Van Houten Counters Attorney General Filing

Tuesday, May 22nd, 2018

May. 22 – Governor Jerry Brown relied on isolated negative factors to support his conclusion that Leslie Van Houten posed an unreasonable risk if released on parole, according to a court filing made by her attorneys in response to one made by the state’s Attorney General’s office three weeks ago.

On May 3, Deputy Attorney General Jill Vander Borght defended Brown, asserting his decision relied on both the murders and Van Houten’s minimization of her role in them. Vander Borght argued that Brown had broad discretion while considering parole suitability and that the record supported his position.

In response, Van Houten’s attorneys, Richard Pfeiffer and Nancy Tetreault, filed a 39-page traverse, arguing dissonance between the record and Brown’s conclusions.

“Under the law, the standard for parole suitability must be the same for Leslie Van Houten as it is for all other inmates in California,” wrote Tetreault. “She cannot be denied parole because she is tainted by the stigma of Charles Manson. [She] must be viewed for her own conduct involving the commitment offenses, and not judged by the conduct of Manson.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

274 Responses to Van Houten Counters Attorney General Filing

  1. Kim says:

    Time to let her out.

  2. Yael says:

    I truly believe that Leslie her lawyers are against her, trying to keep her in prison to protect their own public reputation. Because why else would they advise her to keep on lying to the parole board about Charles Manson? You do not have to be very educated to know that telling lies does never make a good impression. How can a governor agree with a parole if the lies are so obvious?

  3. Star Blazers says:

    What lies are you referring to? I just want you to expand on your statement.

  4. Rich Pfeiffer says:

    I am one of Leslie’s attorneys, I am working on this case for free, Leslie has earned that with the efforts she has given others through the years. I have no good reason to keep her in prison. My reputation would be enhanced only if she were released (although it would not be of my own doing, release is what Leslie has earned). Leslie has repeatedly been found by the parole Board to be honest. She has been very honest, brutally honest. Rich Pfeiffer

  5. Cybele Moon says:

    it won’t be easy for a nearing 70 woman who has been in prison 3/4 of her life. The stigma of and sensationalism of her crime doesn’t go away nor is the debt ever truly paid. The world has changed so much since she entered those prison gates nearly 50 years ago. Though I feel parole should not have been an option in this kind of crime, whatever happens I hope the victims families find peace.

  6. Michael says:

    Rich, thanks for taking the time to comment. Your take on all of this is obviously coming from a more informed and involved source than any of the rest of us. I’m among those who oppose Leslie’s release, because I don’t believe anyone who commits such a callous murder should ever be freed. I realize that others who’ve committed even more heinous crimes have been paroled, and I think that’s wrong, too. Still, it’s the law which matters, not my opinion, and it seems that the law calls for a rationale for keeping her in prison. Brown et al did not, to my thinking, provide such a rationale, because I see nothing in Leslie’s words or actions to indicate she hasn’t taken full responsibility for her crimes, displayed sincere remorse, and conducted herself in a productive and responsible way for decades. I’m with Cybele in that my sympathies are for the victims and their families more than for Van Houten, but that doesn’t negate my ability to see she has made huge strides and, for sure, has had a lot to overcome.

  7. Peter says:

    I’m just a small town antitrust lawyer, but I think Rich does a fantastic job representing his client. Leslie is lucky to have him in her corner. I’m always impressed with his advocacy and the quality of his briefing.

    You can disagree on whether Leslie should be granted parole without slurring her attorney.

  8. Cybele Moon says:

    agreed!

  9. cindy brockman says:

    I agree she has been a model prisoner but the facts remain the same. She willingly participated in the murders, she never experienced the fear & pain LaB’s went through, she was all about pleasing her master, CM. I know they were all on drugs & very young but they were of age to be held accountable for their actions. She could have done so many things that night to make it different but she made her choice to participate & for that she has to pay the price. It is sad for all families but justice has to be served, she is no different. I used to think she should be paroled but I think about that horrific crime & if that had been my family I would pray she never got out.

  10. Nancy Tetreault says:

    I joined Leslie’s legal team after the Governor’s reversal of the second finding by the parole board that Leslie is suitable for release on parole. I, like Rich Pfeiffer, am working for free. The legal standard for parole is whether Leslie CURRENTLY poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. Her long record of reform, rehabilitation, soul-searching, and good-works proves she does not pose any current risk of danger. The law does not allow Leslie permanently to be branded as an unreasonable risk of danger when balanced against the person she is today. The law also prevents her from being denied parole because of her long-ago association with Charles Mason. An indeterminate life sentence presumes a realistic possibility of parole. The value of her 50-year-old crimes in determining her current parole suitability is zero, other than a yardstick against which her current reform can be measured. Regardless of how people view the murders, the woman Leslie is today meets the legal standard for release on parole. It benefits us all to have a legal standard evenly applied. It hurts us all to have Leslie denied parole because the Governor fears political fall out or because individuals find it preferable to ignore the law in favor of emotions.

  11. Flip says:

    Rich and Nancy,

    You may be working LVH’s case pro bono, but you both also do receive considerable “free advertising” for your efforts on behalf of such a notorious convicted murderer. I don’t begrudge you that benefit, but it should be clear to everyone that it may factor in to your decision to work on the release of LVH rather than, perhaps, some other lesser-known convicts with your pro bono time.

    As for your proofs of LVH’s suitability–well, it is hard for me to understand how any such concept can ever be proven. While proofs are possible in the world of theoretical mathematics, scientists realize (and so should you) that absolute proof of anything in the “real” world is actually not attainable. The best we can hope for are in science are increasingly plausible hypotheses that can be tested and retested in hope of refining them further–or at least until we think the answers are “good enough”. Your opinions on this matter of “who the woman Leslie is today” and whether she is suitable for release into free society are just that–opinions, not facts. Emotional statements like, “It hurts us all to have Leslie denied…” are also a matter of opinion, and I vehemently disagree that it hurts the families of LVH’s victims, or anyone who deeply empathizes with those people, to keep her in prison.

    So, anyway, you folks obviously believe that LVH’s prison record gives evidence that she is “good enough” to be freed. Personally, I agree with the governor’s interpretation of her ever-evolving case–i.e., that she is still unsuitable–and I found the AG’s supporting arguments to be well-crafted and compelling.

    The “accepted facts” that her PBs must consider include (1) eager participation in a horrific, brutal murder of two people selected at random, in order to catalyze a race war (2) she put a pillowcase over Rosemary’s head and secured it with a lamp cord, then held her down while Krenwinkle stabbed her (3) called Tex in to have a go (4) and had her turn in the stab-fest (5) etc, etc…

    One could argue that her many years of incarceration have been spent learning how to game the system, figure out what pyschs want to hear, and outwardly toe the line and do “good works” in prison for the aim of satisfying her PBs–but Lawrence does leave the door ajar for a reasonable conclusion that the overwhelming cruelty, horror and context alone of LVH’s crime may be justifications enough for keeping her out of free society.

  12. Peter says:

    By definition everyone serving a sentence of life in prison is guilty of a criminal act that could be considered “egregious,” so to allow the Governor to rely solely on this factor would create a meaningless standard. The denial, even if based on the circumstances of the crime, has to be rationally related to a finding of “current dangerous.” This the Governor does not

    Lawrence served only half the time in prison that Leslie has after murdering her lover’s wife by shooting her four times and stabbing her repeatedly with a potato peeler.

  13. Paul says:

    Flip, what is obvious about you is that you cannot understand that people generally find Leslie suitable tat you will say things like her lawyers are doing mainly for publicity or attempt to deny the evidence which is clear as day. Cybele and Michael admit this, but you can’t because your so compelled by the actual crimes, rational opinion aren’t working for you. Your comments give clear interpretation that you hear what you wanna hear then listen to the facts, which is funny because you’ve attempt to use this argument on me. The fact is your trying to make anything that proves Leslie suitably isn’t trustworthy, because of your moral standards.

  14. Flip says:

    Peter,

    Hopefully you do realize that there are discernible gradations, even among crimes leading to life sentences. Thus, if LVH’s brutal torture-murders murders were also committed with the express aim of inciting a race war that was overtly planned to result in the deaths of many thousands, or millions, then I’d say she might still be a current danger.

    This is all hypothetical, of course, but elements of exceptional brutality and cruelty coupled with LVH’s admission that “she had to do this” to help catalyze a devastating race war that would end society as we know it….yeah, I think all of that cannot, without harboring any reasonable doubts, be rehabilitated out of a murderer. LVH is a convicted murderer who really wanted to be a mass murderer on the scale of Hitler–that’s what the evidence suggests, and what she actually admits to, in so many words.

  15. Pam says:

    This is so ridiculous. Leave these cold blooded murderers in jail as long as their victims stay in the grave. Period. If she felt true remorse,she would never request parole. She asked to go that night, no force.

  16. Flip says:

    Paul, I mainly have a lot of trouble understanding the difference between fact and opinion in your version of the world.

    If you tell me that anyone’s (including you) personal interpretation of factual evidence does not depend on their moral standards, then I’m calling BS.

    It’s obvious that my arguments haven’t convinced you to adopt my point of view; I was really only hoping to convince you that others might be looking at the same accepted facts as you, but could actually come to a different opinion than yours.

    As for what people generally think about LVH’s suitability–well, Paul, really–you must live in a vacuum. Earth-to-You: Manson-related forums do not necessarily represent a realistic cross-section of society. At her PB hearings, the number of submitted letters and petition signatures counseling against release always far outnumber the positive letters
    recommending her release. The PB is not legally bound to be guided by that heavy imbalance of public opinion, but it is clearly there.

  17. Peter says:

    But they are all by definition “egregious.” What difference is it if one is “really egregious” as opposed to just “a little egregious” when the standard as the Governor defines it can rely on any and all gradations?

    I’m also reluctant to attribute a Helter Skelter motive to Leslie. Rather than a Hitler wannabe, my impression is that she was just a f##ked-up young woman who wanted to be accepted by the people she thought loved her. I’m not saying that’s an excuse, but lets’ keep it in perspective.

  18. Paul says:

    Your not helping yourself Flip, the board know that the letter opposing her parole are from people like you who don’t know Leslie and obisovuly refuse to see her progression. Most of the people who wrote to the board to grant her parole actually know Leslie, and will know a lot more on the subject than yourself. You haven’t really addressed the proof of Leslie’s rehabilitation and taken it into account in your argument, and its obvious why. You have literally just proved my point, the board aren’t meant to be impacted by the pubic, but it has in the past, and you seem to okay with tat as long as it falls in line with your opinion, pathetic.

  19. Flip says:

    Peter,

    LVH has admitted that she was eager to go out and kill randomly selected victims because she thought it was her duty. You may be reluctant to ascribe Helter Skelter to Leslie but, again, she has admitted that she believed that’s why she was at the Labianca’s home, slaying them to spark the race war.

    By the way, I do also agree that she was a f##ked-up person who very much wanted to be accepted and loved by her fellow f##ked-up criminals in the Manson cult.

    It’s been said before, but maybe worth repeating: Most drug-addled sleazeballs in the ’60s, even most of the members of the Manson cult, did not ever brutally murder anyone. Almost by definition, it takes a very, very special person with very unusual motivations to do the horrible things that LVH, Krenwinkle, Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, Manson, Beausoleil, Kasabian, etc were capable of doing. I think there is plenty of room for reasonable people to doubt that LVH has been rehabilitated to the point that she has somehow “earned” freedom.

  20. Paul says:

    Flip it’s being rehabilitated enough so they don’t pose a threat to society, not to earn freedom like it’s an award.

  21. Peter says:

    She admitted that she was eager to go out and kill randomly because she was a member of a cult. Even the State concedes the Family was a cult. And people in cults say a lot of stupid shit that they are programmed to say.

    It’s not like she just showed up one day and decided to go out an commit these crimes. It was a process. She was groomed. And perhaps the scariest part, and the reason why this case still attracts the attention that it does, is that it didn’t take a very, very special person with unusual motivations. To the contrary, Leslie was conspicuously ordinary and wanting to be loved and accepted is about as universal a motive as there is.

  22. Flip says:

    Oh, Paul, c’mon–first, I’m not trying to help myself… Second, you don’t understand that a person’s rehabilitation cannot be proved, it can only be opined based on relevant evidence. Maybe “proved beyond reasonable doubt” is what you’re looking for. However, opinion still does not equal fact (except for your opinion, of course) and I don’t know that I can trust the opinions of LVH herself, LVH’s friends, her prison pysch’s, or her PB members who may say she is rehabilitated.

    I candidly admit that I don’t know LVH and have never had any type of contact with her. And, knowing the facts of her case, I wouldn’t want to get acquainted–why would anyone want to be friends with someone who brutally murdered innocent, random people in a home invasion with the hope of starting a race war? I mean, really–don’t you have any self-respect at all?

    I get it that defense lawyers professionally defend people like that in the legal system,
    but I also imagine it makes their skin crawl sometimes to think about exactly who and what they are defending.

  23. Flip says:

    Paul,

    I was also responding to what her attorney said,

    “I am one of Leslie’s attorneys, I am working on this case for free, Leslie has earned that with the efforts she has given others through the years.” and “…release is what Leslie has earned”.

    Comments?

  24. Paul says:

    Rehabilitation can be proved my friend, her prison record shows no indication of being a danger, she’s never had any 115 or 128as in the last 48 years, she’s been active in multiple programmes and classes, her psychologist reports aren’t going to make the same mistake again and again, they are professionals and will know a darn sight more than you ever will about it. She has apologized for her actions and knows now they were wrong. You can’t get any more proof than this, and in most cases, inmates even serving time for murder don’t have to prove that this much. So your denying everything than said by Leslie, her friends who know her, her multiple trained psychologists over a span of 48 years is credible enough, your obviously not taking anything into account that discredits your morals, and you don’t even try to hide it. Her attorneys knows what their dealing with and they believe absolutely she is more than suitable. It is so blatant your biased morals are making you brush off the evidence, but many people like you do this but the courts don’t give in to your cries like the governor did.

  25. Paul says:

    I know your trying to argue with her attorneys, but not very well I must say. By the way Flip, have you bothered to read the traverse document by her defence team?

  26. Cybele Moon says:

    very passionate arguments on both sides. Do I think that a 70 year old woman will be a danger in society,- probably not although I’m not sure releasing her at this late age is a kindness either. I also feel much more for the families than I do for any of the Manson clan. Leslie and the others made their horrific choices years ago. There are repercussions to this day no matter how good they have done in the structured environment of a prison.
    I do have a problem in that unlike Paul and a few others I don’t buy totally into whether her crime was so much lesser than the others. She was willing with bells on by the sound of it. Dianne Lake in her book, remembers Leslie’s demeanor as gleeful when she described the stabbing to her plus she confided that she couldn’t be sure Mrs Labianca was dead. This is very different from her supporters claiming she was so reluctant. Dianne has nothing to gain as she was never charged.

  27. Paul says:

    Cybele Tex Watson who did most of the killings admitted that Leslie was very reluctant during the LaBianca murders, and not as enthusiastic as he and Patricia were in the murders.

  28. Flip says:

    Well, Paul, which way do you want it….

    “…release is what Leslie has earned” as per Attorney Pfeiffer,

    or “… it’s being rehabilitated enough so they don’t pose a threat to society, not to earn freedom like it’s an award.” as per Paul.

    Did she earn it or not, according to you? I did read her attorneys’ filings. Are you completely sure that you read and understand all of your own assertions?

  29. Cybele Moon says:

    Paul, if I ever do anything wrong I hope I have you in my corner!! 😀 I give you credit for standing by your guns whether I agree with you or not!

  30. John Birr says:

    Rich Pfeiffer is an excellent representative for Miss Van Houten. Going only by California’s own stats on Lifers, Leslie would have been released over 25 years ago had she not been associated with this over-publicized case.

  31. Paul says:

    Oh she has earned it because she doesn’t pose a threat to society and she has done that through the reasons I explained to you. By Law its her right but you can look at it as an reward for her efforts if you like, and in some respect that may be true.

  32. Flip says:

    Peter,

    Do you really believe what you wrote,

    “…To the contrary, Leslie was conspicuously ordinary and wanting to be loved and accepted is about as universal a motive as there is.”

    Doesn’t that pretty drastically redefine the meaning of “ordinary”? And, does being needy for love and acceptance constitute some kind of mitigation, like “It was a crime of passion, to show the other cult members how much I loved them”?

    I agree with you that she didn’t just show up at Spahn and decide to go murderin’…she was clearly groomed and influenced by Manson and others, especially Krenwinkle, but of course a large number of murdering Nazis had equally good arguments on their behalfs, maybe even better….I was only following orders of my superiors in wartime. Oh, wait, that’s what LVH said as well…she considered herself to be a soldier in CM’s murderous army and she was eager to please, even after learning the horrific carnage of the Tate
    murders. Some of her testimony made it sound like she was downright jealous for being left out of the Cielo Drive murder party.

  33. Cybele Moon says:

    Flip
    yes, it certainly looked that way, We are all dysfunctional human beings with issues. Most of us don’t go out an murder our neighbours in their homes. The worst Nazis who said they were only following the orders of their Fuhrer were still found accountable. I won’t argue anymore about who was worse than Leslie. Does that really matter? and how can they separate themselves from the Manson name and notoriety They were all part of it.

  34. Peter says:

    The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
    It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
    Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
    It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.

    And l know you can say, “Well, Leslie didn’t have any mercy.” But that would only show that you don’t really get what mercy is.

  35. Cybele Moon says:

    true enough Peter.

  36. Ana says:

    As a child of six to eleven years, I remember the news of these trials. And as an adult, I’ve read the transcripts to form my own opinion. Leslie seemed to want to go and was very haughty at the trial showing no remorse. I have empathy for the aborted child buried in her backyard. The murders were brutal. All of the Manson family received the death penalty but the law reversed. In this case, life in prison without parole seems fair enough.

  37. Ana says:

    Think about how many times the victim’s families had to relive the events. And now, every year one former family member is up for parole. Horrible and injustice!

  38. Peter says:

    Leslie is not serving a death sentence commuted to life in prison. Her original conviction was reversed and she received a second trial where she was subsequently sentenced to life with the possibility for parole.

  39. Sunny says:

    People keep talking about the victims’ families, but at this writing, none who were around at the time of the murders are still living except Debra Tate and Janet Parent.

  40. Flip says:

    Peter,

    You seem much more intelligent and well-read than many of the “Free Leslie!” crowd and I can sometimes empathize with your viewpoint; however, the quote from Merchant of Venice seems to me inapt…

    Those words were an emotional appeal to Shylock to forego his legal right to cut a pound of living flesh off of a loan defaulter. I would hardly put torture-murder with the intent to incite race war in the same class as loan defaulting.

    Where do you draw the line, or is everyone equally deserving of social mercy? Note, I’m not asking for opinions about God’s mercy–that concept is much too abstract for me, and it doesn’t bother me that some folks may believe that their God grants “mercy to everyone”. But really, in a case where the crime was absolutely hideous, how do you ever know absolutely that rehabilitation is “proven beyond a shadow of doubt” and that the criminal should be released into free society? Shouldn’t our standards for mercy be related to the details and context of the crime?

  41. Cybele Moon says:

    I’m not sure what your point is Sunny but it sounds a bit callous. There are surviving family members of all victims including Steven Parents siblings. The loss is no less whether they were around at the time of the murders or whether they are more visible in the public eye by their protests.

    Peter, reversed? she was granted a retrial because of the death of her attorney? and yes back then they tried to separate her from the other Mansonmembers because of her age, looks and middle class background to gain sympathy for her I believe. But make no mistake, she was a Manson follower and she was and is a murderer who knew right from wrong whether given mercy or not.

  42. Paul says:

    Ana, Leslie isn’t serving Life with without parole is she? Her sentence is lie with the chance of parole therefore she has the right to ask for it. Leslie isn’t serving life commuted from death as she was tried twice in the late 70s.

  43. Paul says:

    Cybele Don’t try to make out her defence tried to use her looks to gain sympathy from the public or the board. You keep saying she knew right from wrong, how do you know this because you weren’t there, her idea of what was right or wrong at that point could of been completely impaired by Manson.

  44. Stephen Craig says:

    As someone who has lost a loved one to violent crime, let me say that for me, the pain, the anger at the loss, never goes away. Yes, you do “pick up the pieces” and continue on with your own life, but nothing is ever the “same” again: ever. There truly is a sense of “before and after”. For me, the most painful aspect of it, other than the knowledge that my loved one was literally robbed of their life, was the violence, the sheer brutality of the act, and knowing that my family member had tried to negotiate with his killer, to reason with him while tied to a radiator in his own living room. Nor will I ever forget the condition of his house after the crime: the amount of blood was staggering. The sight of the gore and obvious struggle that had ensued left me speechless. All of this, and my memories of the funny, caring, unique individual who lost his life senselessly and in utter/unimaginable terror (according to his own killer) will always lurk in the shadows of my consciousness, sometimes cutting through the very fabric of my existence and bringing me back to that tragic time. But what I have always wrestled with, from the very moment of the perpetrators arrest, was the level of support for him, the rationale that was offered as if to explain the atrocity he was responsible for, and how his defense attorneys created an alternate narrative, attempting to display their client as a victim himself and someone who should be shown mercy. I guess the point of my writing this is to illustrate to those who seem to diminish LVH’s participation, or note the length of her incarceration, or ask where the victims loved ones/survivors are, or treat the La Bianca’s as “incidentals” instead of people who loved and were loved, that there are events that are so heinous, cause such grief, such harm, and which alter the lives of all those affected in the most profound ways, that forgiveness can be only be granted by the victims themselves, and that those who claim murderers like LVH or the man responsible for my cousin’s death deserve freedom/forgiveness,’know not what they speak”.

  45. Paul says:

    Stephen, sorry about the situation, you naturally wouldn’t want your loved ones killer out, but the government have the duty to follow the law, which was protects society and we all haven’t follow. The law can’t be manipulated by public cries and they can’t be influenced by sympathy. If you want to live in a civilized country you have to expect that laws have to be followed or your making a very corrupt government.

  46. Flip says:

    Stephen,

    That was a very thoughtful and profound personal account–hope in the course of time you and your family do find some kind of inner peace.

    Unfortunately, Paul is trying to school all of us with his simpleton version of a Civics 101 short-course; however, please know that there is real support and empathy available for you and your family in our society…and a great deal of agreement that victims’ rights should always come first. The #metoo movement is finding lots of sorely needed traction for women who have been sexually abused; hopefully, the innocent victims of vicious murderers can also get some care and concern from our society.

    I’ve said it before and will say again, our legal system is built and interpreted by human beings, who cannot (in my opinion) separate their inner moral standards from their decision-making. If the same legal system that allows for LVH’s reasonable chance to be paroled also provides a legal remedy for denying her parole boards’ decisions, then society is well-served.

