Monday, September 15, 2008






In the matter of the Life Term Parole Consideration Hearing of:
CDC Number: B-41079

SEPTEMBER 15, 2008
1:00 P.M.

SANDRA BRYSON, Acting Chairman
JACK GARNER, Presiding Commissioner
MIKE PRIZMICH, Commissioner
TROY ARBAUGH, Commissioner
ANTHONY KANE, Commissioner
ARCHIE "JOE" BIGGERS, Commissioner
FRANK MICHELL, Commissioner

MICHAEL BECKMAN, Attorney for Inmate
PATRICK SEQUEIRA, Deputy District Attorney
LEA ANN CHRONES, Commissioner, Observer
ARTHUR ANDERSON, Commissioner, Observer
ANNA AWISZUS, Chief Counsel for BPH
NANCY MANION, Senior Staff Counsel
Correctional Officers, Unidentified


ACTING CHAIRMAN SANDRA BRYSON: Today's date is September 15th, 2008, and the time is 1300, and the Board of Parole Hearings is in session. Commissioner Robert Doyle is on leave, and I am acting Chairman Sandra Bryson. Inmate Bruce Davis filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Los Angeles Superior Court, case number BH, that's boy, Henry, 004827, on or about March 18th, 2008. The court issued an order that granted his petition and instructed the Board to vacate the en banc decision of November 20th, 2006, and to hold an en banc hearing with the rights enumerated in Penal Code Section 3041.5. Pursuant to Penal Code 3041(E), the Acting Chairman randomly selected the nine Board members who will hear, deliberate and render a decision in this matter. The commissioners so selected are the following: Commissioner Douglas Drummond, Commissioner Sandra Bryson, Commissioner Hollis Gillingham, Commissioner Troy Arbaugh, Commissioner Anthony Kane, Commissioner Archie Biggers, Commissioner Michael Prizmich, Commissioner Jack Garner, Commissioner Frank Michell. Commissioner Lea Ann Chrones and Commissioner Arthur Anderson are present as observers and will not be participating in the hearing. Commissioner Jack Garner will chair the hearing Panel. Commissioner Michael Prizmich will address post-conviction factors. All Panel members have had the opportunity to fully review the case and may ask questions as the hearing proceeds. I now turn the hearing over to Commissioner Garner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. Very good. Thank you, Commissioner Bryson. As indicated, this is an en banc hearing for Bruce Davis, CDC number B, boy, 41079. The date today is September 15, 2008. It is now approximately 1:00 p.m., and we're located at the California State Prison in Solano. Mr. Davis was received into CDC on April 21st, 1972, from Los Angeles County, offense being Murder in the First Degree, two counts, the case number A, Adam, 267861, Counts 1 and 3, PC 187, term is life. The minimum eligible parole date is December 1st, 1977. Other commitment offenses include conspiracy to commit murder, PC 182, same county, same case number, and that's incorporated into Count Number 2. Each of us with a microphone in front of you will introduce yourself. We need your first name, last name, spelling the last name. When it's your turn, Mr. Davis, CDC number also, please. I will start and go to my left. Again, I'm Jack Garner, G-A-R-N-E-R, Commissioner.





COMMISSIONER MICHELL: Frank Michell, M-I-C-H-E-L-L, Commissioner.

ACTING CHAIRMAN BRYSON: Sandra Bryson, B-R-Y-S-O-N, Commissioner.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Patrick Sequeira, S-E-Q-U-E-I-R-A, Deputy District Attorney, County of Los Angeles.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Michael Beckman, B-E-C-K-M-A-N, attorney for Mr. Davis.

INMATE DAVIS: Bruce Davis, D-A-V-I-S, B-41079.

COMMISSIONER CHRONES: Lea Ann Chrones, C-H-R-O-N-E-S, observing.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Arthur Anderson, A-N-D-E-R-S-O-N, observing.

COMMISSIONER ARBAUGH: Troy Arbaugh, A-R-B-A-U-G-H. For the record, I'm a retired sheriff from Nevada County. I am personal friends with an investigator of the Tate-LaBianca murders, and that individual did work for me for a while. I don't think it will have any bearing on this case, but I wanted to bring it to your attention.

COMMISSIONER GILLINGHAM: Hollis Gillingham, G-I-L-L-I-N-G-H-A-M, Commissioner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. Very good. Thank you. I'll also note for the record that out of the contact with any microphones, we have a number of observers. We also have a correctional peace officer with us this afternoon for purposes of security. And, again, the observers will not be participating in the hearing today. All right. Mr. Beckman, any concerns with the information that Commissioner Arbaugh revealed this afternoon?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: No. Since my client had nothing to do with the Tate-LaBianca --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. I did also ask the Commissioner if he felt he had any special knowledge as a result of this relationship, and if he could still be fair and impartial, and the answer to no special knowledge, and he indicated he could be fair and impartial today.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Thank you, Commissioner.


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Commissioner Garner, I don't believe we've identified the legal staff who's present here from your office on the record.

ANNA AWISZUS: Anna Awiszus, Chief Counsel for BPH and Senior Staff Counsel Nancy Manion (sp) with BPH as well.


COMMISSIONER BIGGERS: A lot of people back there.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Are we having problems hearing today?


COMMISSIONER DRUMMOND: The -- uh, very loud.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Is there anything else we can turn off?

MALE SPEAKING: We're working on it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Oh, we're working on it. Then let's -- let's take a brief recess. There's no need to proceed with this --




(off the record)

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. We are back on record. Just for explanation for the transcriber, we started at right around 1:00 o'clock. At about 1:03, we had a note passed to us that indicated they were having difficulty hearing the Chair and the others' introduction. We've done a brief re-configuration of the room. Hopefully that will help out. We would ask that those can't hear that they voice that concern at some point during the hearing. The time is now 1:19, and we are back on record, Mr. Garner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. Very good. Thank you. I was just going to the portion regarding the ADA review, and I've reviewed the 1073 form in that this room is not configured for the DEC system. Review of the 1073, which Mr. Davis signed on June 13th, 2008. He does check the box indicating that he needs glasses to see, and I see a pair in front of you there, Mr. Davis. All right. Reading level of -- grade point level of 12.9 and a reading level of 12.9 noted by the counselor and also no disabilities were identified from the file review. So, in front of you, Mr. Davis, is an ADA statement. Have you seen this previously?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: If you need a moment to refresh your recollection, I'll ask you the question what does the statement in front of you mean.

INMATE DAVIS: Well, it means if I have a disability of hearing, seeing, et cetera, we need to give me some glasses, hearing aid, whatever I need.


INMATE DAVIS: I have everything I need, actually.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Then, for the record, do you need any help with disabilities for this hearing?

INMATE DAVIS: No, I do not.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. I'm required to ask you some basic questions for the record. Again, we've already talked about your -- your vision. How's your hearing?

INMATE DAVIS: Hearing's good.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Good. Issues of mobility? You able to walk around comfortably?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: We've already established the grade point level, and have you ever been diagnosed with a learning disability?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: And while here at CDCR, have you ever been a participant in the Mental Health Delivery System?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. And, lastly, do you suffer from any disability that would prevent you from participating in today's hearing?

INMATE DAVIS: I don't believe so, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. Very good. Okay. Mr. Beckman, have you had the opportunity to review with your client the rights regarding the hearing and the format that we'll use to conduct the hearing?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes. The rights regarding the hearing -- we're not really sure what the format's going to be; but, yes, we've talked about various possibilities.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. Very good. Okay. Mr. Davis, in addition to the 1073 and the discussion with Mr. Beckman, I note that also in a supplemental package your rights were provided to you by your counselor on August 22nd, 2008. So, at this time, do you have any questions concerning your rights, the format that we'll use to conduct the hearing, or the factors that we'll use to consider your suitability for parole today.

INMATE DAVIS: I don't believe so.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. Very good. For the record, I do have the hearing checklist back. Thank you, Counselors. And do we have any additional documents, Mr. Beckman?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: You've been provided with a document, a copy of which was given to all the commissioners, I believe. We may have some additional documents at a later point, which I'm going to reserve the right to introduce if necessary.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: That would be fine. We've had a number of distributions this afternoon, so if we wind up without something you have in your possession, just let us know when we get to that section. There is -- all right.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Excuse me, Commissioner. There is one letter that was submitted by my office, and I believe it was also faxed to the Board individually by Barbara Hoyt. I faxed Barbara Hoyt's letter along with the letter from Steve Kay that he wrote in 1986 to the Board on September 4th or actually to the prison, directly to the -- the Board desk. It was acknowledged that it was received. I notice in my late packet of materials that I received, I see a copy of Mr. Kay's letter, but I don't see a letter from -- a copy of the letter from Ms. Hoyt


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I have a copy of it with me if someone, during the course of the hearing, wants to photocopy it. I also have the fax -- my fax cover sheet showing I faxed the items and a confirmation that the pages were all faxed. If we could get someone, possibly from the staff to photocopy this and provide it, we don't need to deal with it at this exact moment.


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: And I'm going to be reserving the right to object to the introduction of both of those letters.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: How many copies should the commissioners have? Nine copies and one for counsel too, ten copies?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I've got copies --


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: -- of both of them.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Oh. You have cop -- okay. Just for the nine -- the Commissioners.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Unless it's a new letter from Barbara Hoyt.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: It's an August 6th letter, this year.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: This year? I don't have that then.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Excuse me. Could you make that ten copies, please? Thanks.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Okay. Very good. All right. Mr. Beckman, to this point, have your client's rights been met?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I believe so, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. And are there any preliminary objections of a general nature, and are there any objections with respect to the Panel that you've randomly been provided today?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: No, I'm going to just incorporate by reference the objections that I made at the time of the 2006 parole hearing.


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: There are no more objections at this time.


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: We hope everyone will be fair and impartial.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. And one last question, will Mr. Davis be speaking to the Panel today?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Well, I have a question for you, and that's regarding the actual format of what we're doing here. I spoke with your counsel briefly before the hearing, and my interpretation of the court's order is not that they're requiring an entire new hearing be conducted. What they wanted was to make sure that everybody, all the commissioners who are participating have reviewed the transcript of the hearing in 2006 and reviewed all the documents that were introduced during that and have reviewed the lifer packet. If that's the case, we're of the opinion that all that needs to be done here are allow the Panel to ask some follow-up questions to clarify things that occurred at that hearing and then proceed to closing arguments. So, if that's the case, I want to know whether you plan doing that or whether we're going to conduct an entire new hearing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: It's my understanding that to comply with the court's order that we've been directed to conduct an entire new hearing? Ms. Awiszus?


COMMISSIONER BIGGERS: The question was asked if Mr. Beckman felt that this was a hearing that everybody should have been able to ask questions based on the 2006 hearing rather than a new hearing.

MALE SPEAKING: What are we talking about?

ANNA AWISZUS: I didn't hear Jack's response.

COMMISSIONER BIGGERS: I think he asked for you.

ANNA AWISZUS: Oh, I'm sorry.


ANNA AWISZUS: Can we go off record to do our attorneyclient discussion.

COMMISSIONER BIGGERS: Go off record here.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: The time is 1:26. We're going off record.

(off the record)

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. We're ready to go back on.

COMMISSIONER BIGGERS: Find out where it is.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: The time is 1:29. We are back on record after a brief recess.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Okay. Mr. Beckman, what we're going to do today is we're going to do a -- we're going to do a full hearing. Obviously, we'll be considering any of the material that's before us today, but I think our primary focus should be any of the matters that have transpired since the -- since the last hearing. All of the others are a matter of record that each of the commissioners had an opportunity to review and certainly any of the commissioners that have questions, I'm going to, as a prerogative of the chair, ask that the questions be held and when Commissioner Prizmich and I have completed our questions, I'll allow the other commissioners to ask their questions at that time and then, of course, following that will be Mr. Sequeira, his opportunity. So --


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: That being the format, sir.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: My -- my client will be speaking with the Panel. He will not be discussing the facts of the crime since it's already been discussed at the 2006 hearing. He will be happy to discuss issues concerning insight, responsibility, and remorse for the crime.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. Very good. All right. Mr. Davis, we've had the opportunity to review your Central File and your prior hearing transcripts, and you'll be given the opportunity to correct or clarify the record as we proceed. Nothing that happens here today will change the findings of the court. The Panel is not here to retry your case and accepts as true the findings of the court. The Panel's here for the sole purpose of determining your suitability for parole. At this time, I'll ask Commissioner Prizmich if there's confidential material in Mr. Davis's Central File and if we'll be using it.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: There is confidential material, but we will not be using it for today's hearing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. Mr. Davis, in that you'll be speaking to the Panel on matters other than the commitment offense, if you could get you to raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you give at this hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?

INMATE DAVIS: May the words of my mouth be acceptable to God. I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Very good. All right. I'm going to go ahead in that Mr. Davis has exercised his right not to speak to the commitment offense, I'll incorporate by reference the facts of the commitment offense as found in the Appellate Decision, commencing on page 9, and Mr. Davis's version of the offense from the April 2005 Board Report, commencing on page 2. Again, we've already discussed the issue of the rights, and I'll note for the record that the prior criminality, I believe, is limited to an issue with some -- obtaining a firearm by giving false identification to a firearms dealer, and that resulted in a three-year consecutive; is that correct, Mr. Davis?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: No record as a juvenile, though?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Okay. Good. All right. At this point, to briefly go into the personal information --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Oh, just for the record, Commissioner, the federal hold on that crime has been released.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: That's correct. I saw that. Thank you. Youngest of two children, the only one born to a typical middle class family, both mother and father passed, correct, sir?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. Father was a pipefitter and a welder, and your father passed when you were 25. Mother was a housewife and became an accountant and worked as a working wife and mother. You have a sister one year your senior. Described your childhood environment as being highly unpredictable and unstable due to your father having some problems with alcohol, being verbally and physically abusive toward family members. Personally you recall beatings from your father, described your mother as controlling and protective, and that in later years this caused you to have some feelings of anger and betrayal, believing that you were never given the guidance and encouragement in life that you needed. Speaks to some issues with a family friend that involves some abuse that you suffered, some issues with an English teacher, and that you indicated you never really felt close to anyone, spoke to some of the things that you enjoyed doing in life, that you felt you had no goals or directions during your youth, and that you developed a sexual relationship with a girlfriend at 17. That lasted for about a year. You did graduate from high school?



