people are mentioning that Leslie KNEW what she was going to do that night as soon as she got in the car. She even volunteered to go. Again, however, what is not being said is the scientific proof that prolonged drug abuse does alter the brain and its functions:
ReplyDeleteRegions of the brain are disrupted by drug abuse, as the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) reports that the brain stem, limbic system, and cerebral cortex are all affected. The brain stem controls life-sustaining functions, including sleeping, breathing, and heart rate, while the limbic system holds the brain’s reward circuitry and helps to control emotions and the ability to feel happiness. The cerebral cortex is considered the “thinking center” of the brain, managing problem-solving, planning, and decision-making abilities as well as helping people to process information provided by their senses. The more often drugs are used, the more they will impact brain chemicals and circuitry
So, on that night, and probably many before and after, Leslie's decision-making abilities were severely skewered. THis does not excuse or exempt her from taking responsibility for what she did to Mrs. LaBianco. It does, however, lend credence to the thought that, had it not been for the drugs and brainwashing from Manson, Leslie would have had the cognitive functions to understand the seriousness of taking someone's life, or stabbing a lifeless body. Without out the drugs and Manson, she would probably be celebrating her 50th wedding anniversary instead of her 50th year in jail. Let her be free for the remaining time she has left on this Earth. She will never escape her karmic debt.
St. Circumstance said...
ReplyDeletepeople make the same excuses over and over
No excuses. XQCs are poor form.
Charlie was the influence and they were doing sooo many drugs and listening to Charlie
To deny that is to deny some of the main facts of the case.
Charlie was only with most of them, and part of that scene, for less than 2 years total
Before she murdered, Leslie was with the Family only a year. But peer pressure is a difficult cauldron to resist.
Thats alot of drugs and influence in such a short time to do the things they ended up doing
I don't think the length of time really matters. Tex did way less heavy duty mind altering drugs and was with them even less than a year really. But people aren't like litre bottles that, when filled will only pour out a litre. Some sports people join a team and never fit in. Some take a long time before they fit in and some fit in right away.
I knew dozens and dozens of kids who dropped out of school, took drugs every day, and even a few who got pregnant as teens. One or two I knew had abortions and a couple others became young parents....But I am not aware of a single one who killed anyone or was involved in murder
Well, I worked with 4 kids {3 of them very closely} that went on to commit murder. And like you, knew scores of kids that went the wrong way at various points in their lives. Some turned it around, some didn't. But I'm not sure of the relevance of that. We're not talking about people we've known.
I think she got a pretty fair deal at the end of the day
So do I. But I don't think either guv'nor that's reversed her parole has shown they have good reasons for doing so. They could both have simply said "the crime was so heinous, no way is she coming out" and legally they would have been on untouchable ground really. But neither did so. They both threw in personal reasons about her not showing insight or minimizing or not recognizing Manson's abuse ~ stuff that is demonstrably untrue. So that makes their decisions dodgy.
St. Circumstance said...
ReplyDeleteAs far as her reasonable expectation someday for parole
Under the circumstances of what she had come through by 1980, I don't think it was an unreasonable expectation that if she got her head together and behaved herself in jail and worked for the betterment of humankind, she could expect a shot at being freed one day.
I wish you could still go to that site and see this video of early 20's Leslie Van Houten. She is laughing her ass off in front of the camera. She is telling the interviewer, with utter confidence, that she will be out in less than 10 years
Well, as I once said, she got a mighty surprise didn't she ? But let's face it, Vincent Bugliosi and Stephen Kay thought she would be paroled sooner rather than later and Kay made very hopeful noises for her in those early years after her final conviction.
gina said...
However heinous, however brutal, both of those women had some semblance of a reason. Some other motive other than "I'm going to a house to kill a stranger"
I frankly can't see what difference it makes. Lives were snuffed out for ultimately selfish gain, whether it was money, a lover or a supposed ordained revolution. And Leslie did have a reason for being there and murdering. All three women were in the same boat ~ two of them have been out of jail for far longer than they ever were inside.
Zelda Formaldehyde said...
It's not about supporting Leslie, it's about proper application of the legal system in her circumstances
And this is important. Much of the reason there are Leslie Van Houten debates raging through cyberspace is that the overwhelming majority of those on the "keep her in forever" side of the argument tend to do so from an emotional place, which is not in itself a bad thing. It's just that anyone that does not acquiesce to their viewpoint, that tries to correct some of the inaccurate info that's repeatedly put out, that tries to take a more holistic and understanding view of the whole matter, that is troubled by the reasons put forth in reversal by the guv'nor[s] {as opposed to there being actual reasons}, that can recognize that some of the perps have done some good, is often cast as an apologist or someone that is in need of some common sense {that's the polite version} when actually, quite a lot of those people who look from more than one angle aren't often part of the "free Leslie" movement. But if one can't come up with solid reasons to keep a 70 year old woman in prison and has to keep going back to what she said in 1978 or 1982 or whenever, then the question is already being answered. It doesn't need people to say "free her" when it's clear reasons can't be found to keep her in. I don't need to be a supporter to see that.
AustinAnn74 said...
