LOS ANGELES (AP) — A California appeals court said Tuesday that Leslie Van Houten, who participated in two killings at the direction of cult leader Charles Manson in 1969, should be released from prison on parole.
The appellate court's ruling reverses an earlier decision by Gov. Gavin Newsom, who rejected parole for Van Houten in 2020. She has been recommended for parole five times since 2016. All of those recommendations were rejected by either Newsom or former Gov. Jerry Brown.
Newsom could request that California Attorney General Rob Bonta petition the state Supreme Court to stop her release. Bonta's office referred questions to Newsom's office, which didn't respond to queries about possible next steps.
Van Houten, now in her 70s, is serving a life sentence for helping Manson and other followers kill Leno LaBianca, a grocer in Los Angeles, and his wife, Rosemary.
Newsom has said that Van Houten still poses a danger to society. In rejecting her parole, he said she offered an inconsistent and inadequate explanation for her involvement with Manson at the time of the killings.
The Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles ruled 2-1 to reverse Newsom's decision, writing there is "no evidence to support the Governor's conclusions" about Van Houten's fitness for parole.
The judges took issue with Newsom's claim that Van Houten did not adequately explain how she fell under Manson's influence. At her parole hearings, she discussed at length how her parents' divorce, her drug and alcohol abuse, and a forced illegal abortion led her down a path that left her vulnerable to him.
They also argued against Newsom's suggestion that her past violent acts were a cause for future concern were she to be released.
"Van Houten has shown extraordinary rehabilitative efforts, insight, remorse, realistic parole plans, support from family and friends, favorable institutional reports, and, at the time of the Governor's decision, had received four successive grants of parole," the judges wrote. "Although the Governor states Van Houten's historical factors ‘remain salient,' he identifies nothing in the record indicating Van Houten has not successfully addressed those factors through many years of therapy, substance abuse programming, and other efforts."
284 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 284 of 284There were numerous times through different hearings where there seems to be a suggestion by Ms. Van Houten that this was not all that planned. That she was just kind of along for the ride. There's the discussion of her being under the influence of LSD, which she told one of the psychologists in an earlier hearing that she was on LSD at the time. And that transpired throughout a number of these hearings, but yet finally there's an admission that she was not under the influence of drugs. In fact, none of the family members were under the influence of drugs when they committed this crime. And that's consistent with Charlie Manson wanting this particular crime to go much smoother than the slaughter the night before at the Tate residence where it got really messy. Nevertheless, the explanations given by Ms. Van Houten over the years as to what caused her to commit the crimes, this first of all blaming it on Charles Manson, blaming it upon his ability to control her, these are all themes that keep coming up. And the latest one that I've seen in the most recent psychological report is that now that her mother encouraging her to have an abortion was the traumatic trigger that caused her to later become a mass murderer. And I'm having a hard time understanding that. I'm having a hard time understanding even how usage of a lot of LSD or any drugs would cause somebody to become a mass murderer. I haven't seen a lot of studies that show that there's a direct correlation between any of that.
That's the real problem.
Over all these years- the Parole Board members change. She has had like 20 something hearings. The newer members dont study the older transcripts or watch older hearings like some of us do- so they done see how she changes stories very often to fit her current idea of the best way to get out. But the same DA's go- and they Study too ;)
I will Keep posting these for fair minded people in middle to make their own conclusions...Jay and Tobias you two can (WEll you already know)
Most of you know about Leslies relationship with the guy she married who was trying to break her out, but did you know about some of her other pen pals?
And the inmate told the Deputy Commissioner that she didn't have any relationships while in prison, but she wrote to a couple guys. Now that is the understatement of the year because as was discussed in the last hearing and I think maybe the hearing before, she married in prison a man named Bill Cywyn, C-Y-W-Y-N, and Bill Cywyn was a parolee and Bill Cywyn, uh, had in his car a -- a guard uniform and a map of the prison and it was inferred that the inmate was trying to break out. But that -- the -- the -- the charge of escape is not what's important here. The charge of escape is, is that while the causative factor for this crime was her dependence upon men, her poor judgment, her -- her desire to be accepted that she just sort of glossed over the fact that she married a parolee who it would be unlawful to associate with a parolee when she herself is a parolee, but who he was, that she didn’t have the judgment to know who he was and that he was causing her harm. So couple that with her relationship with one of the men that she wrote to whose name was Michael Vines, V-I-N-E-S, and Michael Vines was a double murderer in two states. And the inmate had a -- what she called in previous hearings, a fantasy about Mr. Vines, uh, and had communicated with him for just under two decades. And but for the fact that Mr. Vines died she might still be communicating with him. So when she tells the Panel "Yeah, well, I wrote to a couple guys", that shows that she has no insight into the causative factors of this crime and that she is minimizing her dependence upon men, her dependent -- her dependence and her willing -- her desire to be accepted.
Saint, how about all the less infamous murderers who have done way worse but gotten out? Why is Leslie's crime more heinous ?
Jay said:
great comments and analysis. I always enjoy reading your comments. thank you for being informative and civil
We aim to please.
There aren't many places that one can get involved in passionate debates on subjects one likes, if one enjoys that kind of thing. I like locking horns with Tobias because he's articulate, informed and informative {over the years, I've found the two don't always go hand in hand}, deep thinking and not beyond modifying what he thinks if he feels it is the path to take. I also enjoy that he can be sarcastic and fire little barbs here and there that are quite subtle and funny without being nasty.
I'm primarily here to read about all of the different theories and information that is now available
Well, you're in the right place.
While I can appreciate the thoughts and concern that this case may generate, personally, I do not feel the need to get emotional and combative when discussing a true crime event that may involve a person I have no personal connection to, who may or may not get parole for killing someone over fifty years ago, whom I do not have a personal connection to either
I think that getting combative is a natural by-product of opposing views. But being combative doesn't mean war. Well, it does for some people, but many of us are able to get heated, but in reality, not have it run and rule our lives. Most games and sport are {and in my view, should be} combative. Then after, much of the time, adversaries on the field, court or wherever, of play, have a drink or meal together.
