California Supreme Court to Review Van Houten Parole Reversal

Wednesday, January 8th, 2020

Jan. 8 – The California Supreme Court has granted a review of Leslie Van Houten’s 2017 parole recommendation reversal. Briefing will be delayed until a pending case cited in Van Houten’s petition is resolved.

Van Houten was found suitable for parole in September 2017. Then Governor, Jerry Brown, reversed the decision in January of 2018, citing the heinousness of the murders. Brown also accused Van Houten of downplaying her role in the murders, stating she had attempted to shift blame to Charles Manson.

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 Leslie Van Houten posed an unreasonable risk if released. The Superior Court upheld Brown’s reversal in June of 2018, stating that the Governor had met all due process requirements.

Pfeiffer challenged the ruling in California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal. The appellate court granted review and heard oral arguments last April. In September, the three justice panel ruled 2-to-1 to uphold Brown’s reversal. Now the matter will be addressed by the state’s highest court.

Van Houten is also waiting on a Superior Court ruling due in the next few days, regarding Governor Gavin Newsom’s reversal of her 2019 parole recommendation.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to California Supreme Court to Review Van Houten Parole Reversal

  1. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Well there’s always ill health that can occur and bring final justice this bitch and her attorney can’t appeal. Toe tag parole is what she has earned.

  2. Linda pickenheim says:

    It really isn’t a case of how she behaves on the”outside”, now, is it?
    She was a murderer. IS a murderer. No matter how long ago that crime, and I remember it clearly, does not take away from the cruelty, the images it still puts in my head and the heinous essentially it was.
    Forget it. No way should she walk free.

  3. starviego says:

    We love you Lulu!

  4. Jonathan Hart says:

    What a waste of time. The politicians and judges will do what they always do. They are the real law breakers.

    If they were interested in justice and doing the right thing, she would have been out long ago. She’s simply a political prisoner now, and it doesn’t look like that will ever change, unfortunately.

  5. Paul says:

    The politics in California are pathetic, if you cannot follow the guidelines of the law then you should not be working in the political world or anywhere to be honest. They have cheated her case so much.

  6. Stephen Craig says:

    “We love you Lulu!” “They (the politicians) are the real lawbreakers.” With all due to respect, are you serious? Have you any idea what an affront that is to the memory of her victims and the hell that they endured at her (and the others) hands?

  7. Julie lee says:

    It is quite ridiculous how long this woman has served. She would of been out long ago any where else if this was not Hollywood related. She’s done her time let her out stop listening to others protesting she’s a risk because they can’t let go and move on after all these years. I live in the uk and when I see this all I see now is politics and people frightened to do the right thing because of relatives still living who never want to rest Incase they slip out of the media

  8. Jonathan Hart says:

    Stephen, do you have any idea that she has met the conditions of parole many times over?

    That’s the only thing we’re discussing here….whether or not she has met those conditions, and the parole board has said she DOES how many times now? Why do we have parole board and its members if the Governor can simply overturn everything they decide….forever?

    You may not like the fact that she didn’t get life without parole, but THAT’S the circumstances. How many murderers have gone free over the past 50 years that did a lot worse things than LVH? The REASON they went free was because they met the conditions for parole. Do you think ANY family members that have lost a loved one by murder would agree that the murderer should EVER go free? Of course not! But they do because THAT’S the conditions.

    All that should matter here is whether LVH has met the conditions to be paroled. And of course she has. Case closed.

    The Governor(s) refuse to follow the law, however, and don’t take their job seriously. They make up things that aren’t true in order to keep her in prison indefinitely. Not because she’s truly a danger to others, but because they don’t want the political fallout from letting a “Manson girl” out of prison.

  9. Cybele Moon says:

    This is a very passionate and always disturbing case. Yes, it seems like she has met the requirements. No I don’t think the surviving family as someone said here “never want to rest In case they slip out of the media.” That is pretty callous considering what they lost but very typical of LVH supporters. The victim’s families do have every right to want to deny her parole. I don’t look at Leslie as a heroine of injustice but rather someone who has paid dearly for a very terrible crime. They are lucky the death penalty was overturned at that time. It’s obvious that Justice means different things to different people.

    I hear people talk about the terror of that time and the brutality of the many Manson murders and then others say ” let them go it was 50 years ago” as though that means murder is wiped off the slate. This case has never died. but not because of Sharon Tate. So many other factors played into it such as the whole “peaceful, enlightenment seeking, anti war” (social) Hippie movement which came crashing down because of this.
    Anyway folks the woman is over 70 years old and not much life left to live anyway not that I don’t think she has deserved what she got. It’s not as though she can start over at this age but hopefully won’t make money from “her story.” I hope she has found her own peace and redemption. At any rate the court may free her at some point if her lawyer doesn’t give up. She has spent her life in jail. The question is now whether she will die there or not.

  10. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Cybele you kick ass and take names girl. Stephen you freakin’ rock.

    Question answered: She will rot in prison, as she should. Her victims have been rotting in their graves, our society has been rotting from HER crimes SHE ASKED to BE A PART.

    Far as I’m concerned her supporters can suck on her rotting toe nails as they cart her sorry murderous carcass from prison. Maybe sell their suck story on Ebay or wear it in their perineal and sell tickets to their ass-holiness LVH.