    What I don’t quite get is, the seemingly constant assertion (even by LVH’s lawyers, who should know better) that the law absolutely guarantees LVH’s freedom at this time, and that the governor is doing something illegal by denying her PB decisions. What a pile of malarkey.

  47. Paul says:

    Flip you make me laugh. You even try questioning the ability and knowledge of her attorneys yet you can’t keep your argument consistent. You have made it obvious that your happy to live in a country with a corrupt government as long as its suits your standards, how pathetic this is. I’ve given the evidence that proves she’s suitable, its there and factual. So tiring seeing people like you attempt to discredit evidence for your agenda. Answer me this Flip, why has the court made the governors office explain why the Browns decision is lawful?

  48. Flip says:

    re: “Answer me this Flip, why has the court made the governors office explain why the Browns decision is lawful?”

    Because the legal system allows LVH’s defense a legal remedy to question the governor’s decision…duh! We’ll see how the court finds…I personally find the AG’s arguments on behalf of the governor’s decision to be far more compelling than LVH’s arguments against; however, I imagine that your opinion remains very different from mine on that score.

  49. Paul says:

    Well you would, because your biased. If you look at the case through the actual law, Leslie meets the criteria for parole, she can’t possibly do any more to prove that.

    1. Spotless prison record
    2. No disciplinary write ups (No 115 or 128a)
    3. Model Inmate
    4. Strong parole plans and support group
    5. Expressed remorse for her actions

    The CDCR claim they look to rehabilitate inmates so they can return to society without being a threat, not to punish. Leslie is serving life with the chance of parole, which she fits the criteria for and has for years, not life without parole. The superior court can refuse to look at the case if they wish, but they have challenged the governors argument so it appears they aren’t satisfied with his evidence to support this theory.

  50. Michael says:

    Stephen, I (and I’d wager all of us) am so sorry for what you’ve been through. The misery inflicted on your loved, you, and your family, is the reason I believe murderers like Leslie should not be freed, even if they have been rehabilitated. It’s asking too much. But the legal argument for freeing her may win out, which is why I wish her sentence had been life without the possibility of parole. Her possible release may be legal, but that will never make it right.

  51. Pam says:

    To all those who want this killer released, would you want her free if it were your family she butchered? Save your pity for her victims. She had almost 50 years of life that she stole from her victims.

  52. Paul says:

    Pam this scenario is used all the time, but that doesn’t change anything. The people who are responsible for following the law have to do just that, they can’t bend the rules to satisfy public opinion.

  53. Flip says:

    Paul, You provide a nice numbered list of LVH’s supposed attributes, but I think you fail to understand the following:

    (1) Your points 1, 2, and 3 are basically redundancies–if you are unsure what redundant means, it’s that you padded your list with three items that are actually just restatements of the first item in your list. We get it, you think LVH is rehabilitated.

    (2) “Expressed remorse for her actions”…. Sure, yeah, I’ve read through her PB hearing transcripts and have watched some video of at least one of them, and I don’t trust her expressions of remorse for what she did to the Labianca family. I do think she is truly sorry that she was caught and imprisoned for what she did–that does come through pretty
    clearly.

    (3) Her entire record of court appearances and subsequent PB hearings looks like a long, arduous learning process during which she has often tinkered with the nuances and details of her story in order to optimize her chances of being released. Past PB members have even helped her craft her tale by telling her how she needs to stop minimizing her guilt. She seems reasonably intelligent, obviously motivated to get out, and maybe hopes that she will get out if she says the right things to her pyschs and PB members.

    (4) Your list fails to mention, because you are biased, that the details of her life crime are so uniquely horrible (multiple victims, callous disregard for the suffering of her victims during the murders, mutilation, etc) that the law actually does leave the door open for denying her recent PB decisions based solely on the heinous nature of the crime. The relevant law says that this would be a rare instance, but if not applicable to LVH then who is it applicable to?

    (5) Your list fails to mention, again, because you are biased, that there is some evidence that LVH still continues to minimize her role in the Labianca murders (as you certainly also do). Minimization and evasiveness about crimes of this magnitude can legally be considered as evidence that she still may constitute a danger to society.

    Have there ever been any over-70 murderers in the course of our history–yes, I think there have been. Were any of them women?–I don’t know, maybe LVH would turn out to be the first over-70 woman to kill someone after being paroled. Does the risk go down with age?–yes, I’m sure it does go down, but that wouldn’t console a new victim if LVH were freed, decided she’s bitter and can’t handle the free world as well as she thought she would, and then kills again for some real or imagined provocation.

    I know she says she wouldn’t do that, and her pyschs say it’s very remote, and her lawyers and friends say she absolutely wouldn’t–but why should the majority of society believe any of these biased sources?

  54. Paul says:

    1.) What evidence do you have that she’s minimizing her crimes, don’t think you’ve mentioned any evidence on this theory.

    2.) I’m talking about her prison record. We know why they behaved like that during the trial anyway. Her prison record than proves she’s not likely to act in violence again.

    3.) CDCR look to rehabilitate their inmates so they can return to society, so its her progression that really should be noted.

    4.) I don’t even believe you think she’s a danger, psychologists aren’t stupid. A number of them have states she poses no risk if released. If you think Leslies is a danger, might as well keeping everyone in jail then because that’s how your logic works

    5.) She has a long list of qualifications that she can use when out and he parole plans are fairly solid.

    6.) Whether you believe her remorse is pretty much irrelevant, because of your view point, that’s not surprising. She could probably cry like hell and you would think she’s insincere.

    7.) The thing is that her lawyers and friend actually know her whilst you do not, and probably any rational thought is past you if they say anything good about her. So many people who oppose her parole don’t actually know too much of the case, some actually believe Leslie killed Sharon. That’s another reason why the people against her parole shouldn’t be trusted, despite it being unlawful, they probably don’t even know what ere getting involved in.

    8.)The governors obviously has not been honest in this statement, and again, the superior court evidently have realised this and that’s why his office now have to explain his actions.

    9.) Your attempt to make out Leslie is this monster that’s still a danger is as appalling as Debra Tate’s. You don’t have a lot of ground left Flip, and you can’t even back up your theories. You discredit anything you don’t agree with, you can’t even acknowledge it like Michael and Cybele have. They haven’t changed their opinions but they have at least admitted Leslie has progressed and wouldn’t be a danger, because they know evidence when they see it. You’ll think the worst of her because the crime, well sorry people rehabilitate and change, and she has.

  55. Flip says:

    Okay, Paul, according to you a lengthy record of no prison violations is actual proof that LVH will never do anything bad again. Plus, she and her friends say the same thing.

    So, do you think that a lengthy spotless record is also proof that a given person in free society will never do anything bad? There are actually quite a few cases in recent history where mass murderers have emerged from seemingly nowhere, completely surprised their friends and families, and killed large numbers of people as their public debut in crime…and LVH already has experience, how can you be so sure she won’t decide to kill again?

  56. Paul says:

    Yes it is actual proof, if she was a threat to society today, she would of shown it in the last 48 years. She literally cannot improve herself anymore than she has, in normal circumstances she wouldn’t have to do as much as she has done to rehabilitate herself. You know if the law worked your way, no one would get out, because in with your logic, if prison record isn’t good enough than no one can be trusted. You can’t keep Leslie in prison on this. Its getting to the point that all you can do is question anything, solely because it doesn’t suite your viewpoint. I do believe you know all this already know all this anyway, because I find it hard to believe you think you know better than psychologists for one thing.

  57. Peter says:

    You say that these things are not subject to scientific proof and then you say she needs to stay in prison because she cant sufficiently prove to you that she’s rehabilitated.

    But best of all is that you need me to define “mercy” for you. That one really takes the cake.

  58. Flip says:

    Peter,

    You don’t understand what I’ve been trying to explain. LVH’s lawyers, you, and other “Free Leslie!” folks constantly misuse the concept of proof in support of your opinions. But, asserting proof over and over again doesn’t make it so.

    As I suggested to Paul earlier, maybe what y’all are looking for is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, which is not actually proof at all…rather, it is your interpretation of facts
    that, in your opinion, leaves little room for further doubt. Not “no room for further doubt” because I doubt (hope) that not even you folks will claim omniscience.

    And, your definition of mercy–I still haven’t heard from you whether you think all criminals deserve the same extent of mercy. I believe your thinking is kind of fuzzy on this topic.

  59. Flip says:

    Here’s a fun research project for Peter and Paul, who both appear to believe that PBs can unerringly decide when a criminal is ready to re-join society:

    Google “murderers who have murdered again after parole”.

    As for LVH’s age mitigation, Google “Contra Costa convicts 74 year old grandmother of murder”. I was surprised at the grisly facts of that story.

  60. Travis says:

    We have to realize that Leslie and her lawyers are dealing with a drugged out old hippie Moonbeam. I suspect he burned out his brain on LSD and coke years ago. He’s an idiot as are those that voted to keep him in office term after term.

    A nearly 70 year old woman is a danger? MS-13 scum are not? Moonbeam the idiot forces cities and counties to release dangerous Mexicans and other illegals into the public and refrain from calling ICE, but Leslie is a threat? Call it bullshit.

    The next governor of California Gavin Newsom is just as brain dead. Screw California 60 percent of the voters are insults to the intelligence of rocks. We’ll see that old fossil Frankenstein back as a US Senator as well.

  61. Flip says:

    Travis, try as hard as can to be coherent…otherwise, not even the “Free Leslie!” crowd will want you on their side.

    Come to think of it, maybe you are really an extremely clever “anti-Leslie” mole? Hard to tell.

  62. Cybele Moon says:

    Whoa Paul, you have made your points but others also have valid points. It’s not so black and white as you suggest. Yes there is rehabilitation etc but others don’t buy Leslie’s diminished responsibility and yes it was always said how pretty Leslie’s was and of course those things played into the defense of a poor misguided home coming princess etc etc to garnish sympathy and it worked. Many will always believe these crimes deserved life in prison and apparently the governor and the DA’s office do see it that way too and thus the controversy over whether she gets out. It’s all manipulation of law. That’s why we have lawyers and law makers and all.

  63. Cybele Moon says:

    I wasn’t referring to Travis rant lol

  64. Peter Moran says:

    You are the only one talking about proof. That’s your standard. The People’s return doesn’t even make a single reference to the word because they know that proof of rehabilitation isn’t the standard.

    Your position is clear; the Governor is better able to judge Leslie’s rehabilitation than the parole board, the social workers, and all the psychologists, whose responsibility it is to oversee and measure it. You take this position simply because it matches your own beliefs about Leslie, punishment, and recidivism. You may require “proof,” but what you require is of no consequence here.

    The question is whether the Governor has met his burden of showing that his decision is reasonably supported by the law. That’s it. Can the Governor point to something in the record to support her continued incarceration. The Governor relies on the egregiousness of the crime. Unfortunately, I think the way the law is interpreted and the deference granted to the Governor’s decision will be enough to survive any challenge. I’m not an expert on California criminal law by any means, but my impression is that in the last several decades the California courts have sought to limit the Governor’s discretion in these instances and raise the bar a little bit. This is consistent with trends in criminal law becoming a little less onerous across the country. For instance by no longer allowing the Governor to rely on the egregiousness of the crime without connecting it in some way with the inmates current danger to society. I’m not so sure the Governor can do this in Leslie’s case. And that is the sole basis for his reversal.

  65. Flip says:

    Peter,

    I’m the only one talking about proof? Geez, guy, get a grip–now you’re just flailing.

    Attorney Nancy T.– “Her long record of reform, rehabilitation, soul-searching, and good-works proves she does not pose any current risk of danger…”

    “Free Leslie!” advocate Paul–“Rehabilitation can be proved my friend,…” ; “Yes it is actual proof, if she was a threat to society today, she would of shown it in the last 48 years.”, and many, many other such assertions.

    I am clearly not the only one talking about proof in the LVH discussions, but I may be the only one in this thread who is actually interested in knowing the difference between the actual meaning of the word proof versus the constant, ignorant (or, possibly in some cases, disingenuous) misuses of the concept.

    Once again, Peter, in the hope that it will penetrate, there can be no absolute proof of LVH’s rehabilitation. There can be “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, which is not actually proof–it is an individual’s interpretation of evidence that leads the interpreter to a conclusion that “there is “little room for doubt”. I.e., it is the individual’s opinion, not fact.

    The “no room for doubt” crowd is practicing a form of religious belief that transcends logical thought.

  66. Peter says:

    There doesn’t need to be absolute proof, there doesn’t need to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, there doesn’t need to be room for doubt, there doesn’t need to be a preponderance of the evidence, there doesn’t need to be plausibility.

    The trial is over. That isn’t what is at issue.

    The ONLY question before the court is whether the Governor’s decision finds support in the record in accordance with what the law requires. If the Governor relies on the egregiousness of the crime as his reason for denial – and he is well within his right to do that under the law – he HAS TO SHOW that this is somehow related to her present danger to society. Period. Full Stop.

  67. Paul says:

    Cybele, Leslie’s looks are irreverent, its about the law and how Leslie has earned her parole.

    Flip, do you not see the problem with your theory, rehabilitation can be proved and it has been proved because Leslie has evidently reformed herself. What it really comes down to is that you just don’t want her out so if she’s rehabilitated cannot, it doesn’t matter, because you want her to stay in prison no matter what. Your trying to discredit everything, well at least the board and courts aren’t doing this so that is what actually matters. You can’t predict the future so you have to look at the evidence. This is the criteria the board use to see if the prisoner is suitable for parole.

    So Flip, how can Leslie prove she’s rehabilitated if what she has done so far aren’t effective enough as proof?

  68. Flip says:

    Peter,

    You stop, dude…if you read thread at all carefully, you may find that I basically agree with your last post and have said much the same thing in some of my own posts.

    But, you may think that yours are the only comments I have been responding to for some reason, ignoring the obvious that not all of the “Free Leslie!” crowd use defensible logic in their arguments.

  69. Peter says:

    You keep talking about what Leslie’s lawyers have to show. But they have shown everything they need to show. The burden is on the Governor now.

  70. Peter says:

    Flip, I’m glad you’ve finally come around.

  71. Flip says:

    re: “…how can Leslie prove she’s rehabilitated “… That’s exactly the question, Paul–and the answer is: She cannot prove it. No one can prove it. There is no possible Euclidean proof of rehabilitation. It is a matter of individual opinion, based on the individual’s personal interpretation of known facts.

    In LVH’s case some of the known facts are so astoundingly horrible that quite a number of people have what they would consider to be reasonable doubts about her rehabilitation, her good prison record notwithstanding. Clearly, some other folks look at the same information and conclude that she is suitable. It all depends on how an individual weighs the various facts, so it is opinion. Not proof.

  72. Michael says:

    Paul, I bet Leslie would be thrilled to hear you think her looks are irreverent 🙂

  73. Flip says:

    Peter,

    Don’t be silly–you’re glad I’ve “finally come around”? What, do you think you’re Perry Mason?

    I don’t believe I’ve ever said anything inconsistent with the idea that both sides of a legal argument are matters of opinion and that the law allows for LVH’s defense team to question the governor’s decision to overturn LVH’s PB.

    Make no mistake that you and I still disagree strongly about which side of the argument is most compelling. That said, did you read the AG’s complete response to the LVH filing against Governor Brown’s recent decision? If so, I’d be curious to hear your point-by-point response to his arguments.

  74. Peter says:

    That makes you Hamilton Burger. My rbillable rate is $850 an hour. Ill send you a retainer and then would be glad to take you point by point through the AG’s response.

  75. Paul says:

    Michael I think Leslie want to go earn parole on her efforts, not her looks.

    Flip, this argument isn’t good enough to Leslie behind bars. how do you expect any prisoner to show their from reformed if you there’s no proof? That is proof Flip, it shows Leslie pattern of action in the 48 years, she has done everything she has needed to earn parole, which she deserves. If you have two inmates, one with a clean record and a model inmate, and other prisoner has a number of 115 violations and has not behaviour well in prison, who is likely to be seen as suitable for parole?

  76. Michael says:

    Paul, i get it, I was just teasing because I think the word you wanted to use was “irrelevant” instead of “irreverent.” If her looks are irrelevant, they’re not pertinent to the case, which is the point you were making and is very true. If they’re “irreverent” they are somehow disrespectful or even sacrilegious, which is a funny description of personal appearance. Off topic but that’s why I thought it was kinda funny when you said her looks were irreverent.

  77. Paul says:

    Well she dressed respectfully at the trial funnily enough.

  78. Pam says:

    We can debate on the merits of whether she’s suitable for parole, or not suitable. But let’s keep it real, no public official wants to be known has the person who released a Manson butcher,she will never get out of prison and that’s a good thing.

  79. Paul says:

    Pam, the courts and the board have to follow the law, she is getting closer to getting out. The courts are questioning the governors reversal statement.

  80. Cybele Moon says:

    ha ha Peter- I like your bill rate response.

  81. Peter says:

    Thanks. That rate is the real unforgiveable crime.

  82. Travis says:

    Flip, get your head out of your butt because you can’t see. From all the idiotic post and counter post you make, you obviously think you are a brilliant expert, but you don’t know jack-shit. The political situation in California is as I briefly explained, but dummies like you can’t understand. You might have countered the points I mentioned, but you could not. You’re a waste of air, you arrogant jackass.

  83. Fred Bloggs says:

    Travis says:
    get your head out of your butt because you can’t see…idiotic post and counter post you make, you obviously think you are a brilliant expert, but you don’t know jack-shit…..You’re a waste of air, you arrogant jackass

    Travis, that kind of riposte really doesn’t help. Counter Flip’s points with good argument and argument that readers can follow, understand and apply if they agree or come to think of it, even if they don’t.

    Flip says:
    Don’t be silly…you must live in a vacuum. Earth-to-You:…..don’t you have any self-respect at all?…….Geez, guy, get a grip–now you’re just flailing etc

    Flip, those kind of comments don’t help and certainly don’t make your arguments any more true/coherent/right. They actually detract from them.

    there can be no absolute proof of LVH’s rehabilitation

    I agree with you on this. But I think that most us don’t actually understand what rehabilitation is. It is actually preparing someone to take their place back in society {in the criminal sense} or getting someone fit again for physical action after some kind of injury.
    The only way we’ll ever know if LVH is ready to be back in society is when she’s taking part again in society. However, to be able to make that decision in the first place, there needs to be some evidence that can be pointed to that suggests either that she is ready or that she isn’t and still constitutes a risk.
    I find that it is useful to compare her with Charles Manson in this regard. He had been inside pretty much the same length of time as her, give or take some months, after the Barker arrests. After the TLB trial, did we ever see Manson admit any guilt ? Did we ever see him admit remorse ? Did we see him make the effort to improve his lot through whatever jail offered {admittedly, easier said than done} ? Did we ever see him leave behind his mode of thinking and take on board that of the society that incarcerated him ? Did we see him continuously searching himself under the microscope that numerous PBs put him under in order to explain how he came to the position he did ? Did we see him making any kind of effort {again, admittedly easier said than done} to, even within the regimented structure of jail, avoid trouble ?
    There are a number of things in which we have seen LVH tantamount to jumping through hoops to improve and try to make amends and before she received a positive decision from the PB, she’d been knocked back 19 times. A look at Charles Manson sees him very willingly going the exact opposite way.
    Of course we have no idea what LVH will be like if she were out on parole but I ask myself this; like or detest her, has there been any kind of evidence since the point some 44 years ago when she began to denounce Manson and that period, that she has remained in the same mindset that she was in from the mid 60s to 1974 ?

  84. Fred Bloggs says:

    Cybele Moon says:
    you have made your points but others also have valid points. It’s not so black and white as you suggest

    That’s the truth. It’s not black and white, it is so nuanced that 49 years on, here we are still arguing/debating. There are valuable points made on both sides. I don’t need to agree with a person’s overall stance to see that they’ve made a good and valid point, neither do I have to dismiss every point someone makes because I don’t agree with them.

    Flip says:
    Here’s a fun research project for Peter and Paul, who both appear to believe that PBs can unerringly decide when a criminal is ready to re-join society: Google “murderers who have murdered again after parole”

    No PB is unerring. But just as you are able to weigh up and conclude that LVH is a risk, so they are able to weigh up and conclude that she no longer is. Are you unerring ? Are you incapable of making an error of judgement ?
    When LVH & co first got a death sentence, they was on a specially constructed death row wing in the prison with 2 women who were also sentenced to death. In the aftermath of the decision to do away with the death penalty in ’72, within 10 years, both those women were paroled.
    Neither killed again. One of them had murdered an elderly woman in the commission of a burglary, the other one had murdered her lover’s wife. Both were brutal and deliberate.
    Of the 106 people that were on death row in ’72, 42 had been released up to 2003, 3 of whom had committed murder again.
    PBs obviously get it wrong sometimes.
    But they clearly also get it right sometimes.
    It’s always something of a gamble and a risk and each case has to be looked at individually. We shouldn’t make the mistake of lumping every case under the same umbrella. People are different, circumstances are different, the way people change or remain the same is different.

    do you think that a lengthy spotless record is also proof that a given person in free society will never do anything bad?

    Of course not. As you point out, many first time murderers emerge seemingly from nowhere with hitherto, spotless records. That’s no gauge for what’s going on inside a person’s head, however.

    Your list fails to mention, again, because you are biased, that there is some evidence that LVH still continues to minimize her role in the Labianca murders. Minimization and evasiveness about crimes of this magnitude can legally be considered as evidence that she still may constitute a danger to society

    And they absolutely should be. If LVH was saying that drugs caused her crimes or that Manson was to blame, not her or that she was forced to do it or stuff like that, I think that would be good evidence that she shouldn’t even see the front gate of the prison.
    But I don’t see her minimizing her crime or her part in it.
    Explaining the role of drugs and in particular, mind bending hallucinogens is not saying “I am not responsible for my actions.” It’s explaining the role they played in her personal evolution. And they did play a role, same as they played a role in John Lennon thinking he was Jesus or Thelma Moss thinking she was a baby at the same time as knowing she was an adult or Phil Phillips thinking he was soaring 10,000 feet above the earth in a bus or Michael Hollingshead being literally caught between 2 worlds, not able to get back to this one.
    Emphasizing Charlie’s influence isn’t the same as saying that he alone was responsible for the murders or to put it more precisely, that LVH wasn’t. One of the true, and yet misunderstood, paradoxes of this case is the reality that LVH was fully responsible for murder as well as the reality that these killings would never have happened without Charles Manson. That’s just a reality. It doesn’t excuse LVH. But in my opinion, it’s naive and more than a little disingenuous to not bring together all the influences that created that murderous moment.
    Stating that when it came to the actual moment a] she didn’t want to kill {which is why she held Rosemary initially while Pat attempted the stabbing and why she ran out to get Tex} and b] Tex made her stab Rosemary isn’t minimizing her actions either because she states abundantly clearly that having believed in Helter Skelter in all its dimensions and having heard from Pat what had happened at Cielo, she wanted to take part in what was going down if there was more killing to be done. While we know that at least Ruth Ann Moorehouse and Cathy Gillies expressed a desire to kill, LVH is the only one of the actual murderers that did so. And she admitted that back in ’69 to Marvin Part and continues to do so.
    So I’m unclear as to where the “continued” minimization is.