ReplyDeleteafter participating in such horror, I don't think the woman should stroll out of the prison to a welcoming committee of gleeful admirers, simply because it happened a long time ago
I suspect not many people will disagree. I certainly don't. Unfortunately, if she is ever released that's exactly what will happen because to a large extent both sides have made this a cause célèbre. Those that have routinely called her names down the years and made derogatory comments on her appearance have stoked the flames and irked her more vocal supporters to take what they see as an equally militant and closed minded stance and it's then become tennis. So when she was getting knocked back by those 19 parole boards, her detractors were whooping it up and her supporters were sucking it up then she got her first "yay" from a board and her detractors felt threatened but then they got happy when Guv Brown reversed it and her supporters dug their heels in, especially when she got a second "yeah" and Charlie died. They could feel the wind was changing direction, her detractors wanted to keep the wind moving along the same weather front, the tennis got more and more ferocious, the arguments and insults got more tetchy and......here we are. If she walked out tomorrow, she'd get more noise thrown her way than the Corona virus and China. Because her supporters would see it as a major victory, her detractors would see it as a miscarriage of justice and the various media outlets would be on hand to show that the pen is indeed mightier than the sword.
She has done far more time than most. I hope that she gets out and speaks about her time in prison she is a living witness to how your life can change in a sec.
ReplyDeleteYes, grim, Lopez. I think Norway threw away the key with Breivick. He was complaining because he only had an xbox 2....
ReplyDeleteLeslie has done tons of time for being a stoopid kid
What does Self Realization Fellowship have to do with Leslie’s downfall? It was probably the most positive aspect of her life at that point.
ReplyDeleteIn other news....tonight I watched the delayed EPIX series opener of "Helter Skelter: An American Myth". Started out with some potential...some cool early footage of L.A. and Spahn Ranch, some brief snatches of Ruby Pearl and Squeaky interviews...then(sigh) back to the usual fare- Dianne Lake rehashing Family days(with her spotty memory obviously augmented by the Bugliosi/Sanders/Watkins etc. books), and Bobby Beausoleil (audio only) rehashing his horseshit Straight Satans/mescaline fantasy story about Gary Hinman's murder...."Bruce and Danny(!)drove me to Gary's to get the money". Yeah, sure buddy. Gypsy is also here, commenting about Charlie, Dennis Wilson, Bobby, and the filming of the Academy Award winning "Ramrodder". Just as I was starting to lose interest about 40 minutes into it, up pops an interview with Stephanie Schram(!) about the August 4th Big Sur/Esalen hookup with Charlie. Too cool and too brief. Then we close out the episode with the obligatory timeworn re-enactments of the barefoot killers making their way across the Cielo Drive lawn, complete with a totally clean cut/clean shaven Tex Watson(disregarding the fact that 99.9% of pictures of him fom 1969 show a hirsute wildman). The music was OK- a few of Charlie's tunes interspersed with a brief snatch of Bobby's "Lucifer Rising", and a nice montage of Sunset Strip with the killer garage cut "Action Woman" by the Litter. Not a total waste of time, but I wish it had a little more to it.
ReplyDeleteSo, I keep hearing the “fair” word being used and comparing the TLB crimes to other inmate’s crimes.
ReplyDeleteThey aren’t the same as other inmates. Most other inmates haven’t had multiple major motion pictures and countless numbers of books written about their crimes.
The comment right before this one is about a SIX PART SERIES ABOUT THE CRIMES that’s airing currently. So no, they aren’t the same as “other inmates”. Sorry. You don’t get to have it both ways.
None of the murderers will ever get out. Why? Because the KILLERS made their crimes infamous. They set out to “shock the world” and still today, July 2020, there is brand new media about the crimes. That’s because their actions/crimes and their antics afterwards “shocked the world”. Deal with it.
Mrs. A Said
ReplyDeleteEven Barbara Hoyt said in an interview that Leslie wanted to go that night.
If you can believe her. She also heard Shorty screaming from miles away through mountains. I don't doubt that Leslie asked to go that night but it being gospel because Hoyt said it? Nope.
St. Circumstance said:
The legality and fairness of it all is for someone much brighter and more thoughtful than I do debate.
I think that you sell yourself short. You always make good points and are a fair debater.
Gina said:
She was sentenced to death. That the law changed is incidental and certainly, in retrospect it would seem that the sentences should have been changed to "Without the possibility of parole"
Actually, Leslie's was given a new trial. Her second trial ended in a well hung jury. Her third trial was something like 6years to life with parole. I certainly don't put her in a martyr status as she is a murderer in the eyes of the law. But also in the eyes of the law she meets the criteria for release. She can't change her behavior in court or the brutality of what she did but she can and has changed who she is in the last 50 years.
Robert C Said:
Being for Van Houten's release is not the same thing as being for Van Houten.
Exactly, I don't see as AustinAnnie put it "Honestly, after participating in such horror, I don't think the woman should stroll out of the prison to a welcoming committee of gleeful admirers" Anyone that admirers any killer is fucked up in the head. I am just talking about legal vs emotion.
Gorodish Said:
ReplyDeleteIn other news...