INMATE DAVIS: 1961, Roane County High School, Tennessee.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. Thank you. And you also went to the University of Tennessee, obtaining 48 units, lost interest and began to get poor grades, wandered from Tennessee to the west coast and back, held a variety of jobs, and then once again started traveling around the country, being influenced by the Vietnam conflict and identifying with what's described in the report as hippies and non-materialistic lifestyles and that while looking for some sense and direction in your life, a friend introduced to you as a person described as your mentor, Charlie Manson, and that while housed at CMC East, you married for the first time. You have a daughter from that marriage, and the marriage remains intact and describing it as a loving and happy marriage. All right. Parole plans, and let me see if we've got anything more recent. Using the most recent Board report, it reaffirms the parole plans involved residing with your wife, Beth, in San Luis Obispo County in Grover Beach, and that would result in an out-of-county placement. It speaks to a number of support letters, which I've already reviewed, and that there's a family friend that has a business in San Luis Obispo County, a landscaping business, has offered you employment and with that, I will now go to a host of letters. Let me first start by indicating we received an undated presentation that you provided for us that begins with why I got involved with Charles Manson, and it consists of approximately three pages, which was provided to all of the commissioners.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Commissioner, I'd also like to request that that three-page document be attacked to the transcript as an exhibit.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. For the record, I'll note that that will be Exhibit Number Two.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: And we'll get that incorporated into the packet today.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I don't believe I received a copy of that. I don't know if it's in -- is it the Board packet somewhere because I have not received a copy of it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: It was personally distributed this afternoon. Mr. Anderson, who's not participating, will give you his copy.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. Let me start with the first one being the Outback Ranch in Warner Springs, California, that's W-A-R-N-E-R, for the transcriber, August 25th, 2008. It's from a Captain Manfred Aschemeyer, A-S-C-H- E-M-E-Y-E-R, a licensed master mariner, and the captain basically goes ahead to speak to the order that allowed the hearing to take place, acknowledging the split decision. He's writing a letter on Mr. Davis's behalf seeking favorable consideration. It begins with speaking to the rehabilitation and the things that Mr. Davis has done. The second is Mr. Davis's laudable record for public service while in prison. Thirdly, the relationship that Mr. Davis now has with his wife and child. Fourth, Mr. Davis's financial circumstances, which includes an offer of housing that the captain is also including. Fifth, he speaks to his concerns about his tax dollars being spent to continue to incarcerate Mr. Davis; and, finally, the comments that were placed in an article in the Op Ed section of the LA Times, August 6th, 2006, from Janie Woodford, who was the acting director at CDCR speaking to the issue of prison overpopulation and concludes by indicating that he has written previous letters on behalf of Mr. Davis. The next is from Ronald Johnson, J-O-H-N-S-O-N, from Arroyo Grande, California, and this one is not dated. He's been visiting for 15 years at CMC, participates in the Christian ministry, met Mr. Davis in '91, and that he counsels many inmates, sees all kinds of situation and some are advancing. A few are excelling, and he feels you've excelled astoundingly. He supports you 100 percent. They're willing to assist you back into society, although he expects there will be no problems. Russell Chandler from Sonora, California, August 12th, 2008, speaks to the length of your incarceration, your age, known you and your wife since '88. He worked for the LA Times at that time. He was a religious writer, and he's continued his association with you since that time. Feels you've paid your debt to society for your parts in the crimes of the '60's and that all you want to do is get out and have a productive life as a husband, father, and adding value to the state rather than taking taxpayer money to keep you incarcerated. Robert Gremminger, G-R-E-M-M-I-N-G-E-R, from Ben Lomond, California, for the transcriber, B-E-N, capital, L-O-M-N-D, and Mr. Gremminger is a -- was a police officer from '63 to '68, and a fire fighter from '69 until retirement in '96. It's a letter of support. He met you at CMC while he was doing time, mutual involvement in the chapel, that you taught classes in the bible that were always filled, speaks to the Yokefellows group and that during that time his wife and Mr. Gremminger became acquainted with your family on the outside and that they visited along with the family on weekends, and they believe in law and order and indicates that's few people he met in prison that he would support with the confidence that he has in you and that you've touched many lives in a positive manner. The next is from Anderson, California, June 20, 2008. It's from David LeMoine, L-E capital, M-O-I-N-E, a retired Alameda fire employee, and his wife Patricia. They've had previous letters. Feel you've served ample time for your crime. Your status as a model prisoner, the doctor's thesis that you did and it's time for your release, that you've served enough time and not to retain you any further. From a Mrs. Flora Hibberd, H-I-B-B-E-R-D, Mobile, Alabama, August 24th, 2008, a letter on behalf of my nephew Bruce. Retired from the Mobile Infirmary Medical Center as a quality assurance coordinator for radiology department. Knew you all your life, visited several times, correspond regularly and that your wife and daughter visited in Mobile and that the three of you are welcome at any time in her home and any assistance that she can provide and also feels that you've paid your debt. Judith Davis Ward, your sister, August 16, 2008, your sister being a resident of Raleigh, North Carolina. She's 13 months older, that you've matured, that you've been married for over 20 years to Beth, who's completely committed to you, relationship's enduring, and the 14-year-old daughter and that you're no longer a threat to the community, that you currently are leading bible classes, bible study classes. Barbara Daggett, D-A-G-G-E-T-T, Uestis, U-E-S-T-I-S, Florida, August 24th, 2008. She knows you through your wife, friends since '91, has been out to see and you communicated in writing. Admire you for the changes you've made in your life, great admiration for your wife Beth and the daughter, about how close the family is under the circumstances, and that you'll have much support with them by your side when you're released, and that her support continues to be prayer and any encouragement due to the fact she's on the other side of the country. The next -- this looks like it's from a Kristopher, spelled K-R-I-S-T-O-P-H-E-R, is that K-O or K-A, Kadruios?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: K-A-D-R-U-I-O-S, August 4, 2008. He's 23 years old, a college student in Minnesota, letter of support. He's been writing you for a couple years, supports your parole. Again, be good for you to be paroled for your family and the local community. For that you've been in prison you've become well educated, deeply religious, and his opinion is that you are rehabilitated and should have been paroled a long time ago and asking us to seriously consider your parole. All right. That's the first group. Next group is -- starts with Roger Keech, K-E-E-C-H. It looks like a retired engineer, August 30, 2008, and he testified at the 2006 en banc, and that you were assigned as an inmate aid, spent at least 1,000 hours over 15 years working together at the Protestant chapel in the visiting clergy program, and he spoke to the witness for the Tate family and made some comments about that, and that all your good time, great efforts in self-improvement and your volunteer service was apparently not a factor in the Board's decision. Robert and Jean, J-E-A-N, Wilson, residents of Santa Barbara, September 1st, 2008, indicates Bruce is my brother-in-law, wife Beth being his sister, and hoping that you'll be released on parole, primarily because of your good behavior and your excellent accomplishments and the time you've already served. Feels that you'd make a great contribution to society but you'd be a great husband and a wonderful father. A support letter submitted by Katherine, K-A-T-H-E-R-I-N-E, Taylor August 31st, 2008, and has written support letters before and written in favor of your release. And at this time, she's writing in as a citizen and wants us to know the sort of person you've become. She would be in support of your release for the following reason, the witness to your time in prison by visiting at CMC, again, that you've been a husband for 23 plus years and also a father, that you've continued to grow and contribute to your community inside of prison, never denied the wrong-doing and served 300 plus months of prison time when your sentence was given at 200 months, remained virtually discipline free, and that your life is an active testimony to desiring and committing to helping and serving others. Asking us to judge the person that's before us today. Feels you could be released on your own merits. That, again, goes to the issue of as a taxpayer noting the prisons are full, and for those that have paid their time should be -- and have been reformed and have proven their actions should be released and empowered to contribute to their community, and she's firm in her belief by witnessing your actions. Mike Petersen, P-E-T -- P-E-T-E-R-S-E-N, and I don't see a date, but he's writing a letter on your behalf. He first heard of you when he hired your wife to help care for his 92- year-old aunt, lives in Oregon, wanted to meet person that your wife cared so much for, had a chance and apparently visited you this past June, talk for about three and a half hours, everything from your crime to your doctorate in theology, and that you've been helping those around you in the prison system and that they would welcome you in their home anytime. A letter from your wife, Beth Davis, September 1st, 2008, speaks to your marriage in '85, 14-year-old daughter and speaks to her previous employment as a flight attendant for 32 years and working now as a personal assistant, that the 24 years has been a loving and caring -- you've been a loving and caring individual, always place your family's needs ahead of your own, and never ask them to sacrifice, and that speaks to the major decision in regard to your freedom, your Ph.D., that you've worked in the chapel and the yard to help others, proud that you operate under the highest of integrity, morals and standards, and that you've served more than your time for the crime you've committed. William Gauel, G-A-U-E-L, and I will pass on that one for a moment -- it's an opposition letter -- to make sure that we've got all the support letters. Is that mine? All right. Those that were already in the packet and this one is so -- no, it actually was a little bit before -- I don't know if it was considered or not, so let me go ahead and put it on the record. It's from a Byron Orton, O-R-T-O-N, B-Y- R-O-N, from Altoona, Iowa, and that he worked as a labor Commissioner, retired. He had limited computer skills and happened to come across some writings about you and your life since the early struggles, and then goes ahead to speak to factors of suitability, that you're not a person that's prone to make excuses, that you took responsibility for your actions and the degree of your involvement in the crimes and the length of your incarceration, stability, considering your stable family environment, your wife and child, and doesn't feel that you pose any risk to society. The next is from the Clark Ranch in Paso Robles, California, August 23rd, 2007, William Clark, retired judge, Superior Court in San Luis Obispo County, and it also did include a review of Manson issues on appeal, and that he's, again, reviewed the files, and he has not -- he has not met you. He could conclude from the file review that further incarceration beyond the 36 years served constitutes a mischarge of justice and that you should be returned to society. Michael Oliver, a teacher in Winchester, Tennessee, author of Out of the Darkness. He's known you for 15 years, describes you as an intelligent man, strong morals, that you have a family and a good support system and not a threat to society, and that you'd be a valuable asset if given the chance. Duplicate of the letter from David LeMoine and Patricia LeMoine, the Alameda retired fire individual. Charles Colson (sp), on the letterhead of Prison Fellowship Breakpoint, August 15, 2007, a letter on your behalf, that on a daily basis you demonstrate that you have submitted yourself to Christ, and it goes ahead to speak to all the bible classes, over 30 years' of experience in ministry to prisoner. He's learned a few things about criminal justice and the need for rehabilitation and a sense of discernment about prisoners' true character. Again, that speaks to your wife Beth and the marriage and also your daughter, and the prison fellowship will be there to support, assist, and encourage you in your transition back to the community. The Wilsons from Santa Barbara, we've already read an updated letter. We've read the updated letter from your wife Beth. Barbara Daggett, I have an updated letter. One that I don't recognize, Larry Hoekman, H-O-E-K-M-A-N, August 10th, 2007, and that speaks to the distance that he drove to Sacramento to attend the en banc and some feelings about the outcome, and that he feels eliminating the name Charles Manson would result in you being able to function as a husband, father, and a free man. Adding that name changes things. Again, that you're reformed and an outstanding person. Harold Tune, T-U-N-E, from Morro Bay, California, October 2nd, 2006, and that pre-dates the last hearing substantially, so I think we're -- let me just double-check, but I think we're getting back to the point where we have letters that would have been considered at the last hearing. Yeah, we're back to 2005. So, Mr. Beckman, between my multiple sources of letters in support, did I get them all?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I think there was a few we're missing. And speak up. I apologize if I reiterate, but did you get a letter from Paul Kenny, offering Mr. Davis a job?


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Dated September 2nd.


INMATE DAVIS: Yes. And then there's a letter from Charles Colson.

INMATE DAVIS: He just read that.


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay. You read one, okay.


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Then Marsha Steckbauer, September 2nd.


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Paul -- Ron Steckbauer, September 4th, and I believe that's it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. If you give those to the officer, we'll get them on the record. Keep these separate because I don't know if these are your originals or not, but the first is from a Marsha Steckbauer, S-T-E-C-K-B-A- U-E-R, resident of Lawndale, California. It appears to be a fax transmittal date of September 9, 2008. It's a letter on behalf of Mr. Davis and his family, feels he's paid his debt to society, he's followed all the directives given by the state, been disciplinary free for many years, again, the marriage and the daughter and you would be welcomed into their home and also have a job with a family-owned business if you need it. You would be a strong addition to society, speaking to your Ph.D. in theology and would be a blessing to any church community. The next is from Ron Steckbauer, same location in Lawndale, same fax transmittal, and he's known you and your family almost 20 years, actually spent three years with you at CMC. He and his wife continue to stay in touch with your family to this day, and that how inspirational you and your wife have been to the Steckbauers over the years. It actually -- he says the system actually gives the person who is committed to changing himself for the better the means to do it, and that he knows literally countless individuals who have been similarly encouraged and assisted by you to do that, taking advantage of the opportunities. Again, the time has come to acknowledge the accomplishments that you've made while incarcerated, and then goes ahead to speak to some of the things involved in your sentencing, and you can't change what happened 40 years ago, no one can, and that you paid the price for your actions as a young man. Grace Landscaping, this is the one that we spoke to earlier under parole plans in San Luis Obispo County, September 2nd, 2008, signed by Mr. Paul Kenny, K-E-N-N-Y. He's been married 32 years, eight children, been a contractor in San Luis Obispo for 27 years, met you through your wife Beth and your daughter. He visited you and that he feels you're a person that's sorry for your deeds and that you've been changing for the good for a long time. You've been helping yourself through education and also helping other people with your personal involvement and that he's offered you a job helping his company with organizing and scheduling duties. He's ready to start you at any point at $12 an hour and that the facts are in our hands and that he -- apparently his father was a Parole Commissioner some 40 years ago, appointed by Governor Pat Brown. All right, with those additions, Mr. Beckman, did we get them all?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I believe we did. I would just like to let the Board know that with regard to the letter read by William Clark, in addition to being Ronald Reagan's Chief of Staff while he was governor and a Justice of the California Supreme Court, Mr. Clark was Ronald Reagan's National Security Advisor and Secretary of the Interior, has been involved in public service all of his life.


INMATE DAVIS: And this was the first person he ever recommended parole for.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. All right. I do have a number of letters of opposition, and I'm trying to get them somewhat organized. The first is September 7, 2008. It's done in memo form. It's from a Clare, C-L-A-R-E, Visk, V- I-S-K, with a nee, N-E-E, of Gaul, G-A-U-L. Describes herself again saying that she is one of Doreen Gaul's three little sisters. Doreen was murdered less than a week before my eighth birthday. In fact, the parents opted to follow through with plans for the birthday party, which it turned out was scheduled for the day that Doreen's funeral. Remembers the family sitting down at dinnertime, mother answering the phone, started sobbing, repeated Doreen's name. This was indicating an Albany teenager found dead in a Los Angeles alley and somebody turned off the TV, and her mother then become a shell and somewhat detached from us. My mother and Doreen had been very close. They would sit and sew together and what makes me angry and hurt is other than the obvious is that Doreen has seemingly been forgotten. People only seem interested in how she died and the whole Manson connection. She was 19. She was pretty, played the piano and the guitar. She was remarkable, and that she would have been allowed to live, she would have matured and left that whole scene. And concludes murder victims cannot be paroled from their graves. Family members of murder victims, cannot be paroled for their pain and that Mr. Davis made his choices in life. In doing so, he removed the choices of his victims. She worked as a probation officer for several years, a big proponent of accountability and justice. The next is from a Debra Tate, September 7, 2008, asking that Mr. Davis not be paroled, speaks to the nature of the crime, Mr. Davis not only a torturer who is --

INMATE DAVIS: I can hardly hear you, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. Did you hear the first one?

INMATE DAVIS: Mostly, but I'm -- I'm straining.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. Let me speak a little louder.

INMATE DAVIS: Thank you, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: It's unusual that you have an accommodation of shouting at people, but we'll try our best. The next is from Debra Tate, D-E-B-R-A, again, September 7, 2008, asking that you not be paroled. The nature and heinousness of your crime should make you ineligible, that you were not only a torturer and murderer but a follower of Charles Manson as well. The murder of Donald Shea and the horrendous three-day torture and murder of Gary Hinman should preclude you from any consideration. Jeffrey Gaul, J-E-F-F-R-E-Y, September 2nd, 2008. It says my sister Doreen Gaul was viciously murdered on November 21st, 1969. Again, that indicating his belief that the -- that you and Charles Tex Watson are responsible for the particularly heinous attack, hundreds of stab wounds, beaten with a motorcycle chain, and her eyes cut out from her head of his 19-year-old sister, and that you freely and eerily admitted that you did stab your victims while you later made unsubstantiated and convenient claim that your cruel attacks didn't result in any bleeding. There's no doubt that you stabbed them, knowing for certain that they had already died and that you will always be responsible for your deranged actions and if you're ever released other sick individuals around the world will rejoice. William Gaul, September 11th, 2008, a younger brother of Doreen, he indicates he's opposed to the death penalty on principle; however, he doesn't believe anyone who commits such a cold and violent acts taking away a person's basic right to live should ever be allowed back into society without absolute certainty that they are not capable of danger to us anymore, and can anyone make such a judgment. September 13, William Gaul or Bill, and this one indicates younger sister of Doreen, four years old, so only has a special memory. The families of victims of Bruce Davis live daily with pain and their lives have been forever negatively affected and asking us to please make the correct decision and keep you in custody. Barbara Hoyt, August 5th, 2008, she testified --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Commissioner, I'm going to object to the Barbara Hoyt letter being introduced. Every year we get into this debate where the District Attorney attempts to argue that Bruce Davis was Charles Manson's right-hand man. He attempts to do this by introducing hearsay. If the Board wants to hear this hearsay, I have hearsay that says he wasn't as well, and we can spend a lot of time going back and forth, but the truth is that unless there is something in the official record indicating that my client was Charles Manson's righthand man, none of this hearsay is relevant to the issue of whether he's presently suitable for parole. So, if you want to open it up, we can -- we can lengthen this hearing, but rather than do that, I would say that all of this matter has been dealt with at the 2006 hearing pro and con, and there's no point in getting back into it. We'll stipulate that she opposes parole, however.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Well, Mr. Beckman, we have a lot of people on the Panel that weren't present at the 2006 hearing, so didn't have any benefit from hearing the testimony and while certainly, it would have been available, I'm going to overrule the objection, and would certainly encourage you to trust the Panel to give appropriate weight to the letter, but it is from Barbara Hoyt, and essentially the key parts of it that she knew Mr. Davis when she lived with the Manson family from April '69 to October of '69, indicated that she did testify at all the trials and has always cooperated with the authorities, indicating that there were death threats as a result of that. It then goes ahead to speak to different aspects of crime, which we have other sources. It does go into the area that -- that you objected, that did assign a higher role than being a passive player, and something that I don't know how she would have been able to determine, but as a member of the public community and one of the few Manson murder victims who survives, begging us to protect people --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I'm sorry. I'm having trouble hearing you, Commissioner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Begging us to protect people from people like Mr. Davis. All right. Los Angeles Sheriff, signed by David Smith, the acting captain in the homicide division. If I didn't mention it, July 23rd, 2008. Does speak to the night of July 25th, 1969, speaking to Mr. Davis driving Robert Beausoleil, Susie Atkins, Mary Brunner to the home of Gary Hinman in Topanga Canyon at the direction of Charles Manson. It was believed that Manson that Hinman had $20,000 at his residence and Beausoleil and the women were supposed to "get it" along with anything else they could obtain of value. Beausoleil was armed with a 9 millimeter and a mini Bowie knife, demanded the money and other valuables at gun point. Hinman denied having either. After being pistol whipped and beaten, Beausoleil called Charles Manson. Davis drove Manson back to the location within a half hour of the call. Davis was armed with a knife and Manson with a cavalry sword. Manson told Hinman to give Beausoleil what he wanted and sliced the left side of Gary Hinman's face with a sword, partially severing his ear, and it goes ahead and speaks to two days of continuous efforts to get what they wanted, and that Beausoleil was arrested in one of Hinman's vehicles following a week after Hinman was found dead and with respect to Mr. Shea, September 1st, '69, that Grogan, G-R-O-G-A-N, struck Shea on the head with a blunt object, knocking him unconscious, drove to an area away from the ranch, pulled him out of the vehicle, waited for him to awaken. According to Mr. Davis, they walked Shea from the road. He asked, this being Shea, "What's this all about Charlie?" He was repeatedly stabbed. Davis related that they, himself included, then took turns stabbing Shea repeatedly. And his body was buried and despite efforts to find it, conflicting accounts of where it was to be found prevented discovery until after the murder trial was concluded. It closes by saying the opinion of the Department, the parole of Inmate Davis is inappropriate and should be denied. And I have a series of -- of letters from the Office of the District Attorney, and it does appear that they're all the same, the date being April 28th, '86. I'm going to read portions of letter and certainly there is a rep from the District Attorney's office that can add any other portions that he may feel appropriate for our considerations today. These are observations that are being shared by Stephen, S-T-E-P-H-E-N, Key, K E Y, and at the time he wrote the letter --



ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I'm going to renew my objection on the same grounds as to the Barbara Hoyt letter.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. And I'll overrule it on the same basis and, again, indicate that the Panel's certainly in a position to give the letter appropriate weight. I wanted to share some observations, the first being, again, the issue of Mr. Davis's status with Mr. Manson, that in '71 and '72, he prosecuted Mr. Davis and convicted him of the murders of Gary Hinman and Donald Shorty Shea and the one count of conspiracy to commit murder. It goes ahead to speak to the Hinman murder, which we've already discussed. A month later, the murder of Donald Shea, Shea being the ranch hand at the Spahn, S-P-A-H-N, Ranch, where the family was staying. He was murdered for two reasons, that he -- his conclusion was the family was no good, and he was trying to get them off the ranch, and there was also the issue of Mr. Shea being married to an African-American and Mr. Manson's feeling for minorities. So, double checking, that's the same. This one's the same, and let me quickly check the packet. All right. I've got a tremendous amount of paper in front of me, so what I'm going to do to give me an opportunity to kind of get things collected, I'm going to, at this time, turn the hearing over to Commissioner Prizmich. If I find that I have neglected to place either a support letter or an opposition letter on the record, I'll correct that when I get the hearing back. Thank you. At this time, Mr. Beckman and Mr. Davis, I'm going to encourage you to direct your attention to Commissioner Prizmich, please.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Thank you, Commissioner Garner. Mr. Davis, how you doing today?