  11. Gail Purretta says:

    Show her the mercy she showed her victims – NONE! She was one of those who stabbed a pregnant woman to death as the woman begged for her life and the life of her unborn child. She should rot in jail and burn in hell.

  12. Michael says:

    In fairness, Gail, Leslie was not present the night Sharon Tate was murdered. But her crimes were indescribable, regardless. Her behavior during the trial (caught in film footage that’s played regularly and stirs up a violent reaction in me to this day) was also so heartless and contemptuous that I can’t muster up much sympathy for her, even though I believe she’s reformed and remorseful. So many wasted lives because of this craziness, including hers.

  13. BeentoCieloBeentoWaverly says:

    Michael says: January 13, 2020 at 1:31 am
    “In fairness, Gail, Leslie was not present the night Sharon Tate was murdered…”

    To me, this fact makes Van Houten less, not more, deserving of leniency. She knew the slaughter that occurred the first night and still volunteered to go the second. If that’s not evil defined, I don’t know what is.

    Van Houten’s supporters can make a case she’s met the revised terms the state of California set – and LvH has – but “only” being at Waverly and not Cielo condemns, not absolves, Rosemary Labianco’s murderer.

  14. BeentoCielo... says:

    Please excuse my misspelling, LaBianca – my apology.

  15. The Lost Weekend says:

    This case seems to me to be about whether you want to live under a legal system that has the power to say one thing and do another. Because that is what’s happening here.

    LVH was given life with the chance of parole and despite meeting the parole conditions on numerous occasions she is denied it. She is political prisoner.

    Ask yourself whether you would want to live under those conditions. If you were imprisoned would you want to the legal system to be able to deny you your rights and extend your sentence as they saw fit because it meant the governor getting re-elected? Would you be happy is those self same conditions affected a member of your family?

    Would you want to be made an example of while people guilty of far more heinous crimes walk free? Or would you want the system to follow the law and to honour the original conviction and the law as it stands?

    This really isn’t about the crimes themselves, it’s about accepting that allowing yourself to fail prey to a double standard isn’t alright. It’s not OK to want one things for ourselves (fairness and even-handedness) and something else (unfair treatment, endless incarceration) for someone else, no matter who they are.

  16. Stephen Craig says:

    I’d like to respectfully disagree with two points brought up by The Lost Weekend:

    1. For me, someone who opposes the release of LVH, it is about the crime itself, the abject brutality visited upon the LaBiancas, the loss of their lives and all that entails, and the wreckage visited upon their families/loved ones because of this senseless crime. The “powers that be”, clearly didn’t “think it through when abolishing the death penalty, and commuting the sentences to life with the possibility of parole. That decision, was as “senseless” as the crime itself, and an insult to the suffering/loss of the victims.

    2. I completely support the idea/concept/practice of every first degree murder case/defendant being scrutinized with the same fervor of the Manson murders/murderers. My concern is not that LVH and the others are still incarcerated, but that those who committed similar atrocities against innocent people are no free. That is a real travesty of “justice” (IMO).

  17. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    The Lost Weekend “LVH was given life with the chance of parole and despite meeting the parole conditions on numerous occasions she is denied it. She is political prisoner. Ask yourself whether you would want to live under those conditions.”

    As I try to contain my fingertips the only thing I see with this particular quote is you have NO compunction about what the CONDITIONS of the VICTIMS were left in by Lulu.

    Bet the LaBianca’s would love to live as a political prisoner…at least they would be
    ALIVE. This will always and forever BE ABOUT THE VICTIMS. Don’t like it?

    Go find another lost weekend to wank over.

  18. Cybele Moon says:

    No Justice, No Peace and Lost Weekend

    There is no justice really in this case. There are those who go by the letter of the law and those who cannot wrap their heads around the terror and brutality of the Manson crimes no matter time passed.To this day the most famous and emotional crimes of the last century, along with Leopold and Loeb, Lindbergh kidnapping, OJ Simpson are the Manson murders. Interestingly only the Lindbergh Kidnapping resulted in a death sentence and that may have been a travesty.
    The law often just means having a good lawyer (like OJ).
    Yes, unfortunately there was one famous person in the Manson slaughter, who everyone who supports LVH says is the reason she is still in jail. However, although that did make headlines, there were other factors as well, the death of the sixties social movement, the fact that these were young women who committed such brutality, hippie cults, brainwashing etc etc. The media loves a story like this-good girls gone bad, the middle class spawning blood thirsty killers and conservative America’s confirmation that the hippie movement was subversive and no good all along. So it is not forgotten. But.. there were very real victims in this story. who must have experienced such terror and pain, who begged for their lives, whose families suffered the horror as well. Yes, what is true justice here.

  19. Pam says:

    This is so ridiculous, what mercy or second chance did this cold blooded killer give to her victim? Now watch Fred come in here with his BS about her rights

  20. Ken Chapman says:

    Those arguing for continued incarceration are at least honest–they see punishment as the reason to keep Van Houten in prison. That, however, is not the law. A grant of parole is based on an assessment of dangerousness. Van Houten had no history of violence prior to her participation in murder in 1969, and no incidents, violent or otherwise during her 50 years of incarceration. During her second trial there was a hung jury and she was granted bail. When she was convicted at her third trial she was still in her 20’s and presumably far less rehabilitated than now, but she turned herself in without incident. She has the support of a number of correctional staff, who are not known as soft touches. There is no rational argument for dangerousness.