Yeah the part with Stephanie Schram was very interesting. I enjoyed it and I think that with most of the people on this blog, they would be hard pressed to tell us something new. I say give it a chance. There are 6 parts.
Astrocreep, I would agree with what you are saying. They wanted to shock the world and they did. It just shouldn't effect the sentence that she was given. If she would have been given a no parole sentence, I would be perfectly fine with that. That, however, is not the case.
Matthew- I totally and completely understand her sentence was/is different than the others. But, I also believe she got lucky the first go round because her attorney disappeared and therefore was granted a new trial. Had it not been for that, she would have gotten the same sentence as the others.
DeleteLegally speaking, you’re correct, I understand that. I’m not so emotional about it that I can’t agree with you in that regard- my personal belief is that she caught a lucky break but in the end, she got fucked by karma.
Moral of the story, don’t be like LVH.
How do you tell the families to differentiate between "legal" and "emotion?" Do you think they could turn that off, like a switch? It doesn't matter what any of our opinions are on this subject, but I bet it matters to the families. I don't disagree that she is legally eligible to be released. She is.
ReplyDeleteAustinAnn, sadly, our family lost a 16 year old girl at another's hands two Februaries ago. The heartache, I don't think, will ever go away. But no one has to tell any family how to differentiate between legal and emotion. Family loss does not make you dumb. And yes, you do have to turn the emotions off like a switch to get through some days and to deal with some of the logistics as well as holidays and birthdays. I am just talking about the debate of the legality of parole not about the pain that was inflicted on the Labianca family forever.
ReplyDeleteShe was in a cult. Manson knew mind control techniques, used to great effect in many different cults. There is a reason Manson is seen as the main culprit here...how can we make him the central figure as the mastermind and cult leader while at the same time pretend that the likes of Van Houten had completely free choice? It doesn’t make sense. So I think she should be freed. She is only being kept in because the Governor doesn’t want the flak and that has nothing to do with any of the (good) points raised here.
ReplyDeleteRock N. Roll said...
ReplyDeleteWhat does Self Realization Fellowship have to do with Leslie’s downfall? It was probably the most positive aspect of her life at that point
I don't dispute that.
Her time in the SRF is part of the general stew that she was involved with from which she could not get anything sufficient to keep her from the trajectory that she was on. It's by no means responsible for her murdering. It's by no means their fault that she didn't glean anything lasting from them ~ after all, Bobby Mackie did. But it was there at an important time for her {as was Haight Ashbury} and it's for that reason that I regard it as one of the signposts/agents along her path that played a part in who she became and the mindset that she housed that led to what she eventually did. The Haight {Hippy}, SRF and Bobby/Gail/Gypsy ménage à quatre were countercultural elements that hadn't worked for Leslie who was obviously seeking in and around this time. That, in many ways, made her ripe for an unconventional character like Charlie Manson.
Not every aspect of her path has to be looked at in a solely negative light. And neither should their importance in her evolution be dismissed.
dawnn said...
and speaks about her time in prison; she is a living witness to how your life can change in a sec
Good point. In fairness, she has actually been doing that for a few decades.
Also, to be a little pedantic, her life changed incrementally over a period of time but is always going to be viewed through the lens of one evening.
AstroCreep said...
They set out to “shock the world”
Ah, the legacy of Susan Atkins as told by Virginia Graham.
It's interesting that rarely, if at all, do we have this from the mouth of any Family member, ever. Even Atkins. Even when she was lying her blaggers off during the penalty phase or was quizzed by her lawyers or at the Grand jury. Even when she was changing her stories from year to year in various hearings, interviews and multiple autobiographies. I've never heard Pat, Tex or Leslie say they were trying to shock the world. They did everything in their power to not get caught and identified.
No, if Atkins really did say that to Virginia, it can be seen for what it is ~ an Atkinism that had in mind Susan Atkins trying to big herself up. Van Houten certainly wasn't trying to shock a world. If anything, she was trying to get the grand prophecy of Charlie up and running.
It's a point worth thinking about actually, how, in her mind at least, by killing to set off this train of events, there was never any thought back in '69 about taking responsibility for breaking the ultimate taboo. On the contrary, she thought what she did was right and didn't view it as murder. But she was careful to limit her telling this to her lawyer, privately, in jail.
The whole world shocking part came way down the line and seemed to be more from the likes of Sandy and Squeaky. Charlie certainly wasn't on some world shocking trip in which everyone would be looking at him as a murderer.
LastGirlOnTheLeft said...
ReplyDeleteManson is seen as the main culprit here...how can we make him the central figure as the mastermind and cult leader while at the same time pretend that the likes of Van Houten had completely free choice? It doesn’t make sense
Claire, it's a paradox but it is entirely possible. It's what happened in this case. But it happens in everyday life too. It happens in sports teams, relationships, governments and school playgrounds most days.
AstroCreep said...
