Attorney General Opposes Van Houten Writ

Tuesday, November 6th, 2018

Nov. 6 – The Attorney General of California maintains that Jerry Brown’s reversal of Leslie Van Houten’s 2017 parole grant did not violate due process, in an informal opposition submitted yesterday to California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal.

Van Houten’s attorney, Richard Pfeiffer, filed a writ of Habeas Corpus in January, challenging Brown’s reversal, arguing the decision relied on isolated negative factors to support the conclusion that Leslie Van Houten posed an unreasonable risk if released. Superior Court Judge William C. Ryan upheld Brown’s reversal in June. Pfeiffer immediately sought relief from California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal.

In early October, the Court of Appeal gave the attorney general 30 days to file opposition to the writ.

Upon receiving the informal opposition submitted by the attorney general, Pfeiffer submitted an informal reply with the court.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

85 Responses to Attorney General Opposes Van Houten Writ

  1. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    “In sum, as the Governor’s 2018 decision is supported by some evidence, petitioner’s due process rights were not violated, and the petition should be denied without issuance of an order to show cause.”

  2. Paul says:

    NoJusticeNoPeace not if the Governor used Ms. Van Houten’s answers to questions asked at her parole hearing regarding the facts of the crime as “some evidence” as to Van Houten failing to take responsibility for the crime, even when she took responsibility; “I take responsibility for the entire crime”, its a catch 22, Brown can’t have it both ways.

  3. Cybele Moon says:

    interestingly though, Brown or the Attorney General, is using Lawrence as to egregiousness of the crime. Also Pfeiffer mentions intimate partner battery which didn’t work with Pat Krenwinkel’s bid for parole. Just saying after reading through both.

  4. Paul says:

    Yes Cybele but they seem to suggest that the crime as a whole was so heinous that they still maintain a risk under Lawrence, not Leslie in her own actions.

  5. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    LVH’s due rights process was not violated. Not. Violated. N.O.T.

    Don’t like the current laws that keep her locked up? Change them. And yes her crimes are exactly why she is incarcerated to this day. Can’t change those facts no matter how many self-help classes she takes.

    LVH is exactly where she should be.

  6. Paul says:

    Its not the law that’s keeping her locked up, its the public outcry and pressure that advocates like Debra are putting on the governor to satisfy the general public. The board found her suitable twice and Browns arguments for reversal contradict themselves, and in reality we know its a weak argument. Her rights have been violated and have been for a long time, she’s met the criteria for parole for decades and has not shown any sign of risk since the early 70s.

  7. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    LVH is not the only one with rights Paul. The victims have no voice–LVH murdered them.

    It’s the victims families right to do everything in their power to keep their loved ones killer incarcerated to the fullest extent the law allows.

    Don’t like the law? Change it. Change the law that allows Gov. Brown the reversal.

    Until then, LVH can stay right where she is.

  8. Paul says:

    Debra Tate has gone beyond the extent of the law, she’s exploited the law by putting false information in order to create public outcry to keep her in prison and Brown’s reason for reversal is obviously influenced by this, since he has a history of releasing a lot killers anyway. Its not me that doesn’t like the law, its people like you and Debra Tate who don’t seem to understand what the rules actually are, and instead of changing it, your manipulating the law through your own moral influences.

  9. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Exploitation? False information? Public outcry?

    So in your limited world it simply couldn’t be what LVH has done?

    Rules or laws? Totally different Paul, and you know it.

    Manipulating moral influence? Now that is rich, coming from a supporter of a twice convicted murderer who thought a career criminal was Jesus Christ.

  10. Paul says:

    Debra has provided false information to the public and has created this erroneous presentation of Leslie in order to get more of a reaction from the general public, its a manipulative scheme. Rules are apart of the law, and if you don’t follow them your breaking the law. Yes, Leslie was convicted for two murders and she needed to be brought to justice for her actions but her sentence allows her the chance of parole and as long as she meets that criteria and poses no risk to society, which over 10 psychiatric reports agree she needs to be paroled, its a political issue at this point on.

  11. Lee says:

    No Justice, there isn’t any use arguing with that guy. He’s sick in the head. He sits around fantasizing about LVH and doesn’t care one iota about what his object of obsession did. It’s disgusting.

  12. Paul says:

    Lee is that the best you can do? I’m very well informed and level headed. I use facts and common sense, you seem to base all your arguments on your own moral perspective and nothing else.

  13. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Paul, if you can’t address my questions I’m in no hurry to engage you.

  14. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Hey Lee,

    Can’t say he’s sick in the noggin, but Paul loves to deflect.

    Can say he’s wrong but he’s going to defend LVH until she blows him.

  15. Paul says:

    What question?, all I saw was rhetorical remarks.

  16. Paul says:

    “Can say he’s wrong but he’s going to defend LVH until she blows him”, if you must know, I’m not that way inclined so its got nothing to do with that.

  17. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Troll. Troll. LVH troll.

    Answer it. G’head. Rhetorical is your expertise.

  18. Paul says:

    Again, What question?

  19. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    troll

  20. Paul says:

    Your question?

  21. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    troll much?

  22. Paul says:

    So you had no question then? Just stalling I guess

  23. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Troll.

  24. Paul says:

    You seem to be the troll on this page my friend, I’m here to debate but your behaviour indicates your the more suitable troll.

  25. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    got to troll on eh? lol

  26. Michael says:

    “Egregiousness of the crime” works for me as a rationale for her continued incarceration, and for continued incarceration of anyone who’s committed such acts.”Danger to society” doesn’t work for me, because I see LVH as rehabilitated and not posing a threat. It will be interesting to see how Newsome responds to all of this when it comes across his desk.