  85. Fred Bloggs says:

    Flip says:
    there is some evidence that LVH still continues to minimize her role in the Labianca murders

    These days, whenever people cite LVH saying she either [a stabbed a dead body or [b didn’t know whether Mrs LaBianca was dead when she stabbed her, as evidence of her minimizing her part in the crimes, I find a supreme irony in this, because it is that very statement of stabbing a dead body that provided the corroboration necessary to convict Leslie. Besides that she could have walked. But because Rosemary did have post mortem stab wounds, Dianne Lake mentioning Leslie’s words was hardcore evidence that not only was she present, but that she had wielded the knife. It’s possibly the only actual physical evidence against any of the LaBianca killers.
    Have a read of the Dianne Lake Police interview from December ’69 on thuis very site.

    What I don’t quite get is, the seemingly constant assertion (even by LVH’s lawyers, who should know better) that the law absolutely guarantees LVH’s freedom at this time, and that the governor is doing something illegal by denying her PB decisions

    I don’t think anyone is saying that the law guarantees LVH’s freedom {it doesn’t} and neither is Guv’nor Brown doing anything illegal. What he’s doing is questionable. And rightly, it’s being questioned and fought.
    That’s what’s meant to happen in a supposedly free democracy.

    Pam says:
    To all those who want this killer released, would you want her free if it were your family she butchered? Save your pity for her victims

    While I understand the emotive aspect of this argument, it doesn’t really have much to do with the discussion at hand. Most people wouldn’t want the murderer of their family released, which is precisely why the families shouldn’t really be involved in the decision making process about parole.
    Set against this is always going to be the anomaly of Rosemary LaBianca’s daughter, Suzan LaBerge, who, back in the 90s, became a Christian, saw life through a very different set of lenses and forgave Charles Watson and came out to bat for him in a parole hearing. So regardless of what anyone says on this wise, we know it can be done.

  86. Fred Bloggs says:

    Cybele Moon says:
    There are repercussions to this day no matter how good they have done in the structured environment of a prison

    There are and there should be. However, a 70 year old woman or man may not be in the same headspace they were in at 19 going on 20.
    Sometimes, perhaps we cast off a 49~50 year period {that’s most of most our lives} as though it were 10 or 15 years.

    I don’t buy totally into whether her crime was so much lesser than the others

    Her crime wasn’t lesser than the others, it just occurred against less people.

    She was willing with bells on by the sound of it

    Yes and no. She admitted to Marvin Part that she did want to go and kill in the wake of the Cielo murders. However, she did also say that she wasn’t thrilled about the idea of having to kill but was prepared to do it in line with what she felt was their divine mission. So, even LVH being willing to kill, as I said she was earlier, has nuance and context to it.

    Dianne Lake in her book, remembers Leslie’s demeanor as gleeful when she described the stabbing to her plus she confided that she couldn’t be sure Mrs Labianca was dead

    In her 2013 parole hearing, she explains to the board exactly why she described stabbing as ‘fun’ back in 1969 and it was in relation to Dianne Lake. It’s on this site somewhere and it’s a very interesting explanation. Having heard it and sought to understand it, it’s not a statement that I can ever hold against her again.
    As for Dianne’s book, I really enjoyed it and there is so much of consequence in it. But there are also parts that are problematic. The stuff in your quote is one. What she says in the book about the dead body is not what she says in the December ’69 interview. In that interview, Dianne is adamant that it was Tex that got {she says “asked”} LVH to stab Mrs LaBianca and she is also adamant that the body was dead. What’s really eerie is that Leslie had given an interview with Marvin Part just the day before {one that was not for Police or public consumption} in which she mirrors almost everything Dianne said. There’s no doubt from either interview of her guilt.
    But equally true is that from September ’69, thru December ’69 thru the trial thru all the parole hearings, LVH has always maintained that she thought Mrs LaBianca was dead.

    This is very different from her supporters claiming she was so reluctant

    Well, again, this has to be put into context. Willing until she got there and it actually came to the action. Then cold feet. Then galvanized by Tex.
    It is crucial to stress that this neither minimizes her actions, justifies her stabbing or lessens her responsibilities. And progressively if one follows her parole hearings and interviews, one can see her understanding of this all increasing to the point where a lot of either unconscious or once inexplicable things are now very conscious and explainable.
    Like you said, it’s not black and white.

  87. Michael says:

    Fred, that’s one of the best summations I’ve read on this page regarding Leslie’s attitude and participation. I think she wanted to go (in order to, as she said, “be a good soldier”) more than she wanted to kill. She seemed reluctant to kill, but willing to do it anyway. As for recounting it gleefully, I think she was bragging to Dianne, because in the Family it brought status to have been chosen by Charlie to kill and to have actually done it. I think she flat out lied when she said “The more you do it the more you like it.” Obviously we can’t know for sure, but I think she said that disgusting thing because it was expected of her. She could hardly have admitted to the others “You know, I really didn’t like it and didn’t want to do it.” Then by the time she got on the stand, she simply parroted Charlie’s script. None of which, as you said, lessens her guilt. Murder is murder, whether you did it enthusiastically or with hesitation.

  88. Rhonda says:

    The law says that Leslie can be denied parole based upon the horrific facts of the crime that can never be changed. The law gives the governor of the state of California that power. And despite all of the good things that Leslie has done since the crime, despite what ever may have changed within her, she will die in prison. The law in California allows the crime itself to be the deciding factor. I really do believe she is right where she belongs. I am sorry that she has done this to herself. Living the Manson lifestyle was a choice that she made. Lots of people were living alternative lifestyles back then. But murder? I am sorry, I will never be able to agree that she should be free. If she truly has any remorse at all for her deeds, she will just live out her sentence and stop torturing the living family members that loved Rosemary Labianca, who was a real human being, who was so much more than a Manson Family victim. How awful this is and was and will always be. Let these people rest in peace.

  89. Paul says:

    “You can disagree on whether Leslie should be granted parole without slurring her attorney.”

    Yeah, but then it wouldn’t be half the fun.

    But on a more serious note, you might try pointing out to counsel that there is this notion of restitution, you know, making good on the wrong. In the case of a wrongful death, such is simply not possible. And note that I said, wrongful death, and not murder, since is even true when even mere negligence is at issue. And that’s how woefully pathetic our system of justice is, since if you loved your neighbor, you wouldn’t trade all the money in the world for her or his life. And when I realized that, well, such is when this one time trial attorney put the ole shingle in a box never to be taken out again. And so if you want the critique of her lawyer, he’s a deluded soul, as I once was. The only thing to be added to that is my one and only contempt citation, now purged from the permanent record of the court, but I believe that the claimed contempt was my entirely truthful remark of, Your, Honor, if justice happens down here, it’s purely coincidental. And so he can keep on deluding himself if he likes…

  90. Cybele Moon says:

    good points Fred and unlike Peter you’re not even charging for this lol!

  91. Paul says:

    Rhonda I wouldn’t be so sure, she’s getting closer to freedom than she has ever before.

  92. Fred Bloggs says:

    Yael says:
    You do not have to be very educated to know that telling lies does never make a good impression. How can a governor agree with a parole if the lies are so obvious?

    Like StarBlazers, I’m curious as to what lies you are referring to that are so “obvious.” Besides which, your point is self contradictory ¬> if she was telling lies so obvious, how come the parole board missed them and granted her parole ? And what does the Guv’nor have as part of his tool cupboard that they don’t have ?

    Cybele Moon says:
    it won’t be easy for a nearing 70 woman who has been in prison 3/4 of her life

    Of course. But in some ways, that is something that faces every inmate that has spent even a few years in jail. And people soon get used to it !

    The stigma of and sensationalism of her crime doesn’t go away nor is the debt ever truly paid

    The debt is never truly paid but who is it that keeps the stigma and sensationalism of the crime going ? It’s largely us in conjunction with the news media.

    The world has changed so much since she entered those prison gates nearly 50 years ago

    That’s true, but it follows for many of us that were around at that time too. Even now, you still get people that long for that time that we’ve long moved away from.

    Michael says:
    it seems that the law calls for a rationale keeping her in prison. Brown et al did not, to my thinking, provide such a rationale, because I see nothing in Leslie’s words or actions to indicate she hasn’t taken full responsibility for her crimes, displayed sincere remorse, and conducted herself in a productive and responsible way for decades

    That for me is key. The problem isn’t so much whether a governor should have the power to countermand a decision taken by a parole board that, after all are paid to make these determinations. The problem is the reason the guv gives. His last two pronouncements have really come across as clutching at straws, especially when months before he gives his decision many interested parties {including those on various forums} are speculating on which reasons he will give in support of rejecting the parole board decision !

    Flip says:
    One could argue that her many years of incarceration have been spent learning how to game the system, figure out what pyschs want to hear, and outwardly toe the line and do “good works” in prison for the aim of satisfying her PBs

    Well, that could possibly work if her aim was to get out of jail while still secretly harbouring the same thoughts and feelings that she held from say, 1966 through to about 1974. That of course would mean that she’s basically spent the last 44 years lying her blaggers off and that she doesn’t actually care a jot for the horrors she was part of or the family she helped to devastate. That would mean that she faked her eating disorders, that the 6 months she spent out “free” during her trials was a superb display of disciplined deception because she really, deep down, wanted to get helter skelter going. That would mean that all those times she sent communications to the authorities that Charles Manson had sent her was part of some grand and diabolical scheme and…..need I go on ? It’s a conspiracy theorist’s dream but doesn’t really translate well to reality when you consider the length of time this has taken place in.
    I actually think you have it backwards. All that you’ve stated about her scamming the system, simply hasn’t worked, if that was the intention. She’s had good psych reports for years. And actually, until a couple of years ago, it was always the PBs that would tell her what she needed to work on. And she’d go away and have to work on those things. Far from her scamming the system, it’s actually the system that has set the agenda.

    but Lawrence does leave the door ajar for a reasonable conclusion that the overwhelming cruelty, horror and context alone of LVH’s crime may be justifications enough for keeping her out of free society

    Whether this actually applies to LVH is always going to be up for debate I guess, but there are certainly some people that it definitely applies to. And not necessarily based on current dangers either. For example, being directly responsible for 8 murders, it’ll be possibly longer than he has left on earth for Charles Watson to make parole. I don’t see that his situation can be compared with that of LVH.

  93. Fred Bloggs says:

    Rhonda says:

    If she truly has any remorse at all for her deeds, she will just live out her sentence and stop torturing the living family members that loved Rosemary Labianca, who was a real human being

    Over the years, I’ve heard this argument a lot. It made no real sense to me the first time I heard it and it makes no sense to me now.
    One could easily argue that if you actually take remorse to its logical conclusion, being so sorry for what one has done would produce a desire to do the right thing for society, both within the prison system and importantly, out of it, if at all possible.
    Now, some people may well believe that the way they demonstrate their remorse for something as final and horrific as murder is to remain incarcerated. And if the sentence given was life without parole, that would end the argument. And seeing as though there’d be no chance of getting out, it would be interesting to see how the particular inmate fared and if their attitude and behaviour changed down the years.
    But where the law prescribes a life sentence with the possibility of parole, it’s kind of a bone thrown out by the state that says to an inmate that there is a possibility of a second chance. Not a guarantee, or a right, but a possibility. In other words, it might not happen. But it would be natural that where such a possibility exists, an inmate would want it. Yes, both those that are remorseful and those that just pretend to be so would go for it. Most of us, if in that situation, would go for it.
    Answering the specific point of “If she truly has any remorse at all for her deeds, she will just live out her sentence,” well, Charles Manson just lived out his sentence, made no attempt to show remorse, in fact, denied responsibility for murder till the day he died. He really ended up as the polar opposite to LVH in almost every which way and didn’t make any attempts to get out paroled.
    As harsh as it may seem, it does not have to be torture for the families of Rosemary and Leno, not 47 years later. And if it is, it wouldn’t be LVH that makes it so, rather, California state government. After all, this all came about as a result of their legislation.

  94. Cybele Moon says:

    As harsh as it may seem, it does not have to be torture for the families of Rosemary and Leno, not 47 years later. And if it is, it wouldn’t be LVH that makes it so, rather, California state government. After all, this all came about as a result of their legislation

    very true

    but as for the stigma of a crime- yes there is more media in the modern age. Compassion is one thing but I don’t think it’s something people should forget. People are fascinated. They write books etc. and they still remember Jack the Ripper.

  95. Fred Bloggs says:

    Flip says:
    Shouldn’t our standards for mercy be related to the details and context of the crime?

    Related, definitely. But when you are talking about an event that took place half a century ago, it can’t be the sole arbiter.
    In some cases, it may well be the most heavily weighing aspect that tips the scales. For example, in the case of Edmund Kemper, for me it would be.

    some folks may believe that their God grants “mercy to everyone”

    It’s not so much that God grants mercy to everyone, as much as God is prepared to grant mercy to everyone. There’s a huge difference.

    Stephen Craig says:
    that those who claim murderers like LVH or the man responsible for my cousin’s death deserve freedom/forgiveness,’know not what they speak”

    I generally take the view that words like “deserve” or “earn” should not really be part of any discussion on parole. Unfortunately, because of the way the Guv’nor has tried to justify his rejection of the parole board recommendation, it is almost inevitable that in the case of LVH, those kind of phrases will emerge. I don’t begrudge her lawyers using the phrase because their job is to represent her.
    In terms of forgiveness, what makes forgiveness so powerful is actually the fact that the person receiving the forgiveness doesn’t deserve it.

    forgiveness can be only be granted by the victims themselves

    Not true. We are social beings and are affected by the actions of others, even if they are not perpetrated on us personally. If someone attacks one’s child, it will likely affect the parent of the child {and other relatives and close people} and possibly unleash a whole series of thoughts, feelings and reactions that one didn’t ever envisage having to deal with. No longer holding those acts against the perp {which is actually what forgiveness is} can be liberating. If a victim has died, they are not in any position to meaningfully forgive, but those who have to deal with the fallout can.

    Flip says:
    LVH already has experience, how can you be so sure she won’t decide to kill again?

    One can be sure, but no one can know for a certainty. Life is unpredictable, people can be unpredictable and life is a continuum.
    However, I think it is pertinent to point out Steve Grogan for a couple of reasons.
    Firstly, when he was released on parole in 1985, there was no big fanfare, it didn’t make the news the way it would today and it doesn’t appear there were huge objections.
    Secondly, he was every bit as in thrall to Charles Manson and his mode of thought back in ’69/70 as Leslie was. Anyone that wants proof of that should read the infamous 25th June 1970 edition of Rolling Stone or Robert Hendrickson’s book “Death to pigs” {if you can find it !}. Unlike the TLB murders, the murder of Shorty was calculated and targeted at him.
    But Grogan hasn’t returned to crime, murder, helter skelter, Charles Manson or any of the things he was associated with back in the day, in 33 years. Whether he should have been paroled after only serving 13 or 14 years for a brutal murder is of course, open to debate. But whichever way one goes {I personally think it was too short a time that he served}, the fact remains that all the objections that are levelled against LVH applied to him too and he ticks every box in the “for” column.
    He’s made a life for himself that is productive and runs completely counter to his Manson period.

  96. The Equalizer says:

    Go take a look at the body of Rosemary Labianca, look at her back specifically, that was “poor Leslies” handiwork, shes exactly where she should be

  97. Rhonda says:

    She will never get out. I’m not one bit worried about it. What is going on here is a big show to appease the Leslie lovers. Judges are elected or appointed officials. No judge will ever trade his or her reputation and career for LVH or any of the Manson family members.

  98. Roger Adams says:

    Thank you Rich for your representation of Leslie

  99. Roger Adams says:

    Stephen I’m so sorry for your loss. I will admit to you that I feel Leslie deserves to be freed but hearing stories like yours really pulls at my emotions and really does help me see it from both sides. I’m so sorry you went through this and still have to endure all this pain.

  100. Paul says:

    Rhonda, I wouldn’t count on it. The courts aren’t satisfied with Brown’s explanation for his reversal, and if his office can’t explain why his actions that abides with the law, they can reverse his decision.

  101. Cybele Moon says:

    Roger, deserves? I like Fred Bloggs explanation of this. Actually I believe LVH “deserved” a life without parole. However, because they all got a chance to be paroled I understand some who say that it is the law that they should get it if they have accomplished all the parole board has set out for them. There is now a hard core group who have taken up Leslie’s cause and try to say she was less culpable than the other murderers and even try to make her out to be some kind of martyr to the justice system. On this point I beg to differ. But if we are just sticking to the point of law then yes, all of them get an opportunity to be free should they be deemed not to be a danger to society anymore. Many are not happy about this.
    Will LVH at this late date suddenly fade into anonymity and old age. The government will still be paying her bills. (OAP?) She’s past the most productive years, and I’m not sure if she has living family members. She has been punished. Whether it’s because of the media or not I don’t think she will ever live down the notoriety unless she is able to disappear from the public eye.

  102. Paul says:

    Cybele you bring this up a lot. In terms of her wanting to commit these murders like her co-defendants, then yes she is just as culpable. But in terms of the murders themselves, Leslie is not as culpable, for one thing, she’s in for two murders, while the rest are in for 5 or more murders. Also, Leslie probably committed superficial wounds, so in that sense she is not as accountable. Cybele, you have said you agree that Leslie should be paroled based on the law, but for years they’ve denied her that right, even though she has met the criteria for years. If she wasn’t in for murder then I doubt you would even be saying this.

  103. Fred Bloggs says:

    Paul says:
    Leslie probably committed superficial wounds, so in that sense she is not as accountable

    That 8 of the 41 wounds were fatal doesn’t mean the other 33 were minor. Bear in mind that the majority of stab wounds would have been done by Tex.
    In the book Helter Skelter, prosecutor Bugliosi noted:
    by the time I finished my cross examination on this, Leslie had admitted that Rosemary might still have been alive when she stabbed her; and that she not only stabbed her in the buttocks and possibly the neck, but ‘I could have done a couple on the back’. (As I’d later remind the jury, many of the back wounds were not post mortem, while one, which severed Rosemary LaBianca’s spine, would have been in and of itself fatal).

    LVH admits over the years to stabbing Rosemary LaBianca 14 to 16 times to the back and bum. Only 13 of the stab wounds per se were post mortem. That means that at least one {and possibly 3} of Leslie’s stabs occurred while Mrs LaBianca was still alive, if we go by Leslie’s word alone. But 36 of Rosemary’s 41 wounds were to the back part of the body, including the buttocks, and many of the back wounds were not post mortem. We don’t know which of Leslie’s stabs did what or that the fatal blow at the neck part wasn’t administered by her. After all, she admitted she could have done some there. She also had pointed out to her lawyer in December 1969 that “I mean, I lost control. I went completely nuts that moment. It was hard to get it through. Like when I thought of stabbing, I didn’t really have any idea in my mind, but it’s a real feeling. It’s not even like cutting a piece of meat. It’s much tougher. And I had to use both hands and all my pressure, all my strength behind it to get it in.”
    Suffice it to say, ‘superficial’ is not a word that can be applied to the results of Leslie’s handiwork. 7 of the 8 fatal blows were to the back part of Mrs LaBianca’s body with five of those actually being on her back ~ which Leslie admits to stabbing.
    I wouldn’t attempt any argument on LVH’s behalf that somehow tries to lessen accountability, much less accountability based on the degree of violence perpetrated.
    Back in 2002, Vincent Bugliosi said words to the effect that if someone could do what she had done, how could anyone conclude it would be safe to let someone that had that kind of thing in them back into society. In 2002, he had a point.
    I think however, that 50 years really is not a short period. It’s a damn long time. Yes, some people carry on along the same trajectory even over that kind of period and never change and sometimes get worse. But many do not.
    I’d be interested to see if there have been documented cases of people that have been incarcerated for say, 35 years and more that were paroled and re~offended in serious crimes. Particularly if they had had pretty near spotless prison records.

    Rhonda says:

    What is going on here is a big show to appease the Leslie lovers

    That’s kind of harsh. You’re rather dissing people on both sides of the debate. Some people genuinely believe that she should remain in prison. Some believe that she has turned herself around and, per the law, should now be paroled. Both sides have valid points to make but the way you cast those that question the way that the law has been applied as “Leslie lovers” in need of appeasement does you no credit.

    Judges are elected or appointed officials. No judge will ever trade his or her reputation and career for LVH or any of the Manson family members

    Just out of interest, what do make of Steve Grogan ?

  104. Paul says:

    I said probably, I know that Leslie may have inflicted wounds before death. Leslie believed at the time she had already expired by that point, but has been hasn’t in saying she wasn’t positive as she didn’t check for a pulse or anything like that. I’d agree that Leslie is probably just as accountable for wanting to commit these murders, but in terms of the gravity of the murders themselves you can’t say she’s just as culpable as Tex. She is charged for two murders while Tex is in for 7 murders, and was allegedly involved in the Shorty Shea murder also, you can’t compare Leslie and Tex in that sense.

  105. Paul says:

    *has been honest in saying

  106. Cybele Moon says:

    Paul, I do know she participated in LaBianca and not the Tate or other murders. Tex was totally a monster.

  107. Paul says:

    Exactly, if your talking about the extent of involvement in the actual deaths, Tex and Leslie are not the same.

  108. Fred Bloggs says:

    Paul says:
    I said probably

    It was the use of the word ‘probably’ that was worrying.
    Call a spade a spade. No need to minimize what Leslie did. As a matter of fact, it’s to her undying credit that she has faced what she did and as far as we can determine, turned around and worked on who she was to now become the person she is.

  109. Paul says:

    Of course she faces what she did. If I’m minimizing her actions by stating that her physical actions in the murders were less substantial than her co-defendants, than yes I’m minimizing and rightly so.

