Author Archives: cielodrive.com
Wednesday, March 6th, 2019
RE: Leslie Van Houten CDC#-W13378 Parole
Dear Governor Newsom,
My name is Anthony DiMaria, nephew of Jay Sebring who was killed August 8, 1969 at the hands of the Manson clan.
On behalf of all the victims families, I ask that you determine Manson “family” Leslie Van Houten CDC#- W13378 unsuitable for parole for reasons illustrated below.
As Manson “family” killer Leslie Van Houten conspired, targeted, held hostage, butchered, mutilated and terrorized society collectively with her partners in crime- so too our families suffer collective pain and loss resulting from her unspeakable and wanton actions.
I appreciate the opportunity to address statements made at inmate Van Houten’s latest hearing (1/30/2019) regarding minimization, In Re Lawrence, dangerousness to society and suitability.
Ms. Van Houten and her attorney Richard Pfeiffer claim responsibility for her offences yet continually minimize her involvement and role in these crimes blaming cult influence and Manson control. The attorney states, “Without Manson, none of these murders would have happened”(p.122 line 20) and describes the petitioner as “one of the lower players in the Manson cult”(p124 ll. 6-7).
This was no cult. It was a very violent crime organization. In the months leading to Ms. Van Houten’s murders on August 10, 1969 Leslie Van Houten and her accomplices committed extensive crimes involving:
credit card fraud
grand auto theft
the torture murder of Gary Hinman
the drug deal burn of Bernard Crowe
the attempted murder of Mr. Crowe after he was shot in the chest
August 8 – the murders of six individuals on Cielo Drive.
To reiterate, this is no “cult”. Leslie Van Houten is no “lower player”. She is a prime criminal and sadistic killer in the Manson family.
Yet in her own words, “I don’t minimize. I feel like if I minimized I would find easy ways to live with the guilt of WHAT HAPPENED because I’m passing the buck onto somebody else so my conscience doesn’t have to deal with it. But that’s who I am and it’s not what I do with my life. Knowing him has never eased the shame and how I attempt to make right WHAT HAPPENED.”(p. 87 ll. 6-13).
WHAT HAPPENED is a helluva way to describe these crimes. At a past hearing on April 14, 2016 the inmate said “I hope you’re not understanding that I know it’s my responsibility that I allowed this to HAPPEN to ME.”(p.65 ll. 22-24)
-Her descriptions as passive participant is a consistent pattern, hearing after hearing, revealing a disconnect and minimization of her actions…even after decades of reflection and rehabilitation.
IN RE LAWRENCE
At the last hearing, Richard Pfeiffer posited “Since Lawrence, there’s been not one single published opinion that has described a crime that is sufficiently bad to deny parole.”(p.122 ll. 14-16)
I submit to you Mr. Governor, that the severe and egregious nature of Leslie Van Houten’s crimes is “sufficiently bad to deny parole.”
Leslie Van Houten committed the organized home invasion of a married couple. The victims were misled to believe it was only a home robbery, and restrained. Then, Leno and Rosemary LaBianca were butchered with a bayonet, carving fork and a butcher knife. The spouses were forced to endure each other’s slaughter. As Leno LaBianca was stabbed repeatedly, Rosemary panicked and struggled. Upon Ms. Van Houten’s demand:
Inmate Van Houten: “I ran to the doorway of the bedroom and I called out ‘We can’t kill her’ and Tex came in.”
Commissioner Ground: ” Now when you said ‘we can’t kill her’, it’s not cause you’re having doubts. You’re basically are saying you need help.”
Inmate Van Houten: “Yes.” (p. 67 ll. 24-25, p. 68 ll. 1-2)
The 3 cohorts stabbed Rosemary LaBianca 41 times. Leno was still alive. After Rosemary was dead, the killers returned to Mr. LaBianca carving tools in hand stabbing him dozens of times finally plunging the instruments to the hilt in Mr. LaBianca’s thorax and abdomen.
WAR XX was carved on his stomach.
Messages in blood were splattered on the walls. Leslie ate from the victim’s refrigerator and adorned herself in Rosemary’s clothes.
