Monday, December 13, 2010







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

DECEMBER 13, 2010
9:25 A.M.

ARTHUR ANDERSON, Presiding Commissioner
JAMES MARTIN, Deputy Commissioner

STEVEN MORETZ, Attorney for Inmate
PATRICK SEQUEIRA, Deputy District Attorney
FRANCES BERRIOS, Case Records Technician



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. The time is now 9:25. Today's date is 12/13/2010. We're located at the Sacramento Central Office. We're going to conduct a Subsequent Parole Hearing for Robert Beausoleil, CDC Number 11100535. Beausoleil was committed to CDCR for -- I'm going to correct. That was an Oregon CDC number. We're going to go with the California number for Mr. Beausoleil, that would be B-28302. Mr. Beausoleil was committed to CDCR for murder in the first degree from Los Angeles County. He serves a sentence 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, spelling our last name. We're going to go -- start with myself, we're going to the right. My name is Arthur Anderson, A-N-D-E-R-S-O-N, Commissioner.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Good morning. I'm James Martin, M-A-R-T-I-N, Deputy Commissioner, Board of Parole Hearings.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Patrick Sequeira, S-E-Q-U-E-I-R-A, Deputy District Attorney, County of Los Angeles.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Steven Moretz, M-O-R-E-T-Z, attorney for inmate Beausoleil.

MS. BERRIOS: Frances Berrios, B-E-R-R-I-O-S, Case Records Technician.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. My name is Robert Beausoleil, B-28302. I'm an inmate.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. Would you spell your last name.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you. We're going to go over some ADA issues to make sure nothing has changed since we've looked at your ADA declaration.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Sir, I didn't get your name. I'm having quite a bit of difficulty hearing on the, you know, your speaker phone over there.




INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. Are you the same Mr. Anderson I was before before?


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Thank you, Sir. All right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. I'm looking at your disability form, and I don't see any disabilities from the C-File review. Is that still true?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: And you don't need any help other than what you're getting here for the parole hearing. Is that still true?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. I'm going to ask you a few questions, just answer yes or no. Can you see?






PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: And do you have a learning disability?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Are you part of the mental health system?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Any disabilities we need to discuss here today?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: We've had the opportunity to review your Central File and your prior transcripts. And if you have trouble hearing, let me know, and I'll try to adjust the volume or anything like that to make sure you get all the information.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: We've 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. The Panel is not here to retry the case. We're here for the sole purpose of determining your suitability for parole. Do you understand that today, sir?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Counsel, did you meet with your client to discuss his rights regarding the hearing today and the format we'll be using?

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Excuse me, Sir?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Did you meet with your client --

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Yes. Sorry, I missed that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: -- to discuss the hearing procedure and the format we'll be using?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you. Mr. Beausoleil, did you meet with your attorney, or whatever you did since you're in a different location, to discuss the hearing procedure and your rights?

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

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Did you meet with your attorney to discuss the hearing procedure and your rights?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you. And also, were you given a copy of your lifer hearing rights by your correctional counselor?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: And as we pointed out, you've already discussed with your attorney the rights that you have, the factors that we use to determine suitability, and the procedures of this hearing. Do you have any questions about any of those items?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Counsel, has your client's rights been met up to this point?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Are there any preliminary objections?

ATTORNEY MORETZ: The only preliminary objections I submitted beforehand to you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I don't consider those beforehand, so you're going to have to make them individually.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Okay. The only thing that we're basically looking for is that there were like four different investigations which were done, and Mr. Beausoleil would like to stipulate to those findings. In the past, it seems like we've tried to rehash those out as we went along. One was the Plyler investigation. There was another, and Ms. Plyler actually initiated it, it was the Truman Capote interview, and --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Well, what do you want me to do?

ATTORNEY MORETZ: We would just like to stipulate to the fact of what her findings were. It was very inconclusive about the Manson association. They had varying people who were unavailable, memories fresh, 25 years ago when this investigation was done.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I'm not going to grant that. We'll use whatever is available in the package.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Okay. Well, that's --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: So, if it's in the package, we're going to use it. that. else?

ATTORNEY MORETZ: What's in the package.


ATTORNEY MORETZ: Okay. We'll go along with


ATTORNEY MORETZ: Okay. I suppose that's the only preliminary objection that's very important at this time, Sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you. Deputy Commissioner Martin, are there any confidential items for this hearing today?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: That was considered in the last hearing, and as similar to the last hearing, there is no confidential information that will be used today.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. I'm going to pass the hearing checklist to counsel. I'm going to ask counsel after he reviews the hearing checklist to pass the hearing checklist to the District Attorney Sequeira for their review to make sure we have the same package. I've got the package.

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

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you. I will mark the hearing checklist Exhibit Number One. Counsel, what we have today is some CDs that you submitted.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: And we have a package that you submitted that has -- well, basically it has support letters and it has some self-help programs and certificates, and other information that you'd like us to consider during our hearing here today. We'll utilize this information either in deliberation or in discussion during the hearing here today. Any other documents you want to submit today, sir?

ATTORNEY MORETZ: The only ones I submitted to Ms. Berrios were things that came in in the last two days.


ATTORNEY MORETZ: There's only two documents. There was a support letter from Cynthia Daden.


ATTORNEY MORETZ: Also from Fred Sly, who was the instructor for the Non-Violent Communications course up in where Mr. Beausoleil is housed.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. Let's see. We have that too right here, letters. Okay. Counsel, will your client be speaking to the Panel today?

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Yes, he will.

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


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


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you. Mr. Martin, you have the transcript?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: I believe I returned it to you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I believe you did too. Thank you.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Today I will incorporate by reference the entire transcript of the December 22nd, 2008 Board hearing. I'll also incorporate by reference the facts of the commitment offense as found in the appellate court decision, pages 2 through 4. I'll also incorporate the decision of the 12/7/2005 Board hearing. I'll also incorporate by reference the prior criminal history that we reviewed in the CI&I report. That's in his C-File. In the summary, we have a summary that they submitted to us. A lot of things are going to be different because this is an interstate case, Mr. Beausoleil is not here in California. But I'll utilize what they have here today, and use the appellate court decision as well in terms of our discussion here today. Beausoleil was convicted on June 23rd, 1970 for murder in the first degree in Los Angeles County. His death sentence was commuted two years later to a sentence of life in prison, with the eligibility for parole after seven years. The codefendants in this case were members of the Charles Manson Family. Beausoleil was an associate of the group. The victim was Gary Hinman, H-I-N-M-A-N, an acquaintance of Beausoleil, whose death occurred as a result of being stabbed twice in the chest. Reports indicate that Susan Atkins, Mary Brunner, went to the home of Gary Hinman for the purpose of extorting 20 thousand dollars as a request of Charles Manson. When attempts failed at extorting Hinman, Beausoleil pulled a nine-millimeter gun, struck him over the head, causing head wounds. Manson arrived at the home and slashed Hinman across the face with a sword, severing his left ear. Beausoleil, Atkins and Brunner remained in the home for a day and a half after receiving orders from Manson to kill Hinman. Hinman was forced to sign over the pink slips to his two automobiles, and was later stabbed by Beausoleil. Beausoleil, Atkins and Brunner wiped down the house for prints and wrote political piggy in a symbol of a paw print in Hinman's blood to make it look like Hinman was killed by the Black Panthers. Mr. Hinman, do you have any correction to what I just read in that summary?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Are you speaking to me, Sir? I'm Mr. Beausoleil.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I'm sorry. Correction. I apologize for that.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, that's fine.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Mr. Beausoleil, do you have any corrections you want to make?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, I don't. I accept that the information that you have is what you must be guided by.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I went there to get money from him initially, and things went bad, and Charles Manson ended up showing up, slashed him across the face, and then he left and told me that if I was a man, I would take care of the problem of the threat that Mr. Hinman was perceived to be.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: What kind of threat was he?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, after Manson slashed him, I guess he was worried that Hinman was going to go to the police and inform on him.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Well, how did you know Hinman?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I knew him casually for a couple of years. He was part of the group that, you know, socialized together. He had been, you know, part of, you know, Charlie's commune for a little time, a little while. He was living in his own home at the time that he was murdered. But he was known in that area, in the Topanga Canyon area, and I had lived there for a time.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Well, didn't you know him from other reasons too?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Did I know him from other -- excuse me?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Did you have other reasons to know Mr. Hinman?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I had bought pot from him on occasion, then that was pretty much it. He was just someone that lived in Topanga Canyon who I knew, and is one of the, you know, one of the people that lived in that area.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Now, you go to the home. Why was Hinman targeted for money?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I needed to get money to make good on a problem that I had with the Straight Satan's Motorcycle Club.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: The Straight Satan's Motorcycle Club, who, a portion of that club lived at Spahn Ranch and hung out with Charlie.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Well, let me ask you this. Whose idea was it to extort money from Hinman? You say you needed money, but whose idea was it? You say you needed money.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: So, whose idea was it to get the money from Hinman?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It was essentially my idea to get the money from him. You know, this is really -- I just want to accept that the information that you have in front of you is going to be the information that you're guided by. I went there to get money from him. There are some discrepancies in the testimony between various people, and they don't match, and I just don't want to contest it anymore, if that's okay. You know, I accept full responsibility for my participation in these events, and I don't mean to diminish anyone's responsibility in this. But there are discrepancies in certain things in terms of the reason why we had gone there to get money from him.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Let me tell you how this is going to work, Mr. Beausoleil. You can answer any questions you want, or you don't have to answer the question, but I need to determine your suitability and how you think at this time.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: So, I don't want to go back just on historical information. I can do that with any package. And you may not like the outcome if I just go back on historical information, because it's not pretty, my friend.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, it's not. It's not. It isn't.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: So, you could -- you know, it's your choice. I got some concerns, so you need to address those concerns.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: What are your specific concerns, Mr. Anderson?


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I'll do my best.



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Now, you say it was your -- here's my one concern. You said it was your idea, but then Charlie Manson is involved. How is Charlie Manson involved in this commitment offense?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: He came there because he had been told that Gary Hinman had gotten the gun away from me, which was true. He had been called by --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: One of the women that was with me at the time. And he thought that, I guess he thought his girls were in trouble, and that's why he came to Hinman's place.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Well, now, how is Bruce Davis involved in this transaction?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Bruce Davis came with Charlie. He's the person who originally -- he and Dan DeCarlo from Straight Satan's were the two individuals that drove me to Hinman's place in the first place and dropped me off. Then Bruce Davis came in with Charles Manson. As the information that you have, that part is true. He came with Manson. He didn't do anything to Hinman, but the gun that I had was his gun, and he was concerned about that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: So, when Charles Manson was there --




PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: So, how did you have the victim under control?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I didn't. At that time, I had determined that Gary didn't have any money to speak of, and that we were, you know, we were on a fool's errand, essentially, and he had signed over the pink slips to his old jalopies, and as a way of placating the situation, I guess, and I was ready to leave, actually, when Manson showed up.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: So, did Manson order the victim to be killed, or you decided to kill the victim?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, as far as being ordered, I don't think of it as a specific order, but he manipulated me. I was pressured, and, you know, I had this desperate need to prove myself as a man and to be accepted. And that was part of the problem originally with the Straight Satan's, because I wanted to be accepted in their group or at least be respected by them, and Manson put it to me that if I was a real man, that I would take care of the problem. And it got to me where I lived, you know. I was, as I said, I was desperate to prove myself and to find acceptance, and that overrode, that selfish need, overrode my good sense and my moral upbringing, and my empathy with Mr. Hinman.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: How long were you in the presence of the victim before he was killed?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: How long did you have the victim in your control before he was killed? Was it a period of one day, two days, one hour?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It was about a day-1/2, total. It was after, Manson had come a couple hours after I had first arrived there, and then left, and I was trying to doctor Mr. Hinman, I was trying to get him patched up, and I wasn't hoping he wouldn't go to the police. And, you know, I had called Manson at one point and told him, you know, I didn't know what to do, because it was his problem. You know, he had slashed this man, and I didn't know what to do, and I wanted to turn it back over to him, because it was, in my mind, his problem. And it was at that point that he told me that if I was, you know, if I was a man, I'd take care of it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: So, in your mind back then, and we're talking back then, why do you think you killed the victim?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Why do I think I killed him?


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Because I was afraid that if I didn't -- I know this sounds pathetic, because it really is -- I was afraid that if I didn't take care of the problem, that I would fail to earn the respect that I desired from these people.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Do you think your sentence was fair?



INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Because what I did was horrendous. It was a horrible thing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Why should you get out of prison today?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Why should you get out of prison? It's just an open-ended question.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Because I'm not the same man that I was who killed Gary Hinman, and there is no possibility that I would ever put myself in a similar position again. There is no possibility that I would ever treat another human being with disrespect and indignity as I did him. I am secure in myself as a man, I absolutely, I'm absolutely confident in my orientation, in my spirituality, in the relationships that I have created with other people, or developed with other people. There isn't a vile inclination in me. And I have learned from this, I have learned in a very profound way what the consequences are, why the consequences are the way they are on both a legal level, a human level as well, but also on a spiritual level. And, you know, the indignity that I put Mr. Hinman through, and the violence that I committed against his person was truly, in my way of thinking now, a sacrilege. And I deeply, very deeply regret what I did. But again, in answer to your question, I am not the troubled young man I was 41 years ago, and so that's what's --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: So, let me ask this question. Back on the crime, you got stopped in San Luis Obispo driving one of Hinman's cars; is that correct?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Did you tell the police you got the car from a Negro?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Why did you tell them that?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Because it was consistent with the way that I had chosen to cover my tracks, which was to try to make it look like some of the people that Hinman had been involved with at UCLA were responsible for his death.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: So, you're saying the people that Hinman were involved with were Negros at the time?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. Well, he was involved with some black people who were radicals. He was very much into radical philosophy, and this is, of course, well known. I hope it doesn't seem like I'm maligning this man, because I would not do that, but it is just a simple fact that he was very much into what would be considered at that time radical political philosophies. And he socialized at UCLA with that, you know, to some extent, with those types of people.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: So, what was the purpose of making the crime look like the Black Panthers of the time did this killing of Hinman? What was the purpose of that?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: To make it look like, as I just said, that it was, that the people who were responsible were people, other people that Hinman had been involved with.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: So, you're saying Hinman was involved with the Black Panthers?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don't know specifically that he was involved with Black Panthers. As I said, he was involved with radical groups at UCLA, which usually, at that time, included members of the Black Panther party.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Were you a racist at the time?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, Sir. I have never been a racist. In fact, I was a member of the group Love, which at the time was called the Grass Roots, and it was a band consisting of two black guys and two white guys, and that's well known. And, you know, one of disagreements that I, ongoing disagreements that I had with Manson, is his racial philosophy at that time, and I didn't share his views in that respect, or with respect to his misogynist attitudes towards women.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Well, if you didn't share his views, why did you request at one time during your prison history to be housed with Charles Manson?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don't recall that that was exactly the question. What I was trying to do at that time was to get his involvement -- I don't know, I was reaching for straws at the time. I was trying to find some way to clear up what had happened, to get a more accurate picture of what had been going on with him, with me, with everyone involved, because I thought it had gotten out of hand, and the media had taken it a direction that didn't make sense. And so I was desperately trying to make sense of it, and I was, in that comment, was trying to reassure people who were afraid that he and I would have difficulties, confrontational difficulties, if we were to be able to be face-to-face. So, that was my purpose. I was trying to have, this was a series of communications having to do with legal meetings between someone who was a codefendant.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I'm going to come back. Mr. Martin, I'm going to turn the hearing over to you for some post-conviction factors.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Post-conviction? May I ask a couple of questions about the life crime?


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Good morning, again. Still on the life crime, sir.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: I understand that at the crime scene, the words, political piggy, were written on the wall; is that correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I thought it was, political pig, but it may have been, political piggy, yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Who wrote those words?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: To be honest with you, I don't recall who did. Susan Atkins has said at least once or twice that it was her, that she had done that. I don't recall. I was, after I had killed Gary, I was completely devastated, and there are holes in what I remember afterwards. And so I honestly, I think, I'm sure because of the lame strategy of trying to make it look like it was Mr. Hinman's cohorts, that I had agreed to it, in any case. But specifically as to who put that there, I couldn't honestly say.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Did you have any real political disagreement with the victim?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, I didn't. Not at all.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: So, would I be correct that Mr. Hinman was victimized only for financial gain, not for any political disagreement?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, at that point, no. I would think that -- I wouldn't characterize it that way. It was no longer an issue of his having money or not having money. In fact, I've got to tell you, I never heard prior to going to his place anything about a 20 thousand dollar inheritance. It's true that I went there for money, and so I think that's really not all that -- you know, I don't know how important it is. It doesn't seem to make sense to me. And that testimony came from, I think it was Danny DeCarlo, who was one of the Straight Satan's, who I was trying to get money for. So, I don't know what his motive was for bringing that information into the trial, but we were kind of stuck with that. So, let me just say that it was not for money that he was killed. At that point, it was because Manson had slashed his face, and he -- and Manson and Davis and I assumed, although I didn't hear it directly from them, members of the Straight Satan's were concerned that he was going to inform on them, and so he was killed because he was perceived as a threat at that point.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Still on the life crime, I believe you said earlier that at the time of the life crime, you wanted to be accepted by a motorcycle gang.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I say that loosely, because I wasn't trying to join the club. What I was trying to do was find some way to -- you know, at that time I looked really young, you know, I looked like a baby, really. I couldn't grow a beard, even though I was 21 years old, and I had a lot of doubts about myself. I wanted to find a way to cross that threshold from boyhood into manhood in the eyes of older men. I looked up to these guys. They were, in Manson's case, I think he was about 15 years older than me, and Davis was a number of years older, and most of the members of the Straight Satan's Motorcycle Club who hung out there were, you know, ten years older or so. And I romanticized, you know, this lifestyle. You know, of course, now being older and wiser, I see the folly in that, I see how delusional I was in regards to what they really were, you know, as compared to the way I had romanticized them. But that, in any case, is what I was talking about. You know, I wanted to prove myself to these men, these older men, in general, and have their acceptance as, you know, a sense of belonging in the fraternity of men, you know.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Do you think romanticizing a criminal motorcycle gang is misguided?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I absolutely do, yes. Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Something tangential, sir, and we'll get into this when we talk about your vocational skills --


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: -- because I want to hear in a little while about your skills in music and art. You've tried to market your prison art; am I correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. In fact, I do it now.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Did you ever represent to one of your marketers that the death of Mr. Hinman came about because of a misconceived drug transaction?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don't follow the question exactly.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Well, I'm wondering how you have rationalized the life crime in the past. You're explaining it one way to us today, and I'm wondering if it's ever been explained a different way. Did you ever describe the life crime as being a misconceived drug transaction?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, Sir, I did, because that is how I came into it.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Deputy Commissioner, can I interject just a moment? Back in 2003, there was a statement of facts. I think what Mr. Beausoleil is saying is, he's admitting his reason for going there was for an illicit purpose.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: And sir, I'm trying to find out, is it some sort of political reason, is it to extort money, is it because of drug transaction? This is what I'm wondering about.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: There have been allegations, and both allegations involve money, and it was not -- the political agenda was more his attempt at 21 to try to cover up his crime. They went there for money. There has always been allegations he went there to start or create money for a race war. Mr. Beausoleil basically introduced the statement of facts through his then-counsel, Carolyn Hagen, in 2003, stating that he'd gone there over -- Mr. Hinman was not a dealer, but someone who created his own mescaline, and these bikers that sent him back to get their money. But we're conceding to the fact that what he went there for was for an illicit recovery of money that he was not entitled to do.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Do you agree with that, sir?


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: I'll return to the Chair. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you. If you get a date, Mr. Beausoleil, I see here that you're going to reside with your wife in Salem, Oregon.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: And it's been her residence since 2001. And if we ask you to parole to California, which we'll most likely do, Ms. Beausoleil's son, Mr. Freeman, has provided a secondary residence in Southern California. And you also have an alternate residence by Daniel and Claudia Beausoleil, your brother and sister-in-law, in Southern Oregon.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: And in terms of work, you intend to support yourself as an independent videographer and multi-media artist. You produce numerous videos and media projects, as the Deputy Commissioner pointed out previously, and you cite other sources of income to include royalties generated from the ongoing sale of your past music recordings, and revenue from the sale of your paintings that you've created. You plan to provide the following community resources that you're going to participate in, in other words, AA in Oregon, and the Community Action Agency in Salem, Oregon. I have in here since your last Board Parole Hearing you've continued to use your incarceration positively. You've actively participated in college classes, we're going to discuss that momentarily, Narcotics Anonymous meetings. You frequently contribute to fundraising, food drives, collection of personal care products for the homeless children and other groups in crisis that are facing economic challenges. I don't go in any specific order, but I have numerous letters of support for you provided by counsel. I have a letter here from Steven Cooper, and this is November 22nd, 2010. He's in Santa Cruz, California. He has some animation software. He's known you since 1998. How does he know you?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I contacted him through my job within -- at that time I was working in the facility at OSP called OSP Television.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It was a, you know, a video multimedia, you know, a small facility in the activities section. I was the lead man for that program. I contacted Mr. Cooper to try to get his support for our project, because we had to do everything for the most part by way of donation. And he did provide software, and a relationship has developed from that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: He says in support of you, he would welcome your active participation in a beta testing program, and welcome dialog with him, "regarding future development of our software product." And he's giving you a letter of support, it's an overall letter of support. Michael Monahan wrote you a letter. He's in Waterbury Center, Vermont, November 12th, 2010 is the letter. This is a letter of support. He says he came in contact with you in 1990. He interviewed you about your life story for an internationally distributed newsstand magazine from New York when he was a staff writer. He said he interviewed you, you had deep regret and remorse for your actions. This is a letter of support. Aaron Guadamuse. How do you pronounce that?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Guadamuse. Okay. And he's writing you a letter of support. He visited you in Pendleton in Salem.



INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: He doesn't mention it, but Aaron Guadamuse is a very talented artist and animator, and so we have a, you know, a kind of -- as well as a musician, and we have an artistic relationship.



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you. J. Somerset wrote you a letter of support.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: And he interviewed you about a year ago for a magazine article in a music magazine.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: He's never met you in person, but he carried on a lengthy email and phone call correspondence. And he is writing you a letter of support. He lives in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Then we have a letter here from Robert Furbrush. He's a manager of a recording studio in Denver, and he started corresponding with you in 1995, and it's a letter of support for you for parole. Thomas Huston wrote you a letter of support on October 24th, 2010. He believes you should be allowed to leave prison. It's a letter of support. And Mr. Huston lives in Annapolis, Maryland. Randy Gere wrote you a letter. He's the Chief of Inmate Services in Salem, Oregon for the Oregon Department of Corrections. He wrote you a very lengthy letter, I've already read it. I've already read it, but in essence, he's recommending that you be paroled. He's known you for 20 years. He says you were under the spell of Manson. mean?




PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Mr. Gere said you were under the spell of Charles Manson. What does that mean?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That I am, or that I was?


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. I would say that to a certain extent, that's absolutely true.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: You know, this whole Manson thing --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: You know, can I --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Let me tell you something, Mr. Beausoleil. You think it's going to away? It ain't going to go away.



INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: And, you know, I have some thoughts on that. Can I share them with you?



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Just like your crime, it's not going to go away. Gary Hinman has people that loved him. That's not going to go away.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: You have people that love you. That's not going to go away. So, let's not -- you don't get a chance in a parole hearing just to say how good I am, you get a chance to -- we get a chance to find out now bad you were.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I accept that, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: So, this is not all about the good stuff, it's also about the bad stuff too.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: And then we make a determination. So, don't think I'm going to ignore the bad stuff too.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, you know, my relationship with Manson is the stupidest thing I've ever done in my life, and the most ignorant.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Well, don't try to take me down that road. I'm not going that way.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I'm not sure what you mean, Sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: You're trying to move me in a direction that I don't want to go to by saying, well, we don't want to talk about Manson, well, we don't want to talk about this. We just want to talk about this, the good stuff.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, I'm absolutely willing to talk about Manson --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- if that's what you would want me to do. I will answer any question related to that that you may have.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Well, then stop trying to direct me into an area that I don't want to go to.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. I didn't --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I'll decide where I'm going to go.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Continuing on, Katherine Crosslin wrote you a letter of support, October 1, 2010. It's a letter of support.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: I believe it's Katherine Crosslin. Is that what you said, Sir?



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: C-R-O-S-S-L-I-N, CEO, In-Star Performance, and October 1, 2010. She lives -- her company is in Redmond, Washington.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: If I could clarify, she took over the, In-Star Performance took over for the Breaking Barriers that was established.


ATTORNEY MORETZ: And so she worked with Mr. Beausoleil directly there in Oregon when he was doing the DVD series.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: And she mentions that right here. Thank you. "In all of our interaction, I found him to be respectful, confident, creative, and exceptionally professional. His contributions to our company have been significant in our success across the country." Got one here from Steve Fulvari, Production Manager for Sony Creative Software in Middleton, Washington. It's a letter of support. He says, "Should he be granted parole, I feel certain that Bobby's skills would readily establish him in the media industry. His abilities are strong enough that we have considered using him as an independent contractor in the past, and will again consider him as such in the future. I am confident that Bobby would be successful on parole." Okay. Counsel, how many letters of support do you have, 30?

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Actually, Sir, there's probably more in the area of 50. I tried to make them organized where the professional letters would be together. There were like almost 20 of those. And also, family support letters, there were approximately 20 of those. So, you have 33. But section four are the professional letters.



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to acknowledge that there are numerous letters of support. I'm looking at one from Jeannie Beausoleil, it's his daughter, October 30th, 2010. There's family support, there is community support, there is industry support, there's friends. I'm going to acknowledge through the letters and correspondence that Mr. Beausoleil has exceptional skills and abilities to support himself, as well as support in the community. The Deputy Commissioner and I will continue to read -- I mean, I say I've read most of the letters, but it would take me forever to read these on the record. So, I will acknowledge that they're there.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Thank you, Sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Commissioner Martin, I'll go back to you for any comments you may have up to this point, and then let's go into some post-conviction factors.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Yes. Mr. Beausoleil, good morning, again.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: And during this portion of the hearing, we'll review your institutional adjustment since your last Board appearance.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: And I have reviewed and will rely on your C-File, I've got it sitting here in front of me, a post-conviction progress report dated May 1st, 2010, quite a bit of material from your attorney, a previous transcript, and a psychological evaluation by Dr. Colistro, C as in cat, C-O-L-I-S-T- R-O, and that's dated June the 24th, 2008. Sir, you came to CDC on June the 23rd, 1970, and I understand you're currently housed in Oregon State Prison?