    Technically, Van Houten was able to apply for parole as early as 7 years post conviction. The first time that the Parole Board granted parole was after over 45 years of incarceration. This Supreme Court review is not after 10 years, 20, 30 or 40 years, but only after 50 years. Can anyone really believe that if her name didn’t have a connection to Manson, that she would still be incarcerated?

    There is no doubt that if the name “Manson wasn’t

  21. Cybele Moon says:

    Ken,
    it is quite possible that she may be freed. She has served a lifetime although quite frankly I still say they got off easy after the death sentence was removed for a time from the law. So much for the fickleness of “The Law.”
    Whether or not LVH participated in only one horrific night of murder it seemed a pretty significant “incident” and one that might forever cast doubt as to the propensity for aberrant behaviour in an individual.

  22. Stephen Craig says:

    Re: comment “only one horrific night murder”. I wonder if the victims who experienced that “only one night of horrific murder” would look at LVH’s participation in their slaughter through such a lens. I would hazard to guess that ‘only one night” was one night too much for the LaBianca’s. Now perhaps I am reading this wrong, and I mean no disrespect to Cybele Moon nor her opinions, but qualifying an act of butchery by using “only” seems insensitive to what that “only” meant to those on the receiving end of those knives. For me, LVH has spent “only” spared the death penalty , and has consequently spent “only” 50 years in jail and while doing so was able to build some semblance of a life for herself, while the victims spent their last moments in what had to be abject terror, and died, not with their families by their sides, but suffering in ways that to me, are unimaginable. “Only” once was one time too much.

  23. Jonathan Hart says:

    Don’t know what it is about people like Stephen Craig and others who continue to talk about LVH’s punishment as though she received a LIFE SENTENCE! It was NOT a life sentence. How many times do you have to read that to realize it is so? Stephen seems like an otherwise intelligent person, as do many others here on this board. So how is it that so many smart people can be so thick-headed about understanding something as simple as PAROLE?

    All you people have to understand is that LVH has EARNED her parole. That’s the SUPPOSED to be the ONLY set of rules she’s held to. It has NOTHING to do with whether ANYONE on this board (or anywhere else) thinks she has PAID ENOUGH FOR HER CRIME! Why can’t you people understand that? The only thing to debate NOW is whether she has earned the right to be paroled! That’s it! It doesn’t matter what YOUR personal feelings are about whether she has paid for her crime. That is totally irrelevant.

    By not letting her out of prison when she has earned her parole, justice and laws of the PRISON SYSTEM are being ignored and obstructed. THAT’S against the law! How can the prison system set up rules for parole and then ignore their own rules? Only ONE way…..when governors refuse to follow the recommendation of the parole board members for their personal POLITICAL REASONS!

    To allow ONE governor to overrule ALL the parole board members year after year is wrong and makes no sense. The parole board members who follow the case year after year and whose job it is to determine parole should make the decisions. Political governors with other skins in the game should have nothing to do with it.

    Sheesh! What is it with some you people? This is not hard. All we’re talking about now is whether she should be paroled based on her behavior in prison for 50 years…..NOT whether she’s received enough punishment.

  24. Cybele Moon says:

    Stephen, I was parroting Ken if you will see what was said on the previous post. It was a bit of sarcasm “only one horrific night of murder” if you read my whole post you will see I was not condoning his post in any way. You should know me better than that!! lol

  25. Stephen Craig says:

    Cybele Moon: You are absolutely right, and I owe you an apology! I should have known better! You know, I bit off lately. I think it’s because I’m trying to quit smoking yet again for the millionth time!

  26. Stephen Craig says:

    Sorry. meant to say “I’m a bit off lately”

  27. Michael says:

    Stephen, off topic, but STICK WITH IT! I was a two and a half pack a day guy and quit in ’82. I have never regretted it although I had quit at least a dozen times before that. Do whatever you can to get off the cigarettes, I guarantee you’ll be glad you went through the discomfort of withdrawal,

  28. Michael says:

    Stephen, off topic, but STICK WITH IT! I was a two and a half pack a day guy and quit in ’82. I have never regretted it although I had quit at least a dozen times before that. Do whatever you can to get off the cigarettes, I guarantee you’ll be glad you went through the discomfort of withdrawal,

  29. Cybele Moon says:

    no worries. yes good luck and stick with it.

  30. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    OT: Stephen: Smoked over 30 years, 3 packs a day easy. One day I could not breathe and drove myself to an urgent care. After 3 shot of prednisone, 4 nebulizers, and a box of tissues containing my lung chunks, I caught my breath. That was in 2008.

    Don’t give in. You can and will give it up. Tip: Do it for you. Tip: Smoke where you never do, and only go to that spot. No phone. No tv. No driving. Nothing BUT that smoke.

    You’ll eventually hate it more than LVH lol Good luck man.

  31. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Gee Jonathan Fart, I would say this much: Instead of looking at LVH’s current attorney fed MO on how she “earned” parole, why don’t you take 50 years and take a look at any case law website and see just how her repentant behavior she has adopted to what she needs to do to GET OUT.

    Love how you LVH supplements cry about the Governor’s power. Don’t like it? CHANGE IT. Until then, go cry over your inability to empathize with concern for the victim’s families. Yes, even 50 GOT DAMN YEARS LATER.