INMATE DAVIS: Doing fine, sir.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. We're going to go over some stuff. We're going to focus on the time frame between your last hearing and today's date. Okay?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: And we'll also cover some historical stuff, but we will not be going into that that deep. We're going to try to cover what's most recently happened in your life. Okay?


COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: You were received -- I think this was already reported. You were received in CDCR at 4/21/72 and June 11th, 1980, is when you went to CMC. Is that about right?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: And you've been there pretty much ever since?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I have.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. Your classification score is 28, which is the lowest you can get, given your commitment. You're Medium-A. This is, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, your 25th subsequent.

INMATE DAVIS: Sounds right.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Sounds about right. Okay.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: It's 27th, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Twenty-seventh. Okay. The last hearing was September 6th, 2007. That was a one-year denial. Over time, you received five 128's, the last one being August, 1992, and that was for out of the bounds. You received two 115's, the last one 1/25/80, and that was for conduct, and that was in Folsom. Since then, you've not received any disciplinary write-ups; is that correct, sir?

INMATE DAVIS: That is correct.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. Your other 115 that was some time ago, way back in 1975, you had the misfortune of attempting to sharpen a spoon, and a correctional officer was walking by, heard the noise, and looked in on you, right?

INMATE DAVIS: Actually, I was found innocent because I was -- if you read the whole report, I was scraping paint on my cell. I was getting ready to paint my cell.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Ah. Okay. Well, it shows as a 115.

INMATE DAVIS: And -- and nothing happened after it.


INMATE DAVIS: I didn't do any time. If they actually thought I was making a knife, they would have put me in the hole for a while.


INMATE DAVIS: Well, it didn't happen.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. Well, let me --


COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Let me look at that then. It says here: "At approximately 11:15 a.m. on 1/13/75, while patrolling maximum security section of Building 1 and on the second tier, I heard scraping sound in the vicinity of Cell 595. I quietly went to the front of the cell. I saw the Inmate Davis, B-41079, on his knees under his sink scraping up and down with a spoon. I was watched for about ten seconds, then asked what you are doing. Davis was startled and said, 'Just scraping paint.' I ordered him to surrender the spoon, which he did. Upon inspecting it, I noticed that it was beginning to be quite sharp. I reported the incident to Sergeant Kelly, then Sergeant Davis, and then Davis was escorted to the custody office. The spoon was photographed and marked." And yak, yak, yak. And then it goes into: "Davis denies he was sharpening the spoon and was only using it to scrape off paint so he could repaint his cell." And I do note there were -- there was no time given you on that, right?

INMATE DAVIS: That's right.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Yeah, but I don't see where this was -- it says here it was -- admits charges as written with your explanation.

INMATE DAVIS: The explanation was --

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: It didn't get reduced, right?

INMATE DAVIS: I was getting ready to paint my cell.


INMATE DAVIS: They didn't really believe I was going to do it -- was doing that.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. All right. Well, I just want to note that for the record. That was some time ago.


COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: '75, right. Let me go into any laudatory chronos that you may have, and, again, I'm only going to focus on those that have occurred since -- since the -- the '07 hearing. I do want to note, just for the record, we did look at your 812, and it still lists you 6502 as a -- as being an associate of the Manson family, but beyond that, there aren't any -- there aren't any other notations. Okay. Go to your laudatory chronos. And it just popped out. Again, since the last hearing, we have the following. We have a general chrono identifying you as a member of the Big Four Fellowship of AA.


COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: And that was written on 5/1/08. How often do you have meetings there with the AA group?

INMATE DAVIS: Twice a month.



COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: And what do you get out of those meetings? What benefit do you get?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I'm getting the benefit of the 12 steps, that we're constantly reviewing them, constantly talking about them and hopefully applying them.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. Which one was the most difficult for you?

INMATE DAVIS: Probably the third one.


INMATE DAVIS: Well, because I didn't -- you know, when it came to recognizing who is God and all this religious stuff --

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: It was all about you, huh?

INMATE DAVIS: I had a hard time with that.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Yeah. So it was really all about you?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, that part was, and --

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: When did you have your revelation, so to speak?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, it was before I ever came in contact with 12 steps.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. Then why was three hard?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, it was quite a revelation and it was not --


INMATE DAVIS: But later, when I discovered the 12 steps, I found out that they were all very good.


INMATE DAVIS: Good to follow.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: If you use them, if you work them.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir, absolutely.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: How'd you do -- what was the one that you think, as you look back on that you had to get just right?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, when it came to making amends.


INMATE DAVIS: And becoming --


INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir, eight or nine.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: No, eight is making the list; nine is making amends.

INMATE DAVIS: Making the list and actually doing something.


INMATE DAVIS: I -- I've -- I sent letters through the District Attorney to the families of Gary and Donald.


INMATE DAVIS: And I don't know what ever happened. I never heard back. And, so, as far as making amends, the only thing I can do is to try to do something for the future, to help other people, to warn people away from what's going on, to warn them away from the things I got involved in.


INMATE DAVIS: And sort of a general way like that.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. All right. Do you believe that you successfully did that?

INMATE DAVIS: Absolutely.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. Let me notice you have also a laudatory chrono dated June 30th, 2008, and that relates to you as a -- as a bible teacher and volunteer.


COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: How long have you been doing that, sir?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, teaching the bible in a general way since the -- 1976 -- '75, '76.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Is that when you had your conversion?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, 1974. And then in a more specific way as we get on up the list as time goes by to --


INMATE DAVIS: -- become a lot more active, a lot more specific in my --


INMATE DAVIS: -- teaching.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. And I notice, and we'll get into this in just a minute. You have a doctor's degree in philosophy, I think it is?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, it is.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. Let me go to that now. So, you received that -- that's Bethany Bible College and Seminary, and you received that on June 2002; is that right?

INMATE DAVIS: That's right, sir.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: What's your favorite book of the New Testament, sir?

INMATE DAVIS: Romans, Mark --


INMATE DAVIS: They're all favorite. I did a lot of studying 1 John when I took my first Greek class.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: You did a lot of studying -- I'm sorry?

INMATE DAVIS: We did a lot of studying the first Epistle of John in an early Greek class that I took, so I became -- I had to become familiar with that.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Um-hum. Okay. But you like Romans?

INMATE DAVIS: I like Romans.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: And what is it about Romans that you like?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I like it because it's divided into three parts, and the first part starts to talk about the state of man and the -- and the diagnosis of Paul to the human condition.


INMATE DAVIS: And where he stood and who stood there. And in the second part, it talked about what has God done to get us out of the bad position we were in and how we were justified and now there is no condemnation for Christians. And the third part, of course, talks about what is God's plan for the Jews and 9, 10, and 11.


INMATE DAVIS: It kind of goes on and on if you know what I mean.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. Well, anything in the Old Testament that particularly strikes your fancy at all?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, the most -- the thing I like, I think -- they're all good, but the book of Ecclesiastes is the most difficult for me. It brings the most insight and makes me really, what is going on sort of thing.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: You don't -- you got through Numbers?

INMATE DAVIS: Ecclesiastes.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Did you get through Numbers?



INMATE DAVIS: The Book of Numbers.


INMATE DAVIS: I've read through Numbers several times. Numbers I -- well, I like Balem in Numbers.


INMATE DAVIS: And several other incidences. There's a lot of good stories in the Book of Numbers.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Yup, a lot of begats too, huh?


COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. Let me go to you were -- when you graduated, you were a summa cum laude, right?


COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: What was your grade point average?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, 4.0 if I'm familiar with their --


INMATE DAVIS: It means large.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: I know. Is that the before or is that --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Summa's the highest.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Summa's the highest. Good for you. I wasn't sure. My son got Magna. I didn't get anything.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Magna's still very good.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Yup. Okay. I'm going to go -- okay. You had a master's degree prior to that, and that was from Bethany Theological Seminary, same place?


COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Same -- is that a correspondence? How do they do that?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, it was. Yes, it's correspondence.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: How many years did it take you to get your master's degree?

INMATE DAVIS: I -- you know, I've studied on it. I -- I would guess three and a half. It's kind of -- I don't remember exactly. Let me say that.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. It took you a while?

INMATE DAVIS: It took a while.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. And that masters in of arts in religion, correct?


COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: How long did it take you to get your Ph.D.? Do you remember about?

INMATE DAVIS: Oh, I think I started about '96, '97. I'm guessing here. Nowadays, I only remember things that they're in the past, and the exact numbers on them, I'm on --


INMATE DAVIS: I read a stack of books about two feet high and wrote a lot of papers, so --

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. Well, I'm sure you did. I'm sure you did. Let me also note that you have some -- if I can find those, you have some chronos. I think they were just before the last hearing, but I want to make sure that we get those, if need be, in the record. Bear with me just a sec here. Again, the last hearing was 9/6/07. These chronos were also laudatory chronos, one dated 10/8/05, that's older. 2/4/06, I'm not sure why this is in here, and August 23rd, '06, and they relate to your AA and your biblical work and teaching and whatnot. Okay?


COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. How long have you been going to AA? How many years total do you think?

INMATE DAVIS: Maybe total, three, four, five. You know, I'd say between three and five really steadily. I've had AA and other 12-step groups quite steadily, not the AA big group that we're going to now.


INMATE DAVIS: 12-step groups, double diagnosis groups, different -- different forms of 12 step for a long time.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. All right. So, you have two vocations, and I'm not sure. Maybe you can help me out on this. You have drafting and welding?


COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: When did you get your drafting vocation?


COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: A while back. That's what I kind of thought.


COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: And what about welding?

INMATE DAVIS: Right before that. I finished the welding about '83.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: So then you kind of focused in on your religious teachings, education, that kind of self-help?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir. That's right.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. All right. Do you remember anything about drafting or welding?


COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: What do you remember?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I remember welding, I learned to weld at a young age, and my dad did teach me to weld.


INMATE DAVIS: And I made a living at it for a few years, and then when I got here, when I got to CMC, they had a vocational drafting that had a lot of really new techniques. They had heli-arc and TIG and a lot of different things, and I got to learn and practice with those.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. Good. Your current assignment is a porter for the Episcopal -- or for the Protestant chapel; is that correct?

INMATE DAVIS: That's correct.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: And your ratings have been excellent. Congratulate you on that.

INMATE DAVIS: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. What do you do? Tell me what your function is.

INMATE DAVIS: Actually, right now, I'm the outreach clerk, and a lot of work we do is the gentlemen that are in Ad Seg --


INMATE DAVIS: And other -- and the hole and different places that can't get to the chapel, they write request for interviews for different -- for materials and help and so we set down and we go through their requests for interview and send them material, write them notes, encourage them.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Do you actually go visit them?

INMATE DAVIS: No. We can't. We can't go.


INMATE DAVIS: But we send them material. We pray for them, and we talk to them about it.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: What do you get out of that?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I get the joy of helping other people, and I believe that what we're doing --

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Why is that important?

INMATE DAVIS: Excuse me?

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Why is that important that you help other people?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, it's important to help other people because these are my brothers, and I am my brother's keeper.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: So that's important to you through your religion?


COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. All right. I'm going to go over your -- your psychological evaluation. Okay. We have a letter here from a Jasmine A. Tehrani, T-E-H-R-A-N-I, Ph.D. and Senior Psychologist. She wrote a letter that's dated June 5th, 2008, and I'm going to read it into the record because the last Panel of -- or September '07, September 6th, 2007, did request another psychological evaluation, and this was the response to that request: "The above-referenced inmate is scheduled to appear before the Board for Parole Consideration Hearing, a secondary review was conducted by Dr. Jasmine Tehrani, and I've already spelled the name, Senior Psychologist for BPH, to determine whether an updated psychological evaluation is needed. The most recent psychological evaluation dated August 2006, was reviewed and considered. Based upon available evidence, an updated psychological evaluation is not warranted at this time. It should be noted that information/data subsequent to the date of the last psychological evaluation should be given appropriate weight by the Panel. The most recent psychological report is viable and appropriate for the Panel's studied consideration, and the inmate's upcoming scheduled Parole Consideration Hearing, sincerely signed J. Tehrani." I do want to note the most recent psychological evaluation that was given just prior to that letter was in -- August 24th, 2006, and that was the one the Panel from the '07 Panel requested a new one or an update of, and that's the '06 psychological evaluation was completed by a Cynthia Glines, G-L-I-N-E-S, Staff Psychologist. It is dated August 24th, 2006, and it -- reading on page 2, what it has covered -- check that -- page 1, it goes through the identifying information for Mr. Davis, and says in the paragraph one, two, three -- fourth one down on page 1, it says: "BPH has asked for an updated psychological evaluation. This was from the Panel previous to this, but there was no BPH -- BPT 1000A attached to the decision sheet. Therefore, the following issues will be addressed: To the extent to which the prisoner has explored the commitment offense and come to terms with the underlying causes, the prisoner's violence potential in a free community." And then it proceeds into your current mental status. There's nothing of significance noted there, a review of the crime is on page 2, and that goes through the bottom of page 3. It says at the bottom in somewhat of a conclusion: "It appears that Mr. Davis has explored some of the issues underlying the commitment offense and taken measures to address him. He expresses regret at participating in the events that resulted in the murders of Mr. Hinman and Mr. Shea. However, it should be noted that the presence or absence of insight and remorse are both already considered in risk assessment and should not be given greater weight when considering future diagnosis in the community." Continuing on to the last page, risk of violence, again, Dr. Glines -- Dr. Livingston, because she reviewed Dr. Livingston's report that I'll get to in just a second, which was a 2003 report, Dr. Livingston used a semi-structured interview and three objective measures to assess Mr. Davis's risk for future violence, the Hare Psychopathy Checklist Revised, the Historical Risk-20 and the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide. On each instrument, an individual may be scored as low, moderate or high. Dr. Livingston concluded that: "The risk for recidivism on a violent crime while in the free community was in the low to moderate range. Dr. Livingston's results were reviewed. Since that evaluation, there have been no significant changes that would alter his findings; thus, the risk for recidivism on a violent crime while in the free community remains low to moderate." And those were the findings of the Dr. Glines. And then as I stated, we go back to 2000 -- 10/28/2003 for Dr. Livingston's rather lengthy appraisal of Mr. Davis. Do you have any comments on that, sir?


COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Mr. Beckman, do you have any comments?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Just in general, we -- we object to the use of the three tests that were used in the last two psych evaluations. And, in fact, two of those tests are no longer used by the Board in its current protocols, and we object to the fact that a new evaluation wasn't done to conform to the present protocols.


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Other than that, no.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: -- I -- I understand that, and it's really clear. I did want to get to that. It's really clear that there was some concern on the part of the September 6th, 2007, Panel wherein they asked on page 4, Presiding Commissioner Woods: "Okay, as to your psychological factors, the psychological report dated 2006 with Clinician Glines authoring that, the report from 2003, which she referenced by Dr. Livingston's were not totally supportive of release in that on the August 24th, 2006, risk of violence page 4 of that report, Dr. Glines, Dr. Livingston concluding that the risk of recidivism on a violent crime within the free community was within the low to moderate range. Dr. Livingston's results were reviewed. Since that evaluation, there has been no significant changes that would alter this finding. Thus, the risk for recidivism on a violent crime while in the free community remains within the low to moderate range, then that would be of significance to this Panel in any consideration for release." Dr. -- check that, Deputy Commissioner Mitchell reports at the bottom of page 5: "We are requesting an updated psych report addressing specific inaudible, psych reports, inaudible on psych report inaudible, like you -- like you to make put down inaudible get a chance to say. I would like you maybe to put down yourself some notes and when you go back to report -- to the report that you be -- you address every single thing that you want to be sure the psychologist knows about." Dr. -- check that -- Commissioner Mitchell also makes a reference a little bit further down that you might even want to consider reviewing the transcript as I'm sure you have, sir, and bring the transcript and notes to the psychological evaluation, so there were some specific directions given to you. We also note that the oh -- 8/31/06 Panel requested another psychological evaluation, which prompted the Glines psychological evaluation.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: No, Glines was before the 8/31/06.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Oh. That's correct. That's correct. So --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: There have been two requests and none of them were heeded.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. All right. So, with that, I'll return my attention and your attention back to Mr. Garner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Okay. Before we move on, Mr. Beckman, was there anything else, any -- any chronos that you may have that we didn't get onto the record? I don't believe we asked that information.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I don't believe so.


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: You've been teaching classes right now at CMC. He's teaching CMC school the bible classes right now.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: I think I did mention that, but --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Okay. All right. Very good. A couple more questions, Mr. Davis. As part of the 12 steps, did you ever do your letters?




ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yeah, he testified that he sent letters to the victims.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes. I -- yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. And Mr. Beckman, is Mr. Davis willing, this afternoon, to answer questions from Exhibit Two?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Exhibit -- oh, absolutely.