I also believe she got lucky the first go round because her attorney disappeared and therefore was granted a new trial
I agree. It was a technicality or whatever the word is. What's bizarre is why they then changed the charge from what it had originally been. Truth be told, the only thing that changed between the original trial and Leslie's 3rd trial was that by '77 she'd recognized fully the error of her ways and was no longer one of Charlie's girls, prepared to die or spend the rest of her days in jail. None of the facts changed. None of the evidence changed.
Matthew said...
I don't doubt that Leslie asked to go that night but it being gospel because Hoyt said it? Nope
She didn't actually ask to go. Her stance, even back in '69 to Marvin Part, was that she wanted to go {primarily because Pat had gone and killed} and when Charlie asked her if she could understand why deaths had to occur, she said yeah and that clinched it. There's a subtle difference between asking to go and wanting to go. Cathy Gillies and Vern Plumlee have both stated that they asked if they could go that night and were told 'no ~ you're not needed'.
I think that you sell yourself short. You always make good points and are a fair debater
Quite a few of us think that and like St's style. Whether intentional or not, he always keeps a conversation flowing.
I certainly don't put her in a martyr status
Absolutely. She's not a martyr but another word beginning and ending in the same letters.
However, she's also someone that is vigorously pursuing the law of the land. It seems to me that some people want it both ways. Happy to castigate her for having had scant respect for the law when she was breaking it but unhappy that as a respecter of the very law she is lambasted for shitting on, she is able to test and uphold that law in the very purposes for which it was created. Life is full of ironies.
Grim said “AstroCreep said...
ReplyDeleteThey set out to “shock the world”
Ah, the legacy of Susan Atkins as told by Virginia Graham” etc etc.
Grim, actions speak louder than any words! You don’t carve up a house full of very affluent people (that includes an 8.5 month into her term pregnant woman) smear blood all over, kill a barely out of high school teenager and expect it to NOT have a lasting affect.
If their act was only intended to kill and not to send shockwaves thru Los Angeles, they would have done things much differently.
Sure, you could argue they didn’t know who would be at home at Cielo, but average Joe doesn’t live in that house and that, they knew.
Dan S said:
ReplyDeleteYes, grim, Lopez
If true, his is one story that makes true what he said about himself ~ "no one will ever forget me." It's a horror story made even worse by the fact that it's not known if he's alive or dead ~ and this was 20 years ago. How in the world someone in jail for 53 murders can be released is beyond me, regardless of how they may have changed or ironed out. I mean, I wouldn't even parole, let alone release Charles Watson and I think he has undergone hugely significant changes.
Gina said:
She was sentenced to death. That the law changed is incidental
Also important to remember is that it wasn't with the TLB case specifically in mind that led to the change in law. That debate had been rumbling for quite a few years.
Gorodish said:
Just as I was starting to lose interest about 40 minutes into it, up pops an interview with Stephanie Schram(!) about the August 4th Big Sur/Esalen hookup with Charlie. Too cool and too brief
Hopefully at some point we'll get it on one of the crime channels or even one of the mainstream ones here in England. I hope it's picked up by one of the freeview channels if it is. Satellite TV and I parted company when my kids got older and discovered YouTube.
Some years ago, someone purporting to be Stephanie turned up on Catscradle77's blog {the dearly lamented "Truth on Tate/LaBianca Forums} asking if people would be interested if she wrote a book. Cats seemed to feel she was genuine and if she could remember things quite well {she seemed to in an interview she did with Cats and Brian Davis} her book would actually have been quite interesting.
Matthew said:
If she would have been given a no parole sentence, I would be perfectly fine with that
I'd go along with that.
For me, her sentence being commuted to life back in '72 was paradoxical. At the time, she wasn't looking at getting another trial and she was slowly having to deal with being alive when she expected to die.
Had she been given a LWOP sentence when the death penalties were axed, it would have been interesting to see to what extent she {and for that matter, all the others, bar Charlie} would have tried to improve herself, turn her life around and help others within the system. With nothing to live for except existence in jail, I do believe she would have eventually abandoned the whole Manson mystique {there'd be no reason to keep it going !} but whether she would see things in quite the same way as she does now, I can't say.
Grim said
Delete"Had she been given a LWOP sentence when the death penalties were axed, it would have been interesting to see to what extent she {and for that matter, all the others, bar Charlie} would have tried to improve herself, turn her life around and help others within the system."
I think that LVH would have still followed a similar path regardless of what her sentence ended up being. Based on going completely stir crazy alone likely would be a great motivation to keep busy and, to keep the mind and body moving/stimulated.
Think about it...we've been dealing with self quarantine, social distancing, not being able to travel, or (some people unable to) work, attend group meetings or arts-based events, etc...since March. Five months so far.
Hands up if you're going a bit squirrelly already!
I don't think that LVH or, Pat could withdraw from the group activities or, schooling...if only to DO SOMETHING.
Bobby would have gone crazy without the music. I believe that he was given FAR TOO MUCH freedom to do the music...I don't think that he has accomplished much else.
Same with Tex. He went all-in on the religion and, had a ln unbelievable amount of freedom and privilege...had he not had that almost obscene amount of leeway to run his grift...would he have been as likely to help others? I don't think that he would.
Bruce too. I have not seen SFA about him participating in group activities except earlier with the ministry and with Stabby.
