Monday, December 22, 2008







In the matter of the Life Term Parole Consideration Hearing of:
CDC Number: B-28302

DECEMBER 22, 2008
1:05 P.M.

ARTHUR ANDERSON, Presiding Commissioner
TERRI TURNER, Deputy Commissioner

WILLIAM PRAHL, Attorney for Inmate
PATRICK SEQUEIRA, Deputy District Attorney


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. We're going to get started. The time is now 1:05. Today's date is 12/22/2008. We're located at SACCO, Department of Corrections. This is a Subsequent Parole Consideration Hearing for Robert Beausoleil. How do you pronounce that last name?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Beausoleil. I could barely hear you, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. You said that last time. I'll speak into the microphone a little bit louder. Can you hear me now?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It's a little bit better. Yeah, I've boosted the volume as far as it will go here.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. If you have any problems at all, let us know and we'll adjust the volume as best we can. Okay. Okay. The inmate was received into CDCR on 6/23/1970. Offense was Murder in the First Degree, 187 of the Penal Code, Case Number A057452, from the County of Los Angeles. Inmate received a term of seven years to life. This hearing is being recorded, and for the purpose of voice identification each of us will be required to state our first and last name. And when it comes to the inmate's turn, after you spell your last name, give us your CDC number. We'll start with myself and we're going to go to the right. My name is Arthur Anderson, A-N-D-E-R-S-O-N, Commissioner.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Terri Turner, T-U-R-N-E-R, Deputy Commissioner, Board of Parole Hearings.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: William Prahl, P-R-A-H-L, counsel for Mr. Beausoleil.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Patrick Sequeira, S-E-Q-U-E-I-R-A, deputy district attorney, County of Los Angeles.


MS. SEGURA: Natalia Segura, S-E-G-U-R-A, CDCR employee.


MS. BERRIOS: Francis Berrios, B-E-R-R-I-O-S, case records technician for Board of Parole Hearings.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you. Mr. Beausoleil, it's your turn.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Robert Beausoleil, B-E-A-U-S-O-L-E-I-L, B28302.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. Mr. Beausoleil, we're going to go over some ADA issues, Americans With Disabilities Act. I have your form in front of me, the 1073 Form that you signed on July 28, 2008 indicating that you do not have any disabilities from your file review and you do not need any help for the parole hearing. Is that still true?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's still true. I just hope that I can hear everyone throughout the hearing. This is -- I had serious problems last time, and it kind of wrecked the hearing in a way.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. If you don't hear us, let us know and we'll --


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: -- and we'll go from there. I'm going to ask you a series of questions that I need you to answer those yes or no. Can you see?








PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Do you have a learning disability?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, I have a little bit of dyslexia, but I think I've overcome most of that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. And are you -- have you ever been part of the mental health system -- system?




PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Any part -- Any mental health problems?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. And you suffer -- Do you suffer from any disability that would prevent you from participating in this hearing today?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. Okay. Mr. Beausoleil, we have had the opportunity to review your Central File and your prior transcripts, and you will be given an opportunity to correct or clarify the record as we proceed. Nothing that happens here today will change the findings of the court. This Panel is not here to retry your case. We're here for the sole purpose of determining your suitability for parole. Do you understand that, sir?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. Mr. Prahl, did you review with your client today his rights and the rights of -- for this hearing today, the procedures that we're going to be using?

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Yes, I did. I went over his ADA rights, also went over his rights to the hearing, and we're satisfied that they've been complied with.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. In addition, I would just want to acknowledge that I have a waiver form that was signed by Mr. Beausoleil where he has elected to waive being physically present for this hearing, and he signed that on 11/13/2008. That's why we're doing this telephonically. Furthermore, Mr. Beausoleil, did you have an opportunity to discuss with your attorney your rights today and the procedures that we're using today?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Also, were you given a copy of the lifer hearing rights by a correctional counselor?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: And do you have any questions regarding your rights, that is the procedures of how we're going to conduct this hearing?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: You have any question regarding your rights?


ATTORNEY PRAHL: Commissioner, if I might interrupt just very briefly. I promise to be brief.


ATTORNEY PRAHL: We filed a brief two page document. Hopefully the district attorney got a copy of it. It's a -- our objections to the implementation of Prop 9. It's my understanding that based on the directive put out by Mr. Hashino (phonetic) that the Prop 9, or at least some parts of it, are going to be implemented for this hearing. If -- And I'll indicate for the record the Commissioner is nodding his head in agreement with that fact. And we would like to register the objections that are set forth in my two page brief with regard to the implementation of Prop 9 for this, or at least the extended hearing denial periods. So, with that on the record I just want to -- those are in terms of his rights to the hearing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Yes, sir. I read your brief, and the -- this Board has implemented Prop 9. The only part of the Prop 9 provisions that we did not implement applied to revocation hearings and not the lifer hearings. Therefore, Mr. Beausoleil will be under the provisions of the current Proposition 9 vision, as all lifer inmates at this time in the State of California, and as of last week when we began applying the provisions based on the certification of the election by the Secretary of State. Are there any other objections, sir?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Has your client's rights been met?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. Deputy Commissioner, are there any confidential items in the file for this hearing today?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: There is none we'll be using.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. I want to pass the hearing checklist to defense counsel and the district attorney for their review. I'm going to pass this -- Mr. Sequeira, would you review that, please? Thank you.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I have received the documents. Thank you.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Do you want me to initial it or --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Yes, sir. Just anywhere. I'm going to mark that document, the hearing checklist, Exhibit Number One.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: There are additional items that we had submitted, Commissioner.


ATTORNEY PRAHL: Do you want to go over them at this point or wait until we get into the hearing?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: We'll wait until we get into the hearing. I believe just we have them, and as the part of the hearing comes up where we're going to use those documents, then we'll just use them.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Great. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: You just tell us what you want us to use. Any other documents to be submitted, sir?

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Hopefully you have the Oregon -- I'll show the Commissioners.


ATTORNEY PRAHL: Yeah, that's the latest one that I submitted.


ATTORNEY PRAHL: So, with that, I think we can go over the package as the hearing progresses.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. Mr. Prahl, will your client be speaking to the Panel today, sir?


ATTORNEY PRAHL: Yes, he will. And I'd like to take this opportunity to try to expedite the -- at least this portion of the proceedings. I believe at the last hearing also a written statement of facts was submitted by Ms. Hagin, H-A-G-I-N, Carolyn, C-A-R-O-L-Y-N --


ATTORNEY PRAHL: -- Hagin, the attorney for Mr. Beausoleil at the 2000 --


ATTORNEY PRAHL: -- '03 hearing.


ATTORNEY PRAHL: And she prepared a fairly extensive written record of Mr. -- what she considered to be an accurate statement of the facts, and clearly prepared on behalf of Mr. Beausoleil. And we were -- we're prepared to stipulate those facts and the facts as the Board has reiterated them from previous hearings, I believe from probation report. But, you know, to shorten it up, I know the Commissioner will probably want to read those into the record, but we're prepared to stipulate those facts. But Mr. Beausoleil is prepared to answer any and all questions that the Board has with respect to this crime that was committed in the 1970s.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. Mr. Beausoleil, I need you to raise your right hand. I'm going to swear you in.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Excuse me. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you give at this hearing will be the truth and nothing but the truth?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Excuse me. I want to incorporate by reference, thank you, the facts of the commitment offense as found in the Appellate Court Decision, pages 2 through 4. I will incorporate by reference the facts found in the prior decision, that decision of the Board of Parole Hearings. The decision was dated 12/7/2005. I'll incorporate by reference the inmate's version of the commitment offense as found in a 2/23/2000 Board report, pages 1 and 2. I'll incorporate by reference the prior criminal history that we reviewed in the CI&I rap sheet. I will use that for references and discussion purposes during this hearing. Mr. Beausoleil, can you hear me okay?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Why don't you summarize for me why you're in prison.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: How far back do you want me to go?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I want you to start with the life crime. And I don't want a line by line version. I just want you to give me a summary of why we're here today doing your suitability hearing and what led you to be incarcerated for murder in the first degree.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I killed a man by the name of Gary Hinman by stabbing him twice. That's the bare bones facts of it. I didn't have a very good reason. In fact, the reason that I had that seemed so important at the time was petty. It's selfish.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Now, at the time that you stabbed the victim, were you a member of a, I'll use the word gang.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: A member of a gang?



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Were you a member of a group of people that hung out together that committed crimes?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, you're talking about the Manson association, the Manson Family?


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I had never considered myself a member. I -- I realize that people will interpret that however they do, and some people are going to see me as being inextricably related to those people or involved with them to the extent that I might have been a member. To my own way of thinking, and, believe me, I don't want to get hung up in semantics here, to my own way of thinking I was not a member of the group. I thought a member of the group was someone who had joined the commune and lived there. So, that's the definition that I use. Other people may have different definitions.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Well, what do you call yourself?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I did not live with the group as a member of the commune. I lived in a separate residence. In fact, the man -- the man that I killed was also associated with the group, about roughly to the extent that I was, and lived apart from the group.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: So, what were you? Were you an associate of the group or were you --

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I would say that that's a fair assessment. I did associate with the group. I considered them friends. I was involved with Manson for during recordings of his music with Dennis Wilson of the Beach Boys and a couple of other people who were involved in the music industry. And that is where I first became acquainted with him, in that context. As I said, I did consider him a friend at the time, although I didn't really -- I didn't see where things were headed. That took me by surprise, but, yeah, I did consider him a friend. So, I would say associate is a fair description.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Did you decide to kill the victim on your own?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: And why did you decide to kill the victim on your own? What was the reason, the motivation?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Because I felt that I needed to prove myself.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: To the people who I looked up to at that time, Manson being one of them, but also to the groups of bikers that were hanging out at Spahn Ranch and to older men in general. I had issues about -- I had inadequacy problems in that respect. I was -- You know, can I go back a little bit in my history?


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. I was not close with my father. I loved him. I idolized him. He was a good man, a hard working man. He raised five kids, bought a house on the GI bill. I got my work ethic from him, but I didn't get much else from him. And I really desperately wanted some sort of, I don't know if recognition but just some acknowledgement and some way to realize when I had passed from boyhood into manhood. And I didn't get that from him and I began looking outside of that relationship. I began venturing outside of the home. I left home when I was literally in search of those kinds of relationships, in search of some sort of reinforcement. And I was looking in all the wrong places. I was looking to older men, and I got myself in some binds along the way. When I was 14 I was raped. I was hitchhiking and got stranded in East LA, and got raped. And all of these kinds of things sort of added to this -- to these insecurities I had about being a man. And I couldn't grow a beard. I was 21 years old. I looked like I was 18 years old. I couldn't grow a beard. And, you know, when I was growing up I was looking to older boys. I tried to hang out with older boys, and, you know, I was the kid that would -- would do things on a dare trying to -- you know, trying to prove himself. And so I kind of carried that into my early adulthood, and in a situation that got out of control beyond what anybody, especially me, anticipated. Manson had come into a situation that I had gotten myself into with Gary. He came in and slashed Gary across the face for no reason. The reason that he thought he had was non-existent. I mean, he was -- he came in under false interpretations and slashed Gary across the face. And I asked him why he did that, and his response was, to show you how to be a man. And that hit me where I lived, you know. It's -- This is not in any way an excuse for what I did. This is -- What I did was inexcusable and I recognize that. But it -- it's important, I think, if you want to understand why I did it. It seemed at that time I tried to give, you know, the problem back to Charlie at one point. I called him and told him, you know, that this problem that he had left me with, this man who was wounded, who had his face slashed, was his problem, and, you know, would he come and, you know, take care of his own problem because I didn't know what to do. And he pushed it back into my lap.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: What did he tell you to do?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: He didn't. He told me that I knew what to do as well as he did.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I interpreted this. I believed that it was expected of me to kill him rather than let him go to the police.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Let's back up a little bit. Why were you at Mr. Hinman's house in the first place?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I had gotten into a situation with -- by playing a as a go between between the, you know, the bike club, one of the bike clubs, the main bike club that was hanging out at Spahn Ranch. And I got myself into a bind. I went back to Hinman's place to get money from him.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: And who was there with you?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Two of Charlie's girls went with me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: And so, you went back there to -- to the victim, to Hinman, with Atkins and Bruner for the purpose of doing what?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Getting money back from him.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: And when he didn't have the money, then that's when he got tortured? In other words, hit with the sword by Charlie when he came in? Is that what you're telling me?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No. I struck him. I was given a gun when I went over there, and I struck him a couple of times with the gun.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. So, after the victim was stabbed by you, what did you do then?



INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I went back to Spahn Ranch. I took one of his -- There were two of his vehicles were taken from the place. One of them went to the bike club that I owed money to, and the other -- the other stayed there at Spahn Ranch. And to be honest with you, I don't remember much of what happened. I devastated myself in what I had done. I had completely lost my bearings at that point, and I don't remember much of the next week until my arrest.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Well, prior to leaving the ranch, didn't you put something on the wall?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: You talking about leaving Hinman's place?


