Van Houten Granted Parole

Thursday, July 23rd, 2020


Jul. 23 – Leslie Van Houten was found suitable for parole at a hearing held today by the California Board of Parole Hearings. This was Van Houten’s fourth consecutive parole suitability recommendation.

Van Houten was sentenced to death in 1971 for her part in the August 10, 1969 murder deaths of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. The following year, Van Houten saw her sentence commuted to life after the California supreme court outlawed the death penalty, stating it was unconstitutional.

In 1976, an appeals court ruled Van Houten was denied a fair trial because her attorney, Ronald Hughes, disappeared during the trial.

Van Houten was retried in 1977, resulting in a hung jury. She was retried the following year and that time, convicted and sentenced to seven years to life. Because of time served on her original sentence, Van Houten was already eligible for parole when she returned to prison in August of 1978.

Van Houten, now 70, has been denied parole 19 times since becoming eligible in 1978. She was recommended for parole at her 2016, 2017 and 2019 hearings. Each grant however, was reversed by the governor.

Due to COVID-19, today’s decision will undergo an expedited review by the Board of Parole Hearings. Then it will be reviewed by Governor Gavin Newsom, who will either confirm, reverse or modify the parole grant. The decision will be finalized no later than November 20th.

Van Houten is also waiting on a California Supreme Court ruling regarding Governor Gavin Newsom’s reversal of her 2019 parole recommendation. Earlier this month, Van Houten petitioned the state’s high court to weigh in on the decision. The court gave the attorney general until Monday to file in opposition.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

117 Responses to Van Houten Granted Parole

  1. Janet Palirano says:

    Please sign the petition to ask the Governor to reverse this again at: noparoleformansonfamily.com

  2. Sharon Creel says:

    They should not be paroled. They had their break with not being put to death and they should stay there.

  3. Chandra Jordan says:

    Not sure why she thinks she should get out of prison when Rosemary LaBianca is never going to get out of her grave

  4. Carol says:

    She has paid her debt to society and then some. Continued incarceration would be revenge as opposed to justice.

  5. andrew f beers says:

    shes done her time if they hadnt killed sharon tate they all woulda been out long ago

  6. Gina says:

    she needs to stay in until she dies…Rosemary LaBianca didn’t get a chance for parole.

  7. Billy Esquire says:

    “This was Van Houten’s fourth consecutive parole suitability recommendation.”

    Isn’t that sentence ridiculous? Kind of makes you wonder why they even have parole boards if their recommendations aren’t going to be followed. This is getting to the point that it’s absurd. The parole board makes the same recommendations year after year, the governor(s) repeatedly say “No” because of political reasons, and then she’s brought back the next year to the Board and the process starts all over again.

    I wish her well. There’s simply no justification to hold her when she has met parole conditions for decades.

  8. Sasha Musgrave says:

    She has paid her debt to society and should be freed to live out the rest of her life but won’t have long to live as she is over 70. She wasn’t involved in Sharon Tate’s murder as a lot of people think.

  9. Bummer Bob says:

    State of California should be ashamed of themselves. The parole board keeps granting her parole and at the last minute the Governor overtures it. They keep dangling a carrot 🥕 in front of her at the last minute crush her hopes and dreams. She’s such a sweet lady and I would open my doors for her to come and live with me. Poor Lulu.

  10. Roger Wayne Adams says:

    She deserves to be out of prison. If she wasn’t attached to the Manson name she would have been released in the 80s.

  11. roacul orasoco says:

    sorry, do the crime do the time. escaped death sentence and got a gift of life. must be behind bars.

  12. Michael says:

    I’ve always felt some sympathy for her, but not enough to want her paroled. Unspeakable crimes, completely unbelievable behavior in court, showing nothing but contempt for her victim’s loved ones.

  13. Thomi Wilson says:

    She wasn’t even at the Sharon Tate murder.

  14. Michael says:

    Thomi, is the murder of the LaBiancas any less heinous than the murder of Sharon Tate? What difference does it make ?

  15. Debbie Sitsler says:

    She’ll never be released and rightfully so!

  16. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Most hate politics and I’m not one of them. There is no way any politician will ever EVER release a Manson Cult follower.

    Let her rot. She made sure her two victims have.

  17. Pam says:

    These animals should never be paroled. How do you watch an almost 9 month pregnant woman be carried out on a stretcher after she has been butchered by your “family” members and your only thought is to go out the next day and participate in more butchery? Newsom strongly denied her parole before and he will do it again. God bless the victims and their family. I feel nothing for this butcher or people like Fred who defend them.

  18. Pam says:

    Newsom will make the same decision he made before, no reason for him to change. She made a choice to kill and her lawyer whines about her rights. Did RL have a right to live free from LVH’s butchery?

  19. Jimmy says:

    She has life because she is being punished. End of story. She’s too old to threaten anyone but she will come out make a book or movie for profit.

  20. Christy says:

    She’s not too old to threaten anyone. At one time the oldest inmate in California’s death row was in his 90s having committed a murder during a robbery in his 70s. He used a gun. That said I doubt she would be any danger personally if she has outside support.

    I’m just wondering in this age of covid with many people out of a job how she would support herself unless she has family members or friends to help.

  21. Christy says:

    Part of Leslie’s problem was her behavior in her first trial. Outbursts, singing , mocking the court system. It also didn’t help her that she knew what had happened at the Tate house and had seen news reports and probably heard first hand accounts. About the only thing it sounds like she never did was mock her victim unlike both Pat and Tex.

    I doubt she would have gotten out in the 80s. By that time the victim’s rights movement was getting underway. Doris Tate was a fixture in it and one reason was because of Leslie’s first parole hearing. Tate was also instrumental in getting proposition 89 on the California ballot in 1988 which gave the governor the right to approve, modify or reverse parole board for those sentenced to an indeterminate term for committing murder. That would be probably all death row inmates back in 1972. But this law was not in place when Steve Grogan was approved for parole.

  22. Paul says:

    Very likely the governor will find some absurd excuse to block the grant again, but the courts will have a much harder time upholding Newsom’s review, that is if he indeed blocks it again. Her attorney has been amazing and i’m confident he will have her walking out of those gates soon.

  23. Sara says:

    I’m sure Rosemary LaBianca doesn’t think she is a ‘sweet’ lady! She murdered someone for NO reason and has whined about being incarcerated ever since! As far as crushing her hopes and dreams…who gives a rats ass about HER hopes and dreams! What about poor Sharon Tate’s hopes and dreams of being a mother to her unborn son? Who also died! And I am sure that Leno and Rosemary has dreams of their own. I know she wasn’t at the Cielo Drive murders, but she did state how disappointed she was that Charlie didn’t ask her to go that night! She voluntarily went to the LaBianca’s, even stating she knew people would die!! Would you want her as your next door neighbor? Seriously? She is too easily influenced to be let out!

  24. Lee says:

    So, the governor is crushing her hopes & dreams? Hmmmm….I think the one that had their hopes & dreams crushed, along with their life was Rosemary & Leno LaBianca.

  25. Cybele Moon says:

    I am one of those here who always felt that a life sentence should have been just that in this particular case (and many others) but it’s not in our hands. What is justice indeed? Can a debt such as brutal multiple murders ever really be repaid? I also see the irony as Lee stated, in having hopes and dreams crushed after snuffing out the same in other lives. There is no suffering to compare with the victims or victim’s families ever and most people have had very strong reactions here on this site. I hope she is truly remorseful but I don’t feel sorry for any of the time she has served. We all reap what we sow.

    However, as her supporters say, she has met all the requirements for parole in this case. This is the justice system for which people voted. I don’t know when she will get out, but bear in mind, she is not a winner even if she does. At 71, it’s not as though she can start over in any meaningful way or gain back what most of us take for granted, our freedom, careers, families, travel, and all those years etc.
    Even freed, I imagine her life will be somewhat limited and she may have to change her name. What she will do with her “freedom” is anyone’s guess- perhaps a quiet disappearance from the public eye. I hope it’s not publicity and media. I can’t imagine it will be easy after 50 years of incarceration.

    I applaud Doris Tate for changing laws regarding victim’s rights. She was a very strong lady.

  26. Fred Bloggs says:

    Pam says:
    I feel nothing for this butcher or people like Fred who defend them

    For someone who feels nothing for me, you spend an inordinate amount of time and space telling everyone how you feel nothing for me, rarely commenting on what I actually say, never articulating where I’m coming from but often ready to come out and tell the world about Fred……

  27. Jeff says:

    50 years is more than enough time to serve. She is 70 and no threat to society. Our system paroles murderers all the time who did far worse than she did

  28. Cybele Moon says:

    Fred, I don’t think many read mine either except for you lol. But I don’t think you defend LVH, you just present all sides of the argument. Blessings! I like to read your comments and everyone’s really for or against.

    Jeff, I think it was a pretty bad crime. I’m not sure who has been released who did far worse. But the law sometimes isn’t just it would seem.

  29. Andrew says:

    I hope this time they don’t reverse it. She has more than atoned and served her time.

  30. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Let me get this straight. Those who want LVH out of prison do so simply because “it’s the law” and she met parole requirements and gee whiz she’s old now.

    But having the Gov reverse the parole board decision is a travesty of justice? Which is it then? You like the law that allows LVH the legal nth but cry foul and political prisoner and ageism when it’s for the people. (aka the victims)

    Paradox much.

  31. Klaus Mueller says:

    I strongly agree!

  32. Paul says:

    NoJusticeNoPeace – It is the law, there is no legal reason Leslie should still be incarcerated. She has committed herself to all requirements that she is expected to do in order to be paroled, and the board have agreed with this 4 times now. The governor quite clearly is not able to separate his duty from his political reputation, the reasons for blocking the grant have been very flimsy and very poor, on both the part of Brown as well as Newsom. Everyone knows what the game is here, the governor doesn’t want this tarnish so it will have to be the courts that see that the law is followed, and they will have a much harder time upholding Newsom’s reversal which is likely what he will do.

  33. Cybele Moon says:

    NJNP,

    I felt none of them deserved parole. Yet the parole board the last three times feels she does. It is also part of the system that a governor can veto it – and then begin the appeals. It will be interesting to see how it plays out again. I do think some crimes warrant a life sentence this being one of them but your system for some strange reason gave 7 years to life? At that time apparently even the prosecutor thought she might be the one to get out in 10 years (though he opposed it). While she meets the criterion for parole I think most public opinion is that she should remain incarcerated and I don’t have a problem with it if she does. The crimes were heinous and bizarre.

    Has anyone else read “Chaos” and if so it would be interesting to have a comment section for that.

  34. Paul says:

    NoJusticeNoPeace – The hypocrisy your trying to establish doesn’t exist and doesn’t really make logical sense. Indeed the law is clear that if a prisoner is deemed safe to return to society which all evidence is apparent in Leslie’s case then she should be paroled. Newsom’s stance that he is concerned about her potential violence in the future is not supported by her prison record or her psychological evaluation reports.

    If you want to see a hypocritical argument, just look at each governors evaluation, Brown accused Leslie of mitigating her role and placing too much responsibility on Manson, only for Newsom to accuse her of doing the opposite, for minimizing Manson’s abuse of her.

  35. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    The law that allows a monstrosity like LVH to apply for parole ad infinitum is something I do not agree with but it is what it is. The law that allows the monstrosity of politics to play a part in LVH’s release? I’m all in. And apparently so were CA voters who gave the Gov the power to reverse parole recommendation.

    LVH’s tears and remorse are for herself. Make no mistake. If the Gov refused to allow a bed ridden, dying SA to pass at home with loved ones and supporters, don’t count on LVH being paroled. It’s a fools errand.

  36. Paul says:

    I think most here would not agree with your stance that Leslie’s remorse isn’t genuine. Whether you think on a personal level she shouldn’t be paroled is another thing, but to make make out she is just putting on a show for the parole board is pretty fanciful and I don’t even think you genuinely believe that either.

  37. Stephen Craig says:

    Cybele:

    Please note that I always make it a point to read your comments in particular, and not only appreciate your insight, your fairness and objectivity, but your sensitivity to the rights victims and their survivors (so it’s not just Fred, but me as well lol). Anyway, I have read “Chaos”; found it extremely engaging/thought provoking, and would welcome an opportunity to discuss it with others as well.

  38. Michael says:

    Andrew, did you really mean to say “she has more than atoned?” I doubt that even Leslie herself would say such a thing. There is no possible atonement she could make. She may be released on legal grounds, but she never has and never will atone for these killings.

  39. Cybele Moon says:

    thanks Stephen, and I read yours too!! 🙂 Yes I’m almost finished the book Chaos, Not sure where would be appropriate to discuss it?

    Michael, that is so true.

    Her supporters have their position but I always ask what is justice really? She has met parole requirements but so many here feel justice can never be served except by life in prison and even then, those murdered do not get their lives back nor their families their loved ones and all the lost opportunities and memories. So we can give the mercy of a parole but I’m not sure that’s “justice.” I’m glad I don’t have to make those decisions.