Susan went all-in on religion but she actually helped others and, tried to better herself - even if she needed constant positive reinforcement to feel valued and special.
I can't imagine 50yrs incarcerated without keeping my mind and body busy.
I've also been wondering a lot lately about Tex's self centered motivation and, how Tex has always been about Tex and, what/how he can manipulate and manage the entire narrative to favour himself.
DeleteI even think that his willingness to take on a more factual role and responsibility for the carnage - reducing/taking on the responsibility of certain flurries of wounds/possible fatal strikes from his fellow murderers...I have been wondering if his primary reason for reducing Susan's contributions to the carnage etc...is not to help establish the TRUTH...but rather to play the parole board and, gain more favouritism and, a better standing for whatever or whenever he needs to get something for himself.
He's a narcissistic megalomaniac STILL. A really lousy human being. He just projects such a foul vibe...his entire existence is completely built upon building himself up.
Sorry...I got a bit carried away by my complete disgust for him
TMC is showing Don't make waves Monday at 10 pm
ReplyDeleteAstroCreep said...
ReplyDeleteYou don’t carve up a house full of very affluent people (that includes an 8.5 month into her term pregnant woman) smear blood all over, kill a barely out of high school teenager and expect it to NOT have a lasting affect
Granted, but I don't think they were thinking that far ahead. The shockwaves that they encountered the next day seemed to surprise them too. Some of them were pleased, some of them laughed but I've never got the impression that any of them were left thinking, "yes, this media onslaught is just what we wanted !" For one thing, it made their movements that more difficult eventually.
When Atkins made the point about shocking the world, I can't get away from the reality of the matter, that by early November '69 when she said that, it was already a crime that had shocked the world. And had been shocking it for 3 months. The LaBianca murder didn't shock the world. Even to this day it lives in the shadow of what happened at Cielo. Look at how many people, when talking about Leslie, conflate her crime with the murder of Sharon Tate.
If HS was actually part of the motivation for the murders, shocking the world doesn't enter the equation other than its part in trying to turn parts of white society against blacks in such a way as to inspire those parts to go out and kill Black people.
If the copycat was the motive, then shocking the world would be irrelevant because the story there is to shine a light on the Beausoleil situation. So at best it would be a diversionary tactic. Nothing about either motive says anything of the importance of the world being shocked and taking notice of anything. So for me the question has long been, what was Susan talking about. What was Susan ever talking about ?
Virginia Graham said a number of dubious Susan things in the same "we wanted to shock the world" interview, like they went up to Steve Parent and shot him 4 times in the back of the head or that she stabbed Gary Hinman while Bobby held him or that Rudolph Weber was the sheriff or mayor of Beverley Hills or that Charlie had been in San Quentin.
She also said "And, anyway, she said that they had decided they wanted to do a crime that would shock the world, that the world would have to stand up and take notice....I said, 'Hey, why did you kill them?' And she said that they wanted to release them from this earth you know, so they could go on and that they loved them so much that they had to kill them and that this man, this Charlie Manson, obviously had schooled all these girls and boys, that there is a hole in the middle of Death Valley and that there are people living down in underground and that they are going to start a new society and that they are the chosen few, they are elected, this group of people, to pick people at random and execute them...I mean she really thinks that she did the right thing by killing these people, really..."
She never really explains any larger goal in relation to shocking the world. It's just all over the place. As per Susan !
I would imagine after 50 years, one would be pretty much resigned to the fact one was going to be there forever. Leslie seems like she is pretty comfortable with who and where she is now. At some point she probably made the decision that she was just going to be a productive individual and live her life as best she could under the circumstances. She seems content with her lot, something the others seem to lack. To me, this leaves the impression that she really has internally taken responsibility and tried to reform herself.
ReplyDeleteThe others seem all hung up in the past, where Leslie seems more forward looking. Good for her. She fucked up big time and has lived with the consequences, but at least she's tried to move on. I know the dead will never have that opportunity, but it is what it is, nothing Leslie does or doesnt do can ever bring them back. But you can't blame the girl for wanting to live a as productive a life as she can, have accomplishments, feel valuable. Better than just another life wasted.
ReplyDeleteMind you ALL THESE SCUMBAGS SHOULD BE DEAD! THEY WERE ALL SENTENCED THE DEATH PENALITY. While these MURDERERS were in prison the California laws changed eliminating the death penalty. We wouldn't be having this conversation if CA didn't go full liberal. And look where that has gotten the state. CA is now a 3rd world place. EVERY big city in CA is like a 3rd world city.
ReplyDeleteBack to point. All these people including Leslie should be dead. So none of them deserve parole. Let them ALL ROT IN JAIL. Liberal softies don't know/forget what these vile devil worshipping people did SLAUGHTERING the LaBianca's and Sharon Tate and her friends. If you don't know then watch some movies (not fictionalized ones) on it, read Helter Skelter. May they all rot in jail and subsequently in hell.
Doug said...
