Van Houten Denied Tex Tapes Again

Wednesday, October 11th, 2017

Oct. 11 – Judge William C. Ryan has denied a motion that asked him to reconsider his ruling on whether Leslie Van Houten could have access to the Tex Watson tapes.

Ryan has previously denied Van Houten access to the recordings twice before, most recently on September 12th, when he ruled she wasn’t entitled to discovery and that the tapes only contained information already well known.

On September 21, attorneys representing Van Houten filed a reconsideration motion, which Ryan denied on the 29th, stating that they had failed to show “new or different facts, circumstances, or law as to warrant a different result upon reconsideration.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Van Houten Denied Tex Tapes Again

  1. Fayez Abedaziz says:

    The prosecution is allowed to own and to keep evidence such as these ‘Tex Tapes.’
    This is something to be questioned. I do.
    There are two sides, in most court heard cases, civil or criminal.
    So, why does the prosecution get to keep evidence and they and only they may and can listen, read and study whatever is there?
    These words by Watson were said to a defense attorney, they did not belong to any prosecuting office.
    This ‘evidence’ or, as we know it as ‘tapes, a recording,’ a verbal exchange between our old friend Tex that is, and his attorney at the time had a ‘chain of custody,’ which is a term our other friends, the police and detectives use.
    That had the tapes go from Tex’s dead attorneys office to the bankruptcy’s trustee who then gave them to the L.A.- D.A . office.
    That is something else I question.
    Why? Would the dearly departed lawyer from the great state of Texas approve?
    No way, I say.
    So, that prosecuting office is saying that this is now our property.
    But, if it’s not important to the defense, which they say, then why are they taking all this time
    and effort to deny a listen of those tapes for the defense to have,
    and…why are Leslie’s attorneys’ not simply invited, in an office here or there to hear them?
    At the same time, times, actually, with Barbara Hoyt being used by the offense, and others, at parole hearings and in continuing publicity, that of innuendo and hate against Leslie, well, I ask…
    that’s relevant and ‘real’ … but something as important as the guy, ‘brother’ Tex who was there at the crime scene and he’s talking to his lawyer about what occurred isn’t so important?
    She, our girl Barb here, was nowhere near the crime scene/scenes, as it were, and she is now… an expert- hey hey- and so, the acid, hash, pot, speed, the young age of someone as young as Leslie was, along with brother Charlie’s philosophy lectures and so on, that the prosecution so casually used during the trials and in talking freely about quite often, leads me to ask:
    which is it, all those influences or the crimes were committed with a clear mind on a girl’s own.
    See, that’s one of the frauds of the trial that Leslie was in.
    They were controlled,
    oh they acted on their own,
    oh it was Charlie’s drugs and mantras,
    ah, oh it was the girl on her own.

    Oh, okay, whatever you say, but that dog, or in this case/situations, those dogs don’t hunt, as they say in the country ( Colorado, Texas or even in California)
    you know that’s where Americans have ‘right on’ common sense, out in the rural areas.
    And so, now that y’all read this, thanks

  2. Louise says:

    What are you babbling about Fayez??? Have you been drinking?? What you wrote makes no sense. Are you a Charlie follower? No sense makes sense?

Leave a Reply

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