St's behaviour in the thread is actually uncharacteristic. His stance has been identical for many years, but previously, he was relatively measured, and even when he got passionate, I always had the impression that there were lines he wouldn't cross.
tobiasragg said:
I have been reading the appellate court decision and they cite a LVH quote on the whole shared leader/follower responsibility matter that we were discussing above. This struck me last night as a great example of what I was trying to share above:
Asked if there were any other factors that led to
Van Houten “cooperating with such a delusional leader,” Van
Houten answered, “The main factors were that I was . . . a very
weak person that took advantage of someone that wanted to take
control of my life and I handed it over.”
This seems to me to be a very mature acknowledgement of the shared responsibility here
I see it a different way. She was 19 in her time with Manson. That's a year or two off childhood. That's ascribing such a huge deal of wisdom and insight to someone of that age, that people of that age just do not possess. Not only that, it's ascribing a large measure of deliberation and knowledge to that person. The way she put it in that above quote is not the way it would have looked to her at the time. It wouldn't even have entered her head.
It's quite interesting that California has recently, in its parole hearing criteria, been giving a lot of weight to the concept of the youthful offender, and why they are taking it into account. The reasons are not difficult to fathom. When you're the age the Leslies and Clems of this world were, there is a maturity issue that isn't often the case when you're dealing with someone of the age of Bruce, Charlie or Gypsy. All the stuff Leslie talks about with a few decade's hindsight would never have occurred to her in 1968/69.
Did Paul Watkins, Brooks Poston, Sunshine Pearce, Ella Jo B and Linda also "create" him ? They didn't murder but have identical positions to Leslie.
I'd say that there are a whole load of people, going all the way back to the 1930s, that helped create Charles Manson, many of whom were supposedly legit and respectable authority figures. And they were deliberate, deliberate in their selfishness.
"That's ascribing such a huge deal of wisdom and insight to someone of that age, that people of that age just do not possess."
I would disagree that "people" (assuming here you mean to say "all" or "most" people) of that age do not possess wisdom and insight. Obviously, most anyone is not as wise at 19 as they are at 74, but as is so often said in regard to these murderers, "there were thousands/millions of 1960s teens who did not make the choices folks like LVH made".
That aside, I again feel like you are only lightly brushing against Leslie's claim of responsibility rather than truly arguing against it. I've noted that you do this a lot, perhaps out of boredom or simply because you like debating, but this is a practice I noted even in your posts on these matters from back in 2012 and that era.
To get more to my point: the fact that LVH possesses more insight and wisdom today than she did when she was much younger does not negate the fact that her younger self is completely responsible for the choices and decisions she made back then. We hold her responsible for the deaths she helped cause just as we must hold her responsible for making the decisions that led her into that murder house.
The other thing that strikes me is that the position you are expressing on this one is the "sit in jail until you expire" position. If Leslie let her youthful self off the hook as easily as you seem to do here, she'd never have made it past the parole board to begin with. One reason I enjoy the Ear Hustle podcast so much is that there we begin to hear LVH beginning to feel and express empathy with her teenaged self without shirking the very real responsibility that is hers. As an outsider, I'd say you've the right to hold whatever opinion that suits you, but I do think that Leslie is striking the correct balance here, at least as expressed in the quote I pulled above.
Dan I never said Leslies Crimes were worse than whatever crimes you are talking about, and I hold judgement on any other cases unless I know specifics about who should and should not get out Bud.
I know about this case. I have studied this person. She does not meet the criteria in my opinion. I have laid out multiple explanations of why. But just take my very last comment. For 20 years she was fantasizing and writing to a double killer. Is that focusing on getting closer to understanding your heinous actions and why you did them to your satisfaction? She started out taking a little responsibility and the more time passed the more she changed the story to take less responsibility. The exact opposite of what your supposed to do if you are really learning to accept responsibility.
The fact that I dont feel she ever really accepted responsibility in combination with the heinous nature of the crime is what brings me to where I am with Leslie.
Anyone else is a separate issue
From for 15 years on these blogs I have been trying to have intelligent conversations with people such as yourself and usually I am able.
But as you know- over the years people have come along and decided to make name for them selves attacking me. you can think of a couple I am sure I did not insult Tobias or Jay or anyone else. Leary. Monkeyboy- any of them.
I was going back and forth with you and then the personal insults started coming at me in comments, from people I don't even know. and your right- these days I have no tolerance for it. Fuck em. Period.
What about every other 7 to lifer with good behavior being paroled in less time? And a lot more heinous than one person being stabbed.
I dont care who disagrees with me and I was trying to be very respectful and in one of my first comments I told Tobias just that, but he insulted me anyway to look clever in front of the other monkeys who get off on that stuff. Its not smart or thoughtful. Its dumb and petty.
But I can do that too for awhile- then I get bored and leave for awhile and the whole blog and community miss out on my wisdom and charm...
We don't want that do we?
I have way more Leslie stuff to post
St. Circumstance said:
I will Keep posting these for fair minded people in middle to make their own conclusions
Oh, mate.🤦♂️
Here's the problem you have. In my estimation, people come to a comments section for a variety of reasons, but overriding all of those reasons, is the desire to know what other people are thinking about the subject at hand. So many of us learn through the discussions, debates, sharing & swapping of info, and corrections that take place.
Yes, sometimes, someone will include part of an interview, book, trial transcript, police questioning, article or things of that vein, in order to bolster a point. Sometimes, a thread will be composed of that ~ then there'd be comments after.
But just willy-nilly bringing up the wholesale statements of the family members at a parole hearing in the comments section is counter-productive. It's boring, it's in the end actually doing those family members no good because you're merely emphasizing how unreasonable they can sound about someone they've never spoken to, but most of all, it's making you look immature. Not even desperate. It has succeeded in undoing many of the solid and interesting statements you have previously made.
If "fair-minded people in the middle" want to make up their own minds, they can read those statements elsewhere. They're all over this site. Cielo has organized it really well. Everything's easy to find.
You're just 'bombing' ~ that's what graffiti artists in Ladbroke Grove used to do when a crew would put up a new piece of art. They'd come in and spray colours all over the work and let it run so it looked like crap.
Do you want to be remembered as St Circumstance, the thread bomber ?