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: He's happy to discuss insight, responsibility, and remorse.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. First of all, Mr. Davis, you drew a distinction between using and not dealing drugs. Could you explain that a little further?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, at the time, I was willing to rationalize my behavior and say, well, using drugs, I could -- I felt I would -- I would do -- I wasn't dealing drugs, so I was excusing my behavior because one didn't seem as bad as the other.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Would buying be part of dealing?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I guess if you -- if you get it down to a fine point, you're very right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. You also had a distinction that using -- using people's stolen credit cards wasn't serious?

INMATE DAVIS: At the time, I didn't -- I didn't think it was going to have serious consequences at the time.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: And you -- also, at the time, apparently didn't have any problem using stolen credit cards, what was your aversion to the robbing of Gary Hinman?

INMATE DAVIS: I knew Gary.


INMATE DAVIS: And Gary was a -- was a friend of -- we knew Gary.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Yeah. And I'll note for the record that you did describe him as you've always been friends.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. And you discounted the personal danger –- going back to the drugs.

INMATE DAVIS: I discounted personal danger since I was using and not dealing drugs. What I meant was like danger from the authorities. I did not think I was in as much jeopardy if, for using drugs, that I would have been had I been dealing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Um-hum. Did you ever get ripped off when you were doing a drug transaction?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Were you aware that most drug dealers are usually armed?

INMATE DAVIS: In those days, I was never aware of anything like that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Oh, okay. All right. Before I open it up to the other commissioners --


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. Any of the other commissioners and Panel today? Commissioner Biggers?

COMMISSIONER BIGGERS: Yeah, I got a couple of questions there, Mr. Davis. First of all, what did you think about this philosophy that Mr. Manson was, in fact, doing at the time? About the race war?

INMATE DAVIS: Mr. Manson was what and the race war?


COMMISSIONER BIGGERS: The race war that he was trying to get started and -- how do you feel and what was your feeling at the time when Mr. Manson was trying to get this race war started in Los Angeles?

INMATE DAVIS: I thought it was crazy, and I --

COMMISSIONER BIGGERS: So, why did you stay with him if you thought it was crazy?

INMATE DAVIS: I was -- I was -- I had adopted Charlie, kind of as my dad, and it was a matter of -- it was -- I was conflicted. I thought the race war idea was -- didn't make a lick of sense.


INMATE DAVIS: But I -- I felt loyal to the person, and so I kind of let his philosophical views pass.

COMMISSIONER BIGGERS: Okay. Well, have you given any thought to what's happening out there today if you were to get a date since there -- a lot of changes have taken place, which made conflict to what your "father" was thinking at the time?

INMATE DAVIS: It's what? Would you repeat -- I'm sorry, --

COMMISSIONER BIGGERS: You said that you thought that his ideas was crazy, but at the same time you decided to still go along with that --

INMATE DAVIS: I didn't --


INMATE DAVIS: Okay. I'm sorry.

COMMISSIONER BIGGERS: My question to you is that things have changed on the outside, like right now. Have you given any thought to what problems you may occur or encounter if you were to be given a date on those issues?

INMATE DAVIS: On the racial issues?


INMATE DAVIS: I could -- I shouldn't imagine I'd have any problem. I'm glad that -- for all the changes that have happened. I'm personally happy that -- that people have more rights and that -- and that the people who -- who are -- who are against the black people, for instance, they are being seen as -- they're marginalized, and it should be seen as marginalized, and I'm glad they are. I'm not -- I'm not on the side of I'm for any kind of racial trip.

COMMISSIONER BIGGERS: Okay. I'm not just talking about blacks. I'm talking about Jews, the whole thing.

INMATE DAVIS: No, anything.


INMATE DAVIS: Any kind of minority.

COMMISSIONER BIGGERS: That's all I have at this point.


INMATE DAVIS: Thank you, sir.

COMMISSIONER DRUMMOND: Yes. Mr. Davis, some years ago in 1981, in discussing your point of view with the K. Daddisman (sp) Correctional Counselor 2, you commented that it took about three years of confinement before your thinking returned to normal having to do with drug use. Do you think that's pretty correct?

INMATE DAVIS: I think -- I think it started to normalize in three years.

COMMISSIONER DRUMMOND: All right. Now, you have reviewed all the trial transcripts, no doubt, in the course of these years. Do you believe these acts occurred?

INMATE DAVIS: Do I believe the acts occurred?

COMMISSIONER DRUMMOND: The crimes occurred?

INMATE DAVIS: Absolutely they occurred.

COMMISSIONER DRUMMOND: All right. Do you believe you were there?

INMATE DAVIS: I was there with -- with Gary Hinman and with Donald Shea.

COMMISSIONER DRUMMOND: And did you participate in the murders?

INMATE DAVIS: I participate -- in -- in Hinman, I drove the cars. I never touched Gary. I participated in the murder in the sense that I was there and acquiesced and didn't do anything to stop it, and I could have stopped it, and I wish I had of, but, no, I did not do -- I was there, and I didn't do anything to help him. I betrayed Gary, and that's what I did.

COMMISSIONER DRUMMOND: And in the midst of all of this --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I don't think he was finished. He wanted to tell you about Shea also.

COMMISSIONER DRUMMOND: In the midst of this -- being under the influence of alcohol, you're absolutely certain today of what you just said?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir, absolutely.




COMMISSIONER KANE: -- couple of questions.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: He had asked about both murders, and I think he only answered about Gary Hinman.

INMATE DAVIS: I was involved in Donald Shea's murder. I was -- I was -- I was there. I -- it -- I -- Charlie wanted me to cut his head off. I wouldn't do it. I found a knife in my hand, somebody said, "Well, do something," so, I cut Shorty's shoulder, but I was there, and I helped to hide his car later. So, I was there, and I'm guilty of that, absolutely.

COMMISSIONER KANE: You said back in a previous psych evaluation that --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Commissioner, could you speak up a little?

COMMISSIONER KANE: Okay. You had mentioned on previous psych evaluation that I knew I should have -- I should leave, but I was emotionally hooked on the acceptance from the family atmosphere. What did that mean?

INMATE DAVIS: I was -- I was attached emotionally to -- to Charlie and to the girls, and they were like my family. I felt this -- I know it sounds crazy, but I felt some kind of loyalty, misplaced, obviously, but I felt that, and I was fearful of -- of I didn't know what I was going to do in life. I knew I should have left, but I didn't have what it took. I didn't have the internal drive to actually leave, but I knew better.

COMMISSIONER KANE: So, you had the ability to step forward and do something when Mr. Shea was murdered. You had the ability to step forward and do something when Mr. Hinman was murdered.

INMATE DAVIS: That's right.

COMMISSIONER KANE: You had the ability to know the difference between right and wrong and to leave, but something drew you to stay right there, knowing all the stuff that had occurred was wrong?

INMATE DAVIS: That's right. I'm sorry to say. I felt I was attached. I -- I wanted -- I wanted their approval on an emotional and personal level. I was -- I hated what was going on. I -- I was able to just separate it in my mind.

COMMISSIONER KANE: Now, you were 27 at the time, weren't you?


COMMISSIONER KANE: Kind of what you described as a 17 or 18 year old --

INMATE DAVIS: Yeah, that's right.

COMMISSIONER KANE: Would want from --

INMATE DAVIS: There you are.

COMMISSIONER KANE: -- their parents or their guardian --


COMMISSIONER KANE: -- or brothers or sisters, but at 27, you had this urge. Why?

INMATE DAVIS: From an early -- well, I'd say that I never progressed very much emotionally from the time I was 13, 14 years old, and I -- when I look back now, I was a 27-year-old adolescent, and -- well, that -- that's how I felt.

COMMISSIONER KANE: That's all the questions I have. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. Other commissioners?

MALE SPEAKING: (Indiscernible).



COMMISSIONER BIGGERS: There's a -- Crosstalk: (Indiscernible)


ACTING CHAIRMAN BRYSON: I do. I have three questions for you, sir. What position do you feel that you held in the Manson family?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I adopted Charlie as my daddy, kind of replaced the one I had that didn't work so well, so I felt like I was his -- his son. That's what I felt like.

ACTING CHAIRMAN BRYSON: Would that define your position in the Manson family that you felt that's the position you held then?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, you know, I never thought about it in that way, but I always wanted to -- I didn't want -- I didn't want Charlie's disapproval, number one, and so I wanted his approval. I wanted his affirmation.

ACTING CHAIRMAN BRYSON: Sir, you told us a minute ago that your father taught you how to weld.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, he did.

ACTING CHAIRMAN BRYSON: That's a good thing.

INMATE DAVIS: That -- that.

ACTING CHAIRMAN BRYSON: And you weren't a really tiny kid when he did that because you don't teach tiny kids how to weld.


ACTING CHAIRMAN BRYSON: How old were you when he taught you how to weld?

INMATE DAVIS: You know, I was about ten.

ACTING CHAIRMAN BRYSON: So, there was some good in your father, correct?

INMATE DAVIS: Absolutely, there was.

ACTING CHAIRMAN BRYSON: The concern here, sir, is that the representation that you -- that your attachment to Manson as your father figure, that's one thing, but then how that translates into the ability to be vicious to the extent where you step across all moral lines and murder people, that's very different, and there's no indication that your father, your real father, would have ever required or encouraged any sort of illegal behavior; is that true?

INMATE DAVIS: That's true, ma'am. Absolutely.

ACTING CHAIRMAN BRYSON: How do you think you got to that -- you're representing it today as you're basically blaming it on your allegiance to Manson. I don't see how that translates into aggression against someone else.

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I was -- when -- I was never allowed to do anything but obey my dad. You did not say no, and that was part of -- of the pattern in my mind, but we had a very bad relationship. I came to the point where I didn't -- I didn't care what he felt or believed or anything, and I turned my -- I just turned away from him in my mind. I lived at home for a long time after that. We never had a relationship. When it came to Charlie, I wouldn't say no. Well, there was a limit. There was a limit that I finally said no, but --

ACTING CHAIRMAN BRYSON: What was the limit?

INMATE DAVIS: The limit was not -- I would not cut Shorty's head off. I did cut him on the shoulder.

ACTING CHAIRMAN BRYSON: Why didn't the first murder prevent you from participating in the second?

INMATE DAVIS: I wish I could tell you that exactly, but I'll say this. The first time, when -- when Gary was killed, I was able to -- to put it in my head that well, I didn't touch Gary. I hadn't done anything to hurt him; so, therefore, I'm not guilty. That's how I -- that's how I rationalized it.

ACTING CHAIRMAN BRYSON: I have no further.

COMMISSIONER BIGGERS: I have -- I have an additional one, please.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Let me get Commissioner Gillingham. I'll get back to you.



COMMISSIONER GILLINGHAM: Oh, I had a question about the age you were when you began using drugs and or alcohol.

INMATE DAVIS: I began using significant -- well, let's see. I began using a lot of drugs about 1965.

COMMISSIONER GILLINGHAM: So that was way beyond when you were 14 years old?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, it was.

COMMISSIONER GILLINGHAM: That was my question.


COMMISSIONER BIGGERS: Do you feel you have any aggression hidden?

INMATE DAVIS: I was very --





INMATE DAVIS: That's a hard question, sir.

COMMISSIONER BIGGERS: That's why I asked it.

INMATE DAVIS: Do I feel I have it hidden? Well, if it was hidden, I couldn't see it, so I couldn't tell you.

COMMISSIONER BIGGERS: Well, you can feel it. I mean, when I say hidden, maybe it's not. I don't know.

INMATE DAVIS: Okay. All right. No. I don't believe I have any aggression, physical, violent aggression at all. I gave that up. Even -- even the thought of going -- of when I -- when I helped attack Shorty -- Donald Shea, I'm sorry, when I helped -- after that, you know, I -- I turned away from that.

COMMISSIONER BIGGERS: Well, aggression comes in different formats, and at the last hearing, I saw a little bit. Was that frustration with the last Panel?

INMATE DAVIS: Say again.

COMMISSIONER BIGGERS: Was that frustration with the last Panel when you didn't get a date in 2007? The comments that you made to the Commissioner? Was that aggression or was that frustration?


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: You're referring to when he said, "I guess that means this is life without --


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: -- possibility of parole"?


INMATE DAVIS: Well, I mean, I'm sure it was frustration.


INMATE DAVIS: And sadness and helplessness.

COMMISSIONER BIGGERS: Well, you know, sometimes that frustration can lead to aggression.

INMATE DAVIS: I know it does.


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Why wouldn't it lead to it in your case?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, what?


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Tell him why it won't in your case.


INMATE DAVIS: Yeah, if I may go back just a little bit. The reason it wouldn't do it in my case today is that I know how to process sadness, I know how to process the feeling of helplessness. I know the difference in -- in frustration and aggression.


COMMISSIONER KANE: What kind of relationship did you have with Donald Shea?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Can't hear you, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER KANE: What kind of relationship did you have with Donald Shea?

INMATE DAVIS: I knew him. He was on the Spahn Ranch. He was one of the -- one of the people that worked there. I'd talked to him a few times. We didn't have a close relationship. We weren't drinking buddies or anything, but I knew him, and I knew he has a stunt man, and he was very proud of -- that he was in the movies, and that was -- that was pretty cool, and I -- I didn't think he was a bad person, and I was not angry at him -- when -- when this came down.

COMMISSIONER KANE: So you admitted you stabbed him in the shoulder, correct?


COMMISSIONER KANE: Was he alive when you stabbed him?

INMATE DAVIS: He was not moving. I couldn't say if he was alive.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. One last question, Mr. Davis, and I have to concede that Commissioner Bryson and one of her questions prompted this, and I want to kind of change the perspective and ask you the question, how did the other family members view your status in the family?

INMATE DAVIS: I can only guess how other people saw me.



INMATE DAVIS: But I would guess -- I would guess that when I -- and I said, hey, let's do this and that. Some people would say okay. Some would -- some would say okay, let's do it, and not all agreed. So, I was as -- probably as influential as anybody else there. Somebody says, well, let's do A, B, and C and some people say, well, I'll do that and some people said, well, I don't want to, and so they did what they wanted to. So, I wouldn't say I was without influence.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Very good. One last time, Commissioners? All right. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Sequeira.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Thank you. When did the inmate stop his association with Manson family members?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay. First of all, I'm going to object to your Title 15 Section 2230 prohibits the District Attorney from questioning my client either directly or indirectly. I know the Board interprets it slightly different than I do and they say clarifying questions. I'm of the mind that if he wants to ask a legitimate clarifying question and we can answer it and help, we will do so. That is not a clarifying question. All this has been dealt with in the 2006 hearing, and I'm not going to let him answer it. I request that you sustain my objection. It's not a clarifying question.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Are you going to allow your client to answer your question?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Not that question. It's already been answered, actually.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Next question, Mr. Sequeira? I think I'd prefer, rather -- let me just ask, are you going to make it a blanket statement that Mr. Davis is not going to answer the DA's question, or do you want to do it on a question-by-question basis?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Well, we'll do it on a question-by- question basis.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. Mr. Sequeira, next question, please?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: With the reminder that we do -- that this was all covered by Mr. Sequeira at the hearing in 2006, and it's in the transcript.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: And, again, I'll stress that we do have a tremendous number of new commissioners that could be of some value to have the views that Mr. Davis has about the crime and anything else that Mr. Sequeira wants to ask this afternoon. So -- that being said, Mr. Sequeira, next question, please.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: What is the inmate's relationship to Dennis Rice?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Same objection. What's he is clarifying? It's not a clarifying question.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. To facilitate the matters is either he's going to answer the question or he's not, and then we'll move on.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay. I instruct him not to answer that question.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Does the inmate currently have any contact or maintains any type of correspondence with any Manson family member?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I'll let him answer.

INMATE DAVIS: What's the question?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: He wants to know if you have any contact --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Any contact or correspondence or any association at this time with any Manson family members?

INMATE DAVIS: At the time?


INMATE DAVIS: Right now? I have -- no, not of -- not anybody that I was associated with, none of my co-defendants.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: What about non-codefendants?

INMATE DAVIS: A few years ago, I got a letter from one of the individuals that came into the -- to the group after I was -- after I was already in prison. He did some time in San Quentin. He came to the lord. He's been out -- he has a prison ministry for 20 years. He wrote me a letter. We corresponded. We talk, even visited one time. His name is Dennis Rice.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And what is Dennis Rice's connection to either the Shorty Shea or the Hinman killing?


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Shorty Shea or Hinman killing.



INMATE DAVIS: No, he wasn't involved with that. Am I hearing you right? What's the question?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I'm sorry. What connection did Dennis Rice have to you and either the Shorty Shea killing or the Hinman killing?


INMATE DAVIS: No. What did he --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Dennis Rice's relationship to Hinman or the Shea homicides.


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: He had no relationship?

INMATE DAVIS: He had no relationship.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: What did Dennis Rice go to prison for?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: He wants to know if you know what Dennis Rice went to prison for?

INMATE DAVIS: He went to prison for -- they had a shoot-out with the LAPD, some people he was involved in.


INMATE DAVIS: I'm not sure what else.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: The inmate has indicated that he's obviously quite religious. Has the inmate posted any of his religious writings on the internet?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Did you get the question?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: He wants to know if you've posted or had posted any of your religious writings on the internet?

INMATE DAVIS: No, sir, I don't have access to the internet.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Well, I said posted or had posted.



INMATE DAVIS: I'm not sure. I wouldn't be surprised if it happened. I just don't know.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Is the inmate aware of any his writings to any outside people, whether those writings had been posted on any internet websites?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I'm going to object. This is completely irrelevant, and it's not a clarifying question. I'm going to instruct my client not to answer.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Has the inmate submitted any of his religious writings to Dennis Rice?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: You shared any of your religious writings with Mr. Rice?




INMATE DAVIS: Sometime in the past. I'm not -- maybe two years ago, a year ago, I'm not sure exactly when. I did share them with Dennis.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And are those writings posted on Dennis Rice's website, Manson to Jesus dot com?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: He testified he has no access to the internet.