  40. Fred Bloggs says:

    Andrew says:
    She has more than atoned and served her time

    I think I know what you actually mean there Andrew {I think you really mean that she has served a sufficient length of time}, but that’s a really poor choice of words. I don’t think it is possible to atone for most crimes. Even if one robbed someone and paid them every penny back with interest, there’s aspects of the ongoing effect of being violated in various ways that can’t be measured in any straightforward way like financial recompense or a prison sentence. What it may do mentally for example. Little is going to atone for that.

    Cybele Moon says:
    Has anyone else read “Chaos” and if so it would be interesting to have a comment section for that

    It’s an interesting book. I find that when I read some books I have to let some time go by and let some things take a while to sink in because it’s too easy to swept along by the sheer onslaught of what one may find within the pages of said book.
    I think “Chaos” poses many many questions but doesn’t really alter the fundamental centrepiece of this case. In some ways, it’s a sophisticated banding together of the alternative theories that have been in existence for 50 years, but with documents that add weight but which don’t {can’t} actually prove anything. It’s major aim is to scotch helter skelter {which people have been trying to do since 1970} and it doesn’t achieve that. So for me, it packs a mighty punch and makes a loud noise while doing so but cannot prevent the object of its ire from rolling with the punches; thus its effect is minimal on its opponent.

    I don’t think you defend LVH, you just present all sides of the argument

    That’s all I try to do. I’ve said it many times before, I’m not afraid to acknowledge areas where the perps have been poorly dealt with or where they have valuable insights or where law enforcement or the victims’ family members in the aftermath were less than stellar in some of their words and/or actions. I think I know what’s wrong and what’s right and I don’t confuse the two.

    NoJusticeNoPeace says:
    And apparently so were CA voters who gave the Gov the power to reverse parole recommendation

    I’m not sure that the vast majority of CA voters had in mind LVH when they were thinking of which candidate to vote for ! The way votes work is that once you have a person in the hot seat to make decisions, you have absolutely no power over the decisions they make. And they are going to make some decisions a voter likes and some a voter does not like. I sometimes get a little touchy when people say something like “if you don’t like a law, change it. If you don’t like a particular guv’nor/lawmaker, do something about it.” That’s not real ~ if there is a huge majority one particular way in a state and you happen to be on the opposite wing, you can’t do jack.

    LVH’s tears and remorse are for herself

    Well, some of that would be for herself. And why shouldn’t it be ? If she was part of a murder scenario and she later was remorseful it wouldn’t make sense if some of it were not for herself. She can’t just absent herself from what happened ~ it had a major impact on her life, her family’s, the families of the people she helped murder, the state and nation she lived in, not to mention the two murder victims………
    So when she cries and has remorse, she’s not going to ignore the fact that she’s spent half a century in prison and neither should she. She should be remorseful for where her life has gone.
    But I disagree with you in that you’re basically saying that her remorse is only for herself. Because that doesn’t make sense. Being remorseful by its very nature takes into account far more than just oneself. The damage one has done must figure in all of that. That’s why it’s remorse and not just regret. Some people might regret having killed because it’s landed them in jail, they’ve wasted their life and is continually assailing their conscience but they might not really give a thought to whom they have wronged and the depth of how they have actually ended people’s lives.

  41. Kelly says:

    What! She helped KILL people in cold blood

  42. Billy Esquire says:

    Leslie was less than 2 weeks from being 20 when she committed her crime, and is now nearly 71 years of age. Wow, that’s a long time; 20 to 71. It made me think of how we all transform as people over that time period. I thought of what most people are doing at age 20, and I imagine most of us did some things we knew we shouldn’t be doing and weren’t proud of. But it’s a common part of being a young adult. Fortunately, as we grow a little older, we learn from our mistakes and eventually become the people we are now.

    Leslie’s life was no different, at first. She had a normal childhood, but as she entered young adulthood, her life became anything but normal. In the summer of 1968, she met Catherine Share and Bobby Beausoleil, and awhile later, Manson. It became the ultimate in “running with the wrong crowd”. A lot of us associate with people when we are young that wind up having a bad influence on us, but in Leslie’s case, it became a disaster.

    What was the main difference in Leslie’s wilder years and everybody else’s? One thing….Manson. With the help of repetitive LSD and other drugs, Leslie’s brain became fried, she was brainwashed to believe things that were not so by Manson, and she frequently couldn’t determine truth and reality. The perpetual drugs brought on legitimate psychosis, with obvious delusional beliefs, thanks to Manson’s endless preaching while she was under the influence of mind altering drugs.

    People say she could have left anytime she wanted, but Manson made it very clear that he would bring his mighty wrath down upon anyone that went against his wishes, and they witnessed that wrath against various others in the family many times. Manson scared them so badly that they simply couldn’t muster up enough courage to leave for fear of what he would do to them. And that’s completely understandable.

    Put all this together and Leslie was obviously not in her right mind, and she couldn’t come into her right mind while Manson was relentlessly giving her drugs and making her truly believe he was some kind of god. She wound up committing the crime she has been in prison for all these years, but after getting away from Manson and the constant LSD, she eventually came back to the real world.

    I know we all have our opinions, but this is how I look at Leslie’s life. It is fully explainable and understandable what happened to her. Unlike the rest of us during our wilder years, she was never able to move on from the things she was doing at 19. You and I eventually grow up, finish school, get a job, get married, have kids and lead a normal life. But Leslie is still paying for what she did at 19 years of age because of the severity of what she became involved in. It wasn’t something she planned, but it happened. How would her life have differed if she had never met Catherine Share and Bobby Beausoleil? In all probability, it would have been completely different, as in a 180° difference.

    When determining punishment for criminals, I think all the circumstances should be considered. In Leslie’s case, I think it should have been considered that she was under the influence of Manson’s brainwashing, mind-altering drugs and delusional psychosis when she committed her crime. And there’s no denying any of those things.

    While she certainly required punishment, due to the circumstances of her life at the time of the crime, I don’t feel it ever warranted a life sentence. When it is apparent that insanity and/or mental incompetence was present at the time of the crime, that must be considered to ensure fair punishment is meted out. Why? Because there is a huge difference in Leslie’s mental state at the time of her crime, as opposed to criminals with life sentences who willfully and knowingly plan and engage in their crimes while in a state of complete mental clarity.

    For these reasons, I think Leslie should have been paroled many decades ago, probably at the time of her first parole hearing. To have held her all these years while knowing her mental state at the time of her crime is exceptionally excessive punishment, and IMO, cruel. Leslie became a completely different person as soon as she came out of her delusional state and was back to being the Leslie she had always been. So to have held her all these years is unfair, in my way of thinking. But to continue to hold her after she has been paroled 4 times by the parole board is simply unconscionable.

    I know many here won’t look at these things like I am, but I truly believe that when determining someone’s punishment, we must consider ALL the facts and circumstances, and apply them to the ultimate punishment in a fair and humane way.

  43. Michael says:

    Billy, while lots of us did some wild things in our youth, few of us completely cut our families off (or stole from them to support our commune), totally dropped out of society, randomly engaged in theft or trespassing, abandoned basic rights like owning a watch or observing our birthdays, or exchanged our independence for a life virtually absent any responsibility.

    Leslie and the others did all of this before Manson brainwashed them, and Manson hardly introduced them to drugs, by the way! I agree her mental state was pretty unstable by the time the crimes were committed, and you’re right, had she not met Manson it’s doubtful she’d ever had committed violent crimes. But had Bonnie Parker not met Clyde Barrow, it could be argued she’d have never killed, either. That hardly excuses her. (Different scenario, I know, but the point is, both women had the capacity to choose and they did so.)

    Besides, the legal definition of insanity includes the qualifier that you did not know that society condemned your actions, even if you justified them. Leslie and the others did wipe down their victim’s home for fingerprints, and burned evidence like Mrs. LaBianca’s purse, so she knew she had committed a crime even if she tried to tell herself it was right.

    That’s why I can’t agree with your take on her as being in a state of “delusional psychosis” when she did this. She was crazy, just like Sandra Good is crazy to this day rambling on about Charlie’s virtues, but like Sandra today, she was also functional and able to know where she was and what she was doing.

    Finally, your statement “she came out of her delusional state and was back to being the Leslie she had always been” is a little scary. That’s exactly why many people don’t want her out! If she went back to “the Leslie she has always been” what will happen when she meets another Charlie? The Leslie she has always been was the Leslie who hooked up with a monster and become one herself.

    I do believe she is remorseful and is now a different woman. But I have never accepted the fact that a change in character erases the severity of our actions, and some actions are so severe that I don’t believe they should be pardoned. On this point, I also think the law doesn’t entirely agree with me, so there’s the rub.

  44. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    We can all banter about our opinions and the only one that matters is going to be from the Gov. It’s the only one that counts.

    No one will convince me LVH’s remorse is for anyone but herself. She’s played the victim card to her parole advantage for years under the guise to further her self reflection and take responsibility of her murderous actions: victim of forced abortion, victim of drugs, victim of 60’s culture, victim of parents divorce, victim of Manson, victim of Hughes death, victim of the freakin’ Easter Bunny.

    Exactly when did these epiphanies manifest? With each attorney drooling to make a name for themselves. Her regret is getting caught. Her remorse is for situation she chose. It never has and never will be about the victims. She thinks she is one.

  45. Paul says:

    NoJusticeNoPeace – Then you are simply just being irrational at this point, well that was quite clear early on I suppose. Leslie has demonstrated her remorse plenty of times for the victims and like Fred said, of course she will feel remorse for herself, wouldn’t make sense if she didn’t. It’s because of your strong opinion you have of the crimes you don’t want to accept her remorseful even if she expresses, nothing will change you because you don’t want to think of her in any positive light. I understand why people don’t think she deserves her freedom but claiming she is faking it is just pure stupidity or lack of insight.

  46. Paul says:

    NoJusticeNoPeace – “the only one that matters is going to be from the Gov. It’s the only one that counts.” not true, if the does the usual block then its up to the courts.

  47. Cybele Moon says:

    NJNP you never mince words lol.- irrational or not -as Paul says.
    Of course we don’t know how much remorse she has or for whom but it’s easy to fool even psychiatrists and to give lip service to remorse as well while not being particularly remorseful. However she may very well be and probably is- and for herself as well. Feeling remorse does not bring anyone back.

    Michael, I agree with your analysis of it. Very few teenagers have chosen the path LVH and the other family members did. Teenagers (and Leslie really was past the teenage years), fight with their parents, drink, smoke pot, some shoplift, sometimes even DUI but very few have done what this gang did
    Another case involving a life sentence and even younger teenagers was the brutal “Lillelid” murders involving 2 little children and their parents. One of them is petitioning the governor for clemency 20 years later as the Tennessee courts refuse to hear the case again.

    The court of course often takes into consideration serious mental illnesses. I am sure Ted Bundy suffered from a serious and horrifying mental aberration and compulsion, yet was found guilty, I guess the key point being “did he know right from wrong.” in our society.

  48. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Paul, your insight into what I think and feel are…hmm.. let me find the word… ah, yes. Bullshit. But it’s your bullshit and at least you own it. Meh.

    Cybele, your posts are always enigmatic. I dig that about you! And Fred, I think you like to debate. I don’t. I’m too lazy. But I do see a few of your points and am too lazy to agree with response. I have a terrible reputation to protect. Ha.

    All the could’ve, should’ve and would’ve things about LVH is enough to give my hemorrhoids a tickle. To continually state if the frog didn’t bump his ass on the log he’d have gotten farther is pointless. He bumped his ass on the log! The end!

    There was a metaphor in there…

  49. Paul says:

    NoJusticeNoPeace – “Paul, your insight into what I think and feel are…hmm.. let me find the word… ah, yes. Bullshit. But it’s your bullshit and at least you own it. Meh.” problem is your evaluation has no merits and you can’t brush it off as much as you please but doesn’t make your stance anymore valid or logical. Many of the regulars here don’t agree with you on the question of her remorse, you just can’t accept it but suppose you are correct that it doesn’t matter too much how you feel about it, it’s up to the courts to follow what is right.

  50. Stephen Craig says:

    I’d like to comment on the concept of LVH’s remorse/lack of remorse. I do understand for the parole process, it is obviously advantageous if the candidate demonstrates a sense of “remorse” for their crimes; I mean, what parole board is going to grant parole to someone who demonstrates anything but a sense of sorrow/remorse for the crime(s) they were convicted of? It’s a ” no-brainer”: if you want to be granted parole, one of the things you must do is say you’re “sorry”. So, throughout the years, LVH has demonstrated in her efforts to achieve parole, that she is remorseful. And I am perfectly willing to take her at her word. But so what? What impact does it truly have? The fact that she is “sorry” for the slaughter she participated in and the horrendous ramifications of her crimes seems to be so important to some people; as if her acknowledging what she did was “wrong” displays an insight worthy of redemption. As if her confessing her remorse has washed her bloody hands clean, all is forgiven, go on your merry way, you’re now just like the rest of us, for you said you were “sorry”. As if we can all now erase the events that occurred on Aug. 10, 1969 in the LaBianca home from our collective consciousness because Leslie says she feels “remorse”. That we should all feel a sigh of relief because she is “sorry”. How eager some are willing to “forgive” the unforgiveable if they hear the words, “I’m sorry”.

