Governor Newsom Reverses Leslie Van Houten’s Parole Grant

Monday, June 3rd, 2019

GOVERNOR NEWSOM’S RULING ON LESLIE VAN HOUTEN’S PAROLE RECOMMENDATION

Jun. 3 – In the summer of 1968, 19-year-old Leslie Van Houten met Charles Manson and began living as a member of Manson’s cult, “the Family.” Members of the cult subscribed to Mr. Manson’s belief that “Helter Skelter,” a civilization ending race-war, was imminent. Mr. Manson planned to hide in the desert with the Family until the conclusion of Helter Skelter, when the Family would take control of the world. In the late summer of 1969, Mr. Manson believed that it was the Family’s responsibility to initiate Helter Skelter by committing murders of white victims in order to incite retaliatory violence against black people.

On August 8, 1969, Charles Watson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel, and Linda Kasabian, all members of the Family, drove to the home of Sharon Tate, where they killed her, Steve Parent, Abigail Folger, Wojiciech Fryowski, and Jay Sebring. Ms. Tate, who was eight months pregnant, was stabbed 16 times. Mr. Parent was shot five times. Ms. Folger was stabbed 28 times. Mr. Fryowski was stabbed 51 times, shot twice, and suffered 13 scalp lacerations. Mr. Sebring was stabbed seven times and shot once.

Two days later, on August 10, 1969, Mr. Manson, Ms. Van Houten, Mr. Watson, Ms. Krenwinkel, Ms. Kasabian, and another member of the Family, Steve Grogan, drove to the home of Leno and Rosemary La Bianca. Mr. Manson and Mr. Watson went inside the house, tied Mr. and Mrs. La Bianca up, took Mrs. La Bianca’s wallet, and returned to the group outside. Mr. Manson instructed Ms. Van Houten and Ms. Krenwinkel to go inside the house and do whatever Mr. Watson instructed them to do. Mr. Manson, Mr. Grogan, and Ms. Kasabian drove away. Ms. Van Houten, Ms. Krenwinkel, and Mr. Watson entered the La Biancas’ house. Mr. Watson, armed with a bayonet, ordered the La Biancas to hand over their cash. Mrs. La Bianca gave him a small box of money. Mr. Watson told Ms. Van Houten and Ms. Krenwinkel to take Mrs. La Bianca into the bedroom and kill her. Ms. Van Houten and Ms. Krenwinkel took her into a bedroom, and Ms. Krenwinkel retrieved two knives from the kitchen. Ms. Van Houten put a pillowcase over Mrs. La Bianca’s head and wrapped a lamp cord around her neck.

In the living room, Mr. Watson covered Mr. La Bianca’s head with a pillowcase, tied his hands behind his back with a leather thong, and tied an electrical cord around his neck. Mr. Watson stabbed Mr. La Bianca multiple times.

Upon hearing her husband struggle, Mrs. La Bianca forced her way up from the bed, grabbed the lamp, and swung it at Ms. Van Houten. Ms. Van Houten knocked the lamp from Mrs. La Bianca’s hands, wrestled her back onto the bed, and pinned her down. Ms. Krenwinkel stabbed Mrs. La Bianca in the collar bone, causing the blade to bend. Ms. Van Houten called for Mr. Watson, who came into the room and stabbed Mrs. La Bianca eight times. Mr. Watson handed Ms. Van Houten a knife and instructed her to “do something.” Ms. Van Houten stabbed Mrs. La Bianca repeatedly. Ms. Van Houten wiped down surfaces in the house to eliminate fingerprints, changed clothes, and drank chocolate milk from the La Biancas’ refrigerator. The group fled.

Mr. La Bianca was found with a knife protruding from his neck, a carving fork protruding from his stomach, and the word, “War” scratched into his stomach. He died as a result of 13 stab wounds and suffered 14 puncture wounds. Mrs. La Bianca died as a result of approximately 41 stab wounds. The phrases “Death to Pigs,” “Rise,” and references to Helter Skelter were written in the victims’ blood on the walls and the refrigerator. Ms. Van Houten was arrested on November 25, 1969.

GOVERNING LAW

The question I must answer is whether Ms. Van Houten will pose a current danger to the public if released from prison. The circumstances of the crime can provide evidence of current dangerousness when the record also establishes that something in the inmate’s pre- or post-incarceration history, or the inmate’s current demeanor and mental state, indicate that the circumstances of the crime remain probative of current dangerousness. (In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 1181, 1214.)

Additionally, I am required to give “great weight to the diminished culpability of youth as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity of the prisoner” when determining a youthful offender’s suitability for parole. (Pen. Code, § 4801, subd. (c).)

In rare circumstances, the aggravated nature of the crime alone can provide a valid basis for denying parole, even when there is strong evidence of rehabilitation and no other evidence of current dangerousness. (In re Lawrence, supra, at 1211, 1214.)

DECISION

The Board of Parole Hearings found Ms. Van Houten suitable for parole based on her youth at the time of the crime, lack of prior criminality, stable social history before and while incarcerated, and “decades of prosocial work and – positive programming.”

I acknowledge that Ms. Van Houten’s crime was committed when she was 19 years old and that she has since been incarcerated for 48 years. The psychologist who evaluated Ms. Van Houten in 2018 concluded that it was very likely that her involvement in the life offense was significantly impacted by characteristics of youth, including impulsivity, the inability to adequately foresee the long-term consequences of her behavior, and the inability to manage her emotions that resulted from trauma.

I also acknowledge that Ms. Van Houten is now 69 years old and has made commendable efforts to improve herself in prison, earning a bachelor’s and master’s degree and completing extensive self-help programming. Ms. Van Houten has served on the Inmate Advisory Council and as a facilitator for Victim Offender Education.

In making this decision, I carefully examined the record for evidence demonstrating Ms. Van Houten’s increased maturity and rehabilitation, and gave great weight to all the factors relevant to her diminished culpability as a youthful offender—her immaturity, impetuosity and failure to appreciate risks and consequences—and her other hallmark features of youth. I have also given great weight to her subsequent growth in prison during my consideration of her suitability for parole. However, these factors are outweighed by negative factors that demonstrate she remains unsuitable for parole at this time.

Ms. Van Houten and the Manson Family committed some of the most notorious and brutal killings in California’s history. The gruesome crimes perpetrated by Ms. Van Houten and other Manson Family members in an attempt to incite social chaos continue to inspire fear to this day. As acknowledged by the Board in Ms. Van Houten’s parole hearing, the crimes were “heinous, cruel, and inexplicably disturbing and dispassionate.” Almost 50 years later, the magnitude of these crimes and their impact on society endure.

While I commend Ms. Van Houten for her efforts at rehabilitation and acknowledge her youth at the time of the crimes, I am concerned by her role in these killings and her potential for future violence. Ms. Van Houten was an eager participant in the killing of the La Biancas and played a significant role. She pinned Mrs. La Bianca down so that Ms. Krenwinkel could stab her. When Ms. Krenwinkel’s knife bent, Ms. Van Houten summoned Mr. Watson, who viscously stabbed Mrs. La Bianca multiple times, then handed a knife to Ms. Van Houten. Ms. Van Houten then stabbed Mrs. La Bianca at least 16 additional times. Afterwards, Ms. Van Houten wiped the house of the group’s fingerprints. When asked at her parole hearing about removing the fingerprints, Ms. Van Houten said that she focused on the task because she felt like a failure for not mutilating the bodies per Mr. Manson’s instructions. In discussing Ms. Van Houten’s role in the crime, the Board noted that she was not simply a passive follower but a “leader in there too, with your behavior and your actions.”

It is difficult to understand how someone could commit these extreme crimes, and Ms. Van Houten’s explanation for her willingness to perpetrate such violence is insufficient.

She told the evaluating psychologist in 2018 that she believed she had been “chosen” by Mr. Manson and that she committed the crimes because she “had to kill them for the beginning of the revolution.” She stated that at the time of the murders she was “desperate to be accepted” and that her “value came in the eyes of other people.” Ms. Van Houten’s need for acceptance does not explain her primary role in the brutal slaying of Mrs. La Bianca, and her failure to adequately explain her willing participation indicates that Ms. Van Houten is still minimizing her responsibility.

I am also concerned that Ms. Van Houten continues to lack insight into the causative factors of her crime. When questioned by the Board regarding what she would do differently, Ms. Van Houten responded, “So if I could redo it all over, I would be a much better daughter to my mom when my dad left. . . . I guess if I could redo it, I would want to be a supportive daughter.” Before this crime occurred, Ms. Van Houten had suffered serious trauma and lived in a dysfunctional family environment. Instead of recognizing and fully grappling with these external factors and her response to them, Ms. Van Houten’s answer demonstrates that she still cannot adequately explain her destructive reaction to difficult external factors beyond her control.

Furthermore, I am troubled by Ms. Van Houten’s answer when asked by the Board if Mr. Manson had ever forced himself on her sexually. She replied, “No. But my first meeting with him, I’m—he gave us some kind of a drug… And he sodomized me, you know when I was half in and half out, but I was there willingly.” Ms. Van Houten’s characterization of this as a consensual encounter – rather than an assault by an older man who drugged her and held a position of power within her cult – is troubling. She still minimizes Mr. Manson’s violent and controlling actions. This indicates that she has not fully examined her ongoing susceptibility to negative influences and manipulation. Without a deeper understanding of what led her to submit to Mr. Manson and participate in these horrific murders, I cannot be sure that Ms. Van Houten is capable of acting differently in the future.

The evaluating psychologist in 2018 found that Ms. Van Houten displayed predictive factors for future dangerous behavior, including prior violence, violent attitude, other antisocial behavior, troubled relationships, substance abuse problems, and traumatic experiences. The psychologist also noted that Ms. Van Houten has a “history of engaging in impulsive behavior, including drug use and promiscuity, and her involvement in the life crime reflected a callous lack of empathy for the victims.” Given the horrendous nature of these murders and Ms. Van Houten’s current, related lack of insight, Ms. Van Houten must take additional steps that demonstrate she will never return to this type of submission or violence again.

CONCLUSION

I have considered the evidence in the record that is relevant to whether Ms. 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 at this time. Therefore, I reverse the decision to parole Ms. Van Houten.

Decision Date:
June 3, 2019
GAVIN NEWSOM
Governor, State of California

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

245 Responses to Governor Newsom Reverses Leslie Van Houten’s Parole Grant

  1. Jason says:

    Thank God she got denied parole!

  2. Michael says:

    I’d say the Governor’s decision is just, but his rationale isn’t convincing. The fact LVH hasn’t given a satisfactory reason for her crimes (if in fact she hasn’t) does not convince me that she’s dangerous.

    Actually, I think no matter what mitigating circumstances or causative factors any of them or the experts involved come up with, there will always be a degree of mystery surrounding their willingness to murder so savagely and act up so disgustingly during their trial. After all, plenty of kids with similar backgrounds became just as troubled yet never committed a truly violent act. In the end, the Manson followers decided, which leaves them guilty. Why did they decide? I doubt any explanation will be complete.

    I share Newsome’s discomfort with her truly weird account of a drugged sodomization as being consensual. (Good grief Leslie!) But again, is her cluelessness on that issue evidence of her being a danger? I’m not convinced.

    But I am glad for Newsome’s decision, however he arrived at it. Van Houten was granted life and a future, so she came out way ahead of her victims. Asking for more than that is too much.

  3. Snoop says:

    She has a lot to go on with her court appeal. This made no sense

  4. Jason says:

    Are you kidding me?

  5. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Once again justice continues for the victims.

    Outstanding.

  6. Paul says:

    Michael, I understand why you don’t think she should get a parole date but it seems you are aware that the governors decision is based on very skewed reasoning and you know she is not a threat. If this was a different case of circumstances, I’m certain you would say it was unlawful and corrupt if this case didn’t have murder attached to it.

  7. Columbo says:

    Just as I suspected. Continued & total BS on the part of the liberal governor.

    So he thinks letting MS-13 members into the country is just fine and the RIGHT thing to do. They don’t pose an unreasonable danger to society, Governor? But little ol’ Leslie is just TOO dangerous. Yeah, sure.

    The dumbest thing of all in what he wrote was that Leslie was already let out of prison in for 6 months when she was awaiting her third trial in 1978. She made bail and was released from prison. Do you think the Governor even knows that? Do you think he knows that she found employment as a law clerk and lived in the Echo Park area of Los Angeles?

    She was free for six months and lived quietly, unnoticed by the press. Isn’t that “proving” she wasn’t dangerous? And she was still in her late 20’s at the time. If she wasn’t dangerous at 28, how likely is it she would be dangerous at 70? When a few of her new neighbors found out who she really was, after they already thought they knew her, all were “supportive” and “protective” of her anonymity.

    Methinks the Governor is just looking for excuses to keep her in prison and isn’t concerned with whether his BS reasons make any sense. And just like Beausoleil, he found some dumb psychologist to raise his eyebrows over her suitability for parole. Newsom didn’t bother to mention all the other psychologists that have evaluated Leslie over the last 50 years that would completely disagree with the ONE psychologist he cited. Total BS. Totally political.

    “Ms. Van Houten must take additional steps that demonstrate she will never return to this type of submission or violence again.”

    More BS. She’s nearly 70 and has taken all the “additional steps” there are to take. That’s why the parole board recommended parole again for her. She’s been perfect for 50 years. There’s nothing else for her to do. She has earned her parole, and, according to the parole board of the prison she’s in, she is no longer in need of prison. A whole team of parole board members agree (TWICE) that she should be paroled, but one lowly little Governor says no. And the reason he says “no” is all political.

    This was the wrong decision. Leslie is receiving cruel and unusual punishment because the Governor doesn’t have the guts to do what’s right, for fear that it could cost him votes in the next election.

    Just as I predicted. Newsom should join Leslie in prison for ignoring federal immigration laws in the State of California and treason to the country. He’s the last person that should be determining someone’s suitability for parole.

  8. Fred Bloggs says:

    The Guv’nor said…
    I am concerned by her role in these killings and her potential for future violence

    We’re all concerned by her role in the killings. And we’re all really scared that she’ll possibly return to violence and start attacking any and everyone she meets with her zimmer frame !
    “Oh no, Peg leg Leslie has struck again !!”
    The Guv’nor has simply done what his predecessor did – waffle in a round of nothingness. I’m not bothered if she is paroled and I’m not bothered if she is incarcerated for the rest of her life. If she stays in forever more, at the back of her mind, she knows that she can’t really argue that never coming out of prison is actually unfair in the grand scheme of things.
    However, every time she’s been refused since the boards have said “parole, granted,” the refuser has given reasons that simply do not square with his decision. They do not match. They do not back up his refusal. And that leads one to conclude that in reality, he has had no justifiable reason. I wish he’d give one. I actually would like to see a refusal that is based on a justifiable reason to refuse parole. The ones he and the former Guv’nor have been giving are making that office look even more than in 2016 like they are desperately clutching at straws.

    Michael says:
    I’d say the Governor’s decision is just, but his rationale isn’t convincing

    I generally agree with most of what you say but not on this one. Maybe it’s just the way my mind works, but for me, for a decision to be just, the rationale behind it has to be sound. A just decision can’t be supported by faulty reasoning, much less reasoning that is demonstrably untrue.
    For the Guv’nor to make a statement like:

    Before this crime occurred, Ms. Van Houten had suffered serious trauma and lived in a dysfunctional family environment. Instead of recognizing and fully grappling with these external factors and her response to them, Ms. Van Houten’s answer demonstrates that she still cannot adequately explain her destructive reaction to difficult external factors beyond her control.

    is almost unbelievable. I only believe it because similar statements have come up time and time again. Pretty much anyone could point to statements she’s made over the last 6 or so years that show very clearly that actually, she’s only too aware of the impact of her famly background events on where she ended up. Many of her opponents and detractors have spent years rubbishing her for trying to explain the role her background history played. They lambast her for making excuses. Ironically, they can at least see the connection. The people that want her to rot in Hell can see where she’s coming from. The Guv’nor apparently doesn’t see what her detractors clearly see.

    Ms. Van Houten’s need for acceptance does not explain her primary role in the brutal slaying of Mrs. La Bianca, and her failure to adequately explain her willing participation indicates that Ms. Van Houten is still minimizing her responsibility

    shows a shockingly poor grasp both of human beings and of what Van Houten has spent so many years explaining.
    The enforcers of the law don’t have to be honest above and beyond the rest of society. Just straightforward honest will do. As I said at the start, if Leslie remains in jail till she dies, justice will have been served. It will also have been served if the system that incarcerated her has mercy and grants her parole. But it’s deviating from that if no reasons can be found to continue her incarceration but uses as its reasons for doing so, things that the record itself show to not be true.

  9. Jason says:

    As far as I’m concerned Fred…she didn’t give any of her victims any mercy or compassion so if she were released that is not justice as you say. She took part in one of the worst killing sprees in history.. that is enough to guarantee her no parole.

  10. Jason says:

    NoJusticeNoPeace I’m right there with. Thank God she god denied!

  11. Jason says:

    I can’t believe for the life of me why some people on here think she should even be paroled. She took part in one of the worst killing sprees in history. Don’t you understand there is a thing called justice?

  12. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    I hear you Jason, and agree. Love how she uses her age as a precursor to release. She was too young to understand her actions, and now she’s too old to serve another day in prison. Poor baby.

    The La Bianca’s were young too…never having the chance to grow old together. Leno was a WWII veteran, the irony of what they carved on his stomach. But hey, who cares! It’s been 50 years and Lulu wants another chance at life.

    So did the victims she slaughtered.

  13. Columbo says:

    By that logic, NJNP, no one convicted of murder should EVER be let out of prison. But they are….ALL the time….and all over the country. And many of those that have been let out did a lot more than Leslie did and spent a lot less time in prison than she has. And I doubt many of those let out had a perfect record while in prison.

    You, and others, seem to be confusing whether Leslie “should” be paroled with whether she’s “eligible” to be paroled. They are completely different things.

    Jason said: “She didn’t give any of her victims any mercy or compassion so if she were released that is not justice. She took part in one of the worst killing sprees in history.

    Jason, that’s true. But please understand, that has nothing to do with what’s to be decided TODAY. The only thing to decide now is…..has she met the criteria for her parole? The parole board has found twice now that she has met the criteria for parole. What the parole board decided SHOULD be the overwhelming factor in whether she is paroled.

    But it’s not. The governor has the final say, but if he chooses to overturn the parole, it SHOULD be for a clear, overriding reason that any intellectually honest person could understand and agree with. It should NOT be based on conjecture or literally searching for and creating reasons to say no to parole. And that’s exactly what he (and his predecessor) did.

    Nobody in their right mind thinks Leslie is still a danger to society. Even the governor doesn’t really think that….he simply wants to keep her in prison for political reasons. Everyone knows that. But that should not be allowed.

    Parole should be based on the prisoner’s behavior and whether they have met the criteria for parole. Black and white….that’s what should determine parole. Governors should not be allowed to go only by their “opinions,” slant the truth, and obfuscate what we know to be true about Leslie….today!

    Like any other prisoner that is eligible for parole, we know that Leslie is 100% eligible for parole. And based on what she’s done over the past 50 years, there’s not even any debate about whether she’s earned her parole. She has. If she has, she has….so that’s all there is to it.

    Saying she “should stay in prison the rest of her life since the people she helped killed are dead” is just one’s opinion. The only REAL matter is…is she ELIGIBLE for parole?

    It only has to do with whether she has earned her parole…because she’s eligible for parole. Making more of it than that serves no purpose.