  27. Paul says:

    Michael are you referring to the whole crime or just Leslie personal involvement in them?

  28. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    And there in is the troll Paul

  29. Cybele Moon says:

    I don’t agree with calling names and Paul is entitled to his own opinion. However,I still say that many of Leslie’s supporters all say the same thing i.e. Leslie’s crime was less than the others! and I still say it doesn’t matter!! Leslie participated in an “egregious” murder- actually more of a slaughter. Her supporters would have us believe there are degrees of murder and she only participated to a lesser degree. But whether or not she inflicted a fatal blow she is as guilty as the rest of them. Some of her supporters say she went out and stood in the hall while the others finished off Mrs. Labianca. So that makes her less guilty? She fully supported the others and later bragged about how good it felt to stab someone. She may be rehabilitated and remorseful now but it doesn’t lessen the circumstance. If Tate or the Governor want to use egregiousness of crime I don’t feel that Leslie is exempt from that.

  30. Paul says:

    Cybele but this is true, it is less than the rest, that’s just a fact. Whether you think it doesn’t matter in terms of guilt, it is still a different degree of participation, Leslie and Tex did not share the same amount of involvement in the murders. “If Tate or the Governor want to use egregiousness of crime I don’t feel that Leslie is exempt from that.”, unless you try to account Leslie with the entire crime in order to find her unsuitable, which is not right ands you this Cybele.

  31. Cybele Moon says:

    P.S. I am a bit taken back when LVH says (loosely quoted) “I wouldn’t feel right if I didn’t pay for my crime but I didn’t think it would be 48 years.” Did she think she should have been out in 7 or 10 years? How can murder ever be repaid anyway. She did along with the rest get the death penalty originally. Yes, after it was repealed she managed to get a new trial because her lawyer had died during the first. Because of that her new defense had the opportunity to try to mitigate her actions because of her youth, her brainwashing and her “lesser” participation. All good lawyer tactics of course.

  32. Paul says:

    Cybele, you say us supporters are trying to mitigate and find excuses for Leslie but on the other hand, your trying to discredit a lot of these points even though they are some of the main reasons these murders occurred.

    “Because of that her new defence had the opportunity to try to mitigate her actions because of her youth, her brainwashing and her “lesser” participation. All good lawyer tactics of course.”, the way you write is obviously suggests that anything that may suggest Leslie wasn’t as much of a “monster” which Debra loves to present her as, you aren’t taking into account, if I’m biased, you certainly are.

  33. Cybele Moon says:

    Yes, you are probably correct. I am biased against her because of the revulsion I feel for the crimes themselves and the twisted ideology behind it. I don’t know how you can mitigate that. It’s very difficult not to look at the crimes as a whole- and as monstrous. She participated, she believed the ideology and there are consequences. Do they have a human side. I’m sure they do. But I am for the victims. I try to imagine what it would be like to be sitting at home peacefully after a day’s work and suddenly have a wild mob enter and begin to kill you for no reason.- the helplessness and the terror must have been awful. I can’t get around that.

  34. Paul says:

    I think you do though, you know how I can see her personal guilt against her co-defendants. For one, Leslie was accounted for two murders, and the rest where accounted for 7 or more murders. If you think about the specific action taken places by each defendant, Tex was responsible physically for all seven of the murders in august, Sadie was responsible for 1 (2 if you count Voytek), Pat was responsible for 2 (3 if you count Mr LaBianca, and Leslie was 1, so if were going to talk about it being a horrendous acts of murder, that is true, but if you look into the actions of each of the girls, its not the same. I’m not going to avoid it like a lot people do because they don’t care about the fact.

    “It’s very difficult not to look at the crimes as a whole” It isn’t that hard, its only hard if your trying to make Leslie’s actions seem as accountable and monstrous as that of Tex Watson, it doesn’t match. I would be the worst thing to lose someone I know, but that still doesn’t justify the way the system has treated Leslie’s case, we know she’s not a danger and that she would of been paroled a long time ago if either the Tate case or Manson was not linked to her case.

  35. Cybele Moon says:

    I understand your argument Paul but I can honestly say that it won’t bother me if she remains in prison where she has 3 meals a day, a free education and gets to counsel others incarcerated. I think most people feel the way I do and if she gets out I don’t think it will be easy for her at 70 unless she is able to keep very low key.
    I still say if she didn’t really want to kill anyone she could have gone for help, she could have refused to go along instead of volunteering. I can’t comprehend one human being being able to watch or participate as other human beings are brutalized and screaming as they are being murdered. It is egregious!! And you won’t be able to change my mind on that one. If she gets out, she gets out but she has deserved every minute spent behind bars. I do agree with Michael’s post.

  36. Paul says:

    No it won’t be easy but she’s planned what she will do when she gets parole. Whether most people feel your way doesn’t really make a difference, doesn’t mean its right. Things have to happen even if we don’t want them to but we know they have to be done, its just part of life. Again you can’t account her notoriety into her case because that’s breaking the law. Yes she could of refused, but she believed it was the right thing, even though she didn’t actually want to kill, she was willing to if the philosophy required her too. If you think Leslie’s action are egregious, then you agree that pretty much all murders are egregious, but do they come under Lawrence, no they do not.

  37. Cybele Moon says:

    All murders are egregious but the Manson murders were among the most egregious because of all factors which I don’t need to go into again.

  38. Paul says:

    Again, “Manson murders “, you can’t stop trying to account Leslie with the actions she wasn’t even charged with, you know you’re doing it.