Dan- I told you. I have hard time understanding your idea of a much more heinous crime than beating a woman to death, stabbing her to death- after watching her listen to her husband tortured first, then writing in blood, sticking kitchen k nives in their bodies, and then making a snack. BUT assuming there are even worse bastards out there- it really depends more to me on how they grown and develop doing the time then actually how much time they do.
Charlie did less than Leslie for example. He didnt get out, and nobody questions at hat at all. WHY? WHY?
Because he showed no remorse and accepted no responsibility. Leslie may have been a little more clever and quiet about it. She matured in prison and snapped out of it- but that only made her more desperate to get out. It not help her to gain acceptance and understanding of what she did to anyone esle. ONLY what she did to herself.
I can go find it. Pat once slipped in a hearing and when she was asked who she felt she hurt the most- she answered HERself...
Think about that.
I dont really give a fuck how anyone remembers me here lol these are mostly fucking loosers to be honest.
I am known in my world as a great guy and amazing leader. I do lots of charity and help lots of people. I have no kids but coached teenagers sports for over 20 years. Peole fucking love me, and you can believe what you want.
As for Here- The people who come here who have met me in person can tell you what they think for themselves. I am generous, kind, and go out of of my way to be deferential to others. I pick up checks for strangers, offer to help anyone who needs it in any way, and share everything I have...
Again, those are the facts. Some assholes I will never want to meet- want to create their own narrative to feel better. That's ok with me too.
It really doesnt matter how I am remembered on a Charles Manson Blog Grim. Only about three people I care about very much even know I do this.
"Over all these years- the Parole Board members change. She has had like 20 something hearings. The newer members dont study the older transcripts or watch older hearings like some of us do- so they done see how she changes stories very often to fit her current idea of the best way to get out. But the same DA's go- and they Study too ;)"
The DA's office does not send representatives to parole hearings.
The older hearings are reviewed prior to each new one.
Five different iterations of the CA parole board have granted LVH parole in as many years, this hasn't been the same collection of board members each time.
Spamming transcript quotes is a waste of time, as it requires no effort to scroll right past them.
There is a pattern that smart people will see. She does not take personal reasonability. I am hoping that smart people will read for themselves and not listen to people like you.
I know they aren't the same people every time. That was my point.
Dude you just want to make it personal with me. I told you early I respect your opinion. Now I dont. Please direct them elsewhere.
Thanks!
PS- It took me 10 years to read the hours and hours of Transcripts and videos, of all the hearings. You really think they do that every time for each one of them?
PSS- the DA office doesn't send representative's to the parole hearings. I meant prosecutors office. I said DA - because the first one that always comes to Mind was Patrick Sequeiria who was an Assistant DA when he attended most of them. But I think you should have gotten my point. The people who looked hard saw what I see- a pattern of consistent scheming and changing of her story over a long period of time.
It really is a matter of how you look at it I guess. I have a picture I show at work in training classes. Its either an old woman wearing a shawl or a young woman wearing a feather in her hat. You ask 50 people and 25 will tell you it is one and 25 will tell you the other. The point is that two people can look at same thing and see two different things.
I am ok with that. But when people start trying to force one or the other down my throat after looking at the picture for 5 seconds- that gives me huge problems.
My opinion is studied and earned and it will be heard.
I went back and double checked. Stephen Kay WAS representing the DA office when he went to the hearings for many many years. so that must have changed at some point, but again. over the Years- The DA's or whoever represented the victims kept close track of Leslies evolving story and record much better than the Parole Board Members did.
tobiasragg said:
I would disagree that "people" (assuming here you mean to say "all" or "most" people) of that age do not possess wisdom and insight
That's not what I said.
as is so often said in regard to these murderers, "there were thousands/millions of 1960s teens who did not make the choices folks like LVH made"
I have no idea what that has to do with the notion that Leslie Van Houten created Charles Manson.
I again feel like you are only lightly brushing against Leslie's claim of responsibility rather than truly arguing against it. I've noted that you do this a lot, perhaps out of boredom or simply because you like debating
Um, no.
but this is a practice I noted even in your posts on these matters from back in 2012 and that era
That would be pretty amazing, considering I'd never even heard of any Manson related blogs in 2012.
the fact that LVH possesses more insight and wisdom today than she did when she was much younger does not negate the fact that her younger self is completely responsible for the choices and decisions she made back then
I think I have said, on a number of occasions, some in this thread, that I fully agree with this.
We hold her responsible for the deaths she helped cause just as we must hold her responsible for making the decisions that led her into that murder house
No problem there. I agree.
the position you are expressing on this one is the "sit in jail until you expire" position
What do you mean ? I don't understand that.
tobiasragg said:
If Leslie let her youthful self off the hook as easily as you seem to do here, she'd never have made it past the parole board to begin with
Do you genuinely think I've let her off the hook easily, despite 8 years of consistently arguing that she is responsible ? Find me one person across any of the TLB blogs in the last 8 years that, for example, has argued cogently that Rosemary LaBianca was alive before Leslie stabbed her. People have criticized her for saying she stabbed a dead body, but I have never come across one person that even attempts to demonstrate that Rosemary was alive. But I've done it, I've argued it and I've demonstrated it. Those that see it as a sticking point and don't/can't argue it, they are actually the ones that "let her off the hook easily."
No, I do not let Leslie off the hook easily. I don't let her off the hook at all. She wanted to kill, she ended up committing murder.
But I also have long recognized that there is way more to it than that. It's nuanced, and I explore deeply the nuances. As Mr Humphrat once said, "without nuance, there is no grim." As you yourself appreciate, nuances are difficult. If they were easy to negotiate, everyone would. And the simple reality is that most people do not. Most people operate along far simpler, more black and white lines. St and Ann exemplify that.
Yes, I like to debate, not for its own sake though. It's because I can see that matters that many contributors have real problems with, I no longer have those problems, and so I share what I think I see.
I'm always open to the reality that it may be completely wrong !
I personally think she's done a remarkable thing with her life. St looks at her and sees someone that is only trying to scam the system, change up her "getting out" tactics etc. I see progression, moving from, "You know, I didn't take Mrs. LaBianca's life, but I feel as responsible as if I had" to where she's at now. Ironically, when she made the statement about not taking a life, she was making the statement about being responsible for creating a Manson. Same interview.