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: And are you general population?


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Okay. How does that go? Are you doing okay? No enemies?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, I have no problems at all. I'm working for Oregon Corrections Enterprises as a videographer, multimedia contact creator. It's the best job I've ever had, and the people just love the work that I'm doing, so I'm in my element and am doing really well.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Okay. You've answered my next question, and that was your present assignment. And you tell me you're presently assigned as a videographer.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Well, that takes us, that segues into your -- I'll talk about your vocational skills. I understand that you were always interested in art and music.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: And tell us about your accomplishments in music.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I was a musician on the outside prior to coming to prison. I was a professional musician. I had some bands, a couple that became fairly well known. I was in the San Francisco music scene during the heyday, and got to share the stage with some of the old greats, and so I brought that with me. You know, I did lose my way there for a time.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Like who did you share the stage with?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Who did you share the stage with?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, we played gigs with Steve Miller Band, the Grateful Dead, Moby Grape, Quick Silver Messenger Service. I was in the band, also when I was in LA, I was in the Grass Roots, who later became the band Love, a pretty well known band.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: What about the Sons of Champlin?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: The Sons of Champlin? We've done some gigs with the Sons of Champlin. They were on the same bill with us on a couple of occasions.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Mr. Beausoleil, what was your first instrument?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: The guitar. I started with guitar and expanded out from there a little bit. I am a multi-instrumentalist, but still primarily a guitarist.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Okay. And thank you for that. Now tell me about your skills as a videographer.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I began working in video in the 70's at Tracy. There was a federally-funded video program. I started in about 1976. And later I worked, you know, part-time there for a couple of years, and then later I was also, there was a similar program in Soledad, and I worked there for a number of years. And, in fact, I graduated the program and then began teaching it as an assistant to the teacher, and so I brought that background with me. Also, while I was in California, I was programming synthesizers. I was able to get approval from the administration to be able to program synthesizers for a couple of multi-national companies, specifically Casio and Kawai, and I did that for a number of years, so I had some additional experience with digital technology. Then when I got up here to Oregon, the administration had reviewed my record and found that I had these abilities. They were interested in starting a video program for informational purposes for training inmates and, you know, for conveying information related to the operations of the prison, orientation and that sort of thing. So, they hired me to do that, and assigned me to assemble a video production facility, and I worked in that facility for about ten years, or actually, I think it was more like nine years. And I developed a number of relationships with people in the industry during the process of that, and my work kept getting better. So, as a result of all that, I'm now working for the business arm of the Oregon Department of Corrections, which is called Oregon Corrections Enterprises. They are essentially what you would probably know as prison industries, and they have a number of businesses within their company, and so I produce training, safety training, orientation training, promotional videos and that sort of thing for the company. I'm also doing some work for the Inmate Services Division of the Department of Corrections. I'm working on a series of animations called Ask Professor Preponderance, which are targeting people, young people, children who have a loved one in prison, a parent or a sibling, to try to mitigate the difficulties they have understanding the situation that their loved one is in, and by answering some of their questions.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Okay. Mr. Beausoleil, for the record, can we say that your title is Lead Production Coordinator and Technician of the OSP Video Department? Would that be right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, that would be. Actually, where I'm working now I don't have a crew. I'm it, I do all of it, so it's a just a one-man show.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: So, it's evolved a little bit. It's a very intensive gig, to be honest with you, and I've received indications that should I be paroled, the company will continue to contract with me to have me continue producing work for them.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: For a time, Mr. Beausoleil, you were housed at our death row in San Quentin, correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, that's true.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: And when you came off death row, I believe you expressed interest in sheet metal work.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That was much later. I did for a very short amount of time enter the sheet metal program at CMC East. I think that was actually in the early 80's.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Okay. And did you get a certificate from that?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, I didn't. I didn't stay with it.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don't know. I didn't stay with it for very long. I got out of the program because it wasn't suitable for me. You know, the only reason really that I got into it was because it was about all that was left available. The rules down in California, I don't know how they are now, but at that time you could only get into, you could only do so many vocations, and I had already completed two levels of vocational work in electronics, and so I was looking to get into something else where I could continue learning some skills that would be of value. I tried sheet metal, it didn't work out for me.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Okay. Keep in mind, the area we're in now is your vocational skills. We've talked about your music, we've talked about your videographer skills. You had a brief training with sheet metal. Tell me about electronics.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I started by learning electronics on my own. I was in the hobby program, I was approved to be able to develop electronic musical instruments, so I began experimenting and building instruments. I learned how to build circuits and eventually to design them, but I wanted to legitimize my work in this area, so I entered into the electronics program and got, you know, the fundamentals that I needed, and graduated from that to electronics II where I was -- I had within less than the time that was allocated for the program, I completed the test work, and then I was allowed to continue to develop within the program some of the musical instrument designs that I had been working on.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Sir, do you have a vocational certificate for electronics in your C-File?



INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: For both electronics I and electronics II, and there should also be one there for printing. I was the media designer, the pre-press graphics designer for the print shop for 18 months.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: And I'll check for all those certificates. Thank you.



INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: And there's also a certificate for video production in Soledad. That was an educational certificate.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: All right. Of these skills we have talked about, which one will be the carryover one that will make you money when you're in free society?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I'm sure that I'll be able to continue making money in music work and in production. I'm pretty good at that. Robert Furbrush, whose letter Mr. Anderson referenced, he has a professional studio, and he attests to my skills in that area. So, I'll probably continue that, but that would be in line and inclusive with the work in video and multimedia production that I'm doing. It ties in. For all of the work that I do for OCE now, for example, and all the work that I did for OSP television prior to that, I have produced original music for all of those projects.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Do you see yourself as still wanting to be part of entertainment?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Part of the -- excuse me?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Do you see yourself as still wanting to be part of the entertainment industry?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: You mean as a performing musician?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Well, I'm just, I'm curious about what drives you psychologically. Do you want to be famous?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, I don't. No, I'm not interested in that at all. I've kind of, I've matured greatly in the past four decades, trust me. No. I would like to play with some of the talented musicians who I correspond with and am friends with. That would be a pleasure, and I would do that probably only in recordings. I might perform on stage with some of them at times, but I have no aspirations to become a touring musician or, you know, make it in the music industry in that way. It would be just part of the multimedia, primarily. It would be part of that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: One skill we haven't mentioned is your art skills, your graphic arts skills.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Sir, I saw a letter that commented that much of the topics, or much of your artistic subjects were sexual activities. Any comment about that?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, that's not true. It was at one time. I did a series of erotic art back in the late 70's and early 80's. You know, it was an area that I was exploring, and they were, you know, cartoons essentially, and there were some explicit. It was, during that time it was more acceptable. But I grew up, I matured, I got away from that. My subjects now are much different and not of that orientation. I accept, you know, commissions, and I've sold originals, and, you know, my wife is an artist as well, and we both sell our art. And I was wondering if it would be okay while we're on this topic, could I return to a question that you asked me earlier?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: What question is that, sir?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, you asked me, and I don't think I adequately answered it, you asked me regarding the marketing of my artwork, and someone I had marketed it to, was I telling that person that the crime that I was involved with had something to do with the drug deal. And so I don't think I adequately answered. I'm not sure exactly what the -- I wasn't clear on the question, to be honest, and I tried to answer it, but I wanted to make one thing clear.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Well, let me interrupt you, Mr. Beausoleil.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: There are times, and my associate, Commissioner Anderson, commented earlier in this hearing, there are times when you want to distance yourself from the Manson Family.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: You tried that earlier. Yet, the marketing of your art in the past has utilized the Manson Family as a feature of you, maybe a part of your character. I don't know.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I'm not sure what --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: So, are you trying to have it two ways, sir?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, I don't think so, because I don't know what you mean that I've tried to, that it was somehow part of my art. Could you give me a specific instance where --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Well, you tell me. Do you think you'll ever be done with associating with the Manson Family?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I am done with it, absolutely done with it. I do not market any of my art or any of my music on the basis of my relationship with Manson, or my involvement with that group, or on the basis of having, you know, a crime associated with me. I'm very, very, very careful about that. I market my art with the approval of the superintendent here at the prison. I've got all the correct approvals, and I'm very, very conscientious about keeping the promotion of the art strictly on the basis of the value of the art itself. And if you look into this, my attorney has plenty of information about it, and he can provide you with it. I absolutely do not involve Manson or Manson-related subjects in my art. And, I mean, I suppose, you know, some people might interpret, but I have not been accused of that by anyone who is familiar with the art that I've been producing.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. Are there any other, any more information you want to give me about your vocational skills that we haven't touched on?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, I think we've probably pretty much covered it.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Okay. Thank you. Let's move to your academic upgrading. The highest grade you achieved before prison was what? You were a high school dropout, I understand.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I was. I had gone as high as the tenth grade.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: So, that means you were about 16 years old.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: And you've done -- well, I can't really summarize it, but you've done quite a bit of educational, academic upgrading. You've achieved your GED.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: And moving to the adjustment since the last Board hearing, or in recent years, you have a -- you've earned college certifications from the In-Out Prison Exchange Program up there in Oregon.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. It's actually called Inside-Out. sorry.



DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: I have it here abbreviated In-Out. You have received a certificate of recognition, the date on that is 2009 from the Sociology Department at Oregon State University. You've received a certificate of recognition from the Robert Clark Honors College at University of Oregon. You've received a certificate of completion -- that was 2009. You've received a certificate of completion, also 2009, from a six-month course involving research and 24 hours of classroom and written instruction.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: It's Non-Violent Communications.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Thank you, sir. So, the 2008 Panel recommended that you upgrade both vocationally and educationally, and the three certificates that I just mentioned indicate to me that you took the Board to heart. Am I correct, Sir?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's absolutely true, yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Any other educational upgrade in the last year or two?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I've got back into the Non-Violent Communications Program. I just completed the second level, I just graduated from that, and will begin the third level, which is, I think, as far as it goes. In early January, we'll be working directly with victims restitution organizations in learning to mediate victim/offender reconciliation.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Okay. Moving along to self-help programs and laudatory chronos, you have continued to participate in self-help programs.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Are you still involved in AA/NA? steps? step?





INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: The eighth step is making amends.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: How have you, and how do you continue make amends for the death of Mr. Hinman?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: In the past I have done what I could to make contact with the family, and to communicate to them my deep regret. And I have also worked very hard on trying to reduce the potential for violence in our culture by working directly with at-risk youth. I've done that for a number of years. I was five years as a facilitator with the Los Hermanos Youth Program. I was also on the board of directors for three of those years. It was a joint board of directors with people from the inside, and probation officers and police department representatives on the outside participating together on the board of directors. So, I was five years with that program. I produced their video series, which has gone out into schools. I also produced a program, actually my attorney has a copy of it for you in case you'd like to look at it, it was a very in-depth program called Life in a World Behind Bars, which was used in youth outreach across the country at various youth facilities and where young adults are also housed.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: If I could interject, he's getting ahead. The letter to the Hinman family is here in the packet as Exhibit Six.


ATTORNEY MORETZ: Also, what he's speaking, with two videos he did early on, were Life in a World Behind Bars, and it's on video disc, a DVD that's submitted to you as Exhibit 12A or B. I have to look. I think it's 12B. There's two videos there.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Thank you, sir. Mr. Beausoleil, on your behalf, I see during the last two years you've completed the Non-Violent Communications course that's offered at OSP.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. And as I said, I'm continuing in that program now.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Yeah, okay. And I wasn't sure if that was what you were referring to. Okay. Well, I've got to say that you have continued to pursue the recommendations of the 2008 Panel, and I see your programming as generally positive.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Let's talk about remaining disciplinary-free. Of course, the 2008 Board recommended that you remain disciplinary-free. There had been a 115 pending, am I correct, and that's been dismissed.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah. It wasn't actually pending. I'd actually been found guilty, and as I tried to explain then, there was some confusion. I have such an unusual job that it's hard for some people to accept the fact that I'm working at this level on things that are so unusual for inmates. And so I was found guilty by someone who didn't understand what my job was, and so once that was clarified, the order of finding me guilty was vacated by the, I think it was the Assistant Director.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: If I could clarify. Basically, what Mr. Beausoleil is -- they have non-institutional sponsors, and no inmate can have an e-mail, so he was using his supervisor, Mr. Randy Gere, he's submitted letters over the years. And part of his job was to communicate out, but he couldn't receive in. One of the regular guys on the outside world found a laudatory article praising Mr. Beausoleil for his work, and he wanted to share it, and he did what we do in the outside world, hit reply, and sent that. At that time, he'd been moved to, I think, an Eastern Oregon institution, they weren't familiar with Mr. Gere, and it took a while to work through the system, and that's why it was vacated. In essence, he was doing what he was supposed to do, and sent it to his job. It was just a confusion.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: What was your last 115, Mr. Beausoleil?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That was it, I think.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: You ever had a 115 for THC, marijuana?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. That was in 1999.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Okay. What's your relationship with marijuana today?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I haven't touched it since. I have absolutely no desire.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Were you intoxicated or impaired during your life crime?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I wasn't intoxicated, no, but I had been sleepless. I had been up for -- I'd just, you know, I'd gone there, I'd already been up, you know, all day, and then I was there for a day-1/2, so added to that, I didn't get much sleep. I was frazzled and frightened, and so I was a wreck, actually. So, in that respect, I would say that I was, you know, I had diminished capacity. I'm not using that as a defense, of course, but I'm just saying that I wasn't totally together at that time.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: No, I think you answered the question. I asked you if you were impaired, and you tell me you were impaired from sleep deprivation, correct?