    Many here might not like it that she’s eligible for parole, but she is….under the law. That’s the circumstances.

    Leslie is due the same as any other prisoner that has served their time and been paroled. No more, no less. To keep her imprisoned when the prison’s parole board is against it, makes absolutely no sense. She’s met the criteria, so let her out. She is not a danger to society and hasn’t been for over 4 decades.

    One BS’ing governor should not be able to change what the entire parole board has agreed to….twice.

    The governor has the final say, regardless of whether his reasoning is sound and correct. That’s just not right. Someone needs to step in an overturn California’s out of control governor.

  14. Cybele Moon says:

    did anyone think he wasn’t going to deny!?

    whether his reasoning is skewed or not I totally agreed with Anthony De Maria’s letter to the governor and I thought it made perfect sense. This was a horrific crime no one has forgotten though it’s been fifty years. I suppose it’s is the Lawrence factor. The pain never goes away for many.

  15. Fred Bloggs says:

    Cybele Moon says:
    whether his reasoning is skewed or not

    Think about that for a moment. You are, in effect, saying that the means justifies the end. Regardless of whether or not the means are right or just.

    did anyone think he wasn’t going to deny!?

    Hard to say with a newcomer. I give people the benefit of the doubt until they demonstrate that it’s naive of me to do so !

    Columbo says:
    confusing whether Leslie “should” be paroled with whether she’s “eligible” to be paroled. They are completely different things

    Rarely a truer word said. They are so different that it’s tempting to say that they don’t even form part of the same argument.
    If the law deems there to be a state of eligibility for parole, then quite simply, in order to say someone is not eligible, it has to be shown that they are not just currently suspect, but signifcantly suspect. If one looks at Bobby Beausoleil, his constant changing of the story makes him at the very least suspect. If one looked at how Bruce Davis added little details of admission across many years, rather than more or less all at once, then one can understand why the Guv’nor might view him with continuing suspicion. But that isn’t the case here.
    If the argument is stuck to strictly along the lines of “eligibility” rather than “deservedness” then this’ll be a very short comments section.

  16. Paul says:

    Cybele – “This was a horrific crime no one has forgotten though it’s been fifty years.”

    Cybele, when you say crime are you referring to Leslie’s participation exclusively or the entire crime? because you seem to be trying to account Leslie into the entire commitment offense of those two nights.

  17. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Columbo I’m well aware of “should” be paroled vs “eligible” for parole. Your logic tragically negates the victims their justice. You’re blinded not only by skewed politics, but misplaced empathy.

    What I particularly enjoy is how the Gov can simply use the brutality of the crimes as the reason to keep this feeble old butcher in prison. They wanted a crime to shock the world in order to rule the world. You like to compare these crimes to others. There was no precedent. These were the first on such a level of evil incarnate and Lulu giddily participated.

    Eligible? Sure. But askin’ ain’t gettin’.

    Gov uses every law on the books to keep her in prison and uphold a modicum of justice for the victims and their families until the next lawful Board of Parole hearing? Yep. Is it political? Who gives a shit. I call it poetic justice.

    And her approved parole will be overturned again and again. And Lulu will appeal again and again. And there will always be bleeding heart supporters who have more compassion for a dried up husk of a human than for the victims who had their lives snuffed out because someone decided they should die.

    She made the decision. And she continues to pay for it.

  18. Paul says:

    NoJusticeNoPeace I don’t think its Columbo that is blinded by skewed politics.

  19. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Paul. Still waving the banner for freedom I see. To hell with the victims, it’s all about Lulu.

    lol

  20. Paul says:

    My view hasn’t changed, same as you. Whatever emotional manipulation you are trying to compose here, the law stands the same and legally she’s a suitable parolee. I would never expect the families to agree but there are not the ones that enforce the law.

  21. Stephen Craig says:

    How could it be considered “skewed politics” to demand that a first degree murderer, someone who participated in a notoriously brutal where the victims were literally made into human pincushions remain incarcerated? How is that thinking “skewed”? The lack of connection to what this woman participated in, the abject terror the victims experienced, the unimaginable, endless grief of their loved ones that she and her ilk are responsible for, these facts seem not to matter to some. It’s all about “poor Leslie” and how unfair the system has been to her. If it were such “skewed” thinking, it would be (almost) laughable (but there is, of course, nothing “laughable” about human slaughter). LVH is right where she should be, and she has no one to blame but herself. She herself said that when she found out what had happened at the Tate house the night before, she let it be “known” that if there was going to be more killing, she wanted to participate. Well, she got her way. Now she must continue live with the consequences. For, after all, and most importantly, the LaBianca’s had to die with the consequences (of her, and the others choices) that night.

  22. Paul says:

    Stephen Craig, the system has been unfair to her rights that she was given when she was sentenced in her third trial in 1978 and that was the right to parole if found suitable and she has been found suitable three times. There is no effective argument to show she’s still a danger and she has to be paroled. You might not like how the rules are meant to be processed but that how it was meant to work, its what its there for.

  23. Jason says:

    As far as I’m concerned Paul she should never be given parole. Are her victims ever going to be paroled? Are her victims going to walk out of there graves and be free? I don’t think so.

  24. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Right on Stephen. You get my point.

    Hey Jason, that’s emotional manipulation according to Paul. Don’t ya know it’s LVH who is the victim, not the ones she put in their graves.

  25. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Paul, once again you think laws only apply to the murderer. The law also applies to the victim. The Gov utilized the laws on the books to keep Lulu in prison. So don’t be all chagrined by it. Here’s what I want to see happen at the next one–Gov directly states LVH’s crimes were so heinous, so societal changing, so enduring that the law dictates she remain in prison.

    He does that I’ll buy him a root beer.

  26. Paul says:

    NoJusticeNoPeace The governor is now saying Leslie hadn’t victimised herself enough which Brown said she did too much. Its completely contradictory and its obviously its all a political game.

    Stephen that’s not how it work unfortunately, the system doesn’t work how you think I should. You could use that argument for all the killers that get paroled but won’t change anything.

  27. Jason says:

    Hey Paul she got denied Parole! End of Story. Move on. Stop trying to go on this crusade and trying to convince people otherwise.

  28. Paul says:

    Oh no Jason its not the “end of story” yet. The courts are still deciding their ruling at this time and even if they uphold it she will continue to be granted by the board so its not ending anytime soon mate. I won’t stop making my argument anymore than you or anyone else on this thread.

  29. Jason says:

    Well then hey why don’t you contact Gov. Newsom and write him a letter on Leslie’s behalf since you’re such a believer. Good luck with that!

  30. Paul says:

    Jason already have thank you

  31. Cybele Moon says:

    Paul, I know you always emphasize that point of her participation but to me regardless of how many blows she struck and when, she was still part of the whole grotesque process of both those nights. She endorsed Manson and approved of his actions and then asked to participate. As was said before Manson couldn’t do it alone.
    None of it is explainable in any way though people say brainwashing, youth etc. etc Not all brainwashed people will commit murder and thankfully most young people know right from wrong. It’s too bad Leslie was “a misguided kid” with the wrong people at the wrong time as her supporters might say and therefore lumped in with the lot. But her actions still remain callous and cruel. People suffered. Personally speaking I think the story of this whole horror is the danger. There is a twisted far reaching psychological component. Many people hold up Manson and his cohorts as some kind of anti establishment anti heroes. I see Manson t-shirts and Manson quotes on people’s facebook pages. Americans romanticize their outlaws. Unfortunately for Leslie she will never be separated from “Manson” whether she is ever freed or not. That is her enduring claim to fame sadly, not her mentoring of other prisoners or getting prison college degrees (on the tax payers dollar).

  32. Stephen Craig says:

    In a way, I do feel that the “system’ was unfair to LVH in this regard: When the death penalty was abolished in 1972, all defendants on death row in California and elsewhere had their sentences commuted to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after seven years. In my opinion, the “powers that be” clearly hadn’t thought it through: In what “bizzaro-world” would it be deemed appropriate to parole fist degree murders after such a short amount of time, especially when you take into account that these defendants were originally sentenced to death. The “public” (in general) would be outraged, and rightfully so. Choosing to deny parole was easier in the years subsequent to the crimes because so little time had elapsed since the killings, and clearly defendants in this case had a long, LONG way to go before they began to demonstrate suitability for release. Now, after so many years the parole board is under my more scrutiny because of the requirements for parole in her case most probably have been met. And here, obviously, is the issue, for I feel that these crimes, as PK once stated herself, are “unforgiveable”, and apparently she is not alone in her sentiments. For many, any “forgiveness” in this case was the commuting of their death sentences: any release from incarceration would be a travesty of justice and a slap in the face (yet one of many) to the victims and their survivors. And it is the outrageousness of this crime and its aftermath that will prevent LVH from ever leaving jail outside of a body bag. Although I personally feel that the legal system should never have dangled the “carrot” of parole before her (since it was now the law), there was/is no way any governor, no matter what side of the aisle they may be on, will sign her release, I still have
    zero sympathy for her. She’s a killer pure and simple ( a dog that bites is a dog that bites), and any decision to release her/any first degree defendants was a mistake/miscarriage of justice that the system realized too late and is now trying to backtrack from. And is she “suffers” because of it, that’s too bad. I mean, after all, whatever happens to her, I’m sure it’s better that 16 knife wounds to the back.

    trying to backtrack fun.

  33. Paul says:

    Cybele you can’t find her unsuitable on the basis of the entire crime as for one she wasn’t present on the first night and on the second night there is no evidence she actually physically committed a murder herself. While participating in a crime like that is absolutely terrible that is not a valid reasoning as to why she would be a danger to society today. If Leslie was taken to court for the actions only she committed that night she would of been out of those doors before we hit the 21st century and I think everyone is aware of this ether they agree or not.

    Not all brainwashed people are programmed to commit murder that why. When your brainwashed and indoctrinated into a philosophy or certain way of thinking, you become convinced it wasn’t wrong and was actually right so there are two different sides of that Cybele but of course you won’t bring that into it.

    “Many people hold up Manson and his cohorts as some kind of anti establishment anti heroes. I see Manson t-shirts and Manson quotes on people’s facebook pages. Americans romanticize their outlaws. Unfortunately for Leslie she will never be separated from “Manson” whether she is ever freed or not.” what the hell has this got to do with Leslie’s suitability, the public’s take on the crimes has nothing to do with deciding whether Leslie poses a danger, its just another excuse come out of the bag.

  34. Cybele Moon says:

    PS: really Paul, who has made this into a Cause Célèbre except for Leslie’s supporters and not all this rubbish about political corruption etc. I agree with what Michael said previously and others and I also understand Colombo’s point of eligibility as opposed to justice. But,
    The fact is that she is not innocent and she will always be a murderer and because of the “nature of the crimes” the majority seem to feel they all should have received life without parole. Whatever Colombo says about other murderers these particular crimes stood out. Because of how the law stands at the moment this whole process gets repeated time and again to make that so.
    you know many people were impacted by far greater tragedy than LVH who didn’t end up doing what she did.

  35. Paul says:

    Cybele, parole is not there to decide an inmates innocence, its to decide if that prisoner to safe to return to the free world and they have stated three times she has more than met those standards. it is purely a political issue at this point, the governors have contradicted there arguments for reversing her parole and I don’t believe you have bought into it either but like Michael their answer satisfied you so the law goes out the window with you.

  36. Jason says:

    Hey Paul good luck pleading your case to Gov Newsom. Maybe you can buy him a beer once she’s paroled. LOL!

  37. Paul says:

    Already made my case to him Jason. Thank God Pfeiffer has got the court involved.

  38. Jason says:

    Evidently it didn’t help.

  39. Paul says:

    No he evidently made his choice beforehand so its down to the courts now

  40. Jason says:

    You can plead her case all you want but the Governor has the last word. So no amount of appeals is going to help her now!

  41. Paul says:

    No he doesn’t. The courts have the power to overrule his decision and they will decide by July.

  42. Jason says:

    Whatever!

  43. Jason says:

    Manson lover!

  44. Paul says:

    Not Manson lover, that’s for sure.

  45. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Hey Jason, instead of a petition to help Lulu get out there should be a legislative change voted on by the people of California that limits the endless parole hearings once the Gov. has reversed it… say for the remaining term of the Gov or better yet, 5 years. Lets save those taxpayers a bit of money while protecting the victims families from having to relive the horror year after year.

    Paul, to clarify, I meant to say for the Gov to solely state his reason is due to the heinousness of her crime. Get to the point, as it were. Take the ‘politics’ argument out of it and base it on her merciless deeds. Doubtful anyone would complain, save a few on this board.

    Cybele, nice to see you; Stephen you rock dude.

  46. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Also Paul, Lulu knew about the Tate murders the night before and wanted to go the next night. You know it to be true so stop trying to lessen her culpability in the vein of she was brain washed, she was abused, she was young, she ‘only’ stabbed x many times because she was told to, blah blah flippin blah.

  47. Jason says:

    Really? Not a Manson lover but you sure do want a bunch of murderers released that were part of the most heinous crimes in history. You certainly are in the minority.

  48. Paul says:

    NoJusticeNoPeace as I said before Leslie personal participation though awful was not heinous enough that her case can be used under Lawrence. There is no evident she physically killed anyone and only had physical involvement in one murder. People always refer back to the entire crime including the Tate murders when talking about her suitability even though it holds no value to the risk factors. Probably the only thing people can use to keep her behind bars is to hold that association.

  49. Paul says:

    Jason I said Leslie, not anyone else did I.

    And yes NoJusticeNoPeace, her culpability is lesser since her co-defendets were charged with 8 murders and she was convicted of two.

  50. michael descoteaux says:

    it does not matter if she poses a threat to society. she did the crime. she should serve her time….. like manson and atkins. it would send the wrong message if she were to be released. she may have only been 19 at the time. had a similar act happened today. said 19 yr old would be tried as an adult. by law 19 is an adult. finally, she should stop applying for parole….. her life was spared by giving her life. she should count her blessing that she wasnt gassed. Enough with the paroles. they should set a limit to how many times they can apply for them

  51. Jason says:

    Hey it doesn’t matter how less culpable she was than her codefendents…Murder is murder!

  52. Paul says:

    But the more murders you commit, the more years gets added to your sentence. When the Manson family committed their crime, in California you got 7 years extra added for each murder you committed.

  53. Jason says:

    Oh so just because somebody commits 2 murders instead of 8.. let them out of prison. Really! Your logic is so skewed Paul.

  54. Paul says:

    Well that happens all the time. Killers are getting out everyday but there cases don’t receive the same attention so few are aware its happening. It’s not skewed at all Jason, I’m just not willing to use my moral impulses influences as a means to try to justify creating a corrupt government body like yourself.

  55. Jason says:

    Corrupt! You’re the corrupt one. Letting murderers out of prison!

  56. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Paul I get what your saying, I just do not agree. Her culpability is more so since she knew of the prior nights murders and stamped her foot to go the second night. She. Knew. That is something that no one can lessen with any excuse or explanation.

    She knew what she was doing. She made the choice.

  57. Paul says:

    You are not using that word properly, doesn’t make sense.

  58. Jason says:

    You don’t make any sense Paul. You logic is laughable at best!

  59. Paul says:

    NoJusticeNoPeace well I think that’s the closest we will get to amicable decision at this point so at least we can agree somewhere.

    For the people who think I have no sympathy towards the families of Leno and Rosemary that is not true at all and of course I would never expect them to see it my way or how the parole board views it. As much as I feel for the LaBianca’s, the Struthers, and the Smaldino’s, we can’t put the families first always. Just look at Rosemary daughter, she wanted Tex Watson out so feelings vary so we can’t make the decision that always going to satisfy the victims loved ones.

  60. Paul says:

    Jason and for what reason? you can sure say that but why is it.

  61. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Ok Paul, now you just made the statement we can’t always put the families first. And that’s always the core of any argument I make. To me, if the victims and their families are not the priority than we live in a fish bowl full of hooks.

    But thanks for stating emphatically you do care about the victims plight. I just wish it was more about their rights and not so much about LVH’s.

  62. Paul says:

    One thing I would say is when we talk about her wanting to commit these murders, she said she saw this as a war and she wanted to be “a solider”. I don’t know whether any of you agree with wars in itself but that’s how she and presumably the other killers saw it. Wars have been a longstanding issue and conversation but many law abiding citizens agree with war even if that means the loss of thousands of lives.

    Manson’s philosophy had the family believing death an illusion and it wasn’t suppose to mean what we would see death as. When you are indoctrinated you are made to think a certain way and things you once thought wrong can be made to believe is actually right so I can’t put some of that family in the same category with people who kill in an act of rape and murder because to me they now %100 what they are doing.

  63. Paul says:

    NoJusticeNoPeace I think your side has enough support so my position won’t make much difference. Well like I said Rosemary’s daughter wanted Tex Watson out so if we put her feeling first, Tex then surely should have got out since that’s what she wanted. We can’t have it work like that for that reason, emotions are different for everyone so that why there is a system that attends to that issue.

  64. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Paul, point taken.

    Still wrong lol

    Can’t say she was a soldier due to Manson’s indoctrination then excuse her 50 years incarceration as a political prisoner solely on the name of Manson being involved.

    See what I mean? Classic have your cake and eat it too. In one way it lessens her culpability (indoctrinated soldier) while at the same time she uses it to beg release as a political prisoner because it did involve Manson. (if only Manson wasn’t tagged, she’d be out by now arguement)

  65. Jason says:

    Rosemary’s daughter was certainly in the minority That was a bout a joke wanting him released cause he was a changed man and cause he found Christ. He helped kill her mother and father. Doris Tate was very much again that and I can see why.

  66. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Jason, it seems they always find God eh? Seems to me that’s what got them in trouble in the first place. Manson being God, Devil, Soul, yada yada.

  67. Jason says:

    Yes and just because you found God doesn’t make your crimes any less culpable.

  68. Paul says:

    Wrong to you I see. Leslie said herself she felt like a solider because Manson treated it like it was a war. If the Labianca’s were killed and Manson wasn’t involved or this philosophy didn’t exist, she would not have served anymore than 15 years. The prosecutor said the same thing at the time.

    It seems to me now that anything that might not portray Leslie as this evil monster you don’t want to draw attention to because you nudge anything that might indicate lesser culpability. If Manson had pinned her down and physically forced her to stab rosemary I’m sure you would just say something like well she didn’t try to reason with Manson and she still stabbed so she’s just ass bad as the rest. That seems to be your stance.

  69. Cybele Moon says:

    and Paul that “association” is pretty powerful stuff. Yes, I understand that your premise is that she is no longer dangerous.
    I think what I was trying to say, that on another level, freeing any Manson members into society will be a very emotional outcome for a vast majority who oppose. And Paul they must be opposing for a reason. These crimes of which she was a part had a huge social/ psychological component and really tore apart what was a peaceful movement of that time. The murders were savage and a real affront to society and the establishment. I think you must be aware of that aspect. So it’s not just the fame of one of the victims that has kept this in public consciousness.
    Hey NJNP, Michael and all!!

  70. Cybele Moon says:

    PS whether the supreme court upholds the governor and the lower court’s decision remains to be seen.

  71. Paul says:

    Cybele it depends on how these people are informed about these crimes. I could explain it in one way to someone while you can explain it in another way. People draw different conclusion for various reason but one is how the case is explained to them and depends on the bias as well from the informant. That association and the whole case is of course very notorious and understandably so we can’t count how the general public feel about this case as a way of determining her suitability. The board are responsible for determining that not the public, its not a democratic vote whether to let Leslie Van Houten out of prison or not.

  72. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Paul, no one has to portray Lulu as an evil monster…she’s done that herself.