    This murderous whore you cry over is specifically risky. Why? WHY? Because SHE KNEW ABOUT TATE AND ASKED TO GO TO LABIANCA.

    I suggest Gas X, no pun intended to what your forehead most likely looks like.

  32. Jonathan Hart says:

    Sitting here wondering why the “No Justice” fellow is allowed personal attacks on those he disagrees. I see he has a long history of that on this board. Why is he permitted to do that? Can we all say whatever we wish on this board, or are we held to some semblance of terms and conditions for posting privileges? Just wondering. Are there any moderators here?

    Oh well, all I can tell you “Justice” is that, by your nonsensical diatribe, it appears you have now substituted alcohol and/or drugs for the tobacco you used to smoke. You make no sense at all.

  33. Cybele Moon says:

    now now boys, play nice. I was insulted once or twice here too.

    Jonathan, I think the point is, that the law in California (I don’t know about other states) does allow a governor to have a final decision whether or not you feel an inmate has earned his/her parole. It’s also obvious that as such public opinion may play a role it’s very interesting that in California, governors do overrule parole boards which apparently is rare. The state of California has had it’s share of very bizarre crimes.
    So if I may reiterate, in regards to some believing that after all this time LVH is rehabilitated (which “may” be true), or that she “only stabbed a dead body” which most of her supporters claim and to which you might say, quoting Shakespeare’s Richard III “then say they are not slain- yet dead they are” I will always wonder if someone who could have been “brainwashed” into such a horrifying, predatory and compassionless act can ever be trusted as to their thinking processes.

  34. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    And THIS is why Cybele rocks.

    And that said “Jonathan Hart” who is reminiscent of another poster who sounds exactly like you…

    Toe. Tag.

  35. John Birr says:

    I understand the feelings of people who simply believe “justice” requires Leslie’s continued incarceration. But this (her) case – when compared to that of other murderers who actually planned their killings with malice – might remind people that “justice” actually demands release. How many people processed through the justice system and given First Degree Murder: 1. did not plan their killing, 2. did not know their victim, 3. had no history of violence, 4. only acquiesced to going with the other perpetrators to prove some sort of “loyalty” while never actually expecting to personally commit homicide, 5. admitted to having the gravity of the moment finally hit her when the “leader” of the group sent her in to the house and she saw the couple tied up on the couch, 6. freaked out, stood in another room and looked in a different direction when the actual killing took place, 7. Was pushed down to the floor next to the victim, and told to do her part to get her hands dirty in the crime. In today’s world this is EASILY Second Degree Murder. But this crime took on a life of its own, and the politics have spawned untruths and lies. Leslie should have been out in the late 1970’s.

  36. Cybele Moon says:

    oh boy John Birr

    Did you forget that LVH asked to go along knowing what had occurred at the Tate residence. Premeditated? Don’t forget they had been involved in illegal activities at the ranch for quite awhile. Oh poor Lulu, she stood there frozen until told to get her hands dirty? Were you there? Of course this is what LVH supporters prefer to believe. These were among the most horrific murders of the last century because they were random ( or were they?) gruesome, brutal, merciless and absolutely crazy I agree. Lulu said in one interview that she might have had to kill children if Charlie ordered it. These were very sick individuals and the fact they were young middle class women really hit society hard. I think they will always have something wrong with their brains whether they get out or not. She deserved her time in prison.

  37. Cybele Moon says:

    PS: her behaviour right after the crime and during the trial says a lot about her “gravity of the moment.”

  38. Stephen Craig says:

    I couldn’t agree with you more, Cybele, and although everyone is entitled to their own opinions, in terms of LVH’s participation in this horrendous crime, I find it “shocking” that there are those who seems to believe that she herself is somehow a ‘victim” in this tragic case as well. And To claim that ” “justice” actually demands release” for LVH demonstrates IMO not only a detachment/false narrative not only in terms of the facts of the case, but also displays, without saying so, a lack of sympathy for the victims; for if anyone is entitled to “release”, it is the Labiancas themselves, and we all know that that will never happen for them. LVH made it known that if more murders were to occur she wanted to participate, and the LaBiancas had to suffer the consequences of her (and the others’) participation. So must she. And if there are those who believe that she has “paid the price for her crimes”, let me ask, ‘What crimes did the Labiancas commit? Why were they “sentenced top death? , and, “When do they come up for parole? What about their families?” Why are her supporters so interested in what happens to her, a convicted murderess whose actions led to the loss of innocent lives? I’m flummoxed, to say the least…