    For those of you who support LVH’s release, please note that I understand she has demonstrated her eligibility for parole in other areas, not just the issue of remorse. However, what confuses me is how pivotal some folks seem to think her feeling remorse is toward her freedom. For me, no matter the law du jour, LVH participated in most likely the worst crime imaginable; that of human slaughter, and nothing she will ever say or do is ever going to change it, especially to the victims, whose loss of live and the unimaginable ordeal they suffered at the hands a woman (I’m not forgetting TW/PK) they are so willing to forgive because she says she is “sorry”. I’m sorry, too. But not for her, but for the LaBIanca’s. For me they and what they lost/endured is what this case will always be about.

    LVH may indeed receive her parole, but let’s not kid ourselves. She is a destroyer. PLain and simple. And a “dog that bites”, is well, a “dog that bites”.

  51. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    I’m not here to appease opposing opinions. I’m here to voice my own. Don’t like it? Tell me to shove it and move on. What you call validity I call a prison nooge with armchair minions who prefer a double murderer’s “rights” over the two victims she gleefully slaughtered. But hey, apples and oranges. LVH is such a victim too… of her own making. (eye roll insert)

    Stephen Craig-well said man. Hope that meets Paul’s validity, popularity test. lol

  52. Paul says:

    So I’m going to clear about the crimes themselves, Everyone can agree Leslie was involved in a horrendous crime, but I will take into accountability her own physical actions on that night, not the action of her co-defendants on the night before or even what that did that night.

    I see many comments about how she was involved in the one of the worst crimes in history and even though I agree, there seems to be this attempt to blend all the killers together to avoid addressing independent actions, and to me this is one of those attempts. We can’t equate the actions of Leslie Van Houten to someone like Tex Watson who evidently is responsible for physically taking the lives of seven people in two nights, whilst we don’t even know Leslie stabbed a living being.

    As awful as Leslie’s part was, that kind of crime on its own would never be remembered to this day. The actions of co-defendants that made the case so notorious; writings on the wall in blood, a pregnant star killed, overkill (+100 stabbing). You can’t keep Leslie incarcerated because of the actions of her co-defendants. News reports on Leslie’s case rarely fail to mention a pregnant Sharon Tate and is probably why I see so many people get confused about who actually killed Sharon.

  53. Cybele Moon says:

    Paul, I hear what you are saying about who did what etc and maybe LVH didn’t do as much. But personally, I feel that doesn’t matter! She was an eager participant in the sense she wanted to go, she believed it was ok to murder, and thus her culpability is just as great. Those who rounded up people for the gas chambers of WWII are just as guilty as those who administered the poison pellets. That is my belief.

    We will never know completely what actually went on in the Labianca home or who did what. It’s all their own testimonies which have not always been consistent from the get go.

    Stephen , I feel as you do about these crimes and yes, even freed she will never be able to unburden herself of the stigma. That is sad – for her own life behind bars and more so for the victims and their families.

    Fred, I also have the same impression as you about the book Chaos. There are some fascinating points but it really seems that it’s simply out to discredit Bugliosi’s theory and book – plus it’s all the hearsay of rather eccentric, controversial people whose credibility or memories sometimes sounded a bit bizarre in my books. There are often unanswered questions and contradiction in murder cases and after 30 or more years even memories can be tainted?

  54. Paul says:

    Cybele, If you had to pick either Leslie Van Houten or Tex Watson (or any of the dependents for that matter) to be paroled, who would it be?

  55. Billy Esquire says:

    Cybele Moon: “She was an eager participant in the sense she wanted to go, she believed it was ok to murder, and thus her culpability is just as great.”

    But the all important question is….WHY did she think it was ok to murder? We know with certainty that she wasn’t wanting to go along on those two nights simply to engage in the gruesome, malicious murders because she thought it would be cool to murder someone. The reason she wanted to be involved is because she was convinced this was going to be the beginning of Helter Skelter and the race war that Charlie had been pounding into their heads. He convinced her that the murders were the PROPER thing to do, and that she was rather lucky and special because she was privy to how it was all going to go down. She had bad feelings about killing the people and felt sorry that their kids were going to find them in such a horrible way, but that’s just the way it had to be. The future had already been determined and she truly thought she was going to be part of initiating it because it was the “right thing to do”. She likened it to being a disciple….it was hard to do the things they were doing, but they had to be done because this was the destiny of what was going to happen in the world.

    Charlie convinced her of all of that. She wasn’t even close to being in reality…..not only WHEN she engaged in the crime but MONTHS afterwards. She casually told her court appointed attorney, Marvin L Part, that if she had to do it all over again, she would do it because it was the right thing to do. She easily could have lied about it, but she didn’t. She was completely truthful because she truly thought the murders were the proper thing to do in preparation for all the things Charlie had told them about. And she believed it all 100%. You can tell in the recording.

    These things confirm that she was completely out of touch with reality during this period of her life due to the drugs and brainwashing. These beliefs were obviously delusional, and you can tell by the way she talked when she was interviewed by her attorney in 1969 that she believed everything she was saying. She even believed she was an angel and was concerned because she was certain her wings were budding and people were going to notice them. She told her own father that.

    If anyone hasn’t listened to the one hour interview Leslie did with her attorney on 12-29-69 here on CD.com, it is absolutely the best thing you can listen to to get an indication of how out of her mind she truly was back then. It’s best to start the audio and then follow along with the written transcript. The link is below. This interview alone should have resulted in a totally different punishment for Leslie, because she did not know what reality was at the time. She should have been sentenced to only a few years in prison for her part in the crime, and the fact that she has been incarcerated for all these decades when she did not have the mental capacity to reason is unfair and an absolute travesty of justice, IMO.

    http://www.cielodrive.com/updates/leslie-van-houten-interviewed-by-marvin-part/

    I have copied and pasted what I think is some of the most enlightening part of the interview. What she said leaves no doubt as to her mental state…..even months after the crime.

    MR. PART: Now, when we sat down here before I actually turned on the tape recorder I asked you if you know what the word “remorse” meant; and you said “No.”

    And I told you it meant feeling sorry.

    Could you tell us how you feel now about what happened to the LaBiancas and all the other people that were killed.

    MISS VAN HOUTEN: Well, I can’t really feel sorry, because I did it, and I did it with every intention of it being right.

    Sometimes when I think about it —

    See, I try not to think. That sounds pretty ridiculous, but I don’t. I try not — I try to keep my mind clear. When I think about it, it makes me feel bad, you know.

    I can start to cry, specially ’cause the kids, ’cause they are my age. I didn’t really have any —

    MR. PART: Now, you say you feel badly. What makes you feel badly?

    MISS VAN HOUTEN: Well, when I start thinking about the kids having to find their folks, the parents. You know, that seems ugly to me.

    MR. PART: Are your talking about the LaBiancas?

    MISS VAN HOUTEN: Yeah, the LaBiancas.

    And I heard that Mr. Tate sort of blew his mind, he’d put on a hippie hairdo looking for the people that did it to his daughter.

    I feel sorry for those people.

    MR. PART: How about the people that are dead? Don’t you feel sorry for them?

    MISS VAN HOUTEN: I really — I — To be honest, no.

    MR. PART: Why don’t you feel sorry for the dead people?

    MISS VAN HOUTEN: Well, all it is is a body.

    You know, I mean, that’s the way I feel about my life. In other words, when I went out and I did them in, it’s like I’m that willing to have myself killed.

    I only see all this around me as just a body and just part of what I come from.

    And what I come from is much greater.

    In other words, I believe that you come — I believe that you come from nothing and you are going back to nothing; and while you’re here you almost are nothing. You’re just an animal.

    MR. PART: When you went out to — and were part of the group that killed the LaBiancas did you think that what you were doing was right? And if you did, why was it right?

    MISS VAN HOUTEN: I thought it was perfectly right, and I thought it was perfectly right because I see

    And I even today still see the way I did then. I see it coming up to the vibrations of everything is coming up.

    It’s like a big tune coming up. It’s going daaaaa, and it’s going to get up to the highest point and then it’s going to break.

    And this paranoia had to be started to get the vibration going even stronger; and it’s just part of the plan.

    And I have no control over it.

    MR. PART: So, then, do you think that the things that you and Charlie and Sadie and the rest did are kind of preordained?

    MISS VAN HOUTEN: Uh-huh; and I think what happens here is probably going to be preordained, too.

  56. Michael says:

    Billy, you are right about her delusional thinking, verified in this recording. But most of us already agreed on that point. Still, the fact she believed in the rightness of her actions does not make her legally insane or any less culpable than the others. Listen to interviews with, and comments from, Susan and Patricia during that period. You’ll hear the same delusions you hear in Leslie’s recording, and the same insistence on the rightness of their mission. So to say Leslie should only have gotten a few years because of her warped thinking is to say Susan and Pat should have gotten the same, because they were no less deluded than she.

    But remember, during the Nuremberg Trials most of the defendants insisted on the rightness of the Holocaust and confidently said they, too, would do it again. Crazy? Sure, yet they also killed methodically and even intelligently, like rational monsters, all for the sake of ushering in their own “Third Reich” utopia. Listening to their statements, I hear the same evil we heard speaking through Manson’s followers. Both groups were “nuts” in the general sense but also very sane and functional in the legal sense.

  57. Jason says:

    Why was she even granted parole this soon? Wasn’t she just denied a year ago? Shouldn’t she have to wait 3-5 years? Ridiculous?

  58. Cybele Moon says:

    oh eek Billy and Paul,
    my point was that she did participate. The rest of us may never really know why or understand the psychology of it all!

    The Nazi hierarchy were all brainwashed too. Many of them didn’t want to personally murder the Jews and others but they were perfectly ok with being a part of the superior race and collective that did. Many of them never recanted their beliefs and went to their deaths saluting the fuhrer. They also followed a twisted ideology which is discussed and reviled and not totally understood to this day.

    In this case these murders where LVH helped hold a woman down while others stabbed her to death happened because it was all preordained? So in other words again, no culpability just a fulfillment of destiny.
    Her lack of being able to explain it or the brainwashing, or following a twisted ideology ( as per interview) are no excuses in my books. There were a lot of pot heads and LSD experimenters in those days and a lot of hallucinations, illusions, communal living and “gurus” etc. I just cannot believe that on some level she and the others did not know right from wrong.

    So degrees of participation I guess is what you and Paul are trying to present. Letting LVH out as opposed to Tex Watson is the lesser of two evils and that may be true coming from that point of view and having met the requirements of parole.

    However, we also know TW claims repentance and remorse too- and conducts a Christian ministry in jail, and PK did an interview “Life Without Manson” where she tells her story and is also remorseful and has tried to change her life. None of them can ever really explain why they did what they did. It’s a powerful tale and a sad and tragic one for all involved.

    By the way, I have a sense of things being preordained too. But I don’t think I personally want to murder anyone as part of my pre-destiny.

    In the end it will be interesting how it plays out with the governor and probably the courts if he denies it. I suppose like others here, I don’t feel that the time spent behind bars has been unjust.

  59. Fred Bloggs says:

    roacul orasoco says:
    sorry, do the crime do the time. escaped death sentence and got a gift of life. must be behind bars

    You should realize the folly of that statement.
    Yes, do the crime, do the time, we all agree with you, absolutely. And the “time” that you speak of is the sentence, right ? If it was death, that would be the “time” right ?
    Well, the “time” is life with the possibility of parole.
    She’s doing exactly what your statement says. She’s doing the “time.”
    So what’s your problem ? Or is the reality that actually, you don’t believe in the law if it doesn’t give you what you want ?

  60. Stephen Craig says:

    With all due respect, I do think that that the question posed to Cybele by Paul a few comments ago is akin to asking someone, “If you had to come down with some form of cancer, which one would it be?” Is the intent to somehow “rate” the killers on some sort of sliding scale? Like, Leslie may be a monster, but she’s not as bad a monster as Tex? And since Tex “rates” a “Ten”, at best, Leslie “rates” only a “five” (I’m sure Mrs. LaBianca will be relieved to hear that, all forty-one stab wounds and all). Even though I am loathe to do so, I would speculate that from the LaBianca’s perspectives, they were killed by all of them; for not one of those knife wielders in that house that horrible night did anything to stop the slaughter that was taking place. They all acted in a conspiracy to commit murder. And murder they did. And no amount of rationalization can change that.