  39. Michael says:

    Just to clarify (just saw your question to me Paul) I see the egregiousness of Leslie’s crime on its own. In other words, for her participation in the murders of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca I think she should stay in prison. She certainly didn’t murder as many people, or participate in as many murders, as Watson, Krenwinkle, or Atkins. That is a fact, and one which doesn’t change my position on LVH. It’s only fair to note that according to Watson’s own account of the LaBianca crime, Leslie showed no enthusiasm during the killings. Again, that doesn’t change my position, but it at least speaks to some speck of humanity which was at play in her even then. But then again, the fact she retained such humanity makes her morally culpable, maybe even more so.

  40. Paul says:

    She was culpable indeed, and she needed to pay for her crimes, but according to her sentence, her parole counts as that. She’s been in prison for almost half a century, I’ve said it before and over showed examples that people rarely serve this much time with the exception of serial killers and those who acted in extremely brutal crimes (about the same level as Tex Watsons actions)

  41. Cybele Moon says:

    “those who acted in extremely brutal crimes” Leslie did participate in an extremely brutal crime along with two others.

  42. Paul says:

    ““those who acted in extremely brutal crimes” Leslie did participate in an extremely brutal crime along with two other”” Cybele that’s not going to work, read the sentence in-between the brackets. Cybele you know the actions of Leslie alone does not count as extremely brutal unless your count all murders as brutal. Mr and Mrs Labianca would still not be here today even if Leslie wasn’t not there that night, answer me this, do you think Leslie would still be in jail if Either the Tate crime hadn’t occurred or this case wasn’t a popular media story that was then and now?

  43. Cybele Moon says:

    Paul you cannot say with certainty that both Labiancas would be dead today had they only dealt with two killers. Leslie held Mrs. L. down with a pillow over her head and then later stabbed her not once but 14 times. Was there anyone there who pronounced Mrs. Labianca dead before LVH stabbed her? or just “I thought she was dead.” She then went into the kitchen and raided the fridge, then went back and bragged about how good it felt. Say what you will she participated in the grisly deaths of two human beings. She certainly didn’t protest. She deserves what she got.

  44. Michael says:

    Crimes do not have to be at the same level as Watson’s to qualify as “extremely brutal.” LVH actively participated in a crime which was extremely brutal by any reasonable standards. It’s very possible that she would not still be in prison today if she wasn’t associated with Manson, but to me, that speaks more to the weakness of the system than to the question of her release. Anyone who invades an innocent couple’s home, forces the terrified wife into her own bedroom, holds her down while she’s stabbed, then stabs her repeatedly (whether she’s dead or alive) does not deserve to be released in my opinion. The courts or parole board may eventually differ with me, and I can live with that, but it won’t change my views.

  45. Paul says:

    Cybele I can say that because Leslie’s own efforts were rather small and either way Mr and Mrs Labianca would still be dead, Tex killed at least 4 of the 5 of the Tate victims, he could easily killed the couple which he did really. Leslie did not brag, she told Dianne that she was hesitant to do it but when she finally did it was more fun, I don’t know if Leslie was serious about this or if she just said that because she wasn’t “meant” to have remorse for the crimes. Well Cybele, when you advocate for all prisoners serving time for first degree murder than I’ll respect your choices more, but as far a si see it your singling one crime based on its notoriety, there are many more murders as brutal or worse than this, but do you know of them, I doubt it.

  46. Paul says:

    Michael

    “Crimes do not have to be at the same level as Watson’s to qualify as “extremely brutal”, not necessarily but if Leslie’s crimes counts as a case that comes under Lawrence than all first degree murders should be treated the same, I don’t even think you or Cybele truly believe that Leslie crimes actually fit under Lawrence but its more of a moral thing for you two than anything else, you seem to be able to justify it. The girls did not intent to care the couple and just told them they were just going to burglarise them so they wouldn’t be scared, Leslie said herself in 1969 to detectives that she didn’t want to make them suffer and wanted to make it quick as possible.

  47. Paul says:

    Cybele I don’t believe you answered my question

    “do you think Leslie would still be in jail if Either the Tate crime hadn’t occurred or this case wasn’t a popular media story that was then and now?”

  48. Paul says:

    Michael “The girls did not intent to scare the couple”

  49. Cybele Moon says:

    Paul, perhaps not, but your arguments make no sense to me. they didn’t want to scare the couple?- oh please, they just wanted to stab them to death? Leslie did brag about how much fun it was stabbing. You are saying she only bragged because she had to? You’ve created a fairy story about how poor Leslie isn’t as culpable, that she’s a victim, and then basically put that slant on every thing Leslie did at the crime scene as though you were there. If Leslie is so innocent why did she go with them knowing what would happen. Why did she participate if she was so reluctant. Leslie threw her lot in with a bunch of murdering psychos. Too bad for her. Who cares if this has been a big media story. The facts of the crime still speak for themselves- and Leslie’s actions after the crime and when she was in trial didn’t endear anyone to her. There are other crimes where the murderers have not got out. It really depends on the state I believe.

    Paul very few murderers go out and kill perfect strangers just for the sake of killing and causing terror in the community. This was a very unusual case whether or not a famous name was involved but unfortunately for the whole lot of them it was. I agree with Michael and if she gets out now as a non dangerous person I won’t lose sleep. But she is psychologically speaking, every inch as culpable as the rest- and I’m sure you’ll be back defending precious Leslie against us detractors having the last word.

  50. Paul says:

    Cybele their intention was to kill, not scare them, both Manson and Leslie have said this, and their recording evidence from 1969, look it up for you need to. The Manson family talked about murder in a way that most of us would never, they had a very strange idea of death in that family, that death didn’t really have a meaning and that it was removing the shell, Leslie even said herself that she only killed a body. For some reason Susan thought she was loving Sharon by having her killed, I don’t get it but just because I don’t understand doesn’t mean we avoid it.