  39. John Birr says:

    Hmmm.
    I guess we’ll never know how the Labiancas were involved, or what they did to incur the wrath of Manson or Watson. (Except for being the neighbors of Harold True, who had recently been one of the tenants at 3267 Waverly Dr, owned by Julia Posella – whose son Leonard repeatedly threatened the couple, getting money from them because he felt they owed him.). Was it a “hit?”. Looks possible. The available early police reports on the homicide are filled to the brim with interviewed suspects who all absolutely hated them and seemed almost eager to tell the authorities. Very bizarre. Not since Bonnie and Clyde has there been a more hated betrothed couple. But I digress. Would LVH be the instigator of such a hit? Mmm, no. She was obviously a dopey girl who took too much acid, had some deep-rooted insecurities, and decided to forego her future while grabbing onto the counter culture tether, as thousands did back then. In doing so, she gave up herself to the group, paid the price of acceptance by allowing herself to be regularly pimped, and feigned “toughness” in order to make everyone happy and less suspicious of her (as it seems they all were). She admits of course to “wanting” to go, to showing her willingness to be a brave soldier, and somehow gain some odd approval she felt she needed. But in the house, as she stated many times, it all got real. And the phony fantasies about violence were staring right at her. She was an idiot for letting this happen. But who among us -if we somehow EVER found ourselves in her shoes (or bare feet?)… would negotiate a way out of all that once C.D. Watson began his poking of Leno? Could we just go, “I’m out. You guys are wrong!” Yet all her actions seemed to indicate she was not into this. She froze. Then Tex made her get dirty. Can’t have a witness who didn’t participate, you know. Look, I’m just making the argument on the other side. Everyone defaults to accepting Bugliosi’s narrative about “murder coarsing through their veins,” and I don’t accept that. She is definitely not equivalent to most First Degree Murderers. If you look at the facts, that is clear. Motive and history are important. Leslie’s biggest crime is getting involved with very violent, very mean dudes into drug dealing, stolen cars and pimping. She should have had the good sense to extricate herself from that scene before she became too slavishly committed, and left. But the far greater crime is what is being covered up in this whole mess by our now obviously untrustworthy FBI and CIA, who’d been -for example – watching the Tate house for months regarding drug trafficking. This whole case is something about which we will never know the entire truth, and Van Houten is a victim here – obviously not in the same way as the Labiancas – but a victim nonetheless. Sorry if this bothers people.

  40. Cybele Moon says:

    I’m with you Stephen and No Justice,
    interesting John Birr it seems again you’ve fallen into the conspiracy theory traps that so abound today and that’s shaky ground. Yes sadly, a lot was said about the dead Labiancas in more recent years (as if that matters- they were still victims). They didn’t deserve to die in such a brutal and horrific way in which LVH was a participant. Who cares if she wasn’t quite as bloodthirsty as the rest. She indeed “went along” and they all should have been given life w/o parole. This case still brings out strong emotions and no one has forgotten for whatever reason
    As for conspiracies, it’s true there is much that we never know about some events and there is always a level of corruption in some organizations, but conspiracy theories are just that- theories- until proved or exposed. LVH is not my idea of a victim. Lots of kids embraced the counter culture of the sixties but did not end up slaughtering people. A few radicals like the Weathermen blew up buildings, but actually tried to blow them up when no one was there. Manson decided his cohorts should actually personally slaughter folks with knives and bayonets including an 8 month pregnant woman who you are suggesting was a drug dealer?! yikes. As a well known actress and wife of a movie director, I don’t think she needed to earn money that way.
    Charlie’s girls for the most part were middle class , educated girls who had a lot going for them. They chose to follow a violent felon who claimed to be Jesus Christ, who smacked women around and ordered the murder of people he felt disrespected him (I never saw that in the gospels). He had already murdered two others before the Tate Labianca murders.

  41. Michael says:

    John, I cannot conceive of Leslie being a victim. She chose to give herself to a madman in exchange for an easy life of pleasure and irresponsibility at Spahn’s Ranch. She herself has acknowledged her responsibility, and she knew exactly what she was doing when she said “yes” to Charlie the night he asked her to go to the LaBianca’s home. I agree that she was not an enthusiastic participant, but to me, that means very little. She participated willingly and actively. She is not a victim. Her victims are victims.