  110. Rhonda says:

    First, about Steve Grogan. I believe he was charged with the Shea murder only, but I am not positive about that. I do know that the jury came back with a death verdict for him. Well, the judge in that case did a highly unusual thing – he went above the jurors heads, as he was allowed to do, and reduced Grogan’s sentence to life in prison. He said that he “believes the defendant was too stupid and hopped up on drugs to know what he was doing.” What a lot of people don’t know is that Grogan had/has a lot of family that worked for the LAPD and LASO for many generations, and some had quite a bit of political pull. I believe that the judge did the Grogan family a great favor. We all know how totally unethical and illegal that is. However, a parent will do anything to save their child and I just can’t judge them for it. The fault there is with the crooked judge. Grogan had luck and well connected family behind him. He also led the authorities to the body of Shea and that went a long way to helping him achieve freedom.
    As far as freedom for LVH, I just cannot advocate it. Let me share this with you. I watched an interview she did in the early 80s and it has always stayed with me because it was such powerful proof, to me, that even after having been locked up and away from Manson for at least 10 years, she still didn’t have a clue. She still showed no genuine remorse. What happened is this: the interviewer asked her “Leslie, what do you want to say to people who believe you should never be released?” She said this: “I would like people to know that I am not the same person I was at 19, I have changed.” Now here comes the kicker “You know, LIFE GOES ON, AND I SHOULD BE GIVEN A SECOND CHANCE.” Oh really? Life most certainly DOES NOT go on for Mrs. Labianca. That statement alone tells me that LVH is cold blooded, she was caught off guard and the REAL Leslie was on display and it sent chills down my spine. Life goes on. Wow.

  111. Cybele Moon says:

    Rhonda, Interesting about Grogan. I also heard that his IQ was below average. I also feel that LVH always had a very dispassionate or disconnected affect. Though it’s possible that she may get out based on the law, I still have always felt that all of them were lacking some kind of empathy that allowed them to participate in these kind of murders. In spite of all her achievements in prison ( and she is very intelligent) I still wonder about this.

  112. Paul says:

    Rhonda, You can’t conclude Leslie is cold blooded on this interview, that’s a ridiculous claim. To be honest, she probably was remorseful, and I think I’ve seen the interview your referring to, but your looking at it with a biased viewpoint so your would probably say she had crocodile tears if she even cried in the interview.

  113. Paul says:

    I’m sure she made references to rosemary and how her actions were appalling, why haven’t you bothered to bring those parts up?

  114. Cybele Moon says:

    Paul, some people believe that LVH and the others have “somewhat” sociopathic tendencies. Their soft, childlike voices as the calmly described what they did has always chilled me. The only one I ever saw cry was Pat Krenwinkel but it was possible she was crying for herself as opposed to the crying for the victims or their families.

  115. Paul says:

    Cybele first of all, I’ve seen Leslie cry an interview before, and at parole hearings. Also, do they have to cry on camera to be remorseful? Someone who knew Leslie wrote a book about Leslie and she said that Leslie’s remorse often came at night when she’s not doing anything and left with her thoughts, because she always keeps herself active and busy during the day. You can’t judge them on how they talk, Leslie just talks how she sounds.

  116. Fred Bloggs says:

    Rhonda says:
    the judge in that case did a highly unusual thing – he went above the jurors heads, as he was allowed to do, and reduced Grogan’s sentence to life in prison

    There are not many countries on the planet where a Judge is not allowed to overrule a jury if that judge believes that a jury has ruled wrongly and that a miscarriage of justice is likely to take place. That’s what Judge Kolts was doing in overturning the jury’s verdict. During the trials of Charles Manson and Bruce Davis on the combined Hinman-Shea deaths, the juries returned verdicts of life imprisonment. Now, ask yourself this. If two guys on trial for 2 murders each are found guilty in both instances of both murders and get life sentences, is it serving justice to give someone else who was neither the leader and only took part in one of the murders a death sentence ?
    Incidentally, Manson at one point put in a plea of guilty, stating that he had chopped off Shorty’s head. The Judge in that trial refused to accept the plea. 7 years later when Shorty’s body was found, he had not been beheaded.
    Judges often come across as stuffy old prunes, but as Judge Dell once said to Manson, “We in the black robes do our thing, too.” They often see the whole picture whereas we focus on a tiny point of the picture.

    What a lot of people don’t know is that Grogan had/has a lot of family that worked for the LAPD and LASO for many generations, and some had quite a bit of political pull

    Can you actually verify that ? As far as is known, Grogan’s older brother worked in law enforcement {this is mentioned in Bugliosi & Gentry’s “Helter Skelter”} but that was about as far as it went. There have been internet rumours about his family and LE for years but no one ever substantiates or verifies this. When someone can verify the great influence and the supposed huge political pull, and give it some real world context, then I’ll look into it and be in a position to believe it or not.

    I believe that the judge did the Grogan family a great favor. We all know how totally unethical and illegal that is. However, a parent will do anything to save their child and I just can’t judge them for it. The fault there is with the crooked judge

    It’s a real stretch to say that Judge Kolts was crooked. In point of fact, maybe he should actually be commended for not allowing the Manson connection to influence his actions. Earlier, you stated No judge will ever trade his or her reputation and career for LVH or any of the Manson family members which kind of implies that you think that it’s right that the law shouldn’t be the deciding arbiter when it comes to matters of parole involving any of the former Family members. Perhaps some of those Judges you refer to, if such actually exist, could take a leaf out of Kolts’ book.

    Grogan had luck and well connected family behind him. He also led the authorities to the body of Shea and that went a long way to helping him achieve freedom

    Grogan led the authorities to Shea’s body in 1977 but it wasn’t until 1985 {and a few more parole hearings later} that he was paroled. But it was evidence that he was “showing willing” and had gone through changes.
    Although he originally got the death penalty, within a few months it would have been academic because California did away with it.
    I don’t see how his family had anything to do with the parole board’s decision.

    But when I asked what you felt about Grogan, I meant, what do you say about someone who was just as much, if not more so, a player in the Family murder stakes as LVH, being under all of the same objections that people have regarding LVH but in 33 years has kept his nose clean and not shown the slightest inclination to house any of the same mindset or actions that he had in those days ? If he fooled the authorities to get out, who has he fooled staying clean ?
    Like Rosemary LaBianca’s daughter and her forgiveness of Tex, Grogan continues to be the grey that keeps matters arising from this case from being the black & white that some people want it to be.

    As far as freedom for LVH, I just cannot advocate it

    No one’s asking you to. But those with the opposite view to you have their well held reasons too and don’t need to be presented in a negative light for doing so.

    I watched an interview she did in the early 80s…..That statement alone tells me that LVH is cold blooded

    Is or was ? The early 80s were 34 or more years ago. I don’t know your age but if you were around then, have you not changed in some of your outlook ? I turned 17 in 1980 and believe me, I am not the same person I was between then and say, ’85. Not only that, but successive parole boards and instruments within the prison system have worked with LVH, both through rejecting her parole applications 19 times and in readjusting the mindset she initially came to prison with. That’s what happens in rehabilitation.
    Is she perfect ? Hell no. Have there, even since renouncing Manson around ’74, been attitudes that could have posed an unreasonable risk to the public if she’d been out ? Possibly. But as people point out to you your failings or flaws, you have a responsibility to deal with that. And if you move away from those flaws, you should be given credit where credit is due.
    My Mum used to, as Mums can, remind me of some of the dumb things I used to say {and do} as a kid or teenager. It was a long time before I realized that she really meant it. I was flabbergasted that she’d connect something I said or did when I was younger with what was then my current age and thinking. I have always agreed that not everyone goes through deep seated changes, but some people do. And it’s not always reality to gauge someone by what they felt 40 years ago.

    Life goes on. Wow

    But it does. Life is a continuum.

  117. Michael says:

    While I am against Leslie’s release, in all fairness, I don’t think some of her clumsier comments should be held against her. Saying “Life goes on” wasn’t very bright, and smacked of insensitivity. But weighed against the many other statements of remorse she’s made over the years, I think it’s fair to say she is not cavalier about the damage she’s done. Neither she nor any of the other “family” members in prison can be expected to fully appreciate the horror they caused, because nothing like that has ever been done to them. Unless they themselves are butchered alive, or someone they love experiences that, they’ll never fully grasp what they’ve done. As for Grogan, I think it was completely wrong to release him so early, but I’d say he is Exhibit A for the argument that a former Manson follower is not necessarily a danger to society. The question is, should such a follower who killed ever be freed, danger or not? I say no.

  118. brat says:

    I agree Rich and thank you for your service .

  119. Paul says:

    Michael according to the law, it’s a big fat yes. I’ve seen so many cases were people who have committed horrendous homicides get released after 10 years, Leslie has done more than she ever should of.

  120. Cybele Moon says:

    Michael, I tend to agree. I don’t think they can ever fully grasp what they have done nor can there be an adequate explanation. There is evil in the world and some people fall under it’s spell. Until scientists can fully explain the workings of the human mind and/or what causes mental illnesses including sociopathy etc we are just trying to deal with it the best we can through courts and hospitals.

    Paul, I understand what you are saying but I still say that the Manson murders fall into the most horrendous category I know. There have been many other gruesome murders that have garnished a life without parole sentence.

  121. Paul says:

    Cybele, you still seem to shift everything that happened on Leslie, which isn’t fair. For what Leslie did and the circumstances around it, 50 years is to much.

  122. Cybele Moon says:

    Paul you are right about how I feel which is that “they all”(not just Leslie) should have received life without parole. However, I know that many feel Leslie was the least culpable or was guilty of less horror than the others. I’m wondering if you feel that Krenwinkel and Watson should get out after 50 years too. How much time can repay a life lost? I don’t think 50 years does but the laws do make parole a possibility under certain conditions and I accept that.

  123. Paul says:

    Under the law, if Patricia and Tex are found suitable, and I don’t think either of them pose a threat to society anymore, they have to be paroled. Leslie degree of involvement just isn’t bad enough for life without parole, especially considering the state of her mind at the time of the crimes.

  124. Rhonda says:

    LVH is a cold blooded killer. She will NEVER get out of prison. NEVER. Not in a million years is the state of California going to release her. Her fate is sealed, she will die in prison. Anyone who thinks she’s going to walk out of that prison doesn’t truly grasp what is happening. She can appeal all she wants to but it’s a waste of time. Let’s all check in this time next year to find out where she’s at. Life most certainly go on and I hope she lives to be 100.

  125. Paul says:

    Rhonda, you tell yourself that until she the day she walks out those doors, because Leslie is closer to her freedom than she ever has before.

  126. Cybele Moon says:

    A lot of people won’t celebrate when and if she gets out- probably a great many more than her supporters. Yes, she may be less a murdering maniac than her cohorts but her supporters make it sound like she’s some kind of saintly hero and it will be a great and noble victory. I don’t get it. If she gets out she should get down on her knees and thank God and what some think to be-a flawed legal system. Many never understood how people who got a death sentence were suddenly eligible for parole in 7 years.

  127. Paul says:

    Cybele, you keep saying this but we know Leslie has been treat unfairly by the justice system for years, and that is evident. Back then, every life sentence included parole in California in those days, but Leslie is not serving life commuted from death. She is serving a completely different sentence where death wasn’t an option.

  128. Louis says:

    Peter Moran says:

    “You are the only one talking about proof.”

    You can’t prove anything that happened yesterday.

  129. Cybele Moon says:

    Was the Labianca family treated fairly Paul?
    And yes, they retried her because her attorney died and they tried to separate her then from the rest of the Manson family. After reading Bugliosi’s account though I have to admit I had little sympathy. But yes, she’s done everything she’s been asked to do for parole. It may be because of the pressure of public opinion she has remained behind bars.

  130. Cybele Moon says:

    I guess what I tried to say is “what’s fair” in this type of situation. Sometimes we reap what we have sowed no matter how long ago.

  131. Paul says:

    Cybele sorry but that isn’t a good enough argument. You have to have some sympathy for the situation, these people did not commit these crime sin their normal conscious, even Bugliosi said that they wouldn’t kill in a million years if Manson didn’t have a hand in it.

  132. Rhonda says:

    Paul – Just exactly why do you think she’s going to be released? I mean really, what has given you that idea? Have you read the California Atty. Generals rebuttaal to LVH’s appeal of Govenor Brown’s parole reversal? It’s right here on this website, very easy to find. The CA Atty. Generals office backed Brown up 100%. They ripped her appeal to shreads. Read it very carefully and you will see what I mean. LVH nor any of the other Manson people still incarcerated will never walk free among us again. They don’t deserve to. So I was wondering what it is that has you convinced that she is going to get out? Nothing that I have read supports that theory. In fact, it seems as if the powers that be are making double sure or maybe even triple sure of that. So what makes you feel that she is “closer than ever before” to freedom? I would really like to know.

  133. Cybele Moon says:

    Paul we really will continue to disagree on this. Their mental state is something no one can say for certain. There were all kind of unorthodox beliefs during the sixties. Not all Manson followers were eager for murder. Manson knew which ones would be willing and Leslie even volunteered! To me that says there was something flawed already before they were so called “brainwashed.” I’m so tired of “I was just looking for love and acceptance. ” Most of us are looking for that and many of us have done drugs and strange things at one time or another but we haven’t done what they did.

  134. Paul says:

    Rhonda, have you read her defence teams traverse on the attorney general argument? Of course the governors office is going to back him up. Your evidently looking at the case with very biased eyes. The governors claim that Leslie shifts too much blame on Manson is false and the court have made his office explain why this is lawful. Her defence team are doing great work by her, and their argument is far more credible than the attorney general. The criteria for parole is to not pose a threat to society, and Leslie evidently does not pose a threat to society, and I bet even you know that.

  135. Paul says:

    Cybele, you can’t really use that argument because I’m sure you’ve never been in this stations. I’m sick of people saying I did drugs and never killed, its not just the drugs was it Cybele, stop making those excuses. They were looking for love and acceptance whether it tires you death, that’s why many of them were there. Leslie was asked to go, she didn’t beg or go up to Manson and ask to kill like so many people like you try to make out.

  136. Paul says:

    *Situation

  137. Cybele Moon says:

    oh boy who’s biased here! You’re making every excuse in the book on her behalf. Do you know her personally? But enough is enough. whatever it was, they committed a terrible crime that most people would never do! As I said which you ignored, there were a few people in the Manson family that were shocked by what they did. People have to take that personal responsibility (which you say she has). LVH was 19 not 13, basically a young adult.
    Anyway I’ve had my say and will give you the last word now which is what you want I think. I won’t say anything further.

  138. Paul says:

    Thing is I’m not making excuses, i’s stating facts. I’m not here to get the last word, I just need to make sure people on this comment box know the facts and the law. So some people in the family didn’t react the same way, most of them were either coming and going or only with the family for a few months or less. At the end of the day, Leslie has serves nearly half a centaury, when in normal circumstances, she wouldn’t of even have to of served half of that. She meets the criteria for parole so she has to be released.

  139. Stephen Craig says:

    It’s interesting how those who support LVH’s bid for parole seem to be able to hold her “accountable” for her actions while at the same time minimalizing or rationalizing her participation in this crime. With all due respect, all this “hand-wringing” over her continued incarceration, calling her a “political prisoner”, debating whether she is less of a killer than others, lamenting the fact that she has remained imprisoned while others who have committed similar atrocities is, well, for me, puzzling. For me, I’m not “upset” in the least that this destroyer is still locked up: But I am “upset” that other, equally deplorable destroyers, have been released. Shouldn’t our energies be focused on those who make our society better, not those who have harmed (to say the least) society by their actions. LVH had her “time”, she made her choices. And because of these choices, she now finds herself where she is, and where she will most likely die. Enough of the excuses. She is living the consequences of her actions, just as the LaBianca’s had to die because of the consequences of her (and the others) actions.

  140. Rhonda says:

    Mr. Stephen Craig, you said it buddy and you said it just right. We really should move on to another subject, this one has been talked and debated far too long. LVH does not fool me for one minute nor does she fool the state of CA. Let’s move on.

  141. Cybele Moon says:

    (ok I lied) Hear hear, Steven and Rhonda.

    She may get out because of legal process but she comes out a murderer as she went in. Nothing is wiped away, earned, or fair. She is no long suffering icon of injustice because of a degrees(state paid for) and good works in prison.

  142. Paul says:

    Rhonda and Stephen, whatever you personally about it isn’t relevant. At the end of it Leslie has met the criteria, she has rehabilitated herself and doesn’t pose a threat to society, so she should be paroled, it’s an inarguable fact. You can complain as much as you wish but the fact is she will get out eventually.

  143. Paul says:

    *believe

  144. Fred Bloggs says:

    Paul says:
    Leslie was asked to go, she didn’t beg or go up to Manson and ask to kill like so many people like you try to make out

    I tread a difficult middle path on this case insofar as, I don’t come down heavily on one side or the other. I can see valid points on both sides and agree with various aspects of both sides. For example, I agree with Cybele that should LVH be paroled, she’ll be paroled as a murderer and will die as one. I’d add to that though, that she turned around from that behaviour and mindset. I’d also agree with Paul that the guv’nor has got it badly wrong in saying that LVH puts too much blame on Manson, minimizes her involvement and therefore doesn’t take responsibility. But I’d add to that that he’s entitled to view that ~ just as people are entitled to point out to him why they think he’s way wrong on that.
    But I am a stickler for getting facts right because basing one’s arguments on inaccurate information is devastating. Now, I don’t think this has any bearing on the LVH of the last 44 years and certainly not on the LVH of right now, but it does no one’s points any credit to deny LVH’s desire to be involved in the murders that occurred on that 2nd night. There’s an interview with her then lawyer, Marvin Part, on this very site. If people haven’t read or listened to it, they really need to. I personally don’t think you’ll get a more truthful account from Leslie regarding her involvement. It’s significant because she was talking to her lawyer in a private communication and later on, at the first trial, she went on to plead ‘not guilty’……..By doing that, she was knowingly turning her back on everything she had said to Part. But in that interview, she lays it bare and interestingly, pretty much everything that came out on that tape has been corroborated by someone else. She doesn’t try to make herself look big, she doesn’t take any of the heat from Charlie, neither does she present him as evil, she doesn’t try to come across as remorseful or guiltless. It’s fascinating that virtually all she said was corroborated because the tape didn’t enter the public domain until 2015. Anyway, she wanted to take part. So anyone wanting to defend her should stop saying that she didn’t ~ she says she did in her own words. And anyone that wants to try and prove how callous and heartless she was, while trying to transpose this to now should equally stop because unless someone is genuinely going to put forth a cogent and fact filled case that she is still that person now, they’re wasting their time. If one feels she is lying and has been, fine. Demonstrate how and when.

    Rhonda says:
    what makes you feel that she is “closer than ever before” to freedom? I would really like to know

    The answer to that is really quite simple. She is closer because she has been knocked back for parole 19 times ~ and this, not from the Guv’nor or the DA’s office, but from the people who had the responsibility to determine if she was suitable. And for the last two hearings, she has not been knocked back, but recommended. That alone makes her “closer than ever before to freedom.” It doesn’t guarantee freedom, but it’s a significant step and brings her closer.
    Slightly off topic, it reminds me of the Marijuana laws of California and other states. For years, people got busted, got criminal records, paid fines and served time in jail etc. For well over half a century those on the pro side fought against the law. And eventually, those states reached a point where their stance could no longer be upheld.
    In 1971 LVH was sentenced to death. In 2016 & 17 she was recommended for parole. Like Obama becoming the first USA Prez of colour when his Dad didn’t have civil rights 50 years earlier, it’s a huge step. It doesn’t mean all is well, but one nevertheless has to step away from one’s biases to see what the LVH decision really means.

  145. Cybele Moon says:

    Fred- an excellent summation. I too believe she probably has remorse and has tried to turn her life around. What put me in opposition was the minimization of her actions, that the others did worse and that her reason was diminished at 19, that she was a political prisoner(like Nelson Mandela?). LVH grew up in a middle class home with social values and morals. She and the others chose to throw in their lot with a philosophizing pimp and ex con. On some level they knew what there were doing was wrong.
    What you said was food for thought regarding the concept of “earning freedom” and fairness. There can never be adequate payment for such a crime and loss of life whether it be the just one night of participation or the two. She gets out because she meets the criterion not because it is fair or even just to the families, but there also is such a thing as forgiveness and mercy- again, not everyone can forgive and it never wipes away the crime or the pain or loss.

    Paul, no hard feelings.

  146. Peter says:

    Does the Governor get a reply or is the briefing done?

  147. Stephen Craig says:

    Re: Cybele Moon’s comment “not because it is fair or even just to the families etc…” I would like to say that for me, that is the issue: it is not fair or just ( IMO) that she be released, and that is precisely what justice is alleged to be: fair and just. And so, since their is no parole for the LaBianca’s or their families, and they will have to live with the ramifications of LVH’s and the others’ actions for the rest of their lives, it is only “fair and just”, that she remain incarcerated for the rest of hers, and live with the ramifications (in jail) of her actions as well.

  148. Michael says:

    It’s interesting to remember that Bugliosi wrote towards the end of “Helter Skelter” that the Manson women might well be released after serving 15-20 years. That would mean sometime between 1984-1989. Amazing.

  149. Fred Bloggs says:

    Cybele Moon says:
    What put me in opposition was the minimization of her actions, that the others did worse and that her reason was diminished at 19, that she was a political prisoner(like Nelson Mandela?)

    When Nelson Mandela had been President of SA for a couple of years, there were rumblings of discontent because change wasn’t happening fast enough for people that had been under the yoke of apartheid. I saw an interview he gave on the BBC sometime around ’96 and he was asked, having been in jail for 27 years suffering for the peoples’ freedom, how he felt when he heard the young men of SA moaning about his premiership. He smiled and said something like “if they weren’t angry, they wouldn’t be young men.” At the time, I thought it was one of the wisest things I’d ever heard. I still do. He wasn’t even angry. He was acknowledging that young people have something of the firebrand about them, that they are great on action and commitment, but not necessarily thought and vision that takes into account all the angles, especially the awkward ones.
    LVH and some of her cohorts did to some extent have a diminished reason. That’s not an excuse for murder, but it is partial explanation for how she came to be in a position where she could take part in these things.
    I emphasize that looking into how someone came to a particular position like willingness to kill is not excusing what they went on to do. I’m not afraid of hearing how a situation came to be. And I do try hard to understand it. Even if it’s someone that will never be released from prison.
    The reality is that psychedelic drugs on the young mind can diminish reason as those of us that are not influenced by the drugs would see reason. It’s not a foregone conclusion that they will, but they can.
    As for being a political prisoner, as daft as that sounds, there could be truth in that. People on all sides of the LVH debate have pointed out things like “no governor will stain their legacy by freeing a member of the Manson Family” or stuff along those lines. I’ve seen comments from those on all sides {even in this thread} that tell me that there could well be political reasons why LVH’s parole has been blocked after the board whose responsibility it is to determine whether or not she’s suitable have said yeah, she is. If the various governors were ready to hear the PBs when the answer was ‘no’ then why not because the answer is now ‘yes’ ?
    So it’s not necessarily an excuse on her part to consider that she may be being kept as a prisoner because of something political which would make her a political prisoner.