INMATE DAVIS: I really can't -- I'm not allowed access to the internet.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, have you talked to --

INMATE DAVIS: So I am ignorant of what's really there.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Has the inmate spoken to anyone outside who has seen that his writings are on Dennis Rice's website Manson to Jesus dot com?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Objection. It's irrelevant; and, again, it's not clarifying, so I instruct my client not to answer.

INMATE DAVIS: If I may say --


INMATE DAVIS: No, let me just say this. I just want to say this kind of -- I don't know how it applies to this question or not, but if anything I wrote about theology or whatever is on the internet, well, I'm glad it is. I don't know who did it. I haven't -- you know, I don't get -- I can't put anything on. I don't know who it is, but if somebody said did you ever write anything that got on there, I don't know. I possibly did, and that's okay with me. MALE SPEAKER: (Indiscernible).

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Has the inmate submitted any of his religious writings to Tex Watson to be posted or used on Tex Watson's website?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Same question about the posting of any of your writings on Tex Watson's website.

INMATE DAVIS: I have posted no information on anybody's website.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I want to read a -- just a couple of sentences and ask the inmate if these were sentences that he had written, and this is from the Manson to Jesus website, page 1 of 3, and there's links to -- it says: "Bruce Davis: The trial dragged on for months and the jury was out for weeks. My hopes were up during the several days they were hung, only to fall when the last hold-out voted to convict. Finally, scenes of my life, especially of my crimes reeled in when the judge pronounced a sentence life in prison." Does this inmate recall writing -- writing that paragraph?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Commissioners, that paragraph comes from this pamphlet, written by Bruce Davis, which we are going to give you to review during deliberations. As a matter of fact, I'll just hand it over to you right now.

COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Just give it to the correctional officer. She'll make sure that -- there you go.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: He passes that handout out.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Could you read the first sentence of what you just asked him?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: "The trial dragged on for months and the jury was out for weeks."


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: It's on the first page, Commissioner. The page with his picture on it.

INMATE DAVIS: Right under the picture.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So, I take it the answer to my question is yes, that's what he wrote.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: He's asking is that what you wrote? Not here but at the time.

INMATE DAVIS: Did I write that? Yes, I wrote that pamphlet.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: No, but your very lead comment on here about the trial dragging on for months, that's what he's asking about, not in this document but in the transcript that he's reading from.

INMATE DAVIS: I don't know what he's reading from.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Well, if he claims to be reading from a website by Dennis Rice, again, he's testified that he's never posted anything on that website. If Dennis Rice took what he wrote and posted, it's without Mr. Davis's knowledge. I fail to understand the relevance of any of this.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: The additional questions I have are regarding the commitment offense. I don't know if the inmate -- the inmate has indicated he's not answering questions about the commitment offense.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: That's correct.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Then I have no further questions.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Beckman, any questions for your client this afternoon?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. Mr. Sequeira, ready for your closing?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Can I request a brief --




COMMISSIONER BIGGERS: I have a follow-up question, if I may, sir?


COMMISSIONER BIGGERS: This pamphlet that was just handed to us.


COMMISSIONER BIGGERS: Who's publishing this?




COMMISSIONER BIGGERS: And you're publishing on the out -- to be given to someone on the outside.




ACTING CHAIRMAN BRYSON: It was relevant to that same thing. Thank you.


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Can we have a three-minute restroom break before we get started?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. Let's go off the record. We have been in here for quite a while.


(off the record)


COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: We can go back on record. Okay. We are back on record. The time is 3:25.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. Very good. Mr. Sequeira, ready for your closing, please.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you. Inmate Bruce Davis remains unsuitable for parole and is an unreasonable risk to society. In looking at the factors that pertain to suitability and the factors that also tend to show unsuitability for Mr. Davis, you first must look at his social history. In looking at his social history, it's quite clear, as Mr. Davis has even indicated and has reflected in a number of psychological evaluations that he had a troubled childhood. He had extreme hostility towards his father. In fact, one of the most telling instances of Mr. Davis's behavior as a young child is shown in the 10/23/03 psychological evaluation in an interview with Mr. Davis's own sister. The clinician interviewed Ms. Ward, Judy Ward by telephone on 10/29/03, and I want to read you a couple of excerpts about what Ms. Ward had to say about her brother. First of all, she says that: "Bruce was constantly getting into trouble as he was growing up. She states that he was accused to setting fire to some neighbors' barns when he was less than ten years old, and he was kicked out of school at times, and he was frequently in fights with other kids. She also stated that he was a suspect in killing some neighbor's ducks when he was seven or eight years of age." And then, of course, she reports that in contrast, she was the good kid. And then it goes on to say in the same paragraph on page 3: "She indicated that she was not surprised that he would" -- oh. "This examiner asked Ms. Ward if she was surprised when she heard about the crimes when her brother had been involved in. She indicated she wasn't surprised, that he would leave home at various times and stay gone for months. She stated that he would return, he would travel around, return, and leave again. She states that he started writing home about his current drug of choice and why he was taking it and that when he was home he was frequently glassy-eyed." I'm now paraphrasing a little bit. "She states he just sat in the house and it was like he was mentally disturbed." The deep-seated hatred and animosity towards his father is also reflected in the fact that when his father died, Bruce Davis did not even attend his father's funeral. He did show up, of course, to accept his $2,000 worth of inheritance. But, beyond that, that was his only connection with his father at that point. Mr. Davis then traveled -- well, first of all, he went to college. And, as you can tell, he's certainly a bright individual. He finished approximately a year and a half of college at the University of Tennessee. He then dropped out and began bumming around the country. He's had a number of different jobs. He took the $2,000 that he inherited from his father, and he went to Europe. And when he went to Europe -- well, actually, prior to going to Europe, he had met Charles Manson out in California, and they had become friends, and that was in 1968. Then he takes off and he goes to Europe. What does he do when he goes to Europe? By his own words, he talks about reading Herman Hesse Siddhartha and wandering around through different countries and eventually ending up in London where he join a Scientology school. This is significant because it's quite clear that Mr. Davis has had a long fascination with philosophy, with theology, and it's reflected as we go through the rest of his history. But I might also point out to you at this time that Scientology was also very big with Charles Manson. Charles Manson had reached a certain level within the hierarchy of Scientology, and I forget exactly what that -- that level is called, but it's reflected in a number of packet information. But what's also significant is that what Bruce Davis returns from London, he is met at the airport, and this is in 1968, now, by Charles Manson and one of the other Manson girls, which indicates that he's had not only a longstanding connection with Charles Manson but goes to London to study Scientology in keeping with Manson's philosophy at that time and then returns to the Spahn Ranch and the rest of the Manson clan. Of course, during the time that he's involved at the Spahn Ranch with the Manson clan, the philosophy of Charles Manson, and I say it's not only just the philosophy of Charles Manson but the collective philosophy of Charles Manson is embraced by Bruce Davis. And I say it's embraced by him because, although sometimes the media portrays the Manson family as being some kind of a group of drug-crazed hippies, they were far from that. They were a criminal enterprise. They were an organization that had a hierarchy. They were an organization that had different rules for people. They were an organization that practiced and carried out various crimes, whether it be stealing, credit card fraud, taking automobiles, these were all part and parcel of the daily existence because these people didn't work. They either scrounged food -- they scammed people. They become involved in drug usage and drug telling. This was part of their lifestyle, and this is the lifestyle that Bruce Davis, not only embraced, this is a lifestyle where he was considered one of the major players. He was considered a major player for a couple of reasons. One was his age. Next to Charles Manson, he was the second oldest person of the Manson defendants and of the people that have even testified in the Manson cases. The girls were 17, 19 years of age. Tex Watson was, I think, 19. These were all very young people. He was one of the oldest. And by all accounts, particularly the letter from Barbara Hoyt and the letter from Stephen Kay, he occupied a position of leadership within this organization. And I call it a criminal organization for a number of reasons. When this concept of helter skelter was developed and the concept basically was that Manson, Bruce Davis, and his other crime partners were going to commit murders or acts of violence, they were going to provoke a race war, and the theory behind this race war was that there would be a race war between the blacks and the whites and that eventually, once this was triggered, Manson and his group would hide in the desert, and at the conclusion of race war, which he believed that the blacks would win out over the whites, he and his group, including Bruce Davis, would emerge from the desert and because they were smarter and more capable of leading, they would eventually take over the leadership role from the dominant blacks who had won this race war. Now, it's a far-fetched idea, and it's certainly ridiculous when you think of today's terms, but you have to understand that this is back in 1968 and 1969. It wasn't that far-fetched. There were riots in Los Angeles in 1964. There was a lot of racial tension in the United States. So, this is the backdrop. This is the philosophy that this individual, this inmate embraced and was a major part of. Now, I know that he's -- he's made a number of statements in numerous hearings minimizing his participation and his involvement, denying that he thought that helter skelter was a joke, but it wasn't a joke to those people inside the Manson group. It wasn't a joke to Barbara Hoyt. She's indicated that in the letter, and it wasn't a joke when you look at the actual activity of this inmate in his participation in these crimes. Now, I find it very enlightening, and I want to go back to this because you've heard the inmate say that he's not a leader, that he didn't really occupy any leadership role in the family and he was a passive participant. I'll take you to the psychological evaluation of 9/18/80. This is from a Dr. Richard Lowenthal, L-O-W-E-N-T-H-A-L, second paragraph of the psychological evaluation, what does Dr. Lowenthal say about this inmate? He says: "Mr. Davis presents himself as a dominant individual to whom power and environmental control are quite important. Individuals with this profile configuration aspire to leadership positions and frequently assume an authoritative role spontaneously through assertive behavior and forceful opinion expression. Individuals with similar personality profiles are often seen as somewhat rebellious and non-conforming. They posses a limited frustration tolerance and have difficultly expressing anger in a modulated fashion." The next paragraph, it states, "In that he is " -- and, again, this is a quote unquote: "In that he is strongly motivated to leadership, it is unlikely that Mr. Davis would tolerate a subordinate, subservient role. Consequently, the inmate's implication that he was an unthinking follower of an intuitive -- intuitive charismatic leader is inconsistent with available data." Now, I think that's very significant from one of his early psychological evaluations in 1980, the psychologist said this is an individual who aspires to be a leader. He aspires to control, and that's exactly what Steve Kay writes in his letter, and that's exactly what Barbara Hoyt, who lived with the inmate at the ranch, states. Now, what's also of interest is, and I'm going to now quote from the psychological evaluation on 11/10 of 1980. And this is from one of the CC1's. It mentions, and this is in the middle of the page -- and I don't know what. It's page 3. It says that unfortunately -- it's talking about Mr. Davis: "Unfortunately, he also has the intelligence and ability to be quite manipulative. A quality that both Mr. Davis and any potential therapist should guard against." And then in the same page, he later on talks about some of the psychiatric counsel comments where he says the inmate: "He denies any current loyalties to so-called family members, but his denial is contradicted by other statements." In fact, I would highly suggest reviewing the psychological evaluation of 11/10/80. That is -- I think it's a Category D evaluation. It's done by a Panel of psychologists, and it talks about on page 2, it talks about his -- that what the inmate was confined in Folsom State Prison, he was attracted to the American Nazi party and spent a consider able period of time bowing to their will because he considered them to be his friends. Is this a similar theme that we've heard echoed from the inmate today? Absolutely. He always seems to bow into what his friends want him to do, never the leader, always the follower. It goes on to say in that same paragraph that he's -- he said he's accepted Jesus Christ as his savior and confessed his sins. He's now at peace with him self. He became rather agitated when it is suggested that he has switched his loyalties from one God-like figure to another, which is more socially acceptable. And this is -- and this is, I think, a very significant theme in Mr. Davis's life, not only prior to the commitment offense but surrounding the commitment offense, and then even after the commitment offense. And I'll deal with those in chronological order. As much as the inmate would like you to believe that he was a minor participant in both of these horrible, brutal murders, he was not. Now, he's indicated to you that he -- with regards to the Hinman murder, his only involvement was driving the first assailants to the Hinman house, and that was Mary Brunner, Susan Atkins, and Bobby Beausoleil. He dropped them off at the residence. They went in, they confronted Mr. Hinman, and they began holding him hostage and basically torturing him over a period of a couple of days. What -- what is significant no know also is that Mr. Hinman -- excuse me, Mr. Beausoleil, when he arrived at the location, was in possession of a handgun, and that handgun belonged to Bruce Davis. It was a handgun that Bruce Davis purchased under an assumed name with a false ID. During the period of time when Mr. Hinman was being asked to turnover his property because, as mentioned in the statement of facts, it was believed that Mr. Hinman was coming into an inheritance, and the family wanted his property. They wanted him to kind of join and basically kind of share of all his wealth with the rest of the family because they needed money to finance their move to the desert in the wake of helter skelter. Now, Mr. Hinman didn't have any money; and, so, therefore, he was beaten. At one point he managed to try to escape, and he struggled and actually obtained possession of gun, which was then wrestled away from him, and then he was beaten with the gun, and a phone call was made to the ranch where Bruce Davis drives Charlie Manson back out to the ranch. They both arrive at the location, they're both arms with knives. Bruce Davis takes the gun from Bobby Beausoleil, points it at Gary Hinman, while Charlie Manson slices Gary Hinman's ear almost completely off, to the point where the girls had to sew it back on with dental floss, or they tried to. Mr. Hinman lost a lot of blood, and he began asking for his prayer beads to begin chanting. Mr. Hinman was an avowed Buddhist, and I think he sensed at that point that his life was about to be over. This Inmate Davis seems to think that just because he drove people over there that somehow excuses his participation in the crime. And, in fact, in numerous hearings, his sorry about the gun has changed. First, he didn't have the gun, and then he may have had the gun, but he didn't point it at any one. And then, I think, in the 2006 hearing, when he was questioned about it, he says, "Well, I don't remember pointing it at anyone, but if I had pointed it, if somebody had said I pointed it at someone, well, I wouldn't argue with it." So, what is it? After all of these years? After how many years since the commission of these crimes, this inmate still cannot admit to what he did. He cannot admit that he pointed the gun at Gary Hinman, basically threatening him and trying to obtain money and property from him. He can't admit that, and I think that's extremely significant. He can't and he won't admit it because, if you listen to what his explanation is, he really didn't do anything. He just drove some people over there. Oh, yeah, and then afterwards, after Hinman was killed, he did drive one of Hinman's cars away. Hinman was forced to sign over the pink slip to both of his automobiles. One automobile was driven away by Bobby Beausoleil, and Beausoleil was actually arrested in that car. The other car was driven back to the ranch by Bruce Davis, certainly a more significant role than Mr. Davis would suggest you believe. Now, the other thing that's of great significance to the Hinman murder, because it ties in, not only with the Shea murder, but also ties in with the Tate- LaBianca murder and with helter skelter, is the fact that the crime scene at the Hinman residence was staged. There was -- in Mr. Hinman's blood, there was a palm print, which was meant to signify the Black Panther party was placed in the residence for the purpose of suggesting to the police investigators that there were some black militants that committed the crime. This is all in keeping with helter skelter. This was committing, a murder for dual purposes in this instance, for financial gain, and for also -- and also to ignite a race war. Now, this was in July of 1969. The inmate claims that Hinman was his friend. He should have done something to stop it, yet he did not make any attempt to leave the family. In fact, he stayed at the ranch. He stayed with the family. On August 8th and 9th of 1969 were the nights of Tate-LaBianca murders, brutal killings. I won't need to go into great detail. Five people were slaughtered at the Tate residence. Following night, Rosemary and Leo LaBianca were also slaughtered as well. Both crime scenes in those two -- in those two cases were staged to make it look as they were some type of militants or blacks that committed the crime. There was the death to pigs, there was the rise --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Objection, Commissioner.



DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: There was (indiscernible) written in blood in the --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Hang on a second, Mr. Sequeira. What?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: My client was not convicted of anything having to do with the Tate-LaBianca murders. His comments are completely gratuitous and improper, and I request that he be instructed to stick with these crimes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: I think the totality of the events does establish a relationship as to the group, the family, and I'm going to go ahead and allow it, Mr. --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you. Now, Mr. Davis was asked what he was doing, and I think in the one of the previous hearings, he stated he was asked to go along, but he refused to go along with the Tate-LaBianca hearings -- excuse me, the Tate-LaBianca murders. I don't think that's correct. I think that's Mr. Davis's way of somehow explaining that he wasn't controlled by the family, that he had the ability to turn down going on a killing spree where seven people were murdered over two days. Now, where's the inherent conflict in that? On one hand, he would do anything possible for the approval of Charles Manson, that he would participate in the Shea killing, that he would participate in Hinman. Yet, he is telling the Panel on a previous hearing well, I was asked to go along on the Tate-LaBianca murders, but I refused to go. Well, if that is true, which I don't believe it is true, but if that was true, then why did he participate in the Shorty Shea murders? There's such an inherent conflict in this inmate, and there's such a -- an attempt at manipulation and duality of his own psychological make-up that that should be quite apparent in his inconsistent statements. In fact, I think it was reported that on the night of the LaBianca murders, they stopped -- they being the group that was the assassins, the seven assassins that were going it go out and commit murders that night -- actually stopped by and talked to Bruce Davis, and he gave them some money or some credit cards to use for their -- to finance the mission. Now, what is significant, too, is not only did Mr. Davis participate in the Hinman killings, but he also knew full well what happened at the Tate residence and the LaBianca residence. He knew that seven people were slaughtered. They were slaughtered. And what did Mr. Davis do? Did he leave Spahn Ranch in shock? Did he say, "I don't want to have anything to do with these people because they've gone way beyond the pale of what I'm willing to follow"? No, he did not. He stayed. He stayed at the ranch, and he participated in the killing of Shorty Shea. Now, the inmate, his statements regarding his role in the Shorty Shea case are just absolutely unbelievable. First of all, he says it takes place during the daytime, and all of the evidence that was presented at the trial clearly showed that the crime occurred at night. Ruby Pearl testified that she saw -- well, first of all, she testified that she spoke to Shorty Shea and that Shorty Shea was a little worried. He wanted to stay at her house because he was worried. He had a weird vibe something was going to happen. He was very afraid, and this was also backed up by another -- another witness who indicated that Shorty Shea expressed some concern about staying out at the Spahn Ranch. Ruby Pearl saw a car pull up at night at about 11:00 or 12:00 at night. Shorty Shea was outside, out of the car, Charles Manson, Bruce Davis, Tex Watson, and Charles -- and Steve Grogan. They surround Mr. Shea, and off they go. Barbara Hoyt testified that she had fed Shorty Shea dinner that night, and she went to sleep, again, around midnight or late in the night. It was a full moon at that time, and when she was trying to sleep, she heard horrible screams, and she recognized the screams, where they came from, and they were Shorty Shea's screams, and as she's testified in a previous en banc hearing, she also indicated in her letter to the Board, she still hears those screaming of Shorty Shea 40 years later. Now, the Panel must also understand because the way the inmate describes it, is they were just down a drive in the afternoon and then all of a sudden somebody hits Shorty Shea in the back of the head. I think it was Steve Grogan, as he describes it, then they -- Shorty Shea's pulled out, down into a wash, and then he's -- he's attacked, but Bruce Davis is not part of the attackers. He's waiting back in the car, and then Charles Manson shows up in a second car, and then he goes down with Charlie, down to where Shorty Shea is being killed, or is already dead if you believe Bruce Davis's story. And he says that Charlie asked him to cut his head off. He didn't. He's said -- he said he was handed a machete. He's had many different stories if you look through the psychological evaluation as to what he did the machete. First of all, he threw it down, and then there's another -- another version, he puts it up against the neck but didn't draw any blood and then put it down. He finally says that as a symbolic gesture, he scratches Shorty Shea in the shoulder but that Shorty was already dead because it didn't bleed. These are the statements from this inmate. Over the years, these are statements that are still even -- even up until this hearing in 2006 when he talked about the crime, he said the same thing, "Well, I just cut him on his shoulder." Well, if you believe, or if any jury were to believe Bruce Davis's account of Shorty Shea's murder, he would not be a murderer because he didn't do anything to kill Shorty Shea. What did he do? He scratched him on the shoulder. So his own description of his participation in the crime isn't even consistent with his conviction, which is a conviction for murder and, of course, he's copped out to stabbing Shorty Shea. I think in one of the Commissioner's questions, he said he stabbed him, but that's not what he said in the past, and we don't know how many times he stabbed. In fact, Charlie Manson said all of them took -- took turns stabbing Shorty Shea. But this inmate won't admit to it. He won't admit to killing Shorty Shea. In fact, it gets consistent throughout his psychological evaluations, well, he was there, but he didn't kill anyone. In fact, I think he even said it in 2006, I didn't kill anyone. Now, what is also extremely important, when you look at the inmate's versions of crime, there's 180 degree difference, first of all, as to the facts. He says that it occurs during the day. It happened at night. There was plenty of testimony at trial that it occurred at night, and Barbara Hoyt testified, Ruby Pearl testified. They even brought in a -- because they said it was a full moon that night, that's why they could see. They even brought an astrophysicist in from the local planetarium to testify that the full moon occurred on three nights. It would have been a three-night period, and they could nail it down to exactly which night it was. It was either the 20 -- let's see, the 27th or the 28th because Charlie Manson had been arrested, and he wasn't released from jail until the night before, and then on the 29th, immediately after the Shorty Shea killing, this inmate, along with his crime partners, left Spahn Ranch and went out into the desert, went out far into the Goler Wash, the Barker Ranch, which is at least 100, maybe 200 miles from Los Angeles, out, way out 395. Now, the inmate tells you that he was disgusted by all of this; yet, he didn't leave the ranch at that time either. He stayed at the ranch. And now we're talking about the Barker Ranch. I'm not talking about the Spahn Ranch. So he stayed out in the desert. In fact, he made an attempt to go to Las Vegas, but the car broke down with one of the other crime partners. In fact, that's where some of the statements regarding his, meaning Mr. Davis's confession of Shorty Shea killing came in, and I can even quote from some of that for you. Now, this was during the time that they were -- were walking or traveling or attempting to travel to Las Vegas, and this is from the testimony of Paul Watkins: "Did you hear Bruce Davis and Bill Vance talking to one another during that portion of that -- during the time that you were walking to the truck? Answer: Yes. Question: Did you understand everything that was said by Bruce Davis to Bill Vance. No. Answer: No. Question: Could you hear everything that was said? Answer: I could have. If I had been paying attention, but I wasn't paying attention. Question: Now, did you hear Bruce Davis say anything to Bill Vance that you understood that you could hear or make out? Answer: Yes. To whom was Mr. Davis speaking when he made this statement? Answer: To Bill. Question: What did Mr. Davis say? Answer: The one thing I understood out of everything he said was when he said that's why we killed Shorty. Question: He said, 'That's why we killed Shorty'? Answer: Yeah. That's the only words I understand of that particular conversation that stuck with me." Now, after that, Watkins and Davis drove to Vegas, then Davis eventually returned back to the Barker Ranch. Now, in his statements today, and if I'm not mistaken, and I think my recollection is fairly good because I took a note on that. Inmate Davis said that immediately after the Shorty Shea murder that he disapproved of it. He didn't want anymore to do with Manson. He gave up aggression is what he said. Is the quote I wrote. And, in fact, I think in one of the psychological evaluations, he said he was absolutely sick afterwards. He spent a couple of days in bed. He was very depressed over the killing of Shorty Shea. Well, that is in direct contrast to what later on, and I want to give you the quotes from the trial testimony about that as well. Well, actually, let me back up before we get to that. Let's back up to the fact immediately after the killing of Shorty Shea, there was a lot of discussion at the ranch about Shorty being killed, and Charlie had said they took him for a ride. They hit him with a pipe, and there was a conversation that took place between Charles Manson, Bruce Davis, and a couple of other witnesses, Juan Flynn and Danny DeCarlo. And Manson said it was pretty hard to kill him, in talking about Shorty Shea, until we brought him to now, and the now is this -- this philosophical, theoretical state that was part of the Manson family's philosophy that, to now basically meant some kind of a higher place or Nirvana or death, but any ways, and then they said: "And then when we brought him to now, Clem cut his head off and Bruce Davis in response to that, 'Yeah, that was far out.'" You know, that's the comment that this inmate made directly afterwards when they were discussing the killing of Shorty Shea. And, in fact, Charlie went into quite some detail when he was in that same conversation. He said they took him for a ride. They hit him in the head with a pipe. I think he said -- I think he said lead, but I'm not sure if he said lead, and then they started stabbing him and stabbing him and stabbing him, and then he said it was real hard to kill until they brought him to now, and when he said -- this is Charlie, he was pretty hard to kill until we brought him to now. He said, "Yeah." And when we brought him to now Clem cut his head off, and Bruce said that was far out. And a couple other time he said, yeah and thing like that and agreed -- agreed, that was far out when Charlie said Clem cut his head off." These are the statements that this inmate made immediately after the crime, and they went around telling the family that this is what happened to snitches. In fact, the reason that Shorty Shea -- one of the main reasons why he was killed was because it was believed that he would be a snitch, that he would somehow implicate the family in the Tate-LaBianca murders, and that's why he was killed because they were worried that he drank. But, what you must also understand about Shorty Shea is reflected in Barbara Hoyt's letter, and Shorty Shea was a big man. He was a stunt man. He was a cowboy. He was a stunt man, and a want-to-be actor. He's not the kind of individual that could have easily been taken down by just one small individual the size of Bruce Davis, the size of Charles Manson, who is very short, or the size of Tex Watson or Steve Grogan. The only way they could have taken him down and killed him in such a brutal fashion was to attack him like a pack of dogs, and that was the MO of the Manson family. They didn't do a one-on-one attack with anybody. There wasn't a one-on-one attack on Gary Hinman. There wasn't a one-on-one attack at the Tate residence where they had multiple assailants. There wasn't a one-on-one attack with the LaBiancas as well. This was a pack -- a group mentality. That's what criminal crime organizations do. That's what organized crime does. That's what gangs do. And, in fact -- the fact -- and that Bruce Davis embraced this concept of helter skelter basically shows that he was a domestic terrorist, that he participated and went along with this philosophy and these murders for the nefarious reason of inciting even more violence. And, had they not been stopped, had they not been arrested, there would have been more people killed. This was part of the philosophy. This was a part of the philosophy that Bruce Davis embraced, and he stayed with the family. Now, he claimed that he stopped his aggression, but yet here's another snippet from the trial, which I think that you'll find very illuminating. In this -- now, to give you the background, Bobby Beausoleil was arrested and charged with the Hinman murder. He was on trial. He was tried separately. Now, during the trial, it was covered in the local papers. And this is a testimony from Alan Springer, who was a member of the Straight Satan's Motorcycle Group, which was affiliated and friendly with the Manson clan and a friend of Danny DeCarlo -- Danny DeCarlo was also very close with the Manson family. Now, when he first met Bruce Davis just before the Spahn Ranch raid on August 16th, and then he saw -- Springer saw Defendant Davis again about a day before Thanksgiving of 1969, so this is now -- after the Shorty Shea murders, after the Tate-LaBianca murders. About November 25th in Venice, a few doors from the Straight Satan's Clubhouse in Venice, and at that time, Thanksgiving of 1969 was when the Beausoleil trial for the murder of Gary Hinman was going on and that Danny DeCarlo, at that time, had just testified for the prosecution in this case. Present in that house on Clubhouse Drive in Venice were Mark Ross, the defendant, Bruce Davis, Alan Springer and a couple of girls. At that time, Inmate Davis showed Springer, a copy of the Santa Monica Evening Outlook Newspaper and in particular an article in which that paper, an article in that paper which reported the testimony of Danny DeCarlo at the Beausoleil trial and from the testimony of Alan Springer, and I'm going to quote now: "Question: Now, after Bruce Davis showed you the Santa Monica Evening Outlook article on DeCarlo's testimony on the Beausoleil trial, what did you say, if anything? Ans -- quote, I said I didn't like the idea of him testifying. Question: And did Mr. Davis rely to that? Answer: He said yes." This is -- and then Bruce Davis then went on to say: "Yes, we will have to something about that. Question: And what, if anything, did you say to that? I told him -- I said it would be kind of hard to do because Danny is a biker brother. Question: When you said that, what, if anything, did Mr. Davis say? Answer: He says, 'Well, they've got ways of taking care of snitches. They have already taken care of one.' He says, "We cut his arms, legs, and head off and buried him on the ranch." Question: Did Mr. Davis say anything about that person? Answer: He said the guy was a snitch and he was an alcoholic and he drank so much that they were afraid he was going to go to the police with information, so they done away with him. They cut his arms, legs, and head off, and they buried him on the ranch." This is the inmate's direct statements from the trial, quite a while after the murder of Shorty Shea and in reference to killing a witness against Bobby Beausoleil, one of his crime partners. Now, this is the allegiance that this man has to the Manson family, and this allegiance, you know, continues to today's date, and I'll go through that as well. When Bruce Davis was arrested, basically, it was a part of a deal so that his girlfriend wouldn't be arrested. He wasn't charged, initially, with the Shorty Shea murder. He was charged with the Hinman murder. In any event, he was tried, and he was convicted of both of these crimes. The trial judge, at the time of his sentencing, indicated he showed absolutely no remorse for this crime. Now, the inmate has told you that after he was convicted and he went to prison, he had an enlightening. He had an awakening in approximately 1974, but I want to point out a couple of aspects of his psychological evaluations after he entered prison, which is also very interesting. When he entered prison in 1973, under the initial report, his religion was written down as Buddhist. His other activities were written down exercise program, reads books on Scientology, Dianetics and other works by Ron Hubbard. So, clearly, this inmate's fascination with religion, his fascination with philosophy continued when he came to prison; and, of course, we all know about his religion conversion to Christianity. But here's the interesting aspect about this inmate's statements, and most of it's reflected in the 2006 transcript of his hearing between pages 86 and 107. I asked him a number of questions about that. He indicated at that hearing that he had this epiphany in 19 -- a few years after he came to prison in 1974 at Folsom, and then after that point, he accepted what he had done, he, in himself, felt responsible for the crimes, and he was going to change his life. He stopped using drugs at that time in prison is another statement he made, and I asked him, well, if you would have accepted responsibility for 1974 for your crime, then why did you consider -- why did you continue to appeal your case? And his only response, and you can read it in the transcript was, well -- he really didn't have an answer for that at first because his appeals didn't end until 1980. And all he could come up with, in the end, he says, "Well, I still wanted to get out of prison." And then he goes off to say, "Well, you know, the jury that convicted me was a death qualified jury, and that wasn't right." And the reason that it was is that in the middle of the trial, the death penalty was ruled unconstitutional. So they started off the trial by seeking the death penalty, but it was ruled unconstitutional. So, that's why he received the sentence of life in prison whereas all the other Manson family members who had been convicted -- most of them -- the major players were all convicted and given the death penalty, which was subsequently commuted to life with the possibility of parole. But, in any event, his explanation was that he still wanted to get out of jail. Now, that shows that back then if he thinks that, you know, serving maybe five or six years for a couple of murders is sufficient time, then there's something seriously wrong with this inmate's thinking, this inmate's willingness to accept responsibility for the crime. Also, it was reflected in the psychological reports as well, even up until 1980, this inmate wouldn't even name his crime partners, and the reason he wouldn't name his crime partners is because he's wanted to protect their rights on appeal. Well, in 1980, all of the appeals were over and done with. Everybody had been sentenced. Yet, this inmate still had an allegiance to the family. He still had an allegiance to his crime partners. He wouldn't mention -- and it even says in the psychological evaluation that he wasn't going to say anything to them about any of their crime partners without their written position. That is the allegiance and that the association that he has with them and still has with them. Now, I asked him a couple of questions about Dennis Rice, so here's the background in Mr. Rice. One the key witnesses in the case against Bruce Davis and the other Manson family members was Barbara Hoyt. Dennis Rice was convicted of an attempt to kill Barbara Hoyt. Basically, he drove Barbara Hoyt to the airport, and what had happened was two of the -- two of the Manson girls, basically, they lured Barbara Hoyt to Hawaii, put her up in a penthouse suite in a Hawaii hotel to keep her away from testifying at the trial so she wouldn't come back. While she was there, they laced a hamburger that she was eating with acid in an attempt to kill her. She became very sick. She stumbled down the street and luckily for her was actually found by somebody who was a drug counselor who immediately took her to the hospital. She recovered from -- from the overdose of LSD, she came back, and she testified. That's reflected in her letter when she talks about the inmate's connection with Dennis Rice. Dennis Rice was not a minor player. True, he wasn't a co-defendant with this defendant, but he was involved in not only a plot to do away with Barbara Hoyt, who was a key witness against this inmate, but she was also -- but he was also convicted of a shoot-out at a Hawthorne gun store where Dennis Rice and a couple other Manson family members broke into the gun store to steal weapons so that they could break Charlie Manson out of the jail in Los Angeles. They got into a shoot- out with the police. They were arrested and convicted, and Dennis Rice went to prison. Dennis Rice went to prison. He also had the similar conversion to Inmate Davis and found Jesus, just like Tex Watson, and that's another instance of the inmate continuing his association with Manson family members. So, Dennis Rice is recent. I mean, if you look on the website, Manson to Jesus dot com, there are links to Bruce Davis's religious writings. There are links to Tex Watson and also Catherine Share, also known as Gypsy, another Manson family member who's found Jesus. While in prison at San Luis Obispo, Inmate Davis, and I asked him a number of questions about that also at the 2006 hearing, when he stopped his associations, and he downplayed his association with Tex Watson at CMC. He and Tex Watson were running the chapel at CMC. They were both teaching and preaching and holding services at the same chapel. This is the same Tex Watson who's been convicted of eight or nine murders. His crime partner in the -- in the Shorty Shea murders and, of course, major participant in the Tate-LaBianca murders. The two of them were very close at CMC. In fact, they're very close -- their wives even knew each other. They met through each other, and I believe, and if I'm wrong Mr. Davis can correct me. I believe that one of them was even the best man at the other's wedding. Now, Tex Watson was transferred in 1992 from CMC, and that should be reflected in the file because I did see one of the complaint letters from an inmate, and the reason he was transferred is because inmates at CMC were complaining about the way this inmate, Bruce Davis and Tex Watson were running the chapel hearings. They felt it was inappropriate, and there were complaints, and so Tex Watson was finally transferred from CMC. All of this points to an inmate who, although he claims to be minimally involved, claims to have no association with the Manson clan or has stopped his associations; yet, here are his writings on websites pertaining to the Manson family members. And in reviewing the entire thick packet, and I could go through a number of other instances, but if you look in particular to the psychological evaluations and the most recent one being low to-moderate risk and the 2003, of course, even mentions the cruelty to animals and the setting of fires which, I don't believe is reflected in any other psychological evaluations, and I believe those are a couple of the indicators of anti-social personality disorder. You have an individual who has continued to minimize his involvement in the crime, and the frustration at the last hearing was quite clear in the transcript where he was upset that he was denied and he said, "What is this? Life without? And that theme has been consistent with this inmate. There is a -- a sense of entitlement -- a sense of entitlement to be paroled. This inmate thinks that he has done everything that anybody could want. Of course, he's done some college courses. He's got a degree in theology, which is not surprising because, number one, he's smart enough to do it. He was in college before he joined the Manson clan. And, secondly, he's had a life-long fascination for religion, whether it be Scientology, whether it be Buddhism, whether it be helter skelter, whether it be Christian, and you would think that after all those years that possibly he would turn himself in a different direction, that he would look -- look to supplement and make himself suitable by completely distancing himself from all ties with these horrible crimes and his association, but he hasn't, and, you know, we've gone back and forth through the last three hearings with Mr. -- Mr. Davis, where he talks a little bit about the crime, doesn't want to answer the question about the crime, and all of this only points to one thing. He continues to hide and minimize. I think even when he was talking about his drug -- his drug -- his drug usage. He said, well, I didn't want to sell because I knew that would be of a bigger consequence to me than using. There's -- they're a problem with this twisted logic, and the twisted logic is that he continually thinks that it's okay to do some things, and it's not okay to do others. And that lies -- therein lies the problem with this inmate. There is something about this inmate that caused him, as was brought out from one of the questions, embark and embrace this concept of starting a race war and committing violence to achieve a greater purpose, but isn't that essentially what he's saying when he talks about his religion? You know, everything is a greater purpose and true he's talking about Christianity, I'm not trying to cast any aspersions or any criticism of Christianity, but the fact that he -- he says everything is a higher purpose is exactly what he was embracing with helter skelter. This was a higher purpose. Charlie Manson was God. Charlie Manson was Jesus Christ. Alternately he called himself Satan. This was a quasi religious group. So, there's been no real change for Mr. Davis. It was the quasi religious group that brought him to prison. He's now tried to turn that into a more socially acceptable undertaking, but the bottom line is is that it still doesn't take away from the fact that he refuses to accept full responsibility for his crime, and he's done that in a number of ways by refusing to answer questions, answering some questions in the past, lying, different versions, all of that's very clear throughout his history, in the transcripts and in his record and his responses. And, for that reason, it is virtually impossible for this Panel, because of his lack of discussion in a lot of those areas, merely determining what kind of true level of remorse this inmate has. In fact, that's even reflected in a number of psychological evaluations where they claim that he has no remorse, where they even claim that he appears to be completely unwilling or unthinking, and so I think when the Panel looks at the enormity of the crime, the circumstances surrounding the crime, this inmate's participation and continued participation in this concept with this group of criminals, and his inconsistent statements, it's quite clear that this inmate has been lying. He's been lying for quite some time. He continues to lie, and he continues to manipulate in the hopes that he will be given a parole date, and I would ask you to evaluate all of the evidence, both the positive aspects of his programming, but especially the negative aspects and his unwillingness to accept responsibility for the crime and his minimizations of his involvement with the Manson family and as a leader in that criminal organization. For all those reasons, I would ask that the Panel deny parole at this time but also because of the significance of -- of not only his continued involvement with people like Dennis Rice but also his most recent psychological evaluations and his responses today, to make it a multiple-year denial and at least a two-year denial. I don't find that this inmate is anywhere close to being eligible for parole, and I would ask that the Panel make it a multiple-year denial and a minimum of two years. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Beckman, please.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Well, the only person that's been lying today before this Panel is the District Attorney.