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. I'm not sure if it was me or if it was one of the other people that were with me, because I don't -- honestly don't remember. For a long time I thought it was me, but then I heard Susan Atkins say that it was her. So, I'm not sure anymore, because, as I said, I'm not real clear on it. But, yes, there was writing on the wall.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: And why was there writing on the wall for?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It was an attempt to -- to throw the -- any -- the police off the trail, to make it look like it was one of Hinman's revolutionary cohorts.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Being who? What revolutionary cohorts?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I don't know what -- who his cohorts were. I just knew that he had affiliations with radical groups at UCLA, do I tried to make it look, you know -- We burned some papers in his living room. And, you know, there is a little -- I don't even know if it was a living room. It was this little shack that he lived in. And tried to make it look like it was something political.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Where were you arrested at?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: What city were you arrested in?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I was arrested in San Luis Obispo.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. And you were in one of the victim's cars?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: How do you feel about taking the life of the victim?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Deeply regretful. I -- Forty years later I am still tremendously ashamed of that -- of having taken another person's life. I --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: What have you done to express remorse?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I have written to Gary's family. I don't know that it actually was received by members of his family. I was assured that it had. I have heard from one of his nieces, but his niece didn't really -- She was kind, by the way, but she didn't really know her uncle. So, it's been difficult to make amends in the way that I would have liked to have made amends. I would have -- I don't know that I -- using the words like is exactly the right word, because it would have been extremely painful. But I think it would have been helpful for everyone if I could have apologized to Gary's family. But I have attempted to make amends in every way that I could find through work with youth intervention doing youth outreach to try and keep kids out of prison. I found that there is value in my story. It's a shame that lessons of this sort come at such a high price.



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Let me go back on something. Let me stop you there. I want to go back. Okay.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I want to ask you this. What do you feel the number one motivation -- And we talked about your prior life growing up. The number one motivation that allowed you to commit this crime?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: The reason that I killed Mr. Hinman -- Well, let me put it this way. The reason that the young man that I once was killed Mr. Hinman is because I was so small and so weak inside of myself that I didn't know any other way out of that situation because my need was so great to prove myself as a man and to do the thing that I believed was expected of me, you know, to do the manly thing in that situation and in the eyes of people, I should say, that were criminally oriented and would see that as a manly act. It wasn't a manly act. It was anything -- It was a cowardly act. But at that time in that orientation that I had at 21 years old I believed that I would somehow be some kind of hero by -- by doing what I did, to keep him from going to the police and being a snitch.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. So, you were a follower at the time. Why are you a leader at this time?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Yeah. You've gone from being a follower to a leader. Are you a -- Do you consider yourself a leader?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Do you consider yourself a leader?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don't really think of myself as a leader, necessarily.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Well, you're leading your life.



INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I've taken responsibility for myself, Mr. Anderson.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I've taken responsibility for recognizing those weaknesses in myself that caused me to take another person's life, and I have done everything that I can -- that I can do, really, to fix those things in myself that have caused me to hurt other people or caused me to think of someone else as less important than myself. I think if I am a leader at all it's because I realize that I am not any more important than anyone else. A real leader isn't someone who puts themselves above other people. That's not a real leader. That's someone who is inadequate. That is someone who is less than a leader because they think themselves somehow superior, other people are less than them. That's not a leader to me. A leader is someone who recognizes that everyone is important and equally important.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. Let me ask you this. We're going to shift gears a little bit, and I may come back to parts of the crime, but with respect to your social life, I've already read it. You're married and you have -- you have children and stepchildren; is that true?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: And your wife lives in Oregon?



INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I am. Twenty-seven years as of a few days ago.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: And now you realize that the laws of California, unless they change, you have to parole to California?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I didn't hear all of that, Mr. Anderson.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Unless the laws have changed, you have to parole to California. Have you made provisions to parole to California?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I am prepared to move to California if that is necessary, and my wife is prepared to relocate with me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. And what kind of work do you intend to do should you receive a date?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I would hope to be able to continue the work that I do now, which is multimedia content creation. I'm a videographer, artist, musician. I'm versed in every aspect of multimedia content creation. I've done a lot of work for the Department of Corrections over the past roughly 10, 11 years.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: And I -- that's what I'm really good at, so I would -- and it's what I really love. So, I would like to be able to do that if possible. I do have some job offers that are in the information that you've been provided with. The Gold Cone job offer, by the way, is no more. The company went out of business. That was a software company.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: But I have had some indication from the Department of Corrections that I may be able to do some work as a freelance videographer and multimedia artist for the Department of Corrections.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. How often does your wife visit you, by the way?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, now she's visiting me roughly once every week or two.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. And how often do you see your children?



INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: My daughter lives in Los Angeles, my biological daughter. And she and my grandson and her husband live in Los Angeles, so I don't see her very often, although we're working on a visit so I can meet my grandson for the first time.



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. My other daughter, my stepdaughter, lives here in Oregon, and I do see her from time to time. And then there are two stepsons, and a granddaughter.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. So, you have a stable social network of people that support you at this time?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. With respect to your criminal history, you got arrested 11/13/1966, a drug violation, a Business and Professional Code that they don't use anymore, but it's -- it was dismissed, possession of hypodermic needle. And Redwood City Police Department, this is 11 -- this is in 1968, 10851. It was also dismissed. Then you got a 211 back in 1969. I don't have a disposition on that.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It was never -- Nothing was ever charged.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. And then you had another -- back in '69 you had a 459, Burglary. Same thing, not charged. Another -- In San Luis Obispo you did another 10851, which is auto theft, back in '69, but no disposition here.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That is the -- That was when I was arrested --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- for this crime.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: They turned it over to LA. I see. Okay. At this time I'm going to go to the Deputy Commissioner for post-conviction factors and any questions that she may have.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Thank you. Mr. Beausoleil, just to get clarification on the life crime, you mentioned that you -- or you stated you stabbed the man twice. You also mentioned struck him with a gun. Was that before or after the stabbing?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That was before. That was when I -- I didn't -- I wasn't sure that he was telling me the truth when he said he didn't have the money anymore.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Okay. So, where did you strike him at with the gun?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: On top of his head.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Okay. So, we're going to move into your post-conviction factors. And just going over some general information, your last hearing was December 7th of 2005. At that time you were given a three year denial; is that correct?


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: And you were told to remain disciplinary free and get involved in any available self-help or therapy.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: And currently, in looking at your counselor's report, your work assignment is the work pool status?


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: And what does that mean?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I just -- I have just come back to this institution, so I'm -- that means I'm waiting for --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- an employment opportunity to come open.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's what work pool is. I will be going back to work as -- in multimedia. The person who oversees that, in fact, there is a letter from him, is currently out on medical, and when he returns to work my understanding is I'll be going back to work on the project for children of incarcerated parents.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: And when is that expected about? Do you have a guesstimate?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Sometime after the first of the year. I'm not --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No one knows for sure.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Okay. And then it shows that you've gotten your GED --




DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: And it shows that you've had some additional college courses. How many total units do you have?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I have 21 units of college. I didn't go for a degree. I just took certain courses.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Okay. Has there been any additional education? No --

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, yes. There has been vocational programming. I have two certificates in electronics. I got into video, and from there I have been -- in my vocation I have exceeded any opportunity as far as formal education that's available. In fact, I've taught it. I've taught video and, you know, directed a crew for a number of years. But that's -- The only other education that I -- after the GED and the college courses has been vocational.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: There was print shop, and there should have been a completion of print shop as well. I did get the hours, but for some reason I was -- this was after I was transferred when I came up here. And so I wasn't able to -- I didn't actually get the certificate, so --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: But I do have a completion in print -- in -- That's part of where I got the multimedia (inaudible).

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Okay. The print design programs?


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Okay. And video productions and electronics. It also shows that sometime I guess in June of 2005 you completed the TELT tutor program?


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: And what was that about?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That was for teaching people how to -- you know, how to read, people to assist students in getting their GED, primarily, and also students who either have a learning disability or language disability -- not disability, but language handicap.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Okay. And how long did you do that, do the teaching --

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, actually, I didn't.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I just took the education.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I was assigned right after that, I went back into multimedia again. So --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, actually, there was a brief -- While I went to that I was working in the canteen for a while, and then from there I went into -- into multimedia again.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Okay. So, since your last hearing of December 2005, have you completed any vocational, any self-help, any therapy, any educational, any other programs?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, there hasn't been any vocational, although working in multimedia is a constant learning process. There is software to learn constantly to stay up to date. So, I have continued to upgrade in my vocation in that respect, but not formally because there is nobody here that can teach me anymore.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Okay. So, that's more self-study where you've kind of --


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: -- done it yourself, computer -- on the computer?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah. And, you know, that would be now -- that would be for work and education. For self-help I -- I did transfer from Alcoholics Anonymous to Narcotics Anonymous and I continue in that program. I'm involved in the non-violent communications program that started up here recently. Let me see. There was one other.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: It shows that you've participated previously in Breaking Barriers and Creative Dynamics and AA.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: And you say you're currently going to NA meetings?



INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Every two weeks.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: And which step do you find the most challenging for you?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don't find any of them challenging anymore. I find them inspiring.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Okay. Well, which one do you --

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: You know, there was some real challenges early on making -- making a moral inventory was an extremely difficult process for me, just to be honest with myself and write these things down, and then to share them with other people. But that's been some time, and since then, and I -- I really get a lot out of this program. It's uplifting to me, because when you're -- you know, I've been working with youth as well for a number of years and doing videos in relation to that, and, you know, when you're working with people who are trying to help themselves and trying to find the keys to healing themselves, I don't think there is anything more uplifting than that, especially in this environment where you have men, you know, crying, breaking down and crying, you know, in front of their peers, you know, because they are so moved by their own insights and their own desire to heal and to fix what's broken in them. That's inspiring to me and --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: How long have you been attending, you said? You go every two weeks. How long have you been going to NA groups?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: NA less time than AA, but it's pretty much the same type of a program.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I've been doing it, I don't know, four or five years, I guess.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: And so, do you know your 12 steps?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I don't know them -- I don't know that I could recite them, but I do know them, yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Okay. So, if I asked you what step two was, you wouldn't be able to tell me?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I think probably I could, yeah. That would be probably the easiest one.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Okay. Tell me what step two is.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That is having to do with accepting a power greater than yourself and turning your life over to that power to restore you to wholeness and sanity.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Okay. What about step 10?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That is the ongoing process of making personal inventories, being able to admit when you're not right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Okay. So, we'll move on to your disciplinary history. I want to find out a little bit more about this October 2007 disciplinary where you were removed from the art video work assignment and went to segregation for unauthorized use of information systems.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: So, what happened in that incident?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, there is a letter there from the person who I was doing the work for, or at least one of them. The -- I also had a direct supervisor. This is the person who was over the program in the Department of Corrections, and Mr. Prahl has a copy of that for you. And, really, I can't -- I don't know whether I could really explain it very well. What happened is I found myself in the middle of a kind of, you know, two different conflicting staff agendas, so to speak.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: And that's the letter from Randy Geer?


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Well, I read that letter, but the counselor's report says that you received a magazine article about yourself and a copy of your daughter's tattoo on the computer?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I don't know how you put a tattoo on a computer. That was kind of an interpretation. That's what was used to say that I was using the computer in an unauthorized manner.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, it's not. It's --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- just -- it was a --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: -- the daughter's tattoo? How did that come into the conversation?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's a good question. There was an image on the computer that was going to be used in a religious services video that was scripture. It was a piece of writing for the -- from the wall of a Tibetan temple, Sanskrit writing. And I did a design for my daughter based on that --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- by hand, and so for some reason the two things came together and they shouldn't have been put together. And, you know, I got to tell you, Ms. Turner, I didn't do anything wrong. My supervisors will be the first to tell you that. I was assigned to do e-mails, to draft e-mails to sponsors and people who were supporting the program and to people who are working with us on projects. The other people, you know, this is so extraordinary that other people interpreted this as a violation of the rule, and that was the main reason why I was found guilty. And, however, I think that now that the appeal process is going forward, I'm pretty sure it's going to be -- I've been told that it's probably going to be vacated. You know, on this, I really am not the person who can really illuminate this for you.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Well, I understand that. But I'm just curious. Now you say that your assignment was to write e-mails to people that supported the program, and did one of those have to do with this magazine article they're referencing or is that not --

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, it did, yes.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: One of the sponsors took it upon himself to send -- He ran across an article that was about me in a music magazine about a film soundtrack I had recorded. And he thought that I would like it. And he e-mailed it to my supervisor. He did this without anybody knowing. In other words, he didn't ask first, and so it arrived. And when, you know --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- that created a problem.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Okay. And the tattoo that you drew for your daughter freehand was similar to the project --

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It was. It was similar.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: The one of the image on the computer was a photograph of a Tibetan wall.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Of a temple wall. The image that I did for my daughter was something I did by hand in my room, in my cell and sent to her. So, it was completely independent.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Okay. Well, as far as the disciplinary action as it relates to that particular write up, you were given 42 days in segregation and you were fined 25 dollars; is that correct?


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Okay. And then in January 2008 you received a misconduct report for unauthorized area --


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: -- where I guess you were visiting in the cell of someone else?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, yeah, more or less.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Well, you can explain it.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It's pretty simple. I forgot where I was for a minute. I was talking to a friend of mine in front of his cell, and he was picking my brain about playing guitar, and I forgot where I was and I reached in to point his fingers in the right -- the right place on the guitar neck, and part of my body was in the cell --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- and the officer wrote me up for unauthorized area.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Okay. So, I have a total of five 115s including the time you were incarcerated in California with the last ones we just spoke about in October of '07 and January of '08 being the most current. And then five 128s, and then the last one was back in 1990 --


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: -- where you were doing some MAC business without a pass.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Okay. Any other disciplinary that I'm missing?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Actually, there is one.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: There is -- I received a disciplinary in 1999 for a dirty UA for marijuana.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Okay. Yeah, I just counted that as part of the five.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: I did read that with the urinalysis test and all of that.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Okay. No other since then, though?