  42. John Birr says:

    Cybele Moon, I really do appreciate your point of view. I wanted to clarify a couple things, in case I’ve not been clear. The LaBiancas did not deserve to die. No one does…at least like that. I hope I didn’t say they did. My only point was that most of the evidence (later cherry picked out by Vincent Bugliosi) suggested the LaBianca couple was deeply enmeshed in trouble – with Leno’s market colleagues who’d actually scheduled a shareholder meeting THAT weekend in order to relieve Leno of his duties because of years of embezzlement, with mafia bookies to whom Leno owed tens of thousands of dollars, and with his neighbors and a host of others who seemed to have reasons to “off” him. This is not conspiracy. You can find almost all of this in the first and second LaBianca Homicide reports. Lets not forget Suzan Laberge, Rosemary’s daughter, was engaged at the time to Joe Dorgan, who allegedly was a member of the Straight Satans MC, the group that most commonly visited and hung out at Spahn Ranch. Let’s remember that Leno called his daughter only days before he was killed and told her he has to “get out” of town because he believed he was in danger. On the subject of Manson, I never said I thought he was “Jesus,” even if some of the girls may have. My point only is that if these murders had NOT happened, then we would all agree that the girls were brainwashed victims and Charlie should be held responsible one way or another. (Notice many people following this crime follow the double standard of discounting the “brainwashing” aspect HERE, but have no trouble pointing to the hundreds of Jonestown victims 9 years later and saying THEY WERE INDEED brainwashed. The fact is, both were true. But what is the dividing line? Is it that you draw the line at killing oneself instead of killing others? Why are the many hundreds of Jim Jones’ followers looked on by us as sad victims who were clearly in some sort of delusional belief system, but not the mostly teenaged Manson women who entered a similar us-against-the-world philosophy? It is a point I’m seriously asking. The answer, I believe, is that HERE, the delusioned weirdos killed others…therefore they are more guilty and deserving of our wrath. (I pity the dead at Jonestown. Maybe they are better off that way. At least they’re not “evil” by our crazy standards.) Finally, I NEVER said Sharon Tate was a drug dealer. Somehow you got that conclusion… I don’t know how. No, I thought you knew that Jay Sebring had been the Candy Man to Hollywood for many years. I thought you knew that a young barber named Joe who worked with Sebring in the mid 60’s talked about mob types coming in to the shop and roughing people up. Steve McQueen’s wife hated jay coming over with all the stuff that fed her husband’s pharmacological desires. i assumed you knew that Voytek Frykowski was just that weekend given a highly sought-after position with a Canadian drug trio to run the MDA distribution in Los Angeles. Listen, I get it. It’s simpler to think they were just innocent people minding their own business, but the facts say otherwise. They didn’t deserve to die. Nor did Steve Parent, nor did Abigail Folger (a major sympathetic figure when it came to hippies, and someone who supposedly knew Manson from the Haight, as well as a young philanthropist to the arts as well as the Free Medical Clinic in S.F.) Nobody deserved to die this way. It just happened because a drug deal went very badly and people got killed. The girls were psychologically compromised and used terribly by the men of the group, who treated them as currency – as a means of currency to placate the victims of drug deals, and as a favor to those in Hollywood who’d helped Charlie with his music. It was all very complicated. But Leslie should NOT EVER be put in the same category as a Karla Homolka, or a Susan Smith, etc. There’s no comparison. That’s my only point. She is guilty, and she’s paid for her crimes more than most lifers have. Yes, this is true. In California, according to a Stanford University study in 2010, the AVERAGE amount of time a LIFER (murderer) serves in prison in 18.75 years. Consider this includes those who PLANNED and solely carried out the killing with deliberative animus, hatred and the like. Many were let out on the streets at an age that is still very suspect, and most have not returned. Van Houten is 70. The same tired excuse is given by the governors du jour to keep her in: she could still be a danger. This is so funny as to be ridiculous. Yet, it goes on. And it goes on to feed this silly narrative, using the people involved in this rather sordid affair to serve as an example due to the enormous publicity attributed to it because one of the victims happened to have been on the silver screen. Unfortunate for all involved.

  43. John Birr says:

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/manson-family-murder-victims-friend-posits-alternative-motive-1227729

    Regarding Jim Markham, a protoge of Sebrings from the Hollywood Reporter last year: “Though Markham is reluctant to denigrate the memory of Sebring, who was his mentor and after whom he named his son, he claims that the late hairdresser knew Manson and suggests that the murders were the result of a drug deal gone bad — an account that aligns with a once-popular explanation that fell out of favor as the Helter Skelter narrative became dominant. Back in 1969, Sebring was nicknamed The Candyman and was said to have used his salon to peddle drugs to the stars.

    “I don’t want to get into the drugs, but I never bought into the race war theory. I believe Manson had gone up to the house” — Polanski was away shooting a movie — “and Manson wanted to sell cocaine and marijuana,” he says. “He showed Jay and Wojciech the product. They were going to buy some of it, but the two of them beat him up at the gate. The next night, Manson sent the Family up [to kill them].” Markham adds, “I’ve lived with that for 50 years. I still believe that.” He declines to elaborate further given that he is still in touch with Sebring’s nephew Anthony DiMaria, who is planning a movie about his uncle.”
    And this is just the beginning.

  44. Michael says:

    John, the lifestyle or actions of some of the victims seems irrelevant to me, unless your point is that their murders did not automatically make them saintly, which is a point I’d agree with. But I’ve never considered Jim Jones’ followers (at least the adult ones) to be any more or less innocent than Charlie’s followers. In fact, I consider many of them to be murderers as surely as Leslie and the others, because many of them forced others to take the cyanide and injected the children with it. But really, does it make much difference whether or not we view Leslie the same as we would view Susan Smith or Karla Faye? All of them murdered barbarically, and all of them, to my thinking, gave up the right to freedom and to life.

  45. John Birr says:

    Michael, they were all convicted of murder.
    But I guess I see a difference and you don’t. That’s ok, I simply wanted to get my perspective out there, and offer a viewpoint often and easily lost in all of this. As for the victims, you’re correct, they were no angels. My point simply is there was obviously a lot more beneath the surface that is not being admitted to…for obvious reasons of image and the like. And because of that, the trial was a show trial. And every narrative surrounding this must fit neatly into the Helter Skelter box, or it simply won’t surface in the same way. Lives and reputations are being protected, as they always are, and as a result, Leslie is only one person of many that has to deal with a parole system stacked much more heavily against her than against others who’ve been convicted. The double standard for her is breath-taking.

  46. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    If the trial was a ‘show trial’ it’s because the murderers wanted to shock the world.
    Good job for choosing “piggies” in their starched white shirts.

    “The victims were no angels.”
    Thanks to the murderers, they are now and have been since August 1969.

    Everything else John Birr has posted is speculation. Show corroborating evidence of statements made instead of continual conjecture about the proven motive as provided by VB. As in, PROVEN in a court of law. Can’t? Sure hate it.

    Oh and one more thing. The only victims are the ones in their graves. To suggest otherwise is nauseating, offensive and pisses surviving families off to no end. I happen to be one of them. (not this case) My emotions do spill out of my fingertips and I’m not apologizing for my pain.