    Does she have any compunction? Not a whit. Unless it serves her parole purposes which has been going on for decades.

    Eventually it will end. Which side of the fence she falls…well, we’ll see.

  73. Paul says:

    Her actions in 1969 can yes be considered evil, but she herself is not an evil person, especially now and the board realizes that.

  74. Paul says:

    We will have to wait for the appellate court to make their decision by July.

  75. Cybele Moon says:

    PPS: NJNP you never mince words!! I think while some only look at the letter of the law. some of us are outraged by how frequently the law acts on behalf of the criminal even to the point where the guilty get off. In this case the criminal has not had it easy and many of us feel that is justified.

  76. Anna Hudson says:

    She will never be sorry for what she did,she’s a sick individual.thank god she was denied parole.

  77. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    There you go again Cybele, making my point for me.

    Paul, as for the appellate, I don’t foresee anything except Lulu’s disappointment.

    Can’t say that makes my hands wring.

  78. Cybele Moon says:

    Paul said
    Cybele it depends on how these people are informed about these crimes. I could explain it in one way to someone while you can explain it in another way. People draw different conclusion for various reason but one is how the case is explained to them and depends on the bias as well from the informant. That association and the whole case is of course very notorious and understandably so we can’t count how the general public feel about this case as a way of determining her suitability. The board are responsible for determining that not the public, its not a democratic vote whether to let Leslie Van Houten out of prison or not.

    Not a bad point Paul. I will give you that.

  79. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Cybele, Paul; That was a decent point, however the only legal explanation is trial transcripts, etc. Yanno, the official record. (even if it is lacking, it’s unequivocal)

    Any other is biased, including us arm chair QT’s.

  80. Jason says:

    The fact that she will always be linked to Manson will have sealed her fate already.

  81. Trish says:

    I’ve read all these comments from everyone, especially the ongoing battle between Paul and a couple others (njnp, cybele, Jason, etc.). It is a mix of “everything” that is keeping LVH in jail. Just as the Governor has rules and laws to follow, so do the parole board. Why do I not see any comments on the PB being “political”? Maybe they are feeling she is eligible because they feel she’s done her time whether it’s by the rules or not?? They see an old woman, whom they feel has more than served her time based on what parameters they have to follow – model prisoner, multiple degrees, does the therapy classes she go thru, etc., politics goes both ways. Next, her troubled childhood, immaturity at 19, getting in with Manson, etc. she knew what she was doing and wanted to join his group. She was with BB 1st, he brought her to Manson for his 2nd visit with them. As far as not foreseeing the long term effect on her actions of murder? Yeah, wrong didn’t see the long terms of her crime and what the notoriety of association of Manson would cause her is a better answer.; but the prosecutor did and he made a whole hell of a living off of it for 48 yrs. Next, you cannot change words once recorded or typed on your version of the crimes and what you did, the governor does take that into account. LVH has changed her story a few times over the yrs., forgetting it contradicted what she had already said that was her truth. Of course, she was not a “danger” on parole before 3rd trial, would you be if you valued your freedom?? LVH was never lumped into both nights, I have always read where they only took into acct the one night and that started with VB. She wanted to go, she has said she never knew if RL was dead or not when she stabbed her and the “more you do it, the more you like it”. She made sure to wipe the house of all prints, shows she knew what she did was wrong and would be held accountable. No one else volunteered, they were “chosen”. Manson knew which members would have it in them to kill and picked accordingly, she chose. If they didn’t give Susan Atkins compassion release and completely a no danger to society, LVH will not have a “compassionate” governor sign off.
    Personally, I think letting Lynette Frommhe out was more of a danger 10 yrs ago, she’s still a fervent believer that what CM said was right as was ordering the killings right. We can have these debates, but she will and should not be released. It may be politics, but if you let one out, you will have to let the otherrs out, no governor wants that, nor will be the one to sign off on that order. Some crimes are just too horrible to ever let the perpetrators out on parole, even if eligible by the board. It’s political, it’s justice, it’s the notoriety of the crime, it’s what was said before, during and after the trials, it’s the law whether we think the right ppl said yeah, or neigh. I have also not seen anything on any appeals court once the governor has said no for any of their paroles.

  82. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    GOVERNING LAW
    … read the post damnya

    In rare circumstances, the aggravated nature of the crime alone can provide a valid basis for denying parole, even when there is strong evidence of rehabilitation and no other evidence of current dangerousness. (In re Lawrence, supra, at 1211, 1214.)

    For the adversaries of justice- your sycophant will never get out.

  83. Paul says:

    “In rare circumstances, the aggravated nature of the crime alone can provide a valid basis for denying parole” does that mean the entirety of the two nights of crime or just Leslie’s own handiwork in the crime?

  84. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Paul, you’re the only one hung up on trying to tie her hand to the knife of Tate victims to further your narrative.

    No need to add or subtract. Read it as is.

  85. Paul says:

    well that’s not true because you and some like Cybele always refer to the entire commitment offense. If you were to remove any of the crime expect Leslie’s part of the offense we would not be talking about this because no one would care about it today.

    So you think that Leslie personal acts are heinous enough that it fits in Lawrence? and that’s solely on Leslie’s offense.

  86. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Paul “well that’s not true.”

    Sorry Paul. Did she KNOW about the Tate murders? YEP

    Did she WANT to go the next night? YEP

    Heinous enough?

    Paul, you posed the question. What do YOU think is Got Damn heinous enough on Lulu’s part?

  87. Paul says:

    She didn’t know of the Tate murders until after they were committed first of all, and secondly she sure wanted to but she didn’t ask like some people try to make out. If that is your argument for accounting Lawrence in Leslie’s case its pretty valueless. With all the killers Brown and Newsom have paroled out, they change their values when there’s this amount of hype in this case.

  88. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Can’t answer?

    Deflect much?

    Thanks for playing!

  89. Paul says:

    Well your question doesn’t really make sense but what I can say is that evidence shows that Leslie did not commit a murder herself and the fact she had not actually killed anyone means you cannot compare her case to Lawrence as a heinous crime when she hasn’t taken a life physically herself. If anyone fits under that article would be Tex Watson but certainly not Van Houten.

  90. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Copy Paste moment:

    Paul, you posed the question. What do YOU think is Got Damn heinous enough on Lulu’s part?

    Oh and please be specific.

  91. Paul says:

    Again your question doesn’t make sense so that’s how i’m answering.

    “evidence shows that Leslie did not commit a murder herself and the fact she had not actually killed anyone means you cannot compare her case to Lawrence as a heinous crime when she hasn’t taken a life physically herself. If anyone fits under that article would be Tex Watson but certainly not Van Houten.”

  92. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Give it up Paul. It’s getting embarrassing for ya. You talk how she’s so affronted by politics. I want to know what your throw in my face…exactly, and again:

    Paul, you posed the question. What do YOU think is Got Damn heinous enough on Lulu’s part?

    Oh and please be specific.

  93. Paul says:

    I don’t think I’m the one that needs to be embarrassed. There’s your answer, you can’t use Lawrence in this case sorry it doesn’t work.

    “Evidence shows that Leslie did not commit a murder herself and the fact she had not actually killed anyone means you cannot compare her case to Lawrence as a heinous crime when she hasn’t taken a life physically herself. If anyone fits under that article would be Tex Watson but certainly not Van Houten.”

  94. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Answer it Paul. What is the heinous part of Lulu?

    Answer it.

    Can’t eh?

    Typical.

  95. Paul says:

    Well I’m coming in from the other side where her case is not heinous enough so that question is ineffective to me, that why I asked you the question because you seem to think so. I answered the question you gave which is erroneous anyway.

  96. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Once again, thanks for playing!

    Can’t/won’t state what you think is Lulu’s heinousness part of HER crime. Emphasis Paul. Grasp.

    Paul, you make noise for your LVH cause. Meh.

    You’ve now been exposed. “You make no sense”

    Bloviation. That’s what you sell, especially since you refuse to answer.

  97. Paul says:

    You seem to forget what I asked you. Its not what is heinous about the crime that I asked you it was how it was heinous enough that Lawrence can be used effectively as a reason for her continued incarceration.

  98. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    grasp.

  99. Fred Bloggs says:

    Trish says:
    but if you let one out, you will have to let the others out

    While an interesting premise, I don’t think that’s true.
    I think part of the reason the LVH scenario ignites such passionate debate is that her situation is very different to that of Manson, Atkins, Watson and Krenwinkel. For one thing, she was not involved on both nights. If she got out tomorrow, Watson and Krenwinkel would still be looking at 7 murders. That’s far more of a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads and much easier to justify continued incarceration. Whether LVH will ever walk the streets of freedom again, no one knows, but Pat and Tex have way less chance of that happening. It would be more correct to say that if one of those two were paroled, all the others would surely follow.

    Jason says:
    murderers released that were part of the most heinous crimes in history

    I know you don’t mean it to be and I’m certainly not having a go at you, but to refer to the Tate/LaBianca murders as the most heinous crimes in history is borderline insulting to millions of people that have been victims of violent crimes since the creation of humanity, on an individual, gang and state/nation level. A number of people have made this statement in conversations I’ve been involved in recently and I’ve had to say something each time. These murders were not worse than all other murders. There isn’t some kind of league table of atrocity. If someone has deliberately taken away someone else’s life, in a sense it’s rather moot how that was actually done.

    Stephen Craig says:
    How could it be considered “skewed politics” to demand that a first degree murderer, someone who participated in a notoriously brutal [murder] where the victims were literally made into human pincushions remain incarcerated? How is that thinking “skewed”?

    I hesitate to say this to you in particular Stephen, because of the story you told in one of the recent threads. It was really moving and on the face of it, almost any disagreement with your position will come across as unfeeling and insensitive. I’m not trying to be either and I mean that.
    Your question is a fair one but it is one that calls for an answer.
    Whether the Guv’nor’s answer is “skewed politics” I can’t say. That’s Columbo’s take on it and it’s obvious to me that much of their firepower comes from an attempt to discredit liberals. So in a way, it’s entirely logical that their focus will be on politics and how a liberal politician is wrecking the nation.
    But, as you put it, “to demand that a first degree murderer, someone who participated in a notoriously brutal [murder] where the victims were literally made into human pincushions remain incarcerated” is skewed simply because it is clear that the decision was reached beforehand and then the reasons found in order to justify it. And look at the reasons. Reasons that are supposed to point to her being a danger now. Things that are supposed to give pause and cause one to think, “Just a minute ? That was a bit suspect.” Things that she would have said or done recently or even 10 years ago that would lend some weight to a decision of such gravity. You know, when Pat Krenwinkel has denied parole in her last hearing, one could totally understand where the board was coming from, given Pat’s inability to explain certain matters. I think the Guv’nor this time round has simply done as his predecessor did and was an earth in search of a sun as opposed to an earth impacted by the sun.
    It is not his desire to keep a first degree murderer incarcerated that is skewed. It is what he has put forward as his evidence that makes the matter skewed. When he says something like “Furthermore, I am troubled by Ms. Van Houten’s answer when asked by the Board if Mr. Manson had ever forced himself on her sexually. She replied, “No. But my first meeting with him, I’m—he gave us some kind of a drug… And he sodomized me, you know when I was half in and half out, but I was there willingly.” Ms. Van Houten’s characterization of this as a consensual encounter – rather than an assault by an older man who drugged her and held a position of power within her cult – is troubling. She still minimizes Mr. Manson’s violent and controlling actions. This indicates that she has not fully examined her ongoing susceptibility to negative influences and manipulation. Without a deeper understanding of what led her to submit to Mr. Manson and participate in these horrific murders, I cannot be sure that Ms. Van Houten is capable of acting differently in the future” he is blatantly ignoring exactly what she did say. That she is able to describe what was going on back then and describe it for today’s audience but with yesterday’s sensibilities in order for them to understand that she is aware of the position she put herself in and later came to understand Charlie’s manipulations should tell him that far from minimizing the Manson manipulations and influence and con job, that, by putting that alongside all the other things she pointed out, that she’s pretty clear in her head about all of that. Things like that are actually a good example of who it really is that doesn’t show clarity of vision there. It was their first meeting. That was the world she inhabited. Like Rosie Boycott once pointed out, the real beneficiaries of the sexual revolution of the 60s during the 60s, were not the women, but the men. The women’s time came later and continues to gather pace. And that makes what he said, far from showing what a balanced crusader he is for the championing of women, actually someone who cannot sort out important nuances and this contributes towards him making decisions that actually aren’t supported by the examples he gives.
    To me, that’s skewed.
    OK, that was a long one. But you did ask.

  100. Jason says:

    Who cares! Move on! Blah Blah Blah Blah!

  101. Fred Bloggs says:

    NoJusticeNoPeace says:
    What is the heinous part of Lulu?

    While I wouldn’t apply Lawrence to LVH in a continuing sense, her crime was heinous. Pretty much every murder is. For me, heinousness isn’t necessarily gauged by how many times a person was punched, shot, stabbed, hit etc. The heinousness in Leslie’s crime was that first of all, she wanted to do it. She may have got cold feet at the moment of truth, but let’s not kid ourselves, she was in that house because she wanted to be. And it ought to be cleared up about Tex’s role here. Yes, he more or less had to force her to “get to it.” He is very clear about that. It’s one of the few things he is clear about, actually.
    But before the weight of derision is heaped upon my head, it should be pointed out that he only had to force her to do what she had intended to do in the first place and still wanted to do but couldn’t initially manage it. She never has said that she changed her mind about killing once she and Pat were left with Rosemary. She was the one that went and got Tex to get the whole episode moving. So she was still committed at the time to killing Rosemary. She still believed in the cause. And once she started stabbing, she was able to continue. If anything, Tex helped to fortify her resolve. Had Helter Skelter actually happened as Charlie predicted it would, Leslie would have thanked Tex for helping her to play her part.
    Leslie’s heinousness at the time was in the thinking that she housed; she admitted to her lawyer, Marvin Part, that she didn’t regret it and if faced {as of the end of December ’69} with the same scenario, she’d do it again.
    That’s heinous. So it follows that her actions on the night sprang from a heinous place and that made them heinous.
    But that very heinousness is ironically why Lawrence doesn’t work here. She moved away from that position 45~46 years ago. If Charles Manson had been released at any point subsequent to 1971, there are few people that would be able to have any kind of confidence that he would have remained on the straight and narrow. What he thought and felt remained uppermost and very visible right up until he died. LVH has not been in that place for close to half a century. It’s not a slamdunk reason for her to be paroled, but there needs to be something beyond what has been offered up since 2016 to justifiably keep her incarcerated.

    michael descoteaux says:
    it does not matter if she poses a threat to society. she did the crime. she should serve her time

    She’s been incarcerated since 1969. My little brother was born that year. He turned 50 a couple of weeks back ! She’s been doing the time. But part of her “time” includes the possibility of parole.

    it would send the wrong message if she were to be released

    It would have sent the wrong message if she’d been released in 1978. I don’t think close to half a century in jail then parole for exemplary behaviour, change and attitude is somehow going to make all the criminals out there think it’ll be a piece of cake. “Yeah, let’s go to California and kill someone. Even if we get caught, we’ll be out in 50 years……”
    The other reason it won’t send the wrong message is that now, there is the sentence of life without parole. If LVH came out next week, only a blithering idiot would be thinking to themselves “the old lady got away with it and beat the system……”

    she may have only been 19 at the time…by law 19 is an adult

    I agree. Now, being sensible here, there’s not many of us that are 35 and over that would honestly say we were just as wise or far seeing at 19 as we are now. We know 19 year olds can be impulsive, hot headed, not wanting to think things through…..but to me that’s irrelevant. At 19 people can know enough to know what career they want to pursue for life, who they want to settle down with for life, whether or not they are prepared to handle debt in paying back tuition fees for much of their life etc, etc. At that age, one engages with life on the terms one understands. I don’t think her age at the time was a significant factor. I think it’s a much bigger factor now. But not enough to make parole a slamdunk.

    her life was spared by giving her life

    Actually, that’s not true. Her verdict was set aside. That original verdict ceased to apply in the 70s. Whether rightly or wrongly, that’s the facts.

    she should count her blessing that she wasnt gassed

    The irony is, if she had been gassed, what with the verdict of her original trial being set aside, we’d all be discussing the case of Leslie Van Houten as……an injustice !

    Enough with the paroles. they should set a limit to how many times they can apply for them

    That makes no sense at all.

  102. Jason says:

    Hey Fred move on..What cares! Stop ranting! BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!

  103. Jason says:

    Write a book while your at it! LOL

  104. Paul says:

    Jason if you can’t take other people’s points of view then don’t use this thread, its that simple.

  105. Jason says:

    Hey Paul Good luck getting your murdering friend LVH out of prison. LOL!

  106. Fred Bloggs says:

    Jason says:
    Who cares! Move on! Blah Blah Blah Blah!

    Jason, you’ve given me a good laugh with that one ! Good humour is good humour.

    Paul says:
    Evidence shows that Leslie did not commit a murder herself

    The evidence doesn’t actually show that. It can’t conclusively prove any of the 8 fatal blows were hers but the vice is also versa ~ neither does it prove none of them were hers. 7 of the fatal 8 were to the back of the body, 2 were close to the neck, the others were on the back. Leslie stated Rosemary was just lying there. She also said that she may have done a couple by the neck and on the back. What the evidence does show without any argument is that Rosemary was alive when Leslie started stabbing. She may have been on the way out, but she was alive.
    I guess I’m just a stickler for getting the facts straight. On both sides of the argument, it seems to me that people routinely state as fact things that aren’t true as if conceding points somehow damages one’s argument. It doesn’t. Real life is always a mixture of the rough and the smooth. It’s nigh on impossible to be 100% right and correct on every point within a debate. Just because opponents will “nyaa, nyaa, nyaa nyaa nyaa”on a conceded point is no reason to be scared to concede a point.

    NoJusticeNoPeace says:
    Once again, thanks for playing!

    Can’t/won’t state what you think is Lulu’s heinousness part of HER crime. Emphasis Paul. Grasp….Paul, you make noise for your LVH cause. Meh.
    You’ve now been exposed. “You make no sense”

    It’s not a game of tennis ! He makes a lot of sense. So do you.
    Of course, we can all make sense and still be wrong. That’s going to apply to each of us at some point !

  107. Fred Bloggs says:

    Jason says:
    Hey Fred move on..What cares! Stop ranting! BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!

    Ha ha ha ha, has the debate ended ? Has everyone gone home ? Where can I catch the train to move me on down the line ? {ZZ Top reference}

  108. Jason says:

    Yeah Fred you might as well write a book with your long rants!

  109. Paul says:

    Fred bloggs, I probably should have put indicate then “shows”, but I believe I read that around 18 of the wounds were postmortal and they had been bottom near the buttocks. Rosemary apparently was motionless when Leslie inflicted her wounds so it’s safe to say she was either dead or very close to death if she didn’t have a response to the wounds inflicted by Van Houten. Leslie has said for the most part that her wounds were only to the lower back and when asked in court if she did more elsewhere she said she didn’t recall. She said that around the same time she went along with the new story that she acted in a murder she didn’t commit (Hinman) so I don’t see why she would lie about that if she was wrongly incriminating herself anyway.

  110. Cybele Moon says:

    Paul the fact that she participated in such a gruesome crime is heinous enough I think. How can you go along and witness the brutality and participate, holding RL down, calling for Tex to come in and kill her etc and then say but” I only stabbed her in the lower back many times after she was dead, at least I think she was dead but I wasn’t absolutely sure and then I took a shower and drank chocolate milk” Please!! And if she didn’t ask to go that second night why did she want to go. Apparently she was not chosen to go. Anyway I know you feel her crime wasn’t bad enough to warrant life behind bars. Others do.