    Cybele, Leslie is not going to be one who will go and kill again, and I know you don’t believe this either. Of course people its a big media story because so many people care for it, and this is why Leslie rights as a prisoner with parole has been tested by the governor and the court. The only way you can link Leslie and Lawrence is to try and account her for her co-defendants actions, which you can’t so it doesn’t work.

    “She is psychologically speaking, every inch as culpable as the rest” Maybe psychologically, but not as accountable physically, and this does make a difference.

  51. Paul says:

    “Why did she participate if she was so reluctant”, she was reluctant but in her state of mind at that time, she believed it was the right thing to do, even Tex said in a interview that Leslie was far less as enthusiastic as killing the LaBianca’s as himself and Pat.

  52. Michael says:

    Good grief, I never assumed intending to scare people, or not intending to scare them, determined whether or not a crime was brutal. Even if Leslie didn’t intend to cause terror, she has to have known she was doing just that. The LaBiancas were tied up and at the mercy of strangers. That alone is terrifying. Mrs. LaBianca heard her husband being murdered in the next room, which of course was even more terrifying. The stabbing began, and she tried defending herself, swinging a lamp at her assailants. Again, terrifying. I agree that Leslie lacked an intent to frighten, and lacked enthusiasm for killing as well. But that doesn’t diminish the brutality of everything she did that night.

  53. Cybele Moon says:

    Ok Paul you see it your way and I’m not sure how the law differentiates whether you killed someone on just one night and you didn’t use a bayonet, just a kitchen knife etc etc. The thing is she was part of a psycho group of individuals and as such culpable. She condoned what they did- and- she did participate in the horror and by the sounds was later quite pleased with herself. I don’t think the Governor or the Attorney General or the D.A. are wrong in opposing her release. The only thing I will agree with you is on the point of her current state of not being a danger- though I say it with some reservation.

  54. Michael says:

    Slightly off topic, but the appeal process is getting a little confusing to me. The Attorney General has filed his opposition to Pfeiffer’s writ, but that alone doesn’t meant the Second District Court of Appeals will not hear Leslie’s challenge to Brown’s decision, does it?

  55. Paul says:

    “Good grief, I never assumed intending to scare people, or not intending to scare them, determined whether or not a crime was brutal” Michael, I was referring to when Cybele suggested they meant to scare the couple which is not true, that was not the intention.

    “Even if Leslie didn’t intend to cause terror, she has to have known she was doing just that”, yes she probably did when it didn’t happen as quick as intended because Mrs. Labianca started to struggle when she heard her husband dying, again they did not tent to make them suffer, I’m not saying that’s a free pass but it isn’t the same.

    “that doesn’t diminish the brutality of everything she did that night”, If we are going to talk about the brutality again, If we are going to suggest that the actions by Leslie that night is brutal then would this fall on all first degree murders, because that’s the only I can see that logic, I know the crimes were heinous, and her actions terrible, but to pry and suggest her actions are so heinous that she still remains a danger doesn’t work.

  56. Michael says:

    Paul, I agree that her actions that night do not prove she is still a danger, and in fact, I do not believe she is. I believe her crime that one night is horrible enough on its own to warrant permanent incarceration, but that doesn’t mean I doubt her rehabilitation.

  57. Paul says:

    Michael Pfeiffer has also responded to the general attorneys opposition and then I believe its up to Second District Court of Appeals to make a ruling.

  58. Paul says:

    “I believe her crime that one night is horrible enough on its own to warrant permanent incarceration” What makes Leslies personal action so particularly heinous compared to your average murder that she fits under Lawrence? because I can’t see it.

  59. Paul says:

    Cybele

    “The thing is she was part of a psycho group of individuals and as such culpable. She condoned what they did” first of all, what’s this got to with Leslie with current risk of danger today? Also, She like most of the family believed it was right, you have to stop thinking there minds were functioning like ours, because you seem to base your argument on the idea she was thinking rationally on the issue, which she was far from thinking rationally.

  60. Cybele Moon says:

    Paul, again I will say it doesn’t matter if they weren’t thinking rationally. They still engaged in a very brutal murder and this includes Leslie. Yes her participation was more heinous than many other murders. Most murders are done in a rage, or out of jealousy, during a robbery, for money even etc etc. Still horrible. Many are committed by psychopaths. In the Manson murders there was no reason to kill perfect strangers and yes it was to strike terror into the community. Manson’s plan was to start a race war remember. You are very blinkered in your view of Leslie in this crime. You’ve all but got her being dragged along and forced to participate because she didn’t really want to kill anyone, or scare them, she just thought it was necessary to kill them in a very brutal fashion because death didn’t mean anything. Did suffering and pain not mean anything either? Huh?

  61. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Love how Paul wants it both ways. She was a trained puppy due to Manson so therefore she is not as culpable. Then he complains and tries to defend when one refers to her crimes as part of the Manson Murders.

    She deserves everything she gets and more.

  62. Paul says:

    NoJusticeNoPeace

    “Love how Paul wants it both ways. She was a trained puppy due to Manson so therefore she is not as culpable. Then he complains and tries to defend when one refers to her crimes as part of the Manson Murders” that doesn’t make sense, and if anyone is wanting it both ways, that is the governor, he has reversed her parole on the basis that she didn’t take enough responsibility but she does; “I take responsibility for the entire crime” “do what he did to all of us. I allowed it.’ ” “I accept responsibility that I allowed [Manson] to conduct my life that way.”. She can’t remove Manson from the situation because he is a very important part of this crime, she would be lying if she didn’t otherwise. Brown reserve her parole two years ago because of her “inability to explain her willing participation”, now that she explains it, he reverses it again because she told the truth which he required here to do at her last parole hearing, that’s a catch 22.