As an outsider, I'd say you've the right to hold whatever opinion that suits you
I couldn't agree more. The same applied to Charlie, to Susan, and applies to Squeaky and Sandy. And I disagree with some of their conclusions about aspects of their lives too.
If none of us ever did, no one would ever talk of someone being in denial.
But we do so frequently.
GRIM LESLIE SAID SHE STABBED HER WHEN SHE WAS ALIVE!!!!!
“And I took one of the knives, and Patricia had one a knife, and we started stabbing and cutting up the lady,” Van Houten testified in 1971.
THAT IS THE POINT- she didn't start with the - she was already dead when I stabbed her until much later. How is that accepting responsibility when you go backwards with your acceptance of what you did? And who cares what anyone else said about what Leslie did. Lets listen to Leslie and watch how she changed her story time an time again.
That was really only point I wanted to make but boy did it sure get pounced on. And why?
Its true. Its not speculation. Its not second hand. Its Leslies words and actions over 50 years.
I guess I see the old lady and you see the young woman lol
The prosecutor's office used to send representatives to parole hearings, but that stopped when Gascón took over. It doesn't matter anyway, Leslie was granted parole when they were there and she's been granted parole when they weren't.
Tobias- she is going to get out. So you will win and that will have to be good enough for you as far as with me.
I am done with you until you get some manners and apologize for insulting me when I tried very hard to be nice to you at the start of all this.
Otherwise I am going to have to lose this battle when she walks. But I am now comfortable that I fought the good fight as to why she should not now or ever.
I accept though that she will.
Though I see the young woman in the picture- the people who matter see the old woman.
"the position you are expressing on this one is the "sit in jail until you expire" position
What do you mean ? I don't understand that."
The point I was trying to make is the one I made above in this discussion. The "Manson was evil and he persuaded me to do what I did" attitude is one that, as we have seen with others involved with these crimes, is not viewed particularly well by parole board members.
Rather, I feel that the stance that Leslie is taking is the much more proper one: 'I made the decision to turn my life over to a manipulator, I decided to follow him, and therefore I bear responsibility for having helped to create the monster that he became.'
Leslie wasn't the only one who made this decision and Manson was already a problematic individual even before he met Mary Brunner for the first time. But as I shared earlier, without followers a leader cannot exist, and it is correct that LVH accepts her share of this responsibility.
Back to the quoted exchange I used to open this comment with, you seem to be saying that this "follower responsibility" notion doesn't really exist - or perhaps that it shouldn't exist - and that is the attitude that is going to keep a prisoner locked up. Leslie is essentially repeating one of the key lessons that prison education systems try really hard to teach the people in their charge, after all.
St. Circumstance said:
GRIM LESLIE SAID SHE STABBED HER WHEN SHE WAS ALIVE!!!!!
“And I took one of the knives, and Patricia had one a knife, and we started stabbing and cutting up the lady,” Van Houten testified in 1971.
THAT IS THE POINT- she didn't start with the - she was already dead when I stabbed her until much later
A few things on this, mate.
Firstly, two years before she uttered those words, she said, in private, to her lawyer, these words:
L: So I went back in the bedroom and I saw the woman laying down; and Tex handed me the knife and, you know,said, “Okay,” you know, “get to it.”
MARVIN PART: Now, was the woman dead at that time? If you think she was dead, what made you think she was dead?
L: I’m positive she was dead. She was just laying there, like the man was, like I say, he was gurgling; and she was just laying there.
She didn’t even make a moan or a groan. I didn’t feel her, you know, her pulse, or anything. And her head was covered, so I didn’t see her face. I kind of wished I had of
MP: Why?
L: Because I could have seen what I had done more, you know. A face shows so much more; that maybe it would have stirred something more up in me
Leslie's position has consistently been that she thought Rosemary was dead. Even when she was lying, she did not say that Rosemary was alive. It doesn't lighten her guilt load, but she's been saying that since 1969. In fact, it is that that convicted her. She uttered those words at the end of December '69, but more than 3 months before that, in early September, she told Dianne Lake that she had stabbed a body that was already dead.
September.
The month after the murders.
When it was discovered that Rosemary had post-mortem wounds, that sealed Leslie's fate. Because how else could she have known that at some point she stabbed a body that was dead ? Out of every one of the Manson murders, that is the only piece of actual physical evidence that showed the guilt of one of the participants beyond any doubt at all. All the others were fightable.
A text out of context is a pretext ! 👅
2/2
Secondly, you do realize that you are quoting Leslie from the penalty phase of the trial, right ? That part of the trial where, after having pleaded 'not guilty', the women all came out confessed. And lied their blaggers off. You know, the part of the trial where Linda was pegged as the mastermind, giving all the directions at Cielo and Waverly. Where one minute, she was in love with Bobby {of whom was said, was the Dad of her kid ~ a lie that persists to this very day}, and next it was Tex and one minute it was because she was burned in a drug deal from people at Cielo {another lie that persists to this day} and next it was to get Bobby out of jail. You remember, that phase of the trial where Pat said she carved WAR on Leno's stomach, even though over a year previous, Susan said it was Tex, and he has continued to admit it was him. Where Leslie put herself squarely in the middle of the Hinman murder when everyone and their Great Aunt Grizelda knows she wasn't involved in it. This is the part of the trial where the objective was to absolve Charlie, at all costs, because Mr "I've died before, 2000 years ago, and death is beautiful" didn't want to die. Leslie denied he was even along that night. "He was with Stephanie." The same Leslie who said that she had no intention of committing murder while on the stand. Yet we know that was crap. And furthermore, the very quote that you have used, you have taken her lie out of the context it was told in. Because in that segment, she says that she and Rosemary were wrestling on the bed and Rosemary continually mentioning that she wouldn't call the police panicked her because she was paranoid of the police. And then after she told her to lie still, Rosemary picked up a lamp at which point ¬> then comes your quote.