  61. Paul says:

    Stephen Craig – the reason for me asking the question was to establish the distinction between Leslie and Tex Watson. As Cybele suggested it didn’t matter whatever the magnitude was of the individuals personal involvement in the crime, i’m stating that putting that into this scenario, it certainly does make a difference.

  62. Peter says:

    Most of those 41 stab wounds came from Tex. That’s why hes the 10.

  63. Michael says:

    All of them are equally guilty of murder; some of them did more actual stabbing or shooting than the others. If we go back to the Holocaust comparison, the guards who ushered the victims into the chambers, and the other guards who made them undress, and the others who actually dropped the pellets, were all guilty of murder. Only a few of them actually did the killing, but all were equally guilty.

    So when it gets down to who did more stabbing, I usually want to say “Who cares?”

  64. Stephen Craig says:

    Thank you, Michael. My sentiments exactly. I mean, from a victims perspective, I don’t think it would matter how many times each knife wielder “stabbed me”: The bottom line is “you stabbed me”. Those who attempt to deflect LVH’s role in these killings by literally counting stab wounds or arguing whether or not poor Mrs. LaBianca was dead or not when LVH stabbed her 16 times, really (IMO) need to (perhaps) rethink their strategies when trying to sanitize LVH and the human wreckage she and her cohorts created.

  65. Cybele Moon says:

    Thanks Michael for emphasizing that comparison. I agree.

    LVH had held Rosemary down while Krenwinkel tried to stab her in the neck. “We started stabbing and cutting up the lady,” Van Houten testified” When the knife bent they called for Tex. Mr. Labianca had begged Watson to stop stabbing him before he died. It’s hard to imagine the horror.

    Stephen for LVH supporters that degree or scale is an important issue but as you and Michael say “who cares.” The outcome was the same, two people lay dead, and 5 had died the night before in their murderous spree. Then they raided the fridge and showered before they left.

    After all having received the death penalty it became life with the chance of parole after 7 years!? That never made much sense to me considering the horrifying nature of the crime.

    Leslie Van Houten may have met the requirements of parole and may get out of prison, and she may be remorseful but make no mistake she is just as guilty.

  66. Paul says:

    Micheal – “All of them are equally guilty of murder” they are all guilty of murder but certainly not equally since Leslie is accountable for two murders whilst the rest are responsible for 7 or more murders.

    Stephen Craig – “Those who attempt to deflect LVH’s role in these killings by literally counting stab wounds or arguing whether or not poor Mrs. LaBianca was dead or not when LVH stabbed her 16 times, really (IMO) need to (perhaps) rethink their strategies when trying to sanitize LVH and the human wreckage she and her cohorts created.”

    I find this statement a bit strange because if Leslie had acted as extensively as Watson had in these murders, you and everyone else would have certainly used it against her. These little details do matter on either side of the argument when determining her role in this crime. This to me seems to be a double standards on your part, you can’t have it both ways. Her role in the crime and her mindset do matter whatever the crime is, its just a fact.

    Even Steven Kay said he thought Leslie should eventually be paroled, pretty much every hearing he attended he said she would be paroled one day.

  67. Paul says:

    Cybele “After all having received the death penalty it became life with the chance of parole after 7 years!? That never made much sense to me considering the horrifying nature of the crime.”

    Life in those days included the right to a parole hearing, everyone had it. But that doesn’t matter in Leslie’s case anyway given she’s serving a completely new sentence.

    “Then they raided the fridge and showered before they left” We are only pretty confident only Tex took a shower, Leslie has stated she never went near it, again this is the issue i take when you group everyone together using “they”, because they did not take a shower, only Tex did as far as we know.

  68. Cybele Moon says:

    Paul, you are such a nit picker lol. As though it makes it better.
    I guess the other two just waited and handed him a towel. Did they drink chocolate milk from the fridge or just write Healter Skelter in blood. You say…. “Leslie stated, Leslie stated.” I guess you can take her word for it. She was much more believable and didn’t murder as many!! Who can ever really know the full truth.

  69. Stephen Craig says:

    Paul:

    I respect your opinions, but in reading your responses to what I have written, do feel the need to clarify what I said (or perhaps we are simply on “different wavelengths” here). First and foremost, I do ( and I stress I am speaking solely for myself) put LVH in the same category as a TW, SA, or PK. Each and everyone of them participated in and was convicted of multiple counts of first degree murder. The difference between LVH and the others is that she was convicted of two counts while the others were convicted of seven. Perhaps to you, that makes her less villainous than the others, but not to me. Over the years I have read a lot about this particular crime, (and am old enough to remember when they occurred) and I personally feel no need to continue to determine her role in this crime. Not only do I have the testimony of her codefendants, but more importantly, I have her own account of the participation in these horrendous murders. Unlike others, I am unwilling to engage in the rationalizations of her supporters when lobbying for her release. What she has admitted herself about her own actions that night is enough anecdotal evidence for me to conclude exactly what LVH is: a destroyer. If others wish to count stab wounds, hypothesize when Mrs. LaBianca succumbed to her wounds, go right ahead. Again, it makes no difference to me; all of these defendants entered the LaBianca, and all of them helped slaughter them. For me, all of their hands are “dirty” and no one has hands that are “less dirty” than the others. In this case, all of their hands are “filthy”.

    IMO, I feel that LVH has been separated from the other defendants in certain realms of public opinion for a variety of reasons. One of the reasons I think is because of her seeming “reasonableness” over the years. She always seemed much more reflective to me than the others. She also could be very charming, a vibe I never felt whenever listening to PK or SA.
    She also, and I think this is really important, did not participate in the murder of a obviously pregnant woman. With all due respect to the others killed at the Polanski home, the slaughter of Tate left little room for any sympathy towards any one who participated in her/those murders. I think most folks wanted to see all of those bastards fry, despite any mitigating circumstances or opinions regarding the death penalty. And of course, she has indeed made the most of her time while incarcerated. But, once again, none of this changes what occurred in the early morning hours of Aug. 10, 1969. Dead is dead.

    Whatever LVH’s mindset were at the time of the commission of these crimes (IMO) truly has no relevance to me; what matters is what occurred in the residence and to the victims. Perhaps all of the defendants were high in drugs, perhaps they had been brainwashed, perhaps they all lost their individual identities and became part of a groupthink mentality, perhaps this, perhaps that. No matter where their “heads” were when the entered the LaBianca home, they killed; collectively they killed innocent people who are the true victims of this sad event, and the ones that have suffered the most. Not the defendants, their families, or society at large, but the “middle-aged couple” who were killed in the most horrific way possible and lost out on all the opportunities life has to offer. For me, this is the most important, and tragic, “fact” of this case.

    Now having gone on like some kind of mental patient, let me conclude that I do believe that there is a good chance that one day LVH will be paroled one day. As I’ve indicated, I do feel she has met the parameters of the conditions for parole at the time of her conviction. But parole will never undo all the damage and unimaginable sorrow she has caused. She can never undo what she did. She will always be a killer.

  70. Cybele Moon says:

    My thoughts exactly Stephen.

    I don’t deny that she may be paroled according to the law today. I don’t say she is not remorseful or has not tried to change her life and that there is not some credit in that.
    I don’t think Stephen Kay said she “should” be paroled but that she probably would be someday but I’m sure Paul will find something to correct me on this. I believe Bugliosi said the same thing. But again just because she didn’t kill as many as Tex or PK or SA (who eventually claimed she hadn’t stabbed Tate) doesn’t make her any more admirable. There will always be doubt as to what really happened -and who could ever totally trust anyone who was even long ago capable of such acts?

    I agree people can change but somehow Leslie’s supporters seem to try to make her into some long suffering heroine of injustice which I cannot, nor can I call her a sweet and gentle soul as some have here.

    Again, everyone is entitled to their opinions on this.

  71. Paul says:

    cybele – “Paul, you are such a nit picker lol” but its true nevertheless.

  72. Paul says:

    Stephen Craig;

    “I do ( and I stress I am speaking solely for myself) put LVH in the same category as a TW, SA, or PK.”

    What category is this? if you refer to the category of those who acted in a first degree murder crime then sure, but that’s the only category really I can see you fitting them into one.

    “Not only do I have the testimony of her co defendants, but more importantly, I have her own account of the participation in these horrendous murders.”

    Its the testimony that makes it clear that Leslie was very unenthusiastic about the killings even though she wanted to participate, just have to read Tex Watson’s account of the crime where he stated he made stab Mrs LaBianaca becuase she hadn’t done anything at that point. In Leslie’s account she kept busy removing fingerprints because she didn’t want to participate in what Krenwinkel or Tex was doing in the living room including the writings on the wall or the craving on Leno’s stomach, she clearly was not coping with the act of murder the way she hoped she would and that definitely makes a difference in her character compared to the other two, even to this day.

    The courts and the parole hearings will always bring the mindset and the specifics in the crime into account when they judge a defendant so it is always important whatever the crimes is to look at those.

  73. Paul says:

    “I don’t think Stephen Kay said she “should” be paroled but that she probably would be someday but I’m sure Paul will find something to correct me on this. I believe Bugliosi said the same thing.”

    If you look hearing transcripts in the 80s he does say she should be paroled at some point. As for Bugliosi, he usually stated that none of them should be paroled though admitted Leslie would likely be freed one day. Though he did seem to have a change of heart when Atkins was dying and asked for compassionate release.

    “somehow Leslie’s supporters seem to try to make her into some long suffering heroine of injustice which I cannot”

    The injustice is clearly there in terms of law because legally her case has been handled poorly for political reasons by the governor and the parole board in the past. The only reason you don’t care about this is because murder is involved but by law that’s not a ticket to manipulate the system.

  74. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Stephen Craig said:
    “The difference between LVH and the others is that she was convicted of two counts while the others were convicted of seven. Perhaps to you, that makes her less villainous than the others, but not to me. Over the years I have read a lot about this particular crime, (and am old enough to remember when they occurred) and I personally feel no need to continue to determine her role in this crime. Not only do I have the testimony of her codefendants, but more importantly, I have her own account of the participation in these horrendous murders. Unlike others, I am unwilling to engage in the rationalizations of her supporters when lobbying for her release. What she has admitted herself about her own actions that night is enough anecdotal evidence for me to conclude exactly what LVH is: a destroyer. If others wish to count stab wounds, hypothesize when Mrs. LaBianca succumbed to her wounds, go right ahead. Again, it makes no difference to me; all of these defendants entered the LaBianca, and all of them helped slaughter them. For me, all of their hands are “dirty” and no one has hands that are “less dirty” than the others. In this case, all of their hands are “filthy”.”

    Bravo. Freakin’ Braaaa-hahahaaaaav-O

    Brilliant.

  75. Fred Bloggs says:

    Billy Esquire says:

    “This was Van Houten’s fourth consecutive parole suitability recommendation.”

    Isn’t that sentence ridiculous? Kind of makes you wonder why they even have parole boards if their recommendations aren’t going to be followed

    On one level, I agree with you. It does seem bizarre that if the board says ‘no’ to parole, the Guv’nor doesn’t overturn their recommendation ! They agree with the recommendation, right ?
    Yet…….
    I believe in checks and balances. And however imperfect it may appear or however poorly it may sometimes be utilized, those checks and balances are crucial. We may not always like the decisions those with overall responsibility make {and I’m not so gullible as to suppose their motives & actions are always noble and pure} but it’s a far more dangerous situation to not have someone be able to countermand a decision a board makes.
    Look at the situation with Ed Kemper, someone I’ve mentioned before. He murdered his Grandma and Grandpa but after 6 or so years in jail, his release was recommended. And now, he’s inside having gone on to murder a further 8 people.
    Or look at Pedro Lopez. He was known to have murdered 53 girls but because the country he was in at the time had no death sentence, he was released after 16 years and confessed to over 300 murders. And was released again !
    Even over here in England, in the last couple of years we’ve had terrorist attacks in which it emerged that the perpetrator had been released early from prison where they were for terrorist offenses. These guys went on to commit murder on the streets.
    So on balance, it is far better to have a system like the one California has where at least the common citizen is free to debate the merits of any decisions because the Guv’nor has to openly say why they have made the decision they did.
    If that sounds like a contradiction of what I said earlier, it’s not. I happen to think that the reasons both Guv’nors have given regarding Leslie Van Houten’s reversals have been demonstrably untrue and therefore unsound. But I’m not arguing that they should not have the freedom to be able to make those decisions. Parole boards don’t always get it right.