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Commissioner, do you have any questions related to those two disciplinaries?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: You say you appealed these -- one of these disciplinaries, I believe, the one --

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. Well, it's just -- The appeal is just going in. The hearing is just finished during their own self-evaluation on it, so it just now became final. And so, yeah, there is an appeal in process on that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. That's all the questions I have.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Okay. Well, we're going to move into your psychological evaluation. And I'm going to incorporate by reference the psych report that's written by Dr. Frank C-O-L-I-S-T-R-O.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Colistro, that's dated June 24, 2008. And in essence, he goes over your basic record review and your history and your military and substance abuse and your psych history. And I'm just going to really summarize the assessments of dangerousness in performing the various tests. This is on page 3 of your report. They look at some of the critical components to try to determine your psychological violence risk, and they performed the HARE Psychopathy Checklist test. And when they get through with all of the additional stuff that they look at they give you a score. And in this particular category you score in the very low category for psychopathy being present. In addition, they do a violence risk appraisal review and an HCR-20 that blends the risk -- clinical risk assessment instrument to look at your violent recidivism possibilities. And your overall score in that area was also very low relative to the likelihood of violent recidivism. And in the conclusion of it, the doctor says that now that you're 60 years old and you've been incarcerated for nearly four decades that you're aware of the fact that the high risk lifestyle you were leading at the time, mainly with respect to associating with dangerous individuals, placed you in an exceptionally high risk relative to finding yourself in a situation were violence could occur. And it says, to your credit, that many years of incarceration you have devoted yourself to being of service to the Department, your fellow inmates and their families. A review of your chrono entries reflect consistently positive attitudes about your behavior towards staff, even with your recent misconducts, that the DLC manager speaks highly of you and your work characterizing it as distinctly pro-social and reflecting a positive work ethic. And there is a couple of diagnosis -- Axis diagnosis where it has no mental or emotional disturbance, no personality disorder. And his recommendation, if you're returned to the community you should be involved in substance abuse relapse programming. So, is there anything in the psych report that you wanted to bring up?

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Commissioner, if it is at all possible --


ATTORNEY PRAHL: -- there is a line that you may have overlooked, and that's on page 4. And in summarizing, this is Mr. Prahl, by the way, "As results of formal violence risk assessment iterated above indicate, subject," that would be Mr. Beausoleil, "poses no significant risk for violent recidivism now or for the foreseeable future."



DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: I didn't read that one on record. Now, Mr. Beausoleil, any additional information on the psych report that you want to put on record, or are you satisfied with it being incorporated by reference?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I think that's fine. Yes.



DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Then at that point, I'll return it back to Commissioner Anderson.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you. At this time I'm going to go to the District Attorney's Office for any questions that the District Attorney's Office have to be asked through the Panel.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Commissioner, before you go to the District Attorney's Office, I just noticed one thing. I was handed a packet of materials, and in trying to look at them I noticed that they are opposition letters offered by the -- apparently by the district attorney, because they're certainly not offered by me. And one packet is one through 50, and the other packet is one through 35. Now, I was handed these this morning -- or, I mean, this afternoon just before we began the hearing, and it's my understanding that those materials should have been provided if the district attorney -- even if he was going to appear in person at least 10 days in advance at a hearing. And to the extent that the district attorney is going to --


ATTORNEY PRAHL: -- offer them or rely on them --


ATTORNEY PRAHL: -- we're going to object to them.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, let me just correct you, counsel.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I don't think they came from the district attorney.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Yeah. I didn't -- I didn't provide those. They came --


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: They came directly to the office here.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I received a copy of them this morning as well.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: So, they came directly to us, and we just got them this morning too.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Well, I -- I apologize to the district attorney and will withdraw that objection as to the possible source. But to the extent that they're being offered, you know, I don't when they were received. But I have received other information in a timely fashion, including the comments by the sheriff's department. But this material, due to its volume and due to the -- you know, the timeliness of it, I would ask that it be -- not be relied on at the hearing. I would be willing to concede that there -- there is -- there are people in the general public who would have an opposition to anyone associated with the M word, if you will, anybody with a Manson label being paroled. I understand that phenomenon, but in terms of these specific letters we would -- I would like to interpose an objection on behalf of my client.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I'm going to overrule that. These letters are from various people in the community. We will use these only for deliberations purposes and --

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I'm sorry. I can't hear what's happening.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: We will use the letters for deliberation purposes that came in late today in opposition. There is about 50 letters came in opposition to your parole date that the Board will be considering during deliberations. They were not submitted by the District Attorney's Office, therefore, the 10 day rule does not apply.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Thank you, Commissioner.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: But I haven't had an opportunity to review them either.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: That's true, and you won't.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Aren't I supposed to have the documents that are going to be relied upon, unless they've been deemed confidential, within a certain timeframe? At least that's my understand. You know, I don't know. I'm asking.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: No, that's not necessarily true.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: We -- Mr. Beausoleil -- Bob, we have -- This is Bill Prahl. We have lodged the objection so it's on the record, and I think we can proceed.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: We're going to proceed with the district attorney's questions through the Panel.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you. In looking at the inmate's description of the crime and his admission that he was -- it was entirely his idea to kill Mr. Hinman, then my question to the inmate is, does that mean then that Charles Manson is not guilty of the murder of Mr. Hinman?

ATTORNEY PRAHL: I would object to that question on the basis that it asks for a legal speculation on the part of Mr. Beausoleil that he's not in a position to offer any -- his views on -- He's already commented on Mr. Manson's participation. The subsequent trial is a matter of public record. For Mr. Beausoleil to be speculating about legal conclusions I don't think is relevant, nor is he in a position to do that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I will sustain that. Mr. Sequeira, would you rephrase the question.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Okay. Maybe I'm having a little difficulty understanding. Mr. Beausoleil's original version that he testified to at the trial is that Charles Manson stabbed and killed Gary Hinman. Now his version now is different. So, I'm asking the inmate if his version now is different and is the truth, then, according to what I've read, Mr. Manson really had nothing to do with the killing of Mr. Hinman. Is that correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, that's not correct.



ATTORNEY PRAHL: If it would, I'd prefer -- it is my understanding the format for the hearing is Mr. -- the deputy district attorney, Mr. Sequeira, does not ask questions directly to Mr. Beausoleil. The --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: That's true. He's really asking the questions through the Panel.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: But since we're dealing with a phone interview, if I have -- want to rephrase the questions I will rephrase the questions, but let's assume that the questions are coming from me and in this manner, so there won't be any direct cross examination. They'll be just question and answer. If you don't want your client to answer the question, that's your right, sir.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Well, I may have objections. That's why I'd prefer to have the --

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Bill, I don't mind. Okay?


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I'll answer Mr. Sequeira's questions.



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: -- technically it's through the Panel.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: If I understand you -- your question, you want clarification on the guilt or innocence of Mr. Manson. Of course, as Mr. Prahl said, I can't speculate on the legal definition of that. From my standpoint he's guilty as hell. Okay? I was a kid. I was a -- I was a kid.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, can the inmate then explain how --

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: And he took advantage of me. Okay? He put me in a situation that was way over my head and told me to swim. Okay? And I didn't know what to do. I made a really screwed up, terrible, horrific mistake trying to get myself out of that. So, is he guilty? Maybe not in a legal sense. I don't know. I can't speak to that. But in my estimation is he? Is he responsible for what happened? To some extent, yes, he is. Early, as far as the different versions that I've told, let me just speak to that a little bit. You know, I've already spoken to it enough, I think, earlier on in this hearing but I'll say this. There have been numerous versions of this crime. Susan Atkins has told at least three different versions that I know about, including one in which she is the person who killed Gary Hinman. I can't really fault her for that because I have told three different versions of this crime as well, including one in which Manson was the guy who killed Gary Hinman, and that was back in my trial. And then subsequently I kept him out of it because I was afraid of being labeled a snitch and I wanted to take responsibility for the crime. So, I took responsibility for everything, including slashing Gary across the face. Gary would not have lost his life had not Charlie Manson slashed him across the face for no -- and, again, for no reason. You know, so, yeah, to that extent, you know, I'll -- just to get back to your question, he is responsible to some extent for what happened. I am not going to blame him for my responsibility. I was the one who made the decision, ultimately, whether or not I would give into my own petty little needs and take another human being's life for completely selfish reasons. That's my responsibility, and I accept that responsibility. I don't blame Manson. He didn't order me to do it, necessarily, although he did certainly imply that that was my responsibility. So, that's about as good as I can answer that question.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: What was the inmate's relationship with Charles Manson --

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I have already --



DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Such that the inmate would listen to Charles Manson's advice in terms of what to do with Mr. Hinman?

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Do you understand the question, Mr. Beausoleil? This is Bill Prahl.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. Well, it seems to be kind of a loaded question, doesn’t it? You know, it's one of those loaded kind of --

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Hold on a minute. Let me ask.


ATTORNEY PRAHL: Because even I don't understand the question.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, let's hear the inmate's answer.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Well, I just want to make sure he understands it, because I'm not sure I do.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: And nor am I. I'm not --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I'm definitely not sure.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I think I do, but --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- at the same time, it's one of those loaded questions. You know, it's not a straightforward question.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Well, we'll ask -- Ask it again, Mr. Sequeira.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Why would the inmate take Charles Manson's advice if the inmate had little to no connection with Manson and the Family?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Where did I say that I took his advice?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Didn't the inmate just indicate that you listened to Charles Manson who told you, you know what to do?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: When I was speaking earlier to Mr. Anderson in response to his questions, yes, that I did say that he -- when I took the problem back to Manson, his problem, the problem that he created by slashing Gary across the face and said this is your problem. I don't want anything to do with this. He -- He told me that I needed -- that I knew what to do as well as he did and hung up the phone. You can make of that what you will. I don't think that that was advice.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, what did the inmate make of that statement?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That it was my problem. That's what I though he was saying to me. He was giving the problem back to me and implying, in light of what he had said earlier, that he was showing me how to be a man, that he was making it my responsibility.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Well, I'm going to interject here. If it was your responsibility, why didn't you call the medical authorities?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Because it would have -- it would have put, at least in my mind, in the way that I saw things at that time, it would have put me and everyone involved, including Manson, including the girls that were there, including Bruce Davis and other people who were involved in the situation that had developed, in jeopardy of going to prison. And that was -- You know, I -- That's where the whole issue came from, you know, with me having to do -- feeling like I had to do something to prove myself as a man. Well, I've got to be the guy that takes care of the problem. That was the young man that I was. That was how he saw it. Understand that my orientation, now I look back at that and I can only shake my head at my own behavior and my own lack of understanding and my own -- And by that I mean lack of understanding about my own needs and what they were.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Yeah. If the -- As I understand the inmate's version of the crime, this involved a -- basically a drug transaction between himself and Mr. Hinman. And if that were the case, then why was it necessary that Bruce Davis and Danny DeCarlo not only drive the inmate to Mr. Hinman's house, but also for Mr. Davis to provide him with a nine millimeter pistol if this was just a dispute between Mr. Hinman and the inmate?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, it wasn't just a dispute between me and Mr. Hinman. There were people who wanted their money back.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: But who did they want the money back from? You?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: From -- They wanted me to get the money back that I had turned over to Gary.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That was Danny DeCarlo and his group, primarily, and Bruce Davis was associated with them. He hung out with them.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Did Bruce Davis hang out with the Charles Manson and the Manson Family as well?


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And you were associated with Bruce Davis, I take it?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, to some extent, yeah. I didn't know him very well. He was one of the guys I looked up to, you know. He's just one of the older guys that I was trying to emulate at that time. He hung out with Danny DeCarlo. They were into guns. I wasn't. Bruce Davis gave me the gun that I took to Gary Hinman's house with me.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Does the inmate have an explanation as to why Bruce Davis has never mentioned anything about a drug transaction in any of his parole hearings or his description of his involvement in the Hinman murder?

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Again, I'm going to object to that question. It calls for speculation on the part of this person, on the part of my client as to motivations and behavior of another person. He -- There is no way he can know that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Sustained. We'll start with a different rephrasing of the question.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: All right. What was Mr. Davis' role in the murder of Gary Hinman?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Just as you said. He drove me over to the place, and then he came over with Charlie later when Charlie thought that his girls were in danger. Gary had taken the gun. He had gotten possession of the gun, and someone had called. I don't know who it was. One of the girls that was with me, while I was struggling with Gary to get the gun back, he -- one of the girls apparently called the Ranch, and that's why Charlie came over there with his knife and with Bruce Davis and slashed Gary. But that was, you know, to the -- I don't -- You know, other than that I don't know what his involvement was, and I don't know why he came over with Charlie. I don't know any of that. I just -- It would all be, you know, conjecture on my part.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Earlier during the hearing the inmate mentioned that they staged the crime scene to look like it may have involved Mr. Hinman's radical associations. What radical associations was the inmate referring to?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I've already answered that question, Mr. Sequeira.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don't know. You know, I answered that question as to the best of my knowledge, was that he hung out with radicals at UCLA.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And what particular radical group were you referring to?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don't know, sir. I don't know.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It was, you know -- I knew very little about Mr. Hinman and his associations with other people.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Why did the inmate put a Black Panther paw print in Mr. Hinman's blood on the wall?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I already answered that question as well. The same -- for the same reason. I answered that question.



DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Okay. Let me ask this question. Why did the inmate put a Black Panther paw print, the symbol of the Black Panther Party on the wall in Mr. Hinman's blood.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: I'm going to object. It's been asked and answered. We're beating -- We're beating the dead horse at this point.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Sustained. I asked that question. He --


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: He refused, really, to answer the question. So --



INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- didn't refuse to answer a question. I asked -- I answered the question already, is what I said.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: You know, listen --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Well, we're going to move on --

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- there have been a lot of different versions of this crime. There is a new one. I mean, there is a new one from the sheriff's department in which for the first time I've ever heard there is now -- this is supposedly out of their records. Okay? This is out of their files. I'd never heard anything about stealing bagpipes, you know. A couple of hearings ago it was that we were digging up -- digging for money in Gary's backyard.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Mr. Beausoleil, I didn't ask those questions, so let's stay on the topic here.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Let's stay on topic. I didn't know what the sheriff's department did. I have letters from the sheriff's department. So, let's stay on topic for the information we have on hand.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I understand. I'm just saying all I'm trying to do here is --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- to explain that there are a lot of different versions of this, and I can't -- I can't answer to all of them. I have lied about this crime.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: The thing is, I mean, what is -- what are we really asking here? You know, now Mr. Sequeira, he's framing these questions in a mild manner that I really -- you know, he has a right to ask the questions. He's doing what his job is, you know, and his job is to oppose my parole and to undermine my chances. I mean, if a parole -- excuse me -- if a district attorney or a prosecutor behaves like a prosecutor, can he be blamed for that? I mean, he's doing his job and I accept that. But the fact of the matter is, isn't what's really important here --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- is whether or not --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- I am accepting responsibility --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- for what I did?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Mr. Beausoleil, I'm stopping you right now. Now, here is the rules of the game here. The district attorney can ask any question he wants. Your attorney will object, I'll rule on the objection and we'll move forward. You don't have to answer any questions at all. That's your right. So -- and I prefer that you not bring up things that I don't know about.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I'm sorry. I didn't --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- know that I had.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I'm not here to retry the case.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Let me -- We're going to let the -- Just take a second here and let the district attorney go to his next questions and let this -- I'm confident he's drawing fairly close to a conclusion, so --


ATTORNEY PRAHL: -- Mr. Sequeira.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you. Was it the inmate's intention to blame the murder on the Black Panther Party?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Not specifically, no. I did want to make it look like it might have been someone else. I did want to try to make it look like -- you know, try to disguise my own trail, you know. And it didn't make any sense. You know, it was stupid. I'll --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- admit that to you. I mean, I was not a very together young man at that point and I really didn't have a clue about what I was doing. I just wanted to get out of the situation that I was in, and --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: When the inmate was arrested in Mr. Hinman's car, what did the inmate tell the police as to how he acquired the car?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Are you asking me a question?



INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Oh, I see. Okay. I was waiting. Okay.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: When you were arrested by the police in Mr. Hinman's car, what did you tell the police as to how you got the car?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I told him -- I told him, I think, I bought it from someone.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: To be honest with you, I don't remember.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Did the inmate tell the police when he was arrested in Mr. Hinman's car that he bought it from a Black man?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Oh, that's possible, yes.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And why would the inmate tell the police that he bought it from a Black man?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Possibly for the same reason that I tried to make it look like it was a Black Panther -- the Black Panther Party was -- had problems with Gary.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: At the time of the commitment offense, would the inmate describe himself as being a racist?

ATTORNEY PRAHL: I'm going to object to that question as being argumentative and having absolutely nothing -- and on the basis of relevance, it is so tangential and so inflammatory and so argumentative that it's -- it shouldn't be allowed.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Sustained. Rephrase your question, please.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: During -- At the time of the commitment offense, did the inmate agree with some of the philosophical ideas espoused by Charles Manson with regards to race and race relations?

ATTORNEY PRAHL: I'm going to object to that question. It's vague and ambiguous. Some of the beliefs. I mean, we're nowhere near a meeting of the minds as to what the answer to that question could possibly be, and I think we're approaching crossing a line here that I don't want to -- I don't specifically want to address in the hearing. But I'm going to object to this line of questioning.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Well, what you can do, counselor, you can tell your client not to answer any more questions.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: No, I'm not going to do that. My client wants -- He's desperately trying --


ATTORNEY PRAHL: -- to be as honest and forthright with the Board as he possibly can be. I think I will address the Commissioner's remark about when he said he -- the writing on the wall that he basically refused to answer, that's not my interpretation but I'll address that later.


ATTORNEY PRAHL: But in terms of this question, you know, I fully acknowledge the district attorney has the right to ask questions, but they also have to be relevant, they have to be permissible, they have to have some bearing on the case. He can't just go off on tangents that -- about racism that I've never --


ATTORNEY PRAHL: -- (inaudible).


ATTORNEY PRAHL: I object to the --


ATTORNEY PRAHL: -- question.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: -- murder on a member of the Black race certainly has racial overtones, whether it's the Black Panther Party, and then subsequently telling the police that he acquired a car from a Black man further cementing the cover up by trying to blame the crime on a Black individual, certainly has racial overtones, and it's certainly relevant, counsel. You know that.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Counsel, Mr. Beausoleil would have blamed this crime on a Martian. He would have blamed it on an extraterrestrial. He would have blamed it on anybody he could. And, you know, that's a phenomenon that I see in these hearings at about a rate of 100 percent. Nobody calls the cops and says, I just killed somebody. They all fabricate some kind of story, and it's a historical fact that under Lawrence has no bearing on this hearing whatsoever.



ATTORNEY PRAHL: This case --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: -- let's stop this right here. The district attorney is going to ask his questions and you're going to ask your questions. There is, in terms of relevancy, if you object, raise your objections. There is the issues that Mr. Sequeira just talked about regarding this whole issue of ethnic background. Right here it says, he says, "On August 6, 1969, Beausoleil was arrested in San Luis Obispo in Hinman's automobile. Beausoleil claimed that he acquired a car from a Negro approximately one week prior to his arrest." So, it's relevant.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Well, but, I mean, there is no dispute about that.



INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- let me answer it this way. Okay? I can -- I think that I can answer this to some extent. First of all, I'm not racist. I've never really been racist deep down. I've never adopted a personal dislike or distaste for Black people, and I want to make that clear. As a musician, back in 1965, the first band that I ever joined was an interracial group. I don't have problem with Black people in any way. At the that I committed the crime I was emulating people who did, however, have racial views. And whether you want to characterize that as emulating Manson or the bike clubs that were hanging out that I wanted to be a part of or to be accepted by, to that extent I emulated some of their views. The belief that Charlie, for example, had killed a Black Panther led everyone who was hanging out in that area paranoid. There were -- You know, there were issues having to do with that, and that's just what developed. And it didn't make sense. I was trying to throw the police or whoever would be investigating this crime off my trail. I didn't know what the hell I was doing. I had no criminal experience at all in my life, and I made a lot of stupid blunders, made up a lot of stupid stories. So, there it is.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: How many different stupid stories did the inmate make up?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I've already said that. I said I told three different versions of this crime --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- and I told you which ones they were.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Okay. Well, let's start with the first one. Why did you --

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Haven't we already gone there?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: -- testify at your trial --





INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- we're just going to --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- reinvent it?

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Hold on, Bob. Can you rephrase the question?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Hang on a minute. Mr. Beausoleil --


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Mr. Beausoleil, this is Commissioner Anderson.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Hello, Mr. Anderson.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: There is no reason to be argumentative. If you don't want to answer the question, don't answer the question. The district attorney is going to ask questions, and if you say, well, I don't want to answer that question, don't answer that question.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: The Board has read this whole packet, so I know the answers to these questions too.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Mr. Anderson, I have to tell you --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- in my position, for someone in my position --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- who has already told you that he would cooperate with this Panel --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- and answer questions and be forthcoming, I don't want to appear that I am not forthcoming by not answering the questions of Mr. Sequeira.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: You're not -- That won't be the issue.





DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Why did the inmate testify at his trial that Charles Manson committed the murder?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Because I wanted to get out of trouble.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So, now, why did the inmate change his version to the second version?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Because I wanted to accept responsibility for the crime. This was my first parole hearing, before my first parole hearing.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I think you also mentioned something before about not wanting to be a snitch?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: And that is why I didn't want to say anything about Charlie Manson having slashed Gary's face, so I took responsibility for that as well.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Now, at the time of your first parole hearing everyone who was charged in the Hinman murder had already been convicted; isn't that correct? I mean, all the trials were over with. How could you --


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: -- be a snitch? How could the inmate have been a snitch at that time of his first parole hearing if everybody had already been convicted?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Mr. Sequeira, this is prison. It doesn't matter if someone has been tried or convicted. Someone is making remarks about someone else having to do with their guilt or some activity that they were engaged in. That would be considered being a snitch.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Why was it that the inmate wrote a letter to the prison authorities requesting that he and Charles Manson be housed together because Manson is his "close friend" and they also have to work on their legal appeals together?

ATTORNEY PRAHL: I object to the question. Could I see a copy of the letter or give me a date and a time? We're assuming a fact out of evidence here.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: This has been previously discussed with the inmate in previous hearings.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: I don't have it. If he's assuming a fact not in evidence, that's if this --


ATTORNEY PRAHL: -- letter exists.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I'm going to overrule that.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Can you answer the question, Mr. Beausoleil?

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Do you have the question in mind, Mr. Beausoleil? This is Bill.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah. Well, yeah, sort of.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Do you have an answer, Bob?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Not really. You know, I don't know how to answer these kinds of questions, you know, because I know that they're -- Well, I don't know. You know --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Let's go to the next question, Mr. Sequeira.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Did you write a letter to the prison authorities requesting that you and Manson be housed together so that you -- because he's a close friend and that they also have to work on their legal appeals together?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I had -- I wrote a letter asking for legal meeting, and I tried to assure them -- And at first it was denied because there were concerns of that we might have a conflict. So, I tried to reassure the authorities that there would not be a conflict by telling them that he was a close friend.




INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I wanted to have a legal discussion with them, because I really didn't know where I stood with anything. I was -- I was drowning. I was drowning and I was grabbing at straws, and I was eventually granted a legal meeting with him and I saw the hopelessness. That was the last time I ever spoke with him. I saw the hopelessness of thinking that he might possibly be any kind of a straw in my life. I have not had --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- (inaudible).

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I want to ask you a different question now. I want to ask you about one of the 115s you received in prison, and that was for kicking a Mexican in the stomach. Tell us about that.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I didn't kick a Mexican in the stomach.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: This was a conflict that developed when I was on the yard one day at Tracy. The Nuestra Familia had declared war on the bikers at the prison, and it turned into a melee. I was caught up in the middle of it, and one of the Nuestra Familia ran by me, and I tried to kick him in the butt as he went by. I didn't really land anything, but it was just meant as an insult. The Nuestra Familia had been terrorizing everyone at that prison for years, and it finally just blew up that night on the yard, so I was -- I got caught in the middle of it. That's what happened.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Now, in 1984 there was an investigation regarding a mail order business that the inmate was running, the B&B Enterprises business that the inmate and his wife were running. The inmate remembers that investigation; is that correct?


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Can the inmate tell the Panel about that investigation and what it involved?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I am not going to go down that road with you, Mr. Sequeira. I'm going to ask the Panel to look at the Board of Prison Terms investigation report that developed out of that investigation. That's the best way that I can answer that question, that they looked in depth into those questions that were raised and a determination was made into several areas. One is the Truman Capote interview that you're probably going to bring up, and the business, and also to the extent of my actual involvement with the Manson group. And that investigation -- I would rest on that investigation as my answer to you, to that line of inquiry.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, now, the business that you were involved in in 1984 had some --

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Mr. Sequeira, I'm not going to answer any more questions related to that. I have already answered that question. I have relied on the investigation.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Knowing that the inmate was investigated for incidents involving drawings and possible child pornography --

ATTORNEY PRAHL: I'm going to object.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: -- why was it that the inmate then later on, in 2005, allowed those photographs -- allowed drawings, along with some additional new photographs, to be published at the Clair Obscur Gallery.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: I'm going to object to that question. It assumes facts not in evidence. There is no basis for it within the file. It's argumentative. It's irrelevant under In re Lawrence. It has nothing to do with any of the offenses that Mr. -- And it has been resolved by an official investigation that is in the file that the Board has access to.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Did he get a 115 for -- Did he get a 115 for that?

ATTORNEY PRAHL: I don't believe so.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: What one are we referencing?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: That's the one we referenced.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Mr. Beausoleil, did you get a 115 for whatever it is that we're referencing? Do you recall?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: There was a 115 that was issued for not having the correct authorization.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That was for to be involved in a business you have to have -- I didn't know it at the time.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: That's when you were in California?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. And that was resolved. I did get the correct authorization, and that was the end of that.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Let's rephrase the question just so --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So, is the inmate saying he continued with that same business?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, but I did get a correct authorization.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Well, we have the pictures you're talking about.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: We have them (inaudible).



DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Is it correct that the inmate is current writing a book?


ATTORNEY PRAHL: I'm going to object to the relevance of that particular question. Writing a book.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: He's answered the question.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: I don't understand writing a book to be, A, a crime, B, a misdemeanor, C, an infraction, a violation of any rule. I mean, I object to the question as vague, ambiguous, argumentative, and it assumes a fact not in evidence.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Well, this is a hearing, not a court of law, but if the inmate doesn't want to answer it --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: He answered. He answered yes. When will the book be published, Mr. Beausoleil?

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Again, it assumes a fact not in evidence. I would object.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: He's just answered he's writing a book.


ATTORNEY PRAHL: You don't necessarily get an assurance -- I'm writing a book, but I'm not going to get it published.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Do you want him to -- Now, wait a minute. Do you want him --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I think I asked the inmate a question, not counsel.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: -- to answer. Okay. Now, do you want him to answer the questions or not on this?

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Well, I want -- I expected the Commissioner to rule on the objection. If it --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Overruled. He's already answered. Asked and answered. Let's move on to the next question.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: When is the book coming out?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I have no idea. I'm writing my autobiography. It's an ongoing project. I have no idea when it's going to be done.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Is the inmate seeking to cash in on his notoriety and his connection with the Manson Family by this book?

ATTORNEY PRAHL: I object. The question is argumentative, it assumes facts not in evidence. The notion of cash in is something that is speculative on Mr. Beausoleil's part. He --


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, excuse me. I mean, counsel has submitted a letter from the Clair Obscur Gallery. He has brought this whole issue of the inmate, which was discussed at the last hearing, about the inmate profiting from his involvement in the crime. So, I think it's a fair question in light of what occurred at the last hearing and in light of the very information that counsel has even provided in the inmate's defense at this hearing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: And we have it in front of us.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: The material was brought up at the last hearing as it had a distinct red herring flavor to it the last time. The letter is in Mr. Beausoleil's file and it's dated 19 -- 2006. It's nothing -- it was -- it was --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. Let me do this. I'm going to withdraw my sustention. Let's start the question all over again.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: The question, essentially, is exactly the same as what I asked before. Is the inmate planning to use his notoriety to sell his book?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I will answer that. Okay? I will not ever exploit this crime, the crime that I committed, or the victims or anyone else for personal profit. I never have. I never will. I do artwork. I don't use Manson as a way of promoting it or of selling it or advertising it or anything of that nature. I would invite the Panel, if they want to see what it is that I do and actually see the kind of artwork that I do, and actually see how I market it, they can go to the website that my wife has put up and look at it, they can see all the art themselves. They can make a determination of whether or not I am using Manson or any sort of notoriety as a way of marketing my own work. I hope that my work has enough merit on its own that people are interested in purchasing it or looking at it strictly on its value as art. I'll tell you, if it were not that, if I could not sell my art that way, on its own merits, I would not sell it at all. I would rather clean toilets than exploit the crime. I am not proud of this crime. I am not proud of any association with Manson. I will never, ever exploit that for personal gain. If I write my autobiography and if at some day I publish that autobiography and there is discussion regarding the crime that I committed, at least two the extent that there is that discussion, the funds that I make on that book to that proportion, at least, will go to charity, will go to some group that possibly will maybe reduce crime, maybe get to some young guy who is dealing with the same confusions that I had back in 1969, you know, and maybe prevent some crime. But I will not exploit anyone.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: If the inmate has admittedly told at least three different versions in the past, how does this inmate expect the Panel to believe any of the versions as being the truth from this inmate?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: You know, I -- I don't expect it. I don't know. I can't really speak to that. I can only tell you that I have taken responsibility for what I did. What's the point of -- What would be the point of lying about it now? What would be the point of diminishing my relationship with Manson? You know, it exists. I had this relationship with him. It's a matter of record. It's a factor in my crime. But the fact is, I haven't been in touch with him in close to 38 years. I am already distant from him. I have no involvement with him, no interest in whatever his philosophy is these days. I've moved on with my life. I just want to keep moving on with my life.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I have no further questions.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you. Mr. Prahl, do you have any questions of your client? now?

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Just a couple.


ATTORNEY PRAHL: Mr. Beausoleil, how old are you


ATTORNEY PRAHL: How long have you been married to Barbara?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Twenty-seven years.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Do you have contact visits?


ATTORNEY PRAHL: Your parole plans include establishing a life with Barbara on the outside?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Didn't we go already go through all this already in his parole plans?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Yeah, let him -- let him --

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Excuse me. Mr. Sequeira, is this your parole --

ATTORNEY PRAHL: No. No, no, no, Bob.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: He's got different questions (inaudible).

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Just answer my question.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I'm trying to.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Okay. Just answer it. Are you and Barbara going to make a life together?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's my intention, yes, and, as far as I know, that's still her intention.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Did you stab Gary Hinman?


ATTORNEY PRAHL: Do you know -- Do you recall, was anybody else in the room when you did it?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don't think so. No.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: You did it, you did it alone and you killed him?


ATTORNEY PRAHL: Do you recall whether there was a clock on the wall in the room?


ATTORNEY PRAHL: Yeah. A clock.