    LVH grew up in a middle class home with social values and morals. She and the others chose to throw in their lot with a philosophizing pimp and ex con

    Yeah, she did grow up in a middle class home with social values and morals. She also saw those social values and morals crumble when her parents divorced and her Mum forced her to have an illegal abortion.
    Be very careful about trying to show the wonderful normality the members of the Family grew up under before meeting Charlie because there were some ugly happenings in some of those upbringings that played a part {notice, I haven’t said they were a cause} in where they ended up. Yes it’s true, lots of people went through the changes and rejection of society’s values and morals that grew up through the 50s and 60s and didn’t end up killing but that’s kind of moot. There were changes in those decades that have ensured America is a different place now to what it was then. Charlie’s lot were simply among the dark side of those changes.

    On some level they knew what they were doing was wrong

    This is an interesting point. Because the question has to be asked, did they ? You see, though it be an old cliché, one man’s meat really is another man’s poison. When the I.R.A were blowing up pubs in the UK, though they obviously didn’t want to be caught and though they knew how the UK govt would view their actions, did they view it as wrong ? Did Al Queda view 911 and other terrorist atrocities as wrong ? Have ISIS viewed what they’ve done in Syria and Iraq and elsewhere as wrong ? Have dictators viewed it as wrong when they have people or masses of people put to death ?
    Lots of laws and concepts change over time and things that were once jailable offences and viewed as wrong aren’t any more. Now, I’m not for a moment justifying murder, but I am questioning whether or not LVH and some of her ilk genuinely viewed what they did as wrong.
    I don’t see that they did.
    That of course doesn’t somehow magically make everything OK, but the way people see a cause is instrumental in the actions they go on to take.

  150. Fred Bloggs says:

    Michael says:
    It’s interesting to remember that Bugliosi wrote towards the end of “Helter Skelter” that the Manson women might well be released after serving 15-20 years. That would mean sometime between 1984-1989. Amazing

    He also felt the men would do 15~20 years. Well, Steve Grogan was out by 1985.
    One other thing that was also interesting about Bugliosi’s end comments was that he got it totally wrong about how the three women would turn out. Pat didn’t lose touch with reality after being cut off from “the Manson mystique”, Susan didn’t go mad and Leslie didn’t become tougher and harder. He said of her “I have very little hope for her eventual rehabilitation.”
    But that alone shows the problem with trying to predict how someone will turn out, based on what they are like at the time one makes the prediction.

  151. Cybele Moon says:

    Fred, you ask some deep questions esp regarding political ideals and motivations and terrorist acts etc. Mohammed Atta apparently knew innocent people would die and he knew that was on his head but went ahead anyway for the higher glory ( according to some sources).
    Then there is Al qaeda beheading their enemies live on video- that is how twisted and evil idealistically motivated acts can be.
    Now as for your reference to the IRA, being from Ireland I understood where they were coming from- a war against the British etc. and all the injustices that had been heaped upon them previously through the centuries. Michael Collins allowed what many considered terrorist actions in the south and it worked. They became a republic. But I see what you mean and I don’t condone violence.
    As for poor LVH having an abortion and seeing her parents marriage crumble i.e.middle class values and hypocrisy etc – this is something many of us have experienced as well. But if Manson was preaching love and enlightenment to the disenchanted he had a strange way of showing it, beating the women and having them eat after the dogs ate.
    Yes drugs can addle the mind. I agree. But somehow I still don’t excuse them. Dianne Lake entered the family at 14 in 1967 and was there till the end. She was horrified when she heard what had happened.

  152. Peter says:

    She destroyed evidence by wiping the crime scene down for fingerprints and latery burning the clothes and purse she stole, and she used an alias all the way up to her arraignment.

    She knew what she did was wrong.

  153. Paul says:

    Peter she fought it was right, just wrong by society.

  154. Fred Bloggs says:

    Peter says:
    She destroyed evidence by wiping the crime scene down for fingerprints and latery burning the clothes and purse she stole, and she used an alias all the way up to her arraignment.
    She knew what she did was wrong

    You’re imposing your bias and not actually dealing with the facts as they stand.
    She was well aware that society deemed what she was doing was wrong. No argument about that. However, in the grand scheme of things, at the time she did not believe what she was part of or doing was wrong. Sure, she did everything necessary to avoid detection because part of the grand scheme of Helter skelter didn’t involve the Family going to jail or the gas chamber. But saying someone knew that society {and the laws of that society} said their actions were wrong and actually believing them to be wrong themselves are two very different things.
    In many countries, it’s illegal for a parent to smack their child. If I lived in such a country, I’d be well aware of what the law stated but I do not think it is wrong to smack one’s child. So if I felt that a smack was appropriate, despite what the majority vote or law might say I would not think it wrong to smack ~ in direct contravention of the law.
    When the Jaggers, Richards’, Lennons, Jones’, McCartneys, Harrisons, Crosbys, McGuinns, Dylans, Phillips’, Marleys, Gayes etc of this world were smoking, snorting, injecting or imbibing illegal drugs through the 60s, 70s and 80s, they knew the penalties for getting busted. But they did not consider what they were doing to be wrong. Jailable, yeah. Upheld by “straight” society, yeah. But wrong ? No.
    When Nelson Mandela was part of a sabotage campaign in South Africa, he knew what could happen to him if he got caught and so he didn’t openly flout himself. But he did not believe that what he was doing or involved in was wrong. Attempting to avoid detection or capture is not evidence that a person thinks they’ve done wrong although it may be. What it actually can also mean is that the perpetrator recognizes the standards of those that shape the laws that they are acting against.
    And so the argument goes on. What really stands out about the TLB case was in fact, the lack of remorse at the time of the female accused and the fact that Atkins and LVH in particular spoke very much in terms of what they did as being right.

  155. Michael says:

    Based on her statements then and now, I think Leslie believed what she did was right, she was eager to be included in it, and she found it hard to actually do when the moment came. My understanding of legal insanity is that you may believe in the rightness of what you’re doing, no matter how crazy it is, but if you know the law forbids it then you are not legally insane and thereby you are responsible. Listening to Leslie’s early interviews, I’d say she was nuts, but not in the legal sense.

  156. Rhonda says:

    I read all of these remarks along the lines of “It’s illegal to keep her locked up” yet she remains locked up. Hmmm. Bugliosi made his “guesstimate” of how long the girls would serve based on the laws that were in place at that time. Everything changed in the early-mid eighties, the people of CA had enough of being soft on crime and if you wanted to get elected to be the dog catcher you had better be tough on crime or no dice. Everything changed, the 3 strikes came into being and tough on crime was born. And it keeps getting tougher. Enough of feeling bad for these hard hearted trashy criminals. They did the crime so do the time and if that happens to be until the criminal drops dead so be it. So many people on this blog go on and on about subjects they know nothing about. If you are going to argue law then know the law. What I’m reading is a bunch of idiots who feel sorry for LVH. You people need to get a hobby because you’re making fools of yourself. I laugh out loud when I read half of this crap. Pick a subject you know and go from there. Because let me tell you, the only way that LVH will be leaving prison is in a long pine box. And that’s a waste of a perfectly good tree.

  157. Paul says:

    Rhonda I know we aren’t the idiots here. Your just like flip, you completely discredit any facts thrown at you because of your biased judgment. Your argument is flawed all over, but what it comes down to is that you just don’t want Leslie out so rational opinion just fly out the widow with you. Leslie has met the certify or parole for years, that is inarguable fact, and the governors reversal this time was ridiculous, as his reason for it is pathetic. like you said, he doesn’t want this mark on his reputation so he caved in, but the court have to follow the law, jut like the parole board did. You seem to be adamant she won’t get out, but it doesn’t look that way does it.

  158. Paul says:

    *criteria of parole

  159. Paul says:

    You made me laugh Rhonda, I can read you like a book, you just insult the people who disagree with you, even if there argument is more credible than yourself. You tell us to talk about something we know about, a little bit of hypocrisy going on there.

  160. Fred Bloggs says:

    Paul says:
    Rhonda…..Your argument is flawed all over

    For an argument to be flawed, there first has to be an argument. What Rhonda has put out doesn’t qualify as an argument.

    Rhonda says:
    What I’m reading is a bunch of idiots who feel sorry for LVH

    Earlier, I replied to you and made reference to a comment you made that included the phrase “Leslie lovers.” I kind of picked up an underlying bile from you towards people that had a different opinion to yours and now it’s sprawled out all over for everyone to see.
    As I said some posts up, it does you no credit. You come across, not as someone that wants to discuss {and most good discussions usually need at least 2 opposing sides} but as someone that just wants to spout Van Houten hatin’ as per your right of anonymous free speech at the keyboard.
    Well, we get that. Loud and clear.
    But you still have nothing that qualifies as an argument as to why LVH should remain in jail. Cybele, Stephen, Flip, Michael and others do.

    you’re making fools of yourself

    Physician, heal yourself.

  161. Cybele Moon says:

    Yikes, kids now just get along!! I know what you are saying Paul about the law. I have to agree with you on that though I don’t necessarily feel that is just from the other point of view. I also understand Rhonda’s point.
    But unless you were a friend or relative of Leslie’s I don’t understand why so many go on about her like the second coming. I can understand lawyers and investigators taking up a cause etc but all these other people who speak up for her, as though she was imprisoned for a crime she didn’t do and dna will soon find her innocent.
    She was and is a murderer who participated in a very brutal and horrific crime. In spite of “brainwashing” and youth, she was determined to be legally sane to stand trial. She got what she deserved.

  162. Paul says:

    Cybele, as your some one who opposes her parole, I guess who cant see why I would support her. I do not have to be a friend of Leslie to see if Leslie has eared her freedom. Her behaviour in the trial and the interview she did back in 1969 shows how brainwashed and indoctrinated she was. When you say she got what she deserved I take it you mean her sentence, well she has served that and she has earned the right to parole.

  163. Fred Bloggs says:

    Cybele Moon says:
    Yikes, kids now just get along!!

    Personally, I have no truck with anyone, even the people I disagree with. I actually value their input more in many ways, because it’s those with different views that keep the fires of a conversation glowing.
    If we do say something dumb, fair enough, call us out on it. But do it civilly. Calling people idiots because you disagree is the standard of civility I’d expect from someone who has left their manners in a slightly darkened place.

    unless you were a friend or relative of Leslie’s I don’t understand why so many go on about her like the second coming. I can understand lawyers and investigators taking up a cause etc but all these other people who speak up for her, as though she was imprisoned for a crime she didn’t do and dna will soon find her innocent

    You know, sometimes, even if someone is brutishly vile, even if everyone else is completely against them, one can sometimes see that they could do with a little support although not for the sake of it. Then if one is in a position to look into matters, you might think, well, this person still needs support or you might think that the way they are being treated is questionable. It’s not just murderers like LVH that this applies to. We’re human beings and out hearts go out to all kinds of people for all kinds of reasons. Look at the way we respond to world events involving people we don’t know. Look at the glow that people felt when Mandela was released. Look how griefstruck people were here in England when Princess Diana died or indeed all over the place when John Lennon died. The majority of those feeling the grief or the glow hadn’t known or befriended any of them. But it seems to me that there is a part of us that can tap into this kind of thing. I don’t dispute it, it can seem weird to feel something for someone you don’t know. It’s seemed weird to me loads of times. But it generally seems weird when it’s applied to someone that we don’t happen to feel that way about.
    It is also a huge misnomer to assume that if one has sympathy {or even empathy} towards someone like LVH, that somehow, they don’t feel the same or similar towards the families and friends of the victims. It may be a paradox but one is able to feel for lots of people in this saga. My heart goes out to people on every side of the case, whether it be victims, their families, the perps, their families, the Family, members of LE, witnesses, jury, press, etc. There were few winners here.

    she was determined to be legally sane to stand trial

    I don’t think she was ever insane and it’s interesting that she was keen back in the day not to be ruled as legally insane, hence her firing possibly the one lawyer that really had her interests at heart. She fired Marvin Part because he wanted her to be ruled unfit to stand trial, hence that recording from 29/12/69.
    One noteworthy thing about Marvin Part was that having spoken with LVH and heard what she had to say, he really did think she was out there and gone clear.
    There are, I have to say, many philosophies and beliefs out there and have been for hundreds, if not 1000s of years, that are very much on a par with Helter Skelter in terms of questionable elements and the people espousing those beliefs are every bit as sane as the sanest person you could meet. Even I, as a Christian, some of the things I hold to be true could easily be seen as nuttier than a squirrel’s den. I’ve personally seen both the good and negative side of beliefs and one thing that rarely has factored in either has been sanity !

    She got what she deserved

    Couldn’t agree more. Actually, she got a sentence of 7 years to life with a possibility of parole, which many could argue was quite lenient, especially when one considers the outcome of her first trial.
    It needs to be pointed out though, that the weight is arguably on an inmate being paroled, with a sentence like that. 7 to life could, theoretically, mean life but there is a reason that it is different from a straight life sentence or even a life sentence with the possibility of parole. And much of how it turns out will be dependent on the inmate in question.
    That’s partly why LVH is fighting so hard. However you look at it, there’s something in that sentence that is comparable to a dangling carrot. It’s almost saying “turn yourself around, keep on the right path, stay out of trouble and you’re more likely than not to be out of here one day.”

  164. Cybele Moon says:

    Paul, what I meant is those who try to paint her to be less guilty, less culpable, less a murderer than she is which does include you and I get that you believe that. Do I believe people can change, absolutely and it is probable she has. Is she a threat? probably not. I say probably because there can also be an element of doubt. I hear that from some of the posters too. As for “earning” her freedom and fairness go back and read what Fred Bloggs says. I agree with his take on that. Do I feel she should have been given life without parole, I absolutely do. But that is not what she got and because of that it is very possible she can get out.

  165. Paul says:

    Cybele I’ve explained why she is less culpable so many times now, but I’ll say it again.

    1. She didn’t participate in the Tate murders (5 victims)
    2. She didn’t participate in the Hinman murders (1 victim)
    3. Her physical participation in the La-Bianca murder (2 victims) was relatively smaller than Tex or Patricia.
    4. She only had physical involvement in one murder, she didn’t touch Leno.

    She was as culpable as the rest for wanting to commit the crimes, but in terms of responsibility of the murders themselves, she is less culpable. Tex and Patricia are in prison for 7 murders, Susan was in for 8, Leslie was in for 2.

  166. Cybele Moon says:

    Good thoughts Fred! I can’t disagree with you on it and I also like debate and discussion- but civilly!

  167. Michael says:

    I’m curious about your thoughts on the impact Leslie’s parole would have on the others, Davis and Beausoleil in particular. Davis has already been approved by the PB, and Beausoleil is guilty of one murder in contrast to Watson and Krenwinkle, although his behavior over the years makes him a less likely candidate than Leslie or Bruce. But what about these two? Would we see a ripple effect? (I don’t, by the way, think a ripple effect is a strong argument in favor of keeping LVH in prison.)

  168. Paul says:

    I reckon Bruce may get out eventually, I don’t think he’s been very truthful about his account however, and he waived his hearing this year because he’s going under the knife. Bobby’s parole hearing has been pushed up to about October time, so we’ll see if that means anything. I think it’s safe to say Tex Watson will not get out, whilst I think board may grant Patricia parole one day.

  169. Michael says:

    Paul, are you referring to Bruce’s account of the Hinman murder or Shea?

  170. Paul says:

    The Shea murder, he makes himself out to be almost a bystander

  171. Rhonda says:

    All I can say is where is LVH right now? And you are so, so right, I do not want her out. So you can say whatever you want to, I do not give a hoot at all because, where is LVH right now? Where is she? If it’s so illegal for her to be in prison, why is she in there? Hey Paul, why don’t you give the Gov. a call and lay your arguement on him? Why don’t you raise some hell and say oh, she was just a kid, she meets the criteria, blah blah blah. And one more time, let’s play a game like Where’s Waldo? Let’s play where’s LVH, it will be so easy to find her. Forever.

  172. Paul says:

    Oh Rhonda I would love to speak to governor about his excuse. Would love to have him explain it to me. She does meet the criteria and eventually she will talk out those doors. The governor may manipulate the law but hopefully the court will do just opposite. You don’t “give a hoot” about anything that counters your opinion so your reasoning and argument are almost worthless here if you can’t address facts.

  173. Michael says:

    Regarding Davis’ description of his involvement in the Shea murder, I’d have to agree. He recounts it like he was only peripherally involved, even resorting to describing his actions as “slashing” rather than “stabbing.” I can’t imagine his victim noticing the difference.

  174. Fred Bloggs says:

    Michael says:
    I’m curious about your thoughts on the impact Leslie’s parole would have on the others, Davis and Beausoleil in particular

    If she were released, I’m not so sure that it would impact immediately on any of the others. I think that Bruce is likely to get parole one day simply because he has been found suitable 5 times and from this point on, at 74 he’s unlikely to be found unsuitable again unless he goes and does something that will be pretty amazing.

    Bobby Beausoleil, had he done a LVH, I think may have been paroled a while ago but rarely has he satisfied any board that his attitude has been right and let’s face it, if you don’t show both contrition and a willingness to demonstrate discipline within the jail system, then how can you go anywhere close to showing a parole board that you’re ready to take a place, an honest, law abiding place back in society, particularly a society you’ve been away from for so long and one that you had no respect for previously ? On top of this, since the moment he was arrested back in ’69, the very day, even before the TLB killings even happened, he’s lied and lied and lied. Even if you look through the parole hearing transcripts on this site, from one hearing to the next, you’ll find examples of him saying things that contradict previous statements. He’s a tragic character, perhaps the most tragic of them all in terms of having so wasted his life. But even there, had he come fully clean at his parole hearing in ’78 that could have been the first step on the road to parole. But no, he had to try and play Mr Smart. Just as an example, this exchange:
    BOARD MEMBER BROWN: My question is is it your statement that Manson did not cut this man’s ear with the sword?

    INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, he didn’t.

    BOARD MEMBER BROWN: You did?

    INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Right. The only time Manson ever came anywhere in the proximity of Gary Hinman’s house is when I called him, when I called the ranch and asked for somebody to come over and pick up one of the cars because I couldn’t drive both of them back.

    Compare that with what he says now. Even there there are 3 huge lies. Look at the other changes that he’s made down the years. His situation is a train wreck because if one studies his own words, he’s made it so hard for himself to be believed. Even if he’s telling the truth, he’d be the boy that cried wolf. If one gives him the benefit of the doubt, he didn’t buy into the whole helter skelter revolution stuff and wasn’t pegged as being under Charlie’s influence so he hasn’t even had that paradoxical obstacle to navigate, unlike the others. Yet he’s lied and changed his stories so many times, the PB or the Guv’nor only has to highlight those and easily conclude that he’s not trustworthy.

    Pat’s incoherence does her great damage. I feel for Pat because like LVH, I think she’s deeply remorseful and really seems self condemned about the murders. But in her last parole hearing, she didn’t do herself any favours by bringing up that partner battering matter. It gave the impression that after 40 years she was just clutching at straws. She’s spoken frequently of Manson’s abusiveness since ’78 {actually, since she spoke to an Alabama Doctor in ’69 or 70} but not as a contributory factor in her murdering. Then it comes up and the authorities contacted a number of ex~Family members, none of whom could say yeah, we saw Pat being abused. Dianne Lake in her book says that Pat actually praised Charlie for giving her confidence and love when no one else would or words to that effect. Naturally, people would think, why bring battery as a factor up now ? What put the kibosh on Pat was that she couldn’t explain to the PB how she came to be in the position she was in, where she was ready to murder without even having explicit instructions to do so. Say what you like about LVH, but she can explain how she got to that point, and she can do it cogently. Because Pat is all ums, ahs and incomplete sentences and sentences that run into other sentences, she comes across as unconvincing, even where the PB can see that she’s moved away from the Pat of the 60s and 70s. She can’t explain how she got to the point of murder, therefore she can’t give the PB any confidence that she couldn’t slip back there. I don’t actually believe any of the board members honestly believe she’d slip back to all that but if you can’t give them the evidence of your own words and thinking that shows you’ve done decades of reflecting to help them make a positive decision in your favour, then you can’t blame them if they don’t. And it won’t be lost on people that back in 1970/71 in her trial, when she actually spoke on the stand, she was all ums, ahs and incomplete sentences and sentences that run into other sentences….

    I think Tex will probably remain incarcerated. His situation is a little like Pat’s but in a different way. As a Christian, he can rely on something bigger than any of the help he can get in jail, but, that means zilch to the authorities. He can sometimes have a tendency to explain how he came to murder in spiritual terms which is fine in many other situations but not when you’re trying to convince people who don’t share your beliefs that you understand how you got there and therefore, they don’t see that he can explain it. There’s a certain irony in the very thing that would probably be the number one factor in keeping Tex on the straight and narrow {his relationship with and reliance on God} happens to be something that deep down worries the life out of the authorities because for them and many others, surrender to Christ smacks of his former surrender to drugs and Charles Manson and when you’ve got 7 murders on your record, few want to take that chance. It seems like he has to have someone else run his life for him, even though a relationship with God doesn’t work in that black and white way. It’s much more nuanced.
    On top of that, those 7 murders are unlike the involvement of Pat, Leslie, Susan and Bruce {and you can even add Bobby, Charlie and Clem to that} because he was directly involved in every one of the deaths he was convicted for. The others were a combination of conspiracy or few strikes against actual people. Tex admitted in his trial and since that he was involved physically in every death. So although his sentence carried a possibility of parole, much more weighs against him than LVH. You can’t just brush aside 7 murders, even though he’s gone through deep changes.

    You know, one could make an argument equally powerfully that Charles Manson’s death could be the event that opens the floodgates or closes the door firmly on parole for the incarcerated killers.

  175. Cybele Moon says:

    oh Paul, why does your argument remind me of those who said 6 million did not die under the Nazi’s- maybe it was only 6000. To me that matters not. whether she killed one or 5. She still participated willingly and God knows who else might have died had they not been stopped. And the crime was brutal and horrifying. I’ve recently read the coroners report just out of curiosity to what you and others said. The coroner does not state that RL was already dead, She may have been but also any one of the knife wounds to her back could have also been fatal. LVH in her own words says she “thought” she might be already dead. But no matter, she tied the lamp cord around her neck as she screamed for her husband and held her down. I can’t imagine the terror.

  176. Paul says:

    Whether she participated willingly, she is not as culpable as Tex Watson or the rest. We get you don’t want her out, but she still is only in for two murders, while the rest are mostly in for 5 or more. You can’t have any better evidence than that. Of course it was awful, a terrible situation, but the Nazi’s acting for power, the Manson family acted through indoctrination and drugs and weren’t in their normal conscious.