    What was the main difference in Leslie’s wilder years and everybody else’s? One thing….Manson. With the help of repetitive LSD and other drugs, Leslie’s brain became fried, she was brainwashed to believe things that were not so by Manson, and she frequently couldn’t determine truth and reality. The perpetual drugs brought on legitimate psychosis, with obvious delusional beliefs, thanks to Manson’s endless preaching while she was under the influence of mind altering drugs

    This is such a paradox.
    Let me just start by saying that I don’t believe she ever would have committed murder had she not met up with and been involved with Charlie. I don’t think any of them would have.
    Yet at the same time, she was not forced to kill, she did so of her own free choice and volition. You earlier mentioned and linked to that infamous Marvin Part interview. Well, in that interview, she states that what motivated her more than anything else was Pat having killed. And she wanting to show that she too was strong in what she believed. Long before Manson told her to do so, she said she hoping that if there were more killings, that she could go.
    As for LSD, again, we have a paradoxical situation. Those that dismiss its place in her mindset simply are not recognizing the facts or the power of the drug. Those that emphasize its place in her actions are ignoring the myriad other factors that went in tandem with her. To say she killed because her brain was fried with acid is not accurate. Her responses at the actual moment of killing are very ordinary, like what most of us would go through. Fear. Reluctance. Second thoughts. On the other hand to say that acid played no part is daft, but it didn’t cause her to kill. It helped shaped the mindset of the person that went on to kill.
    Delusions are not unusual either in acid heads or in people with absolutely no trace of mental illness. As a Christian, some would say I have serious delusions regarding some things I believe. Many in the West would say communists are under delusions. Loads of people think Donald Trump lives under delusions. Wars have been fought and people massacred by those with delusions but those people were perfectly rational. Many males have delusions about females. It’s called sexism {!!}. So Leslie’s delusions at the time of the murders don’t excuse her. They don’t mean that she was incapacitated from thought.
    What’s interesting is that back in early 1970 she fought hard against any semblance of a notion that she was nuts or out of her mind. She sacked the interviewer of that tape, Marvin Part, because he thought she was gone clear and was trying to get the judge to hear the tape so he would agree. But 3 psychs listened to the tape and said she was sane. They agreed with Leslie. And even more interesting is that over the years, she’s not said she was mentally ill, unlike Susan Atkins.
    One last thing for now ~ John Lennon, at the height of the Beatles’ power and influence, when he was writing some of his greatest songs, in his heavy acid phase believed he was Jesus. He gathered the other Beatles and their entourage to give them the news. No one thought to have him committed, no one speaks of him as having been mentally deficient.
    The Manson case will always be a paradox. I personally find that when people try to come down on it from one specific side or the other, they really miss viewing what is running down the middle ~ and that includes many of the writers that have written great books on the subject.

  76. Cybele Moon says:

    Paul, according the recent book chaos the system was manipulated back then and for that matter is probably manipulated frequently.
    You appear to be an expert on every point of legality and every nuance of the story in Leslie’s case for whatever reason ( are you a barrister or lawyer by chance?) Your arguments are well thought out and articulated.
    You think Leslie didn’t get a fair deal in the system and often quote her version of events or Tex’s as though gospel. I say who can know for certain. Whether or not she was re tried after her first lawyer had died it still remains she was part of the murders.

    I do understand your position of sticking to the letter of the law as it stands. I do think she has a chance of getting out and that she has has an excellent lawyer fighting for this. However there is a kind of irony here in that it has not been easy for her to be paroled and so I suppose on a higher level I find that not unjust considering the lasting impact of those crimes, and on the victims and victim’s families. Fred says checks and balances are crucial even after parole recommendation. I agree. Many people ask “what is justice” really?
    And yes, I’ll own that as my own feelings about it which is what we are all spouting on this forum.

    You say ” The only reason “I” don’t care about this( her “unjust” treatment) is because murder is involved ”
    Absolutely! – very cruel and heinous murders that haunt people to this day.

  77. Michael says:

    From the final scene of Judgement at Nuremberg, when Herr Rolf, the attorney defending Nazi war criminals, addresses Judge Heywood, who has just sentenced them to life in prison. Rolf says he will wager that the men sentenced to life will someday be freed. In response, the Judge says:

    “Herr Rolf, I have admired your work in the courtroom for many months. You are particularly good in the use of logic. So what you suggest may very well happen. It is logical in view of the times in which we live. But to be logical is not to be right. And nothing on God’s earth could ever make it right.”

  78. Ray says:

    I am a strong proponent for the release of Leslie Van Houten…
    Once again she has been granted eligible for parole.
    This is the fourth time in a row. At the time, she was tried with Manson, Susan Atkins, who is now deceased, and Patricia Krenwinkel.
    Leslie’s attorney was found dead during the trial, and her sentence was overturned because she could not receive a fair trial.
    The original convictions for all was death in the gas chamber. Briefly, the death penalty was deemed unconstitutional and all sentences, amounting to about 600, were reduced to life in prison.
    Her next trial ended in a hung jury.
    Her third trial, she was found guilty and sentenced to 7 years to life.
    By the time of this conviction, she had already served more than 7 years and was technically eligible for parole.
    She had been denied parole 19 times before her first grant to be released.
    At that time, Gov. Jerry Brown overturned her parole, then he did it again.
    Now, new Gov. Gavin Newsom did the same last year, and I fear he is going to overturn this recommendation again.

    Let it be known that she was 19 years old at the time, and her part in the second night of the Tate – LaBianca killings was 16 post mortem stab wounds to Rosemary LaBianca’s lower back.
    That in no way excuses what she did, but according to the law, she has paid her debt to society.

    I didn’t always agree with the law. I lived in California when these killings happened. I was afraid at that time.
    I, like so many, wanted them in prison forever.
    I have gone to Spahn Ranch, where “The Family” stayed, though by that time it had burned down.
    I went up Cielo Dr and saw the Tate home before it was demolished.
    All of this madness was close to home.
    But over the years I started to see things in a different light. I read the transcripts of several of Leslie’s parole hearings. She had changed her life and got degrees while incarcerated.

    She is 70 years old now. Justice has been served.
    Talking points about her staying in jail at this point are nothing more than revenge.
    Dangling freedom in front of her face only to have it yanked away by the Governor is not justice, but revenge.
    That is not how our democracy and our rule of law works.
    If her name had not been attached to Manson, who thankfully is finally dead, she would have been released decades ago.

    Gov. Brown and Gov. Newsom are both progressive Democrats. I expected them to do the right thing. I expected more from them.
    They chose to cave to political pressure because of the Manson name, and that is unfair and unfortunate.

    When I had a change of heart a few years ago, I got in contact with Debra Tate, Sharon’s sister, and told her I could no longer support her position for reasons I’ve described.
    Leslie was not there the night before when Sharon was murdered. I sympathize with her pain.
    But it has been over 50 years.

    It is time to release Leslie Van Houten.
    I am drafting a letter to send to her giving my full support.
    Justice, not revenge. Let her go.

  79. Fred Bloggs says:

    Billy Esquire says:
    Put all this together and Leslie was obviously not in her right mind, and she couldn’t come into her right mind while Manson was relentlessly giving her drugs and making her truly believe he was some kind of god

    I don’t think it’s as easy as to say Manson made her truly believe he was some kind of God. One of Charlie’s most interesting statements came during his trial when he said

    “I may have implied on several occasions to several different people that I may have been Jesus Christ, but I haven’t decided yet what I am or who I am.”

    The writer Steve Turner, when talking about pop stars encountering acid, made the point that many, after their initial trips emerged with their egos mauled, not knowing quite if they’d seen God or were God. It’s not unusual for people under the influence of psychedelics to have some kind of Christ/God conflation or to think that someone with you is some kind of God/Christ/guru figure. The Beatles thought the Maharishi was some kind of conduit to the higher power. Pete Townshend and others thought the same of Baba Maher. These were drug influenced realizations and no one speaks of them as not being in their right minds at the time. Neither does anyone speak of them as having been forced down that road or made to come to those conclusions.
    It’s just not that simple.
    Manson himself believed he was Christ and the devil.

  80. Cybele Moon says:

    Hey Ray,
    fair enough but some thoughts on a couple of your comments.

    “she has paid her debt to society.”
    In the case of murder (actually this was more a butchery), how can a debt like that ever be repaid or justice ever truly served -whether or not she is released.

    “But it has been over 50 years.”
    Does that make the crime or the loss any less?

    I feel for all victims of that kind of crime whatever the outcome for the perpetrators.

  81. Michael says:

    Ray, if I was advocating for Leslie’s release, I sure wouldn’t be calling for justice. I have heard her say during one of her parole hearings that she was asking for mercy, not justice. Also, I heard Charles Watson say during a taped interview that if justice had been served, he would have been put to death. Susan Atkins also said, in her book, that she deserved her sentence, which was death.

    The commuting of their death sentences was mercy. The years they’ve been given to live and function, even in a limited way, are a mercy. And if she is paroled, which she may well be, that will be an extraordinary mercy.

  82. Fred Bloggs says:

    Billy Esquire says:
    When determining punishment for criminals, I think all the circumstances should be considered

    They are. That’s what the various phases in the trial are supposed to do. A good example is Steve Grogan, one of the murderers of Shorty Shea. His jury found him guilty and voted for the death penalty. The Judge, James Kolts, noted that Grogan was out of his head on drugs, not smart enough to have weighed up all of the nuances of what he was doing and recognized Charlie Manson as the lynchpin of the crime and associated crimes and reduced the penalty to life. He was paroled 15 years later and has kept his nose clean ever since. Leslie simply would not let any of those things be said about her even though Marvin Part, Ira Reiner and Maxwell Keith were bending over backwards to have these things recognized when they were her lawyer.
    I don’t even think it is unfair to say that Leslie ended up where Leslie ended up because of Leslie. It wasn’t even because of Manson. Before she was ever identified as even being part of any murders, a good 6 weeks after she could have taken any drug, while she was in jail, away from Manson’s influence, she was interviewed by LAPD detectives investigating the Cielo crimes. She indicated to them that members of the Family were involved in the ‘Tate’ case. And when Mike McGann interviewed her, he said on more than one occasion {check out the 26 + 28 November ’69 interviews} that they were prepared to give her immunity in exchange for what she knew even if she was personally involved in any of the murders.
    Although she later told Karlene Faith that she would have felt like Judas, I bet looking back she wished she’d risked feeling like Judas.

    In Leslie’s case, I think it should have been considered that she was under the influence of Manson’s brainwashing, mind-altering drugs and delusional psychosis when she committed her crime. And there’s no denying any of those things

    Unfortunately, there is. She herself denied them and did so cogently and articulately. And during her original trial, she went to great lengths to appear normal and rationally explain why she did what she did. The defence called a number of psychiatrists but ultimately, it was not shown that she was, for want of a better word, batshit crazy. And in hearing her speak and watching her actions, the jury were never of the mind that she was out of her mind. In fact, one of the things that’s most striking about the books of William Zamora and Herman Tubick {who were jury members between whom there was a lot of friction} and William McBride who is interviewed in the Tubick book, is that they all took Leslie for who she was and was trying to be during the trials ~ someone who was articulate and able to express herself perfectly well. There was never any question in their minds that they were having to adjudicate someone displaying any signs of mental illness and it’s not an argument that we know more now about such things than they did in 1970/71.
    Fact is, she had enough presence of mind to play a part in the tale that was concocted for the penalty phase in which she tried to ‘put the hat’ on Linda Kasabian. And the jury saw right through the lies. Lies that took intelligence and clear thinking to play a part in, even if the story was ridiculous in itself..

    It is fully explainable and understandable what happened to her

    That I agree with. But that’s perhaps why I arrive at a different conclusion to both yourself and those that are solidly against her. Many think that attempts to explain are attempts to excuse. They really are not.

    It wasn’t something she planned, but it happened

    There again, that could be said of so many murderers.

    but after getting away from Manson and the constant LSD, she eventually came back to the real world

    Here’s a thing. That was applicable to Leslie back in Nov/Dec ’69. No longer hitting the acid, no longer in the Family enclave, she began thinking about her crimes, crying when she thought of Rosemary’s kids finding her dead. She implicated Bobby, Sadie, Mary, Clem, Tex, Charlie, Pat, Linda and herself in murder and conspiracy to commit murder. And said that given the same set of circumstances, she’d do it all again.
    Here’s another thing; not only did Leslie, when she was away from Charlie and acid hugely implicate Manson, the same thing happened with Linda, Pat and Susan. They all, when they were away from Charlie, implicated him to others as the mastermind behind the murders.
    So they were all able to think quite clearly when they had to, even as far as some of them deciding to throw in their lot with Charlie again.