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Okay. Well, I'm going to draw the conclusion you've been disciplinary- free since the last hearing, and I also have not found any 115s that indicate violence in the institution. Am I correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's true, yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Okay. Let's talk about your psych eval by Dr. Colistro.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Previously mentioned, from mid-year 2008. He gives you an Axis I diagnosis of no mental or emotional disturbance, and an Axis II diagnosis of no personality disorder. The clinician goes on to talk about different diagnostic tools. One is the Hare Psychopathy Test, which cast you as being in a very low category of danger assessment. The HCR-20, another famous diagnostic tool, looks at three different ranges, a historical range, clinical range, and a risk management for the future. Your historical range, of course, is locked into the past with your static crime. The risk management is of special importance to the Board, because we want to know how you're going to act in the future, and the clinician indicates that you are stable in that regards. In fact, with a very low score. And the HCR-20 score regarding risk assessment is that you are very low. There was a third method, Violence Risk Appraisal Guide. It put you in the 11th percentile. That was a little bit higher than the other two. But all in all, you seem to be in the low risk area. Any comment?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No. I think that was an accurate assessment.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: You are familiar with that psych eval, because it was used at the previous hearing two years ago.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: And I don't think you had any objections to it then. Sir, I want to ask you a question that's a little bit off the path, but it has to do with your psychological makeup. I understand you have three children from non-marital relationships.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, that's true.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: And were they, I assume, all sired when you were a young man?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. Prior to my incarceration, yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Do you have any ongoing contact with your children?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I do, with all of them.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I correspond with them, and speak with them on the phone on occasion, and I have very good relationships with them now. They're not close, I would say, because I didn't really know them when they were growing up, when they were young. They came into my life later. But I would say that we have some enriching friendships between us, and I'm incredibly grateful for them taking the initiative to come into my life. I'm really proud of them. All of them are very well-adjusted. I have a son who owns a restaurant, a Cajun restaurant, and is quite successful in Dallas, and actually, my daughter is now working for him even though she was not in any way -- other than through separate relationships, through -- you know, because they were fathered by, you know, in different relationships that I had with other women. And Jenee has been, she's been a part of my life much longer, and she comes up to visit me, and she brings my grandson to see me. And as I said, they're all really smart and really well-adjusted people. None of them have ever been in any trouble. And so I feel grateful that I've, you know, that my own mistakes have not -- you know, other than not being responsible for them growing up, which was, of course, something I deeply regret, and have expressed that to them.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Okay. I believe your attorney wants to address.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Yes, I was just going to clarify. I tried to simplify, but I might have complicated. Their support letters are 16J and 16L in the family support letters.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Thank you. Mr. Beausoleil, I'm coming to the end of my review of your institutional adjustment. Are there any other significant events or accomplishments that we should discuss?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I think we have covered them.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Okay, sir. I can assure you that during our recess, the Commissioner and I will review the attachments. And with that, I will return to the Chair.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you. At this time, we'll go to the District Attorney's Office for any questions the District Attorney will have, to be asked through the Panel.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you. Before I get to the questions, there were a number of letters in opposition that were submitted.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: You have them? Okay. And there's also a letter from the Los Angeles Police Department, I believe, as well.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Hold on. I have the letters, and I'll look in his C-File for the LAPD letter.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Yeah, I just wanted to make sure the Panel had the letters.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I don't need to address it any further. them.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you. I do have a couple of questions. I'm a little confused now as to the motivation for the Beausoleil killing. The inmate indicated he needed money because of some problems he had with the Straight Satan's. Could the inmate explain what that problem was with the Straight Satan's that caused him to need money?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I had already answered that question. I don't know what more I could add to it.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Again, I think the confusion here is --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, for my benefit and for the Panel's benefit, could you explain exactly why you -- what your problem was with the Straight Satan's?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: They wanted me to collect some money that they believed, that they at least told me was theirs.



DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And was there a particular reason why the Straight Satan's didn't want to collect the money themselves and asked you to do it?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I believe -- I don't know. It would only be conjecture, you know. They were playing with me, for one thing, and I didn't really get that at the time. They were not a nice bunch of people.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So, you were collecting money on behalf of the Straight Satan's?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, yeah. Yeah. In a manner of speaking, yes.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So, how was Manson involved in this thing?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I have already expressed this. I've already answered this question in earlier discussions with Mr. Anderson this morning.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Mr. Beausoleil, this is just clarification on the DA's part. So, if you don't want to answer, just say, I don't want to answer that question.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: I think what Mr. Beausoleil is trying to do, is he, in 2003, through Carolyn Hagen, his then-presiding counsel, he offered a statement of facts.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, I think that, you know, I'm entitled to ask a question. I think we should hear from the inmate. And, you know, counsel can argue the case any way he wishes, and certainly I will as well, but we're at a question and answer period, and the question is to the inmate, it's not to the defense counsel.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Well, do you want to answer the question, sir? I think it's a relevant question.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I think it's relevant too. It's just simply been asked and answered. And, you know, I'll do my best to answer the question. Would you, just so we're all clear --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Mr. Beausoleil, let me tell you something.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- on what the question --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- is, Mr. Sequeira --



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I think I went through this with you last time, as I remember. I'll set the rules.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: You don't set the rules. Okay?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I'm perfectly okay with that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Don't tell me what's been asked and answered. I'll do that. You're not the Presiding Commissioner.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, you're right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. So, don't be using my terms. Okay?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I don't want to warn you about that again. Continue, Mr. Sequeira.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, I don't believe I got an answer to the last question.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Well, answer the question, sir, if you want to. If you don't want to answer the question, we'll move on.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Mr. Beausoleil, this is the Deputy Commissioner speaking. I'd like to hear the answer to this question. What I heard was that you're a collection agent for a criminal, possibly murderous motorcycle gang, and yet you were a 150-pound young man, baby-faced by your own admission. Why would a bike gang use you to collect a debt?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I was responsible for creating the debt in the first place. I was trying to impress this group, and had acted as a go-between between them and Mr. Hinman. I handled the transaction. I thought this was going to sort of ingratiate me with the group, and it turned out that they -- and I have suspicions that they were lying to me, saying that they needed to get their money back because the drugs were no good. And so then I was put in the position of being responsible to make good on that transaction, and to get their money back.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So, the question again becomes, how does Manson get involved in this, if this is just between --


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: -- you, and the Straight Satan's, and Mr. Hinman.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: He had nothing to do with that transaction. I don't know what he knew about it or didn't know about it. When I was at Hinman's house, I had Bruce Davis's gun with me. I didn't know what I was doing with it. Mr. Hinman got the gun away from me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Wait. I'm confused. We've got to get back on track here.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. Yeah, okay. We're talking about -- let's see, in my notes, you've got a motorcycle gang here, you're at Hinman's house, and you're talking about extorting money. And where's Charlie Manson in all this stuff? Where we going with this?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, that's what I'm -- I'm trying to answer the question.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. Because I'm confused now.



INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: All right. As I was saying, Charles Manson got into it because someone had called him after Gary had taken the gun away from me. I was fighting with Gary at the time, trying to get the gun back, and eventually I did get the gun back.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: That's the one that Bruce Davis gave you.





INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: A nine-millimeter pistol, yes.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: While I was fighting with Gary, someone made a call to Spahn Ranch, I didn't know this at the time, and evidently, I didn't hear the conversation, but evidently they told someone at the ranch that Gary had gotten the gun from me. And the best that I have been able to put it together is that Manson thought his girls who were there with me were in trouble based on the information that he received by that phone call, and he came over to save the day and take care of Gary Hinman, because he thought Gary Hinman had taken the gun and was threatening his girls with it.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And the next question I have is, why were the girls with you, if you were going there to get money from Gary Hinman?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: They asked to come along for the ride. Mary Brunner had been a lover to Gary Hinman. They didn't know why I was going there at the time. They found out later when I got there that I was trying to get money back from him, but they initially didn't know.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Who told them that you were trying to get money back from Gary Hinman?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, they -- when I confronted Gary, they learned then. I may have mentioned it on the ride over. I was driven over to the place by Bruce Davis, and Danny DeCarlo was with us as well.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And you got the gun from Bruce Davis.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So, Bruce Davis knew what you were going to do with the gun, then.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: He knew that I was going to get, you know, I had been instructed -- you know, I had never done anything like this before. This was completely out of any experience that I'd ever had in my life. I was told that the way to handle the situation was that if Gary didn't cooperate, I should hit him with the gun to make it known that I was serious. This was actually Danny DeCarlo who gave me that instruction. Bruce Davis was present at the time. And so I tried to follow their instructions, because I didn't know what the hell I was doing.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So, they were instructing you on how to basically extort or get the money from Gary Hinman.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, that's true.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And to that end, Bruce Davis then gave you a gun to use.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Now, who was going to -- now, the money was going to go directly to the Straight Satan's, I take it?


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So, why was it that the pink slips were signed over to you, and why did Bruce Davis take possession of one of the cars after Hinman was killed?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, he took one of the cars because the vehicles were signed over for the purpose of settling accounts with the Straight Satan's. There were two cars. There was one old wreck, it was a little import car, then there was a VW bus that was also kind of a wreck. But it was something that the Straight Satan's, in fact, were interested in, because they could use it to tote their bikes around. They weren't interested in the little compact car that I was later arrested in. They did take the VW microbus, and that was their clubhouse, or whatever you want to call it. Their central motorcycle club headquarters was in Venice Beach. And they later, during the investigation, they found the microbus in Santa Monica. So, you know, I'm not sure where they found it, or I don't recall. I think I knew years ago, but I don't remember.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So, did you give Bruce Davis instructions to take that car over to the Straight Satan's?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don't recall that, no. I think he just took it upon himself to do it.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So, he knew about the drug debt, and that the car was supposed to pay off the drug debt, then.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I assume so. I don't know what he really knew. He was always kind of a taciturn individual. He didn't do a lot of talking. He did give me the gun. Danny DeCarlo is the one who gave me instructions on what I was supposed to do with it. So, you know, but I don't know what he knew or didn't know, but I assume that he must have known to some extent what was going on. I mean, he did drive me and the girls over to Gary's place, and he did, by the way -- I mean, as you know, he also showed up later with, you know, backing up Charlie when Charlie came over.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Yeah. In fact, he was armed when he came over with Charlie. Both of them were.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, actually, he wasn't, unless I didn't know about it. No, he wasn't. When he came over, he asked Gary for the gun. He thought Gary still had the gun, and he asked Gary to -- you know, after Charlie had slashed him and Gary was holding the side of his face, Bruce Davis asked him, where's the gun? And I told him, I have it, because I'd gotten the gun back. But evidently they still thought Gary had the gun, and so I gave the gun back to Bruce at that point. He told me I jammed it, he said I'd jammed the gun, and I said, well, I don't know how to use that thing, so just keep it. And he kept the gun, and when they left, he took it with him.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: All right. So, after they left and Hinman was slashed --



INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, Hinman was never tied up at any point. I don't know where that came from.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So, how did you keep control of Hinman after his face was slashed? You didn't have the gun now.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It wasn't hard. He wasn't trying to fight me. He was only -- I was trying to patch him up. You know, I had no animosity towards Gary. I didn't have any intention at that point of doing him any harm. I was just beside myself with grief over him being slashed that way, because he hadn't done anything to deserve it, and so I -- you know, it's part of the court records that he had a, you know, a cut in his ear, and I sewed that together trying to patch him up, and put bandages on it and so forth. And, you know, it was lame. It was, you know, it was lame, it was -- I was desperate to try to, you know, make things okay.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: What did you sew it up with?