Most of what the 3 testified in that trial was lies, bullshit, bullshit and lies ~ and you know it. So for you to now start quoting Leslie from that trial to try and bolster your point is really, truly, utterly and incomprehensibly weak.
And you neglected to mention what Leslie said immediately after;
L: I stabbed her. I don't know if it was before or after she was dead, but I stabbed her
Q: Did you stab her some times after she appeared to be dead, Les ?
L: I don't know if she was dead. She was laying there on the floor
Q: Had you stabbed her at all before you saw her laying on the floor ?
L: I don't remember
You did say you've studied the case. But you should have looked at the trial testimony, not "Helter Skelter." But you'd probably ignore any context there too.
I guess I see the old lady and you see the young woman lol
In reality, it's the other way around ! 🙃
You keep looking at the young lady. I see the old one, mate !
St. Circumstance said...
I am done with you until you get some manners and apologize for insulting me when I tried very hard to be nice to you at the start of all this
He did apologize. He explained that he was teasing and tried to clear up any misunderstanding. Then you kicked off.
Tobias don't have an apology in you do you. Not enough class? How about guts you got those?
You mentioned Stoner Van Houten and I in same comment. I met Stoner a few times. Hung out with him. George Stimson too. Michael Channels who ran Back Porch Tapes- and a few other very scary people on Manson Blog Tours over years. A few who I had wrote posts against and commented against for years.
I have respect for all of them despite the fact that we come from very different backgrounds and have very different life's in the fact that they were all willing to meet in person and say what they had to say face to face. Not easy to talk so bold when you have to look someone straight in the eye. I don't agree with 90% of what they say or do about this subject, but we all had a healthy respect for each other in the moment and got along to the point we could explore our mutual purpose. I am 6'2 210 pounds and have played sports all my life. I wrestled all through school. Stoner is twice my size physically although not as tall.
Maybe you wanna try showing everyone how tough and smart you are in person some time? They will have Manson Tours again and I know they are always are open to anyone who wants to show. If you have a problem Bro- I am sure we could work it out...
:)
"In reality, it's the other way around ! 🙃
You keep looking at the young lady. I see the old one, mate !"
Well done ;D
tobiasragg said:
The point I was trying to make is the one I made above in this discussion. The "Manson was evil and he persuaded me to do what I did" attitude is one that, as we have seen with others involved with these crimes, is not viewed particularly well by parole board members.
Rather, I feel that the stance that Leslie is taking is the much more proper one: 'I made the decision to turn my life over to a manipulator, I decided to follow him, and therefore I bear responsibility for having helped to create the monster that he became.'
OK, I get what you meant now.
Only 2 observations.
Reading so many transcripts and interviews, I've long had the impression {but it was a very long time before I could articulate it} that the parole boards can't really negotiate the real complexities and nuances of this case. I noticed it particularly in the case of the 3 that had jailhouse conversions to Christ. It has been particularly prevalent with Charles Watson and frankly, he's stuffed. As a Christian myself, I think I can see exactly how Watson got to where he did, but the parole boards find it hard to deal with anything not black and white ~ "I wanted to murder, I murdered." There's no real looking into the strength of role Manson played, and one can see the perps shitting themselves that any attempt to go too deeply into this will look like they're blaming Manson, when in actuality, they are not. And the same was always true of Leslie's and Bobby's cases. But the paradox was always there, of the boards never letting any of them escape Manson. It was a "heads I win, tails you lose" scenario, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
But I get where the boards are coming from. Their remit is not to dive deep into esoteric psychobabble.
We can get away with that, if we so choose.
So I really do understand why Leslie has taken her particular stance. Arguably, she's had to give the parole board something tangible that they can deal with, when the reality is that so much of that whole period contain processes that are intangible. I get it, I can see the nuance of it, and it's why I said I partially disagree. I argue forcefully perhaps, but my disagreement is only partial.
The other thing is about the manipulator. Am I the only person here that thinks it is odd that someone should talk about giving their life over to a manipulator ? Maybe. But isn't that part of the skill of manipulation ? They don't exactly advertise their wares. We all manipulate at points in our lives ~ but we're not all manipulators.
Grim This does get exhausting. What Did I ask you to do? Listen to Leslie and who cares what anyone else says.
This is your reply:
A few things on this, mate.
Firstly, two years before she uttered those words, she said, in private, to her lawyer, these words:
That's lastly for me.
Its second hand info and if you don't understand by now that this is my exact point- you don't care. You and Tobasco and anyone else just want to beat me down- not be fair or objective about facts. She changed her story Grim. you just said listen to what she said two years earlier to someone else to make a point. One- that's second hand info and Two- even if true it shows again she changes her story. Its all Good Man....
I dont care what anyone else said - I listen and read and watch what Leslie said and did for 50 years and that's good enough for me.
See you all down the road and Congrats on your murderer getting parole :)
Your parents should be very proud of the values they taught you.
St. Circumstance said:
Tobias don't have an apology in you do you. Not enough class? How about guts you got those?
St, many moons ago in this debate, Tobias said this to you:
LOL, apologies! I meant the circumcised bit (followed by circumvent and circumstance, no less) as a bit of fun, not as an insult at all. The thing that motivated that "funny" attempt at a post from me is the fact that you'd become the only person participating in this conversation. Grim posted something and then the rest of the posts until mine (5-6 in total) were all from you and they were all the same thing, pulling ancient LVH quotes to illustrate your position that she shouldn't be sprung.
My intent wasn't to insult, rather to tease. My apologies.
Two apologies actually.
You've been speaking from and for yourself in the last few posts and it just makes for a better thread, whether there is agreement or not.
"Am I the only person here that thinks it is odd that someone should talk about giving their life over to a manipulator ? Maybe. But isn't that part of the skill of manipulation ?"
I think you are talking about "the two different Leslies" here. The young Leslie, yes - it is quite easy to imagine her not recognizing the manipulative tactics that Manson was using with the family members at the time. But as we're really discussing the older, current-day Leslie here, no - I don't find it at all odd that she speaks of giving her life over to such a person. I would find it rather alarming if she DIDN'T recognize this and share that realization in a hearing like hers.
I missed that.
I accept lol
See now we are all good :)
St. Circumstance said:
Its second hand info
So was yours.