  83. Fred Bloggs says:

    Billy Esquire says:
    Leslie became a completely different person as soon as she came out of her delusional state and was back to being the Leslie she had always been

    Hmmm……..
    But when did that occur ? As the Mike McGann and Marvin Part interviews show, as early as late ’69 she was showing that she could jump between rational articulacy, sorrow and denial of responsibility as and when it suited her. She may still have believed in Helter Skelter but that wasn’t in and of itself any proof of her not being in her right mind. Paul Watkins believed in it. Interestingly, even after Manson told him that they would have to start the revolution, he never said that that stopped him believing it. But he is not presented as being out of his head. On the contrary, his detractors are of the opinion that he was highly wilful and knew what he was doing.
    As for the Leslie she had always been, one needs to be careful on this because not only is life a continuum, the pre~Family Leslie was all over the place. Let’s not pretend that the trajectory she was on from the age of 14 to 18 was a healthy one, a desirable one or one that any of us would genuinely be happy with for our own children to be fired along.
    She has done, except for a brief 6 month period back in late 70s, all of her growing up in prison. The real Leslie isn’t just one person fixed in time. The real Leslie is like the real you, me or anyone else, an amalgam of the various junctures of life and filtered through and into this very moment.

    while Manson was relentlessly giving her drugs

    Leslie was a more experienced acid tripper than Manson was. She had been tripping away for at least two years before Manson ever tripped. He knew more about life, but not about drug induced states. And they both had in common that they liked drug induced states.

    Michael says:
    But I have never accepted the fact that a change in character erases the severity of our actions

    Nor have I. And I would never argue that. Even if the action was something relatively minor in comparison, like, I don’t know, urinating on someone, no change in character can erase the severity of that. We have no way of knowing how an action of ours may have affected someone. I told a tale a while ago about a friend of mine that was held up at gunpoint in a bank they worked in and how they went to pieces mentally after that, ended up living like a down and out and eventually died. Everyone that knew her was of the opinion that facing a gun behind the till was her fork in the road moment.
    But the robber didn’t shoot her. He didn’t even touch her. He didn’t fire the gun. Many people wouldn’t even ascribe any responsibility to him for any downhill slide and demise. But his actions had cataclysmic consequences. He’s unlikely to even be aware of the damage his actions caused, let alone believe there was a connection if he was aware.
    So assessing LVH’s current character isn’t about erasing her actions or the severity of them. She knows that can’t be done. Even if the LaBiancas had lived it couldn’t be done. But I think, depending on the severity of one’s actions, a 46 year change of direction can count for much. Even if there was no parole involved, if one heard that LVH had worked hard to turn herself around, one would have to look beyond anger, hurt and vengeance. It wouldn’t change what happened ~ nothing can do that ~ but are the families and friends of the victims always going to be content with simply knowing that the perp is behind bars ? Even the death of the perp cannot bring satisfaction or closure any more than a character change of the perp can erase or even ease the severity of what’s been done.
    So where do we go from here ?
    Debra Tate at Charles Watson’s last parole hearing said “Mr. Watson, I would like to have meetings with you. I would like to come and visit with you without counsel. I would like you to make me understand. There are other people in this room that would like the same thing although you have never offered that. I’m extending that gauntlet to him and let’s see what kind of Christian he is and what kind of Christian his counsel is. I want to see. Let me see. Let me understand. I really would like to believe that it’s all okay but in my heart right now, sirs and ma’am, it is not okay.”
    I’m not so naive to think that she was so wonderfully understanding back in 2016 or now but both her and Suzan LaBerge {the daughter of Rosemary LaBianca, who forgave him} demonstrate that cases like these are simply not as cut and dried over time as many would like us to believe. Sure, Debra doesn’t want any of the Manson killers out but equally, she is not just leaving it there.

  84. Cybele Moon says:

    Fred
    “I’m not so naive to think that she was so wonderfully understanding back in 2016 or now but both her and Suzan LaBerge {the daughter of Rosemary LaBianca, who forgave him} demonstrate that cases like these are simply not as cut and dried over time as many would like us to believe. Sure, Debra doesn’t want any of the Manson killers out but equally, she is not just leaving it there”

    Debra Tate took up the mission and mantle of her mother, Doris Tate and other sister Patti Tate who are now deceased. She is often reviled and cruelly disparaged by LVH supporters as though she were the criminal. I think Suzan LaBerge wanted parole of Tex Watson as well as forgiving him which Doris Tate in no uncertain terms opposed. I think she (D. Tate) said something to the effect that religious conversion is no criterion for a get out of jail free card. She was quite the force I think.

  85. Fred Bloggs says:

    Billy Esquire says:
    People say she could have left anytime she wanted, but Manson made it very clear that he would bring his mighty wrath down upon anyone that went against his wishes, and they witnessed that wrath against various others in the family many times

    This is true but it is kind of mitigated by the fact that Leslie didn’t want to leave. She’d told her mum that she was dropping out and wouldn’t hear from her again. She’d left her family behind. And this was before she’d met Charlie. She had no reason to leave Manson. The Family had become her family. She loved Pat and the lifestyle. She wasn’t truly looking to leave.
    There’s also the fact that Paul Watkins, Brooks Poston, Juanita Wildebush, TJ Walleman, Karate Dave and Ella Jo Bailey all left just before the murders, Linda Kasabian left in the middle of the spree, the likes of Tex, Babs Hoyt and Bruce came and went and came and Babs Hoyt, Sherry Anne Cooper, Stephanie Schram and Kitty Lutesinger all left while out in the desert.

    NoJusticeNoPeace says:
    No one will convince me LVH’s remorse is for anyone but herself. She’s played the victim card to her parole advantage for years under the guise to further her self reflection and take responsibility of her murderous actions: victim of forced abortion, victim of drugs, victim of 60’s culture, victim of parents divorce, victim of Manson, victim of Hughes death……
    Exactly when did these epiphanies manifest?

    At the various times they did ! Sometimes, the best and the worst of us come to certain realizations only when we have to, kicking and screaming.

    I think you like to debate. I don’t. I’m too lazy

    I do like to debate but more than that, I’m interested in what many people genuinely think and why.

    Stephen Craig says:
    throughout the years, LVH has demonstrated in her efforts to achieve parole, that she is remorseful. And I am perfectly willing to take her at her word. But so what? What impact does it truly have?

    When someone is being put into a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” type situation, at that point you force some people to start questioning you, no matter how much pain you might be in. If LVH did a Charlie Manson and said “I have no remorse; I’ve got nothing to be remorseful about” would that honestly make those having to deal with the fallout feel any better just because the perp is in jail ? In this regard, however dodgy she might be in certain aspects, I do admire Debra Tate’s acknowledgement that some of the perps have been trying to be productive and law abiding in jail. It doesn’t mean she has to want them out. So when you ask “so what ?” the answer is that to someone, somewhere, it just may help ease some pain to know that at least they’re not dealing with someone that is openly flouting, mocking, deflecting and laughing at them. Again, it doesn’t mean you’d want them out. To put it another way, would it be preferable that no kind of remorse was forthcoming ?

    The fact that she is “sorry” for the slaughter she participated in and the horrendous ramifications of her crimes seems to be so important to some people

    Actually, it’s pretty important for a pretty large slice of the human race in general. In all kinds of situations. Some children that grow up without their Dad because he just upped and left and made no effort or with an alcoholic mum want them at some future stage to show some remorse. People accused wrongly or sacked wrongly from a job want to see one day see some remorse. There are millions of situations, ranging from minor to major where the remorse of a wrongdoer may be felt to be important.

    as if her acknowledging what she did was “wrong” displays an insight worthy of redemption

    Jeffrey Dahmer committed unspeakable crimes. So did Ted Bundy. Dahmer was always publicly remorseful, Bundy always arrogant and that’s partly why he’s seen in such a different light. It’s not about insights worthy of redemption. To put it in a most awkward way, are you saying that once a person has erred in the most heinous of ways, that it matters not at all if they are ever remorseful ?
    It’s worth bearing in mind that as human beings, we do operate on a sliding scale so while murder might be the worst thing that can happen to one set of people, for another set of people it might be police brutality or racism and for another set it might be an absent parent or a tribe in power that doesn’t care for your tribe and ensures your tribe is always at the bottom of the pile. Remorse doesn’t make everything all tickety-boo and alright but it certainly doesn’t make things worse.

    As if her confessing her remorse has washed her bloody hands clean, all is forgiven, go on your merry way, you’re now just like the rest of us, for you said you were “sorry”

    It’s a simple equation. A law says that one day you might be released from jail. When Manson was released in ’67, he went on what was called a mandatory release. He didn’t give a shit about the life of crime he’d led or the offence that landed him inside. He didn’t even want to leave prison.
    LVH on the other hand does and has recognized for 46 or so years that she ain’t going nowhere without some serious work on her being which involves it being made oh so clear precisely what her actions led to and how they have impacted and continued to impact people she didn’t even know. It wasn’t her decision to be rehabilitated initially, it was that of law enforcement. Certain people within the prison system took the gamble that they were not going to remain happy with people within their system remaining in the frame of mind the Family members were in and went to great pains to do something about this, almost as soon as their sentences of death were commuted.
    I can dig what you’re saying, particularly closer to the time. She’ll always be a murderer, I guess the way I’ll always be a thief even though the last time I stole something was 1982 when I was 19. Whatever we’ve done in the past doesn’t change but I don’t think of myself as a thief ! Society is under no compunction to forgive, our interest and the media that exists the way it does now ensures she will never be “just like the rest of us.” Her hands can’t be washed clean.
    But her remorse is important ~ if only to her. And you can’t blame her for that because many people won’t allow her remorse to be important to them.

  86. Billy Esquire says:

    Fred, wow, that is some obsessive thinking you’re doing there. I’m not sure why you feel such a compulsion to address what seems like EVERY SINGLE disagreement you have with others here, or why you obviously feel that the only one here that is 100% right on everything is you. I mean, to read your stuff, someone would literally have to set aside the better part of an afternoon to read and try to comprehend it all. And it’s like you can’t stop yourself from doing it. I can’t imagine that most people are willing to devote that much time, thought or energy to all your thoughts. I can appreciate NoJustice’s statement of being too lazy to debate you.😀 I mean I’m exhausted trying to read your stuff, and believe me, I tried!

    You seem like a nice enough chap and I have no ill will. Suffice it to say that I disagree with some of what you’ve said about my statements (many because you didn’t seem to follow what I was saying). But I haven’t the energy or inclination to address them. It’s just too much. Many of your statements remind me of that old Reagan quote where he said the trouble with the other party is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that “they know so much that isn’t so.” To address the things you’ve said would be too much like work, and I don’t want it to be like work when I come here. I just like to read and discuss.

    You seem quite confident of your thoughts and beliefs, but that’s what they are….just YOUR personal beliefs. They likely aren’t all true, factual or provable….no more than anyone else’s. We all have our own thoughts and beliefs about what happened, and we each have our personal feelings about all the cast of characters. They are our personal thoughts and I don’t feel the goal should be to prove what others say here is wrong.

    The odd thing is that after all your rambling, I’m never sure what you’re trying to say or what YOU think should be Leslie’s fate (or any of the others for that matter). Have you ever said? You seem intent on presenting both sides of the issues and being the devil’s advocate much of the time, but I’m never sure what YOU think, or what YOU think should be acceptable justice for these people. I’d like to know.

  87. Fred Bloggs says:

    Billy Esquire says:
    wow, that is some obsessive thinking you’re doing there

    Fascinating that thinking about something and being able to articulate it should be viewed as obsessive. Like I said somewhere else, the only thing I’m obsessive about is…..breathing.

    I’m not sure why you feel such a compulsion to address what seems like EVERY SINGLE disagreement you have with others here

    I still find it interesting that no one that ever says that or words to that effect does so when I happen to be in agreement with them. Equally, do you not consider your thoughts to be worthy of reflection and comment or do you just want to say ?
    I don’t feel a compulsion to address everything I disagree with. But you did raise some points, interesting points, that I wanted to address. I mean, that is why we’re here is it not, to discuss various aspects of the case ? Some I’ll agree with, some I won’t, some things may be your opinion but some of our opinions are factually wrong or comprised of information that is factually wrong. If you hold an opinion, are you saying that it is sacrosanct and carved in stone and that no one is allowed to point out that some things you’ve based that opinion on are incorrect ? If that’s what you desire, fair enough. But it won’t happen in a milieu where people have something to say about what you might say.
    I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, the way discussions work is that views and thoughts are shared, swapped and batted across to and fro. True, it’s harder online because we’re having to read and especially people we don’t know, but I think of these forums as a conversation place. And typically, conversations aren’t just you say a sentence, I say a sentence and that’s it.
    I’ll also often use someone’s quote as a jumping off point as they may have said something that has sparked my train of thought.

    you obviously feel that the only one here that is 100% right on everything is you

    I have views and opinions, same as you. Did you state what you did in your long post thinking “well, I’m wrong on this but I’m going to state it anyway” ? Of course not.
    In point of fact, there are lots of things pertaining to the case that I don’t or rarely comment about. But where I’ve taken the trouble to have done some research and feel that I can illuminate what someone else has said {either way} I will do. You don’t have to like it. I agree with some of what you’ve said and disagree with other parts. What’s the big deal ? If I’d just left it at “I don’t agree with some of that” would you not have any interest in knowing what I did or didn’t agree with ? Maybe you wouldn’t.

    to read your stuff, someone would literally have to set aside the better part of an afternoon to read and try to comprehend it all

    In these covid times, with people complaining of being a little stir-crazy and bored, the time is there if you want it. 😀
    Mind you, whatever I write here isn’t forced on anyone. You don’t have to read it. You can pass it by. I wouldn’t be surprised if some do and neither would I blame them.