  177. Cybele Moon says:

    actually the Nazi’s were indoctrinated too and caught up in the spell of a madman and yet held totally accountable. It’s a strange world.
    I am not as against Leslie as you think Paul. I won’t beat my breast if she is released but I will say a prayer for the families and hope for the best. All I have said is that I believe that they all deserved a life sentence. But if they get out life won’t be that easy. So many still revile them. I can only hope they will make good use of what life they have left wherever they are.

  178. Michael says:

    I strongly agree with Cybele that a life sentence is just, but the legalities involved may lead to an earlier release. If paroled, I’ll wager Leslie’s choices will be scrutinized pretty closely by future PB’s for Davis, Krenwinkel, etc. If she stays low and keeps clean it’ll be an obvious plus. If she chooses to do the talk show circuit and write books, thereby capitalizing on her crime, she’ll be doing no favors to the others. She said in earlier hearings that she’d stay low if paroled, but the media will throw her plenty of bait. She’ll be smart if she plays it like Clem did.

  179. Paul says:

    The Nazi’s were fighting for power and control, different circumstances.

  180. Cybele Moon says:

    ? I thought that was what Manson was doing?- amuch smaller scale of course but not in his eyes. He was going to start a race war and then take his own “master race” to the desert to wait it out and then emerge victorious and in charge!

  181. Cybele Moon says:

    PS: very much the same principle Paul and I’m astounded that you are so blinded by your support of LVH that you really don’t see comparisons and that you speak as though you were present at the crimes and witnessed everything esp poor Leslie cowering in the hallway afte being forced to “only” stab a dead body. I’m sure someone must have taken the LaBianca’s pulse just to be on the safe side. Bias? Kettle calls the pot black.

  182. Paul says:

    I see your comparison, but the cases are too different, its not the best example to use. The Nazi’s aim was to gain power over the world, it was greed. Leslie and the family were brainwashed into a philosophy and believed Manson was Jesus Christ, And as Leslie said, it had to happen. Manson also downplayed what death actually was, Cybele go and listen to Leslie’s 1969 interview with her attorney Part if you haven’t yet.

  183. D.J.S says:

    Very well said!!!!

  184. Cybele Moon says:

    I just was comparing brainwashing with indoctrination- not too different! and yes I think that’s the one I read that Fred Bloggs referred. I am just not as sympathetic with it all as you are.

  185. Paul says:

    I referred the 1969 interview soo many times in my comments, if people don’t believe Leslie was brainwashed, which she obviously was, look at that audio archive.

  186. Cybele Moon says:

    so what! Innocent people int their own homes were brutalized and murdered. That’s the bottom line.

  187. Paul says:

    That’s my point, because of the murders, people tend to overlook the brainwashing part of the story. You can’t compare Leslie with someone who kills in a rape and murder or torture motivated crime. Its one of those difficult situations where people wee killed because of indoctrination, its not a common situation but it does happen. The amount of cases I’ve seen were killers, some who rape their victims have been released from prison within 15 years, and everyone has something to say about Leslie.

  188. Fred Bloggs says:

    Brainwashing isn’t the term or concept I’d use. I think it’s actually a lot more subtle than brainwashing because the subject goes along willingly with that which is being put to them. A far more telling aspect of the whole scenario was Charles Manson’s domination.
    I think it is apt to keep in mind that there were multiple factors at work in the whole Family dynamic ~ quite a lot of factors. No one thing resulted in a group of people committing murder. And what adds to the confusion is that on the first night, only Tex set out with the intention to commit murder. The women didn’t even know that that was on the agenda. Reading through some of Tex and Pat’s hearings over the years, one can almost tangibly feel the the incredulity and unbelief of the board members doing the questioning. And to a large extent, one has to sympathize with them because it just seems so ridiculous that they could get involved in murder when it was never on the agenda, even if some of them thought it wasn’t murder and felt it was right. There are so few cases in the history of crime as we have had it recorded, that even begin to compare.
    So there are lots of competing factors and the truth is that it is only in tandem together that sense can be made. So for every objection, there is an explanation and for every explanation there are legitimate objections.
    Marvin Part thought LVH was insane. I really don’t. Her change came about not through psychotropic drugs, operating on her brain or intense therapy. It came about through [a]the abolition of the death penalty at the time and the realization that she was going to be alive a lot longer than she’d thought, plus the gradual realization that Helter Skelter wasn’t happening, [b]the prison authorities being determined to show her how wrong she and her whole mindset had been, through some simple methods such as having her and her co~defendants on an education programme that included speaking to lecturers with a feministic bent, who pointed out the misogyny she’d lived under and Black lecturers that would point out the inherent insult of starting murders that were supposedly to help Black people kick off a race war with an end result that they’d end up as slaves again and [c]her own thought process which included giving up acid after her one trip in jail had her trying to disappear through the walls, the love of her parents, actually seeing the horror she’d perpetrated and concluding that Manson had sold her and the others for a pup.
    In other words, she was able to see the wood for the trees and make changes.
    I would never argue that she wasn’t under Charlie’s domination. That is as clear as perspex. But, within that, she was sufficiently autonomous. After all, TJ and Linda were similarly dominated but chose not to murder. Tex was well dominated, but was not only sufficiently able to act with autonomy on both murder nights, he was able to leave of his own free will.

  189. Paul says:

    Linda was only in the family for over month, while the girls has been with Manson for a year or more. Patricia was with him since 1966. I would say that was still brainwashing because they were almost forced to listen to Manson’s philosophy and their belief system was changed greatly.

  190. Cybele Moon says:

    Paul! I disagree with those killers getting out to but anyway it just goes in circles. I will still say they should have had life without parole. You have your opinion and you probably will be right and she will be released. As I said my sympathies lie much more with the families of the victims.

  191. Michael says:

    Regarding the women not knowing what was on the agenda the first night (Tate) they actually did know, at least once they got in the car and were driving. At some point while en route, Watson made it clear they were going to Melcher’s house and would kill everyone inside. Possibly when Charlie told them to go with Tex they may not have known, but they surely did not show up at the house unaware of what they were about to do.

  192. Fred Bloggs says:

    Michael says:
    Regarding the women not knowing what was on the agenda the first night (Tate) they actually did know, at least once they got in the car and were driving. At some point while en route, Watson made it clear they were going to Melcher’s house and would kill everyone inside. Possibly when Charlie told them to go with Tex they may not have known, but they surely did not show up at the house unaware of what they were about to do

    Well, that depends on whom you believe because there have been 4 different accounts of that. Atkins initially said, as you did, that they were told in the car on the way. Then years later, when she was ready to pin everything on Charlie and uphold the copycat motive, she said that it had been decided well before they went {although in her desire to portray Manson as the most evil being in California, she includes him in the supposed discussions, even though he factually and demonstrably was not there}. Years later, Watson said they were undecided in the car on the way and discussed among themselves whether they would do it. Krenwinkel has long been adamant that she assumed they were going to do a robbery and only as they were walking up Cielo Drive was she made aware of what was to happen. She even went so far as to say that despite what Steven Kay said at one of her parole hearings, no discussion had taken place to decide how to get Bobby out of jail with the conclusion being that someone had to die. Kasabian claims that she only became aware of killing on the agenda once Steven Parent had been killed.
    However one looks at it, the females had virtually no time at all to process the information. Even prosecutor Bugliosi, when discussing Kasabian, admitted that she may not have known on the first night, whereas he was clear that she knew the second night.

    Paul says:
    Linda was only in the family for over month, while the girls has been with Manson for a year or more. Patricia was with him since 1967. I would say that was still brainwashing because they were almost forced to listen to Manson’s philosophy and their belief system was changed greatly

    Linda stated that there aspects of the scene that she didn’t agree with and other parts that she didn’t understand but it’s pretty clear that she was making the effort to fit in and understand. Why ? Because she was impressed by Manson. In court she described him as a ‘heavy’ and when she was asked what she meant, she said that he just had something that could hold you. Brooks Poston said a similar thing.
    The prosecution’s central plank against Manson was one of domination, not brainwashing. Domination is actually far more common than we sometimes care to admit. You see it at pretty much every level of life, from kids in the playground, spouses and partners in the home, with siblings, in political organizations, in sports teams, in the workplace, in creative situations {TV, movies, music, the arts} etc. It takes different forms and has different strengths with different people.
    While it’s true that everyone had to listen to Charlie’s philosophy, the degree to which it was taken on board differed with different people. Actually, in their books, Dianne Lake and Paul Watkins go a long way towards demonstrating this.

  193. Michael says:

    Fred, you’re right, there’s some variety in the stories the 4 different people have told, and there’s no way to be completely sure. Here’s why I think there was a conversation in the car in route to the Tate home: First, both Watkins and Atkins have said there was, and it doesn’t serve their own interests to lie about that. Watkins recalls in his book not only explaining the plan in the car after a period of long silence, but also giving a last minute “pep talk” to the girls after he cut the phone wires. Atkins, in her Grand Jury testimony, recalled him telling them not to give the victims any leeway no matter how much they begged. So that’s
    s two out of the 4 saying a definite “yes” to the pre-instructions. Second, Krenwinkle is, in my opinion, being less than honest if she denies any knowledge of murder being planned. She may be truthful in saying there were no discussions about the copycat motive, but considering her core position in the family, I find it hard to believe she didn’t already know about the Hinman killing, and even if she didn’t, she surely knew from Manson’s speeches and killing exercises that murder was on the menu at some point. Third, Kasabian. I still think she presented herself as more innocent of the plans than she really was. I say that because it’s inconceivable to me that Watson would not brief all three of them ahead of time, before getting to the location, to make they knew what was expected of them. Something as demanding as a set of murders would take some sort of pre-arranged game plan. I can’t believe he would just drive them there and leave them in ignorance, then at the last minute, once they arrived and had the victims trapped, suddenly say to the girls, “OK, now kill them.” I agree, though, that any way you cut the cake, they had very little time to process the information. Atkins had already participated in killing so for her it may not have required as much processing, but the others seem to have only been notified, a mere 30-40 minutes before the actual event, that they were expected to kill. That’s what I’d speculate, anyway.

  194. Fred Bloggs says:

    Michael says:
    Here’s why I think there was a conversation in the car in route to the Tate home: First, both Watkins and Atkins have said there was, and it doesn’t serve their own interests to lie about that

    The problem anyone that draws on anything Atkins says will immediately find, is that she is both as reliable and unreliable as a broken leg in a skipping race. There is so much that she says that is clearly contradictory of other things she says. For instance, she’s clear in one of her books that Charlie was behind the copycat plan and that the morning of 8th August, he sent Brunner & Good to buy supplies, including rope to break Bobby out of jail. Never mind that they already had loads of rope {it was used that night !}, it is well known and documented by tons of witnesses on both sides of the equation, that Manson wasn’t even there that morning. He was with Stephanie Schram on the way back from San Diego. It is very interesting that during his lying testimony {and years later, he admitted the testimony was lies} of Watson in ’71, he made the very same error, claiming he saw Manson that morning ~ and got caught out by the prosecution.
    There are some things that I do believe Atkins on and loads of things it’s impossible to believe her on.
    Funnily enough, I do actually believe her on Tex saying what the night’s mission was ~ but I also believe Kasabian and Krenwinkel weren’t aware of what was said. All I am saying re: Atkins is that whatever comes out of her mouth has to be taken with a huge mound of salt. She claims things one moment then contradicts them the next.

    Watkins recalls in his book not only explaining the plan in the car after a period of long silence, but also giving a last minute “pep talk” to the girls after he cut the phone wires

    The biggest problem I have with much of what Watson has said over the years is that much of it is almost word for word the same as in previous accounts by other sources. He rarely seems to speak from his own direct experience and memory recall.
    A few examples ¬> read his account of the Tate murders, it’s so heavily lifted from the “Helter Skelter” account. In his book “Manson’s right hand man speaks out” he says that Manson went to the Tate house the night before the murders and was treated rudely by the inhabitants of the house. He’s obviously conflated the incidents Manson had with the main house and guest house on March 23 ~ months before the murders. He also says in that book that he believes, not that he knows, but he believes, Manson went to the Cielo house after the murders to monkey about with evidence. You’d think if Manson had gone back, he’d know. He claims the day after Manson shot Bernard Crowe, he heard that the body of a Black Panther had been dumped at UCLA but no California newspaper ever published such a thing, no news item that day said anything about such an event. A couple of Panthers had been shot dead at UCLA that January….but this was July.
    So he tends to repeat a lot of stuff that has appeared before. His memory is not particularly reliable.
    That said, I do believe he spoke of what was to happen in the car on the way.

    Atkins, in her Grand Jury testimony, recalled him telling them not to give the victims any leeway no matter how much they begged

    Yes, but that was pretty general. She doesn’t specify what that was in relation to. Tate was asking to sit down. That caused Bugliosi to ask if she did anything to Tate, which is where the statement comes in.

    Krenwinkle is, in my opinion, being less than honest if she denies any knowledge of murder being planned. She may be truthful in saying there were no discussions about the copycat motive, but considering her core position in the family, I find it hard to believe she didn’t already know about the Hinman killing

    She said in her first parole hearing that she did know about the killing of Gary Hinman. She was countering Steven Kay’s claim of murders being discussed. She said she was part of no such thing.

    she surely knew from Manson’s speeches and killing exercises that murder was on the menu at some point

    Manson appears to have been very selective of whom he mentioned that he/they would start the revolution, to. Also, even if he had said they were going to have to kill at some point, it doesn’t follow that as they set off that night, they knew they were going out with the express intention of kicking off helter skelter. Which is what any killing other than a copycat would have meant. Bugliosi even made the point at the trial that HS was not the women’s motive but Charlie’s. Their motive was doing what pleased Charlie.

    Kasabian. I still think she presented herself as more innocent of the plans than she really was

    Many people do. I don’t. Whether she was knowledgeable beforehand or not wouldn’t actually change her status. Bugliosi wasn’t certain either way whether she knew about Cielo but he was clear in the book “Death To Pigs” that she knew about the second night and was guilty. But she didn’t deny that she was well aware of the 2nd night. The charges, had she not turned state’s evidence, would still have been 7 murder, one conspiracy.

    I say that because it’s inconceivable to me that Watson would not brief all three of them ahead of time, before getting to the location, to make they knew what was expected of them. Something as demanding as a set of murders would take some sort of pre-arranged game plan

    They had a game plan. “Do whatever Tex tells you.” He had his game plan from Charlie. Interestingly, according to his book, he didn’t follow much of Charlie’s plan which more than indicates that despite having a snort of speed, he was more than capable of compos mentis thought and action.
    It does seem wild that this whole thing unfolded the way the prosecution said, but not once one gets to grips with all the elements that made up the picture.

    there’s no way to be completely sure
    Perhaps the one way of getting close to what may have happened is to harmonize all four accounts. Watson may well have said what was going to happen but because he generally didn’t talk much, maybe Pat and Linda didn’t really listen and Susan, because she’d been part of a murder, was sensitive and keen to that word “kill” and really keyed in to it. LVH, in that 1969 Marvin Part interview says of her, regarding Hinman: “Sadie came in grinning saying, ‘We killed him.’ And then I asked her what it was like, you know; and she just said that it was real weird and he made funny noises….Sadie was always more or less the rougher of us girls….And after that — well, we were all almost fascinated by the thought of killing people just because we’d been, you know, taught to stay away from it and nobody knows about death, really, you know. And when she came back she was almost infatuated by it. She kept sharpening the knives, getting them real sharp.
    And she was always wanting to go creepy crawl and, you know, get credit cards or do this and that. She always wanted to be in on the murders. She liked to be in on the rough stuff that Charlie would have us do.”

    It’s not as far fetched as it sounds.
    The not listening bit as well; in Tex’s book, he says :“A minute or two later, Katie and Leslie appeared in the kitchen, holding their changes of clothing. I thought I was whispering when I asked, ‘Did he [Manson] say to kill them ?'”…..in other words, even at that point he couldn’t say for sure, even though in the previous sentence he says: Charlie left at this point, taking the gun and the wallet with him. His last words were: “Make sure the girls get to do some of it, both of them.”
    But what causes me to give Atkins and Watson the benefit of the doubt in terms of the statement being made, but also Krenwinkel and Kasabian the benefit of the doubt in terms of not hearing it is this; in both Atkins’ and Watson’s books, they both describe sitting next to one another at the front of the car on the way to Cielo. That makes sense of Watson and Kasabian saying that Tex gave Linda the weapons wrapped in a rag and to throw them out if stopped by the Police. She could hardly do this if she were in the front. So it is possible that if Watson & Atkins were next to each other talking, the other two might not have listened to or heard all of, what the front two were saying. With the windows down {we know this because it was hot and Rudolf Weber put his arm inside the car window and how else would Linda get rid of the weapons quickly if stopped ?} and there being no seating at the back, therefore, the back two being low down, it’s possible.

  195. Michael says:

    Interesting theory about Susan hearing Tex, and Pat and Linda not hearing him. Very possible, and I never thought of it before. I’ve gone through many of that night’s scenarios in my head, and what was or was not discussed in the car prior to the killings is one of them.

    The reason I still find it hard (not impossible) to believe Pat and Linda didn’t know the plan beforehand is because they were told to bring a change of clothing, which surely meant they were not just going for a creepy-crawl. Tex brought rope, also indicating it was more than a creepy-crawl.

    Also, all the girls were told by Charlie to do what Tex told them to do, so it seems to me that even if they couldn’t hear very well in the back of the car, especially with the windows open, they would still at least know that Tex was talking, and they should therefore be hearing what he had to say. In that case I think they would have said, “Please speak up, we can’t hear you” in deference to what Charlie had told them to do. (“Do whatever Tex tells you.)

    I also think Tex, knowing the detailed plan Charlie had given him, and with his own background in team sports, would know the need for the players to have a more specific idea of the game plan. And if Watson DID give a last-minute pep talk upon pulling up to the gate, that talk would have been given without the distracting sound of the wind while driving, in which case Pat and Linda couldn’t have missed it. But on another point,

    I agree with you that it’s noteworthy that Watson did not follow Manson’s instructions to “squish their eyeballs and hang them on the mirrors” nor to go to the other houses for more money. According to Atkins, Manson yelled at him for that when they debriefed at Spahn’s. That shows, as you said, that Watson did indeed have the capacity to think and act on his own, even in direct disobedience to Charlie.

    I don’t have the foggiest idea why this case is still so fascinating to me, but darned if it isn’t.

  196. Fred Bloggs says:

    Michael says:
    And if Watson DID give a last-minute pep talk upon pulling up to the gate, that talk would have been given without the distracting sound of the wind while driving, in which case Pat and Linda couldn’t have missed it

    He says that all he said was that they’d have to be really be as one and interestingly, to the Grand Jury, Atkins said “We were so much one with each other that we really didn’t need too many words spoken. Everything we did from the time he cut the poles to the time we got back to the ranch was spontaneous. It was done with no thought.” which is odd because her description shows Tex well in command giving the orders. But on the other hand, there is a definite improvisational quality to the events at Cielo. Steve Parent’s shooting kicked that off and the reactions of Sebring, Folger and Frykowski ensured its continuation.

    I don’t have the foggiest idea why this case is still so fascinating to me, but darned if it isn’t

    It’s fascinating for so many different reasons, unlike most murder cases which I find tend to narrow down the number of things that are interesting, even if those specific things are really mind blowing.
    One of the interesting things in the Manson saga {that’s just a name for convenience ~ it goes so much further than him although he’s a case study in itself} is just how much nuance, paradox and contradiction there is. For example, although Susan said in one of her books that she was in the front seat, my theory kind of gets blown apart if one takes her Grand jury testimony as truth because she says she was sitting at the back on the floor because she waved from the back to people at Spahn as the killers were leaving !
    Or in her last book that she died before finishing, she makes a big noise about Helter Skelter not being one of the motives and makes a big play for the copycat motive. She lays it heavily on Charles Manson as being the one that pushed the copycat and is hugely critical of him sending people to do a murder like Bobby’s when no one that was involved in TLB knew what was left written at the Hinman house. Yet all those years previously at the Grand Jury, she had stated that the reason she had written “PIG” at Cielo was, in her own words, “Tex told me to go back into the house and write something on the door in one of the victim’s blood…….He said, ‘Write something that would shock the world.’ Something to that effect. I don’t even want to be quoted on that because what I just said came off the top of my head. I had previously been involved in something similar to this where I saw political piggy written on the wall so that stuck very heavily in my mind.” But she also says her Grand Jury testimony is actually the truthful one {it is there she states she didn’t kill Sharon Tate, Tex did}, but nothing about Bobby being freed comes up there so……
    Even things like the large quantity of blood belonging to Sharon Tate at a place where none of the killers have ever placed her in 49 years of recounting adds to the mystique.
    What’s not to be fascinated by ? !

  197. mochael says:

    Of all the unresolved details of the crimes, Sharon’s blood on the porch is at the top of my list. There seems to be no explanation considering the manner in which she was killed, unless her body was moved. None of the killers ever so much as hinted at such a thing so it could give credence to what I still think consider the very far out idea that Manson and another family member went to the crime scene later and moved things around. Not at all likely to my thinking. Possibly the blood dripped off the towel Susan used to write on the door? Dunno. The towel was dipped on Sharon’s wounds so maybe that was it.

  198. Cleo J Champagne says:

    What you and other Van Houten supporters appear to forget is that these women and Tex Watson were sentenced to death in the gas chamber. The only reason they weren’t put there is because California briefly abolished the death penalty as cruel and unusual in 1972 for four years before it was brought back in 1976. So, as Sharon Tate’s late mother, Doris Tate, who became an advocate for parents of murdered children and had made sure that these ruthless killers were never released. As she had said, “You can’t let serial killers out of prison.” And she was absolutely correct. If Van Houten really has become reformed in prison, she would take her punishment and stop trying to get get out and attending the parole hearings, which dragged Sharon’s family through their pain over and over. Does this sound like someone who deserves to be released?

  199. Ron says:

    Cleo, Van Houten is NOT serving a commuted death sentence

  200. Paul says:

    Cloe we are aware of all that, but Leslie is serving a sentence from her third trial that allows her to earn parole, which is what she has done.

  201. Fred Bloggs says:

    Cleo J Champagne says:
    If Van Houten really has become reformed in prison, she would take her punishment and stop trying to get get out and attending the parole hearings, which dragged Sharon’s family through their pain over and over

    Actually, almost anyone that genuinely reformed in prison would want to live on the outside if at all possible and truly uphold the laws and values of the society that they had so wronged. Especially if they’d been in for half a century. Having violated them, they may well have an appreciation that the rest of us that have never been in jail may lack.
    I’m not naive enough to think that applies to every inmate !
    As for the families having to be dragged through pain over and over, not only is it the decision of the family members to be there, certain family members fought for the right to attend those hearings. When the parole hearings began in the 70s, the families didn’t attend. You can’t have it both ways.
    I’d be really surprised if there were genuinely people that had no feeling for the victims’ families. But one’s heart going out to the families does not put the kibosh on seeing this from all the angles.