ReplyDeleteI think that LVH would have still followed a similar path regardless of what her sentence ended up being. Based on going completely stir crazy alone likely would be a great motivation to keep busy and, to keep the mind and body moving/stimulated....I don't think that LVH or, Pat could withdraw from the group activities or, schooling...if only to DO SOMETHING
I wasn't so much thinking in terms of just keeping busy and doing something/anything as much as the "what." Charlie didn't make any great attempt at turning his life around and going in the opposite direction. On the contrary, he played the part of the outlaw that stands apart from straight society right up until he died. So it's a fair argument to say he remained true to himself even if that 'true' was ultimately a sad indictment of a human being.
None of the others were experienced jail fodder at the time of incarceration and because all of them had the possibility of parole as part of their sentences it wasn't lost on any of them that there was a possibility of one day getting out. None of them liked or like jail {as can be seen by the marriages, children sired and number of parole hearings over the years despite all the kickbacks}, even now.
Tex had already begun his "changes" long before his trial ~ but these were primarily to foster a good impression on a jury in the hopes of escaping death and that didn't work. The law on death changed too early into their incarceration for us to get a sense of how they were going to handle things although I don't doubt that appeals would have raged long into the night and with them, the requisite 180° shift. But even those shifts would have carried some hope at the end of the day. When you're facing death and you don't want to die, every day is another day that you're alive.
But Life without parole is another matter altogether. Tex and Pat may have resigned themselves to eventually dying in jail but there is still that tiny sliver, that crumb of hope that one day, they may see the outside again. I don't underestimate hope. Even if they only lived for a week after achieving freedom, from where they currently stand, that would be something. But LWOP is an existence without hope. It's all very well someone like Ed Kemper refusing parole hearings, but the fact remains that it is open to him. It might have sounded noble that Squeaky refused parole hearings while in jail but the reality is that she could have applied for parole. LWOP removes any possibility of ever seeing the light of another day as a free person. There's no one to carry your torch on the outside. No campaigns, no supporters {at least not with any realistic chance of changing the situation}. So just by process of logic, there's less incentive to change, go through the process of admitting guilt and working on one's being unless one goes through some kind of religious conversion or something similar.
Which was the thrust of the point I was making. As has been pointed out by Doug & Peter, obviously one has to do something, especially if one is young or approaching middle age. But I just wonder whether Leslie, Pat, Tex, Susan, Clem and Bruce {because it's arguable to what extent Bobby has really changed in mindset at least} would have put themselves through the personal wringer that they have done {or in Susan's case, had done} in quite the same way if there was no discernible pay off {or at least something tangible to aim at} at the end of it.
Unknown said...
ReplyDeletenone of them deserve parole. Let them ALL ROT IN JAIL. Liberal softies don't know/forget what these vile devil worshipping people did SLAUGHTERING the LaBianca's and Sharon Tate and her friends....May they all rot in jail
It's primarily "liberal softies" like Guv'nors Brown and Newsome that have been denying them parole and keeping them rotting in jail.
So who is your argument actually with ?
Unknown Said:
ReplyDeleteLiberal softies don't know/forget what these vile devil worshiping people did,,,,
There are both liberals and conservatives that would like to see these people rot in hell. To a good point is Grim and the governors that have reversed the parole. I am sure that there are also both liberals and conservatives that want to see the law as written be followed. This is just a divisive bullshit statement that keeps our country from moving forward as one. People need to see each other as individuals again and STOP this name calling shit!
Unknown,
ReplyDeleteTo Matthew's (excellent) point, stop being divisive and generalizing. I am a "liberal softie" and I do NOT believe Leslie should be paroled. Take your political bullshit somewhere where someone cares!
And I am conservative and do think she should be paroled.
ReplyDeleteWhy dont we all just close our eyes, click our heels together three times....
ReplyDeleteAnd Mario Nitrini III of the OJ Simpson case will show up and tell us all how this will work out?
I am good with whatever he says....
Nice job Saint
DeleteMaybe we'll never see you wnd Mario in the same room at the same time!
Cuz...well...you know...
St Circumstance?
ReplyDeleteGazoo Jr at your service....lol
👇
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rF8Zkjnlbro
IMO, California Governor Gavin Newsome, will override the parole boards decision, and deny Leslie Van Houten from being released on parole.
Mario George Nitrini 111
-----
The OJ Simpson Case
:) LOL!!! That's what I'm talking about...
ReplyDeleteWell, that was pretty easy. St. C, I guess you could have summoned your genie earlier but then we wouldn't have had this lovely debate. Sorry Leslie.
ReplyDeleteMagic 8 ball says "not likely"
ReplyDeleteThis Liberal softie thinks she should stay in prison. And I agree with Matthew. All this name calling and generalizing each other is nothing but divisive.
ReplyDeleteWhat, St Mario III ?
ReplyDeleteGorodish said...
ReplyDeleteIn other news....Bobby Beausoleil rehashing his horseshit
He elects not to rehash in his latest parole hearing and in a spectacular mid air turnaround, we see why the present panel denied him after him being found suitable last time around. DA Lebowitz once again shows that she's become something of a dab hand at this; eking out the tiniest word or phrase or reference that a "Manson family killer" might have said {or had said about them by an interviewer} one or four or six years ago, whether in a major or utterly obscure and only visible to 7 people type publication and then wringing every last drop for all it's worth in ways that Mal Waldron's piano playing style would be proud of. It was done to Tex last time around, I'm fairly certain the panel had such in mind with Pat last time around and it was definitely hung around Bobby this time.