    And it’s like you can’t stop yourself from doing it

    Ha ha, that’s a bit of a cheap shot that in times past would have gotten a person all squirrely. It doesn’t work with me, mate. This is a public page where people are free to share their views. You might have noticed that I don’t just bowl in, say “The bitch should be dead, let her rot in jail” or “Free her, she’s paid for her crime” and then just bowl out again until the next parole decision in a year. Which is not to say that there’s anything wrong with that style, it’s a style. Just not mine. I like to engage in conversation/debate.

    I can’t imagine that most people are willing to devote that much time, thought or energy to all your thoughts

    There’s probably many things you can’t imagine that just might surprise you if you did.

    I’m exhausted trying to read your stuff, and believe me, I tried!

    Well, I appreciate the effort.

    To address the things you’ve said would be too much like work, and I don’t want it to be like work when I come here. I just like to read and discuss

    That’s funny, I’m the same. I like to read and discuss. I do accept however, that some discussions can have difficult moments.

    You seem quite confident of your thoughts and beliefs, but that’s what they are….just YOUR personal beliefs

    Naturally. I don’t pretend otherwise. Neither do I apologize for that.

    They likely aren’t all true, factual or provable

    Possibly, but they are what they are and they are based on what the various characters in the saga {and there’s loads of them} have said at various time with much factual back up. For example, So many people say that all LVH did was stab a dead body. If one takes what LVH has said consistently over half a century about how many times she stabbed Rosemary, then I don’t really care what yours or anyone else’s opinion is because Rosemary’s autopsy factually scotches that statement. Now, you may choose to ignore that. I may choose to ignore that my hand is being burned if I pour petrol on it and set it alight. Doesn’t mean it isn’t being burned. By the same token, many people say LVH has always minimized her responsibility by saying she “only” stabbed a dead body. Well, again, given that in private to her lawyer, in her trial even when she was lying and trying to declare she was guilty of murder and subsequently, over half a century she has said she thought the body was dead and the clincher, she told her friend Dianne that and that’s what landed her with a death sentence and in her present predicament, well, I don’t really care what anyone’s opinion is on that matter; I’m satisfied she thought it in ’69. Doesn’t change anything about her standing.
    So, in some aspects there is wiggle room and plenty of it. In others there is none at all. If you’re not confident enough to hold that sort of opinion, I won’t fault you for it. I do myself in certain aspects. But not others. What can I say ? You seem to want to live in a world where everyone is right and our opinions are actually more important than whether or not the opinion can stand up to being challenged and examined.

    We all have our own thoughts and beliefs about what happened, and we each have our personal feelings about all the cast of characters. They are our personal thoughts and I don’t feel the goal should be to prove what others say here is wrong

    I agree. That’s not the goal at all but it sometimes is a by-product and an unavoidable one at that. I’ve been through the phase where I might say something that can’t stand up and have been pulled up by others. And I’m glad they did so. It makes a person much more careful about what they say.

  88. Fred Bloggs says:

    Billy Esquire says:
    The odd thing is that after all your rambling, I’m never sure what you’re trying to say or what YOU think should be Leslie’s fate (or any of the others for that matter). Have you ever said?

    Like with many things with me, I have a nuanced stance on this matter. On June 4th last year I stated:
    “if Leslie remains in jail till she dies, justice will have been served. It will also have been served if the system that incarcerated her has mercy and grants her parole. But it’s deviating from that if no reasons can be found to continue her incarceration but uses as its reasons for doing so, things that the record itself show to not be true” and 5 days later, stated:
    “I have never argued that Leslie should [as of right] be paroled, rather, that the reasons put forth to reverse the board’s decision are demonstrably untrue. And that if she is paroled, “deserve” has got nothing to do with it. Parole is a recognition from LE and granted by LE, not something the prisoner has some divine right to. That said though, it is something for the inmate to aim towards.”
    I haven’t left that position. The key for me has always been this; what has the inmate done to move away from the mindset that landed them in jail and committal of the offence in the first place ? How long have they been on that trajectory ? What have their behaviour, attitude and actions been like and over how long a period ? Have they genuinely showed signs that they have moved away from the opening mindset ? Do they act like parole is their right or do they recognize that it is something granted rather than earned ? Incidentally, if one feels that one has satisfied the requirements of a parole board {and it’s important to note that the guv’nor doesn’t set the criteria here, the parole boards do} and the guv’nor overturns their decision, it’s not necessarily showing an arrogant sense of entitlement to appeal against and fight the decision.
    Now, if the guv’nor has an opposing view to the people whose responsibility it is to determine if someone is suitable, their reasons have to be rock solid. I don’t see that Guv’nors Brown and Newsome’s have been. They’ve said things that the record shows are not true. Even some of LVH’s haters can see that and have admitted that they don’t care, whatever it takes to keep her inside. Obviously, it is a matter of interpretation as to whether the guv’nor has a leg to stand on but I don’t think they have and since 2018, I’ve pointed out ad nauseum why I think that.
    Also, here, {look at my January 10th 2019 entry, directly after Cybele Moon’s entry and in answer to Pam} I give my view on parole of the remaining incarcerated ex-Family members. There, I say “with Leslie, I’d be more inclined to vote in her favour although it is by no means a foregone conclusion that I would” and I stand by that. It is not a simple matter for me, I haven’t joined either side, either supporter or detractor ~ and it’s instructive that despite this, many of her detractors see me as a died in the wool supporter.

    You seem intent on presenting both sides of the issues

    Well………
    For starters, it’s ironic that you pitch me as someone that just has to always be right because my experience on Manson Family forums, there’s often been a huge percentage of people that speak as if they are right. Now, I don’t have a problem with that because that is human. But I do have a mighty problem with it if, in order to try and show one is right, one has to trot out information in support of the conclusion that is not right. And it happens much of the time. On all sides of the equation. All the killers did it. A number of people connected with the case did it. Some of the journalists and authors did/do it. But to an extent, they’re all understandable. But because of them, over a 51 year period, we have access to loads of information. Now, I’m not so naive as to presume that every argument is settled. There’s loads of stuff that we still don’t know and I think will never know. For example, we’ll never know exactly what happened inside Cielo. We can never know if any of the fatal blows to Rosemary were actually done by LVH. There’s so much we can’t really know. But by the same token, there’s lots we do know. Making statements in ignorance isn’t a crime; I’ve done it plenty of times ! But what do you do when you come up against it frequently ? There is so much misinformation regarding this case and all sides perpetrate it. And do so often in support of the points being made. So it’s only fair to say, “well, hang on a minute…..”
    Besides which, I recognize nuance and paradox in life. I find it to be more real than straight down the line, black and white scenarios. Not always but far more often than most I encounter would care to acknowledge.
    Till we meet again young sir………..

    You seem like a nice enough chap

    I wouldn’t go betting your life savings on that, Billy. 😀

  89. Billy Esquire says:

    There you go again, Fred. Lol….😜

    Fred Bloggs: “Fascinating that thinking about something and being able to articulate it should be viewed as obsessive.”

    Oh, so you disagree that you’re obsessive, Fred? No more than anyone else? Riiigt…😉

    Somehow, I think you understand all too well, Fred. Let me count the ways. The obsession/compulsion I’m referring to is when you repetitively quote others and then write 3,000 word compositions on what you quoted, and then doing that over and over and over again with everyone you feel the need to correct, as if it’s your job. Sometimes it gets so bad that you come back the next day to take up where you left off and write another 10,000 words. And if you haven’t been around in awhile, you even go back and quote people from several weeks ago just so you’ll get your opinion in to what they said. It’s as if you think the main reason people come around here is to read what you say. I know it surprises you, but that’s NOT the only reason people come here. It’s obvious you use this forum as your personal blog, hence “Fred Bloggs,” but try to control yourself.

    Billy Esquire: “You seem like a nice enough chap.”

    Fred Bloggs: “I wouldn’t go betting your life savings on that, Billy.”

    I knew that, Fred, but thought I’d be nice. I shouldn’t have said that. It’s all about Fred ladies and gentlemen! 😃

  90. NoJusticeNoPeace says:

    Some people are wordy. Some, like me get to the point without a dissertation. Bloviated I’m not. My point of view is simple. Let her rot. The end. Lazy, no and if I want to digest knowledge it’s not from opinion. I prefer facts. What I’m lazy about when it comes to Mr. Bloggs is it seems if he has a schtick, it is dazzle ’em with bullshit, per selected line to drown you in words. If a man’s measure is by key stroke Fred is the tallest on the forum.

    That said, Fred’s pretty cool. No worries when you tune out the verbiage and look for the gist.

  91. Cybele Moon says:

    Yes, NJNP, we all have an opinion and some like to analyze more than others. Obviously Fred got under Billy’s skin. I was called a troll once because I gave a negative opinion on a Youtube post.
    But if it’s out there then there should be free speech for all pro or con, or else disable comments. There is controversy here and if someone wants to flaunt their mastery of English or logic or debate so be it. It’s always an interesting forum.

    Now as for LVH, it won’t bother me at all if she remains in prison. However, I get the argument legally that supporters claim, but I also agree with Fred, about how if she does get out it is a mercy and not a right that is owed to her no matter how mitigated her participation was. They were a pack intent on murder. I still can’t imagine any more terrifying or horrific experience that their victims suffered unless you were attacked by sharks.

  92. Michael says:

    Hey, we’ve all got our own style here. We reserve the right to be as lengthy or as brief as we want in our posts, and we likewise reserve the right to read, ignore, comment on, dispute, agree with, or just laugh at what someone else has posted. It’s a level playing field here and I hope we keep it that way.

  93. Billy Esquire says:

    Thanks, NoJustice, I’ll try to look at it like you said. Generally, I would have never mentioned Fred’s verbosity because that really wasn’t what bothered me. I just became overly incensed a few days ago because it seems that Fred’s main reason for being here isn’t to simply state his opinions on everything (and all the cast of characters), like everyone else does. His main purpose seems to be coming around and critiquing what others say and correcting everyone publicly when he perceives they don’t have it right. It’s like a drive-by bashing, and no one is spared! After everyone receives their needed flogging, he disappears again. I just found it especially tiresome that particular day. Sorry, Fred….sorry, everyone.

    But I’ve said all I wanted to say on the subject and I’ll say no more.

  94. Christy says:

    About 10 -15 years or so ago some guy was sentenced to 52 years for driving his car into another one and killing three people and seriously injuring a fourth. He didn’t mean to kill anyone he was drunk driving. Yet Leslie here should be forgiven for participating in a murder.

  95. Fred Bloggs says:

    Billy Esquire says:
    it seems that Fred’s main reason for being here isn’t to simply state his opinions on everything (and all the cast of characters), like everyone else does. His main purpose seems to be coming around and critiquing what others say

    That statement sums you up as nothing else you’ve said could, Bill. I like to engage with others, respond to what they say, agree or disagree and respect their view and their right to a view. I show the extent to which I value peoples’ opinions and am sparked off by things they’ve said by quoting them so at least whoever may want to read what I say knows what I’m responding to. I’m not the only person that does that here.
    You on the other hand just want to talk to yourself and spout your opinion, regardless of what anyone else may think. For all the difference you make in a public forum, you might as well just keep your thoughts to yourself. You’re in effect saying what you think is irrelevant. Which is ironic because actually, I think you brought up lots of great talking points.

    After everyone receives their needed flogging, he disappears again
    Like many people that contribute to blogs, I do have a life. Not everybody sits by their computer or phone waiting for blog action !

    Oh, Billy !

  96. Fred Bloggs says:

    NoJusticeNoPeace says:
    if I want to digest knowledge it’s not from opinion. I prefer facts

    Crazy, huh ? I learned a long time ago that opinions might be interesting, facts might not be quite so interesting but opinions formed with facts in mind may not solve much but make the best conversations !

    dazzle ’em with bullshit, per selected line to drown you in words

    Why, thank you sir. I think. 😜

    No worries when you tune out the verbiage and look for the gist

    I agree. A mate of mine used to say {no offence to non meat eaters} “chew the meat and spit out the bones.”
    Words to live by.

  97. Fred Bloggs says:

    Michael says:
    we likewise reserve the right to….ignore…..what someone else has posted

    I totally agree. I think of it like a song on an album one doesn’t like. It doesn’t matter what the artist had in mind, how much they fought for the song, how deep it is, how long it took to record and all the rest. If you don’t like it, don’t listen to it !