  63. Paul says:

    “Paul, again I will say it doesn’t matter if they weren’t thinking rationally. They still engaged in a very brutal murder and this includes Leslie” That logic is slightly skewed because you lean a lot on the crime. Of course it matters, if your not thinking rationally, especially through both drugs and indoctrination over an extended period of time, they are not thinking like the ordinary human being, you are purposely ignoring it because of the crimes themselves.

    “Most murders are done in a rage, or out of jealousy, during a robbery, for money even etc. Still horrible” How is it better to kill in your normal conscience in a situation like for theft or something like rape and murder, to people who are brainwashed to believe in a strange philosophy that meant that these deaths had to occur, you can’t make the former less heinous.

    “You’ve all but got her being dragged along and forced to participate because she didn’t really want to kill anyone, or scare them” Never said she was dragged along, she wanted to go, I’ve never said otherwise. She didn’t want to kill and that’s in her own words in 1969 when she was still with Manson, but she would if the philosophy required it had to occur, I’m just stating facts. She not want to her scare them either so again just stating facts again.

    “she just thought it was necessary to kill them in a very brutal fashion because death didn’t mean anything” If you mean brutal as in painful then your wrong, that was not the intention which I’ve told you over and over, they were meant to die quick, but unfortunately didn’t turn out that way.

  64. Cybele Moon says:

    again Paul I don’t understand how you know so much about what they were thinking in regards to killing this couple- they were meant to die quickly but unfortunately it didn’t turn out that way? What was their intention Paul? What are the “facts.”- You seem to base your “facts” on whatever Leslie said?

  65. Michael says:

    To me, the argument that Leslie and the others didn’t mean to scare their victims, or that they intended for their victims to die quickly, are meaningless. First, this was cold blooded murder, and there’s no polite way to accomplish that. Second, not even the Manson followers could have been deranged enough to think that when you tie people up in their own homes, they won’t be terrified beyond belief, no matter how many times you assure them you’re only a burglar. As for a “quick death”, that’s not much comfort to the victims or their families. Even if their deaths had been accomplished immediately, dead is dead, and the deaths were completely senseless. My concern isn’t whether or not LVH qualifies under Lawrence. My concern is that she helped destroy two innocent lives in a horrendous crime, ending the existence of productive people and putting a permanent curse on their loved ones and society as well. For that, she should not be released. The courts may eventually say otherwise but that won’t, to my thinking, make it right.

  66. Paul says:

    Cybele, I told you what their intentions were, it was not to scare them or make them suffer but to start the race war where the blacks were to take over because the white had been controlling the system forever. Manson said death was just a fear that is created in your mind and you can never kill the soul of the people, but just remove their shell. In his philosophy when you stop fearing death, you never age or die, I doesn’t make sense of course but that is what Manson had this followers believe, whether he actually believed this or not I do not know. Its explained in Helter Skelter and several different books and sources, its not just from Leslie.

  67. Paul says:

    Michael

    “To me, the argument that Leslie and the others didn’t mean to scare their victims, or that they intended for their victims to die quickly, are meaningless” I argued this because its been used implied that she intended to scare and make them suffer which is not true.

    “First, this was cold blooded murder” isn’t any first dree murder cold blooded?

    “As for a “quick death”, that’s not much comfort to the victims or their families.” never said this would be a comfort to the families but it does give you indication on Leslies own empathy for others, yes she believed in the movement and was willing to kill but she believed death didn’t mean anything and she wanted it to quick, I’m sure you would be more horrified and both of you would use it against me if she intended them to suffer.

    “My concern is that she helped destroy two innocent lives in a horrendous crime,” Michael, I understand this but that doesn’t justify detaining her when she has earned her parole, there are numerous past killers walking the street today who remain anonymous, Leslie doesn’t get that fair treatment nor will she if she’s ever released, I’ve said it before you can’t have one rule for murder and one rule for another.

  68. Cybele Moon says:

    Michael and No Justice I agree totally with you. Paul seems hell bent on mitigating Leslie’s actions any way he can that works for his own logic and he is hell bent on having the last word. He obviously is on a mission to release her from prison for whatever reason. Of course he doesn’t want to think she is a cold blooded murderer.
    No Paul, not all murder is done in cold blood. These murders were and all your arguments about how they didn’t want to scare them etc mean nothing because they did terrorize them, they were aware that they terrorized them and their victims lost their lives very brutally. Apparently when Tex Watson described the Tate murders he smirked when he said they ran around like chickens trying to get away. ( oh and he and Bruce Davis are now “born again” and hope for release!) They were all creeps who had no moral compass or sense of self to allow themselves to be used in this horrifying manner. And that is the best excuse I can give them if it is true. – or else they did have some psychopathy and no conscience.
    LVH may have earned her parole according to the law as it stands. The only thing I agree with Paul is that she “probably” is not dangerous today.

  69. Paul says:

    Cybele I don’t care to have the last word, but if I see something in your comment that may be incorrect or subjective, I will respond like you do. You are right, I don’t believe Leslie is a cold-blooded killer either. You accuse me of mitigating her crimes yet you are trying to account the entre crime on Leslie for effect, you need to start looking at your own motivations. I’ve made it clear to you for a long time now I don’t condone any of the crimes the family committed but I’m going to be rational about it, in reality each should be paroled because I don’t think any pose a danger to society, maybe Tex could work under Lawrence but certainly not people like Bruce Davis or Van Houten.