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I thought the girls did that.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, that never happened. They didn't do, that, I did it.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Isn't that what they testified to?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, I don't think so. I never heard that.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Why didn't you just let him go?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don't know. This problem had been put in my lap, and I didn't know how to deal with it. And I was being told that he was a threat, and I didn't know how to handle it, Mr. Sequeira. I don't have any excuses for that. I can't give you a rational explanation or answer for that.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, your statements earlier is that Charlie is the one that caused the serious injury to Mr. Hinman.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, that's true.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So, why was it necessary for you to kill him, then?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don't really know. I tried to turn it back over to Manson, because I thought he had created the problem. I called him. He had gone back to Spahn Ranch, and I called him. I said, you know, that Gary wanted to go to the hospital, and I knew that that would bring in the police, and I said, you know, you've got to come and take care of this problem. And he told me if I was a man, I would take care of it.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So, what did you take that to mean?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I took it to mean that if I wanted any sort of respect, if I was any kind of a man, you know -- he, you know, I've got to tell you, you know, Charles Manson -- could I speak to Charlie Manson a little bit?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, just finish the question first. Finish your answer. Was that it? So, you killed, are you saying that you killed Gary Hinman because Charles Manson wanted you to kill him?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I would say -- yeah, I would say that that's true. I would say that he manipulated me. He knew, he was very good at that sort of thing. You know, he knew that I had this weakness and this doubt, and he played on it, and he was very good at that. And, you know, if I was -- he told me, if you're a man, you'll take care of it.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Who told the girls to participate in putting the pillow over Gary Hinman's face to suffocate him?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That actually never happened.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: He was never suffocated. If you look at the coroner's report, you will find that he died almost instantly when he was stabbed a second time in the chest. He was not, he was never smothered. A pillow was laid over his face because I was so ashamed I couldn't bear to look at him.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I believe that I did. I'm not sure, but I believe that I did.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: What about Susan Atkins? What about Mary Brunner? Didn't they take turns putting the pillow over his face to keep him from making noise?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, that never happened. That never happened. There were a few gasps right after I had stabbed him, but he didn't make any noise. I mean, he was dead. The man had died pretty quickly after I stabbed him the second time.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Why would Mary Brunner or Susan Atkins testify to putting pillows over his face?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don't believe that they did.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: What do you mean, you don't believe?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I never heard that testimony. Mary Brunner testified in my trial, and she never said that. I never heard any testimony from Susan Atkins directly. She had made many different statements, including one in which she was the person who killed Gary Hinman, she was the person who stabbed him. So, there were various things that Susan Atkins had said over the years and over the course of the investigations. Mary Brunner never testified that she had placed a pillow over Gary Hinman's face.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Now, you've made various statements over the years as to your involvement in this crime. Isn't that correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, that's true.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: How many different statements have you made?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I've made a number of statements. I've made some conflicting statements earlier on, yes. And then that, I believe, is what you're leading to, Mr. Sequeira?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: What were those statements?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, initially, I was too ashamed to admit to my parents that I had killed a man, and I made up a story that Manson had done it. And then later, in my first parole hearing in 1976, I wanted to accept full responsibility, but I wanted to do it without being perceived as a snitch, because that would have been a death sentence in California at that time. So, I took responsibility for everything that had happened. I said that I had done it all, including slashing Gary across the face, and so that was the second version that I had told that wasn't entirely true. It was true other than that one part. And then subsequently, Manson himself admitted in this book that he had been involved in, admitted that he had slashed Gary's face, so I no longer felt an obligation to try to protect myself, and, you know, and being thought of as a snitch, because he'd already said that. So, I felt at liberty at that point to say exactly what happened, and that was, I think, in 1980 -- it was in the Category X Program that I did at CMC with the facilitator of that program, a Mr. Miller. And he actually, at that time when I told him that, we decided -- he decided, really, to call the District Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, and we told -- and I told, he turned the phone over to me, and I told the person on the other end, which, I believe, if I recall rightly, was Steven Kay, and I told him that I had, you know, come clean on everything that had happened, and that it was, in fact, Charles Manson who had slashed Gary's face.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I want to ask you about a couple of your prison disciplinaries. The Deputy Commissioner made reference to your disciplinaries, but I think there's a couple that weren't discussed. Tell us about the 115 you received for kicking a Mexican inmate in the stomach.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I never kicked a Mexican inmate in the stomach. That was never in the allegation, and I would say that you should actually look at the findings in that report, because it will make it very clear that I was not an instigator in that situation, I wasn't a perpetrator in that situation. I was caught in a place where an attack was occurring, and I was doing the best that I could to defend myself from a gang that had decided to attack a group of people that I was standing near.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And you served a six-month SHU sentence for that; is that correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, because I had kicked at an inmate. And, you know, I didn't land the kick. That's what I -- you know, what I'm saying is, I didn't kick anyone in the stomach. I did kick at someone who was coming in my direction, and that was seen as being a participant, and therefore I served --

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Bobby, could you hold just a minute, please?


ATTORNEY MORETZ: Mr. Sequeira, I'm going to ask you, I noticed on the record, maybe you did it as an oversight, we do not know what the racial background of this man was. We assume that he was part of a gang. It was a melee on the yard.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I'm just looking at the post --

ATTORNEY MORETZ: And I'm going to ask you to please don't say that gang's name on the record like you did last time. Okay? Please.


ATTORNEY MORETZ: It was one of -- I would rather not say on the record, Sir. It could endanger Mr. Beausoleil. It's one of the two primary -- they're still operable, I understand, in California.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Well, I've read it too. I read what Mr. Sequeira's referring to, so I'm familiar.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: I was just trying to, you know, prevent any danger to Mr. Beausoleil, because he's --


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: All right. Let me move to another disciplinary that you received, and that was for having a plastic utensil with razorblades attached.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: That was also one of your prison disciplinaries.




DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Now, let's talk about your --

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Wait a minute. Excuse me. Are you just going to leave it at that, or are you going to ask me a question?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, I'm just asking you, did you receive a prison disciplinary for possession of plastic utensils with razorblades attached.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's true. I do want to make it known, since we're leaving it at that, that I think I want to add to that a little bit. That was originally thought of as a weapon, but it was dropped to a straight contraband. It was recognized that it was something that I was using for my art. Razorblades were not contraband at that time, and these were not perceived as weapons, and so I want to make that clear that this was something that was then dropped in terms of it being any sort of a weapon or implement for causing harm to anyone else.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Okay. I'm going to ask you a couple questions too about a prison business that you were running in California called B&B Enterprises.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Tell us about that. It was my wife who was running it.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I wasn't running it.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: It's the same wife that you have now.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: That you're going to parole to. That's correct? So, this is the same wife that lives in Oregon.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And what was B & B Enterprises involved in at that time?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: My wife was doing publications.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And this was in Grover City, California?


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And you received a prison disciplinary for those publications; is that correct?


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: What did those publications involve?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: They involved primarily erotic art. She was also publishing women's journals. And, you know, it was a kind of an experiment. She was, you know, had just started desktop publishing, and --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, tell us about the erotic art. What type of erotic art are we talking about here?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: What I would like to do with this, Mr. Sequeira, I know --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I'd like you to answer the question.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I am trying to answer the question, sir.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Mr. Sequeira, I'm going to --

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: This question has been investigated in great detail by the Board of Prison Terms, and --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Mr. Beausoleil, I'm going to cut you off there. We went through this just a few minutes ago. I asked you about trying to control the hearing.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I'm not trying to control the hearing, Mr. Anderson, but I do want to rely on information that is already available --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- that would help to clarify these things --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- a lot better than I could.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: We'll determine what information we're going to use. We can read.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Commissioner Anderson, if I could interject. The preliminary objections or stipulations, that was in Ms. Plyler's, one of her investigations in 1985.


ATTORNEY MORETZ: And it was disposed of as the equivalent of a 128.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Do you understand what I'm saying, counsel?

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Yes, I understand, but --



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: We get a chance to ask these questions to determine suitability. I don't care about a stipulation. I want to hear how he thinks today.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: I understand.


ATTORNEY MORETZ: I think, but what --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: So, he's trying to divert us away from this question. When I mean us, he did it with Martin, and now he's doing it with Sequeira. I take offense to that, I'll be honest with you.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Okay. I'm trying to --


ATTORNEY MORETZ: The only thing it was is --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Either he's going to answer the question, or say, I'm not going to answer the question. We can move on.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Let's not play these games.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: It was just as a result of the investigation, the only thing that he was found that he did improper was he failed to get administrative approval.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Yeah, but we can read that. We know that.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Okay. All right. I just wanted to clarify that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Just have him answer the question. You don't want to answer the question, don't answer, but stop playing these games. I'm not going to warn you again.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Bobby, do you want to answer the question?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Yes or no. Yes or no, and I don't want an explanation.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I'll do my best to answer the question.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: No. I don't want an explanation. You either it yes or no, we're going to move on.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I'm tired of playing this game with you. Now, next question, Mr. Sequeira.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you. Now, this erotic art involved bare bottom spanking; is that correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Some of it did, yes.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: In fact, I'm looking at some documents I've received in the past. There's actually a questionnaire which was sent out by your B & B Enterprises. It has about 20 questions involving questions regarding spanking, and these were, the questionnaire was designed to be filled out and sent back to your business that your wife was running; is that correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I have no idea. I don't recall any questionnaire. I don't know what you're referring to.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, one says: "Who's responsible for most of the discipline in your family? What is the earliest age you remember being spanked? By whom? What was the earlier age you remember witnessing someone else being spanked?" It goes on to ask questions: "Were you ever sexually aroused as a child while being spanked?"

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Like I said, Mr. Sequeira, I don't recall anything about that. I had no involvement with it, and I don't know anything about it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: So, you don't recall, so we'll move to the next question.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: All right. But now, you have, in the past, created erotic art that involved spanking and bare bottoms of young children. Is that correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: In some -- you know, I must --




INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: The answer to the question is


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I have done some of that.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: In fact, in 2005 at the Clair Obscur Gallery, those very photographs involving bare bottoms and erotic art was on display and for sale; isn't that correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, that's actually not true. There might have been one or two that involved that particular theme, but they were not photographs, first of all, they were cartoons, and I must emphasize that these were in the nature of cartoons, and were not intended to be anything, you know, depicting anything realistic. One of the themes that you were talking about was a Cupid getting a spanking, a winged Cupid getting a spanking by Venus, which is a popular classical theme, and it was just my interpretation as a cartoon, and that's the nature of that.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And you were aware that in 2005 that your artwork was also displayed with photographs of Sharon Tate at the Clair Obscur Gallery at the same time.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That is absolutely untrue, sir.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: I'm going to object to that. That's not a basis of facts, or it's not in the record. What occurred was you had a letter from Nico Browman, I can't say his last name, he was the curator. He had been accosted by a man who -- I won't say his name on the record, I won't get into that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. Well, I'll go with that. We'll sustain.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: But in any event, it was a month span.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: All right. I will argue the issue. That's fine.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Now, with regards to your disciplinaries in the Oregon State Prison, tell us about the incident where an inmate was killed in the area where you were working.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Pardon me? All right. Wait a minute. Okay.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I'm not saying that you were involved in it, but I just want you to tell the Panel about this inmate who was killed in the area where you were working.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, in the area where I was working is a pretty broad way of stating it, and that would be inaccurate, actually. He was killed in the band room, and I didn't work in there, I worked in the video studio, and at that time I was actually not assigned to activities. I was in another assignment, and so I wasn't even on the floor when that happened. I don't know what I could say about it, Mr. Sequeira. I didn't have any involvement, don't know very much about it, other than that it happened, and it was a tragedy.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: You were transferred -- now, you've been transferred to different prisons in Oregon; is that correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I was transferred to one other prison.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And when was that in relation to this inmate being killed?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: About a year later.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And when were you transferred -- which prison are you in now?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I'm in Oregon State Penitentiary.



DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And previous to that, you were in Eastern Oregon?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I was in Eastern Oregon for a time, yes, for four years.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Is that where you received the prison disciplinary, in Eastern Oregon?


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And you did a SHU term; is that correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, I didn't. I was in the hole or segregation for the investigation, and then released.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: How long were you in the ad seg?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: About a month and a few days, a month and, I don't know, a month and days. A little over a month.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And then it was after that you were transferred to Salem?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Sometime after that. I was actually returned to the mainline for -- I was on the mainline for, doing another job for about, I don't know, six, seven months before I was transferred back here.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And part of the problem, I think, with your disciplinaries, that you were told to get off the telephone, and you wouldn't get off the telephone?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: What? I'm confused, Mr. Sequeira. I don't know what you're talking about. That never happened. Now, you're talking about in Pendleton? Nothing like that ever happened at Pendleton. I did have a minor infraction at OSP, and that was years earlier, for being on the phone after -- and that was, actually turned out -- it was dropped because I'd actually been given permission to be on the phone, but the person initially didn't know that, and another staff person didn't know that, and so it was eventually dropped.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Well, I guess it's -- this is Steve speaking. In that incidence, I think the detention officer came to bat for you, and that was established that the one officer had given you permission to speak on the phone. Is that correct, I think?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, that is true.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And then there was the other incident regarding your daughter's tattoo, receiving --

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That was a part of the -- actually, that part was never even charged. I mean, it was never in the findings. I was originally -- this was part of the incident that I had been exonerated from, and that was part of it that had been completely dropped, so that never came to any sort of a disciplinary as far as -- independent of anything.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Make sure we're on the same page. You're speaking about the email incident which was vacated, and it was pending as of the last hearing. It's been vacated. That was part of the same incident; is that correct?