COMMISSIONER KANE: Can barely hear you.

ACTING CHAIRMAN BRYSON: Sir, we could not hear you.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: As we go along, but first, I'm going to have -- before I begin my remarks, I've going to have to refute some of the statements that he made concerning my client's role in the Manson family. I'm going to ask you to take a look in your packets at the District Attorney's brief of Bruce Davis's appeal, the statement of facts. Not one word in the statement of facts or any other portion of that brief does it say that Bruce Davis was anything other than a follower of this family. Now, if you're attempting to demonstrate that someone deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison and you believe that he was one the key men in this family, you think that you would be mentioning that prominently in that brief, but it doesn't. If the District Attorney here had one ounce of proof that Mr. Davis had a leadership position in the Manson family, he'd be pointing you to the relevant pages from the trial transcripts. There's nothing. He had nothing. There was nothing in these trial transcripts that said it at all. Since he sees fit to give you hearsay upon hearsay, I'm going to have to respond. I'm going to respond with some quotes from the book Helter Skelter by Vincent Bugliosi, B-U-G-L-I-O-S-I, who was the lead attorney, District Attorney on these cases, particularly Tate- LaBianca.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: He was not the prosecutor on Bruce Davis's case. Let the record reflect that.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Let the record reflect that Mr. Sequeira has made his closing, and I'd request that he not interrupt me again. Mr. Bugliosi was talking to a witness name Greg about Manson's domination of the family: "As with others I interviewed, I asked Greg for examples of Manson's domination. Greg gave me one of the best I'd yet found. He said he'd had dinner with the family on three occasions. Each time, Manson sat alone on the top of a large rock, the other members of the family sitting on the ground in a circle around them. Question: Did Tex Watson ever get up on the rock? Answer: No, of course not. Question: Did anyone else in the family get up there? Answer: Only Charlie." Further along: "Paul Watkins, who's also known as Tex, who often acted as Manson's second in command." Further along, talking about Squeaky Fromme: "The latter was on a power trip acting as Manson's unofficial spokesman, running the family in his absence." I spoke with Mr. Bugliosi about a month ago. I asked him about Bruce Davis's involvement in the family. He said he had no specific recollection of Bruce Davis being involved with anything. He said, and I'll state this directly, there were over 20,000 pages of trial transcript testimony given at the Tate-LaBianca trials. Bruce Davis was not mentioned once. Does it make sense that he was the leader of this group or one of the leaders of this group, he wouldn't have gone out on their crown jewel crime. I'm not saying he didn't want to be one of leaders of the group. He wanted Charles Manson's acceptance, but he wasn't, nobody led that group except Charles Manson. That is abundantly clear. I'm going to incorporate by reference my closing arguments at the '06 and '07 hearings so we don't have to go through them again, and I'm going to keep my remarks brief. We are a nation of laws and constitutional rights. Those laws and rights apply equally to everyone. When anyone, including District Attorneys and members of the Board of Parole Hearings is allowed with impunity to break the law or violate someone's constitutional rights, we cease to be a nation of laws and rights and become a nation of law breakers and vigilantes. Your -- I have to step back for one second again. Mr. Sequeira requested a multi-year denial in this case. This is not a new -- this is not a Subsequent Parole Hearing. The sole purpose here today is to determine whether or not to uphold Commissioner Mejia's granting of parole to Bruce Davis in 2006 or Commissioner Davis's one-year denial of parole in 2006. That's it. Nothing else is even on the table today. Your decision to uphold Commissioner Mejia's grant of parole to Bruce Davis or to affirm Commissioner Davis's denial will determine whether or not this Board views itself as law abiding. Because my client was involved with the infamous Charles Manson, it is going to take courage to apply the law fairly and honestly and give him the parole grant he has been owed for over 20 years. In fact, lack of courage is really why we are here today. After the 2006 split decision hearing was adjourned, as I was walking out of the room, I heard Commissioner Davis remark, "Hasn't this guy ever heard of a writ?" He knew my client deserves a parole date, but he didn't have the courage to give it to him, so he punted, leaving it to my client's wife to, among other things, cash out their daughter's college fund to raise money to obtain his freedom in court. That is not the way the system is supposed to work. Vigilantism, even as an act of moral cowardice, has no part in our nation of laws and constitutional rights. A few weeks ago, the California Supreme Court in re Lawrence affirmed what the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals and many California Courts of Appeals have been telling this Board for years, life term inmates have a liberty interest in parole protected by the due process clauses of the California and United States constitutions, which is violated by repeated denials of parole based upon the unchanging historical factors of the life crime, the inmate's prior criminal and unstable social history, thereby converting sentences of life with possibility to life without possibility of parole. Noting that under Penal Code Section 3041, parole is the rule, not the exception. The court stated: "The statutory and regulatory mandate to normally grant parole to life prisoners who have committed murder means that particularly after these prisoners have served their suggested base terms, the underlying circumstances of the commitment offense alone rarely will provide a valid basis for denying parole when there is strong evidence of rehabilitation and no other evidence of current dangerousness." Federal courts have held that the liberty into is violated and ordered inmates serving just a few years past their base term to be released after Board Panels had denied parole three, four, five, and six times, based solely or primarily on the unchanging historical factors. What would these courts in our Supreme Court make of this case where Bruce Davis reached his base term over 30 years ago and has to date been denied 21 times based solely upon the life crime and other unchanging historical factors and will be denied a 22nd time if the Board upholds Commissioner Davis's vote to deny him parole yet again, 22 times based solely upon the life crime, where Commissioner Davis conceded that the evidence is overwhelming that Bruce Davis has rehabilitated himself and no longer poses any threat to society. And when my client asked him at the hearing what he could do to make himself more ready for parole, Commissioner Davis did not because he could not give him an answer. In this instance, to ask the question is to answer it. A clear violation of a liberty -- protected liberty interest of a life inmate's in parole likely does not exist. Even if the Board could conceivably be empowered to deny him 22 times based solely upon the life crime, it may only do so if the facts of the life crime provide a sound basis for predicting future violence. Again, as the Supreme Court held in Lawrence: "It is not the circumstance that the crime is particularly egregious that make a prisoner unsuitable for parole. It is the implication concerning future dangerousness that derives from the prisoner having committed that crime. Because the parole decision represents a prospective view, essentially a prediction concerning the future and reflects an uncertain conclusion, rarely, if ever, will the existence of a single, isolated fact in the record evaluated in a vacuum, suffice to support or refute that decision. Accordingly, we conclude that although the Board and the governor may rely upon the aggravated circumstances of the commitment offense as a basis for the decision denying parole, the aggravating nature of the crime does not, in and of itself, provide some evidence of current dangerousness to the public. Unless the record also establishes that something in the prisoner's pre or post-incarceration history or his current demeanor and mental state indicates that the implications regarding the prisoner's dangerousness that derive from his or her commission of the commitment offense remain probative to the statutory determination of a continuing threat to public safety. Absent affirmative evidence of a change in the prisoner's demeanor and mental state, the circumstances of the commitment offense may continue to be probative of the prisoner's dangerousness for some time in the future. At some point, however, when there is affirmative evidence based upon the prisoner's subsequent behavior and current mental state that the prisoner, if released, would not currently be dangerousness, his or her past offense may no longer realistically constitute a reliable or accurate indicator of the prisoner's current dangerousness. The suitability factors clearly establish that the statutes contemplate the consideration of an inmate's rehabilitation of an integral element of parole suitability determination and that a determination of current threat posed by an inmate necessarily involves consideration of the inmate's post-conviction conduct and mental state as it relates to his -- his or her current ability to function within the law if released from prison. A continued reliance on the future on an unchanging factor, the circumstance of the offense, and conduct prior to imprisonment runs contrary to the rehabilitative goals as passed by the prison system and could result in a due process violation." I want you to note that in the District Attorney's over one-hour suitability argument, not once, other than to comment that my client has corresponded with another minister, who happened to be another member of the family, did not say one fact or factor from after 1980 in arguing that my client deserves to be continued to be kept in prison. That is not the law. There is no nexus here. The glaring injustice of the situation is magnified exponentially by the fact that my client was not the killer of either Gary Hinman or Shorty Shea. Because his role in the life crime was minimal, and his conduct did not aggravate them, use of the crime to deny him parole is prohibited by the California Supreme Court because it would result in the same suitability determination for all participants to the life crime. That's the California Supreme Court in 1975 in re Rodriguez. Determination of parole must be based on the offender's culpability as well as on the offense itself "to make the punishment fit the criminal rather than the crime." Put it another way, the overall facts of a life crime cannot demonstrate present unsuitability for parole. Only my client's actual conduct during the crimes could do so and because his role was minimal and contrary to what the District Attorney said, there is no evidence whatsoever in this record that it was anything other than exactly as he said it was. He's never denied that he had a gun. He's never denied that he drove the car to Gary Hinman's murder. He's never denied that he was present at Shorty Shea's murder and that he stabbed him in the shoulder. He's not denied any of it, but he wasn't the killer. So, because of that, there's no nexus between the crimes and his present suitability. Even if you deemed his conduct to be aggravated, there is no nexus. Through aging, maturity, and impeccable prison programming, my client has accepted full responsibility for and developed genuine insight into remorse for his participation in the life crimes. He's demonstrated insight into this crime as far back as 1988, and I'm going to quote from the psychological evaluation done by the psychiatric council in 1988, page 5. "The council agrees and views Mr. Davis as a -- as an individual who was worked hard to direct himself on his behavior in a socially acceptable manner. He appears as an individual who's become deeply involved in asserting himself towards socially acceptable behavior. In terms of addressing his involvement with the so-called Manson family and the commitment offense, Mr. Davis has demonstrate a willingness to address specific issues and circumstances. The council feels he has explored the commitment offense and the underlying causes to participation in various therapy groups and has reached an optimal level of understanding." Fast forward to the psychological evaluation of August, 1999. "Mr. Davis has basic insight into the causative factors of the commitment offense, which would include not thinking through any consequence and just proceeding through life in a step-by-step manner, primarily concerned with drugs, sex, in a sense acceptance and approval by the Manson family. As I noted in my previous report in 1997, he apparently was an emotionally vacant individual with a meager selfconcept and a lack of internalized values and his desire for approval and fellowship in the Manson family was strong enough to make him disregard whatever weak values he possessed." It's repeated in 2006. Look at pages 2 and 3, talk about the depth of his insight. If you review the transcript of the 2006 hearing, it also shows a wealth of insight. As is shown by his recent psychological evaluation and older psych evaluations, there is no serious mental or psychiatric issue that would render him a risk to society. Go back to the 1989 psych evaluation, look at page 2, look at the psychological evaluation of 1999, page 2, and look at the most recent psych evaluation, there is no Axis I diagnosis. There is no Axis II diagnosis. Just quoting from the '06, first page: "Mr. Davis showed up for his appointment on time and was cooperative to the assessment process. Hygiene was adequate and clothing was appropriate for weather conditions. There was no evidence of a primary psychiatric diagnosis on Axis I. He was oriented to person, place, and date. Eye contact was within normal limits as were speech, rate, rhythm, tone and volume. Thought process was logical, goal-oriented, and reality based. He did not appear to be responding to internal stimuli. There were no indications of gross impairment or acute distress." In other words, he has a psychiatric clean bill of health. I would argue that the evaluation of 2006, a low moderate is a favorable psychological evaluation, but it doesn't matter. Many, many prior psychological evaluations found him to be a low risk of violence. It was testing that was done and every single instance that raised those ratings from low was based on historical factors that can never change. Use of them at this point is prohibited by the California Supreme Court in re Lawrence. Further, prior to counselor risk ratings being stopped, Bruce Davis's last five lifer evaluations, going back as far as 1993, found him to be a low risk of violence if paroled. Bruce Davis has now served 38 years of a seven to life sentence. Incarceration that extends well beyond the matrix for this life crime for the actual killers. Steve Grogan, one of the actual killers, was paroled over 20 years ago. As held by the California Supreme Court in re Dannenberg: "No prisoner can be held for a period grossly disproportionate to his individual culpability for the commitment offense. Such excessive confinement violates the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the California constitution. Thus, we acknowledge that Penal Code Section 3041 cannot authorize such an inmate's retention, even for reasons of public safety beyond the constitutional maximum period of confinement." I respectfully submit that the 38 years Mr. Davis has served places him far beyond this constitutional maximum period of confinement. That Bruce Davis has rehabilitated himself to the point where he no longer poses a danger to society is clear. So, to deny him parole based upon the life crime will violate his constitutional rights. This is not a matter of opinion. It is black and white fact. Bruce Davis killed nobody. There is no question he's rehabilitated himself in prison and poses no threat to society upon release. He has served a prison term that exceeds that prescribed for serial killers and child rapists. Last August 20th, I spoke with District Attorney Jeff Jonas, who has been involved for many years with the Manson family parole hearings. He gave me permission to quote him. He said, "Of all the Manson defendants --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, I'm going to -- I'm going to object because that is not -- Mr. Jonas doesn't speak on behalf of the District Attorney's office and his personal opinion is completely irrelevant, and I can go into more detail as to why Mr. Jonas was taken off the case, but I think that it's --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: No. I'm going to let him go ahead and do it. We'll --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Commissioner, let me just state the District Attorney is prohibited from giving this Panel legal advice. He has no basis for making any objections. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: I'm ready to let you proceed.

INMATE DAVIS: Okay. Of all the Manson defendants he's met, "Bruce Davis is the most viable candidate for parole and compared to Tex Watson and the Manson girls in prison, Bruce Davis is a saint." Commissioner Davis's denial cannot be upheld. The sole basis for it was the aggravated nature of the life crime. He did not find that my client's conduct was aggravated or that he lacks insight or that he has a serious psychological condition that might render him dangerous to society if you released. Conversely, Commissioner Mejia specifically found that my client has insight and his granting of parole to my client has to be upheld as a matter of law. I don't envy you the task you have here. Doing the right thing here will undoubtedly evoke a public outrage. That's what the law is for. The law is to guard against -- to do the right thing no matter how difficult it may be. This is a difficult thing to do but not as a matter of law. As a matter of law, there's no question what has to happen here today. My client has spent 38 years in prison for this. He has rehabilitated himself. He has insight into this crime, into why it happened, and why it won't happen again. He has a loving family to go home to. It's time he's allowed to do so. Please affirm Commissioner Mejia's grant of parole to Bruce Davis. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Davis, this is your opportunity to speak to the Panel on your parole suitability.