  98. Fred Bloggs says:

    Christy says:
    About 10 -15 years or so ago some guy was sentenced to 52 years for driving his car into another one and killing three people and seriously injuring a fourth. He didn’t mean to kill anyone he was drunk driving

    Do you think that was a fair sentence ?

  99. Fred Bloggs says:

    Billy Esquire says:
    it seems that Fred’s main reason for being here isn’t to simply state his opinions on everything (and all the cast of characters), like everyone else does. His main purpose seems to be coming around and critiquing what others say and correcting everyone publicly when he perceives they don’t have it right

    Things are not always as they seem.

  100. Fred Bloggs says:

    Cybele Moon says:
    But if it’s out there then there should be free speech for all pro or con, or else disable comments
    That’s what I’ve always thought when it comes to public forums.

  101. Fred Bloggs says:

    Cybele Moon says:
    we all have an opinion and some like to analyze more than others

    If I tried that in Russia, China, Zimbabwe or North Korea I’d get more than Billy moaning online. So I guess I should be grateful that I don’t have the state security forces kicking down my door because I happen to like conversation at times.

  102. Fred Bloggs says:

    Billy Esquire says:
    Billy Esquire says:
    There you go again, Fred

    You made a point that you couldn’t work out what I thought of LVH’s parole and asked me if I’d ever said. I should have known that you didn’t want a response because you’re into talking to yourself.
    Silly me. 🔥

  103. Fred Bloggs says:

    Billy Esquire says:
    After everyone receives their needed flogging, he disappears again

    I know you said this to NJNP but don’t tell anyone………….but this could kind of imply that you have been noting my absence and awaiting my reply. ⭐️✨ Otherwise how would you know and why would it matter ?

    It’s all about Fred ladies and gentlemen!

    Naughty of me, but I’ve just been playing with you for the last 7 posts. In a sort of obsessive, superior, 🧐 verbose, flagellating, drive~by kind of way.
    Short sentences too ! 🤮

  104. Christy says:

    Fred, the guy had a previous dui. He’d been involved in a one car accident, he was the only one in the car. The conditions for him was a suspended license, attending alcohol intervention classes and community service. One other thing. It sounds like he either avoided jail time or cut it down by signing a document that said he understood if he ever caused a fatal accident by driving drunk he knew he could be prosecuted for 2nd degree murder.

    By the time he killed the three people he was driving on a suspended license. Wasn’t supposed to be drinking yet spent the afternoon and early evening at two bars. How he managed to drive as far as he did amazes me (I’m familiar with the area). He also tried to leave the scene.

    It’s weird because he was with his cousin and I think was his cousin’s car. They weren’t heading home either. He completely disregarded previous warnings. Thing is even though he’s not supposed to be drinking he could have at home or his cousin’s house and nobody would know. Yet, instead, headed to a bar. I think it’s this disregard for the law that drew this sentence. That and it looks like he’d do this again since he either can’t or refuses to stop.

  105. Cybele Moon says:

    Ok ok lol!! Lively stuff at any rate!! I do try not to take things said against my opinions too seriously. e.g. I had a very civilized exchange with Mr. Pfeiffer before. I didn’t agree with everything he said but I respected his conclusions and stance from a lawyer’s position.

    Now for something else. Rich Pfeiffer appeared in a program I just happened to watch last night about two murders that have remained unsolved and that occurred around the same time as the Tate LaBianca murders. It was a segment of “People Magazine’s Investigative Reports”.

    Two young women were found brutally stabbed to death during the year 1969 and in the same vicinity as Tate/LaBianca , one earlier in the year and one later on. They were also quite horrific. Some investigators believe it could very easily have been someone in the Manson family and have pursued that. There was some emphasis put on “The Tex Tapes” once again which is also covered in the book “Chaos.” Mr. Pfeiffer speaks about them on camera and has tried many times to get them released. Even the investigative reporters wonder why they haven’t by now been made “public knowledge” and are being kept secret. Of course the old conspiracy theories then raise their heads – but it does make you wonder!!

  106. Pam says:

    I find it fascinating the people who support these killers. What a waste of energy. All the support should be for the victims. I think of the pain and suffering of Doris Tate, this crime destroyed her family. These killers receive free housing, food, education and medical care. What did they give their victims? There should NEVER be parole for these types of crimes!

  107. Cybele Moon says:

    Christy there are so many stories like that. Apparently the woman (Audrey Kishline) who started Moderation Management ( for those who don’t want to completely quit drinking) also ended up killing two people. Such a tragedy!!

    Pam I hope you don’t mean me! I have no problem with them all remaining in jail til they die. I also think it’s possible LVH may get parole no matter how I feel. But I do think we all deserve a forum to speak without insults ( if possible lol).

  108. Billy Esquire says:

    Sitting here thinking about California letting tens of thousands of jailbirds out of prison due to the virus, and wondering what ridiculous reason Newsom is going to make up THIS time for not letting Leslie be one of them….despite her age and risk for Covid.

    Should we all put our best guesses in for how he’s going to overturn her 4th parole?

    My guess is that he’s probably just going to stay with the tried and true excuse of the 71 year old lady still being much too dangerous to be let out! 🤔 😏

  109. Cybele Moon says:

    Billy, they didn’t let Susan Atkins go either and she would not have been a danger at the end. I doubt if Watson, Beausoleil, Davis or Krenwinkel will be released either. Unfortunately or not unfortunately, the memory of the horrifying butchery of the crimes themselves has played a part in so many not wanting any of them released- ever. This has always been a very unusual – and savage murder case and story. I don’t know if I could ever trust anyone’s thinking process who had been involved in something like that. But we shall see what happens.

  110. Billy Esquire says:

    Cybele, Susan Atkins was never recommended for parole like Leslie…not even one time, much less 4 times. Prior to her death, Atkins also hadn’t been in prison anywhere near as long as Leslie has been. Atkins died at age 61, Leslie is nearly 71.

    I try to look at it only logically, not with “feelings” involved. Is Leslie eligible for parole? Yes, she is. Has she met the conditions and qualified for parole? Yes, 4 times now, according to the parole board. Therefore, she should be set free. And she would be if the governor was being fair and honest, but he is obviously not….and everyone knows it.

    Leslie’s future is black and white; it’s completely logical. What’s not logical, and is instead wholly unfair, is when politicians continually REFUSE to set a prisoner free after they have clearly qualified for parole. Politicians should not be allowed to hold a human being purely for political reasons, yet, everyone knows full well that’s exactly why Leslie is being held. It’s inhumane and it’s cruel punishment. She has met all conditions for parole many times over. Politicians should not be allowed to hold her without legitimate reason(s), and if they do, they should be swept from office because they are corrupt. That is supposed to be the world we live in. Doing the right thing is supposed to matter because it’s important.

    There are many here that believe Leslie and all the rest should rot in jail. That is their opinion and prerogative and that’s fine. But it’s goes directly against her sentence and the whole parole system. You can’t just make the rules harder for her because of how sensational the case was.

    IMO, the only reason Leslie is STILL being held is not because of what SHE did, but because of what Manson did…..and the rest, especially Watson. That’s not fair.

  111. Fred Bloggs says:

    Christy says:
    I think it’s this disregard for the law that drew this sentence. That and it looks like he’d do this again since he either can’t or refuses to stop

    I think you’re right. While I do think 52 years was overly harsh, I certainly think he should have gone away for a seriously long time. I started school 52 years ago !

    Pam says:
    the people who support these killers. What a waste of energy

    They obviously don’t think so.
    And is it a waste of energy to stand by someone that has erred ? To be of the persuasion that some people can respond to a second chance ? Is that uncivilized ? I don’t know if you believe in God or not but if you do, then you obviously can’t think much of God because having support for those that go wrong is God’s way. And that, in no way, means that the families and loved ones of victims must ∴ be unsupported or are unsupported.

    These killers receive free housing

    Such as it is. A tiny cell that one has to shit in as well as eat in and an environment where one is constantly looking over one’s shoulder. I spent one afternoon in a police cell. That was enough for me. They can keep their free housing !

    food

    I know I shouldn’t laugh, but I had to the other day when I was watching a video that an ex-con made in which he was talking about being in a jail in Atlanta in 1998/99 and the meat that they were given to eat not only couldn’t be identified, it was apparently “Gulf war issue” and had an expiry date of 1992 stamped on the boxes !

    education

    Even if someone is in prison on a LWOP sentence, do you not think that it could be better and in some way productive for society to have people receive an education of sorts in prison ? Can you not think of any benefits to this ?

    medical care

    The real underbelly of being against the medical care of prisoners must be a mindset that in effect says that anyone that errs, even in murder, may as well be thrown away. Yet though many of us may instinctively feel this I bet it would be different if it was our spouse, sibling or best friend.

  112. Fred Bloggs says:

    Billy Esquire says:
    Should we all put our best guesses in for how he’s going to overturn her 4th parole?

    I remember on another blog back in 2016 asking a similar question with Jerry Brown. It was about that time that it began to dawn on me that minds from the Guv’nor’s office were made up beforehand and after that, it became a ‘watch and see’ to see if one was right.

  113. Fred Bloggs says:

    Billy Esquire says:
    Cybele, Susan Atkins was never recommended for parole like Leslie…not even one time

    Huh ? When I use facts and a little correction to add weight 💣 to a point I’m making, I’m…………..

    kidding with you mate ! 😏

    Politicians should not be allowed to hold her without legitimate reason(s)

    In all honesty, I’ve had to think long and hard whether or not to reply but I’m going to 🔮 because it’s a truly important point raised and I’m genuinely curious what you think, particularly as you are of the opinion that Leslie should be freed.
    Firstly, do you believe it is possible for the parole boards {yes, even 4 of them} to have gotten this wrong ?
    Secondly, whose legitimacy is the important or overriding one here ? In other words, when you say “without legitimate reason(s)” are you accepting that the Guv’nor could have legitimate reasons that may differ from what you believe to be legitimate ?
    Is there anything that the Guv’nor could say that you might take as legitimate even though you disagree with it ? Could there possibly, in your mind, be a legitimate outcome for you in this case that totally differs from the outcome you think would be just ?
    Billy, I’m not just trying to throw in a funky drum pattern here, nor am I critiquing or criticizing your stance or saying you’re wrong about anything. You’ve been spared the drive~by ! 🚙 But I am curious. Contributors like Cybele, Michael and Stephen take the approach that they don’t want to see Leslie paroled and think she should remain in jail but they do also accept from a range of things such as having met the parameters of the parole conditions, sympathy, her not being a current danger {with some variables on Cybele’s part} and a likelihood she’ll be paroled one day, that most that are against her parole won’t even entertain.
    What say you ?

  114. Christy says:

    Cybele, I remember the the story but couldn’t remember the name. Thanks 😊

  115. Michael says:

    Billy, as always, we get down to the difference between moral and legal. I agree with many of your points about Leslie’s legal qualifications for parole, and am still morally opposed to her parole. This is similar to the way I feel about a number of things I know to be legal, but also believe to be immoral, and I know the law cannot be determined or enforced only by my sense of what’s moral.

    But your one point – “IMO, the only reason Leslie is STILL being held is not because of what She did, but because of what Manson did…..and the rest, especially Watson” – really stuck in my craw.

    No, no. Leslie is still being held, and a large part of the public wishes her to still be held, because of what SHE did. SHE willingly joined the killing party. SHE held Mrs. LaBianca down. SHE stabbed Mrs. LaBianca numerous times. SHE assisted in wiping the residence down for fingerprints. SHE laughed, sang, and skipped down the halls in mockery of the horror she was part of, SHE said, when asked on the stand about remorse, “Sorry is a five letter word. Why should I be sorry? It happened.”

    These are the words and actions of Leslie Van Houten, not Tex, Susan, Patricia, or Manson.

  116. Christy says:

    Yes, Fred the guv’nor, and why am I seeing PG Wodehouse whenever you use this term I don’t know. But he may see things that don’t fly,

    You asked me about a drunk driver conviction that I posted the other day. I’m not sure. The drunk driver didn’t mean it even though he drove at high speed through a red light. Or maybe he did? Like Leslie?

  117. Cybele Moon says:

    Billie, I get what you are saying – but- Manson- or I should say the ” Manson family” was part of a collective. On his own Manson was just another grubby, ex con, pseudo guru who I will admit did manage to con his followers. However his followers liked his con and chose to follow. They stole, did drugs, had orgies and practiced their creepy crawly missions before the events. The murders were part of a collective mission and without all of them would not have happened. LVH was part of that.

    Fred just a small point- as for housing; many inmates in the women’s prisons have more than a tiny cell with a toilet. In Atkins case all the units lead out into a large park like green space “like girls dorms” according to a journalist who visited her and the others before Atkins became ill.

    Like Fred eloquently said, I’m among those like Michael etc who are “morally” against her parole but accept that according to law she may be released for the reasons put forth. The legal system doesn’t always equate with justice.

Leave a Reply

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