  111. Richard Grave says:

    Paul, you don’t want to feel like you have spent a lifetime defending a cold blooded murderer, do you? Maybe it’s time to give it all up and live a little.

  112. Cybele Moon says:

    my usual PS:
    But Paul you are very persevering and consistent. Thanks for not being too rude.
    Fred, sometimes you make my head spin but you always make a point.
    Trish this is a just passionate discourse not an out and out donnybrook!! lol
    we can all weigh in with our opinions and we know everybody has one!

  113. Columbo says:

    Well, let’s see…..Bruce Davis’ hearing is coming up in 23 days. The Parole Board will decide to parole him again, then Newsom will say “he’s still too dangerous”, etc. I’m sure he’ll quote an incompetent psychologist again, too. Wonder how long it takes to find that ONE psychologist who disagrees with all the other psychologists?

    Wash and repeat….

    Newsom should just say “Ditto” or “See above” on all of his future “opinions” and parole decisions. No need to waste time making up more bogus excuses.

    You know….since the Governor Newsom SO interested in doing the right thing….shouldn’t HE receive a “life without parole” sentence every time one of the illegals he’s letting into the state kills someone? No telling how many life sentences THAT would be.

    Yes sir….it’s Newsom that poses the greatest danger to the citizens of California.

  114. Paul says:

    Cybele first of all, Leslie did not take a shower, tex certainly did but she did not and I don’t Krenwinkel had either. Leslie admitted she wanted to go for sure but never asked Manson to let her participate.

    Cybele I’m sorry but Leslie actions are nothing unique compared to your typical murder case in the sense of brutality. She herself did not write words in blood on the wall, kill a pregnant women, didn’t participate physically in more than one murder as she didn’t interact with Leno, and we can’t even be certain Rosemary was living and if she was was already dying. You probably will just accuse me of mitigating her involvement again but I’m holding her accountable for her part not Tex Waton’s or Pat Krenwinkel’s.

    It comes back to the fact that what keeps Leslie’s case in conversation like this is because of her co-deferents handiwork and the motivation and circumstances of the Manson Family. The entire crime of course can be considered as heinous enough and for someone like Tex Waton Lawerence might be more suitable but Leslie it just isn’t feasible.

  115. Jason says:

    I hate to break it to you Paul but the appellate court is not going to rule against the Governor. Wishful Thinking.

  116. cielodrive.com says:

    Jason says:
    I hate to break it to you Paul but the appellate court is not going to rule against the Governor. Wishful Thinking.

    Tell that to Sandra Lawrence

  117. Jason says:

    Oh my here comes another one wanting a murderer out of prison!

  118. Richard Grave says:

    Yeah, 19 is soooo young. Cry me a river. This is not about stealing sweets or a bicycle, it’s about an involvement in a murder plot, you know. What even gave her the right to enter that woman’s home in the first place? She’s an ungrateful criminal and should be happy that the death penalty wasn’t carried out. What’s she going to do at her age anyway if she does get out? She’s in a controlled environment now. What happens if someone ticks her off outside of the jail. Her parole hearing in 1999 shows what an aggressive character she has which she normally hides. Also, why on earth did she get in the deepest of deep troubles if she loves her freedom that much huh? She has not paid the prices for her heinous crime yet. Even if Leslie Van Houten is rehabilitated, her victims will never come back to their beloved ones. Therefore, she shall spend all her life behind bars for the rest of her life. That is her only way to show great repentance for her horrific crime she committed.

  119. Jason says:

    Thanks Richard..at least somebody agrees!

  120. Flip says:

    As for the apparent attempts to mitigate LVH’s brutal crimes because she thought she was a “soldier” in Charlie’s army…well, her disgusting behavior would certainly qualify her as a murderous war criminal. And, she was wearing civilian clothing when she and her co-conspirators invaded the LaBianca home in order to help nudge the race war along…so she qualified for summary execution, as I understand military law.

    But, what’s really funny is to read various LVH supporters’ comments to the effect that “everybody knows she is completely reformed and should be granted parole” and that “everybody knows she is a political prisoner”, and so on. One poster even claims that the governor of California is more dangerous than the convicted torturer/murderer that he has refused to parole…woof!

    LVH supporters seem to like to conveniently forget that Lulu put a pillowcase over Mrs. LaBianca’s head, tied in place with the electrical cord of a lamp, and then held her down while sweet little Krenny repeatedly stabbed at her with a kitchen knife while Mr. LaBianca struggled for his life against Tex in the next room. Then she stabbed Mrs. LaBianca in the back about 16 times after Tex told her to do it. So it’s not her fault…you know, ’cause Tex told her to, and Mrs. LaBianca might have been dead by the time LVH took her turn at the dirty work and, besides, LVH was young at the time. Jesus H. Christ!

    LVH is not “eligible for parole”….she is eligible to receive a fully vetted parole decision every few years, and that legally includes the governor’s right to overturn the recommendation of the Parole Board if he finds that their recommendation is inappropriate. Since PB members are basically anonymous, unelected people who seem (IMO) to make poor recommendations fairly often, judging by current recidivism rates, I am personally glad that a succession of California governors has seen fit to overturn Manson Family PB recommendations based on legal, defensible grounds.

    But, according to LVH supporters, she didn’t do what Tex

  121. Jason says:

    And besides Sandra Lawrence case is a little different. She wasn’t associated was a mass murderer like LVH.

  122. Flip says:

    But, according to LVH supporters, she didn’t do what Tex did, or what her other murderous co-conspirators did, so she isn’t “really, really, really” guilty like they are. Utter bullshit!

  123. Jason says:

    I know Flip it’s mind boggling that people even support a murderer and then try to minimize her behavior.

  124. Paul says:

    Jason calling Leslie a mass murderer is laughable at best.

    Flip I know all the details of Leslie’s participation and the sequence of them. I hold Leslie accountable for her own faults which is how it should be. flip we never say it’s not her fault so stop exaggerating to make your point.

  125. Stephen Craig says:

    I’ve wondered the same thing Jason, and have spent considerable time wondering why some folks will lobby for someone who has violently/purposefully taken the life of another rather than devoting their energies to the victims of these crimes and their survivors, since there are virtually very little resources devoted to their needs/particular circumstances, whereas in the criminal justice system there are all kinds of programs, therapies, etc…available to the perpetrators of these most heinous of crimes. LVH is clearly a polarizing figure, and I do understand her initial appeal to those who have followed this case over the years, for (at least for me) she does appear at face value to be the most
    credible/reflective out of this sad bunch of psycho/sociopaths. But obviously, appearances can be deceiving, and just because someone “appears” lucid/”sane”, doesn’t necessarily mean they are. And in fact (once again, for me) she has always been the “scariest” of the bunch. Now believe me I readily acknowledge that TW, PK, and SA are some of the most repugnant characters to ever infiltrate the arena of our culture, and words cannot express how repulsed I am at their actions and the loss and misery they have wrought upon countless others outside of those they brutally murdered, and I will even go so far as to say I am glad that SA is no longer among the living. But LVH is another story altogether. It is clear (again IMO), that she came from a solid, middle class background, not perfect, but one that seems rather ordinary, and would clearly not spawn a killer. Yet not only did she kill, but, as indicated in other posts, she wanted to go if more killing were to occur,; she wanted to be “in” on any additional slaughter. This for me is very disturbing, for even after PK’s vivid descriptions of what had transpired at the Tate house the night before, she didn’t flee the ranch, call the cops, fall to her knees and pray, she wanted “in”. This is not the way a “normal”, compassionate human being thinks. And I don’t think her she was indoctrinated to feel this way, I don’t feel that she was brainwashed, I don’t think there are enough drugs/sex/rock and roll that can make a seemingly normal young woman become a sadistic killer. There was/is something inside of her, some “trait” or “mutation” that the rest of us don’t have that she does that enabled her (and the others) to do what she/they did: There is a reason why they were chosen by Manson to go kill or, as in her case, opted to go
    and kill. It wasn’t just their level of obedience he was attuned to; it was their capacity for
    violence. And I’ve also recognized through the years of following criminal cases throughout the years(and I apologize for what might end up being a rather long, unproductive post) that there are other destroyers, like Ted Bundy for example, who was apparently well adjusted, well spoken, seemingly rational, and a complete and total monster. Was he truly insane, or simply put, evil? For me, it was the latter, and it’s the same for LVH. As my nana used to say, “Show me what you’ve done, and I’ll tell you who are”.

  126. Paul says:

    Stephen – “And I don’t think her she was indoctrinated to feel this way, I don’t feel that she was brainwashed, I don’t think there are enough drugs/sex/rock and roll that can make a seemingly normal young woman become a sadistic killer.” Well look at all these cults and extremists who do commit murder in the name of their philosophy or beliefs, it happens more than people realise and the Manson family is a good example of that. If you listen to interview tape recording especially the one between Van Houten and her attorney in 1969 you can tell she completely bought into this philosophy and she was not the only one. I think its pretty ridiculous to suggest that most of this family had murderous hearts.

    We can say we would never do that they did but we will never know how we would turn out in that situation until it actually happens which its very unlikely. There were a few who did turn against Manson including Kasabian and Hoyt though they hadn’t been with the family that long before the actual murders. The only family member I can think of who had been there since the early days and still left was Ella Jo Bailey.

  127. Stephen Craig says:

    Paul, I will have to respectfully disagree with you on this point, for I do believe there is truly something “off” about those who join cults, and commit consequently commit murder/suicide. And with all do respect, unless someone were threatening myself/loved ones, there is no amount of sex/drugs/rock and roll that could ever make me do what LVK did. As LK stated when testifying at the criminal trial, “I don’t have that animal in me”

  128. Jason says:

    Paul I meant to say Manson..he is the mass murderer she will always be associated with.

  129. Paul says:

    Stephen if Leslie went into this knowing it was or would turn into a cult then I’d agree but they were not a “cult” at least in the beginning. They lived as a commune of hippies which was very common in those days so people were drawn to it, classic story.

  130. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Geez Louise…lots to catch up.

    Fred! No shit it isn’t tennis (love me some Grand Slams-Go Rafa!) Simply being the dick I am when it comes to banter. You should know that by now, yet good to see your bold novellas again.

    Paul: Even a soldier is allowed to refuse an immoral command. So drop the reference as it is an affront to veterans. (my life’s work so go easy mkay) Oh, and do tell us what you think is Lulu’s heinousness in her crimes…you know, the question her supporters evade answering by stating: stabbed when already dead, Tex told me to, blah-gratuitous-blah.

    Jason, Flip and Stephen: Got damn it’s refreshing to read your points of view.

    Cybele: You are just too nice. You almost shame me…almost. lol

    Eye in Sky: nice to see you are around.

    So here we are again. Another reversal. Another appeal. Another BOP hearing in the works. Legislation is needed in CA to stop this travesty; victims/families having to go through this annual shit fest because the rights are for the very ones who butchered their loved ones. And the supporters of the butchers complain about the families even having a voice at a parole hearing. As if. (thanks Doris Tate)

    Overcrowding should never be an outlet for parole of murderers.
    An aging murderer should never be released due to their age or health.
    A murderous “youth” should not be retroactively litigated. (19 going on two weeks to 20 is not a flippin’ child)

    So does this make me harsh? Make me unfeeling and have no compassion? I’m loaded with it…

    for the victims.

  131. Flip says:

    “Paul says:
    June 5, 2019 at 6:13 pm
    Jason calling Leslie a mass murderer is laughable at best.
    Flip I know all the details of Leslie’s participation and the sequence of them. I hold Leslie accountable for her own faults which is how it should be. flip we never say it’s not her fault so stop exaggerating to make your point.”

    —I don’t know if Jason did call her a mass murderer; he certainly called her a murderer, and that shoe fits with plenty of room left over…after all she was clearly an avid member of a gang/cult/sect/whatever of mass murderers whose explicit philosophy was to kill enough “rich white pigs” (while attempting to blame blacks for it) that a race war might ensue. So, regardless of the actual number of her personal kills, she enthusiastically aided and abetted the mass murder that her colleagues carried out.

    —Really, you hold her accountable for her “faults”, Paul? Well…Earth-to-you, the justice system actually holds LVH accountable for her “faults”, insignificant as you seem to think them, and the justice system of California (including its elected governor) appear to hold LVH quite a bit more accountable than you do.

  132. Cybele Moon says:

    Paul that is BS about her going into this cult so innocently. She was, after all, the girlfriend of Bobby Beausoleil, Lucifer Rising and all that sickness that he represented. She was not a stupid person apparently. And the fact that she allowed CM to sodomize her on ” a first date so to speak” says she was already a lost soul with few morals.
    And you always try to refute any facts that I have about her such as whether she took a shower before she raided their fridge. You’ve made your own study of her actions
    for sure but you at least you don’t go quite as far as some I’ve read who claim she is a gentle soul who just got mixed up with the wrong people. Wrong!! at least in my books,

    ha NJNP, debates are great and I’ve been insulted on this forum but I think insults just mean you might be losing the argument lol although I agree it’s weird how people have taken up the cause of a cult murderer so passionately.

  133. Cybele Moon says:

    oh I should have said aspects not “facts.” I guess. and Paul can you please tell me of any other cults that went out and murdered totally unknown and unrelated people who had nothing to do with them? I don’t know of any like that but maybe you do.

  134. Scofield says:

    But Governor Jerry Brown also rejected the findings of the parole board. I think you must already realize that whoever is the Governor is never going to let her or Krenwinkel walk. Ever!!

  135. Jason says:

    I think everybody thought when Newsom came along..she would get paroled but they were sorely mistaken. We now know that as long as he’s governor she’ll probably never get out. Same goes for Krenwinkel also.

  136. Jason says:

    To think she even deserves parole is beyond me. Her victims will never be paroled.

  137. Paul says:

    Cybele – “Paul that is BS about her going into this cult so innocently. She was, after all, the girlfriend of Bobby Beausoleil, Lucifer Rising and all that sickness that he represented. She was not a stupid person apparently. And the fact that she allowed CM to sodomize her on ” a first date so to speak” says she was already a lost soul with few morals.”

    I don’t see your point because even though there may have some bizarre goings on at the ranch, there was no indication of what would happen a year later. If Manson made it evident he would be planning this “war” much earlier on then I’m sure everyone would have rejected. He knew when it was the right time and the right techniques.

    Cybele she didn’t take a shower that’s just a fact so I don’t see the problem with that either. Also I didn’t say it was just cults unless you can’t extremists as a form of a cult group, we see attacks all the time these days in similar circumstances.

  138. Jason says:

    Rosemary Labianca or Leno aren’t going to walk out of there graves and say “Hey I’m free now”

  139. Paul says:

    Flip, again I account Leslie’s participation in the murders on Leslie and I hold Tex Watson participation on Tex Watson and so forth, I’m not blending them in. The motivation behind these crimes were of course the same but the circumstances in these murders and the extent of their involvement is not.

  140. Cybele Moon says:

    Steven, like you I found Leslie to be the most disturbing in a sense. And those soft girlish voices chilled me. She did not have a bad life prior to the hippie thing as some who find themselves behind bars have had.

    Paul, once again you say that whatever concern I have is not valid according to your views.
    I might say that I feel that it’s irrelevant to say that no one had any indication of what was to come a year later. – a year Paul, actually less than a year had Leslie been with them. She saw violence during that year, thieving etc but just because no one saw murder on the horizon?- but wait they killed Gary Hinman, ( her previous bf was involved) I’m sure that was talked about. This was no ordinary hippie commune Paul, there was violence, misogyny, racial prejudice etc long before murders. She stayed, and now it’s highly unlikely Tex or Pat will ever get out of prison and from my own point of view she is cut of the same cloth as they are whether she struck less blows or was only involved in one night of mayhem or whatever . Her behaviour afterward proved that.

    whether she may or may not be rehabilitated now is irrelevant to her participation in the actual crime.

  141. Scofield says:

    So before LVH , Watson & Krenwinkel unlawfully entered 3301 Waverly Drive a middle aged married couple were alive in a place that is sacred. Their home. After they left the couple was dead. The wife had 41 stab wounds and the husband had a carving fork sticking out of his stomach and the word war carved into his abdomen and their blood was used to write words on walls/refrigerator. The killers helped themselves to some food/beverages so there’s that. I’ve read all the comments many of them thoughtful. Do I believe LVH poses a threat? I don’t.
    If Governor Newsom or any Governor would have approved of her parole I would respect that decision because considerable punishment has already occurred. But do I personally want LVH to ever be allowed to walk freely among us? NO. There’s no coming back from what she did. Intellectually and in a vacuum I understand why she is eligible but it’s not just murders it’s desecration of the body as well as the mental toll she and her cohorts inflicted on the families of the victims during the trial with their snickering and disrespectful behavior. For me no amount of repentance and model behavior can ever erase that.

  142. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Scofield you said more than most. I posted (agony of research) many Gov’s from BOTH political sides who have reversed all/any Manson murderers BOP paroles.

    Love. It.

  143. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Jason, you keep it human dude. You show again and again the actuality of what was lost and not some mentioning in a parole transcript.

  144. Jason says:

    Right on NJNP. Thanks.

  145. Paul says:

    Cybele the violence progressed overtime. The reason people were attracted to that family because they portrayed the hippie love type lifestyle and that’s how Manson managed to attract a lot of young individuals to the ranch. All the members say the violence started not too long before the crimes.

  146. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Paul

    Tell us again what your version of Lulu’s heinousness is concerning her crimes against the La’Biancas?

    Yanno, without begging comparison with other crimes, et al.

    That’s called diversion.

  147. Pam says:

    I will say it again, just as I did when she hot her first parole, she will die in prison
    This is Justice. I stand with victims

    .

  148. Richard Grave says:

    All I can think of are the victims BEGGING for their lives and Van houten drinking chocolate milk after putting pillow cases on their heads and stabbing that poor woman. Think of the pain and terror Van Houten contributed to. Please, do not forget the unimaginable heinousness of her acts. Van Houten made her choices, taking drugs and killing and should most definitely remain incarcerated. It’s immaterial how many masters degrees Van Houten has earned. If she gets paroled, taxpayers will have to support her again and again. And she’ll do interviews, write books and try to rewrite history as she plays the pity card. When people like this murderer get freedom, ask yourself what if it was your family who was murdered? I for one can’t even believe that this con artist has even asked for parole. Does she have no awareness of her crime or even a modicum of understanding what she did when participated in this crime? Seems like she’s still not thinking right. That lying freak is a bad actress, but that’s what she does at her parole hearings.

    The Governor will always overrule the decision to release Van Houten, it is not in the interests of society to have an individual such as this walking in free society while the families of victims are serving a life sentence where there is no possibility of parole.

    These idiots should never be free no matter how rehabilitated they may be. The lives they took can never be given back, why should their’s?

  149. Jason says:

    I hear you Richard and Pam. I’m right there with you. Thanks for standing on the side of justice.

  150. Richard Grave says:

    Thanks, Jason. I wish you the best in life.

  151. Cybele Moon says:

    Paul, this was not a hippie commune. Manson did not like hippies. He beat some of the women as well as the other things I mentioned that you dismiss. Leslie wasn’t even there for a year before she was willing to go out and murder. Charles Manson did things to these women that were not peaceful or loving. Leslie could not have not noticed this fairly soon after she came in. Diane Lake said “From the beginning, Manson did little to hide his true colors. He could change his demeanor and entire face at will, immediately morphing between being impish and playful to acting demonic.” it’s true as you say it came to head that summer but there were plenty of signs from the get go.