You and Tobasco and anyone else just want to beat me down- not be fair or objective about facts
Believe it or not, when nuance and paradox are part of your thought process, if they are there, being fair and objective about facts is the air you breathe.
She changed her story Grim. you just said listen to what she said two years earlier to someone else to make a point
No, I gave you the context of those changes, to make a point. I think the point you are making is incorrect and I don't just state things, I try to back them up. You quoted her but you didn't do it at all fairly.
This does get exhausting
You're right about that. I'm off to bed ! 🖐
St. Circumstance said...
I missed that.
I accept lol
See now we are all good :)
Yayy !! 🤸🏿♀️ 🤸🏿 🤸🏿♂️
Saint, if you were objective you'd agree no 7 to lifer with good behavior serves 56+ years.
I am not objective Dan. I said earlier I think my first or second comment. I am emotionally triggered lol
Dan have you read my posts. Not sure? She had very good but not prefect behavior. She has shown very little understanding of her crime. She has moved more and more away from personal responsibility for her crime. In over 100 hours of trial transcripts, parole hearings and interviews I have watched over 10 years- she has only shown true remorse or emotion for her own situation.
Just read or look at any of them if you don't want to spend the time I did. She gives the same dry statements when talking about the crime or her responsibility. She gets visually upset when talking about herself and her predicament.
Dan That is very best I can do for you. TY for your polite questions.
I believe in redemption, and I believe in forgiveness. It's too late to save the lives of Leno and Rosemary, but it's not too late to save the lives of Leslie and Patricia.
"Its second hand info
So was yours"
Assuming you were quoting from the long Part interview, this is actually first-hand info from Leslie herself. The recording is posted over on Cielo
Star...
Was Pats life not already saved? I always respected you. Just asking. I am not going to mess with your opinion. I think you come from a place of compassion.
Pat was spared the Death Penalty. Pat had relationships. Leslie got married. They got Educations. Got to correspond with their families as they grew up and form bonds and lifelong friendships with others.
Have they not already been saved? Or do they need to walk?
OK and with all respect to everyone- here is my very last question to ponder and I promise not to come back for awhile:
If they had not overturned the Death Penalty back in the day- they would all be gone now. The way acted at the Trial. The way they acted the first few years behind bars. The things they did in the murders...
50 years later would anybody be arguing that Leslie was treated unfairly? Would people care half as much all these years if they were dead and not still behind bars?
But, the very system people rail against- allowed her to stay alive. Get multiple retrials, get free for awhile, have conjugal visits, get married, get an advanced education for free, and live to a long old age.
Has NOT letting her simply just walk away free been screwing her all these years?
Peace
LVH would not have got killed before her first conviction was overturned
St C:
Has NOT letting her simply just walk away free been screwing her all these years?
Yes. Of course. That's the point...
When you get right down to it, what we call "justice" is vengeance that the contemporaneous society likes. 150 ago, there was no concept of rehabilitation, and 100 years before that, prison was a place where they kept the convicted until they executed them. It was simply a way to keep them handy for the hangman...or whatever.
There is a very generationally solipsistic idea of how all this works, has worked since mankind formed societies. It is similar to holding past generations' behaviors and practices to current sensibilities.
But, oh well...
Shoe I am really tired and Dan I can no longer help
"When you get right down to it, what we call "justice" is vengeance that the contemporaneous society likes. 150 ago, there was no concept of rehabilitation, and 100 years before that, prison was a place where they kept the convicted until they executed them. It was simply a way to keep them handy for the hangman...or whatever."
You have also not really read anything I posted here , or you cannot comprehend the ideas I am trying to express. Its not an insult- its just really getting old.
I cant believe that's what you take away from this. Its not vengeance. Its asking for Justice. I am not for the death penalty. Vengeance and Justice are different. Leslie does not need to die for vengeance. She needs to pay with her life in the name of justice for the people she harmed and the life's she took. I am not asking for an eye for an eye. its ok with me they didn't execute her, and again, if she had acted right. eventually to let her out would be ok too. But she did not. And that's not justice or fair to anyone except her.
OK kids - play among yourselves. I am really done
St. C.:
I'm not being snide. I'm fine with vengence. I don't need to call it "justice".
200 years ago, in a place like London, a woman who broke into a person's house with others, and stabbed one of the inhabitants, whether already dead or otherwise, would have been hanged within q week. It would have been popularly considered justice.
Now, justice includes sympathetic backstories of the perpetrators that attempt to mitigate their actions, and to attempt to rehabilitate them, as if society desperately needed them as valued participants with irreplaceable skills. Compare this to the scenario from 200 years ago.
I'm OK with either being called "justice". My preference doesn't matter, really. It's what the general population thinks of as "justice" that matters.
Do you get it? I'm not criticizing you; you only think that because your ass has been rubbed raw over the last few days.
"I'm OK with either being called "justice". My preference doesn't matter, really. It's what the general population thinks of as "justice" that matters."
On 8 September, a massive hurricane hit SE portions of the U.S. This was a storm of epic, biblical proportions. The island city of Galveston Texas was almost entirely reduced to sticks and loose nails and it is estimated that some 10,000 souls were lost as that storm passed over the area.
The citizens of Galveston had little idea that such a storm was on the way. Officials who were leading public life DID know this and they made what efforts they could to spread the word, but almost no one believed them. No one knows how many lives might have been saved had the proper warnings been received and believed.
How the population ended up being so terribly uninformed is the subject of a bestseller titled "Isaac's Storm", which was released in 2000. Perhaps you have read it. If not, it's worth seeking out if you are a reader - I discovered this book only a few years ago and it was instantly captivating.
The "Isaac" mentioned in the title refers to a rather compelling man called Isaac Cline, who was one of the very first employees of the brand-new U.S. Weather Bureau. This newly minted government agency was charged with predicting and reporting expected weather conditions to the U.S. public, and Cline led the Galveston bureau back then. The government was swimming upstream with this Weather Bureau idea. The motivator behind this agency's creation was practical and financial in nature. Farmers had planting and maturation matters to tend to, train and boat traffic officials could benefit from knowing how the weather might impact their work decisions, etc.