ATTORNEY PRAHL: Let's go through -- You want to go through what may have been in -- Well, maybe going through observed details is not productive, so I'll withdraw that question. How long have you been in prison, Mr. Beausoleil?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Almost 40 years.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Are you a different person now than you were in 1969?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, very much so.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Nothing further.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I just have one quick question. I just wanted to -- And I'll ask and if -- I just wanted to know who the mother of his natural daughter was. I don't think it's in the -- I didn't see it in the paperwork (inaudible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Can you answer that, sir? Who is the mother of your daughter?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, Katherine Lutsinger.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. At this time we're going to go to the District Attorney's Office for a closing statement.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you. I would ask the Panel to find this inmate unsuitable for parole at this time for a number of reasons. Before I go to the commitment offense and some of the major reasons, I do want to touch briefly on some of the prior criminal history. I note, and it's been discussed during the course of this hearing, that the inmate had some trouble, a number of arrests, very few convictions prior to the commitment offense. But I don't -- Although it was not discussed at this hearing, it should also be mentioned that as a juvenile the inmate did get into a little bit of trouble in which he was first of all sent to a camp placement. And in looking at the Board packet, with respect in particular to his initial evaluation when he entered prison, it does point in terms of his criminal history, it does mention that he has a history of a disruptive childhood with numerous conflicts with authority figures, but it does indicate that the incident offense is only violence, and I think that's on the intake and parole recommendation reports dated 7/27/72. I point that out because I think that's also been verified by some of Mr. Beausoleil's statements regarding his troubles as a child. He dropped out of school at an early age, obviously had conflicts with his family and began leading a counterculture lifestyle, which, of course, led him to his involvement not only with the Manson Family, but, by his own admission, elements of these motorcycle gangs. I might point out in looking at his social history, too, it seems to -- and this is a little unclear, and he can clear it up in his final statement, it mentions here that he possibly has two children, or maybe three children. Possibly a son by Gail Mastman, and then there was a question mark, and I'm referring to the Board packet, a seven month child by Sandra Pew, and then, of course, it mentions the daughter that he indicated is the one who has written a letter, and that was the daughter that he had with Katie -- Katie Lutsinger, who I might point out was also a member of the Manson Family and lived at the Ranch as well, which then gets to the inmate's statements regarding his non-association, as I would like to describe it, with the Manson Family. The inmate's current version of his involvement in the commitment offense differs dramatically, not only from the official version in the Appellate Report, but it also differs dramatically from virtually any other participant or observer of the events surrounding the death of Gary Hinman. I mean, it's clear from the testimony at the trial and from various witnesses' statements the following set of facts occurred. In the Summer of '69 Mr. Beausoleil lived on and off, at least, at the Spahn Movie Ranch in Chatsworth, which is where Charles Manson and the other Manson Family members lived. It was during that summer that Manson discussed Helter Skelter in a forthcoming revolution, which is a race war between the Whites and the Blacks, also known as pigs, which would result in Armageddon. Manson would discuss the Family's need for money so they could purchase the necessary supplies to move to the desert during Helter Skelter. And the idea behind Helter Skelter was that there was going to be a race war, Manson and his clan would hide in the desert. When the war was over the Blacks would win the war, but because they were incapable of governing themselves that when Manson and his clan emerged from the desert they would be -- assume a position of leadership and basically rule the world. Now, a week before -- Now, Manson would discuss the family's need for money so that they could purchase the supplies to move to the desert. A week before his death, Gary Hinman, an acquaintance of both Beausoleil and Manson, was mentioned as a possible source of money, and this is from a statement of Ella Jo Bailey. It's part of the court transcripts. Danny DeCarlo also testified that before him (inaudible) he heard a conversation between Beausoleil and Manson in which Hinman was called a political pig who should die. It was believed at that time that Gary Hinman had come into an inheritance and possessed a fair amount of money. So, on Friday, July 25, '69, around 10:00 p.m., Bruce Davis drove Susan Atkins, Mary Brunner and Robert Beausoleil from the Spahn Movie Ranch to Hinman's Malibu home for the purpose of getting 20 to 30 thousand for the Manson Family. And this is directly from the statement of Mary Brunner. Manson dropped Atkins, Brunner and Beausoleil off at Hinman's home. This was a well coordinated, planned out crime. Beausoleil had developed a signal where Atkins and Brunner would go up to the house first to see if Mr. Hinman was alone. If Mr. Hinman was with someone the women would stay and talk to him for a while and then leave. But if Hinman were alone one of the women was to signal Beausoleil from the window. Hinman was alone, so Atkins lit a match at the window and signaled for Beausoleil to go inside. And this is taken from the statement of Mary Brunner. When Beausoleil entered the house he was armed with a gun and a knife. Beausoleil went into the kitchen, had a conversation with Hinman. During the conversation he pulled a gun on Hinman and demanded 20,000 dollars. Hinman asked Beausoleil to leave. Instead Beausoleil beat Hinman with the gun and punched him. Atkins was given the gun to hold, which Hinman tried to wrestle away from her. There was a bit of a struggle, but Beausoleil ended up with the gun and then left the room, made a phone call to Manson. After the phone call, a second struggle took place between Beausoleil, Atkins, Brunner and Hinman. At the end of the struggle Beausoleil, once again, ended up with the gun. Twenty minutes after Beausoleil placed the phone call Manson and Davis arrived at Hinman's home. Davis was carrying a knife and Manson was carrying a sword. Brunner testified that after their arrival she went to the kitchen and could hear a fight broke out in the other room. Manson came in the kitchen with a cut on his index finger, which Brunner bandaged up. Hinman also has to be bandaged up after Manson had cut his face and severed his ear with a sword. And it's my -- And I believe that they tried to -- the girls tried to sew Mr. Hinman's injury -- his ear back on using dental floss. Manson stayed and talked to Hinman for less than an hour before he and Davis left in Hinman's Fiat. After Manson, Davis left. Atkins, Brunner and Beausoleil took turns sleeping while one of them always stayed awake to keep guard. At some point during the next day Hinman tried to escape out the front door. The door was locked and all three of them ran over to him. Hinman saw that he would be unable to escape, so he went back to the living room and just sat down. On Sunday afternoon Beausoleil called Spahn Ranch. Shortly afterwards Beausoleil informed Brunner that they were going to kill Hinman that night. Now, this is from the statement by Mary Brunner, which, of course, directly conflicts with what the inmate says, that it was his decision alone and the girls didn't really know anything about it. That evening after dinner Brunner was in the kitchen and Atkins was in the bathroom. Brunner heard a noise in the living room. She rushed in and saw that Beausoleil had stabbed Hinman, and that's from a statement of Mary Brunner. Beausoleil later told DeCarlo that Hinman did not die right away and had to be stabbed multiple times. I note that the coroner's report indicates that there were five wounds. Two of them were serious wounds. Others were somewhat superficial wounds. The one stab wound to the chest was, in fact, a fatal wound. The wound to the fact, according to the coroner's report, could have been fatal, of course, since the body had decomposed quite a bit afterwards. There is no indication that that wound, in fact, was a fatal wound, but the one to the chest would have, in fact, been fatal. After stabbing Hinman, Beausoleil made him chant while Atkins and Brunner cleaned up the house and wiped off the prints, and that was from a statement by Ella Jo Bailey. Hinman went unconscious when they cleaned up the house. After dark, Beausoleil, Atkins and Brunner stepped outside the house to leave but stopped when they heard Hinman's loud, raspy breathing. Beausoleil crawled back inside the house through the kitchen window and went and opened the door for Atkins and Brunner. When the women walked in they saw Beausoleil holding a pillow over Hinman's face. Beausoleil then went into the kitchen, and Brunner and Atkins each took a turn holding the pillow over Hinman's face until he was dead. And Brunner then took 20 dollars about of Hinman's wallet. This was a statement from Mary Brunner as well. At some point after stabbing Hinman, Beausoleil used Hinman's blood to write political piggy and draw a cat's paw print on the house. The purpose of the writing was to blame the Black Panthers for the crime. That's from the statement of Mary Brunner, and also from the statement of Ella Jo Bailey. Beausoleil, at another point on Sunday, also thought ahead enough to have Hinman sign the two pink slips of his two automobiles over to the members of the Manson Family before dying. Manson left in Hinman's Volkswagen. He was arrested later on in that same car. Two days later Beausoleil boasted to DeCarlo about what he had done to Hinman. He told DeCarlo that he had gone back up to the house to clean up some more and wiped the writing off the wall. Beausoleil described how bad the house smelled and how he could hear the maggots eating away at Hinman. Now, the inmate's story is very interesting, his various versions that he has told. The one that he told at his trial, of course, was that -- Well, in many ways it's probably the closest to what the version is from the other participants and witnesses to the crime, that they went to Hinman's house to obtain money from him and was part of the plan. But in this first version that Mr. Beausoleil testified to, it was Manson who then came back and killed Hinman. Now, what is interesting, and I refer to the circumstances of the offense as described in the Board report, and it also notes the probation report too. And what I find interesting in here is not only is to talk about the prisoner's version, but it also talks about the version that the inmate gave to his parents immediately after the crime, or immediately after the conviction, I would imagine. And the probation officer's report quotes: "Mr. and Mrs. Charles Beausoleil, parents of the defendant, claim the defendant gave the following version of what happened.It seems that the day before this offense happened the defendant told Charles Manson he wanted to leave the family. Manson threatened to kill him if he left the family. Manson then said he was going to have to move to the desert and the police were harassing them too much. To do this they needed money. The next day Manson told them to go to Gary Hinman's place and try to get some money from him. The defendant and the two girls went there and were told by Mr. Hinman that he did not have but 300 dollars, but he would be able to lend 150 of it as he was going to Japan. The defendant then called Charles Manson up and told the girls that Gary did not have any money. Manson told the defendant and the girls to wait, and later Manson and Bruce Davis came over. Manson argued and threatened Mr. Hinman, and when this did no good, Manson hit Mr. Hinman on the head with the back of a sword. Later he slashed Mr. Hinman with a sword on the side of the face. The defendant told his parents that he was in the kitchen at that time and did not actually see Manson -- see it. Manson and Bruce Davis left at that time and told the girls to keep the gun on the defendant, and Mr. Hinman, as a defendant had told Manson that he did not like what was going on and wanted out. And then the next day Manson came back. After trying to get some money out of Mr. Hinman, became angry again and stabbed him twice in the stomach." This is the version that the inmate told to his own parents. What is significant in looking at the various versions that this inmate has told, it is clear that he does not have a true understanding or a true willingness to admit the true motive for the killing. He's told numerous versions. He's even told his parents a lie. So, who is to believe what really occurred? If you believe the inmate's version of the crime a number of things stand out as being very interesting. First of all, the inmate is the only person that ever says there was any kind of a drug debt involved, and he is still maintaining that today. Yet, Susan Atkins, at her parole hearing Tuesday, December 31st of 1985, on page 62, Commissioner Jauregui, that's J-A-U-R-E-G-U-I, asked Ms. Atkins, "Did at any time did you think that Robert Beausoleil was there to collect money on a drug deal? Inmate Atkins: No, sir." That's consistent with the various statements from Bruce Davis, from Susan Atkins, from everyone involved in this crime. They were there to extort money from Mr. Hinman for their purposes, not for some drug deal. This inmate is the only one that still maintains it's a drug deal. Now, why does he maintain that this was all involving a drug deal? This is the inmate's way of minimizing his involvement in the commitment offense. This is a way for him to explain somehow that he was forced to kill Hinman, because if he didn't kill Hinman the motorcycle gang members who were -- who he transferred the bad acid would come after him for supplying them with bad drugs. And this is his explanation. This is his rationalization all these years later. He's still saying, in effect, that Hinman really deserved to die because he sold Bobby Beausoleil some bad drugs, and when he wouldn't make good on that thousand dollars there really was no choice. Now, he's kind of modified this to sort of include the Manson -- possible influence of Manson coming there and saying you really have to stand up to this guy. He sold you bad drugs. You need to really make him pay for it. But the bottom line is is that he's maintained, and it's even clear in the psychological evaluations most recently, that he's maintained that he was kind of forced to do this, that if he didn't do this he would somehow be killed by these motorcycle gang members because of the bad drug deal, which is in direct complete conflict with all of the available evidence in this case. If, in fact, this was about a drug deal and this was about obtaining enough property of value to satisfy the thousand dollar debt, why was the inmate driving the car, Mr. Hinman's, a week or two later? If the motorcycle gang members wanted their money that car would have been turned over immediately to them. So, this is just a fallacy. This is just an excuse and an explanation and a rationalization that this inmate has continued to maintain. And this pattern of blaming everyone else is quite prevalent throughout his history, not only with the commitment offense but also with his 115s, with the business that he and his wife were involved in in 1984. That particular business, which was B&B Enterprises was very interesting that during the course of the prison investigation in '84, and I'm looking at a letter October 24th of 1985 from R.E. Belman, the lieutenant of the security squad at CMC East, and in his memo it points out: "Approximately mid-December of 1984 Inmate Beausoleil received in the institution mail a large manila envelope containing Xerox copies of the following. Number one, letters of correspondence with people from various states. These letters pertained to purchase orders of child pornography, ages between four and 12 years old. The types of orders were photographs, movies, tape cassettes and magazines. They were all specific as to what they preferred, age, sex and nationality. Two, photocopies of order forms with names and addresses of purchasers with their money order or check made out to B&B Enterprise. A few money orders were made out to R. Beausoleil in care of B&B Enterprises. Three, one letter pertained to a person offering his services to B&B Enterprise by making movies or magazines for him, meaning Beausoleil. In this letter the man stated that he and an accomplice kidnapped children between the ages of four and eight years old. They moved from one state to another every three months to stay ahead of the law. Some states he mentioned were Florida, Washington DC, Colorado, and the last state in which they had just left was Arizona. He mentioned after their stay in California they were heading to Washington. Four, photocopies of bank records showing deposits to B&B Enterprise and R. Beausoleil. All of this information came with a return address of B&B Enterprise, P.O. Box 1033 in Grover City." Which I believe is where Mr. Beausoleil's wife was living at the time. "In the second week of February, Inmate Beausoleil received another manila envelope from B&B Enterprise in Grover City. This envelope contained purchase orders for magazines containing -- which contained nothing but child spanking and beatings. Each one asked for a certain age, sex and nationality. The order forms were addressed to Sassy Bottoms, B&B Enterprises, P.O. Box 1033, Grover City, California 93433." Now, in light of that investigation, and in light of the 115 for, I believe it was something to do with inappropriate business being run from prison, we fast forward to 2005, the Clair Obscur Gallery exhibition of Mr. Beausoleil's artwork, along with a number of other what I would describe as pornographic. Some may describe them as being intensely erotic, but, needless to say, they were very graphic drawings that Mr. Beausoleil did that were selling for quite a bit of money. Looking at one here called the Flying Falice, which is a monochrome drawing on paper that was selling for 700 dollars. There is Sometimes Love is a Pain, Aphrodite and Cupid. It looks like someone is -- It looks like Aphrodite is spanking Cupid in this one. I think the Panel has seen all of these. And the other graphic ones involved two individuals committing sexual intercourse, another one, oral copulation, all of them very graphically detailed. Now, the inmate was asked a number of times at the last hearing, Deputy Commissioner Gretchen Garner-Easter was very concerned about why he was continuing to do these drawings, and if he were to blow them up and put them in his cell in California that would -- wouldn't that, in fact, constitute a 115. And I believe it would. I believe that these type of drawings of a severely erotic or pornographic nature being produced in prison or -- and distributed would, in fact, be a violation of CDC rules in California. In fact, Gretchen -- Deputy Commissioner Gretchen Garner-Easter pointed out at the last hearing that those, in fact, would be 115s or disciplinary violations in California. But for some reason they allow this to take place in Oregon. I don't know why. But the point is, is that where is the judgment that this inmate has shown? Where is the growth and maturity or the rehabilitation? I don't see it. In 1984 he's running a business and communicating with some very, you know -- What's the word to describe them? I can't even describe anyone involved in child pornography. It's got to be one of the lowest forms of life around. And these are the people that are writing and ordering things from this inmate in prison or from his business that he's running with his wife. This is the same wife that he's going to go out and live with on the outside. And as was pointed out at the last hearing, this entire exhibition and the connection with Manson at the Clair Gallery shows extremely poor judgment, just as his most recent 115 disciplinary show extremely poor judgment as well. Now, the inmate tries to explain away every single 115 or any type of misconduct in his life by blaming someone else. This was a confusion between two different orders with regards to his unauthorized use of the facilities, but the bottom line is he was found guilty of the 115 in Oregon. He was given 45 days in Ad Seg and he was fined. And then there was a second disciplinary, even after that one. So, since his last hearing, since he was chastised regarding his judgment with respect to the gallery and his connection with Manson, within three years later he is committing new disciplinary violations in Oregon. I mean, all in all, you can see the picture of this inmate. You've heard him answer or not answer questions. You've heard him be argumentative. You've heard him try to explain in his own words how it's really everyone else's fault but not his own. But the bottom line is, is that when you look at this entire case and you look at his involvement he continues to minimize his involvement in the crime. He continues to take a version that is completely different from everyone else's. And the fact that he -- to this day continues to try to explain away this crime as being something that it was not shows that his present attitude towards the crime still renders him a danger to society. He still can't admit his involvement with the Manson Family. He keeps denying that he's a member, but it's quite clear, if you look at the entire pattern of the Family and the way the Family operated, they operated not only as a quasi-religious group, but they also operated the same as a criminal organization. They planned crimes. The Tate La Bianca murders, which occurred after this, were planned. This one was planned. This one had a specific set of signals. They went there for a specific purpose. This wasn’t just a spur of the moment decision to kill. The inmate says he was only there for 24 hours. They were there for three days torturing and killing this poor man to extort money from him. And what is significant is that it was planned, and, in fact, and even in the inmate's descriptions of the crime in his interview with Truman Capote, which it's in the -- It was discussed at the last hearing, and it's also a part of the inmate's Central File. In that interview at San Quentin with Truman Capote, this inmate, himself, admitted to being a member of the Family, that they were brothers and sisters to him. And I'm just paraphrasing. I'm not going to read the exact quotes. I read them during my closing argument at the last hearing. But the bottom line is is that the more he tries to disassociate himself in the Manson Family the more ridiculous he looks. You know, Manson didn't pick people to go out and commit crimes that weren't close to him. You know, they just didn't recruit somebody off the street to say, well, just do this. There were a lot of people that lived at the commune that went in and out of the commune, but only specific individuals were close enough to warrant being involved in these planned out crimes. And even the inmate himself during various portions of this hearing has admitted to his involvement with Manson when he says, well, Manson told him this and Manson told him that. I think the Commissioner's question was absolutely correct. Well, why were you listening to Manson or why did you call Manson? What does Manson have to do with this drug deal? Those are legitimate questions, and the inmate tripped on those in those areas. And, you know, that is really the sum of this entire case is that this inmate has the connection, as much as tries to deny it, he had a very strong connection with Manson and the Family. He even admitted that the Tate La Bianca murders were copycat murders of the Hinman murder and they were committed, according to his theory, committed to take the -- to take the heat off of Bobby Beausoleil, because he was in jail at the time of the Hinman and -- excuse me -- the Tate LaBianca murders. So, if they were copycat murders to the Hinman murder then Bobby Beausoleil couldn't have committed the Hinman murder because these other killers were still out there. So, and the fact that he asked to room with Manson, the fact that he asked to have legal meetings with Manson also indicates his connection to Manson and the Family. And I might point out that there is even an indication from -- In fact, in September 15th of 1970, there is a note in the Board packet from L.S. Nelson, the warden at -- I'm not sure which prison. At San Quentin. In the last paragraph of this memo the warden says, "Subject apparently is not as interested in obtaining the services of an appeal attorney as he is in maintaining contact with attorneys representing Manson Family members now on trial in Los Angeles." I mean, even the warden and other people have indicated that this inmate has an extremely close connection with Charles Manson. And, of course, Manson was convicted, as well as Davis, and as well as Susan Atkins in the Hinman murders. And they certainly wouldn't have been convicted of the Hinman murders if Bobby Beausoleil's version of the crime is correct because they wouldn't have shared an intent to kill, they wouldn't have even been aiders and abettors in the murder of Mr. Hinman. It was all, according to Bobby Beausoleil, Beausoleil's decision and his actions alone that resulted in Mr. Hinman's death. So, the fact that all these other people were convicted in the murders also indicates that Mr. Hinman is not telling the truth and he hasn't been telling the truth. And the fact that he's continued to tell various versions over the years indicates, first of all, perjury every single time he's told -- he's told a version that was not true under oath, and, at the minimum, a 115 for past hearings while he continues to maintain a version of facts that completely conflicts with the official record, as well as every other witness and co-defendant in the case. So, for all of those reasons, I would ask that this Panel find the inmate unsuitability for parole. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you, sir. Counsel, would you provide the Panel with a closing statement, please, sir?