  152. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Richard: It is not in the interest of society. Even if you stopped there, it was enough!

    Pam: Yep, you’ve always said it. Sauced in awesome!

    Paul: Waiting for your answer with caveats.

  153. Jason says:

    Likewise Richard.

  154. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Paul: Waiting for your answer with caveats.

    C’mon man. I know it is not on your chit.

    ahem

  155. Columbo says:

    Nice post, Scofield.

  156. Matthew says:

    Scofield, I could not have said it any better. You put down in words, my thoughts exactly. This has been an interesting thread to follow. I know that, like politics on Facebook, no one is going to change anyone’s mind through this banter, but there is a bit of truth in everything said.

  157. Cybele Moon says:

    yes, well said Scofield. There are points made for both sides of the argument. It is interesting how people stand their ground. it’s funny some think that justice means one thing and others another. Yes it seems as though LVH has met all the requirements for parole and yet the fact that she is denied by both governors and a lower court seems to indicate that many feel that it true justice- a life behind bars for a life taken especially considering the terrorizing aspects of the case.
    Yes the higher court will have the last word. If she is freed so be it but let’s face it, it doesn’t change the fact she is a murderer and a part of the whole story ( whether or not she “only” stabbed a dead body). She was a Manson clan member, and she has lost most of her life if not all. I can’t feel sorry for the time she has spent behind bars.
    Paul you didn’t answer me about other cults that you say have done similar things- or does anyone want to jump in on that one. I know Heavens Gate and Jim Jones committed mass suicide. I know David Koresh and his gang fought the FBI in defiance of the government. But what other cults have sent murderers out to “viciously” and (key word)”personally” kill perfect strangers to cause mass terror?

  158. Flip says:

    Cybele, I don’t think Paul did his homework before making the comment about other cults that were comparable to Manson’s. Arguably, there are at least some including the Aum Shinrikyo doom cult that killed more than a dozen people in Japan with homemade sarin, and I would include Osama bin Laden (under the false guise of Islamic fundamentalism) as a cult leader who sent out his minions to kill thousands in the horrific 9/11 attacks. So, Manson and his pieces-of-shit-in-human-form are certainly in appropriate company with those groups.

    It is very clear from the record that the Manson cult was never a group of hippies. Hippies were far too peaceful-minded and thoughtful people to qualify as anything but rape, theft, or murder victims of Manson and his murderous group of creeps. To Manson and his inner circle, peace and love were never anything but bait-words to attract victims or naïve fools who could be turned.

  159. Cybele Moon says:

    Yes Flip, thanks for that info. I agreed with Anthony di Maria who called them a criminal organization led by a criminal. Manson didn’t like hippies.

    Also when Paul said the Leslie considered herself a soldier of the group ( so to speak) I wondered if anyone ever saw, Judgement at Nuremberg either the old or the newer vision. The war criminals thought of themselves as soldiers of their twisted regime too but that didn’t get them off the hook of responsibility of course. The majority I believe were executed.

  160. Lee says:

    It’s the same ol song & dance arguments here about releasing this stupid hag into freedom. Freedom she CHOSE to take away from her victims. I see arguments about fairness, her age when she committed the crime, Manson’s influence, politics, etc. How can these individuals completely ignore & hide their heads in the sand over what LVH actually did? Where is the compassion & empthay for the victims & their families? What about Rosemary LaBianca’s teenaged son coming home to find his family butchered, slogans written in human blood all over the place? I guarantee life long trauma from it. You people just think about Leslie and how unfair it is. She chose to go on a deadly home invasion and to participate in murder. She laughed, sang, and rubbed shit in the faces of everyone, including her own parents. She has to pay for what she did by remaining in prison. It doesn’t matter if she is an elderly, matronly looking lady who knits, sits on inmate advisory boards and is sorry for what she did. It matters what she did when she chose to go out on this murder spree to be part of the “revolution” as she likes to call it. It’s nauseating what they did. All the blood, the screams & guttural sounds coming from the victims, the fear & terror they must’ve felt. Oh, it is horrible to think about! I hope she remains in prison the rest of her life! That will be the only justice those poor victims will ever get!!

  161. Richard Grave says:

    Lee, well said. What is she going to do if she gets released anyway? I highly doubt that anyone would trust her. She could have easily left the family and told the police about what was going to happen the second night, she could have saved 2 innocent lives. Also, why would anyone spend their lifetime trying to convince others that Van Houten should be released? Has she paid enough for her crime? Certainly not. I hope the court does the right thing, it would be a total injustice for the victims if she does get released.

  162. Michael says:

    The argument that Leslie would be out if not for the Manson connection doesn’t move me a bit. Maybe some people judge Leslie more harshly because of it, but I don’t.

    If anyone broke into a couple’s home who they didn’t know (and had no reason for malice towards) then restrained the wife in her bedroom while another two people stabbed the terrified women to death, then inflicted further stab wounds on the woman (post- mortem or not) that’s I’d say that’s heinous enough to warrant life without parole, Manson or no Manson.

    Whether or not her stabbings killed Mrs. LaBianca doesn’t mean much to me, either. The guards at Auschwitz who herded innocent people into the gas chambers are no less murderers than the guards who dropped the pellets. Leslie, to my thinking, is no less a murderer than Pat or Watson, because even if she didn’t inflict fatal wounds, she was still an active participant in the murder process. I don’t need more than that to say she should stay put.

  163. Fred Bloggs says:

    Lee says:
    Where is the compassion & empathy for the victims & their families?What about Rosemary LaBianca’s teenaged son coming home to find his family butchered, slogans written in human blood all over the place? I guarantee life long trauma from it. You people just think about Leslie and how unfair it is

    Actually Lee, there happen to be many people that do not see this in the black and white terms that you choose to. People that have taken the difficult road by taking every aspect of the case and all the arguments and tried to balance them. Part of that demands empathy for the families of the victims. But sometimes, it is because of that very empathy that one is in a position to actually argue for something that the person[s] one is empathizing with would wholeheartedly disagree with. From time to time, I’ll mention the word ‘nuance’ and have been doing so for many years and I still find that few people are prepared to explore the nuances. It’s almost as though some are afraid that if they did that, they’d have to change their view. The irony is that taking on board the nuances may actually strengthen one’s view.
    As a quick example, Charles Manson was not born fully formed in criminality. There are a number of things that brought him to the position he ended up in and some of those things were not of his doing. There are a number of people in his life {family, friends, adjuncts to family, community, authority figures} who bear a certain amount of responsibility for contributing to the lawless figure he became. This meshes with lousy decisions Manson himself made from a young age so one fed the other, as often happens. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t culpable, that doesn’t mean I think he should have been paroled. But it also doesn’t mean that it’s as simple as to say “he was an evil bastard and I hope he’s rotting in Hell” because that ignores some rather important things that it becomes very convenient to ignore.
    I can tell you that thinking that the past two Guv’nors have done themselves no favours with the LVH decision in no way equals not caring about those who were left to pick up the pieces of the debris caused by those murders.

    Jason says:
    Yes and just because you found God doesn’t make your crimes any less culpable

    Watson never suggested it did. In point of fact, seriously engaging with God and allowing God to break through will give the person an even more acute sense of the horror they’ve perpetrated.

    I think everybody thought when Newsom came along..she would get paroled

    I don’t think you’ll find that was the consensus.

    Oh my here comes another one wanting a murderer out of prison!

    Two things you need to know about cielodrive.com, firstly, it’s their site, secondly, if they have a bias, I’ve yet to see it. Cielo tends to give straightforward information and being in possession of loads of documents pertaining to the case, ignore at your peril.

    Jason says:
    Yeah Fred you might as well write a book with your long rants!

    I’d rather read them !
    Also, what I do can’t really be described as ranting. People make a lot of points and some of them are worth answering and answering in a careful and considered way. That will often involve a mixture of information, thought and opinion. I suppose I could just be quiet and let the real rants and misinformation reign, but then, that would make for a rather monotonous conversation, don’t you think ? A good comments section should have a range of views and ideas for people to grapple with.

  164. Fred Bloggs says:

    Stephen Craig says:
    I’ve…spent considerable time wondering why some folks will lobby for someone who has violently/purposefully taken the life of another rather than devoting their energies to the victims of these crimes and their survivors

    In the Western world, among most of the countries, there is an interesting principle, even if it’s not always perfectly enacted {we are human after all}, that everyone is entitled to some kind of representation in legal matters, that everyone, even the worst of us, has a right to some kind of advocate. The law is usually way too large for the average punter to pit themselves against the legal machine that deals in that law day in and day out. This goes alongside another interesting idea, that some people can be given a second chance, even if they have erred terribly, so long as they have demonstrated some kind of willingness followed by the requisite action, to change.
    With that in mind, if over a considerable length of time a person is demonstrating this, then there will be those that take up their cause. Each person knows what moves them. Everyone knows what they have an affinity for. Granted, sometimes the reasoning behind such can be suspect. But it isn’t always.
    I will say this though; in a way, I suspect the opponents of LVH do more to keep heels being dug in among her supporters by the way they call her names and celebrate denials and the like as though it were a world series or world cup win. I think of the decorum shown by Sharon Tate’s Dad when the death penalty verdicts were in. He said “That’s what we wanted. That’s what we expected. But there’s no jubilation in something like this, no sense of satisfaction.”
    Even if LVH is one day let out of jail, she won’t have “won.” Not having spent 50 years {and possibly more} in jail for murder.

    I don’t think there are enough drugs/sex/rock and roll that can make a seemingly normal young woman become a sadistic killer

    There are soldiers that go to war and kill and some of them do so sadistically. And they enjoy it. And when they leave the armed forces, they never return to killing. They settle down to civvy street. That alone tells me that this is a heavily nuanced topic that is devoid of easy answers.

    There was/is something inside of her, some “trait” or “mutation” that the rest of us don’t have that she does that enabled her (and the others) to do what she/they did

    My experience of life has taught me that there are many things that we never think we’ll do and could never do…..but we simply do not know what kind of situation will present itself one day and how we’d respond to it. I couldn’t see myself murdering anyone…..but if I was put in a position whereby someone with the clout to do it, even if I went to the police, made it clear that my wife and kids were going to be sold into sex slavery and then killed with the events posted online and circulated as films if I didn’t kill a certain person, well, I’m not saying I would commit the murder, but neither can I say I wouldn’t. I don’t know what I’d do. And therein lies the dilemma. There are literally thousands of scenarios that could present themselves and while I accept that may not be a very good example, what I’m really getting at is that if you’re right about that trait or mutation, it would be impossible to know whether or not you have it, until you did something that would cause people to conclude that you did, therefore, you can’t say that you don’t have it or you would never do this or that.

    There is a reason why they were chosen by Manson to go kill or, as in her case, opted to go and kill

    This is one of those nuances because it is arguable either way. Manson earmarked Linda Kasabian, TJ Walleman, Brooks Poston, Paul Watkins, Ella Jo Bailey and, if one believes Ed Sanders, Charles “Sunshine” Pearce, to kill. None of them did. LVH got cold feet and on the night of the LaBianca killings, both Susan Atkins and Clem clearly showed no appetite for killing at Ocean Front Walk. Ruth Moorehouse and Cathy Gillies both stated that they were either ready to kill or willing to {in fact, couldn’t wait to} kill. But Manson didn’t send them. Vern Plumlee, the AWOL marine claims he offered to go along on the night of the LaBianca murder but Charlie didn’t select him. Going back to Kasabian for a moment, after running away the first night, she was directly ordered to kill the second….and refused. Manson’s “murder-dar” wasn’t as keen as some think. It’s not as cut and dried as your comment would have it.

  165. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Cybele: The only cult killings I can think of that may be comparable are the Zebra murders. Racially motivated, horrific torture and brutality.

  166. Stephen Craig says:

    I appreciate your thoughts Fred, but would like to say that although LK did not take part in the slaughter at the Tate house, she did absolutely nothing to try to stop it, running past two houses immediately outside the Tate residence, and one at the very bottom of the hill to get to their car. Nor, after returning to the ranch, did she in any way notify the authorities which, if she had, could have (perhaps) prevented the LaBianca killings. So, even though she did not wield a knife on 8/9/69, she did nothing to prevent it from happening/alerting authorities. There has to be something about her, as well as the others, that (IMO), that enabled her to participate in the capacity that she did, and did not make any attempts to halt the carnage that was taking place at 10050. She didn’t kill, but she did nothing to stop it. and that lack of compassion/inaction alarms me. I’d also like to add that I’ve read that the only reason why LK was asked to go was because she had a valid driver’s license, so perhaps Manson wasn’t as “unkeen” as that. He may (and I acknowledge this is total
    conjecture on my part) have realized that she may not be able to kill, but there was something about her” that he knew would enable her to drive the others to the location and, in her own way, “participate”.

  167. Cybele Moon says:

    Fred,
    “But there’s no jubilation in something like this, no sense of satisfaction.”
    Even if LVH is one day let out of jail, she won’t have “won.” Not having spent 50 years {and possibly more} in jail for murder.” I agree with you here and I often thought of my own gut reaction to LVH and the other’s crimes. I can’t imagine doing what they did. As you say we all hope we wouldn’t do such things and when another human being does do such things it diminishes us all in a way and disturbs us greatly. Yes in war scenarios men can be driven mad with blood lust and revenge I think. But that is usually under great stress and trauma. Even chimpanzees get murderous so I suppose it’s some kind of strange survival instinct. But we are humans and have reason, compassion and usually higher purpose. I have no idea why these young women and a young man would perpetrate such brutal and personal violence on strangers. I don’t think we will ever know.

  168. Cybele Moon says:

    NJNP
    oh my God that is horrible too!! I never heard of those!!

  169. Fred Bloggs says:

    Stephen Craig says:

    Nor, after returning to the ranch, did she in any way notify the authorities which, if she had, could have (perhaps) prevented the LaBianca killings

    This is undeniable. However, there are reasons and those reasons should be part and parcel of any judgement about her.
    Mitigating circumstances aren’t always pretty. If a woman whose partner/husband is committing incest with their son or daughter stays silent for 5 years because in the 8 years previous, the guy has brutalized her to the extent that she is so afraid and can no longer see past the pain of what may happen to her, is she fully responsible for what is happening to that child ? Technically, yes. But life isn’t cut and dried and technical.
    Now, that child may go on to hate their Mum forever and a day because they may feel that they weren’t adequately protected by her and maybe they are right.
    But equally, maybe the nuances of the situation have caused it to be not quite so straightforward as the child {or even the law} may be seeing it. I’m in agreement with you about the lack of notification to the authorities leading to the death of the LaBiancas. And it’s not making excuses to point out that there were mitigating circumstances {not least a child involved} why LE was not informed.

    There has to be something about her, as well as the others, that (IMO), that enabled her to participate in the capacity that she did

    I don’t deny that for a moment. But we’re approaching it backwards. It was felt that she would do what she was told because up until then, she had. That was the Family way. That’s “what was about” her.

    She didn’t kill, but she did nothing to stop it. and that lack of compassion/inaction alarms me

    Nuances, nuances. Is it possible to reconclile all the contradictions that exist in her actions over a 5 day period ? For many, no it isn’t. But for me it’s not difficult. I can’t hold against her not doing anything the first night because I understand her reasons for not doing anything. Actually, she ran to the house and told one of the others to make it stop. When she was told it was too late, she said that people were coming. So it’s not strictly true to say she did nothing. The following night she actively prevented a murder. Granted, we only have her word and Susan Atkins’ word for it and Susan is possibly the worst person you could rely on for anything to back you up, especially as it came many, many years later. But Clem can’t speak about the Ocean Front Walk incident because he would risk being tried as part of the TLB conspiracy. And Charlie was never going to own up to it because he’s Charlie and he didn’t kill anyone or order anyone’s death and is as innocent as the day is long.
    Then when Linda fled, she told people about the killings. One of them, Joe Sage, even phoned Manson at the ranch to ask if it was true. So the Family knew she had told people. And interestingly, apart from Shorty Shea, the killings stopped. Also interestingly, they buried his body so good that it wasn’t found for 8 years and then, only because the person that buried it showed the cops where it was. Make of that what you will. It wasn’t known for a certainty that Shea was even dead until his body was found.
    So yeah, Linda was a lawless individual but to hold any of those murders against her is to ignore the nuances. The thing with nuances is that sometimes, we’re going to discover things that we don’t like.

    I’ve read that the only reason why LK was asked to go was because she had a valid driver’s license

    That may or may not be the case, we’ll never know, simply because Manson always denied “sending” anybody to do anything specific and the whole matter of the driving licence was speculation on the part of Bugliosi the prosecutor. He said this himself on a number of occasions; during the trial, in his & Curt Gentry’s book, in Robert Hendrickson’s book “Death to pigs”……. Suffice it to say, in the month she was with the Family, Linda showed that she was up for a lot, be it thievery or other aspects of the Family broth. Murder was a different matter however.

    Manson……may have realized that she may not be able to kill, but there was “something about her” that he knew would enable her to drive the others to the location and, in her own way, “participate”

    Charlie basically knew that the people on the ranch would do what he said, especially the women. So if he said to Linda “right, you drive” she would drive. She went on that second night, basically out of fear. Having seen {and then heard in the aftermath, with people complaining about hands hurting because the blades of knives struck bones as stabbing took place and victims crying for their Mums and God, etc} what her compadres were capable of, she’d be understandably fearful. And Manson utilized people’s fears.
    But he was still, mistakenly of the opinion that she would kill, hence him ordering her to kill Saladin Nader the next night. And she refused. And even when he’d gone, she engineered the situation so there would be no more killing. Then she fled the coop a couple of days later. One can read a lot into various actions. They sometimes really do speak louder than words. I’m not pretending for a moment that Linda was some cutie pie that was just sampling the Hippie lifestyle. I mean, she was sampling it but she exhibited immense selfishness alongside the altruistic traits. But even I can see that that whole situation left her feeling somewhat conflicted.

  170. Lee says:

    Grim, whatever argument you have for LVH to be paroled will be like talking to a brick wall. Let’s just call it agree to disagree. There will always be bleeding hearts that think she should be able to have the luxury to live out the rest of her life in freedom and enjoying walks on the beach, privacy, gardening, cooking in her own kitchen, friends, love making, etc. Sounds like the same types of stuff the LaBiancas would’ve enjoyed immensely if home invaders hadn’t broken into their home and snuffed them out like nothing. This LVH woman forfeited those types of activities when she decided to want to be one of Manson’s soldiers. Agree to disagree.

  171. Jason says:

    Oh my here comes Fred writing his novellas again! You might as well write a thesis paper. LOL!

  172. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Cybele: Yeah, the Zebra murders were in a class all their own, just like the Manson murders. There’s a book out there if you want to read it. I had a hard time finishing it.
    Extremely disturbing.

    Also, thanks for what you indicated about soldiers. There is no comparison to the Manson murders and what a soldier goes through in combat. None.

  173. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    I’d like to know if Fred/Paul are intimately involved in this case.

  174. Lee says:

    Typical LVH groupies: fantasizing about a young LVH and daydreaming about a pretty, young girl who simply made a mistake and has paid enough. It’s like, “no, let her be released because she has a vagina!” Well, you know what I say: f*ck that sh*t! They don’t care one iota for the poor families left behind. They think the families are vindictive and need to forgive. That is about the most smug, asinine thing I have ever read on here.