The public greeted this Weather Bureau with great suspicion and derision. Fear, even. The weather was "God's work" and government officials attempting to predict and communicate such information were "messing with God's will." Even amid the U.S. Congress, there was sharp disagreement over whether the national government should be dabbling in such matters. No surprise there. The result of all this was that Isaac Cline and his professional compatriots knew that a massive - possibly historically destructive - storm was barreling toward vulnerable Galveston, but few of the citizens they were attempting to serve believed them . . .
. . . This story is the first thing that came to mind as I read Shoe's comments on this matter. Human beings are an imperfect, ever-changing species. One hundredish years ago, citizens mocked and feared the idea of predicting the weather. Today, there are television channels and websites galore devoted to this very thing. As Shoe points out, our concept of justice today is also very different than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It also varies by state within the United States. Floridians' concept of justice today can look very different than the beliefs held by people living in Maine, for instance.
And so, over time, we attempt to reorganize ourselves to better fit our changing notion of human perfection or mastery or whatever you want to call it. U.S. society as a whole is still caught in that restorative justice concept that reached its peak in the 60s & 70s and the more vengeful, retaliatory concept of justice that Ronald Regan reintroduced in the 80s. We see this debate playing out in the LVH conversations happening everywhere right now, do we not?
So what is the answer? IS there actually an answer? What is right or correct in this situation?
Personally, I do not have the answer. As I shared WAY above in these comments, half of me agrees completely with Circ - let the woman rot, as Manson himself did. Those people died in terror, after all. The other half of me agrees with Grim. Leslie has served her penance, she has demonstrably overcome the conditions and attitudes that led her into the Labianca home, and she has earned the right to live out her sunset years a free woman.
I can't decide within myself which "half" is correct here, so I have come around to supporting LVH's parole for one reason: we as a society presented her with a list of sometimes-vague actions and conditions she must meet to earn her freedom. By most any measure, Leslie has achieved this. A while ago, in fact. Therefore, as a society, we owe it to her to hold up "our" end of that bargain. For if we toss out the rulebook because of her infamy, what hope do we ourselves have when it comes to hoping that societal rules will apply to us, too, were we ever to get into trouble?
So that's where I've landed. And if things go south with the California Supreme Court and LVH remains confined? Oh well. The Labiancas' fate went way south and it sucks to be you, Stabby Van Houten.
Been a while...have I missed anything 😉
Only my deep love for BC Doug.
💖
tobiasragg said:
The young Leslie, yes - it is quite easy to imagine her not recognizing the manipulative tactics that Manson was using with the family members at the time
That's the Leslie I was talking about. I didn't put it very well, but the way the older Leslie puts it seems to imply the younger Leslie should have recognized what was going on. And had some conscious input in the process.
If any one hasn't been over to Cielodrive.com, there is a discussion going on there about this topic. It even has commentary from Van Houten's attorney. As far as I have seen no one is calling anyone a jackass because they said they enjoyed Squeaky's book, so that's a plus 😆
FWIW, I enjoyed Fromme's book very much.
No one has ever accused LVH of being a mass murderer so you can stop your struggle to understand something you made up.
The drunken Saint earlier in the thread called us all "losers" which kind of sums up everything with this guy
However do (sic) to the nature of her crime and it's (sic) infamy -- NO she should not be released early. She NEEDS to die in prison by (sic) either old age or a nice shank to the neck!
What a fascinating theory. Infamy - the condition of becoming well known because of something bad that you did - should determine punishment. This is amazing. If you do something and no one comments on it, it's somehow not as bad as if you do the same thing and everyone talks about it. Like it's not the crime that's of importance in determining the punishment but the extent to which knowledge of the crime is disseminated.
Which, thinking about it, even if not what the poster intended, is a pretty good description of what's happening here ...
Nice to see the Col back. ... I always appreciate his wit and wisdom.
CS:
The drunken Saint earlier in the thread..."
I've frequented a lot of forums and boards online since the mid-90s. This is a stand-out so far as people posting who are quite evidently well into their cups.
It really is very noticeable.
Now, what does that mean? Hell if I know...
Cool guys... 5 6 7 to 1 that's exactly how the Family and fucking weaklings fight.
Drunk Saint does not want to be contacted by anyone on this blog again. Do not email or contact me for any reason any longer
You can all have a very happy life figuring out the real motive.
God Bless.
Oh Saint you are already checking back, you crazy lush. You're like Mayo Naise in an Orifice and a Jesuit - you got NO WHERE TO GO! See the question is ala Heath Ledger - WHY SO SERIOUS??? So half your posts are kinds dumb - you made the choice to drop out of 11th grade to go and work in a felt factory. OWN IT man, the other half of your posts are brilliant - two of them have cured cancer and aids. Now, finish up the bottle and let's talk some more!
This thread must be approaching a record for most comments.
The most recent comment stream/discussion over at Bo's Cielo site iis quite interesting (and, relatively civil). One of LVH's lawyers (Rich) has been trying to answer most questions asked and he has taken those comments which are decidedly opposed to his viewpoint/beliefs in stride for the most part. He's had to be dismissive and curt with the odd person who doesn't seem to know when to shut up ir, calm down.
He has also had one or two people (with online identities I don't recognize) that have no filter or social skills.
Could be someone that frequents this blog.. I have definitely seen a lot of input from Fred Bloggs!
I'm pretty sure this post broke the comments record. I did a quick tally of the most prolific commentators:
St. Circumstance - 91 posts (if you count his deleted comments, he's probably over 100)
grimtraveller - 68 posts (if you could count his lengthy posts as two, he'd be well over 100). He's also lighting up the comment section of cielodrive.com with his Fred Bloggs alter ego.
tobiasragg - 35 posts
I haven't been checking this blog for a few weeks, so I spent over an hour last night reading all the comments, as well as the the comment section on the cielodrive.com article re the same subject. That Leslie sure is a polarizing figure.
Gorodish said:
I'm pretty sure this post broke the comments record
Back in June of 2017, the Witold K thread ran to 335 comments. Unfortunately, because Dave 1971 {in that guise before he became SAG, Rudy Weber's hose, Lou Gehrig and Mon Durphy} made some statements that were deemed to be over the edge, 114 of his posts were deleted.