    So if Johnathon Hart is insulted, or anyone else on this board, tough shit. I’ll never stop trying to show the ripple effect of murder, how it never ends for the surviving families and how their rights are mitigated by a murderous asshole who is an angel while incarcerated, three hots and a cot, free education, pro bono legal representation and especially playing the victim because Mommy and Daddy didn’t love me enough.

    Pfft.

  47. Cybele Moon says:

    well said Michael and No Justice.
    John Birr, your responses are well written but I feel they are so wrong on many levels. None of us are saints or angels but we don’t deserve to die in such bloody terror and slaughter.
    Yes Bugliosi presented a case based on Helter Skelter which was the only one that made any sense out of such senseless crimes at the time. And he did a great job at getting convictions. As for your scenario of what happened at the house. It just doesn’t wash considering how the victims were found or what the perpetrators themselves later revealed. We will never know everything of course. Yes Jim Jones was horrifying also. But they too are all dead so there is no one to prosecute. Manson’s followers didn’t go that route and I am another who cannot feel sorry for LVH. You make your bed and you lie in it- for her behind bars. She may be released but she will always be a murderer. Brainwashed or not she went out with her friends and murdered perfect strangers who wanted to live, not themselves or other members in a suicide pact. That can never be taken back no matter how many tears of remorse may be shed (which we can never know), soft spoken voices, charming personalities, or degrees received on the tax payer’s back.

  48. Stephen Craig says:

    Well said NJNP and Cybele! I couldn’t have said it any better myself! With all due respect to John, and his thoughts/opinions, he “lost” me when he stated, when referring to the LB’s, ‘Not since Bonnie and Clyde has there been a more hated betrothed couple’. I mean, let’s just say that the LB’s were exactly what the conspiracy theories allege that the were: gamblers, drug dealers, involved with the mob etc…Never, in any of the articles/books/movies/documentaries/interviews have I ever heard them be accused of human slaughter. That however, is what LVH was tried and convicted of. So if anyone in this sad/tragic case should be “hated”, it should be LVH and her cohorts. To paint these victims in an unfavorable light, to claim that none of them were/perfect innocent, so the loss of their lives or the suffering they endured in their final moments is some how, then consequently mitigated, is outrageous. If you are someone who supports the rights of parole of convicted killer, how can you possibly be so insensitive to the victims (an yes, I have read previous post where John does attempt to qualify his responses, but,once again, with all due respect, his rationale (IMO) “rings hollow”)?

  49. Fred Bloggs says:

    Pam says:
    Now watch Fred come in here with his BS about her rights

    The art of reading is not simply being able to identify words on a page and correctly pronounce them. It involves being able to understand not only what the words mean, but how they are used in the particular sentences in which they appear and the overall context.
    You seem to have a hard time actually reading, particularly something that is nuanced and appears to go against what you want to be the case.
    I can only suggest you go back and read what I have said regarding LVH on this matter. I wouldn’t mind betting that you couldn’t articulate it, not if that ridiculous quote is anything to go by.

    John Birr says:
    I guess we’ll never know how the Labiancas were involved, or what they did to incur the wrath of Manson or Watson…..Was it a “hit?” Looks possible….Not since Bonnie and Clyde has there been a more hated betrothed couple

    No disrespect John, but I think not. Firstly, if you do your research, you’ll note that most of the bad stuff was aimed at Rosemary and each of her detractors merely put forth their theories, which, if you check them out, were pretty bitchy, though for arguably good reason. And of course, the importance of stating that they were only opinions is because that’s all they were. Stuff that arose in their heads and could not be proven in any way. The police were very clear on that.
    As for Leno, he was defrauding his company and the shame that was on the way at being found out and exposed by his own Mum was enough for him to want to get out of town and start over. Also, the Mafia wouldn’t get their money if they offed him ~ if the Mafia even had any involvement, which has never been established.
    The Bonnie & Clyde statement was just plain ridiculous.

    Look, I’m just making the argument on the other side

    That’s fine but bear in mind, that was settled half a century ago. There comes a point when one has to simply move on and stay in the present ~ but with an eye on the past.

    Everyone defaults to accepting Bugliosi’s narrative about “murder coarsing through their veins,” and I don’t accept that

    Neither do I. I have never felt that any of them would have committed murder had they not found themselves in Manson’s orbit. The interesting thing is that though Bugliosi sought to show that they were capable of murder apart from Charlie, in the trial he said the opposite ~ that the murders were not only not their idea, they wouldn’t have committed them without Charlie’s motive and directions.
    It’s important to note that does not mean they’re not responsible. Same way hit men aren’t absolved from their actions just because the original orders weren’t theirs.

    But the far greater crime is what is being covered up in this whole mess by our now obviously untrustworthy FBI and CIA, who’d been -for example – watching the Tate house for months regarding drug trafficking

    Proof ? That’s an old chestnut and exists to deflect away from Helter Skelter, like pretty much every alternative proposed over the last 50 years. And they all fail for the same reason. They’re not true.