  202. Stephen Craig says:

    Re: Families not attending the parole hearings in the 1970’s: Families of crime victims were precluded from attending parole hearings until 1983(ish), with Doris Tate being one of the to make a victim impact statement. Prior to this, victims’ families were excluded from the parole process, the rationale at the time claiming that such impact statements would be prejudicial to the prospective parolee. After the regulations were changed and allowed families to attend parole hearings, there was no need to “fight”: The “fighting” had already been done, hence giving families the rights to give voice to the victims/their survivors.

  203. Fred Bloggs says:

    The law didn’t change in a vacuum though. Legislators didn’t just wake up one day and decide that families should now be included in the process.
    And being part of the process necessitates hearing whatever is put forward from the inmate and their team and the whole rigmarole that involves going over the entire summation which by its very nature means re~running matters that are guaranteed to dredge up horror memories.
    I’m not arguing with you Stephen, just replying to a point about “if they really had remorse, they’d stay in jail etc” which is too simplistic and not really true.

  204. Flip says:

    Re: “The law didn’t change in a vacuum though. Legislators didn’t just wake up one day and decide that families should now be included in the process.”

    —Right, it apparently required an almost Herculean effort by victim’s advocate groups–largely inspired and led by members of the Tate family–to get this done.

    Re: “…just replying to a point about “if they really had remorse, they’d stay in jail etc”
    which is too simplistic and not really true.”

    —That concept may be too simplistic to you but I hope you’re not too smug to admit the possibility that it might make more sense if you’d had loved family members randomly destroyed by incomprehensibly cruel and brutal murderers. As for, “…not really true”, well…one hopes that you are not mistaking your personal opinion for “truth”.

  205. Paul says:

    Flip, you can’t even keep a consistent argument so why are you trying to discredit Fred. The “what if your family member was murdered” scenario doesn’t work in the court of law, and the fact is Leslie is proven suitable, whether you like it or not.

  206. Flip says:

    Well, Paul, fortunately this is just a public blog where people can discuss their opinions, not a court of law.

    And, you still don’t understand the definitions of words like “fact” and “proven” (in my opinion). Or, if you do understand what “fact” and “proof” are, then you continue to misuse those words intentionally–only you know for sure which it is.

  207. Paul says:

    I understand the meaning of proof and fact, and It fits this situation perfectly whether you chose to avoid it or not.

  208. Flip says:

    It must be frustrating to have a perfect knowledge of proof and fact like you do, Paul, and yet feel compelled to argue with those of us who have the unmitigated temerity to disagree with your pronouncements and edicts.

  209. Cybele Moon says:

    let’s face it, for those who support LVH (and she has amassed quite a following though I’m not sure why) mitigating circumstance, brainwashing and youth – oh- and “Leslie didn’t kill anyone” (as if they know this unequivocally) have become the key arguments and nothing will change their minds. For those of us who do not believe all that, but rather believe that Leslie is a murderer who participated in one of the most gruesome crimes of the 20th century, nothing changes our minds whether she gets out or not and it won’t be a celebration of victory over injustice. However, we will have to accept the supreme court ruling whatever it is.

  210. Flip says:

    I agree, Cybele–you seem like a very thoughtful person. It is always inspiring for me to read well written posts by folks who empathize first with the victims of these unimaginably cruel and brutal Manson family crimes.

    Clearly we all will have to accept the Court’s decision, I’ve got no problem with that concept. I certainly hope they find for the governor’s decision to overturn the PB’s recommendation, but it’s not the end of my world if they decide to free LVH from prison.

  211. Christy says:

    I still agree with Bugliosi that all the people involved had some capacity to murder outside of Manson. He had enough hard core members that believed him but he didn’t use. Squeaky and Sandy being at the top of that list. And in the case of Squeaky there’s long been a question of whether she really intended to assassinate Ford.

  212. Christy says:

    I only learned a few weeks ago TJ died. Back in 1995. He was one also that wouldn’t kill.

  213. Fred Bloggs says:

    Firstly, let me say that I’m glad you’re back in the debate.

    Flip says:
    Right, it apparently required an almost Herculean effort by victim’s advocate groups–largely inspired and led by members of the Tate family–to get this done

    That’s the point I was making. So, it is actually being kind of disrespectful to their fight to lament about having to hear the murderers applying for parole and the details dragged up again and again.

    That concept may be too simplistic to you but I hope you’re not too smug to admit the possibility that it might make more sense if you’d had loved family members randomly destroyed by incomprehensibly cruel and brutal murderers

    It makes sense to me now. And I happen to think it is too simplistic. It is an argument that has never made sense to me. There is so much it doesn’t take into account.
    Also, I’m not being smug about anything. This is a passionate debate and I think about what I say before I say it.

    It is always inspiring for me to read well written posts by folks who empathize first with the victims of these unimaginably cruel and brutal Manson family crimes

    It’s a myth and quite a judgemental one, to assume and imply that seeing things from the point of view of the perps means that one does not empathize with the victim’s families. It’s also a huge assumption to assume that people that argue for the roasting in hell of anyone that was in the Family is somehow automatically a champion empathizer for the victim’s families.
    Life just does not work out in such neat bundles.
    And for the record, members of my family have been the victims of violent crimes and I myself have been the victim of crime.

    I think Cybele has made some great points, some I’ve agreed with, some not and one thing that has really marked her points is that although she is firm on LVH not being paroled, that hasn’t prevented her from conceding certain things and being able to acknowledge difficult matters that others with her stance instantly dismiss.
    That makes for great conversation, especially online.
    As for, “…not really true”, well…one hopes that you are not mistaking your personal opinion for “truth”.

  214. Fred Bloggs says:

    Christy says:

    I still agree with Bugliosi that all the people involved had some capacity to murder outside of Manson

    This has the makings of a fascinating debate in its own right.
    Of course, we can never truly know, but I’ve long felt that some of the killers would never have done so were it not for Charles Manson. I do believe that there are some situations that throw up an environment in which people will commit atrocities that they simply wouldn’t under normal circumstances and some never go back to the atrocious behaviour when they are removed from that environment. That they did it in those circumstances, does it mean they had it in them anyway ? Who can tell ?
    But it’s always only going to be speculation and interesting arguments on all 3 sides and in the end, it matters little because they did commit murder.

  215. Fred Bloggs says:

    Flip says
    As for, “…not really true”, well…one hopes that you are not mistaking your personal opinion for “truth”

    I meant to answer this two posts ago !
    Yes, it is my personal opinion that it’s not true that if a murderer wants to show they’re remorseful they’ll request to stay in jail till they die, even though that is not their sentence. Are you saying that the holder of that absolute opinion on remorse and how it should be expressed has a monopoly on “the truth” ?
    As far as I can see, they were doing exactly what I was doing, which was stating their opinion.

  216. Flip says:

    No, Fred, I am not claiming that anyone’s opinion qualifies as truth, or fact, or proof of anything. If you really read my posts carefully you would probably understand that.

    You may well have been the victim of crime–in fact, most people have–but it is very unlikely that you or your family have been the victim of any crime approaching in horror and lasting impact that were the Manson murders. So, I’m glad that you think you’re not being even just a little bit smug in your stance, but I think it was a reasonable to put it out there and let you respond.

  217. Cybele Moon says:

    Thank you both Flip and Fred for your kind comments. I do think that it may be that most convicts probably as Fred says would want parole if it is on the table even if they are remorseful. I don’t know of many selfless people in prison. However, my stance still remains that they all are exactly where they deserve to be and I would have no problem with the justice system if they remained there for the rest of their natural lives.

    Christy, I also think that they must have had something already in them that they would be able to participate in such a “premeditated” brutality no matter how normal their lives once seemed prior to Manson. LVH had expressed her disappointment at being “left out” the night before. That says a lot to me. Her psychology report does say she is low risk if she follows certain recommendations so as not to “deteriorate.” I believe she still is at risk for that deterioration low or not.

  218. Christy says:

    It was said Leslie had temper problems as kid and teenager. It’s also said she was physically abusive on at least one occasion to her younger sister. It wasn’t small children hitting each other she was old enough to know better.

    Pat didn’t help herself either when she took a jibe at Abigail Folger by calling her a drug abuser. Although from a wealthy family her parents divorced just like Pat’s and Leslie’s. And Abigail wasn’t very different with drugs than many people at that time.

    I think both show callousness. They might not have done these types of murders but maybe armed robbery with a killing.

    The murders are notorious because it was rare to hear about this type of home invasion. I don’t think I ever heard the term home invasion until the mid 80s. So it was shocking to hear of random people getting invaded and slaughtered like this. Which is probably why in the Tate case the focus was on drugs and to a lesser extent at LaBianca a neighboring house that was known as a drug den or even some mafia connection.

  219. Fred Bloggs says:

    Flip says:
    You may well have been the victim of crime–in fact, most people have–but it is very unlikely that you or your family have been the victim of any crime approaching in horror and lasting impact that were the Manson murders

    While that is true in relation to my own family, that is more to do with the people we’ve developed into through the things we’ve passed through in life. I’m not minimizing or demeaning those particular murders but they were not any worse than any other murders would be to the people being murdered or their families. The impact on a person that is a victim of any crime is hard to measure. A friend of mine worked in a bank and she was never the most confident of people but working in the bank gave her a sense of well being and doing something beneficial. One day, the bank was robbed and she was held up at gunpoint. From there, she unraveled and fell to pieces. She stopped working, stopped taking care of herself, became almost taciturn and became almost tramp~like and mentally imploded. She more or less shut down and died within a few years. There’s no way it could be proven but many of us felt her death was the final piece in a puzzle that had begun long before and that crime was a huge part of that.
    Point is, media contributes towards making some murders/crimes seem bigger, more spectacular and “worse” than others. If one has been on the end of such, “even” if it was “only” say, an obscure store robbery that resulted in a shooting death that barely makes the news, that doesn’t make the victim’s family any more equipped to handle it or mean they handle it better because it wasn’t like the Manson murders. And some people will handle murder far better than they would say, child abuse or rape.

  220. Paul says:

    Flip, you have been relatively smug in your comments.

  221. Paul says:

    And you indicate I have been smug, well I’ve been the facts of the law and how Leslie meets the criteria, and I had to repeat myself that its tiring.

  222. Paul says:

    *stating

  223. Flip says:

    Paul, Please believe me, I don’t want you to tire yourself unduly. And, don’t confuse yourself with Fred, another poster whom I sometimes converse with.

  224. Paul says:

    Flip, the difference between you and Fred is that he has a good argument, while you made thoughtless opinions with no evidence to support them and you cant even take fact when you see it, there’s many like you who do the same, just as long as people like you aren’t Woking for the law than that’s fine. Its obvious your one of the opposing individuals yo refuse to see the rehabilitation progression purely because of the crimes themselves, well that doesn’t work in the law mate sorry. You seem oblivious to the fact that many killers are getting after only serving 15 years but what are facts to you.

  225. Cybele Moon says:

    Fred I hear you about murder being murder and the impact on survivors is immeasurable.
    The media did run with the Tate Labianca murders but it’s no wonder. It was a “sensational” crime, bizarre in detail, particularly gruesome, and without apparent motive. The first crime involved someone famous and her rather controversial film maker (Repulsion, Rosemary’s Baby) husband. The fact that the murderers were so young – and female, added to the shock value. They were the sons and daughters of middle class citizens, and they were led by an ex con/guru/messiah! Up until then the so called hippie movement was about peace and love etc etc. and this crime killed it. So there was the social/psychological aspect. Prosecutor Bugliosi’s account of it in his book Helter Skelter added to the morbid fascination. That is why we still are hearing about it to this day.

  226. Fred Bloggs says:

    Cybele Moon says:
    <b
    The media did run with the Tate Labianca murders but it’s no wonder

    I completely agree with you. It, for me, is still, because of so many elements {past and present} a most fascinating topic and I’ll happily discuss it endlessly. But I won’t elevate it above and beyond the plethora of murders that have been committed through time.
    One thing prosecutor Bugliosi did that I think wasn’t helpful was to describe the murders as perhaps the most nightmarish and savage in the annals of American crime, or words to that effect. To describe it as the crime of the century was, I’d say, accurate, for the reasons you stated and others. But to elevate its horror beyond that which many, many people had had to endure, in my opinion was wrong.
    And that leads to something that we frequently find in forums where a number of people that detest the killers will lean on the savagery of the murders or emphasize that the victims were killed in their own homes, as though it had never happened before and therefore must be worse, which somehow makes the killers worse than others and before you know it, Tate~LaBianca heads a kind of league table of murderous savagery and that gets regularly thrown up in discussions about rehabilitation.

  227. Cybele Moon says:

    I agree Fred. However, other murders similar to Tate Labianca have earned life without parole or sentences that run consecutively to make parole impossible in other states e.g. the Lillelid murders in Tennessee where teenage satanists set out to commit murder and ended up killing a family. The ringleader was a teenage girl (now claiming remorse) who suffered from BPD a recognized mental illness but was still tried as a competent adult. I happened to see that on one of those investigation programs. So for me it’s more about supporters going on about justice and how LVH is a political prisoner etc. or saying she is being treated unfairly because of the Manson name! News flash! She was a devoted Manson follower and did all his beckoning! It seems justice is different depending on which state is doing the sentencing.

  228. Cybele Moon says:

    PS I meant to say bidding!!

  229. Paul says:

    Cybele, we have told you why we think she is a political prisoner. States like California and Tennessee differ in terms of their laws. Leslie has followed the requirements according to the California law to earn parole and she’s still detained even though she’s had the right to parole since 1978. You may not like it but our opinion come from looking at the evidence which is the law and Leslie progression. If she wasn’t in for murder I’m sure your viewpoint won’t come to the conclusion you have now.

  230. Cybele Moon says:

    you may be right about my opinion! and yes you are correct about Calif law. I do understand that. The rest is just my thoughts on it and what is justice broadly speaking!

  231. Paul says:

    Well at least your civil, doesn’t work for some in this discussion unfortunately.

  232. Flip says:

    Paul, I have to admit that it’s hard for me to take very seriously the opinions of an adult who doesn’t know the difference between “your” and “you’re”, or “fact” and “opinion”, or “proof” and “belief”.

  233. Paul says:

    Flip I’ve given you facts, given you proof but any of it you just discredit because of your moral standards, at least Cybele can look at the evidence before she replies. Its blatantly obvious you’re not wanting a proper discussion or debate. If we were to look at your viewpoint, then no prisoner would get out because no one can prove their rehabilitation if you can’t account prison records and achievements. Your arguments are flawed so much and I find it unlikely you don’t even understand that.

  234. Flip says:

    Re: “If we were to look at your viewpoint, then no prisoner would get out because no one can prove their rehabilitation if you can’t account prison records and achievements.”

    –Paul, You’ve got persistence in support of your agenda, I’ll give you that. The problem is, it is a simplistic, disorganized, and essentially dishonest type of persistence (in my opinion).

    I wish I could offer you a cash inducement but, in lieu of that I’ll offer you my sincere apology and publicly bow to your greater wisdom if you can show me one single example–in my own words, not yours–where I have suggested that no one should ever be paroled from prison.

    Of course, that is an easy promise to make because I’ve never said any such thing, nor do I believe any such thing… so I don’t need to be accountable for your nonsense.

  235. Paul says:

    Flip, all you have done is denied it but you haven’t explained how your theory would possibly work in the law. You say that rehabilitation and evidence of good behaviour pattern is not sufficient for proving that an inmate is safe to return to society so how can they possibly get paroled? Here’s some of your comments; “according to you a lengthy record of no prison violations is actual proof that LVH will never do anything bad again” and “do you think that a lengthy spotless record is also proof that a given person in free society will never do anything bad”, if an inmate has a poor prison record they likely won’t be granted, but if they do then they still don’t count for suitability in your theory, you can’t have it both ways.

  236. Paul says:

    You said ” maybe what y’all are looking for is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, which is not actually proof at all…rather, it is your interpretation of facts that, in your opinion”

    This is all the board have to determine whether a inmate is suitable, they can’t see into the future so they have to look at the prison record and rehabilitation efforts of the inmate to determine if the inmate is suitable, if you can’t agree with that than your basically saying there is no way of determining if an inmate can ever walk out those doors.

  237. Flip says:

    Paul,

    Here’s what I think, Paul… there is no such thing as proof of rehabilitation. There can be evidence of rehabilitation, which can be weighed against evidence that a given person is not rehabilitated. With me so far? Good.

    Now, I think that the risks associated with incorrectly concluding that a given criminal is rehabilitated enough to be released into society can go up or down, depending on the circumstances of the crime and the personal characteristics of the criminal. Still with me? Good.

    So, in brief, I think that the burden of evidence that a brutal, senseless, heartless killer like LVH is suitable should be very, very, very high. Higher than what she has been able to provide, in part because of the monstrous depravity that she once showed herself capable of and, in part, because there is plenty of evidence that she has minimized her own role in the brutal slayings of the Labiancas at various times during her incarceration.

    You, Paul, may choose to believe that her stories have been more consistent over the recent past, but I choose to think that she might just as easily–more easily, in fact–have learned how to game the system and tell her PBs and her prison psychs exactly what they want to hear. Long history of no prison violations? Well, good for her–but it doesn’t prove that she’s rehabbed, it proves she didn’t break prison rules and get caught for it.

    Now, compare that to someone who, say, robs a family at knifepoint in their home but doesn’t actually hurt anyone in the commission. Say that criminal gets caught, admits her culpability, shows remorse for her crime, and is sentenced to 15 years with the possibility of early parole. Say that criminal continues to show outstanding, sustained evidence of suitability over, say, a 10 year period in prison–I would think that person might be a good
    candidate for parole. I.e., the crime is far, far less serious than brutal torture-murder and the risk of paroling the criminal is lower and more acceptable than releasing a brutal murderer.

  238. Paul says:

    And what evidence do you have that Leslie isn’t rehabilitated Flip?

    So your basically saying that people can be rehabilitated in certain crimes. You can’t chose when rehabilitation counts because of the severity of an inmates crime. You are literally just stating that you aren’t really interested in the rehabilitation part of the case but the actual crimes themselves. So you think this person in your scenario should be released if they have show evidence of suitability which is prison records, psychology reports, achievements etc. but even though Leslie has done all this, you still try to make she’s unsuitable, so either your contradicting yourself or all you take into the consideration is the crimes themselves, well its not how the law works in California my friend. If an inmate has evidently shown progression and deemed safe to return to society than they have to be paroled if their sentences includes chance of parole. I don’t believe even you think she’s a danger but just don’t want her out purely because the crimes and I think that goes for most of the people who oppose. Also, Leslie admitted her action is the authorities at the time and the trial, listen the audio archive from 1969 if that is the evidence you need.

    Its fair to say in your ideal world, murderess should remain behind bars whether their rehabilitated or not, and you obviously don’t care if the law is followed properly or not. You can’t chose which laws you follow.

  239. Fred Bloggs says:

    Flip says:
    there is no such thing as proof of rehabilitation

    I agree. What you have is evidence that suggests a to a high degree that the process has been on going. It could all fall to pieces once out or it may continue.

    the risks associated with incorrectly concluding that a given criminal is rehabilitated enough to be released into society can go up or down, depending on the circumstances of the crime and the personal characteristics of the criminal

    I also agree with this. But when speaking of the circumstances of the crime, then we get into fuzzy territory because one has to acknowledge a variety of things and balance those alongside that inmate, then, now and in between.

    the burden of evidence that a brutal, senseless, heartless killer like LVH is suitable should be very, very, very high

    I agree with that too. And it has been very, very, very high.
    I’ll say it again at the risk of being a little monotonous; other than 6 months when she was out on bail before her last trial, she’s spent close to half a century incarcerated. 49 years is not a short amount of time.
    The simple reality is that the burden of evidence to suggest her suitability has been huge. No one in the prisons have been able to say “she really shouldn’t be going anywhere.”

    Higher than what she has been able to provide, in part because of the monstrous depravity that she once showed herself capable of

    I found that an interesting bit because it basically seems that what you are saying is that irrespective of anything she has done over the last 41 years to show she is remorseful, is no longer ‘Killer Van Houten of ’69’ or in more contempt of the whole Manson schtick than you, I or the guv’nor could ever be, as far as you are concerned, it can never be good enough. So realistically, you weaken your own argument.
    The weakness of your argument, not in general, but specifically regarding LVH, is shown by two things [a]continually focusing on the details of the crime and [b]having no concrete reason for saying she’s unsuitable other than she’s conned the system, something you cannot possibly know, or minimized her role, which is simply untrue.

    there is plenty of evidence that she has minimized her own role in the brutal slayings of the Labiancas at various times during her incarceration

    Actually, if you look at what she was actually charged and convicted with, you might note that her 1978 charge was completely different to her 1970
    one. She was charged with felony murder ~ murder that took place in commission of a robbery, rather than one that had intent from the start. Because her first conviction was overturned, it no longer exists legally. Manson, Atkins, Krenwinkel and Watson never had their convictions overturned. So for them, all that stuff from the initial trials count legally. LVH isn’t in that bracket. If she was really into minimization, she could have played the prosecution at their own game by just saying “yeah, we went to nick some clothes, food and coins. And the LaBiancas happened to be in the way.”
    But that has not been the case. She has had to explain 3 things continually, Manson, drugs and thinking Mrs LaBianca was alive when she stabbed. None of them act as “things that make her less responsible” but to ignore them is in itself really ignorant. If it is important for her to understand her place in the crime, it is equally important for those that have the responsibility for determining suitability to understand that place.
    Now, if LVH has a greater understanding today, of her role and the depth of it than she did say, in 2002, how does that make her a minimizer ?
    For the record, ever since she first started applying for parole, she’s taken responsibility. What we’ve seen isn’t so much someone for whom there is plenty of evidence that she has minimized her own role in the brutal slayings of the Labiancas at various times during her incarceration, rather, someone who has grown in increasing understanding of the wrong she did and the lasting horror of it.