That Leslie sure is a polarizing figure
Her situation seems to best represent the myriad of sides that generally debate this saga.
Doug said:
someone that frequents this blog.. I have definitely seen a lot of input from Fred Bloggs!
Yeah, that Fred. Such an opinionated savage...he talks too much ! 🧔🏾🤛🏾
grimtraveller said...
I'm pretty sure this post broke the comments record
Back in June of 2017, the Witold K thread ran to 335 comments. Unfortunately, because Dave 1971 {in that guise before he became SAG, Rudy Weber's hose, Lou Gehrig and Mon Durphy} made some statements that were deemed to be over the edge, 114 of his posts were deleted.
As the late great Harry Caray used to say "There's nuthin like fun at the old ballpark"
Matt- How many comments has Mario 3 left ever? He's been quiet for a while. Hope he's OK.
Hi Ms Milly James.
Amazingly enough, I'm still alive. Even with my miserable medical problems.
(But I can still "bring-it" if I need to).
And thank you for your kind words about me for the last several years.
I still read this blog every day.
At this time, I am very legally involved right now with some very serious situations
⬇️
https://twitter.com/nitrini1950/status/1645894679597293568
And Ms Milly, please forgive me for not responding to to you last year regarding your comment to me from this DebS blog-post pertaining to Phil Cross.
⬇️
https://www.mansonblog.com/2022/11/the-process-gypsy-jokers-and-ed-sanders.html?m=1
I would pretty much believe Mr Cross crossed-paths with a specific person I did "business" with in the early 1980's.
It was very important for me when I first started commenting on this blog, to get, for me, what I wanted to have documented pertaining to The Charles Manson Family Saga.
(And thank you Matt for letting me comment on your blog).
Mario George Nitrini 111
------
The OJ Simpson Case
How did bobby first pick up leslie?
"How did bobby first pick up leslie?"
I'm not sure that it was a "pick up" per se, but Leslie had been living in a SF commune and in 1968 went to visit some friends. Gypsy, Cupid and his wife Gail were visiting the same friends and that is where Leslie met the group. For whatever reason(s), LVH chose to join the nomadic trio as they continued their journeys, but things fell apart pretty quickly. Unspecified jealousies (likely between Gail & Leslie, but that's just my guess). Gypsy had been talking Manson up with LVH and, when the group landed at Spahn for a visit, Leslie decided to remain with Gypsy there while Bobby and Gail went on their way. Leslie has shared that Manson always thought of her as "Bobby's girl" so there might have been more of a "thing" there than I'm aware of or maybe that was just Manson's perception, I dunno. I did find it interesting to learn that years later Share wrote a letter of apology to Leslie for having influenced her decision to join the Manson clan.
Some sources cite Gail as Bobby's wife but it came out in one of his recent parole hearings that his earlier marriage before the one to his late wife, Barbara had been a jailhouse marriage. He told Michael Moynihan back in 1999 that it was about 6 months before he met Barbara. As Bobby described it, "It was one of those relationships born of desperation, where when you get deeply into it, you realize the mistake that you're making, that you can't commit to this person. The marriage was annulled almost before the ink was dry on the marriage license."
That all said, back in '69, Gail did sign a document as "Gail Beausoleil" for a car hire or something like that.
She was apparently jealous of Gypsy and used to cause arguments with Bobby to get his attention and their bickering became somewhat hazardous to everyone's health. On the stand in '71, Gypsy described it thus: "Bobby and Gail were fighting all the time, you know, and I just couldn't take it. I loved Bobby, you know, but I just couldn't take all that fighting, so I came back to the ranch because I liked the people."
It's interesting how Gail seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth. I've never seen a word attributed to her. I wonder if she was ever tracked down by any reporters.
I heard or read somewhere that the truck left in Ballarat was registered under the name Gail Beausoleil. I've never been there but I'm sure some people on here have been.
Thanks. Good stuff
St.
I never knew about Cywin or Vines. Was the information on them in "The Long Prison Journey of Leslie Van Houten"?
Is she a worse criminal than Trump, all things considered for both individuals?
St. has apparently left the building.
I'd never heard of Cywin and Vines and have never read The Long Prison Journey of Leslie Van Houten. Can anyone tell me whether information about them is in that book. If it is I might buy it.
Cywin sounds very Welsh.
orwhut said:
I'd never heard of Cywin and Vines and have never read The Long Prison Journey of Leslie Van Houten. Can anyone tell me whether information about them is in that book
I can't find Vines in the book, but there is some stuff about Bill Cywin, and interestingly, Leslie's own feelings at the time, that come from her letters to Karlene Faith. Very revealing, if one is adept at reading between the lines.
It is a book that I will always recommend. Karlene Faith may have been coming from a particular angle, but she had a very real grasp of many of the nuances that went into this episode. She is surprisingly insightful and tells us some interesting things about Pat, Susan, Gypsy and Mary. If she falls down anywhere, it's in terms of the paradoxes that litter the Manson saga ~ but without being condescending, that applies to virtually everyone that has commented on this case. Paradoxes aren't easily graspable and so naturally, we tend to break things down into black and white, either/or. Which is why we end up like dogs chasing our tails so often. It's very interesting putting this alongside Clara Livesy's "The Manson Women." I suspect neither would have accepted that the other's thoughts could run alongside their own {they seem polar opposites}, but to me, it stands out a mile. A mile and a half, even.
At the moment on Amazon and Ebay, it goes for a wild variety of prices. Back in the day {I read it in 2014, so I must have got it a while before then}, I got it for a penny, so if it had turned out to be rubbish, I could have put it down to being the price of an education. Plus minimal postage.
Never had any problems with Mr Bloggs! 😉
Wasn't Gail living in/near Plainfield CT after a (few?) brief period living in Massachusetts?
The 7 brain cells that are still functioning in my head are telling me it may be true
Glad to hear that Mario 3 is still about. Stalwart.
It looks like she's getting out.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/manson-follower-parole_n_64a8bb6de4b0e87d6554a3e0
Post a Comment