Many months free of Manson “control”, Ms. Van Houten spit on the memory of her victims, taunted her victim’s families and terrorized society at large with her horrific behavior during the trial as she sang, giggled and performed for news cameras… for almost a year’s period of time.
Mr. Pfeiffer goes on, “If you’re going to use Ms. Van Houten’s crimes to try to get to this level (Lawrence) that nobody else has gotten to, you have to look at what she did and what her actions were…what Leslie Van Houten actually did.”(p.122 ll.21-25)
Governor Newsom, please look precisely at what Leslie Van Houten actually did.
DANGER TO SOCIETY
It is undeniable that the crimes of Leslie Van Houten and the Manson “family” have dealt profound historical and cultural impact even today. It’s never waned. I point to the endless “family” T Shirts, memorabilia for sale online, books, TV and film projects…LESLIE, MY NAME IS EVIL (2009), for example.
I echo Deputy District Attorney Donna Lebowitz’s statement at the last hearing, “Just recently before the last hearing in 2017, I drove into a commercial parking lot and I saw a man with a tattoo with Charles Manson up his arm. That is the kind of impact these crimes had upon society. You don’t have random people with tattoos of other random inmates on their arms. As the sentencing judge said, ‘This case is a special one. It will burn in the public consciousness for a long period of time.'”(p.121 ll. 17-25)
On May 30, 2003 16-year-old Jason Sweeny was killed by four teenagers, ages 15-17. The weapons used to massacre the young man were a hammer and hatchet.
During the trial, the teenaged killers testified listening to “Helter Skelter” over and over for several hours before committing the murder. “Helter Skelter”. The same words written in blood on a wall at the LaBianca crime scene.
3 of the 4 teenagers were sentenced to life without possibility of parole.
Mr. Pfeiffer shockingly suggests that the societal destruction of his client’s crimes occurred in a vacuum completely void of Charles Manson, “Charles Manson ended that Movement. Leslie Van Houten didn’t.”(p.124 ll.1-2)
Let there be no confusion- there would be no Manson mystique without the horrific behavior of Leslie Van Houten. The “family” killed and terrorized collectively and collectively they share culpability for the societal destruction pervasive today.
The current threat of Leslie Van Houten to society- direct and repercussive – is lethal and corrosive.
While Leslie Van Houten and her attorney maintain she has served her time and is a changed person- Leno and Rosemary La Bianca remain unchanged. Unparoled.
They will remain so for eternity. They are just as dead as you read this since the night Leslie Van Houten slaughtered them.
Governor Newsom, please consider parole for Leslie Van Houten- once you’ve paroled Rosemary and Leno LaBianca from their graves.
Wednesday, February 20th, 2019
An appellate court judge has granted Leslie Van Houten a hearing regarding her writ of Habeas Corpus challenging Jerry Brown’s reversal of her September 2017 parole recommendation.
Judge Frances Rothschild today ordered the attorney general to come before the court to show cause as to why Van Houten’s petition should not be granted. The hearing will be held in downtown Los Angeles at 9 A.M. on April 24th.
Van Houten’s attorney, Richard Pfeiffer, feels the courts are Van Houten’s best path to freedom.
A parole board found Van Houten suitable for parole in September 2017. Then-Governor Jerry Brown reversed the decision in January of 2018, citing the heinousness of the murders. Brown accused Van Houten of downplaying her role in the murders, saying she attempted to shift blame to Charles Manson.
Pfeiffer filed a writ of Habeas Corpus 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.
In June of 2018, Superior Court Judge William C. Ryan upheld Brown’s reversal.
“The Governor met all due process requirements, and considered all relevant statutory factors tending to show suitability, including positive psychological reports,” wrote Ryan. “This court is not entitled to reweigh the evidence before the Governor; rather it is tasked with determining whether the record contains some evidence in support of the Governor’s decision. This court finds that it does, and that there is a rational nexus between the evidence in the record and the Governor’s determination of [Van Houten’s] current dangerousness.”
Pfeiffer immediately challenged Ryan’s ruling in California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal.