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: If it was vacated, I don't want to discuss it anymore.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So, how are you making money on the outside through your music? Are you creating this music while you're in prison?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Some of it was created while I have been in prison, yes. I'm not doing some at the moment other than what I'm doing at work, but I was in a position with approval -- in fact, I'm approved now still with the superintendent to produce music and sell my compositions and market them. There are a number of albums that are out, some of them from the mid-90's to the early 2000. They were, you know, approved projects, and they're in modest distribution now. There are recordings. I was allowed to make a soundtrack in the 1970's at DVI in Tracy.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And that was for a movie called Lucifer Rising; is that correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, that's true. It's a film by filmmaker Kenneth Anger. It was an art film based on the myth of the Fallen Angel.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And if I'm not -- and Mr. Anger is a Satanist; is that correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don't know. I've never known him in that context. He is a strange, little bit of a strange individual, but in terms of Felliniesque type of films, he's well known and respected.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Weren't you asked to play Lucifer in the movie?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. Yes, I was originally asked to play Lucifer when I was --

ATTORNEY MORETZ: I'm going to have to object to this. I think he's drawing implications from (inaudible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Well, we'll drop that line of questioning.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Now, have you ever had any fascination or interest in the occult or Satanism?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, no. It was purely as art, as theatre. I don't ascribe, I don't believe in Satanism. I think Satanism is a hoax. It's just foolishness, you know, people that want to, you know, create some sort of a revolutionary stance in regard to traditional religions, and I just think it's silly, really --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- and I don't --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And Charles Manson was espousing similar revolutionary theories; is that correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Revolutionary theories? Well, yeah, to some extent. He added some rhetoric, yes, along those lines, about, you know, social revolution and, you know, chaos, social chaos. He had some theories about that he expounded, and by the way, which I didn't buy.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Mr. Beausoleil, is one of your tattoos a devil's head?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, I don't have a devil's head on me.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I have various mythological themes tattooed on me in various places. I've got some dragons, and mostly women, women's faces. I have a phoenix on my leg, and that's about it. I have an eagle on my chest.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So, now you're saying that -- did you ever espouse any of the same philosophy that Charles Manson was preaching?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I didn't buy into his racial -- I've mentioned this before -- I didn't buy into his racial orientation. He was from another part of the country, and I just didn't give much weight to that. I didn't ascribe to that. As far as the anti- establishment stance that he took, to a certain degree I, at that time, agreed with it. It was the popular point of view from people who were in the counter culture, and I was certainly a part of that at the time, but I didn't believe in a race war. In fact, I never really heard it characterized in that way.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: You never heard Helter Skelter mentioned?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah, there was -- yeah. Charlie mentioned sometimes that in relation to, you know, the Beatles record. He was a fan of the Beatles. And then that record, the name of that song, Helter Skelter, was something that became some way, a way that he had of referring to things just going -- getting out of hand.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And did you buy into that philosophy, that - -


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: -- the sort of the overthrow of society?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I wasn't interested in the overthrow of society. I was hoping for change, but I wasn't interested in overthrowing society. I believed in the song by the Beatles called Revolution, you know, and it wasn't -- you know, carrying signs of Chairman Mao, you're not going to make it with anyone, anyhow. You know, they put that sort of line of thinking down, and I agreed with them. I didn't believe in armed revolution, I believed in change through changing consciousness.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, if that were the case, then why was it so necessary to have Charlie Manson's esteem to the point where you would kill for him?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That had nothing to do with his philosophy. It had to do with my wanting to be perceived by an older man as a man.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: By committing the ultimate act of taking someone's life?

ATTORNEY MORETZ: I'm going to object to that. You're drawing a legal conclusion there. I don't think you've even made a factual nexus that Mr. Beausoleil actually killed on behalf of Mr. Manson. He killed --



INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's a strange question. I don't recall being tortured anytime.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Are we talking about the victim, or --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Yeah. I mean, was Mr. Hinman tortured?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: In my way of thinking, I didn't think that I had tortured him, but I did hit him with the gun when I first went there. I did keep him from going and getting professional medical attention. I did prevent him from doing that, and that was wrong, and it caused him pain, I think. And, in fact, I'm sure that it did. And anguish, certainly he was --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: How did you prevent Mr. Hinman from getting medical attention? You're telling me that he wasn't restrained in any way.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So, he could have just walked out the door?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I think I would have kept him from doing that. But I wasn't armed, I was just -- and he didn't do that. The fact is, he didn't put that to the test.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: But, wait a minute. You had a knife. How did you stab him?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I had a knife. I stabbed him with it. armed.



DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Did you show him that knife at any time during his captivity?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It was on my belt. He could see it. It was a small -- it was in a sheath on my belt.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Counsel, we're moving now to the area where we're retrying the case.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: No, I'm finished with my questions.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Let's stick with suitability.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I have no further questions.

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

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Just a few. Bobby, I know I have discussed this with you, and it's going to be a painful moment, but I agree with Commissioner Anderson. We know what the commitment offense is, and they want to know what you are now.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Could you move the phone a little bit closer to you, Steve, because I --

ATTORNEY MORETZ: I'm sorry. My bronchitis and that --

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- I'm having a little trouble hearing you.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Okay. Can you hear me now?


ATTORNEY MORETZ: Okay. I want you to go back, painful as might be, a 21-year-old boy, you're driving up in the car to Mr. Hinman's house. Did you ever think for a moment when you got out that you would ever cause him serious harm, especially his death?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, not for a moment.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: So, this was an unforeseeable result. Do you think it has affected you in any way that you think today before you act?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Please repeat the question, because I didn't understand it.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Do you think you ever reflect back on that before acting today?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Absolutely, all the time.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Okay. Now, you said when you first entered the house, you struck Mr. Hinman on the head. That was painful, correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. It was actually not immediately, but it was shortly after I arrived. Yes, it was, it was painful. It was difficult for me, of course, because I had never done anything like that. I immediately regretted it, and, you know, it caused him pain, yes.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: With all the theories, the bottom line was, you were out to retrieve money. Is that correct, money?


ATTORNEY MORETZ: You were not intoxicated.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I was there to get money from him. Yes, that was my purpose in going there, solely.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Did you ever for a moment -- were you trying to punish him in any way other than just to receive the money?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No. No, not at all.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Okay. The person you are today, is it -- this characterization that you tortured Mr. Hinman or got some pleasure out of harming him, does it trouble you deeply today?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No. No, not at all. I was in great anguish the whole time after he had been slashed across the face, and --

ATTORNEY MORETZ: So, I think I probably misstated the question. It does trouble you, this characterization?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Absolutely, yeah.



ATTORNEY MORETZ: Okay. For over 30 years now, you have admitted that Mr. Manson did arrive at the house. You explained, I think adequately, that after he made the admission, Mr. Manson was at the house.


ATTORNEY MORETZ: So, in essence, you lied for ten years, roughly, that you had done everything; is that correct?


ATTORNEY MORETZ: Okay. Did you attempt to administer stitches to Mr. Hinman?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I didn't hear that entirely.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: You said, I think, earlier -- did you attempt to administer stitches to Mr. Hinman's wound?


ATTORNEY MORETZ: You have to admit, that also caused him pain as well.


ATTORNEY MORETZ: But it was not for any intention to harm him or torture him in any way?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: You know, he seemed at the time, he was grateful for me doing that, however.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I used an ice cube to keep it from hurting too much, and --

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Well, I guess the bottom line is, regardless of your motive, you still caused him pain at that time.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, that's true.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: How old were you when you were arrested?


ATTORNEY MORETZ: And how old are you now?


ATTORNEY MORETZ: Okay. How often have you relived those acts that you committed at 21, or this particular act?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Countless times.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: You have a daily reminder of where you are; is that correct?


ATTORNEY MORETZ: Okay. How do you feel about the conduct today?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I deeply regret that I was ever so lost that I thought it was acceptable to harm Mr. Hinman or anyone else.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Did you ask forgiveness from Gary's family?


ATTORNEY MORETZ: Okay. Do you still wish you could undo or lessen the suffering that you caused them?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Oh, yeah. Every minute.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Did you ever receive a reply from that letter that you sent?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Not from the person that it was sent to originally. I did hear from a niece, an email from a niece of Mr. Hinman, and she was very kind.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Did she indicate to you why they had been slow in responding?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No. She did say that there was a lot of alcoholism in her family. No, not specifically, no.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: In essence, they had tried to move on, and they did not want to perpetuate what had happened to some of these other --

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, yeah. She did ask me -- she didn't want her email posted, and she wanted it to be private between me and her, and I've, of course, respected that other than right now. I've respected that, you know, I've kept it completely to myself.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Okay. And I'm not asking this in a rhetorical way, I want you to think about this. Have you, other than this occasion, ever sought to initiate violence or be the aggressor?


ATTORNEY MORETZ: Okay. Are you the same person that you were at the time that you acted this way against Gary?



INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No. I mean, you can argue that, yes, I'm the same person. You know, I still have the same name, and I look -- I'm a lot older, but I still look somewhat the same, but internally, in my thinking, in my spiritual makeup, in my orientation emotionally, and in, you know, every aspect of my life, I am a mature man, and I bear little resemblance to that troubled individual I was at 21.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Okay. I'm not going to ask you -- I was going to ask you about the eighth step, but the Deputy Commissioner had already asked you that.


ATTORNEY MORETZ: The eighth step is about making amends.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, yeah, the eighth step, and the ninth step as well is, they're both in regards to making amends. What you've just asked me about, the letter to the Hinman family, was my attempt to make direct amends when possible.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: There's one thing I need to clarify, and I think you can do it. Did you ever have alcohol issues prior to this?


ATTORNEY MORETZ: You never had alcohol issues in your life.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No. You know, I was drunk a few times. I think I could probably count them on less than all of the fingers of one hand, on the times that I've actually got drunk, and it was just a stupid, you know, teenage sort of experiment. I don't have an attraction to alcohol at all.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: So, your motivation for the 12-step program, it was due that probably they did not have NA available at the time.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, yes. When I first started out in the 12-step program, the only program that was available was AA, and people who had drug problems and not alcohol problems were involved in the Alcoholics Anonymous Program down in California. When I got up here to Oregon, there was a Narcotics Anonymous, and I switched over to Narcotics Anonymous, since my -- you know, the one drug that I have had a relationship with over the years, and I would say at times was an addiction, was with pot, with marijuana.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: So, largely, your drug use prior to your incarceration to the present has been marijuana and then some use of LSD; is that correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah. I experimented with, you know -- it was, it actually was legal at the time -- yeah, but I did experiment with LSD when I was out on the outside prior to all of this.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Okay. I think that will be it, Commissioner. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you. At this time, we'll go back to the District Attorney's Office for a closing statement, please.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you. I would ask this Panel to find the inmate unsuitable for parole for the following reasons, and I have several. Before I get to the commitment offense, I do want to talk about the inmate's prior background, some of it which was discussed. I know much of it was incorporated by reference. But I think it's clear that the inmate had a prior -- prior to the commitment offense, had an unstable social history. He was a dropout at school at age 16, he had numerous instances of problems with authority at an early age, which is reflected in not only the board reports, but also in the previous psychological evaluations. In fact, I think it talks about, the 2000 psychological examination makes reference to a disruptive childhood history, with numerous conflicts with authority figures, and that was the correctional counselor's conclusion. There is also reference to adjustment problems during the early years of incarceration, which have been related to his notoriety. Of course, some of that has been already discussed with regards to his prison disciplinaries, which have occurred both in California and in Oregon as well. There are also -- he was basically as a juvenile out of control. I think he even admitted that in the transcript of one of his previous hearings. He was a school dropout, a draft evader. He drifted in and out of sort of this nomadic lifestyle, and as by his own admissions and indications, he became involved in music and playing in bands, and it eventually led him to become involved with Charles Manson. He has a minor record. There's indications of a couple of aliases that he's used. Also, some arrests for minor offenses prior to the commitment offense. With regards to the commitment offense, and actually, with regards to much of this inmate's attitude towards not only his prison disciplinaries, but almost anything regarding his life, I would conclude that he is a pathological liar. He has told so many different versions of his involvement in this crime that it's almost beyond belief. Today we hear now a new and different version of his crime, which has differed from his previous statements. His statements have gone from he didn't kill Mr. Hinman, that he was in the other room when it happened, to Manson did it, Manson didn't do it, Manson was involved, Manson wasn't involved. I mean, you could go on and on regarding all of his different versions of the offense. Today's version is somewhat of a new deviation from his previous assertion that the motivation for Mr. Beausoleil going to Mr. Hinman's house was to collect money on a drug debt. I think previous statements from this inmate were that he had bought some mescaline from Mr. Hinman, and it turned out -- and he then, in turn, sold it to the Straight Satan's, it turned out to be laced with strychnine. The Straight Satan's were mad at Mr. Beausoleil, so Mr. Beausoleil went to confront Mr. Hinman regarding the bad drugs that Mr. Hinman sold to Mr. Beausoleil. The problem with this theory is, and this previous story, which is different from today's version, is that there is no indication in any of the records, in any of the physical evidence, or any of the statements of the witnesses, that Mr. Hinman was in any way even a drug dealer. According to Mr. Beausoleil, Hinman manufactured the drugs at his house, at his residence. There's nothing in any of the police reports, there's nothing in any of the evidence from the crime scene that indicates that Mr. Hinman manufactured drugs at all. Furthermore, there is no evidence from any of this inmate's crime partners that Hinman was involved in any kind of a bad drug deal between himself, the Straight Satan's, or Mr. Beausoleil. This is all a flat-out lie. In fact, Mr. Hinman's deceased crime partner, Susan Atkins, testified at her own parole hearing on Tuesday, December 31st of 1985, and this was at CIW, and I have the transcript in front of me, and I'm looking at pages 59 and 60 of that December 31st, 1985 transcript where she was asked a few questions by Board member -- actually, two different Board members, Jauregui, J-A-U-R-E-G-U-I --