  175. Cybele Moon says:

    Lee, I have to respect the opinions of others whether I agree or not but I’m with you about the relatives. It’s so offensive to blame the relatives for holding a grudge or not moving on etc etc.

    Debra Tate is not the criminal for example just because she has made it her mission to keep all former Manson members in jail. She was a young teenager herself when this horror struck her family. Ask Kim Goldman what she thinks about victim’s rights. Yes, it’s been 50 years but the voices of the victims who were robbed of their lives still need not to be forgotten. I have read that LVH supporters want to throw her a party when she is released. A lot of her supporters are so defiant and cruel about the victim’s family members. What a slap in the face that would be for the victim’s families. If she is ever released I hope it will be quietly and humbly.

  176. Jason says:

    Good point Cybele! We need to think about the victim’s and their families and the devastation it caused everybody. Nobody seems to think about that. Think about it. Are Rosemary and Leno Labianca going to be paroled. Will they walk of their graves one day? No.

  177. Michael says:

    Ya know, there’s no point in making sweeping generalizations about people who support or oppose parole for Leslie.

    The fact someone thinks she’s eligible and should be out doesn’t mean they’re blind or indifferent to the pain she caused. Usually it means they’ve thought the issue through and are convinced that, according to legal guidelines, she should be released.

    Then there’s those like me who are adamantly against her parole, now or ever, because the nature of her crime and the agony she caused so many overrides considerations about her rehabilitation. We’re not haters who can’t see past our contempt for the Mansonites, nor are we blind to changes Leslie has experienced post-Manson. We’re just people who have also examined the issues and strongly feel the Governor has grounds for denying parole in this case, and that justice cannot be served by her release.

    Nothing wrong with these debates getting hot, but it’s a lot more adult to disagree without demonizing.

  178. Columbo says:

    I think we need to think about everything and everyone. The victims who died, along with their families, are without question extremely important and no one should ever minimize what they went through and continue to go through. But make no mistake, giving parole to someone after a long sentence does NOT mean anyone’s forgetten about the victims or their families. Not at all.

    Prisoners and their rights should also not be forgotten. For murder, it should be hard as hell to ever get out of prison. There should be a good, long sentence and the behavior of the prisoner should pretty much be perfect throughout the sentence if parole to even be considered. Well….Leslie meets ALL of those criteria.

    If the conduct of the prisoner(s) didn’t matter, there would never be any such thing as parole…for anyone. Every sentence, for every prisoner, would be a certain amount of time without parole…no matter the crime. But that’s not the way things are.

    There IS parole, and that’s because the prisoner can be deemed as having paid for their crime. If California had intellectually honest governors that were interested in doing the right thing lawfully, instead of politically, then Leslie would have been paroled several years ago. But California doesn’t have governors interested in doing the right thing as it pertains to law, so that’s the only reason she’s staying in prison.

    50 years of perfect behavior in prison. 50 years of making the most of herself that she possibly could while in prison. 50 years of being a good role model for other prisoners. I dare say Leslie Van Houten has become as self-actualized as any prisoner has ever been behind prison walls.

    Yes, the pain of families should never be forgotten, but when someone has paid for their crime, they have paid for their crime and they should be paroled.

    If that’s not the case, then there wouldn’t be any such thing as parole for ANYONE, no matter what their crime, would there? Yet, we have parole….even for murderers. Plenty of them have gotten out in California, even though the quality of their behavior did not come close to that of Van Houten. Why did THOSE murderers get out, but not Leslie? Because the public wasn’t paying close attention, so no governor denied their parole. That’s the ONLY reason Leslie’s not out right now.

    No, we wouldn’t even be talking about this if Leslie had received a sentence of life without parole, but that’s not what she received. Her sentence allows her to be eligible for parole, depending on her and her behavior….in the opinions of the parole board.

    Yes, parole for murder should be very difficult and almost impossible to achieve for most. But, IMO, Leslie has done the “almost impossible,” has met all criteria, and she should be paroled.

    There’s something else no one talks about here, but no one can say it’s not relevant.

    We are commanded to forgive others. Not many murderers deserve forgiveness under man’s law, but I do feel Leslie is the exception. How about the Apostle Paul? At one time, he hated Christians and was responsible for the death of some of them. Yet, when Paul gave his life to Christ, God forgave him and used him to spread the Gospel throughout the Roman Empire. So God spared and used Paul, even though we know what He said would become of most who murder. God makes exceptions. Shouldn’t we? I believe we should.

    For me….it all comes down to whether or not she deserves mercy. We all feel differently about that here, in our heart of hearts. With all factors being considered, I feel Leslie does deserve mercy. I don’t feel that way about most.

  179. Flip says:

    re: ” For murder, it should be hard as hell to ever get out of prison. There should be a good, long sentence and the behavior of the prisoner should pretty much be perfect throughout the sentence if parole to even be considered. ”

    This point hardly squares up with your avid support for the parole of Bobby Beausoleil, does it Columbo?

  180. Cybele Moon says:

    Columbo

    A very good Christian point of view. I do understand that though I’m still reluctant to support her getting out of jail. I hope she has found forgiveness or redemption spiritually. As I said once before often criminals do get more rights than victims or families of victims. As one victim whose son was coldly murdered at 23 and his killer because he was only 16 at the time of the crime got out on a new law saying it was unconstitutional to keep someone so young in prison for life. Fair enough, but on the news this man watched friends and family of the convicted murderer now around 40 show up at the prison with balloons and signs and fanfare etc in celebration. The father will never get his son out of the grave to celebrate. That was very painful for him.

  181. Michael says:

    Columbo, I like a lot of your points, although I think the phrase”pay for a crime” should be revised to “pay ENOUGH for a crime.” After all, Leslie “paid” something for her crime after she’d been in prison for one month, but one month’s payment is hardly enough. So what is enough? I say nothing short of life; others say something else. The law as it’s written probably falls more on their side than mine, although that’s still being debated.

    But my understanding of Biblical forgiveness is that it’s more of a personal, relational issue than a legal one. Jesus commanded individuals, not governments, to forgive. So as a believer in Christ, I’m commanded to forgive whether or not the individual who wronged me has even recognized his wrong. If someone murdered someone I love, I would have to forgive (and only by God’s grace and power could I do that!) and no doubt I would struggle mightily with that commandment. But that doesn’t mean the State should release that person. Parole should be contingent not on the forgiving nature of the State, but on grounds that have less to do with mercy and more to do with verifiable rehabilitation.

    As for your assertion that we wouldn’t even be talking about this is Leslie hadn’t committed her crimes in connection with Manson, well, you’re probably right, But to my thinking that does not prove she should be released. It only proves that other murderers, who shouldn’t be released, are.

  182. Lee says:

    I didn’t call anyone on this board names at all. I just said “groupies.”

  183. Fred Bloggs says:

    Lee says:
    Grim

    Ha ha, busted !
    Actually, in a previous thread, I did say to Gorodish that I write elsewhere as grimtraveller.

    whatever argument you have for LVH to be paroled will be like talking to a brick wall

    Yeah, that’s what I find disturbing. You see, I have never argued that Leslie should be paroled, rather, that the reasons put forth to reverse the board’s decision are demonstrably untrue. And that if she is paroled, “deserve” has got nothing to do with it. Parole is a recognition from LE and granted by LE, not something the prisoner has some divine right to. That said though, it is something for the inmate to aim towards.

    I stopped talking to brick walls since graffiti artists took to decorating them !

    bleeding hearts

    That’s never a statement that is used in a complimentary or even neutral sense. It’s like calling someone a bitch. It kind of drips with disdain and more besides.

    Typical LVH groupies: fantasizing about a young LVH and daydreaming about a pretty, young girl

    I can assure you, my good man, if I was going to fantasize about anyone it wouldn’t be Leslie Van Houten !

    They think the families are vindictive and need to forgive

    If members of a family of someone that had been murdered were vindictive, a] that would hardly be a surprise, b] that would hardly be a crime {unless it spilled over into criminal action} and c] few could honestly blame them.
    For what it’s worth, I’ll give you my take on forgiveness ¬> the only people that are under any obligation to forgive are Christians. People that choose not to follow Christ may well forgive and do. But they are not under any compulsion to do so. The Christian knows they have to. The very position they are in is predicated on having been forgiven of a whole life of stuff up to that point, often abhorrent to God. So, given that the image of God is being restored in a person that chooses to go God’s way, and forgiveness is part of God’s nature, it follows that the person that believes in what God did through Jesus has little choice.
    I think where some Christians go wrong though, is in seeing how forgiveness of a person or state or gang or whatever, is beneficial to them in the long run, for having done it, and then imposing the need to forgive on those that don’t share their position.
    Suzan LaBerge, Rosemary LaBianca’s daughter showed that she walked her talk when she visited Tex and forgave him.

    Jason says:
    Oh my here comes Fred writing his novellas again! You might as well write a thesis paper

    Easily done, Jason, easily done ! Last time I looked, that’s how discussions happened; one person says something, another replies to one or more of the points made. Then others or the original person says something and before you know it, you have a lively after dinner conversation going on.

    NoJusticeNoPeace says:
    I’d like to know if Fred/Paul are intimately involved in this case

    I think Paul has said that he has written to the Guv’nor about it. Me, I’m not intimately involved at all. I’m just an English guy that has an interest in the case. I’m interested in a few cases though probably none quite as deeply as this one. I’ve actually been quite interested in criminal cases since 1971 when I was 8 and a murderer of the times in England called Frederick Sewell was on the run. I can sort of see where you might be coming from with your question; why would someone argue so vociferously on behalf of a group of murderers ? It’s a good question. I guess where some paddle, I dive deep.

    Cybele Moon says:
    Debra Tate is not the criminal for example just because she has made it her mission to keep all former Manson members in jail

    I agree. But she should also beware of giving false information to try and make the killers look worse than they are as she has done in the past. She’s better than that and that makes her seem like she’s got nothing of any note to say.

    I have read that LVH supporters want to throw her a party when she is released

    Well, again, looking at the overall picture and the nuances that are thrown up, I can’t see a problem with that. People get thrown parties for all kinds of reasons that they’d personally rather not have ! The supporters of LVH and the detractors of LVH seem to have a lot more invested in the result than probably LVH or LE. I personally don’t feel it would be anything to throw a party about but then, I’m not in the camp of fighting for her release and it’s not part of my life’s work to stick it to law enforcement. If someone had been in jail unjustly and was released, that would make sense to me but it also makes sense to me if the supporters of Leslie threw a party. That’s not necessarily anything to do with Leslie.

    A lot of her supporters are so defiant and cruel about the victim’s family members

    I guess some can be. But as I noted earlier, I suspect much of that comes from the battle lines that get drawn whenever her parole hearings are approaching and the language used about her borders on vitriolic and hateful. If it was 1974 or close to then, it would be seen more as understandable but 50 years down the line and particularly in the world we live in where anonymity is better for anyone seeking to throw fire than any force field the climate is such that what should be a passionate debate takes the shape of a pitched battle. There have, for 30 years or more been very strong words on both sides.

    Columbo says:
    I think we need to think about everything and everyone

    This is kind of where I try to come from and it ain’t easy. But the more one does it, the easier it becomes.

    But make no mistake, giving parole to someone after a long sentence does NOT mean anyone’s forgetten about the victims or their families. Not at all

    I agree. Like much of life, this is not a black and white issue. Or at least, it isn’t for me. And dare I say it, remembering the victims and their families means taking into account both the negative and the positive aspects.

    Prisoners and their rights should also not be forgotten. For murder, it should be hard as hell to ever get out of prison

    I don’t believe in prisoners having no rights. What they forfeit is their freedom to engage as free people within whichever strand[s] of society they choose to engage in. And for murder and certain other crimes like rape and child sexual abuse, it should be the hardest thing one can imagine to get out of jail. If LVH was released next week, only a mug would honestly say that she had it easy. Fortunate, yes. Easy, no.

    That novella was just for Jason !

  184. Columbo says:

    Flip said: “This point hardly squares up with your avid support for the parole of Bobby Beausoleil, does it Columbo?”

    The only one I’ve ever said deserved parole was Leslie. I’ve said nothing about my thoughts on the others.

    What you may have gotten the wrong idea from is my bashing of Governor Newsom for the excuses he used for keeping Beausoleil in prison. If you’re the governor and you’re going to overturn the parole board’s decision on a prisoner, give clear examples of HOW and WHY he’s still a danger to others. But Newsom never did that, and he certainly didn’t do it with Leslie, either.

    Don’t write-up a bunch of BS and expect no one to notice. It was clear Newsom didn’t want to let the parole occur so he struggled to come up with an assortment of bogus BS and filler in his write-up. It was like the student in school that fills up the page with an answer that makes no sense, all the while knowing he’s not going to get credit for it.

    Newsom’s write-up was filled with “filler”. First he took forever reiterating the crime, and then he started making generalized statements that could apply to ANY prisoner across the country. And then he quoted the ONE psychologist’s opinion.

    I knew as soon as I read the crap from Newsom on Beausoleil that he was going to do exactly the same things with Leslie, and that’s exactly what he did……even down to quoting ONE psychologist’s opinion. I wonder how many other psychologists opinions Newsom DIDN’T bother to get and write about that would have nothing but good things to say about her?

    But back to Leslie, nowhere did Newsom give examples of HOW Leslie was STILL too dangerous to be paroled. He couldn’t, because it’s not so.

    I also want to hear his reasoning on how he’s fine flooding California with MS-13 members and rare diseases developing on the streets of LA and San Francisco, but letting nearly 70 year old Leslie out of prison is just over the top TOO DANGEROUS for all the fine citizens of California to have to suffer through! Shut up, governor.

    When I see a governor trying to blow smoke up everyone’s ass with his absurd reasons for not paroling Leslie (actually, his opinions more than reasons), I lose respect. He’s making a mockery of the job he’s charged to do, and I have no patience for that.

    Cybele….I’m so sorry to hear about your son.

    Michael….we all have our reasons and opinions for feeling as we do. Nobody’s are wrong. I respect yours and everyone else’s on this board.

  185. Flip says:

    re: “The only one I’ve ever said deserved parole was Leslie. I’ve said nothing about my thoughts on the others. ”

    —-Oh, ah. That must be a different Columbo posting his avid support for Bobby Beausoleil on the earlier thread detailing Governor Newsome’s denial of BB’s latest bid for parole.

  186. Jason says:

    None of them should ever be released as far as I’m concerned!

  187. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    This kumbaya moment brings a tear to my eye.

    I crack me up.

    To compare MS13 and communicable diseases to withered Lulu’s release is crapola dipped in bullshit. How dare you Gov Newsome! Let Lulu out of prison so she can help solve these problems for the citizens of California! After all, she has 50 years experience helping others!

    Pfft.

    One has nothing to do with the other. Diversion plain and simple.

  188. Cybele Moon says:

    Oh Colombo- not my son!- we did suffer the pain of losing a cousin.

    Fred, I”m not sure if you’ve read some of the horrible gossip LVH supporters have said about her family too. But of course two wrongs never make a right.
    As for throwing a very public party for someone who has committed a terrible crime and is let out of prison at last- it is kind of telling as to their level of sensitivity and mentality at least to me anyway.

  189. Jason says:

    NJNP what do you mean “How dare you Gov. Newsom” I thought you were against here release.

  190. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Jason: I was being sarcastic to make my point of just how ridiculous the comparison is.

  191. Columbo says:

    Flip, better go read it again then. I’ve never advocated for anyone’s parole except LVH’s. I DO love to expose Newsom’s hypocrisy though!

    NJNP, come on, I know you can figure it out. Hint: it’s the SAME man that’s responsible for ALL of them. Is he for protecting the citizens of California, or NOT? There’s no consistency in the things he says or does. He says one thing and does the opposite.

    With liberals, you can’t listen to what they say. You have to watch what they DO (i.e., he says LVH is MUCH too dangerous for society, but then he’s willing to let as many MS-13 into the state and country as can fit through the border, and anyone else that wants to come in to feast on the citizens of California).

    So who’s the REAL Gavin Newsom? Mr. Tough guy, who refuses to let “dangerous” Leslie out of prison after 50 years of perfect behavior, or the guy that let’s human debris flood into California to prey at will on citizens? With liberals, it’s easy to tell who they really are by watching what they DO.

    *Just think! If a person like Charles Manson was illegal and wanted into California, Newsom would welcome him with open arms! BUT, but…what about your concern for the citizens of California, Mr. Governor?!?!

  192. cielodrive.com says:

    Newsom didn’t write these

  193. Jason says:

    Okay NJNP…I see…sorry.

  194. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Columbo did you just figure out politicians say one thing and do another?

    Such is the life of all politicians; cradling a baby in one hand while the other hand is stealing their milk money. Unless you feel every aging murderer should be paroled to make it apolitical, there will always be a partisan bent to keeping any and all murderers in prison, regardless of political affiliation.

    Jason, no worries man.

  195. Columbo says:

    NJNP: “Columbo did you just figure out politicians say one thing and do another?”

    Looks like you’re the one that didn’t try to understand what I was saying. Your response back to me had nothing to do with what I said.

    You didn’t notice the hypocrisy of Newsom shrugging his shoulders over criminals pouring into our country, yet he just HAS to protect Californians from dangerous Leslie Van Houten?
    That just went right over your head?

    That’s the result of your desire to attack others instead of debating them.

    NJNP: “To compare MS13 and communicable diseases to withered Lulu’s release is crapola dipped in bullshit. How dare you Gov Newsome! Let Lulu out of prison so she can help solve these problems for the citizens of California! After all, she has 50 years experience helping others!”

    NJNP, you couldn’t even figure out what I was saying, much less politicians. Slow down and think through it. I know you can do it.

  196. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Ok Columbo, whatever you have to tell yourself. Any CA Gov can keep any murderer in prison so long as the criteria to reverse is met. Period. Don’t like it? Challenge the politicians to change legislation. instead of whining on a discussion board about partisan politics.

    What part of that don’t you get? You better go put a hundred dollar helmet on that nickle head of yours.

  197. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Cybele: http://leslievanhouten.com/debra-tate.html

    Read about how sensitive that site is about Debra Tate, almost murder victim Barbara Hoyt, and even Steven Kay. Under Parole section. Read the older parole transcripts.

    That site is under LVH’s name. She condones it. Toss that into her next parole hearing and see how she slithers out from under all her remorse. Laughable.

  198. Fred Bloggs says:

    cielodrive.com says:
    Newsom didn’t write these

    Not personally, perhaps, but at the end of the day, the Guv’nor puts their name to the documents that come from the office so in a sense, the personage and the office are interchangeable. Sometimes, the personage believes exactly what the office puts out.

    Cybele Moon says:
    Fred, I’m not sure if you’ve read some of the horrible gossip LVH supporters have said about her family too

    No. Look, if Leslie was released one day and any of her family are still alive, they would naturally be joyous. It doesn’t say anything about them other than they’re happy their loved one has been released after however long and after making one of the gravest errors in life a person could make. I suspect the family would want something private and anonymous but the media wouldn’t…….because however one feels about it, it’s news.

    As for throwing a very public party for someone who has committed a terrible crime and is let out of prison at last- it is kind of telling as to their level of sensitivity

    Well, I agree with you but some people do celebrate when a fight they’ve been fighting reaches a successful climax.