    Van Houten is a victim here – obviously not in the same way as the Labiancas – but a
    victim nonetheless

    That’s a hard one for people to get their heads around. But the reality is that there are all kinds of victims connected to this case over a half a century. The problem is that the varying strands of victimhood falls into a number of different categories, none of which are connected with the others. So saying LVH is a victim is true in a sense ~ but what she may be a victim of is only true in her particular sphere. And that particular sphere may be very low down the scale. It can’t be compared with even her own parent’s victimhood and so it’s understandable that people would feel either “it serves her right ~ she is reaping what she has sown” or “she’s not a victim at all.”
    In the purest sense of the word she might be a victim, but so was Charles Manson. But she wasn’t a murder victim ~ she co-operated in others becoming murder victims and in others having great chunks of their lives partially destroyed. So really, talking of her as a victim alongside victims she helped create is never going to sit well. It’s, as ever, nuanced.

    The available early police reports on the homicide are filled to the brim with interviewed suspects who all absolutely hated them and seemed almost eager to tell the authorities. Very bizarre

    I think the early Police reports reflect exactly what one would expect from a report in which the Police had absolutely no idea why this couple had been killed. I wouldn’t mind betting that if any one of us here had our lives stopped right now, there’d be enough in them coming from others to cast a suspicious shadow on any of us, even if in actuality the events depicted turned out to be rather flat beer after the powered build up of opinions of ex-friends, relatives, spurned lovers, angry colleagues etc.

  50. Cybele Moon says:

    Hi Fred! all the best in the new year over in Brexit land!! Been following that with great interest.

  51. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Hey Fred, voice of reason. Good to see you around.

  52. Kip says:

    So many social justice warriors sucking the non-existent dick of some rich, overprivileged obese bitch. Injustice happens EVERY DAY, the families of much poorer people grieve every day yet when it happens to Hollywood royalty, it’s a national tragendy apparently. FUCK OFF.

    You SJW retards can’t seem to make up your minds on your principles. You virtue signal about law and order but now wanna virtue signal some moralist bullshit that you claim overrides law and order when the law is that LVH should’ve been released a long time ago. Can’t have it both ways, dumb fucks. My real question is what material gain you get for your white knighting for some rich, powerful family that gives no fuck about your trailer-dwelling ass and your minimum wage existence?

    Useful idiots to the Nth degree. You make me sick.

  53. Michael says:

    Kip, reviewing your rambling, hopelessly immature rant and trying to assess it is like being a bee in the middle of a nudist camp wondering where to sting first.

    I am against the release of LVH, but I never realized that connected me with Social Justice Warriors, a group I don’t think highly of. I was even more surprised to read that I’m providing oral sex to a wealthy, obese transgender woman. This is alarming, as I’m a married man. Besides which, when I engage in oral sex, I’m usually aware of it, so I can’t imagine how I missed the event.

    But the last surprise was your suggestion I’m getting a material gain for my views on Leslie. I could use the extra cash, so please tell us “dumb f___k retards” where to collect since we obviously know so little.

    Last I checked this site was for reasoned conversations among adults. When you grow up, Son, you might consider contributing something other than teenage bile.

  54. Fred Bloggs says:

    Kip,
    could you put all that in plain language ? One can take a guess what some of that meant but I’d rather you just said it plain.
    I will say this though. I agree with you that Injustice happens EVERY DAY, the families of much poorer people grieve every day but you have no idea who on these pages also grieves for many others. It so happens that there is a relatively small circle of participants in this saga and so naturally, that’s who everyone’s frame of reference is going to be culled from. It’s no shame or crime or embarrassment to grieve for someone just because they are rich and priveleged, just as it doesn’t net you any special kudos if those you grieve for are poor and unknown.

    Cybele Moon says:
    Brexit land!! Been following that with great interest

    It’s basically been just about the only real topic of debate here in the UK since 24th June 2016. It’s been heated, toxic, passionate and entertaining and now that it’s all settled, it feels like much of the news or debates between people have had the air let out !

  55. Mark Ellis says:

    I totally agree, she is a political prisoner now, Leslie and Bobby B should both have been released long ago.

  56. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    KiPathetic that anyone would give a shit over any double murderer’s “rights” over the victims of said murderer. But hey, we victims of violent crime should just stfu and let it be…right? Right. Because what you just espoused has so much meaningful content, I could just give you a Manson-esque hug… over, and over and well, you do the victims math.

    Is Lulu a political prisoner? Fuckin’ eh right. Think the majority of oh say… ANYONE gives a damn? Nope.
    Only the butt munchin’ machinations of those that truly, and I mean who really give a fuck about justice could ever get in line behind a murderous political prisoner like po lil Lulu.

    Isn’t that right Kip? Victims should stfu, let the murderer of their loved ones find redemption with freedom. Otherwise those warriors of social justice you despise are the enemy. I had to look that up, I had no idea what that was. Learned, noted. Seems to me you explained yourself with a few twists.

    Material gain is your real question. Fucking idiot.

    The cost of victims is more than monetary. It is physical. It is emotional. It is fucking raw and a scab to be ripped open every fucking time the ones you wank to are up for yet another parole, yet another hearing, yet another appeal.

    When YOU lose a loved one in a home invasion, with the viciousness of the likes of this case, the complete disregard for human life, then- THEN you come back and be the kibitch you proved to be.

    Until then clamp that hole in your naturally puckered face and shut the fuck up about victims of murder. Social justice my ass. Social? SOCIAL.

    Fuck off. And take Mark Ellis with you.

Leave a Reply

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