  70. Paul says:

    And Cybele I don’t think you “totally” agree with No Justice because he/she doesn’t agree either morally or politically, which you say you do, he/she does not care to think of it on a rational basis.

    I said first degree murder Cybele, and it seems your trying to excuse other killers again but not Leslie, I don’t know why but you have some issue with your argument here.

  71. Paul says:

    The difference between Leslie case and a rob and kill crime is that the robber knows exactly what he’s doing.

  72. Michael says:

    The fact that other murderers walk free isn’t relevant to me, because I don’t think they should walk free. Releasing Leslie because others have been released would only compound the wrong. She has her defenders, Paul being one of many, and plenty of people have their reasons for supporting her. I’m not convinced by any of them, and the gap between her supporters and her opponents isn’t going to be bridged. Much as I hate to admit it, I think if Leslie is released, which is a distinct possibility, then Pat, Bobby, and Bruce are very likely to follow if they stay alive. Bobby would probably be the last of those three because of his disciplinary problems. I don’t think Watson stands a chance, even if the others get out.

  73. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Once again, here is Paul trying to rationalize, politicize and excuse LVH. You see the pattern yes? Even if you completely agree with Paul it will never erase what LVH has done. The record stands. The current laws are being followed. Don’t like the law Paul? Start a petition, go to your officials and see how far you get with it. Doris Tate did it, so can you.

    She was not just convicted of RLB’s murder. She was also convicted of LLB’s murder. I say for each stab wound, for each slash of the knife, for each letter written in their blood, for each tine of the fork left protruding from LLB’s flesh, let LVH serve one year for each painful, terrorizing infliction.

    Only then will I give a rats toot about her release.

  74. Cybele Moon says:

    Michael, I saw a documentary which said that Bruce Davis was Manson’s true right hand and participated in the murders of Hinman and Shea. Bobby Beausoleil was a satanic weirdo from the get go and talented musically or not,- a very dangerous individual. There are other deaths which were possibly connected to the Manson family which have been unable to be proved. Likewise the so called born again conversion of Davis and Watson ( and Atkins) is no reason to free them. There has to be a dire consequence to such a twisted and murderous anti social life style and like Michael and No Justice I believe it should be life imprisonment. Prisoners in our system don’t have it that bad when you think about it. Some are even allowed conjugal visits. But they forfeited their right to to walk among society and though Paul has his own reasoning and opinion of the law around releasing them I will never agree even if they are freed. ( or any other murderer of that type)

  75. Michael says:

    Cybele, I have also heard that Davis was more of Manson’s right hand man than Watson, and in fact, Watson was reported to be a rather passive member of the family, while Davis actively sought out more position and power. It seems there were some other murders – Atkins, for example, had said there were others – that we’ll never know about. But regardless, based on what we DO know, I cannot see any justification for any of the principle players, LVH included, to be freed. I really do think all of them (those behind bars) are sitting on information about other murders that could be useful, but would also hinder their chances for parole.

  76. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Great points Cybele and Michael. Having to rely on those that committed the murders as factual is in itself problematic. That being said, you must rely on the records of the court as fact. That is what convicted LVH. She will NEVER escape it. Never.

    What really flies all over me is the way Paul and other LVH ilk try to lessen her involvement. All they want to talk about is stab wounds postmortem to RLB. She was convicted of LLB’s murder as well. It was a group effort, was it not? Of course it was. Her supporters only focus on her sole actions as if that is an excuse.

    It is not. And it never will be. Exactly when does Manson’s influence end and her responsibility begin? When? After the fifth stab wound? How about her holding RLB down for slaughter as she listened to LLB being butchered? Or is it all about poor little Lulu and her butt not being diapered properly?

    And people wonder why this case… and yes THE case called the Manson Murders will continue to infamous.

    Infamy.

    Isn’t that what LVH wanted? *cue Paul to say she couldn’t think due to CM’s influence but don’t call it Manson Murders, lest it offends*

  77. Fred Bloggs says:

    Cybele Moon says:
    I saw a documentary which said that Bruce Davis was Manson’s true right hand

    You really don’t want to believe everything you come across in documentaries, especially that 2 parter that portrayed Bruce Davis as a B movie Charlie !

    and participated in the murders of Hinman and Shea

    The way in which you put that suggests that you’re not that clear about the murders of Gary Hinman and Shorty Shea. You should read up on them from a variety of sources or even the Bobby and Bruce parole hearing transcripts that are on this site.
    They’re eye openers.

    Prisoners in our system don’t have it that bad when you think about it

    Would you be happy to be in one or if you have children, would you breathe a sigh of relief if any of them were jailed ?
    I wouldn’t !

    Michael says:
    The fact that other murderers walk free isn’t relevant to me, because I don’t think they should walk free. Releasing Leslie because others have been released would only compound the wrong

    While I like your level headed debating style and often find myself thinking on another plane because of some of the excellent points you bring up, and while I get where you’re coming from on this particular one, other murderers being paroled couldn’t be more relevant. While we all do argue from our own personal perspectives {there’d be little point in conversations otherwise}, we can’t dimiss the law aspect of this and questions have to be asked if some laws are used in one way for some people but differently for others in exactly the same position.

  78. Fred Bloggs says:

    NoJusticeNoPeace says:
    Having to rely on those that committed the murders as factual is in itself problematic

    It certainly can be. A good example of that is Bobby Beausoleil. But he makes the problems for himself.
    On the other hand, we also see how, say, with Pat, how the attempt to be open and honest twists them in knots.
    Obviously relying 100% on every single word isn’t profitable, but on the other hand, a parole board has to talk to the murderer seeking to be paroled. They need to hear what they have to say for themselves.