I have to say, the panel members were less than articulate, to say the least.
I also suspect that Debra Tate and some of the victim's relatives have had their day in the sun. I don't believe they are truly influencing matters any longer. I'm not saying they should just stay at home {that would be daft}, but I think their ship has sailed.
grimtraveller typed:
ReplyDeleteHe elects not to rehash in his latest parole hearing
While he didn't rehash the fairy tale in detail, he still alluded to it. The panel seemed far more interested in his online ventures and income.
DA Lebowitz once again shows that she's become something of a dab hand at this;...and then wringing every last drop for all it's worth in ways that Mal Waldron's piano playing style would be proud of.
I enjoyed your Mal Waldron euphemism there, Grim. His 1962 stuff with Eric Dolphy ("The Quest" & "Where?") and the 1967 soundtrack from "Sweet Love, Bitter" occupy coveted spots in my jazz collection. Color me impressed.
I have to say, the panel members were less than articulate, to say the least.
It may have had more to do with the not-ready-for-prime-time video teleconferencing system they were using. But you're right, they were nowhere near in the same league as the commissioner that had browbeaten Tex during his last rodeo.
I also suspect that Debra Tate and some of the victim's relatives have had their day in the sun.
I agree with this. Kaye Martley's impact statement was somewhat moving, but I'm afraid Debra Tate has finally careened into overexposure.
There is a cool Instagram blog by a guy named Bo (different guy than cielodrive) called #OutlawArchive which has a ton of posts about 1950s-60s-70s outlaw bikers, including a bunch of Straight Satans stuff. If you dig deep, a few of the older posts have some 2009 interviews in a hotel room with a 69-year-old "86 George" Knoll and his 30-something girlfriend; where George mentions Bobby's mescaline story as "pure fictional garbage", and how Charlie traded him sex with Leslie and Krenwinkel as payment for use of his welding machine. Great stuff.
I have a welding machine hummmmm...
ReplyDeleteWhut
Fancy the old birds....?
DeleteI was clowning as I sometimes do.
ReplyDeleteWhut
Thank you Gorodish for the
ReplyDelete#OutlawArchive Instagram post by Bo. It led me to search......
I found this blog-post
👇
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/motorcycle-club-photos-satans-slaves-411707134
and MORE.......
It was GREAT corroboration for me.......
This is for Matt. Matt, go to the worthpoint.com blog-post and read the names in the photo. Please reference the email I sent you over 1 1/2 years ago and match-up the NAME.
Thanks.
I know what I'm talking about when it comes to several situations pertaining to The Charles Manson Family when they occupied SPAHN RANCH.
There are 2 other people in that photo I had personal contact with.
Mario George Nitrini 111
-----
The OJ Simpson Case
Technically LVH is a political prisoner, there's not even room to debate this. The law is designed to punish and rehabilitate, she's done both. It really doesn't matter how she ended up without the death penalty. But since it is brought up so often, you need to look at how she got life with parole. Whether the death penalty was reversed or not, there's a very good chance she never would have gotten the death penalty. After the first trial where she was convicted,she automatically qualified for a new trial due to the fact her lawyer ended up MIA then dead. This qualification alone would have removed the death penalty for LVH. She went through two more trials before convicted with a sentence of life with parole. Her second trial actually ended in a hung jury. She lived free in society for six months after the second trial. Funny no one wants to remember that part.
ReplyDeleteAfter given life with parole,after so many years served and full rehabilitation the actual crime should become a shadow in the background. It does for other prisoners that murdered people. The only thing looked at for others, is time served and rehab and they're out. As a professional with a MSW, I worked with prisoners. One slashed his wife's throat, not just once but so many times he nearly decapitated her. He served 18 years of a life with parole sentence. He was rehabilitated and has been out now for over 14 years and no trouble. I discharged him after three years. Another prisoner was a woman that killed two of her kids, Munchausen Syndrom. She served 23 years for killing toddlers! I worked with her upon release for six years, she's now been out over ten years and settled in society.
So was LVH crime worse than theirs? No, and you should only look at her part in the murders, not lumped in with Watson's and Krenwinkles part. Her only reason thats keeping her in prison, is the fact that Sharon Tate was murdered. Had Sharon not been a rising star married to a famous movie producer, LVH would be free 25 years ago, at least. Most don't even recall the other victims names at the Polanski residence that night. Most don't even remember young Steve Parrish was shot in his car. It's always the "Tate Murders". Keeping her in prison is no longer serving justice. Too many want to use emotion instead of law. Sure the murders were horrific in nature, but that shouldn't be what now decides her fate.
I've worked with hundreds of prisoners upon parole, even care about some still. LVH is now a political prisoner for the last quarter of a century.