INMATE DAVIS: Thank you. I've been through this several times, and it never gets easy, and I'm always really moved by the District Attorney has a profile and a picture of the situation and my lawyer has a picture of it too, and it's like at the end of the hearing that we're talking about now. When Commissioner Mejia gave his reasons for granting parole and read all the laudatory material, I felt -- I mean, he was describing kind of put it in a word that Jeff Jonas used, here was a regular saint the way Mejia wrote it down. Read it, I thought wow. Then, Mr. Davis comes along and paints just the opposite picture, and it shows us that everybody's argument sounds good until somebody cross-examines it. But Mr. Davis produced another picture, and if I had to make an independent judgment, I would canonize one and shoot the other one. What could you do if both of these people are telling the truth? It's like they're talking about two different people. Well, we all know that they're not talking about two different people. They're talking about two different points of view. And I want to talk about my point of view just for a moment. I want to talk about two things, basically, why did I get involved with Charlie Manson? And what have I done now to assure myself and everybody else that I am not a threat to public safety? There's a great joy in my future and in my life right now because of the factors we're going to get into, but in this world, the joy we find always has a tear, and it's -- it has a falleness and a sinfulness and a criminality, a bestiality that it's hardly describable by anyone. We all feel the effects of it, but still -- it's still hard to really boil down to words. And I appreciate you, ma'am, for bringing this hard point about me and my dad because it's -- it is a -- a -- a hinge A issue. It's a watershed. But I met my father when I was five. He came home from a foreign job in Saudi Arabia. I felt like he treated me like a stranger or an intruder, and I suppose that, in reality, I was intruding between my mom and, from my point of view, a stranger who showed up, and from his point of view, his wife that he had been away from for two years and this young guy that thinks he's supposed to belong here. I can understand that, but he -- he let me know in many ways that I was just a part of the unwanted baggage that was around. I felt unwelcome in his presence. He never seemed pleased with what I did. Yeah, he taught me how to weld. Thank God he did, and I'll always be glad he did, and he showed me how to work, and that was his contribution to my life. The other part of his contribution was that I couldn't be good enough. I wasn't good enough. He would even talk about me in front of other people about how bad I was. And growing up with this 7, 8, 9, 10 years old, you know, I always tried to figure out what is wrong with me? What is wrong with me because children believe their parents are like God and they're parents cannot be wrong, and if something's wrong, it's their fault. We -- we find kids all the time who blame themselves because their parents divorce. If I'd have just been a better kid, if I just hadn't done this or done more of that, they would have been okay. Well, I fell into the same thing. I tried to figure out what was wrong with me. A time came, I don't know. I was 12 or 13. The love-hate relationship I had with my dad broke on the side of hate from my point of view. I hated the way he treated me. I loved him. I wanted to please him. I wasn't able to, and frustration and fear that nothing was going to change, I -- I made a decision to just say, I don't care what it feels like. I'm not going to deal with it. I don't care what you feel, and I didn't want to feel his disapproval anymore. I didn't want to feel his wrath. Now, there have been comments, and I've made them, and I've said my dad, he gave me pretty severe whippings. I will say this, he never broke the skin of my body. I never bled. I never had a bruise on the outside. I think the inside would look a little different. Well, finally, I gave up, and I decided not to care anymore. For the next 12 years, I took the path of least resistance. I just wanted to be out of the way. I really didn't care what the big picture, I had no big picture. I wasn't thinking very much. I was not contemplating the future. I knew I had to make a living. I knew I had to be away, so thank goodness that the welding and metal trades that he taught me, it kept me in work, and I was able to do a job. All this time, I just had the idea that I was just looking out for myself. I had become kind of a -- a survivor type that it was just me now, and I was walking around sort of a couple of feet behind my body just in defense of everything, completely fearful. When I was growing up, when the emotional level in my family would start getting high, it was always on a negative thing. And what always followed the high emotional level was pain, and I didn't know -- and I came to the place where I feared that it would never stop, or I had no hope of it stopping, and I'm sure that at a young age a person is not very analytical about this. He's not thinking it over. He's not looking in a book to find out. I was unequipped to deal with what was coming at me. My mother loved me, probably too much. She tried to protect me, but it was very -- there wasn't -- it didn't work out very well. Finally --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Mr. Davis, I'm going to interrupt you for a second.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: You're given us an awful lots of history that we've already got. What we're interested if today is what makes you a suitable candidate for parole as you're sitting before us today.

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I appreciate your interruption, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: So -- I'm not posing that as an interruption, Mr. Davis.

INMATE DAVIS: I'm sorry.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: I'm posing it as direction. Thank you -- thank you, sir. I'm sorry. That was uncalled for.

INMATE DAVIS: When I met Charlie, the first thing that was attracted me was all these girls around him, and then how they really liked him, and then when he invited me into the circle, he treated me with friendship and respect, and he looked so different than what I saw the other night on TV, an old man all scraggily and scruffy and looked like a bomb. When I first saw him, he was handsome and debonair and articulate and a good musician, and had the kind of things that I liked. He could play music, and he was in control, and he wasn't fussing at me, and was giving me -- the things I needed at that time. I got involved in these crimes. I am absolutely guilty. I wish -- I see now that if I had done the right thing in the first one -- in the first case, the Tate-LaBianca wouldn't have even happened if I had done the right thing. I didn't do it. I was more interested in my -- my friends or being accepted. I was more interested in staying on the nice side of a person that I would not refuse. That's what I was interested in. I was cold. I was -- I was uncaring. Anything that was said about who I was at that time, that's probably could be an understatement. I was -- it was bad, and I did not care. Within a year after Mr. Shea's murder, I turned myself in. I was under indictment. I was on the run. There came a time, and here's the joyful part came right here. Something clicked in me that said turn -- you're going to turn yourself in. I didn't believe I was thinking that, but I knew it was true, and I told one the girls, you know, I'm going to turn myself in. They looked at me like, after all we've been through to keep you out, and you're going to do this. And I said, "Yeah." And she said, "Well, let's see if we can get something out of it." We'll get a few cases dropped here and there. So, I said, okay. And, December 1st, 1970, I showed up on the courthouse, in front of the courthouse LA. I didn't know why I was doing this really, but there I was. Two years later, 1972, I was in Folsom -- I came to Folsom Prison. I was on the line in Folsom for two years. 1974, one day in the middle of a dope deal, God spoke to my mind. I didn't know it was God. It was a completely alien thought that says, "You will never get high again." It hit me like a ton of bricks. I thought I must be having a terrible day. I hope they get here quick. I'll already having weird thoughts. Well, my friends, my associates showed up with the hashish and out of mouth came, "You can have mine." I couldn't believe what -- I felt like Dr. Strangelove who couldn't get control of his arm. I couldn't believe it, but then I -- I felt good. A little later, I saw all of these associates I had, and we're all out on the yard, and all of a sudden I could see the death and the terrible things that they were all doing or thinking about, or bragging on, like I had. I was riding the car. But all of a sudden, I could see the death, and it scared me the first time in my life. The first time I ever went cold in my guts from fear. I could see the death and the things that I had participated in and chosen and gone along with and didn't care, and I can see it. And I said, "Oh, God, what's going on?" He said, "This is what you chose, and this is the results." And I said for the first time in my adult life, I mean, I didn't know I was talking to God. I just -- I was just having a strange experience, and I remember I looked up at him and I said, "I really need help." And I wasn't joking. The first time, I used to joke that I needed help, but I didn't really think much was available, but I knew I did. A few days later, by -- by God incidents, I say, I was reading a -- somebody gave me a -- I'm going to do that. Somebody gave me a book. I thought it was science fiction. I was into science fiction. I didn't want anything to do with the reality I had to face here in this joint, and it turned out to be a book called The Late Great Planet Earth. And about the time I snapped this was not a science fiction book, I got ready to throw it out the bars and that voice says, "This says to be help. This claims to be help. Read it, and then throw it away if it's no good." So, I read it. And it talked to me about the claim of Jesus. Well, I didn't want to hear it because it -- it just -- it was overwhelming. It made me too raw. It made me too guilty. I didn't want to hear it. I feared that I could never -- I could never pass the test here. Finally, I said, "Okay, God, whatever it is you do, I'm ready." And he started to change the way I feel in my mind. The light came on. That was the thing that took me way away from the position of facing a future where I'm a threat to public -- to public safety. I -- I could see what I'd done and I turned away. Speaking to the racial issue that the gentleman brought up, I was standing on the yard one day, and there was a gentleman there named Bad News. And he was a black man. He got stabbed and killed right around the corner. I didn't actually see it happen, but I heard it, and we were standing right under a tower when it happened. I walk around and looked, and here's this man lying in a pool of blood. I mean, in a pool of blood, and for the first time, I saw the enormity of my crime. I saw the blood. And it was -- it was more shocking than I had ever -- I had never seen it like that before, and I began to be upset for his parents. All of a sudden, here I am, a so-called white guy upset about the death of a black guy, and tears are coming out of my eyes, and I'm worried about his parents, his parents. And -- and I said, well, I don't feel that way. That's not me. I'm glad to get rid of this -- and you can imagine what I said. That will be one more we don't have to fool with. But after the tears came back and the concern for his family was there again, and I -- and I rejected that again, and I said, but he's one of those -- those, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah. And, again, it came back. And finally the lord spoke to me. He said, "I'm changing you. You're not that person you used to be." And from that point -- from that point, I have never -- I have never been a racist of any kind, any kind because I know Jesus saved me for something bigger than that. So, that's when -- a light came on that day, a big light. I spent six more years at Folsom. I walked the line in Folsom for the rest of the '70's, and I knew the lord, and I was being --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Mr. Davis I'm going to have to draw you back again. You're -- you're giving us a lot of interesting history.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: But the essence again, the person that's --

INMATE DAVIS: So, why not today.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: -- sitting before us today --


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: -- what makes you a suitable candidate for parole.

INMATE DAVIS: What makes me a suitable candidate for parole today is that my life has changed, that the things that have changed me are the lord. My wife -- when my wife came into the picture, another great light came on. God sent someone to -- I was involved in the psych programs, all in CMC during the -- during the '80's, and we had drug rehabilitation programs. We had anger management. We had reality therapy. We had -- you game it. We had Gestalt therapy. We had all kinds of things, and when I first got into it, I was sent up there to do this, and when I first hit it, and when I first got into the first groups, I didn't like it because they were very demanding, and they wanted me to come out and be what was really real, and I wasn't ready for that. But, you know, and Mr. Hessell (sp), I mean, he wrote the report, and he was very insightful. And I remember it today, but let me tell you, I knew that there was something about this stuff that was good, but I didn't like the -- it was very uncomfortable. But the people I was associated with when I came to CMC, those people were very different than in Folsom. It was a whole different world, and the people I began to respect, they were in these psych groups, and they were the ones who were saying, you know, this is good, and they were Christians, and they were saying, hey, do this. The lord's going to help you with this, so I started doing it --


INMATE DAVIS: My wife comes along --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Mr. Davis, I want you to listen to your attorney for a moment because each time we caution you, you go right back where we don't want you to go.

INMATE DAVIS: Well, you know, it's hard not to tell the story. We've -- we've gone through a lot of changes to get to this point.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: I appreciate you've got an interesting story, but listen to the --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: (Indiscernible).

INMATE DAVIS: Okay. All right.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Just go right to the end. Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: Well, what makes me so safe and such a good citizen today is this. I have a family. I have a wife. Came out of the blue. But, boy, she's been good to me. She will not take a half measure. She was trained in the airlines, and she goes by the rules, and she wants me by the rules, and I'm learning what that -- and I'm coming to that, and I'm learning it. And I'm -- I'm surrendering to that all the time. And we've been married 23 years now, and I'm going to go out there and be the husband she deserves, and the one that she needs, and my -- I've got a daughter 15 years old. And I'm going to go out there and be the dad that she really needs, and she deserves everything from me. We brought her into this world. She's never known anything but a dad in prison. It's sad to say that's normal for her, or at least it's average. I'm going to go out there. I'm going to go to work for Mr. Kenny. I'm going to do the job that he sets before me. I'm going to become involved in -- in all kinds of -- in the prevention of crime with kids. I'm going to be a part of my community. I'm going to be a community guy. I'm going to be out there promoting peace and safety. I'm going to be there. That's who I'm going to be. My long range terms is to help prevent these kids -- we have, and you know this, we have a generation of barbarians. They don't even though that truth exists. They doubt it -- that it even exists.


INMATE DAVIS: I want to turn their heads. I get letters every day -- not every day, every week. I get letters every week from people that think, oh, I bet Charlie is so cool. I sit on my track and I tell them the bait is sweeter than the hook. This will kill you. I'm turning them around. That's what I'm going to do. I am not a danger in any way, shape or form.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Good. Thank you.

INMATE DAVIS: Thank you very much.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Okay. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Davis. All right. It is now approximately 5:05 p.m. The Panel will reconvene in the Board room which is across the hall and we'll render a decision and we'll return.



COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. We are back on record. The time is 6:20.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: All right. This is in the Bruce Davis matter, CDC number B, boy, 41079. Mr. Davis, the Panel's reviewed all information received from the public and all relevant information that was before us today in concluding unanimously that you're not suitable for parole and would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society or a threat to public safety if released from prison. The finding of the unsuitability is based on weighing the considerations provided in the California Code of Regulations Title 15. The Panel noted that the past and present mental state and the past and present attitude toward the crime does weigh heavily against a finding of suitability in that the indication from the Panel is that you minimize your conduct by blaming your father, assigning your role at the crime as a minor, the minimization of your 115 and that you continue to represent yourself as a follower, "such as a didn't kill anyone and I was emotionally hooked on the family atmosphere." Also noted that you continue to maintain a minor role, such as a delivery man in spite of the fact that you did provide the weapon that was used to hold Mr. Hinman while he was assaulted by Manson. The Panel also notes that your unstable social history weighs heavily against a consideration of suitability in that you participated in cult-like behavior that was designed to terrorize individuals in the community and that the record is replete with information about problematic relationships with parents, siblings and others and that you blamed your father. The Panel noted the comments from your sister and also noted the comments concerning the overprotective mother. The Panel noted your drug and alcohol use and under the category of other, the Panel noted that the behavior of killing fowl, specifically the ducks and the burning of the barn and that the previous psych found you to be cold and that the Panel, of course, also is concerned that you are using the ability to have a bully pulpit to preach your dogma to the world. So far as to the commitment offense, we noted that it was committed in an especially heinous, atrocious and cruel manner and that it is a factor against suitability, that it was carried out in a very dispassionate, and calculated manner, in that the first murder didn't deter you from the second murder, the first murder being Mr. Hinman, the second murder being Mr. Shea. The Panel noted that the offense -- plural -- the offenses were carried out in a manner that demonstrates an exceptional callous disregard for human suffering. There was a very clear indication in the record of the -- the impact of hearing Mr. Shea's screams. We also noted that with respect to Mr. Shea, he was stabbed, buried, and remained buried until such time as a crime partner revealed the location of where Mr. Shea was buried. The Panel noted with respect to Victim Hinman, the stab wounds that were noted, one of which penetrated the heart, there was a gash behind the right ear, there were lacerations on the left side of the victim's face and part of the victim's ear and the cheek were cut open, and this occurred over a period of several days where the victim was repeatedly stabbed and clubbed. We also noted that your conduct after the offense included discussions about eliminating potential witnesses, and your quote was that it had already been done in another instance. With respect to the issue of credibility, the Panel feels that you're not credible about the crime, specifically the inconsistent versions as to your involvement and that you lack the insight into the causative factors of your conduct as evidenced by continued minimization and that you continue to make inconsistent statements, specifically as to the exact nature and extent of the wounds that are reported on Mr. Shea. The psychological report that was used today is the one that was a summary report by Dr. Glines. Dr. Glines didn't actually go back and to an independent assessment, and she relied on Dr. Livingston's assessment. Dr. Glines' report being August of 2006, Dr. Livingston's being October of 2003, and in her validation of Dr. Livingston's conclusions, she noted that Dr. Livingston used a semi-structured interview and three objective instruments to assess Mr. Davis's risk for future violence, the Hare Psychopathy Checklist Revised, the Historical Clinical Risk 20 and the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide. On each instrument, an individual may be scored low, moderate, or high. Dr. Livingston concluded that the risk for recidivism on a violent crime while in the free community was in the low to moderate range and that Dr. Livingston's results were reviewed. Since that evaluation, there have been no significant changes that would alter his findings; thus, the risk for recidivism on a violent crime while in the free community remains in the low to moderate range. The Panel noted the misconduct while incarcerated. The two 115's, the last one being January 25th of 1980. This was for conduct, and this was for the debate as to whether you were fashioning a weapon or trying to remove paint. The six 128's, the last being August 15, 1992 for lying to staff. The Panel also concerned about the following aspects of your case with regard to the issue of remorse, although you claim your you're remorseful, the Panel's not convinced that you truly understand the nature and magnitude of the offense, and today the Panel didn't hear any remorse other than for your father, your wife, and your daughter. Also, the Panel noted that as a family member, and we're speaking now to the family of the Manson clan, that -- that you lived with them, you expressed no remorse for any of the deeds that were done. Parole plans, the Panel notes that you do have the offer of housing in San Luis Obispo County with your wife and your daughter and that you do have the job offer also in San Luis Obispo County. In making our decision, the Panel considered the following circumstances that weigh in your favor. The fact that you haven't had a 115, the fact that you've taken advantage of educational opportunities, and certainly a compliment to you that you have recently returned to participate in self-help. And, on balance, while we want to commend you for these things, the considerations that make you unsuitable for parole, which we've already discussed with you, do outweigh the positive aspects of your case. The hearing Panel notes that the responses to the 3042's indicate opposition to a finding of parole suitability, specifically the comments from the representative of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office and the correspondence that was received from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. Therefore, the Board of Parole Hearings requires a longer period of observation and evaluation before the Board could find that you're suitable for parole. The Panel's going to recommend that you remain disciplinary free, that you continue to participate in the self-help and the event that institutional issues present themselves and you're not able to do this through organized programs, that you participate in self-study that's documented and that you -- the Panel has also requested that a new psychological exam be completed before your next hearing, certainly encourage you to cooperate with the clinician when it comes time for the exam. With that, this being rather unique circumstances, what I'm going to do is I'm going to afford any Commissioner that would like to make a comment at this point that chance.

COMMISSIONER KANE: Sir, you've been denied one year, so I hope you take the advice of the Board and get these issues done so you'll be ready for your next hearing. Thank you.

INMATE DAVIS: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARNER: Anyone else? All right. Then I'm going to note for the record that it is now approximately 6:35 p.m. and that will conclude the hearing for today. Thank you.