    What really flies all over me is the way Paul and other LVH ilk try to lessen her involvement

    The irony of that statement is that by giving LVH 7 years to life and having the prosecutor state that she would one day be ready for parole, the prosecution did that. If the person that prosecutes you says you are making good progress and will be ready for parole soon and you have a spotless record thereafter, you can hardly be faulted for trying for parole !

  79. Fred Bloggs says:

    Cybele Moon says:
    Her supporters would have us believe there are degrees of murder and she only participated to a lesser degree

    There aren’t degrees of murder but the point Paul has been making is simply that you can’t compare, say, Tex, with Leslie. And you can’t, really.
    If a death sentence is the sentence for murder, then realistically, it doesn’t matter whether a person murders one or 200 ~ they’re still going to die for it. But would we honestly say that someone that murdererd once is the same as one that has done it over and over again ?

    But whether or not she inflicted a fatal blow she is as guilty as the rest of them

    Yes. We do not know whether she inflicted a fatal blow, but that’s rather academic.
    The argument about guilt does not apply to this case.

    Some of her supporters say she went out and stood in the hall while the others finished off Mrs. Labianca. So that makes her less guilty?

    Not really. But it does point to the fact that she wasn’t the rough house, hard nosed, unfeeling soldier that she wanted everyone to believe, circa ’69~74.

    She fully supported the others and later bragged about how good it felt to stab someone

    She definitely supported the others at every step of the way. Even though she admitted to her lawyer back in ’69 that she was freaking out when it actually came to murdering, that is, in the LaBianca bedroom, it’s notable that she still supported the effort, didn’t feel it was wrong and said she’d do the whole thing again if presented with the situation again. Her behaviour during the trial shows she supported what happened and she’s never said she didn’t, even though much of the antics during it were scripted by Charlie. As far as I’m aware she’s never said it was against her will and she recognizes that when she says she takes responsibility for allowing herself to be used as she was.
    But her statements about how it was fun to stab really need to be understood from her perspective, not ours. In her 2013 hearing, she explains all of that. It’s not a reason to parole her or find mitigating circumstances but if one is genuinely interested in understanding a person, their evolution and how they reached a certain point, then one has to at least examine how they see their life and take on board what they say.

    She may be rehabilitated and remorseful now but it doesn’t lessen the circumstance

    Nothing lessens the circumstances. She committed murder, plain and simple…..except that it isn’t so plain and simple. You yourself observed that this wasn’t a run of the mill crime.
    I’m curious about one thing Cybele; given that rehabilitation means “to prepare a prisoner for re-entry into society,” if you accept that she’s rehabilitated, what would be the point in her staying in jail ? I could easily make the case for an Ed Kemper or a Jeffrey Dahmer or a Ted Bundy never coming out from a life sentence because their crimes go beyond simply coming to a realization that they were wrong and were driven by something that I don’t think society at large can or should, deal with.

    If Tate or the Governor want to use egregiousness of crime I don’t feel that Leslie is exempt from that

    No, she’s not, not at all. At the same time, if that is going to be used against her, then the various mitigating factors in her defence will be brought up and those factors will be doggedly presented because regardless of which side of the fence one stays, this isn’t a one sided story.

  80. Cybele Moon says:

    Fred, always good to hear your points when you weigh in
    Fred, Paul and all, it is an endlessly fascinating subject, including of course the psychology of the crime etc.
    Interesting points, I get what you are saying and I do understand when Paul says she is eligible according to law. – And accordingly she may get out.
    Yes, there are always mitigating factors as Truman Capote wrote about in his famous book “In Cold Blood” ( which I haven’t read but I saw the documentary on Sundance lol). There is a human side to every monster.
    As for Bruce Davis, I think he confessed to both murders and I’ve also read that he was more of an enforcer for Manson. I will check out the transcripts here.
    As for prisons, well I think ours are way above those in places like S. America, Turkey, Russian and other countries. No I would not want to see my child in one.
    Yes, Leslie may not be as multiple a murderer as Tex and may be rehabilitated according to law. However, I still don’t excuse her actions ( as a poor brainwashed kid) or the others for all the reasons I have said and believe, and I still think that after having been given the ultimate which is the death penalty ( which by the way, I do not believe in) I feel life without parole would have been more appropriate.

  81. Flip says:

    “I could easily make the case for an Ed Kemper “….

    Interesting murderer to bring up in this case…he was released back into society several years after his first murder (his grandmother, if I remember correctly) on the advice of psychiatric opinion stating that “Big Ed” was no longer a danger. What followed was a string of murders every bit as horrifying as the Manson Family’s crimes. (Actually, some aspects of Kemper’s many brutal murders were even more shocking because of his penchant for necrophilia…wonder how the pyschs could have missed that??).

    Makes you wonder about the pro-release advocates who tend to use good behavior records and prison psychiatric reports as “proof” of LVH’s rehabilitation. I would say these are possibly “evidence” of rehabilitation, but not “proof”. The P-word is thrown around far too often by LVH supporters (including her attorneys) in order to bolster their opinion that there is absolute proof of her rehabilitation–meaning, of course, their opinions have
    ascended to the realm of “fact”.

  82. Michael says:

    When you step back from the discussion, you have to appreciate how interesting it is that people feel so strongly about the perpetrators of crimes that happened 49 years ago! I’ve never been very interested in Manson himself, but I am interested in cult behavior and the process people go through in giving up their independent thought for the “benefits” the cult environment offers them. It still seems like we reach an impasse over the question of whether or not Leslie is rehabilitated, or whether or not she should be released even if she is rehabilitated. It’s a pretty fascinating conversation which I’ve come to enjoy. But if my kids knew that I check in on a website featuring conversations about the Manson followers, I’d never hear the end of it!