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Sure. I was just wondering if I could have a few minutes to go unbolt a kitchen sink that we can throw at Mr. Beausoleil. I'm surprised that -- And I do appreciate the work of the District Attorney's Office. It's their job to make the best case in opposition, especially in a case with this kind of notoriety. I'm surprised that we haven't been able to link Mr. Beausoleil either to the Kennedy assassination or the Lindberg baby kidnapping, but -- And in a further note of irony, I'll pass along that Bobby Beausoleil was -- there is a note in his file that he was convicted of a leash law violation, I think, in 1966 in Los Angeles, and maybe next time the district attorney can throw that in. In all seriousness here, this has to stop at some point. Mr. Beausoleil -- The most important thing here is Mr. Beausoleil doesn't profit from his version of the crime. He tells you the truth as he knows it, and Mr. Sequeira wants to charge him with perjury for admitting that he stabbed Mr. Hinman to death. He -- The bottom line here, there is no profit for Mr. Beausoleil in this. He is not saying somebody else did it. He's not saying he wasn't involved. He's not minimizing his involvement. What he is saying is the notion that they were going to go over there and get 20 thousand dollars of inheritance from Mr. Hinman living in relative squalor, you know, as he recalls these events -- And it's more plausible, actually, if you look at Mr. Beausoleil's version of the crime, he got some drugs from Hinman, which is consistent with the whole atmosphere. The biker group said the drugs were bad and they want their money back, and they Beausoleil in the position of going back and retrieving their money. And he takes the girls with them, because this is all part of the large group that's assembled out at Spahn Ranch. Mr. Beausoleil is not minimizing his involvement with the family. He was out there. He may not have been as involved with -- as some of the people, but he was involved. He's not minimizing that. He's not trying to deflect any responsibility. He sat here and told you he stabbed Hinman to death. He killed him. The business about -- I don't know what this business about blaming a Black man, what all that had to do. I’m not sure -- The important thing under In re Lawrence, and I'm sure the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner have looked at Lawrence, Lawrence is the California Supreme Court talking to the Board and talking to the Governor and suggesting to the Board and to the Governor in the politest of all possible terms that the Board's focus over the years has become slightly ajar. The Board's focus on the commitment offense, on something that nothing -- no one can change. We can't change the fact that Bobby Beausoleil stabbed Gary Hinman to death. There is nothing I can do with that. I'm a lawyer, not a magician. There is no -- Like I tell Bobby, there is no rabbit in the bottom of that hat. He killed him. What the Board should be looking at, if they're going to look at the commitment offense according to Lawrence is what does the commitment offense tell you about his current suitability. What do the factors in 2281 tell you about current suitability versus non-suitability? And those are the factors that I think we should be looking at. I don't want to spend an hour and a half going over whether Susan Atkins did this, and Mary Brunner did that, and Danny DeCarlo got a deal. The fact is, two of those witnesses, I think, received immunity for their testimony. So, the DA is in the position of buying testimony to -- because they got a hung jury on the first go around with this. Mr. Beausoleil was close to being acquitted. So, they have to pump the case up, so they start throwing immunity around, and they throw it in the direction of witnesses like Mary Brunner. And then, amazingly, if you want to talk about historical facts, they go back and try to prosecute Ms. Brunner and get slapped on the wrist by the Appellate Court that tells them when you make a deal with a witness and buy her testimony, you have to honor the deal. They tried to go back and prosecute, I think it was Mary Brunner for -- based on her testimony. So, you know, the white knight over here has a few blotches on his armor. I'm not representing the best of all possible worlds here. My client murdered someone, and he is remorseful for it. He's done 40 years. He's 61 years old. This -- I mean, think back when 40 years of your life. I don't -- You know, I don't know the Commissioner's background, but I know where I was 40 years ago. I was a whole different person. I don't want to be held responsible for some of the things I did 40 years ago. Forty years ago. And the age of an applicant is relevant. It's one of the suitability factors. Look at his -- Look at his psychological report. These are professionals. These are people that the Board pays a lot of money to to come up with psychological assessments that give you some assurance of the type of action you can take, whether you can trust the things that the inmate is saying. They put him in a very low category of a risk offender. This was a situational offense. This was an offense that Mr. Beausoleil found himself in. This was an offense that, I mean, my goodness, there is an advisor to the President Elect of the United States that was involved in student radicalism. I'm not sure what Atkins or Akins or whatever his name is that Mr. Obama was in -- had dealings with. He was involved with the violence of the times, but those times are gone, for goodness sakes. They're long gone. Mr. Beausoleil has not only physically distanced himself from the Manson association, he's distanced himself intellectually and morally. He's not -- He's not part of that anymore. This whole business about this art gallery business and this -- and, you know, I'm really offended by the notion, this B&B Enterprises or whatever Mr. Sequeira wants to tattoo him with. You know, if you've got the horses to pull the wagon, hitch them up. Charge him with something. If he did pornography, if he did child -- And I apologize if I shout. I have a slight hearing loss. My wife tells me all the time I am yelling. But I don't mean to. It's not intentional. I get emotional. I believe in my advocacy. I labored for 30 years on the other side of the table. I was on Mr. Sequeira's side. I worked with the California Attorney General's Office for 30 years. I take pride in my representation. I take pride in being honest and forthright with -- especially in this arena, because to a large -- it's not a court of law. We don't have a jury sitting over here and deciding what we're doing. It's the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner and the advocates and the client. That whole business about this B&B Enterprises and child porn and all this other stuff, if he believes that, charge him. If he believes that, if the district attorney in whatever county that was, charge Mr. Beausoleil. Take him to trial. But they don't do that. They just want to create innuendo. We'll accuse him of child porn because that will really taint him in the eyes of the Commissioner, that will really make him look bad. He's not just a murderer. He's a child pornographer. Mr. Beausoleil, in truth, is an artist. You know, Mr. Beausoleil has -- some of his art may not be the kind of stuff I would hang in my living room, but some of it is. You know, when I go on a cruise and they try to sell me art, I see Pablo Picassos and some of that stuff is raunchy. But I'm going to be the one that -- I'm going to write Pablo Picasso up with a 115 because I didn't like his paintings at DVI? That's silly, and that's the same kind of attitude we have going here. If they think that the Clair Obscur stuff was pornography, charge him. It was in LA County. They can indict him before a grand jury. You can indict a ham sandwich. You sure can indict Bobby Beausoleil obscene art at the Obscur Gallery on Melrose, or wherever it is. But they don't do that. What does the district attorney do? Well, we'll just create innuendo about the gallery. We have a letter from the gallery manager. There was no connection to Manson. Disabuse yourself of the notion that there was a connection to Manson. There were pictures of Sharon Tate that followed Beausoleil's exhibition. There were five or six pictures. They were pictures taken on the set of a movie by her husband, Roman Polanski. This is my understanding of the facts. I'm not -- I'm not testifying. This is my understanding. There is a person out there that does make his living off exploitation of the Manson clan. He's got a website. He sells transcripts. This transcript will eventually be on that site for sale by whomever by the people who want it. He sells -- He's gotten crime scene photographs. He sells those. Bob -- Mr. Beausoleil has told you, in no uncertain terms, that he will not live off the exploitation of that crime, of the crime he committed, nor of his association with Charles Manson. He wants to do his art. He's an artist that does music. He composes music. He performs music. He's a visual artist. He's a videographer. He performs services for the Oregon Department of Corrections. Any time -- Any time you're doing art -- I walked through San Quentin, Folsom, DVI and Soledad, I think it was, during the (inaudible) litigation, and I saw the kind of artwork that was in the cells. That's been a long time ago. Maybe they've tightened it up, but I've seen the kind of artwork. Men in prison, it's not surprising that they think about women. It shouldn't be. Mr. Beausoleil's art is not pornographic. It's not obscene. It's sent through the mail. If they really believe their position, go to the postal inspectors. Show the picture to the postal inspectors and get them to charge him. But what -- what they do is, they want to create this impression that Mr. Beausoleil lacks judgment and understanding and insight, because that may be the only connection that Lawrence allows the Board anymore to have with the commitment offense. You can still look at the commitment offense. You can still find it to be horrible. It is cruel, whatever the last Panel decided, it was cruel, disproportionate. He abused Mr. Hinman and it was exceptional callousness. Those are all -- those are all true, but they're 40 years ago. Mr. Beausoleil has done everything in his power to disassociate himself with that lifestyle. He's physically removed himself. He -- He's got psych reports that indicate that he is a very low risk for recidivism. And that's your key inquiry. Your key inquiry is not whether Susan Atkins drove the car over to the house or whether Mary Brunner drove the car over. Those kind of inconsistencies -- And like I say, the inconsistencies -- any differences in the stories, it would be different if those differences came up to something that made a difference with regard to Mr. Beausoleil. They don't. He doesn't say he didn't do it. He fully admits murdering Mr. Hinman. There is nothing about this -- This is a red herring that the district attorney wants to divert your attention from the true factors in 2281. He has -- He has -- My understanding, there is no previous history of violence. He has a relatively stable social history. He still maintains touch with his brothers and sisters. He's lost both his parents while he's been in prison, it's my understanding. I know his mother died in 2002. So, he is -- He is paying -- You know, it's not -- He's not paying the same price, but he's paying a price for his incarceration. He's -- There are no sadistic sexual offenses. The psychological factors are not present. He doesn't have a lengthy mental -- history of mental illness. His institutional behavior leaves something to be desired, but there is no violence. There -- You know, there are the -- this problem with regard to the video screening, and it's surprising. You have a letter on Oregon Department of Corrections stationary signed by the chief of inmate services on his behalf. That's unusual. I mean, the only thing better would be a congressman. You've got somebody coming to bat for Mr. Beausoleil saying that he's provided -- "I know the passion, sincerity and ownership you bring to your work." He's honest and sincere about trying to help. He's trying to establish a way to support himself and his family, and the only way he knows is art and this expression. He's a talented individual. That's the true waste here. The true waste is not like a lot of guys that come into the institution who aren't going anywhere to begin with and really never have that in them. What you have in Mr. Beausoleil is a talented artist. And one of the true tragedies that he's come to realize is the waste of that talent because he's -- because he has this ownership of this crime that he committed. The one thing that I think the Board -- And I'm not going to try to tell the Board -- the Panel how to do its job. You know how to do your job. You're skilled and you're able at this. But the one thing that is present in a case like this is this notion of retribution, this notion of paying your debt, this idea of punishing him for what he did. And maybe not even punishing him for what he did, but punishing him for who he hung around with. And you have to overcome that. I desperately want you to focus on these factors. I know you will, but you can't -- you can't keep him in because he hung out with Charlie Manson and the crowd.You could keep him in if he's unsuitable, if there are factors that show his unsuitability that outweigh the many factors. There are signs of remorse. He has a stable social history, a lack of a juvenile record, the motivation for the crime. He committed the crime as a result of significant stress in his life. He's developed an insight as to what led him to allow him to be influenced like this. That's not an excuse. It's not a cop out and it's not a minimization. What it is is his realization of how he started walking down the path. I always tell these guys, it's not the crime. The crime is what puts you in prison, but the crime isn't what got you in trouble. It's that first step you took. It's when you started handing over elements of personal control to other people, when you gave the personal control to drugs. It's when you gave part of your own personal responsibility to somewhere, and as you start walking down that path you eventually will end up over here where you commit a crime, and that's what happened here. Bobby was -- had personal problems within himself, and he started looking for validation in the wrong person, horribly wrong person. He looked for validation in that group that was out at the Spahn Ranch. The -- There just -- There just is nothing -- Mr. Beausoleil was not trying to use the art presentation in Los Angeles in 2005 for exploitation of the Manson connection. He was simply -- Somebody came to him and offered him the opportunity to try to sell a few of his pictures. He prices his pictures high enough so that the hangers on, the thrill -- the Manson groupies can't pay that. He doesn't sign autograph pictures for people. He doesn't write back to people so they have a letter that they can put on E-bay and say, I've got a Manson letter for sale. That's not -- Bobby knows where he is and who he is, and I desperately ask you to look at the suitability factors and see a person who after 40 years at 61 years old has -- has made the kinds of -- you know, he got two votes. Did you know -- I don't know if you saw that from going through the record. He got two votes on different panels for suitability back in the 80s, I think it was. That's amazing. So, he -- I mean, if two Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners in the 80s were willing to put their necks out and say, yes, this man is suitable, I can look at these factors and not be worried about the political implications of a decision to parole someone with the M word as a connection. That's significant. That shows that he is, indeed -- And under In re Lawrence it tells you what you can look at. And there has to be a connection where those thoughts connect up between the commitment offense and his current suitability. And I suggest to you that those dots start falling off and that line becomes blurred the longer and farther out that gets. It's now 40 years. He's 61 years old. He's in Oregon. He's working on a new life. He's established himself. I can't go over more than this. I think you've seen the hyperbole offered by the District Attorney's Office. That's their job. I don't run for elections. I'm retired. I get my PERS check and practice law where I want to. You have to look behind not only Bob's motives but theirs. And the District Attorney's Office has an axe to grind on this. I would suggest to you that Mr. Beausoleil, under every criteria under the law that's applicable to these hearings is eligible. He's suitable, and now is the time to show the personal fortitude that I know it takes to step up in these kind of cases and vote what I feel and what I think the record shows you is right. I would also ask you if knowing that there is a possibility that my argument won't be successful that if you're going to apply Prop 9 that you apply the least -- I believe this is a -- I even hate to say it, that three years is the minimum, but, for God's sake, 15 years is uncalled for. Fifteen years is an affront, as far as I'm concerned, to the personal dignity of the people involved in this system. There are relatively few cases that would ever justify -- There is no clear and convincing evidence that he needs to be in for another 10 years. And, in fact, I think based on the one year denials what we should be looking at, if you can't find suitability, is the least amount of time possible. But I really am asking you to take a good hard look, disregard the politics and come up with a finding of suitability. Thank you, very much.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you, sir. Mr. Beausoleil, would you like to make a statement of your suitability.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I'd like to make a statement.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: First I want to thank Mr. Prahl for his comments. I believe that they are heartfelt and sincere, and I really appreciate that. And I want to thank you, as well, the members of the Paneland Mr. Sequeira for the patience to go through all of this. This is extremely painful, especially for me. It must not be all that pleasant for any of you who are involved. You know, feeling like, you know, we started off this hearing and, Mr. Anderson, you told me that we wouldn't be retrying the case. And, you know, now I'm on the other side of the hearing and I'm feeling that I've been raked over the coals again by Mr. Sequeira. And I understand. Once again, it's his job and we must expect that prosecutor is going to behave as a prosecutor and there is no reason for resentment and I don't resent him for that. I understand that he's doing what he feels like he needs to do. I do want to say -- make a couple of comments. I don't want to get hung up and try to answer, you know, to what he said because I think that would be going down a rabbit hole we'd never come back from. But there are a couple of things that I did want to mention, and one that he mentioned, a memo to -- from Lieutenant Belman, and used it as -- to make some very slanderous remarks in regards to me and also to my wife, who, by the way, is totally above reproach and really doesn't deserve that. But I would ask you to please look at the Board of Prison Terms investigation in relation to that, if you have questions about it, because the investigator went into great depth in regards to all of that and completely rejected the claims that were made in the memo that Mr. Sequeira referred to in those remarks. I also want to mention that, by the way, that, you know, a lot of the things that Mr. Sequeira is saying about thecrime and about what people said and this and that, calling it a matter of record, in point of fact, it's not a matter of record. It's coming out of books and websites and, you know, anything that can be used to, you know, undermine the ability of myself to communicate with this Panel, has been used. And, you know, it's coming -- Like I said, it's coming out of books. Ella Jo Bailey was not a witness in my crime. She was not a witness at all. In fact, she wasn't a member of the Manson Family six months before the events that we're all talking about here. So, I don't know where she comes from with her comments, if, in fact, she made them. You know, this is -- There is stuff out of books, and I can't really speak to that. It's overwhelming. It's overwhelming for anyone, for you, certainly, to try to make sense of all of that. If it is a requirement for me to answer to every little thing that someone comes up with regards to this whole mess, I don't know, you know, what I could possibly do. I don't know how I could do that. It's overwhelming. It's impossible. All I can do is tell you what I did, and -- Hold on one second. Okay. One second. Excuse me. There was an officer who had to ask me a question. I'm sorry. You know, there is just so much hysteria associated with all of this, you know, Manson story and all of that. It's -- It is not representative of who I am. I'm certain that you know that. I'm certain that everyone in the room knows that. I'm certain that Mr. Sequeira does not actually believe everything he says about me. It would be impossible. It would be impossible for someone as intelligent as he is to believe a lot of the stuff that he apparently wants you to believe. So, that's really about as much as I'm going to say to all that. You know, I came up in -- And in saying this, I want you to understand, I am not trying to minimize anything. I'm not trying to make excuses for myself. I'm not going to -- going to try to, you know, blow smoke up your skirt, you know. I'm just going to tell you the truth about what it was like for me back in those days, back in the 60s. And around the time that these events -- these horrific events took place. These were times when the entire country was in turmoil. I mean, incredible turmoil. This is a time when we had the Vietnam War, and everyone, everyone in the country was torn apart by that war. I mean, the whole social fabric came apart.