  199. Fred Bloggs says:

    Michael says:
    Jesus commanded individuals, not governments, to forgive

    Such an important point.
    Suzan LaBerge, according to Tex, began the reconciliation process with him because she was told in no uncertain terms by God to do so. Tex didn’t even know who she was for a long time. Now, I accept that to most people that makes Suzan somewhat kooky, but to anyone that follows Christ, they’d catch the significance straight away.
    She was a very young Christian at the time and her inexperience came to the fore when she supported him in one of his bids for parole. In my opinion, she did the right thing to forgive him but the wrong thing in coming out to bat for him. But no matter; she showed that forgiveness is possible.
    Incidentally, forgiveness is simply not holding an offence against a person anymore, when you have every right to hold it against them. But it’s not simple, not at all.
    Governments have to enforce the law. People have tended to get het up when Tex says he’s forgiven by God because they feel he’s saying that LE and his victims families should do likewise. If that’s what he means {and sometimes he sails mighty close to that shore} then he’s wrong.

  200. Jason says:

    Exactly NJNP…that site is just trying to make Debra Tate look bad. The only one that looks bad is LVH.

  201. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Know what is pathetic?

    Relying on God. Relying on religion.

    Funny how it always benefits those who need, no, REQUIRE forgiveness.

  202. Cybele Moon says:

    Religion, Give me some of that old time religion- no thanks! I never understood any of this being saved stuff at all. I always found public displays of such rather distasteful and suspect -and often hypocritical as we all have seen. You don’t have to be shouting out Jesus name every sentence or Mohammed peace be upon him either to have peace in your heart.

    There is a stillness and quiet in grace I believe or maybe that has just been my own tradition. I don’t think LVH is thumping a bible though to be fair and yes Suzan La Berge was just plain bonkers about the subject. Forgiveness is spiritual and healing and each person must come to it in their own time. It doesn’t necessarily mean get out of jail physically speaking.

  203. Cybele Moon says:

    NJNP that is disgusting what they say about Tate. They are angry because so far Tate has won as a voice for the victims and to tell you the truth, I have also wondered if any of these girls and Tex were sociopaths. Probably not, but no one, not even psychologists can be totally sure.- Look at Ted Bundy. I have no doubt LVH and the others would have continued their murder spree had they not been caught. Debra Tate is a victim’s advocate. She has every right to be one, and all the excuses that supporters have given regarding LVH’s participation have yet to be endorsed by any Governor and for that matter most of the public many of whom I’m sure wrote to Newsome. What the supreme court will say remains to be seen.

  204. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    And isn’t it ironic LuLu was so very careful not claiming any sort of religious belief after her crimes.

    Oh? Not when she was advised by her lawyer not to speak at her own parole hearing.

    Still hate research.

  205. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Cybele you rock

  206. Fred Bloggs says:

    NoJusticeNoPeace says:
    Know what is pathetic? Relying on God

    I’d rather rely on God than the president, the priest, the prime minister, the party, the status or any particular person.
    Yet, there’s a fascinating paradox at play here because at some level in many aspects of life, one has to rely on a variety of persons and institutions at some point and where I have to, I will. I also have to rely on myself far more often than anyone or anything and I have no qualms about that. But I’m happy to rely on God and in a very real and tangible way, he has been a damned good crutch when I’ve been a leg with a kink in it. If that’s pathetic, then roll on pathos !

    Funny how it always benefits those who need, no, REQUIRE forgiveness

    Well, that’s God’s kind of logic. God wants to forgive so that those that recognize their need can benefit. The person being forgiven is in no position to work out what the benefits may be or how they pan out. What God may see as a benefit, the responder may not.
    I can tell you straight up, when I initially asked God for forgiveness, it didn’t even enter my head that there might be any benefits. And 34 years on, when I need forgiving, I don’t think in terms of benefits, just in terms of repairing the relationship {which, I suppose is a benefit in itself}.

    Cybele Moon says:
    Give me some of that old time religion

    To echo your words, “no thanks !” I have a lifetime for Christ and through him a relationship with God that’s real and not theoretical. But I have no time for religion. Personally, I detest religion. And dare I say it, so does God !

    I never understood any of this being saved stuff at all

    Put simply, no one is born loving God and that has ramifications as we navigate our way through life and we naturally think, say, feel and do a whole load of things that get God’s back up and are in need of having that put right. God offers to save us from our selves, our sins, the state we are in and Christ happens to be the solution he proposes. Loads of people will find that highly offensive or utterly stupid, I once did myself.

    I always found public displays of such rather distasteful

    I know what you mean, but on the other hand, each person is different and expresses themselves in those ways in which we do.

    and suspect – and often hypocritical

    Certainly can be. But that’s an occupational hazard of being human. No matter our intentions, we get some things wrong and if one is holding oneself up as an example of what it means to have God truly in one’s action, then mistakes are going to be very public and very painful when they occur. I can attest to that personally…..many times ! But sometimes, that’s the most effective kind of growth.

    You don’t have to be shouting out Jesus name every sentence or Mohammed peace be upon him either to have peace in your heart

    Without a doubt. While I understand why fellow believers do it and am loathe to be overly critical, I have to say, it leaves me rather cold and I’m not a fan of it. But in saying that, I also have to be careful not to be negatively judgemental about it either.

    and yes Suzan La Berge was just plain bonkers about the subject

    I wholeheartedly disagree. Having been through numerous situations with God where he has challenged me in a most exacting way, I can easily see him saying something to Suzan like “You keep asking me to help you to be more God-like, Suzan ? Well, OK, let’s see how much you really want this and are not just mouthing platitudes that sound good when you’re in “the right” company. I want you to make contact with that man that murdered your mother. And I want you to forgive him of his grave sin against you, the same way I do. You supply the will Suzan, and I’ll supply the power.”
    For many Christians, both now and down the ages, Suzan Laberge’s experience there really is nothing unusual. Initially shocking, yes. Perhaps lots of resistance to overcome, yes. But I’ll tell you this for nothing, there are people who would sooner forgive the person that murdered their Mum than their partner/spouse and best friend for having sex with one another or their sister or brother for defrauding them out of something left to them in a will or something they felt should have been left to them.

    each person must come to it in their own time

    I agree. But some people never do and we really don’t have all the time in the world.

    It doesn’t necessarily mean get out of jail physically speaking

    It doesn’t mean that at all. I’ve said for a long time that Charles Watson is freer than most people on the outside. If he dies in prison as he is more than likely to, and what he believes is true, then he can have no complaints about having spent most of his life in the clink. I don’t minimize the difficulty of trying to live a Godly life in a prison environment. But with God at the helm, it is possible. It’s not exactly easy, whichever scenario one finds oneself in.

  207. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Yo Fredish-Grim at play here.

    Got your deity pathos hanging dude. Age…happens lol

    Least I ain’t hiding behind other personas. Bold that.

    PS: prefer you over that Columboid. Unless…another persona of yours eh?

  208. Columbo says:

    NJNP said: “PS: prefer you over that Columboid”.

    Haha..I bet so! I make too much sense and leave people like you with nothing to say. I can understand that’s it’s maddening and frustrating for you. All you’ve got to offer are foul-mouthed statements, which more often than not, prove my points. 🙂

  209. Cybele Moon says:

    Fred, far be it from me to judge anyone for their own style of worship. However I see all this praise the lord stuff as perhaps a fear of losing their faith if they don’t quote and proclaim it often and loudly. Other people have a more contemplative or reflective approach and some like the very scientific Jesuits of the Vatican who have phd’s in astronomy use the study and observations in an observatory in Italy to praise the Lord. Now that I find wonderful and filled with awe.
    I see what you mean about Suzan La berge but yikes in a way I see that kind of religion as a tad cult-like too.

  210. Cybele Moon says:

    sorry that needs some grammatical changes like the contemplation of commas!

  211. Lee says:

    Does the parole board & prosecutor know about that ridiculous, smug website that LVH endorses? How can she claim remorse while endorsing something so obnoxious? WOW!

  212. Stephen Craig says:

    Re: website cited to be endorsed by LVH commenting on Debra Tate’s role as victim’s advocate in her case: I don’t think it is particularly prudent to “demonize” Ms. Tate even though I do concede that her role in speaking out against LVH’s parole could be seen as unfair/”prejudicial”, LVH not being convicted in the Tate case. I’ll be the first to admit that I am not particularly fond of Ms. Tate in terms of her involvement in her sister’s case. Often times her recollection/involvement in her sister’s life/murder contradicts the public record, and I’ve even felt (felt, not known) that she was simply not telling the truth in order to make herself seem more integral to the case. For me, she is not that likeable, and the fact that she sold off her sister’s possessions, including her wedding dress, only adds to whatever “ill”/wary feelings I may have toward her. BUT to paint her in such an unflattering light(not empathetic) while simultaneously portraying LVH as “empathetic” is ludicrous. Claiming a murder victim’s sister is less empathetic than a convicted murderess is not (IMO) going to be a “game-changer” in relations to this case. In fact, for me, calling LVH empathetic because she acknowledges the absolute utter brutality/loss caused by her participation in this crime is an affront to the memories of the LaBianca’s. Where was LVH’s empathy when the dragged Mrs. LB to the bedroom and through her on the bed and she, LVH, put a pillow case over her head and wrapped the cord from a lamp around her neck? Where was this new and improved LVH’s empathy as she held her down so PK could stab her? Where was her empathy when she called Tex to come and kill the struggling Mrs.
    LB.? How empathetic was she when she stabbed Mrs. LB. in the lower back 16 times? Was she particularly empathic when she rifled through Mrs. LB’s clothes closet while the dead
    woman lay feet away? Or when she wiped the house for prints? Saying 50 years later, “I’m sorry” all of a sudden places a halo around this destroyer’s head, praise her for her new awareness, and open the prison doors for her? And before anyone says anything, yes, I’m aware that 50 years have transpired, and I am not the same as I was fifty years ago, and neither is LVH or even Debra Tate. But I and Debra Tate have never killed anyone, have never with violent and malicious intent taken the life of an innocent person. And she has. So, yes she is up for parole because she and the other defendant’s fell through the cracks back in 1972 when the death penalty was abolished. And there are those who continually lament how the justice system has treated LVH. Poor, poor Leslie! If only those who are such rabid, ardent supporters of her could have seen her in action on 8/10/69. What would they think of her then? Would she seem so sympathetic? To try to elevate a convicted double murderess to the status of one who should be admired for her empathy is, how can I say this? Unwise? Foolish? I don’t know. I just wouldn’t recommend it. And lastly, although I as I’ve stated I’m not a “fan” of DT’s, she, and her family would not be in the position they are in if it weren’t for the actions of the Manson Family, the “family” that LVH killed for.

  213. Columbo says:

    NJNP said: “That site is under LVH’s name. She condones it.”

    Oh really? Let’s see some proof that she “condones it”.

    “Condones it”….meaning that site is there because she agrees with it, completely supports everything on it, is in control of it, and that she has the ability to get rid of it if she wanted to.

    Let’s see proof of all of that.

    By the way, I just scanned the site quickly for the first time and it appears that much of it is exactly correct. Basically all it’s saying is that LVH’s parole is being railroaded for bogus (especially political) reasons. It’s really no different than what I’ve been saying. And everyone knows that….including the politicians responsible for it.

    When they can’t come up with any good or legitimate reasons for denying her parole, they just make something up…..because they are in power and because they can.

    The main reason NJNP doesn’t like that site is because it disagrees with his opinion on LVH. So he suggests that everything on the site is wrong, sinister and completely evil, when it’s nothing of the kind. NJNP just doesn’t like the site because it lends additional evidence that Leslie should, in fact, be paroled. Same reason he protests so loudly about me.

  214. Jason says:

    I disagree Columbo. LVH should never be paroled.

  215. Jason says:

    Paroled in a body bag!

  216. Cybele Moon says:

    Stephen Craig- I so agree! My feelings exactly. Perhaps she has served her time according to law and is eligible for parole but I too found it very offensive, ( changed though she may be) to elevate her to the status of saintliness. Yes Debra may be a bit histrionic. I’ve seen LVH described as a gentle soul, a misguided youth, who mourns her victims etc etc. and even a poor bystander who was threatened with a bayonet by Tex into getting her hands dirty – and sadly the image that I can’t get out of my mind is the description of Mrs. Labianca crying for her husband and being held down as she is murdered by Tex. plus as you say their actions afterward and in court were very telling. Brainwashed or not, there was a moment of truth and a time for empathy and if that wasn’t it then it’s a bit late 50 years later.

  217. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    If her name is on the site, if the actual url is her name, if the domain is in her name-she condones it. She endorses the content or her lawyer does so on her behalf. Don’t act like she doesn’t know about her own site. It’s even copyrighted so get off your ‘where’s your proof’ soap box before you hurt yourself.

    I cited HER site in a supportive reply to Cybele’s point on how LVH supporters treat the victims’ families. As if they do not have a right to keep the murderers in prison. If a La Bianca relative asks for Debra Tate’s support at LVH’s hearings than I sure hate it. If it was so damn bias, why was she paroled twice. Another one of those cake and eat it too scenarios.

    I feel sorry for people like you Columbo. You peddle political hate, dissonance and blame everyone and every circumstance for what you do not agree. When called out on it, you act smug and instead of listening you double down on your hyperbole, never placing blame where it belongs: squarely on LVH’s shoulders.

    If my foul mouth is more worrisome to you than your frenzied support of a double first-degree murderer’s release I sure hate that too.

    Sorry, not sorry.

  218. Fred Bloggs says:

    NoJusticeNoPeace says:
    Unless…another persona of yours eh?

    Nah.
    The persona never changes, just the name. When I first commented on this site back in 2015, I signed in as “Fred Bloggs.” I can’t remember why because at that time, I’d usually sign in as “grimtraveller.” That’s the name I’ve signed in with ever since I first used the internet in 2004. But even when I haven’t, my style is pretty unmistakeable, not least for the length of my comments !

    Stephen Craig says:
    I don’t think it is particularly prudent to “demonize” Ms. Tate even though I do concede that her role in speaking out against LVH’s parole could be seen as unfair/”prejudicial

    I agree that it could be seen that way but the simple reality is that she’s at these hearings as a support for the families and whether one recognizes it or not, a series of murders were done by members of the same grouping so they are all kind of interconnected. Debra and the family members of the deceased have been brought together in the same way that the families of the 9/11 deceased or many other tragedies may sometimes be brought together when more than one person is responsible for a series of murders.

    Often times her recollection/involvement in her sister’s life/murder contradicts the public record

    I’ve noticed that. One can sometimes write that off as just faulty memory recollection that we all go through……but only sometimes. Other times, she does herself no favours when she does that.

    to paint her in such an unflattering light

    It’s not even so much what is said about her on the site ~ after all, quite a number of people on a number of TLB sites that are not in any way fans or supporters of Leslie have, over a good 10 or more years, said some really unflattering things {that’s putting it mildly} about Debra. Even the writer of the book “Restless souls” {which had major Tate family involvement} has had her issues with Debra. No, what the Leslie site says is kind of par for the course. It’s the pictures that are posted that say a thousand words. Being into photography, photos can be a language all of their own and the ones on that site say what, in my opinion, words don’t have the power to say. And it’s not pleasant.

    Claiming a murder victim’s sister is less empathetic than a convicted murderess is not (IMO) going to be a “game-changer” in relations to this case

    I agree that it’s not going to be a game changer, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s untrue.
    Of course Leslie had no empathy back in August ’69. But it just may be that her subsequent experience has contributed towards her developing empathy. Now, that’s no reason on its own to parole someone,
    but I wouldn’t assume that victim’s family members are by default empathetic. In fact, I wouldn’t assume anyone to be empathetic just because they’ve passed through a particular thing.
    It shouldn’t be funny, but it was ¬> in the run up to the 2001 general election here in the UK, the BBC did a series of morning interviews involving two politician members of opposing parties and the idea was that viewers could ring in and grill them. This guy called in and was lambasting the politicians for their stance on asylum seekers and refugees. He felt they were too soft and spoke of how these people were “infecting” the UK and how they should all be thrown out and no more even considered being let in. And as the politicians asked this guy more questions, it turned out he himself had been a refugee and had sought asylum here and had been granted it ! Though it was 18 years ago, I still remember the look on the face of one of the politicians, Shirley Williams, and the presenter, Peter Sissons. One could see that they were utterly mystified by the content of the conversation. It was actually very funny but it did get me thinking and I noticed that over the next three years, I heard more people that were once immigrants condemning asylum seekers than the usual nationalists that we’d been hearing for the previous 30 years. One would think that a former refugee would have empathy towards those currently in that plight or that an immigrant that had been given a hard time at the hands of both racists and the ignorant would seek to avoid ever doing anything that would make someone else unwelcome, but no.
    Empathy is no particular group’s natural state.

  219. Fred Bloggs says:

    NoJusticeNoPeace says:
    If her name is on the site, if the actual url is her name, if the domain is in her name-she condones it. She endorses the content or her lawyer does so on her behalf. Don’t act like she doesn’t know about her own site

    Obviously, she knows she has supporters and that they have access to the internet. I’m actually curious however, as to how much she has to do with that site. Inmates can’t generally go online and some of the things written on that site don’t square with things LVH has said in a number of hearings in the recent past. Much of it reads like someone {or maybe more than one} that is a supporter {and dare I say it, a blogger} rather than someone being fed by LVH. Also, someone with a degree in English might be somewhat appalled at the poor spelling and grammar that is rife on the site !

    If a La Bianca relative asks for Debra Tate’s support at LVH’s hearings than I sure hate it

    You’ve kind of lost me on that one, NPNJ. What do you mean ?

  220. Fred Bloggs says:

    Cybele Moon says:
    I see all this praise the lord stuff as perhaps a fear of losing their faith if they don’t quote and proclaim it often and loudly

    The quiet and contemplative and the scientifically minded amongst believers have the same fears.
    I think some of it is what some are taught or have picked up from others at the start of their journey {or at an influential point in it}, for some it’s just habit, for others it’s a way of letting everyone they come into contact with know where they stand, for others still it’s an attempt at a conversion tactic, for some it’s just gratitude spilling over and for others still, it’s cultural.
    Incidentally, I don’t believe that one loses faith. I think one abandons or throws away faith.

  221. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Fred: What I mean by ‘sure hate it’ about Debra Tate granted permission to stand in as support for a La Bianca victim at LVH’s hearings is that the victim’s families have a right to ask anyone they want to to act as their proxy. The fact that it’s Debra Tate is what is pissing off LVH’s supporters since LVH as not present at Tate. They deem it unfair to LVH. Tough shit is what I say.

    LVH Website: If Cupid can put out his ‘art’ for sale on the net, Manson had cell phones, etc. LVH can also direct what is stated on a website bearing her name. She has been particular about how she has framed her message of remorse and guilt in recent years. Grammar and syntax aside, no one will convince me she doesn’t have a say in a website in her name.

    Glad you don’t have another user name. Maybe you chose Fred Bloggs because it is easy to type? lol

  222. Michael says:

    About 20 years ago, a woman connected to Susan and Leslie had a website up supporting their release. She made the same mistake the current LVH website makes. criticizing Stephen Kay and claiming to know his motives for opposing parole for any of the Manson followers, and devoting undue space to trashing him and Bugliosi. Likewise, this site makes insulting presumptions about Debra Tate and devotes too much space to criticizing her. Bad strategy. I also agree about its content quality. At least Watson’s site comes across a little more adult in tone.

  223. Flip says:

    “Scientifically minded believers ”…I’m sure there are believers who persuade themselves that their reasoning is scientific, including some famous ones, but I think that is really a fundamental contradiction. In the best practice of science, one must test one’s cherished theories in order to refine them or, discard them if they are found wanting. Most believers that I’ve met have become fixated on their particular concept of God and simply try to make their everyday reality adapt to the concept rather than seriously question or test it. In fact, that’s pretty much the definition of faith in God, right?