  83. Fred Bloggs says:

    Flip says:
    “I could easily make the case for an Ed Kemper….”

    Interesting murderer to bring up in this case…

    I’ve brought him up a few times {no pun intended !} in conversations I’ve been in about parole. He serves as a chilling and valuable warning for anyone that does not take with the utmost seriousness, the matters one has to consider when talking about releasing someone that has killed back into society. And that goes really, for both sides of the debate. Both sides can be guilty of putting forward their own agendas {“they’re just a bunch of dirty killers” vs “the law says they must be freed, regardless of concerns”} at the expense of the weighter matter.

    he was released back into society several years after his first murder (his grandmother, if I remember correctly)

    He killed both his grandparents and while the murder of his gran was chilling, it was the deliberate reasoning behind the killing of his grandad that really should have given pause. He said that he didn’t want to let his grandad find his wife dead…..so he decided to kill him too.

    on the advice of psychiatric opinion stating that “Big Ed” was no longer a danger. What followed was a string of murders every bit as horrifying as the Manson Family’s crimes. (Actually, some aspects of Kemper’s many brutal murders were even more shocking because of his penchant for necrophilia…wonder how the pyschs could have missed that??)

    While there isn’t a league table of “badness” when it comes to murder, Ed Kemper’s crimes had the added dimension of a particularly sick style of necrophilia {you’d think necrophilia on its own would be pretty gruesome, but he took the biscuit when it comes to elevating to a new level}.
    The psychs weren’t aware of his penchant at the time to be fair, because he hadn’t displayed any when he murdered his grandparents. That came after his release. For me it’s that added element that would rule out parole ~ plus the fact that he himself has often ruled it out ! It’s sort of ironic in a way that objections are levelled at LVH’s rehabilitation whereas someone like Ed Kemper by actually refusing parole is stating upfront in a way, that he’s not rehabilitated at all. That’s kind of an indication that life on the outside for him is highly likely to spell danger for someone.
    But with the stories of him burying his cat alive and then cutting it up and putting it’s head on a sharp implement or killing a cat because it went to his sister more than him or even his Mum keeping him in the basement at night because she was scared he’d harm his sisters {hardly surprising when one of them nearly pushed him in front of a train and nearly drowned him another time}, among other creepy tales, you’d think the psychs would have been a lot more cautious. The only thing in their defence is that it was the 60s, a time of optimism in many endeavours, psychiatry included.

    Makes you wonder about the pro-release advocates who tend to use good behavior records and prison psychiatric reports as “proof” of LVH’s rehabilitation

    For me, the good behaviour records and psych reports are a bit like fingerprints at a crime scene. On their own, they don’t prove a damn thing. But they are an indication> of guilt and once put together with a series of other evidence begin to add towards a bigger picture.
    When I use LVH’s disciplinary record, I take into account the length of time that record spans. 40+ years is no small length of time. I also add to that that in the 49 years she’s been incarcerated, she has gone through the spheres of development a woman would and has been fairly consistent from one phase to the next since she hit 25.
    The thing with Ed Kemper is that he was 15 when he murdered his grandparents and 21 when he was released. For me, for a crime like that, that was way too short, even if he hadn’t been found to be a paranoid schizophrenic. One can compare him to Steve Grogan who, in the 33 years that he’s been on parole after killing a man {and was pretty fortunate in my opinion not to be indicted for the Tate/LaBianca conspiracy} has kept his nose clean. Yet, I feel the 14 years Grogan served was too short. However, he has shown that one could be as much in the sort of Manson milieu as LVH and willingly murder, yet make good after some years. He was generally well behaved and practical in jail, learned trades and bettered himself. Kemper and Grogan represent the extremes of our debate, which is why neither side is specifically right or wrong.

    I would say these are possibly “evidence” of rehabilitation, but not “proof”

    I would agree absolutely. I would add that it’s bloody good evidence though, if put together with other evidence.

    The P-word is thrown around far too often by LVH supporters(including her attorneys) in order to bolster their opinion that there is absolute proof of her rehabilitation–meaning, of course, their opinions have
    ascended to the realm of “fact”

    I’d agree with that too. I don’t think words like “deserve” {whichever side uses it}, or “proof” really have any place in the debate for the very simple reason, the very nature of the subject is very, very fluid. We’re talking about an ongoing situation.
    LVH can only “prove” one way that she is rehabilitated and that’s by taking a correct place in society. But none of us can prove it. We can all argue either way
    why we do or don’t think she is rehabilitated. I understand the point of view that says “they should have been given life without parole” or “I don’t think they should get out of jail for having committed murder” but the reality is these aren’t really issues that are relevant to the discussion once they’ve been stated because LVH’s sentence wasn’t LWOP and some murderers do get paroled. So, if someone is going to be kept in prison when they’ve lived out the requirement of their sentence, then it’s going to be either because the person’s actions during the crime were so despicably horrific {a la Kemper/Bundy/Dahmer/Nielsen/Brady} or they’ve simply not shown in jail that they’ve come far away enough from the mindset that could have given rise to such actions in the first place. It’s more than just psych reports that are done by someone that isn’t by your side day after day. And on that wise, that’s where Guv’nor Brown is coming from. I think he happens to be wrong in this particular instance and I frequently explain why, but I understand his position.
    As unpopular as this may seem, and I hesitate before saying it, sometimes, it does need someone with a long memory to be involved in the process ~ both for LVH’s, as well as society’s sake.

  84. Fred Bloggs says:

    Well, so much for my judicious use of italics !
    I must have taken a wrong turning there !!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The People of the State of California Vs. Charles Tex Watson