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I don't want a history on the 60s. I want to know why you're suitable for parole. I lived the 60s, so I know what happened back then. So, I don't need --

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I understand, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: -- you to give me -- Well, I don't need --


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: -- you to give me a history lesson.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I'm not trying -- I'm not trying to go around. This is a factory of my crime.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Once again, I don't need you to give me a history lesson. I lived the whole thing. So, tell me why you're suitable for parole.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, that's what I'm -- I'm not trying to tell you that.




INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- why I'm suitable for parole.





PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I'm in charge of this Board right now, and I'll --

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: (Inaudible) with you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: -- tell you how to conduct it. Did you hear what I said? I said stop arguing. Now, here is what I want from you. I want you to tell me why you're suitable for parole. Don't give me a history lesson on what happened in the 1970s. Now it's your turn, sir.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: At this point, Commissioner, I understand the Commissioner's point. It's a long day and we've been here -- If the shortcoming of this hearing is if I had my client sitting next to me I'd have the opportunity to personally confer with him. I really wish I had the chance to do that. And, in part, since, too, Mr. Beausoleil --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Well, you understand my concern, counsel?

ATTORNEY PRAHL: -- to -- Pardon me?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: You understand my concern here?

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Yes, I do. And I --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And Mr. Beausoleil has been through this. He knows what his closing statement should be, so I don't know why we're -- we're interrupting. Either he's going to make a closing statement or his isn't. This isn't any surprise to him.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Well, no. I -- And I --



DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: He's had 40 years to think about why he's suitable for parole today, so why doesn’t he just answer the question?

ATTORNEY PRAHL: And I think, Bob, let's try to focus on the Commissioner's question and look forward as I implored them to do, talk about the factors, your social history, your life with Barbara, your artwork, the things that you can produce and go to those factors and then --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Why don't we listen to the inmate and not counsel trying to tell the inmate what to say. I --

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Well, that's what --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I would think it would be more relevant to --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Well, why don't we have him do that right now?

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Go ahead, Bob.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I was trying to put into context the crime. I was attempting to put in a context for everyone concerned the kind of climate that existed at the time the crime was committed, because it certainly is a factor in the kinds of decisions that I was making and the kind of orientation that I had adopted in relation to society in general and to the world. And I was -- I was a tormented young man. I was tormented like a lot of people in my generation were tormented by what was happening around us and feeling that we were under attack.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Drugs played --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- a role in that.


ATTORNEY PRAHL: Bob, fast forward to today.


ATTORNEY PRAHL: Tell the Commissioner one --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: He's got 60 seconds to say why he's suitable for parole.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Tell him what he wants to hear, Bob.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: And the other option, he can rely on your statement you've already given.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Maybe, you know, he has nothing additional to add to what you've already said about his suitability.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: You want to rest on that, Bob?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, you know --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: You've got 60 seconds, sir. Use them wisely.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Can I use those 60 seconds?


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's okay. I'll use them. I am deeply sorry for the acts that I committed when I was 21 years old, the lies that I've told about them. I have accepted responsibility for those acts and for making the changes in my life that I need to make to be a better person and to be productive and to be of value to other people. My deep regrets to anyone who I may have hurt along the way, to my family, to Mr. Hinman's family, to anyone who has been touched by this and who -- who feels pain, sorrow because of what happened. It is not my job, Mr. Anderson, to tell you whether I'm suitable or not. I don't -- I forfeited by virtue of the fact that I took another human being's life. I forfeited the right to have any say about that. So, when it comes to that question, I throw myself on your mercy.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you, sir. The time is now 3:50. This Board is going to recess for deliberations. What I'd like to do, Mr. Beausoleil, we're going to hang up and we're going to call you back.





ATTORNEY PRAHL: This is Bill Prahl.


ATTORNEY PRAHL: We're back on for the Panel's decision.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: We're back on the record in the matter of Robert Beausoleil, B28302. This Panel reviewed all information received from the public and all relevant information that was before us today in concluding that the prisoner is not suitable for parole and would pose a present risk of danger to society or a threat to public safety if released from prison. The findings of unsuitability is based on weighing the consideration provided in the California Code of Regulations, Title 15. This is a five year denial. The first consideration that weighs heavily against suitability would be the commitment offense. This Board finds that the commitment offense is particularly heinous and atrocious and cruel. I previously incorporated the commitment offense into the record utilizing the Appellate Court Decision. I also used the probation report and I used the prior decision. I also used the inmate's version of the crime from the Board report dated 2/23/2000, page 1 and 2. There has been a lot of discussion here today and a lot of information read into the record. Therefore, I won't repeat what has already been read into the record and elaborate on many occasion. This was a crime that involved Mr. Hinman, when Mr. Beausoleil and his crime partners, Mr. Beausoleil were in the residence. They thought the victim had money, 20 thousand -- 20 to 30 thousand dollars. The victim did not have money. They tortured the victim. The victim was ultimately stabbed to death by Mr. Beausoleil. Of particular note of this particular crime is that it involved a planned and calculated event on the part of Mr. Beausoleil and his crime partners. At the time of this commitment offense Mr. Beausoleil was a member of the Manson group who were perpetrating numerous crimes within the Los Angeles County Area at that time. This victim was abused and mutilated during this commitment offense, and this crime was carried out in a manner which demonstrates an exceptionally callous disregard for human suffering. Now, I use the word human suffering in the fact that this victim was hit on the head with Mr. Beausoleil, and then he was sliced with a sword on the side of his face, ear partially severed. This victim was bleeding. This victim was suffering. Mr. Beausoleil did not provide him with aid. And Mr. Beausoleil had numerous opportunities to cease this crime. This went over a period of three days. It wasn't an instant crime. It was three days. Mr. Beausoleil eventually escaped from the crime scene by utilizing the victim's automobile. The motive for this crime is very trivial in relationship to the commitment offense in that it was robbery to finance the criminal activity of Mr. Beausoleil and his crime partners. Now, Mr. Beausoleil has been today, in my mind, evasive about how this occurred. As a Board Member we want truth and veracity. We want to be able to judge suitability for parole. I don't think Mr. Beausoleil is ready for parole. I -- We talked about the Lawrence decision today. The decision I base this on is the Shaputis decision, S-H-A-P-U-T-I-S. In Shaputis they found that there was a lack of insight on the part of the inmate. Mr. Beausoleil does not have insight. He is in denial. He is minimizing his involvement after 40 years of this commitment offense. He has not come to grips with being a member of one of the most heinous groups of criminals in the history of this country, and he's trying to deny his involvement. He has a lack of insight into this area, and he has made statements today to minimize his conduct. For instance, when asked, well, why was the crime committed or what was the catalyst for the crime, and it had had implications of starting a race war or starting involving the Black Panthers. He avoided those kinds of questions and he knew the answers to them, but he didn't want to do that. He didn't want to talk about that. He wanted to make himself out like, well, this was part of an incident where I had to collect on a drug debt. Nobody has talked about a drug debt that were involved in these criminal instances except Mr. Beausoleil. He made it up to make himself look less like a member of a violent group of people that perpetrated crimes for their ideology. This inmate has a past criminal history of arrests for drug offenses, burglary and 211. He has an unstable social history (inaudible). He has commitments to juvenile camp, and he has in his background drug and alcohol addiction. He blames others for some of his situations today, specifically, his growing up and explaining what happened to him as he moved along. He does not tell of why he killed this victim, Mr. Hinman, at the time that he did. The psych report that was completed on, it looks like 6/24/2008, is a favorable report. With respect to overall reasons for denial would be in summary, recent disciplinary history of two disciplinary actions in '07 and '08, lack of California Parole Plans, and lack of insight. With respect to his institutional behavior, I would ask the Deputy Commissioner to summarize that at this time.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Well, based on the counselor's report, Mr. Beausoleil, you did get your GED and you have been involved in several of self-help programming. Currently you've mentioned you attend NA twice every two weeks. So, although that's not documented in your counselor's report but you did seem to know the steps and you seem to be practicing them. On behalf of your vocational certifications, it does show you have certifications in electronics, video production, print design and programs, and you did work for at least seven years in the video production area. Currently you are in the work pool status waiting to be assigned, and you seem to think after the first of the year when the instructor gets back you'll go back into multimedia. And you do have a total of 10 115s since your -- I'm sorry. Ten write ups, five 115s and five 128s since your incarceration.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you. With respect to 3042 responses, the Panel received a presentation today by a member of the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office. The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office recommends that parole be denied. The Panel also received over 50 letters from the community recommending that parole be denied. As I pointed out, based on my opening comments, this is a five year denial. This Panel has no substantial doubt that based on the circumstances that at this time this prisoner does not require a 15 year denial. After all -- weighing all the evidence presented for us -- presented to us here today, we found that the inmate is unsuitable for parole because he remains a present risk of danger if released and requires an additional five years of incarceration. The reason for this five years of incarceration is he has -- his age at this time reduces his recidivism risk. He has expressed signs of remorse as well as written letters. And we have no substantial doubt that at this time he does not require a 10 year denial. Again, while we find that weighing all the evidence, we find that the negative factors outweigh the positive factors of unsuitability. Deputy Commissioner, do you have any final comments?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Our final comments today as a Panel is that you remain disciplinary free, you continue to upgrade vocationally and educationally, and you participate in self-help programs. The time is now three --


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Sorry. The time is now 4:29. This hearing is now concluded.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: I do have one comment. Mr. Beausoleil --


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TURNER: Beausoleil, you need to develop some California parole plans.



INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: The last Panel validated my parole plans, which are exactly the same as this, so I thought I was covered.

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Bobby, I'll be in touch.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Would it be possible for me to talk with you, Bill, off the record when the hearing concludes? Could we go off of speakerphone?

ATTORNEY PRAHL: Yeah, for a few minutes.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Do you have an office for him?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, I just need a minute.





PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: The time is now 4:30. We're now concluded.