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: -- and also Commissioner Aceto, A-C-E-T-O. And starting on page 59, line 10, they asked about knowing Bobby Beausoleil. She responds on that page that she had known him a few months. And then going to page 60 and 61, there's an interesting interchange of questions, and let me start on line 7 of page 60. Question by Jauregui: "Okay. When you went to see Gary Hinman, he was with you, Robert Beausoleil?" Inmate Atkins' response: "Yes, Sir." Board member Jauregui: "And Manson?" Inmate Atkins: "No, Sir. Mr. Manson came later." Board member Jauregui: "Came later. But initially, you confronted Gary Hinman with Beausoleil?" Inmate Atkins: "Yes, Sir." Board member Jauregui: "All right. What did Beausoleil -- did Beausoleil demand anything from the victim?" There was a pause, and then Board member Jauregui said: "Do you recall whether he demanded the property or the pink slip?" Inmate Atkins: "I remember there was conversation. I don't recall any overt demands at the beginning." Board member Jauregui: "Okay. During the course of the time that you were there when Bobby Beausoleil was present, did he demand the property or the pink slip of that vehicle?" Inmate Atkins replied: "Yes, Sir." This is on page 61 now. Board member Jauregui: "Okay." And here's the question from Board member Jauregui on lines 9 through 11: "Did you ever hear Bobby Beausoleil ask Gary Hinman, 'Where's my 12 thousand dollars?'" Answer, inmate Atkins says: "No, Sir, not that I recall." Board member Jauregui: "Okay. Did you ever hear Beausoleil ask the victim, 'Where's my dope that I gave you?'" Inmate Atkins: "No, Sir." Board member Jauregui: "Did you ever hear him say, 'I'm in trouble. If you don't give me the money or the dope, I'm in a lot of trouble with this motorcycle gang?'" Answer, inmate Atkins: "No, Sir." Board member Jauregui: "You didn't hear that either? Okay." Inmate Atkins: "I don't, I don't recall ever hearing it." And then her voice trails off. Board member Jauregui: "That's fine. But, you know, I think you would have -- if somebody were saying, where's my 12 thousand dollars, I think you would have remembered that, right?" Inmate Atkins: "Yes, Sir." Board member Jauregui: "Okay. I'm now saying you have to remember" -- and actually, there's mistyping here. "I'm must saying you have to remember, I'm just asking you, did you hear that conversation?" Inmate Atkins: "No, Sir." Board member Jauregui: "And you didn't." This is, now we're on page 62, line 12: "Did you at any time, did you think that Robert Beausoleil was there to collect money on a drug deal?" Inmate Atkins: "No, Sir." This fantasy that inmate Beausoleil concocts is a way of minimizing not only his involvement in the crime, but also of shifting some of the blame to Mr. Hinman. In other words, it was Mr. Hinman's fault that he sold some bad drugs, and that's what caused this whole confrontation to occur. It was Mr. Hinman's fault that he threatened to go to the police after his face had been slashed, that caused him to be killed by Robert Beausoleil. That is absolutely incorrect, it is not true, and Mr. Beausoleil to this day continues to lie and deny, and to make up new stories about his involvement with the crime. This was a planned attack and extortion. Bruce Davis drove Bobby Beausoleil and the girls to the house. The girls knew Hinman. They were to enter the house first to see if Mr. Hinman was with anyone. If Mr. Hinman wasn't with anyone, they were to make a signal, and after they made that signal, Bobby Beausoleil then entered the house with the gun. They kept him hostage. Despite what Mr. Beausoleil says about not preventing him from leaving, it's absolutely clear that they did. He struck Mr. Hinman over the head with the gun. In fact, by his own admission, he says that the gun was damaged. At least, that's what Bruce Davis says, that the gun was damaged. Mr. Hinman (sic) makes out that he's somehow a pawn in all this, that he was given instructions on how to go collect the money, that it was Bruce Davis and Danny DeCarlo that told him how to use the gun and how to threaten the victim, and this was absolutely incredible, and it's absolutely unbelievable. He continues to minimize his behavior by saying, this was all Charlie's fault, and none of it makes absolutely any sense whatsoever. According to Mr. Beausoleil's latest version, he was just there to collect some money, that he really didn't tell the girls, despite all the evidence to the contrary, because all the girls and everyone else indicates that the reason that all of them went to Gary Hinman's house was because they believed he came into an inheritance, and they wanted to acquire that inheritance as part of the Family funds. So, Mr. Beausoleil is flat-out lying. His version is completely different from all of his crime partners', and all the evidence in this case projects. His version makes absolutely no sense too, because if he were there to collect on the drug debt, why is Manson involved? Why does Manson come over? His explanation is, Manson was worried that his girls might have been in danger. They were never in any danger. There was a struggle with the gun, a gunshot went off, Beausoleil retained possession of the gun. If he hadn't retained possession of the gun, Hinman may still be alive today. He may have fled, he may have shot his assailants. But the point is, is that Beausoleil was always in control. The reason Manson was called over to the house was because Hinman didn't have the money, or wasn't giving up the money, so the purpose for Manson and Davis to return was to further threaten Hinman to pay up or turn over the pink slips to the car. This is logical, this is what all the evidence shows, and this is in direct contradiction to what Mr. Beausoleil is trying to tell this Panel today. And Mr. Beausoleil, he can't -- well, he can't keep his story straight. First of all, when I asked him the question about putting the pillow over Gary Hinman's face, he says no, he just, he put the pillow over his face because the pillow was just to hide Gary Hinman's face. I'm not going to go into the coroner's findings and whatnot, but the point is, is that there was, in fact, testimony that Mary Brunner and Susan Atkins put pillows over Gary Hinman's face to muffle the sounds after he'd been stabbed. And, in fact, I'm going to refer to a -- I actually have a copy of an appeal that Mr. Beausoleil filed in this case, and I'm looking at the reporter's transcript on appeal. This date was, the stamped date on it is November 6th of 1970. I might point out that during this transcript, there was questioning of Mary Brunner, one of the key witnesses and a crime partner in this case, and inmate Beausoleil was present in propria persona. At the time he had some advisory counsel. But this is volume ten, and this was a motion for a new trial. But what's important is -- well, and I've lost the page, but give me a moment. On cross-examination of this hearing, of which Mr. Beausoleil was present, it clearly shows that not only did Ms. Brunner testify at the trial, and in the grand jury, and at this particular hearing, that she and Susan Atkins took turns putting the pillow over Gary Hinman's face. And just a moment, I'll get the page for you. Here it is. This is on page 2701. This was the questioning by the prosecutor of Ms. Brunner. And it says: "Question: All right." This is on line 5. "All right. You stayed for two days, and you were there on a Friday and on a Sunday -- Friday night and on Sunday after dinner, Bobby Beausoleil, as you testified in the Beausoleil trial and before the grand jury, stabbed Gary Hinman; is that correct?" Answer: "Yeah." Question: "Was Susan Denise Atkins there at the time?" Answer: "Yes." "And is it also true pursuant to your testimony, both before the grand jury and in the Beausoleil trial, that you and Susan Denise Atkins both placed a pillow over Gary Hinman's face before he expired?" Answer: "Yes." Next question: "Is there anything regarding your testimony before the grand jury at this time or before the jury in the Robert Kenneth Beausoleil trial that you would like to recant because it was not truthful?" Answer: "Not that I recall at this time." Now, Mr. Beausoleil testified at this hearing in response to one of my questions that nobody testified to the girls putting a pillow over Hinman's face. That's a flat-out lie. He was present at this hearing. He was his own counsel at this hearing and at his own trial. This shows you the extent that Mr. Beausoleil will go to to try to minimize his behavior, to try to deceive this Panel, to try to misdirect questions, to try to distract focus away from him. And for all of those reasons, it's clear that he still remains a danger to society. He cannot even keep it straight in his own mind what his responsibility was. And with respect to that, it also shows that there is no indication of any remorse. All of his responses at this hearing regarding his past disciplinaries have been to minimize them. They were all misunderstanding, they were reduced, they were this, they were that. Mr. Beausoleil is very good at one thing. He is very good at attempting to manipulate, attempting to explain his way out of everything, and just as he tried to explain his way out of a pornographic business that he was running with his wife, who is the same wife that he is going to parole to back in California that's further carried on by these erotic art images involving the same themes of spanking. In fact, I've got a whole packet of information. This is about an inch thick. These are letters and correspondence that Bobby Beausoleil had in his possession. There's even a letter from his wife in here. I know the Panel has this. I think it's previously been submitted, because otherwise I wouldn't have a copy of it. But, you know, you're talking about some serious want ads, you know, personal ads regarding spanking of women, bare bottom spanking, seeks bare bottom -- I mean, there's just -- and there's, actually, also there's a song written by Nancy Jo Pitman, another Manson Family member, for Charlie Manson, and it says, all things must die.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And there's a whole bunch of verses. There's talking about demos, the spanking, in the first issue of Mistress Magazine. There was talking about -- and there was a request for submissions to be mailed to a post office box in San Marcos, California. There's this association with, you know, this erotic art that also culminated in the exhibition and showing in 2005 at the Clair Obscur Gallery. Now, at that same exhibition of Mr. Beausoleil's works, there was also at the gallery at the time, because I received phone calls, and I believe the print-outs from the website also show that they were also previously -- the gallery was also selling at the same time photographs of Sharon Tate, photographs taken from previous publicity stills, that they were also selling in addition to Bobby Beausoleil's work. So, to say that his -- is not marketing his artwork or music and taking advantage of his notoriety is absolutely incorrect, and is, again, another attempt by Mr. Beausoleil to minimize his involvement. Mr. Beausoleil has also said on many occasions that he didn't want to have anything to do with the Manson Family, that he basically didn't want to be a part of it, but yet today he admits that he was willing to kill for Charlie to get his esteem, to be like him. There's also indications in the file that he wanted to be housed with Manson so they could pursue their appeal together. There's also indications in the file that he also wanted to be housed at CMC East after a Category, I think it was X or D evaluation. He wanted to stay at CMC East, which is coincidentally the same location where two of the other Manson Family members also were housed, Bruce Davis, Tex Watson, and actually Steve Grogan was there at one time too. So, there's clear, that during the course of his prison industry, that this inmate has kept contact, or wanted to keep contact with the Manson Family, which, of course, is in direct conflict of what he tries to tell this Panel about how he has disassociated himself a long time ago, and he has nothing to do with them. This was a very cruel and callous crime. It was motivated for financial gain. The victim was tortured, abused and mutilated over a several-day period of time, and this is a culmination of the direction that this inmate was headed at the time. He was involved in that lifestyle, and he espoused to the, to at least by his own admission, some of the theories or philosophies of Charles Manson, and he was willing to commit the ultimate act by brutally killing Gary Hinman for the sake of the Family, and for the sake of Manson and for his own esteem. All of these factors clearly indicate not only the seriousness and gravity of the offense, but the subsequent denials, and the subsequent stories, and the subsequent minimizations by Mr. Beausoleil indicate that he still remains a danger to society, that he still hasn't really come to grips with what he has done or his involvement in this crime, and that he continues to lie, and deny, and to minimize. And for all those reasons, it is clear that he not only is unsuitable and remains a danger, but he also lacks true remorse. And I'll hearken back to the submissions of the interview with Truman Capote, where it's clear that he showed absolutely no remorse for the victim in this case, and I suggest that there is little to show that he has true remorse for victim Gary Hinman even to this day. I might point out that he's supposedly making all this money selling his music and his artwork, and I have yet to hear from him any indications that he's attempted to make amends financially to any member of the Hinman family for his deeds. He hasn't done so from what I could tell, and doesn't plan to do so. So, for all those reasons, I would ask the Panel to find this inmate unsuitable for parole, and to make it a substantial denial. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you. At this time, we'll go to counsel for a closing statement, please.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Yes. First and foremost, I want to thank the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. I understand that you were committed to other duties other than the hearing this week, and thank you for hearing. I apologize for my voice. I've got bronchitis.