  224. Cybele Moon says:

    Flip, even Einstein acknowledged the idea of God or creation. The concept of God has really changed among many people and many scientists can also be believers in something they don’t understand. It doesn’t necessarily contradict. “Dr. Robert Jastrow, world-renowned astrophysicist, describes the astronomical discoveries of recent years and the theological implications of the new insights” is one of those. a famous Teilhard De Chardin French biologist and monk was another. These are scientists who believe in evolution, the age of the universe etc. who do not accept the biblical accounts as actual truth. The person who got me interested in star gazing with telescope etc was a Jesuit priest who was also an astrophysicist.

    Fred, I am always skeptical of jail house conversions though I hope everyone finds some kind of redemption.
    I much prefer the contemplative approach and people who are not afraid to question.

  225. Flip says:

    I think most scientists worth their salt readily concede the idea of the unknowable, and some may call that God…no problem with that. But, it is the intransigent assertions that God is “this”, or God is “that”, or God is “the other thing” that is at odds with scientific logic. By one definition, which I personally find compelling, God is nothing more than the next unanswered question which, if we find an answer for it, generates another unanswered question….ad infinitum.
    Sorry for the diversion from the topic at hand, though.

  226. Fred Bloggs says:

    NoJusticeNoPeace says:
    Maybe you chose Fred Bloggs because it is easy to type? lol

    It’s a lot easier than Horatio Melchizedek Phidippides De’Aspora the 3rd !

    Flip says:
    June 12, 2019 at 3:32 pm

    By one definition, which I personally find compelling, God is nothing more than the next unanswered question which, if we find an answer for it, generates another unanswered question

    Anyone is free to see God how they desire. Having been down the road you say you find compelling, it came as something of a surprise to discover that God is actually a person that communicates. Not necessarily all the time as we would, but like a baby learns to communicate with its parents and the then the world about it, one learns many of God’s ways of communication. God certainly is not limited to any one person’s definition or experience or what they’ve written in a book. But equally, neither should those be summarily tossed out. Weigh, examine and test. It’s the God way.

    “Scientifically minded believers ”…I’m sure there are believers who persuade themselves that their reasoning is scientific, including some famous ones, but I think that is really a fundamental contradiction

    Not really. The question of God’s existence and action in human affairs is not the only question or matter to be looked at in any scientific endeavour. And loads of scientists {including many through the ages that have pioneered many of the things that are still believed and taught today in various fields} are {or were} people for whom the ultimate question had been answered and they were happy to continue the sometimes exciting, sometimes trepidatious journey of life with God. It didn’t mean that there wasn’t much to discover, much to look into, much to wrestle with etc. In fact, in a strange way, coming to faith in God just may provide a whole lot more to have to grapple with.

    Michael says:
    At least Watson’s site comes across a little more adult in tone

    He has a very specific raison d’etre regarding his site and it’s not really about him being paroled as much as it is about trying to show that Christ can reach even the very worst of us. So he would have a more active role, even if he’s not allowed internet access. The site Bobby used to contribute to had a similar MO ~ people could send in questions, his wife would then bring them to Bobby in the jail, he’d answer them, then she’d post them on the site. He used to have some really heated exchanges with people who would write in and some of them basically just wanted to have a go at him. But one could see there was input from him, even if he didn’t have internet access. That LVH site doesn’t appear to have any words or messages from LVH. It’s pretty lame, to be honest. I wonder if she actually deliberately stays away from it because she feels that it may be used against her at future hearings. It’s notable that things Tex said in his various books and things Bobby said in the past have seriously come back to haunt them !

  227. Flip says:

    “…God is a person who communicates”….Well there you go, Fred, enjoy your relationship with Mr. (or Ms.) God. I hope He/She doesn’t tell you to kill anyone. Unless your Mr.God allows you to ignore his communications when you don’t feel up to listening.

  228. kitty says:

    Shes still a major threat & even if she wasnt, would you have her live next to you????
    She held a woman down and then stabbed her 16 times – i dont care if the sun now shines out of her a**
    She deserves to rot in jail & she will! I dont give a rats if she feels bad or not and she prooves she doenst care. When asked ” if you could goback and do it again, what woukd you do” her reply is “be a better daughter!”
    Really????? How about “I would never have gone anywherenear the house & i wouldt have hurt anybody” all she cares about is herself & her family – she dont care about thevictims & i am checking every manson family member online now and agin to watch them all die one by one! Not all the ones, just the psyco ones like sandy, red, grogan, bobby, Pat, the stuck up idiot one Mary – everysingle one of them.

  229. Kitty says:

    Nope – you commit a crime, you forfit your rights! Simple!
    You commit a murder, you forfit your own life.

    If prisoners dont like it, tough!!
    Cant pay the price dont do the crime then assholes

  230. Lee says:

    Kitty….. Beautifully said! I couldn’t agree more!

  231. Cybele Moon says:

    Flip, and Fred, this idea of God and who He actually can never be explained. There are those who say they have a personal relationship with God but I really think that just means that you try to do the right thing and have a higher purpose- which is fair. One thing is certain, you cannot put God in a box which is what almost every established religion tries to do and their way is always the right way.
    As for God communicating with us we all have a perspective on it. A beautiful day can be God speaking to us and reason to give thanks for the gift of life and beauty. On a miserable day a wise man might also give thanks and feel there are lessons to be learned while most of us say why is this sh- happening again. I have to say that I find today that the Buddhist philosophy seems to make the most sense in the realm of physics and spirituality.

    When a cult leader claims he has the answers to the universe and God is speaking through him well, that’s another story. Jesus was the only one who pulled that one off perfectly. Anything else has turned into a disaster as we have seen.

  232. Fred Bloggs says:

    Cybele Moon says:
    this idea of God and who He [is] actually can never be explained

    Ne dis jamais, jamais !!

    There are those who say they have a personal relationship with God

    I’m one of those.

    but I really think that just means that you try to do the right thing and have a higher purpose

    It doesn’t. A relationship requires at the very least, two way discourse/interraction.

    you cannot put God in a box

    You’ll get no argument from me on that one.
    However, bear in mind that when some people are describing their relationship with God, firstly anything we say is necessarily limited by our understanding and experience up to that point in time because we are limited beings. Secondly if one was to go through the totality of their experience, they’d be talking forever and a day. So there’s only a certain amount that will come across when talking about one’s life with God and that can sometimes feel like he’s being put into a box. I compare it to being a parent or a student or anything, really. Most descriptions I hear are pretty limited {my own included}…..unless you’ve got the time and inclination to read autobiographies or listen for 6 months !

    which is what almost every established religion tries to do and their way is always the right way

    Logically, it makes sense that adherents of each religion thinks their particular one is the right one. The same way that every member of a political party thinks their wing is the way to go. Or many teachers think their way of teaching is the way it should be.
    In the days when I was atheist, I concluded that if God really did exist and really was the author and wellspring of all religions, then he’d have to be pretty stupid, given the major differences that exist within them. While one can definitely pick something useful up from each, they can’t all be right in their totality although logically, one could.
    But God is for and about relationship, not religion.

    As for God communicating with us we all have a perspective on it. A beautiful day can be God speaking to us and reason to give thanks for the gift of life and beauty. On a miserable day a wise man might also give thanks and feel there are lessons to be learned

    Both can be true. However, God has a lot more to say {and hear} than “be happy for the day.” Give the almighty the chance and he is specific.

    I find today that the Buddhist philosophy seems to make the most sense in the realm of physics and spirituality

    Buddhists don’t really believe in God as such.

    When a cult leader claims he has the answers to the universe and God is speaking through him well, that’s another story

    God is interested in speaking through anyone that genuinely loves him and chooses to follow his specifically revealed way. This whole idea of “leaders” being the mouthpiece of God is so far removed from what God has demonstrated through Christ. Children and those that can’t read or haven’t been “educated” are just as likely to be used by God. The key is faith, which is essentially trust. God communicates in a bewildering variety of ways ~ just like we do.

    Jesus was the only one who pulled that one off perfectly

    Which alone is reason to pause and think deeply on that.

    Anything else has turned into a disaster as we have seen

    Naturally.
    This is always a difficult subject to broach online because there’s so much that needs to be said and asked and explained and debated and rigorously examined and considered and reconsidered on all sides and I for one respond so much better when I can at least see or hear the people I’m communicating with. But when people disparage another person’s faith on the basis of the fact that they have murdered and are in jail, well, that door blows wide open again !
    But actually, the discussions {such as they are} are fun, sometimes.

    Kitty says:
    you commit a crime, you forfit your rights! Simple!

    Well, you forfeit the right to engage in free society as a free person. I’m actually genuinely curious what people have in mind when they say that anyone committing a crime as a consequence forfeits their rights. It’s interesting going through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; there there are 30 articles involving a number of rights and while it’s not a perfect document, it’s a place to start and does throw up the interesting question ~ should criminals forfeit all of them ?

  233. Jason says:

    Oh God here comes Fred again dissecting everything trying to get his point across. Give it up already Fred. She’s never getting out of prison. Pure and simple . Quit trying to make everybody believe in a lost cause!

  234. Cybele Moon says:

    Fred, you are a thoughtful person, don’t let anyone say otherwise. People’s minds are pretty much made up on the subject at hand it seems. Some say that she deserves a second chance for all the reasons they put forth, some reasons are rather suspect of course but same goes for those who believe a life for a life in prison. It’s actually good to have two points of view. It means we all think and have our own ideas.

    Fred, I was raised Catholic and guess what! Jesus and his teachings mean a lot to me but I do have a problem with this idea of God being personal. I’m a bit scientific in my thinking and if God is up there, then he definitely put it all in motion and I believe that it is already written. We are just poor players fretting and strutting our hour on the stage as the great man said. God makes the sun shine on the righteous and the wicked so to speak. Bad things happen to good people and not all the prayer in the world changes what is meant to be, the turning wheel of karma etc, or that or if someone is cured and someone is not does that mean that the one who dies , that their faith wasn’t good enough? NO, no and no!! So this personal God business means nothing to me. unless there is comfort in the acceptance of fate and the inevitability of it all. But I am grateful for many things not the least of which is the wonder of the universe and the kindness and love people can show to each other.

    End of my little sermon! and yes I think the Manson members should remain in prison for ever. Maybe they will get it right the next time around or all of us for that matter.

  235. Columbo says:

    California politicians just can’t get anything right. They refuse to do anything about the horrible problem below (which adversely affects millions of citizens), yet the incompetent and out of touch Governor thinks Leslie Van Houten (who has been perfect for 50 years) is more dangerous to society. Total idiocy.

    Can you imagine having “leaders” like this in your city/state?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=9D9pZEjSxXQ

  236. Jason says:

    Columbo..homeless people are not a danger to society. Murderers on the other hand are! Two totally different things!

  237. Columbo says:

    Jason, clearly the homeless people are a significant danger to millions in society because of their ability to spread a variety of serious diseases. These diseases can be totally blamed on liberal politicians and them alone.

    You might try actually watching the (entire) video before making erroneous statements.

    In comparison to the disease-spreading homeless and illegals that are all across California, LVH has proven over the past 50 years that she is no danger to society at all.

    California’s politicians are REFUSING to protect the health and safety of the citizens by making the entire state of California a refuge for illegals and homeless who are infested with diseases, drugs and lawlessness. Then they have the audacity to say they are keeping LVH in prison for the safety of society.

  238. Flip says:

    So, mein freund, Columbo, zees homeless und immigrants….zey are vermin, ja? Exterminate zees schwein, ja?

  239. Jason says:

    Oh Columbo get off the LVH kick..She’s never getting out prison. Period.

  240. Cybele Moon says:

    Colombo,
    this problem is not specific to California- every city in every country has it’s fair share of homeless people. My personal view is that we need more socialist minded governments to put up more mental health centers that will not cost a fortune to those in need. There needs to be more affordable housing etc etc. Some find themselves homeless due to unfortunate circumstances and not because they want to be. As far as drug addiction as well hey, the problem is not only with homeless but with middle class society as well today.
    I would venture to say most immigrants do not want to be a burden to society. I would even say that most of them are hard working and upstanding and care about their families. Of all the people that my husband has hired at his company, the ones who never just didn’t show up for work and who were willing to work extra shifts were the immigrants- because they were grateful to have a job.
    anyway as you say, I’m one of those horrible liberal minded people who should have stayed living in California lol. But this is my own opinion said with respect to yours.
    Yes there are always going to be those who create havoc just as there are some of our own citizens who do as well.

  241. Cybele Moon says:

    PS: as for LVH, the higher court will decide and we all must abide by that decision. I don’t say she is a danger today but blah blah you know how I feel.

  242. Stephen Craig says:

    Re: The “state” of California

    FYI: I just returned from my bi-annual visit to Los Angeles, and I truly do not feel that words can adequately express what I saw as I travelled into the city limits. The city has become, for all intent and purposes, a filthy cesspool, resembling a third world nation at its worst, rather than one of our countries most prominent urban areas. You really have to see it to believe it. Any images/pictures pale in comparison to the reality of what is occurring there. I’m not kidding. If this is what’s in store for the rest of our nation, I’m moving to, well, anywhere.

  243. Suzie Novic says:

    The Governor made the right choice and the logic made great sense . . I don’t understand why anyone would say otherwise

    1) in 2019 a psychologist assessed she still possibly posed a danger.
    2) I agree 100 % that if you can’t understand the “causation” 48 years later and know the difference between an assault vs willingly when someone drugs you and then sexually has their way with you -you are indeed susceptible .

    3) being asked what you would do different and resounding being a better daughter is downright like you are completely removed from the horror you inflicted on the victims and ignoring what got you involved in the actual evil to begin with .
    She Sounds completely messed up and beyond repair .

    4) such heinous vicious crimes are enough to be grounds for denial in this case .

    5) how can anyone guarantee this woman is harmless you can’t . So that’s enough to deny .

    Lastly I agree with the basic concept that she got life -althougyh behind bars -its a life. She breathes, eats , reads , educate herself etc.. more then the victims ever got . She is ahead of the game . Thats enough.

  244. Fred Bloggs says:

    Suzie Novic says:
    the logic made great sense . . I don’t understand why anyone would say otherwise

    You probably could if you actually objectively tried.
    You know, I don’t have a problem with the Guv’nor’s logic. Logically speaking, from his specific viewpoint, he can always justify what he said. Come to think of it, just about anyone can. The mistake we often make is in assuming that because something is logical, it is therefore right or good. If there is only enough food for 8 survivors on a rowing boat in the middle of the ocean, but there are 13 people and two of them are ill and there’s no medicine and 3 of them are very young children that can’t row the boat or do anything to help the survival effort, it is logical to deduce that there is a greater chance of everyone dying unless 5 people are shed from the load so it becomes logical to toss the children and the ill duo overboard.
    But is it right ?
    No offence, but Adolf Hitler was logical a lot of the time. Al Qaeda, IS and associated groups are often logical prior to their atrocities.
    Logic can create as many problems as it solves.

    I agree 100 % that if you can’t understand the “causation” 48 years later and know the difference between an assault vs willingly when someone drugs you and then sexually has their way with you -you are indeed susceptible

    I would agree too……..if that were actually the case. It so clearly is not and I think it’s embarrasingly ignorant to make those two points. Bear with me while I explain because my words aren’t actually aimed at you but at the Guv’nor.
    Click on the Leslie Van Houten page on this site. This site is a great site for neutrality. What you have here are facts from which one can make up one’s own mind. Now, there are 7 parole hearing transcripts and having gone through all of them on a number of occasions, I can tell you that Van Houten has gone through, ad nauseum how she assesses how she ended up committing murder. Don’t take my word for it though ¬> if you haven’t already, have an in depth read of them. Now, you may decide to poo-poo her explanations. You may decide that she’s just spinning yarns. You might conclude that the world is flat when we stand on it but it is not possible to justify the statement that she does not understand how she came to be in the position she was in.
    This isn’t even to do with whether you believe she should have gone to the gas chamber, whether you believe she should have gotten LWOP, whether you believe she should never be released or whether you think she should. From a neutral, unbiased standpoint, I don’t think it is actually possible to conclude she is not able to explain how she got to where she is. I fully accept that one may not believe her. But if one doesn’t believe her, the onus is on the person to make that stick.
    As for “the assault” I’m going to make an odious comparison with a prostitute and a porn actress. Not ones that are forced by the threat of violence {either to them or to their kinfolk}, but those that willingly and deliberately go into their chosen profession. They may do all manner of sexual things, they may be invoved in gang bangs, utilizing violent implements and sex with animals and the kinds of things that make most of us recoil and there are loads of people that see that as being debased, assaulted and making the overall lot for women in general much worse than it already is. But the prostitute and the porn actress won’t because that’s the nature of the game and that is the world in which they choose to move and it goes with the territory. Part of LVH’s world was drugs and sex. They went hand in hand like cars and petrol. Leslie was no shrinking violet by the summer of 1968. She was actually more experienced in LSD than Charles Manson was. She’d been hitting the acid and ganja since she was 14. She was also highly sexually experienced, having been sexually active since the same time she got into drugs. She’d been part of a ménage à quatre with Bobby Beausoleil, “Gail” and Gypsy Share long before she met Manson.
    In other words, she knew that world. It was no big deal to her to accept a psychedelic drug and have a sexual encounter with the provider of the drug. She’d been doing it since the age of 14 with Bobby Mackie. You might think it was an assault. The Guv’nor might try to justify keeping her in jail by portaying it as an assault. Leslie herself may even look back on it and see it, through her new {well, new since around 1974} lenses as an assault. After all, many of the Manson women looked back at their time with him and saw things very differently from the way they did while they were actually in his thrall. But at the time, that was their world and they weren’t complaining and even if it sticks in our craw today in the 21st century, we need to stop trying to paint the world of then with todays colours.

    being asked what you would do different and responding being a better daughter is downright like you are completely removed from the horror you inflicted on the victims and ignoring what got you involved in the actual evil to begin with

    No it isn’t. In fact, it puts the horror inflicted front and centre. Far from ignoring what got her involved in the actual evil to begin with, she’s tracing it to its beginning point ~ something you claim she does not do at all in terms of causation. It’s a perfectly valid, sensible, all embracing answer. She’s basically saying that her woes can be traced back to her own self and that if she had concentrated on being a better daughter and all that went with that, instead of an acid head and upholder of the negative elements of the countercultural thinking she was embracing as a mid-teen, things could have been different. It’s things like that that the Guv’nor ignores and causes a greater spotlight to shine on his reasoning and show up its weaknesses.
    Just because you and the Guv’nor either can’t or don’t wish to grasp and accept what LVH is so clearly saying isn’t LVH’s fault ! And you know the funny thing ? You could accept everything she said as being accurate and true as far as she understands them ~ and still believe she should remain in jail. That pretty much whatever she says is dismissed out of hand, sooner or later causes people to become more than suspicious.

    She Sounds completely messed up and beyond repair

    That’s ironic. The Guv’nor wholly disagrees with you there. In point of fact, more than once, he commends her for not being messed up and beyond repair and for improving herself and efforts at rehabilitation.

    such heinous vicious crimes are enough to be grounds for denial in this case

    You’re right, they are. So why doesn’t the Guv’nor just say “the crimes were so bad, forget it Leslie !” ? By bringing in a number of other factors, he, like his predecessor, has taken this now beyond the crimes and how awful they were. It is this that demonstrates those areas in which he falls down.

    how can anyone guarantee this woman is harmless you can’t

    Very true. There cannot be a guarantee. No one can guarantee you’re harmless.
    But I bet a number of people would come forward to vouch for you.

Leave a Reply

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