    I choose to think that she might just as easily–more easily, in fact–have learned how to game the system and tell her PBs and her prison psychs exactly what they want to hear. Long history of no prison violations? Well, good for her–but it doesn’t prove that she’s rehabbed, it proves she didn’t break prison rules and get caught for it

    I’ve got to say here, that your argument is extremely weak and threatens to derail much of the direction you go in.
    LVH doesn’t just have a long history of no prison violations. We are talking 49 years. Someone who is intent on wreaking some kind of havoc should they get paroled is going to be some special kind of character if they’re prepared to keep their nose clean for half a century to fool the authorities. And if you are claiming that she’s an unsafe bet for taking a place in society once more, then it’s impossible not to conclude that you think there’s a very good chance that she’s going to re~offend in some calamitous way. You’ve stated more than once that you think she’s cleverly scammed the system. Which leads to the inescapable conclusion that you think she is a lying, devious individual which also takes in that you feel that, having killed before and not being rehabilitated, that there’s a chance she’ll kill again.

    compare that to someone who, say, robs a family at knifepoint in their home but doesn’t actually hurt anyone in the commission. Say that criminal gets caught, admits her culpability, shows remorse for her crime, and is sentenced to 15 years with the possibility of early parole. Say that criminal continues to show outstanding, sustained evidence of suitability over, say, a 10 year period in prison–I would think that person might be a good
    candidate for parole. I.e., the crime is far, far less serious than brutal torture-murder and the risk of paroling the criminal is lower and more acceptable than releasing a brutal murderer

    That’s as debatable as anything you’ve tried to put forward regarding LVH. Firstly, robbing a family at knifepoint, is a hugely worrying development. By stressing a family, I assume you mean children were present. Well, the fact that no one was hurt is really neither here nor there. Those children or the other family members could mentally go to pieces as a result of being held up at knifepoint. The perp in jail could just as easily, according to your argument, scam the system over those 10 years and have in mind that if they get out, next time they are not going to get caught, whatever that may take. There are all kinds of issues like escalation, recidivism etc and you can check for yourself the number of murderers that did not start their criminal career with murder, but something “smaller” down the food chain.
    However you look at it, anyone that has ended up in jail through crime constitutes a risk.

    The great irony for me is that a couple of years after prosecuting her, Stephen Kay told a parole board that she was making remarkable progress towards rehabilitation, felt she should one day be paroled and said that she needed to be observed a little longer. This was in the early 80s ! Even more striking was that he said it at a hearing where he was opposing her parole that time.
    Question; what has she done since the early 80s that has been sufficient to turn all that on its head ?

  240. Flip says:

    Fred,

    Lawrence allows for the seriousness of the commitment offense to be considered, in rare cases like the Manson torture-murderers who wanted to incite a race war with their heinous acts, as sufficient evidence of unsuitability.

    LVH’s avoidance of full responsibility for the murders she committed with her crime partners is also well-documented, as is the tutoring she has received over the years from PB members who, it could be argued, have educated her about how to game the system whether she is, or isn’t, rehabilitated.

    I don’t actually want to slice-and-dice my hypothetical scenario to the extent you may want to do–it’s just a simplified hypothetical story to suggest that some criminals may be less risky for parole than others, and that in principle I do believe in parole for some offenders…But, if you don’t like my hypothetical criminal, then don’t grant her parole (ha ha)…

    I’m really only reiterating the AG’s support for Governor Brown’s decision to remind you of the arguments against suitability.

  241. Paul says:

    Leslie has taken responsibility for her role in the crimes Flip, that is the worst excuse the governor could of used to deny her, but I suppose there is little other way of finding he unsuitable. Brown seems to already know his conclusion before he even looks at the case. Leslie’s personal actions doesn’t warrant for her to come under Lawrence, Tex maybe but certainly not Leslie. Flip have you even read the traverse made by her attorney?

  242. Flip says:

    Paul,

    Yes, I’ve read her attorneys’ traverse. They make some good points, and for a less risky candidate for parole their points might be compelling. However, their candidate for parole is a brutal torture-murderer who has minimized her contributions to the crime in the past. But really, Paul, what do you expect LVH’s advocates to say? They are duty-bound to represent the interests of their client, not the interests of the People…

    In recent years, LVH has claimed that she now takes full responsibility. But, considering that she minimized and rationalized and showed little or no remorse for a long time before her recent “insights”, her current claims are not very compelling to the governor, the AG, or me (and a large number of other people who prefer that she remain in prison at this time). I reiterate, she may very well have (in my opinion) cynically learned how to craft a rehabbed façade from all of her PB tutorials over the years.

    LVH has taken responsibility in your opinion, Paul. You are obviously convinced, and that is fine as long as you recognize what “opinion” means. But, if you are looking for absolute truth in the world of law and justice, I fear that you won’t find it anywhere except possibly in the recesses of your own mind.

    You’ve often accused me of bias and so-forth, but answer me this, Paul: Why are the Governor’s opinions and interpretations always labeled by you as “excuses” while your own opinions are usually characterized by you as “fact” and “proof”?

  243. Cybele Moon says:

    well said Flip! I mean any convict can give lip service to remorse and who can ever know for sure. I understand where Paul is coming from on a few of his points but he is correct when he says that had she not been in for murder I might look at her lengthy incarceration differently. But she is in for murder and I did watch a few videos of her parole hearings and one where she actually rolls her eyes at what is being said. I think she is self serving in spite of her accomplishments in a controlled environment always hoping of course for parole. The murders were very brutal and cruel and when they mention youthful offenders I am more likely to think about stealing cars as opposed to cold blooded murder. If the Supreme Court sees fit to free her on the nuances of law so be it but I’m afraid I don’t have much sympathy for her. I can’t imagine at 69 freedom will be easy for her but who knows. I’m sure some will clamour for her story and this is what I find disturbing about her release. There are still people who hold the Manson Family on some kind of anti hero, outlaw pedestal. She has not and will never be able to pay her dues unless the dead are resurrected.

  244. Flip says:

    No question about it, Cybele–the various Manson murderers have generated (whether they like it or not) a number of disturbed, pathetic fans. It almost seems as though, “the more disgusting and sociopathic the crime, the greater the prurient interest” for some misguided souls.

    Like you, I’ve also watched the tape of some of LVH’s PB appearances–I didn’t think she ever came across as particularly sincere. “Lip service” and “self-serving” are very good descriptions of how I interpreted her approach to remorse…

  245. Paul says:

    Flip you keep saying she minimise her role, but Leslie has admitted to the role she took in the murders, and hasn’t changed her story in the last 49 years. You also say she is a cold blooded brutal murders, I know these crimes were horrendous but Leslie actions in these murders cannot be classed as so brutal and horrendous that she comes under Lawrence. Most of the wounds Leslie inflicted were post mortal and she was instructed by Tex to do it on the spot. Leslie admitted her role in the crimes since the trial, and she started feeling remorse in the 70s when she understood the consequences of her actions. Leslie always said she never wanted to kill anyone unless necessary.

    I don’t know what you mean about the truth of law because it states that inmate is suitable if they show evidence of rehabilitation, which Leslie has. 49 years of no violations including no 115s or 28a, master degree, programmes activities and expressed remorse. It seems to me up have made up your mind and whether you think she’s rehabilitated or not doesn’t matter to you. As you don’t want her out you try to think the worst of her then realizing her efforts or you just discredit them altogether. She can’t win, if she tries to rehabilitate; she’s pretending, if she’s showing remorse; its fake too, if she takes responsibility for her crimes; she still isn’t taking enough responsibility, it will never to stop with you.

    Its not just Leslie in this case, its Manson, Tex, Katie etc. she cannot take full responsibility for everything that happened because she will be lying.

    You say her advocators will say all the good things about Leslie, but the district attorney are obviously going to say bad things like the families to keep her in so I don’t really see the significance in this argument.

    You also mentioned the interest in the case, which is a big reason Leslie is still in prison, I’ve a number of cases were killers are getting only after serving no more than 15 years, one even 8 years for good behaviour, but you single out Ms Van Houten.

  246. Cybele Moon says:

    Paul, paul!! Of course because the case was and is sensational. Read what I posted in response to Fred.
    Also you believe that she only stabbed a dead body as if this makes her so much better than her cohorts. Even Leslie has said she could not be sure. And none of us were there!! You say her story has not changed. So? Does that make it more acceptable?
    Actually I’ve seen a number of cases where the murderers are serving life without parole for similar brutal crimes. So that is no good reason to free her just because others have been freed. Before you say that please give the details or circumstance of the crimes of those who have been freed. Don’t just say quote “I’ve a number of cases were killers are getting out only after serving no more than 15 years, one even 8 years for good behaviour” quote. Paul, she may get out for the arguments you give of course. However, she is as guilty as sin and all her remorse does not bring people back. I guess we’ll see what happens or what she does when she is released but to me she is no heroine of injustice or unjust punishment! I can’t change my mind on that.

  247. Paul says:

    Cybele, I said at least most of the wounds she inflicted post mortal, which is evident in the coroners report. Leslie admitted she wasn’t sure yes so she has been honest. She has manged to keep her story consistent so its likely she’s telling the truth which is what is expected of her.

    Gary Troutman served only 10 years of his 25 years sentence for the murder of Cassandra Scott, there’s an example for you.

    Cybele according to her sentence it is injustice, she has the right for parole but has been denied that for over 40 years even after significant evidence of rehabilitation. You may think this is justified because of your own moral standards but its a injustice by law.

  248. Cybele Moon says:

    fair enough! I admit it’s my own moral sensibilities and the fact that so many have got off so lightly because of clever lawyers etc. LVH has been in jail a very long time which obviously some feel is unjust but some like me feel it has been justified whether she is released or not.

  249. Fred Bloggs says:

    Flip says:

    Lawrence allows for the seriousness of the commitment offense to be considered, in rare cases like the Manson torture-murderers who wanted to incite a race war with their heinous acts, as sufficient evidence of unsuitability

    In principle, I don’t have a problem with that. I do think that some crimes and the part some people played in them make for such a happenstance that suitability for parole is one degree away from impossible. I’d give Edmund Kemper as an example. I’d say Tex borders on that. The way he carried on from 1970, Charles Manson was in that region.

    LVH’s avoidance of full responsibility for the murders she committed with her crime partners is also well-documented

    Not in the period that it matters. That’s one major area of weakness in the guv’nor’s justification.

    as is the tutoring she has received over the years from PB members who, it could be argued, have educated her about how to game the system whether she is, or isn’t, rehabilitated

    It’s kind of cynical to say the PBs have educated her in how to slip the system. They knocked her back 19 times over a 38 year period which suggests to me that they wanted to be as sure as they could be. It’s clear that with a hung jury that couldn’t decide whether LVH was responsible followed by the prosecution changing the charge to felony murder, thus forcing a decision, which Stephen Kay admitted was some sleight of hand on the prosecution’s part, to Kay within 2 years saying that she was doing well on the road to rehab and would go free one day but needed to be observed a bit more, that for the last 40 or so years, there’s been more weight on the “LVH being paroled one day” side of the scales, than on her doing a Sadie. And that from those with a responsibility for her being in in the first place.

    it’s just a simplified hypothetical story to suggest that some criminals may be less risky for parole than others

    Yeah, I know, I get that. I was just demonstrating that your hypothetical works both ways. Actually, all the arguments do. I’d be one of the first to see that LVH is a risk. But as we seem to agree, pretty much any parolee is a risk. I’m amazed at some of the people though, that have been paroled and killed again. I’d be very surprised if LVH became one of them, but some people, you just have to wonder what the parole board was thinking.

    if you don’t like my hypothetical criminal, then don’t grant her parole (ha ha)

    I liked that one ! I always appreciate good humour.

    I’m really only reiterating the AG’s support for Governor Brown’s decision to remind you of the arguments against suitability

    Sure, I understand that.
    I never really thought too deeply about the arguments either way until around 2015/16 when I became aware of the guv’nor’s reasons for refusing Bruce Davis that year. When I looked into it, it struck me as a “clutching of straws” kind of argument and because that has been the basis of his arguments for Davis and LVH subsequently, it gets weaker as each hearing goes by.
    To go completely off at a tangent, it kind of reminds me of the whole Brexit episode that we’ve been wrestling with here in the UK. Up until the referendum, most people that I ever heard speak on it that were in favour of remaining in the European Union weren’t rabid about it. Politically, it was way, way down the list of priorities, if it was even on that list. But once the referendum was lost and those on the “pull out” side began to crow about it and the manner in which many did crow about it, people on the “stay in” side really began to look deeply into what the implications were of being out of the EU. And became so much more knowledgeable and passionate about being part of something many had barely noticed before.
    Over the last couple of years, there’s been, across a few sites, a kind of view taken towards the parole or rehabilitation of any of the Manson killers that comes over in such a way as to make some people look sharply at what’s being said and wonder why. And in each case, I think of Steve Grogan.

  250. Fred Bloggs says:

    Flip says:
    and showed little or no remorse for a long time before her recent “insights

    She’s actually been showing remorse since the 70s.

  251. Fred Bloggs says:

    Cybele Moon says:

    all her remorse does not bring people back

    Naturally. But isn’t that a bit unfair ? Would you rather she approached this the way Charles Manson did? Every time he was asked if he had any remorse for what happened, he was adamant that he had no reason to be remorseful.
    Haven’t you ever showed remorse for something you did ? Did it change what you had done ? Nothing a murderer does will bring the victim[s] back but I don’t think they should be criticized for showing remorse.

    she is no heroine of injustice or unjust punishment!

    No, she is not. If she spent the rest of her life in jail, she could not claim her punishment was unjust. Paradoxically, if the possibility of parole is part of a 7 years to life sentence, then implicit there is that what determines how she goes is her and her behaviour. And over a 40+ year period, love her or hate her or even be indifferent to her, she’s given no cause in her behaviour to determine that the possibility of parole should not be a reality. And since 2016, it has been. So paradoxically, she herself could easily easily argue her punishment has been unjust and she could argue it was just.
    I love paradoxes.

    One other thing I felt should be addressed was this matter of observing tapes of her at various hearings and how one interprets body language like the rolling of eyes etc.
    Being in a pressure situation like that elicits a myriad of responses to all kinds of things. Sometimes, it’s exasperation because of the way things are put or the conclusions one might think will be drawn from the way things are put. I’ve been in disciplinary hearings where I’ve had to laugh at certain things that were said about me. Literally laugh. I genuinely found certain things funny. I remember once, I was told off for making sounds of incredulity and shaking my head. I couldn’t help it; my boss that was giving evidence was either outright lying or spinning things in such a way that she may as well have been lies and I wasn’t allowed to speak. I was told later that I didn’t do myself any favours. Obviously I’m only presenting one side of the story, but it really, along with other times, has given me an insight into those kind of things. They really don’t always mean what we think they mean.

  252. Cybele Moon says:

    Not criticizing the remorse Fred, just that unfortunately we can’t undo what is done. Most of us don’t have to be remorseful for murder though.

    She has done very well in a controlled environment. Who knows after that.

    Fred, are you a Jesuit? You make an excellent Devil’s Advocate. 🙂

  253. Flip says:

    Re: “She’s actually been showing remorse since the 70s.”

    –Fred, that assertion forms the crux of one of my doubts about LVH’s suitability. I’ve read her PB hearing transcripts and I’ve seen tape of some of her PB appearances. I think that a smart con whose primary goal is to get out of prison could very possibly fake remorse to the level of sincerity that she shows. Again, this contention goes to the heart of the question, “What mitigating factors can be known about LVH with clear and convincing certainty?” For a heartless, soulless (only my opinion, of course!) torture-murderer like LVH, the bar should be very much higher than it is for lesser crimes.

  254. Paul says:

    Flip, Leslie did not just go into a house to kill people form the sake of it, in which I would agree but its not that easy of situation. These individuals were indoctrinated and brainwashed into thinking it was a necessary act, and Leslie has always said she never wanted to kill anyone but did because she “had to”. Sorry, but Leslie is not as sadistic as you make out nor her personal actions that night as strong as someone like Tex or even Katie.

  255. Flip says:

    I don’t know, tying a pillowcase over a pleading victim’s head while her husband is being butchered in another room, holding her down while her more-experienced crime partner tried her best get the killing knife in, then LVH gets her debut– learning how to have fun while stabbing a helpless victim over and over and over again…I think all of that looks very sadistic from my POV.

  256. Paul says:

    Okay first of all, you can’t pin the sounds of Mr LaBianca’s death on Leslie, as she wasn’t the one killing him and her intentions wasn’t for Ms LaBianca to hear them, it only caused more trouble for them because it made her resist. Tex ordered Leslie to inflict wounds as Manson instructed that they all get their hands dirty. I’m not excusing her actions but she did not kill these people for pleasure like you make out. Killing for the fun of it I would agree is sadistic but that’s not in this case, at least for most the family. I don’t even think Susan Atkins enjoyed the murders, she just liked to brag about it.

  257. Paul says:

    You seem to forget that Leslie and Katie tried to avoid scaring Mrs LaBianca and told her she was going to be ok so she wouldn’t suffer, she said this even in 1969 when she was still loyal to Manson. Leslie was also meant to mutilate her body but couldn’t bring herself to do it so she inflicted in and out knife wounds instead. Tex himself even said that Leslie was not nearly as enthusiastic as he and Katie were.

  258. Cybele Moon says:

    “You seem to forget that Leslie and Katie tried to avoid scaring Mrs LaBianca and told her she was going to be ok so she wouldn’t suffer, she said this even in 1969 when she was still loyal to Manson. Leslie was also meant to mutilate her body but couldn’t bring herself to do it so she inflicted in and out knife wounds instead”

    OMG lol
    This is supposed to make us feel better about Leslie Paul?

  259. Paul says:

    Flip seemed to forget to mention this part of the murder so I though would mention it. Also, this will give people a more open understanding of the situation. I don’t know or really care if it makes you feel better but it shows that she is not a sadistic as you make out she is.

  260. Cybele Moon says:

    Paul I don’t get that. Let’s not scare the woman before we brutally murder her. Very sick and disturbing as well as your in and out knife wounds as opposed to what? To me that even makes it sound worse as well as calculating. You haven’t helped your argument here Paul. Can you imagine intending to brutally murder people but lets not panic them – we’ll just surprise them later when we do start stabbing them to death! Ughh Really kind hearted! Hah Really evil!!!

  261. Cybele Moon says:

    PS: and that just shows that you supporters continue to try to mitigate her participation even in ways that don’t make real sense. I think you hurt your position by saying all that!

  262. Fred Bloggs says:

    Flip says:
    that assertion forms the crux of one of my doubts about LVH’s suitability. I’ve read her PB hearing transcripts and I’ve seen tape of some of her PB appearances. I think that a smart con whose primary goal is to get out of prison could very possibly fake remorse to the level of sincerity that she shows

    [a]The con can’t be that smart if they’re trying a con that hasn’t worked for close to 50 years.
    [b]Is your main concern about LVH that she may re~offend in some horrific way or that she won’t offend but isn’t really remorseful ?

    Cybele Moon says:
    She has done very well in a controlled environment. Who knows after that

    The $64,000,000 question.
    One thing that should be said about the prison environment though; it’s more than controlled and it’s certainly not slated in favour of the inmate. The things they get in trouble for, minor, stupid things that parole boards can hold as evidence of their poor adjustment when, if the same thing applied to us, we wouldn’t give it a moment’s thought. We on the outside couldn’t live under such stringent and pernickety rules. Many of us could take a pen home from work and not even realize it. Try that in jail !
    To not get held up on any violation is actually quite a feat.

    are you a Jesuit?

    No ! Way too disciplined for me.

  263. Paul says:

    Cybele, that doesn’t make sense, how is that worse than intentionally making her suffer. Your logic here doesn’t make sense at all, actually trying understanding then listening to what you wanna here. In terms of the wounds, I’m sure you can guess what the intentions were of mutilating the bodies.

    You say that us supports try to mitigate, but were merely mentioning parts of the crime you and people like flip like to forget because it shows a little bit of good of her. I don’t think it hurt my position at all, in fact it shows she is not the evil monster you try to make out.

  264. Cybele Moon says:

    Ok Paul just my thoughts on this. To me what you said makes no good argument (or sense as you say to me) as to Leslie’s goodness. She bloody well knew murder was going to be committed and she wanted to go along. Your premise is that she felt sorry that Mrs. Labianca heard her husband’s screams while she was trying to keep her “calm” and then hold her down with a pillowcase over her head while the others stab her? That is supposed to make her a better person than her cohorts. Oh please, that is pure b-c- you are spouting now.
    Your other arguments I could half way accept but not this. She may be remorseful now, she may have tried to better herself, she may be eligible for parole according to the law but at the time she really was no better than the rest.
    Her supporters will say anything to make her seem like some poor kid that got caught up with a bad crowd to try to prove that she has served an unjust amount of time but that doesn’t wash with the majority of law abiding citizens.

  265. Paul says:

    Cybele its a perfectly reasonable argument, and it amazes me how strangely you reacted to this and your conclusion of it is so off. I never said she didn’t know that murders were going take place so I don’t understand why you make out I said this in the first place. I didn’t say she felt sorry that she was hearing her husband’s death (she probably did though), I said she never intended for her to hear it in the first place. It was meant to be a quick death, avoiding as little pain as possible but didn’t work out like that. They did not commit these murders for pleasure which you should know by now. The point is that killing someone with the intention of making them suffer is miles worse than what Leslie did.

    Its funny how you talk out us supporters saying anything to make her seem innocent, but the people opposed to her release are often as bad or worse just in the sense of making her out to be this evil monster. Leslie has served more than she should of and this no brainer.

  266. Cybele Moon says:

    your opinion differs from mine period. I never said she was a monster but she participated in something quite monstrous. She has got exactly what she deserved whether others have got out sooner or not. (they obviously didn’t get what they deserved). End of story. But good luck Paul and no hard feelings. Whether she gets out or not is not our decision.

  267. Paul says:

    She deserves to serve the sentence she was given which was 2 to life with the chance of parole if found safe to return to society, and she has been suitable for years.

  268. Cybele Moon says:

    Our opinions differ. I feel that justice would have been served it they all had life without parole so I am not upset or indignant over the fact that she has remained in jail all this time.
    I am indignant over childhood poverty and the treatment of indigenous peoples in North America and much of the injustices that go on in the world today, not over someone who willingly participated in murder – and a horrendous murder at that. So we will agree to disagree.

  269. Cybele Moon says:

    PS In spite of the sentence someone said to me that Karma has a way of dealing with people and perhaps that is why she has served so long.

  270. Paul says:

    That’s fine by your morals Cybele, but know your agreeing to a selective government and double standards “I am not upset or indignant over the fact that she has remained in jail all this time”, Leslie is not serving life without parole. This karma thing, how come this isn’t the case with murderers less noted by the media. You can’t chose who you think deserves more support when injustice is an issue, whether that’s a murder.

  271. Cybele Moon says:

    I guess we never know about Karma and how it catches up to people but it is the same as the biblical “you reap what you sow.” Fair enough that justice should be the same for all although as you know from your own point of view that it’s not and of course that’s why there are lawyers – to argue the nuances and mitigating circumstance etc etc – But don’t tell me what is “justice” and what isn’t because you are right- it isn’t the same for everyone! Even different states have different sentences. Was justice served for the Brown and Goldman families? In this case it could be that the lawyers were evil lol. It’s an imperfect system for sure.

  272. Paul says:

    And we can’t agree to continue this way, no matter what you believe.

Leave a Reply

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

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