Van Houten, was sentenced to death in 1971 for her part in the August 10, 1969 murder deaths of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. The following year, Van Houten saw her sentence commuted to life after the California supreme court outlawed the death penalty, stating it was unconstitutional. In 1976, an appeals court ruled Van Houten was denied a fair trial because her attorney, Ronald Hughes, disappeared while the trial was in progress.
Van Houten was retried in 1977, resulting in a hung jury. She was retried the following year and again convicted, this time sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. Because of time served on her original sentence, Van Houten was already eligible for parole when she returned to prison in August of 1978.
Since then, she has been denied parole 19 times. She has been recommended for parole in her last three consecutive parole hearings. Her 2016 and 2017 parole recommendations were reversed by then-Governor Jerry Brown. Her most recent parole recommendation is still being reviewed by the Board of Parole Hearings and will eventually be reviewed by newly elected Gavin Newsom.
Wednesday, January 30th, 2019
Jan. 30 – Leslie Van Houten was found suitable for parole at a hearing held today at the California Institute for Women in Corona, California. This was Van Houten’s third parole suitability recommendation.
Van Houten was sentenced to death in 1971 for her part in the August 10, 1969 murder deaths of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. The following year, Van Houten saw her sentence commuted to life after the California supreme court outlawed the death penalty, stating it was unconstitutional. In 1976, an appeals court ruled Van Houten was denied a fair trial because her attorney, Ronald Hughes, disappeared during the trial.
Van Houten was retried in 1977, resulting in a hung jury. She was retried the following year and that time, convicted and sentenced to seven years to life. Because of time served on her original sentence, Van Houten was already eligible for parole when she returned to prison in August of 1978.
She has been denied parole 19 times since becoming eligible for parole in 1978. She was recommended for parole for the first time in April of 2016. On July 22, 2016, then Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the decision, stating, “I have considered the evidence in the record that is relevant to whether Van Houten is currently dangerous. When considered as a whole, I find the evidence shows that she currently poses an unreasonable danger to society if released from prison.”
She was recommended for parole a second time in September of 2017. Once again, Brown overturned the decision citing the heinousness of the commitment offense.
In January of last year, Van Houten’s attorney, Richard Pfeiffer, filed a writ of Habeas Corpus challenging Brown’s reversal, arguing the decision relied on isolated negative factors to support the conclusion that Van Houten posed an unreasonable risk if released. That June, Brown’s reversal was upheld by the Superior Court.
“The Governor met all due process requirements, and considered all relevant statutory factors tending to show suitability, including positive psychological reports,” wrote Judge William Ryan. “This court is not entitled to reweigh the evidence before the Governor; rather it is tasked with determining whether the record contains some evidence in support of the Governor’s decision. This court finds that it does, and that there is a rational nexus between the evidence in the record and the Governor’s determination of [Van Houten’s] current dangerousness.”
Pfeiffer challenged the ruling in California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal, who have yet to rule on it.
Today’s decision will undergo a 120-day review by the Board of Parole Hearings. Then it will be reviewed by Governor Gavin Newsom, who will have until June 29th to either confirm, reverse or modify the parole grant.
Thursday, January 3rd, 2019
BEAUSOLEIL FOUND SUITABLE FOR RELEASE
Jan. 3 – Bobby Beausoleil was found suitable for parole today by the California Board of Parole Hearings.
Today’s decision will undergo a 120 day BPH review. If the grant withstands scrutiny, it will then be sent to newly elected Governor Gavin Newsom. Newsom will have five options. He may uphold, reverse or modify the decision. He may also send it back to the full BPH board to review en banc (meaning all 15 commissioners at a monthly meeting), or he may take no action. If he takes no action the grant moves forward.
Beausoleil has been incarcerated since June 23, 1970, serving a term of 7-years-to-life, for the 1969 murder of musician Gary Hinman. He was tried twice, the first resulting in hung jury and the second, a conviction. He was sentenced to death on April 15, 1970, but saw that sentence commuted to life when the death penalty was briefly outlawed.
Beausoleil has been denied parole 18 times since he became eligible on August 4th, 1976.
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.