Technically LVH is a political prisoner, there's not even room to debate this. The law is designed to punish and rehabilitate, she's done both. It really doesn't matter how she ended up without the death penalty. But since it is brought up so often, you need to look at how she got life with parole. Whether the death penalty was reversed or not, there's a very good chance she never would have gotten the death penalty. After the first trial where she was convicted,she automatically qualified for a new trial due to the fact her lawyer ended up MIA then dead. This qualification alone would have removed the death penalty for LVH. Funny no one wants to remember that part.
ReplyDeleteAfter given life with parole,after so many years served and full rehabilitation the actual crime should become a shadow in the background. It does for other prisoners that murdered people. The only thing looked at for others, is time served and rehab and they're out. As a professional with a MSW, I worked with prisoners. One slashed his wife's throat, not just once but so many times he nearly decapitated her. He served 18 years of a life with parole sentence. He was rehabilitated and has been out now for over 14 years and no trouble. I discharged him after three years. Another prisoner was a woman that killed two of her kids, munchausen syndrom. She served 23 years for killing toddlers! I worked with her upon release for six years, she's now been out the years and settled in society.
So was LVH crime worse than theirs? No. Her only problem keeping her in prison is the fact that Sharon Tate was murdered. Had Sharon not been a rising star married to a famous movie producer, LVH would be free 25 years ago, at least. Keeping her in prison is no longer serving justice. Too many want to use emotion instead of law. Sure the murders were horrific in nature, but that shouldn't be what now decides her fate.
I've worked with hundreds of prisoners upon parole, even care about some still. LVH is now a political prisoner for the last quarter of a century.
Simple Justice, there's a delete function which you should use for the first of your comments. Just after the given time, there's a bin. Click on it and it gives you options on deleting.
ReplyDeleteSimple justice said:
ReplyDeleteyou should only look at her part in the murders, not lumped in with Watson's and Krenwinkles part
That's a hard one because that's not how conspiracy to commit murder works. I think it's sometimes very unfair but what makes a conspiracy charge such a scary one is that by acting as a group, each individual becomes responsible for whatever any individual may do within the group, even if you happen to disapprove of what one of your fellow conspirators did/does.
Mind you, collective responsibility in government operates along similar priciples which is tough shit for that politician that happens to disagree with a particular policy. Here in the UK, I regularly see politicians loe their seat because a govt they might have been part of passed legislation that they, the individual was against.
The public doesn't care !
Her only reason thats keeping her in prison, is the fact that Sharon Tate was murdered. Had Sharon not been a rising star married to a famous movie producer, LVH would be free 25 years ago, at least
I don't strictly agree with that. Other than by Debra Tate and a small band, I'm not so sure that Sharon Tate is still seen as this paragon of the American dream by the wider society. It's the Manson association that makes LVH smell so bad. She wasn't even in on the Cielo killing that saw Sharon stabbed to death and unlike Susan Atkins who didn't even set foot on the LaBianca premises yet was still charged and convicted of their murder, Leslie wasn't charged with Cielo.
Most don't even recall the other victims names at the Polanski residence that night. Most don't even remember young Steve Parrish was shot in his car. It's always the "Tate Murders"
That's Steven Parent.
But your overall point is sound in the sense that not many people can tell you the names of the LaBiancas. Few could even pronounce Wojiciech Frykowski. Gary Hinman and Donald Shea barely rate a mention many times the story of the Manson killings are told.
But are we any different ? Do we genuinely recall the victims names in all the murder cases we hear of or may show an interest in, especially older cases ? How many can name Ed Kemper's victims ? We might remember "his mum" or "his mum's friend," or "his grandma" or "his grandpa," but names ? Who can name Jeffrey Dahmer'sjavascript:void(0) victims ? Or Ted Bundy's ? Or Richard Ramirez's ? Or David Berkowitz's ? All those mothers that drown or smother their children to death, how many of the children can we name ? How many of the 2977 murder victims of 9/11 can many of us name ?
It's not just the Tate~LaBianca case.
I've just read the transcript of her prole hearing and I have to say, if one has followed her hearings for a period of time, it is unremarkable and almost boring. Unlike Bobby's in which he was granted parole by the board then the next year denied it and is therefore quite fascinating to go through, Leslie's is something of a snorefest because there's little she can add, there's little that the board want to know that they don't know backwards already and even the DDA, Donna Lebowitz, although she goes through the motions of asking the board to deny her, she barely asked any questions this time. It was almost as if everyone was thinking "we all know Leslie, after 4 'yes' verdicts and virtually half a century of impeccable behaviour isn't going to start setting a foot wrong so let's just get this done quickly and leave it to Guv'nor Newsome." Even Debra Tate wasn't breathing her usual fire from her verbal nostrils. Yeah, she said "deny her" but it was notable how she focused on the good Leslie was doing in jail and then talked about death threats she'd personally received and said she didn't know if Leslie was privy to these or not. When she followed up by saying how dangerous "these people" were, it was almost like her game was up. It feels like there are no more straws left to clutch at and she's reaching mud and grit. Sure, the Guv'nor will probably bat her back as per his office, but the naysayers have been tangibly losing steam over the last 3 to 4 years. It comes across very potently in the transcript.
ReplyDelete