ATTORNEY MORETZ: And plus that Portland air got to me, so I'm struggling today. But you did a very thorough job, and you've eliminated something. I want to respond to a few things that Mr. Sequeira has said again and again. First and foremost, the Truman Capote interview has never been for the record. They did a thorough investigation, I think Mrs. Plyler investigated that thoroughly. It's in your file. I can probably have it as a supporting document here if you need it for quick reference. Of any videotape that he alleges to have made, there has never been anything that appears to be a transcript. Now, I'm an attorney, and I know if you call me about a client, I have a duty of confidentiality, and I'm not going to -- I'm probably going to say, well, it had to be. It was printed, wasn't it? It had to be a transcript. The only thing that's ever been produced was actually Random House, which is in the business of publishing, actually showing that. So, Mr. Sequeira, I think, is -- the white knight has kind of led you down the wrong path again. Secondly, as to what Susan Atkins said about any kind of drug deal, her answer was simply no. Did you hear about a drug deal? No. This was a woman who, I think Ms. Plyler referred to the same testimony in her report, so that when she asked, did she consider Mr. Beausoleil a part of the family, he was kind of a roaming troubadour and a musician. Her answer was, yes, she did. To value the opinion, or the weight of her opinion, I don't know how much weight it should be given. She asked her, how long did you know him? She says, two, maybe even three months. Mr. Watkins, on the issue, was a 24/7 resident of this Family, he's in the CDCR system now, basically said he barely knew Bobby. I'm not trying to say there wasn't an association, and Mr. Beausoleil has never lied about that association. She asked Mr. Beausoleil then, what was your association with Charles Manson in the 18 months prior? That was from the time that he met him to the time that this tragedy happened. He told her quite frankly, weekend visitor. She said, would associate be a proper thing, and he acquiesced to that. We have never tried to run away from the association, but I do not think this Manson, or he killed for Manson -- he's admitted again and again. I think the central issue here is -- as to the Sharon Tate photo at Clair Obscur Gallery, you had a letter from Nico Browman who passionately said, please don't blame Mr. Beausoleil. It was not at the same time. It was a month difference. There was a man, and I'll give you a hint, I don't want to give him advertisement, but he had search engines where anybody -- and he sold this, he brags and he boasts that he's never had a working job, he's never had a boss, he's never had an education, and he sells this smut. I have pictures of the gallery if you want to see them, I didn't want to, of Sharon Tate in that gallery exposition. It was a month earlier. Mr. Beausoleil knew nothing about it until after the hearing where the bombshell came. I'm kind of wondering sometimes, Mr. Sequeira, if you look on the record at the 2005 hearing, that was confidential information. Why did Mr. Sequeira introduce it after the original Commissioner told him, I think it was Commissioner Farmer, that it would not be used, even making specific reference to the context. Now, that's all I'm going to say about his arguments, but I think he's been very conclusory. I did not want to interrupt his closing statement, but I wanted to cover that. Basically, he said it probably more eloquently than me, your mission today is to act as an impartial Panel in measuring Mr. Beausoleil's present suitability for parole. We're not looking at a 21-year-old boy. We're looking at a 63-year-old man who I think has moved on. According to Title 15, 2281.6, we are limited to relevant, reliable information. I think Mr. Sequeira just gave you some -- it couldn't be relevant or reliable, because it was just not, it was not true. Basically, we're looking at the person we're dealing with today, and I agree with Commissioner Anderson, said we have to know, that's what we're judging. His pre-conviction factors, I can sum it up very quickly. With all this talk about his troubled past and a teenager in the 60's, Mr. Beausoleil had no juvenile history, no juvenile criminal history whatsoever. His mother at one time, who was worried and concerned about him, had to sign approval for him to go to what I guess we would call today boot camp. There was no convictions or juvenile history of crime. His sole convictions as an adult were this tragedy, P.C. 187, where he took Mr. Hinman's life, and a misdemeanor conviction for his failure to comply with a dog leash statute the same year. Full acceptance, and responsibility and remorse for the crime. Mr. Beausoleil has a nine, we have nine-page letter, and again, it's Exhibit Six. It was a craft over years. He tried to work for the DA's Office. They couldn't find any information. It was Carol Hinman Romberg, I believe her name is. They sent it twice certified mail, and both times it was non-deliverable. Apparently, she had moved on. They sent it one time regular mail, and apparently it worked its way through. I don't know, we lawyers call it a reply letter doctrine, but she referenced specific facts in the original letter saying she was a niece, but they did not want to be re-victimized, they had moved on. It gave Mr. Beausoleil some solace. What has he done, institutional adjustment. For someone who never -- and I have to stress this, I think it kind of got sidetracked, I wondered myself, why would someone go to an AA, Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, when he never had alcohol issues. The answer is quite simple. That was the only 12-step program there was. I think we ought to give him credit. He probably relied on other inmates that said that it gave them solace and (inaudible). From what I understand, the two victims of those, the two tragedies, are guilt and remorse, and it found him a way to address it. It gave him a format to work with. Service to the community. When you're 21 years old and you find yourself in jail 41 -- or in prison 41 years later, I imagine you think, you must think, what can I do? He was on the board of Los Hermanos Youth Crime Prevention. Like everyone else, they go through budgetary cuts and things of that nature. He's now being offered a volunteer shift job with Janice Youth Outreach Program, a Portland-based company which works in the urban cities. It's a hands-on. For any of those artistic works he does, he is committing a part, a portion of whatever return he gets. For OSP, and actually I think you have the letter from Ms. Knorr, who had to get administrative approval to write on his behalf. He does children's videos, or videos geared towards children of incarcerated inmates. Breaking Barriers, I'm sure you're aware of the program in the CDCR System. Gordon Graham chose him to do the digital work and DVD, and he wrote a letter, and I think if you read that, it's very short, but he stresses, "I do not write recommendation letters for inmates, but I have made an exception with Mr. Beausoleil." Just here in Sacramento, which I'm away from my home base, of course, I received a letter, and I submitted that to Ms. Berrios today, it was a letter personally from Fred Sly. He holds a Master's, and he's a program instructor for Non-Violent Communications. Along the same line, he generally does not vouch for inmates. He just works within the system, he doesn't try to influence. But he wrote a letter thinking Mr. Beausoleil has got what it takes. Mr. Beausoleil has tried to proximate, and he knows he's been in jail for a long time. Seventh Step Foundation is through the OSP chapel, and it tries to put inmates in that real situation of, you're going to walk out, somebody's going to say this. How are you going to react? He's looking to the future. His work assignment, I don't think anybody can say it better than Randy Gere, and I'm going to end with a letter where he basically comes clean with everything he feels about Mr. Beausoleil, and I'll get there in a moment. His institutional behavior, we talked about all these things that Ms. Sequeira claims he's done. In 41 years, based on your number after the vacation of the 115 we were discussing, in 41 years he has four 115s that have been recorded, and he admits fully to his culpability. Five 128s. What is missing? There is not one of sustained or initiated violence by Mr. Beausoleil. Mr. Sequeira is a state actor. I want to say something about this racial issue, and it's just not in Bobby Beausoleil. In 1965, Mr. Beausoleil played with a man by the name of Arthur Lee. In one of my numerous visits up to visit Mr. Beausoleil face-to-face, I had to break the news that Mr. Lee had passed on; I did not know -- In that article, he was with Love and his peers of the day were recommending him for induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, not only because of impeccable talent, but he was also incidentally an African American. Mr. Beausoleil, you'll see in the C-File there, was attacked and almost lost his life, and he may want to speak to that when his time comes. And who was it? It was a white supremacist group, and again, I don't bring their names up on the record. I don't want to threaten anybody's security. The only problem, when this group that he said Mexican, is a group, or two groups in the CDCR system, who were notorious, he used that name. I don't know whether they're Latin, or race-based groups, or whatever, but it was not based on anything of race. And I think I have to get that out, and I'm embarrassed to have to tell a state actor, we do not do that in state proceedings. But I think Mr. Sequeira is out of line there. Stability and personal relationships. Gentlemen, I tried to organize. In 16, you have 20 letters of people. Mr. Beausoleil, I even included his mother's compassion plea when she was asking, she had to move to Oregon and she couldn't leave her eldest son behind. She was indebted until the day she died, in CDC, now CDCR, in not blocking her request to have him moved where she could visit him. She did so until her dying day. Same with his father until he passed away in 1988. Thirty years, and Bobby gets mad when I don't bring Barbara up, and I've become almost friends with Mr. Beausoleil, when I try to take him to get credit for some laudatory comment that is made about him without first bringing up Barbara. I'm offended, and just two weeks ago I shared a cup of coffee at a Starbucks in Salem with Ms. Beausoleil. She teaches dance, and in past proceedings, he's tried to make it some kind of hootchie-cootchie dance. She is an Asian dancer, she's a 63-year-old woman like Mr. Beausoleil, and she's an impeccable character. This dance is taught in the local community college where she was an instructor. She does her art, and much of her art, you have some of it there, you have actually all of it on the video if you want to look at it, is for these what they call circle dances. There's nothing insidious about her dance at all. Community resources. Mr. Beausoleil -- and I do like the Oregon State Penitentiary's way of joining partnerships with non-institutional sponsors -- you have more than 20 people from professional backgrounds saying, he's hirable, he'll do it. I think Don Murphy, he was a producer of films of Los Angeles, said, the day he walks out, he's got a job with me. Gentlemen, these are all foreseeable -- or forecasters of successful parole. Last, the psychological evaluation. I can't read them all through the years to you, but I think if you'd review them, in the early 70's, Dr. Mowery, 2/20/76, "He's more positive and socially oriented, and not nearly as alienated as (inaudible) previously." Dr. Macomber, 7/3/78: "He's not a person who is inclined towards violent acts or would seek to become involved" -- this is back -- "in aggressive behavior. You fast forward to the 90's, and more specifically, the last three evaluations. Dr. Colistro. I know they talk about psycho babble and things like that, but I think Dr. Colistro, after going through the HCR factors that the Deputy Commissioner brought up, stressing the fact that Mr. Beausoleil had two factors out of 40, and in his experience, people who committed violent acts scored into the high 20's. But then he spoke in language that we talk about in this Board. "With no apparent denial or minimization. With self-awareness, self critical thinking, victim empathy, and undertaking the steps he needs to take upon return to society to protect himself against reversion to a criminal lifestyle." He then goes, in 2008, the most recent, he underlines, "Very low relative to recidivism possibilities. He's now cognizant that consorting with individuals will lead him to an exceptionally high risk style." He sums up: "As a result of formal violence risk assessment above, subject Mr. Beausoleil poses no significant risk for violent recidivism now or in the foreseeable future." I know when I was a young undergraduate, there was a scientist, somebody I respected very much, a young woman who was a PhD candidate in psychology, told me that if I found a youth that played with matches, maybe peed the bed a little bit too late into life, and was rough on his family animals, he would be some kind of a mass murderer. I laughed at that, but I had to call her back years later, and, you know, the FBI profilers were right. I think we have to give a little bit when it comes to crystal ball magic to these professionals. And for the last three evaluations, he's signed that. I'm not very good with speech talking, especially my voice today, and speech giving because of my voice today, but I spoke with Mr. Randy Gere personally. And it was in my last visit -- I didn't know that Randy Gere's formal name was Robert, and I would have known that his father's name is memorialized at the front of OSP where Mr. Beausoleil is housed. He'd intervened to help an inmate there, and in 1972, I believe, his father lost his life. Mr. Gere is very reserved. He's one of the few people that has discretion to speak, and I think if you back through the letters, he spoke very reserved at first. He spoke to what he saw. And just a moment. "Someone who had passion for his work. As an attorney, he sometimes puts a comma out of place when I'm typing away. Mr. Beausoleil is always respectful, but lets me know it. He's a very talented human being." He spoke of that element. Then he started trying to say, who is this man that they're talking about in books being sold? Why is he barely seeing Bob, with all these characters? I asked him if I could read this letter into the book, because it goes off the record. He really sticks his neck out on the line. And I'm going to do so, if I can, and I'm going to quote. "To Whom It May Concern: My name is Robert Randy Gere, and I've been a correctional professional in Oregon for nearly 30 years. My professional background includes security, recreation, prison planning and design, and central office coordination of operational policy issues. I am, however, writing you today not as a representative of the Oregon Department of Corrections, but as a private citizen with a good deal of expertise in corrections. I have read and re-read the letters of support that I've provided for consideration of the California Board of Parole in the past. I stand by all the observations, comments and recommendations made in those letters. Robert Beausoleil remains the intelligent, driven and well-behaved inmate previously described, and has, once again, managed to navigate through the oftentimes Kafkaesque landscape of corrections to do meaningful work that is, at its core, full of compassion and understanding. If anything, I believe Beausoleil has grown more contrite and stoic regarding his incarceration. I do not think I can add a great deal to what I've said before about the person Robert Beausoleil. Given his traits, growth, patience in dealing with things beyond his control, I continue to believe that he has the tools to be a productive and creative citizen. Over the course of the time that I have supervised Robert Beausoleil, I have spent a fair amount of time trying to differentiate the reality of the man from the public figure lurking in the shadow of the Manson myth. Charles Manson, that poster child for all that was violently excessive and dark in the self-indulgent 1960's, became the boogey man for an entire generation coming of age in the 70's. Charles Manson, as the author of some of America's most terrible moments, became, for the purpose of the public discourse, the face of evil. Who was the Beausoleil described in these horror stories? Did I know him? The Beausoleil I know wants only to work, to be of service, and to stay away from and out of the spotlight. Does the righteous public revulsion of Manson in fact contribute to Beausoleil's inability to be recognized as someone trying desperately to escape display and the public pantheon of evil? Forty years later, for most people, I suspect, Beausoleil is much like what is left of the one-time Manson followers, albeit perhaps a little brighter and more creative, just another once-twisted child growing old, broken, and scarred, washing up periodically on society's shores for his parole review. So much flotsam and jetsam as time moves towards history's next terrible moments in the faces of evil. I think he deserves better. A career in corrections and a lifetime book ended by senseless, violent crime has given me ample reason to contemplate the relationship between punishment, reformation, mercy, forgiveness and justice. I have myself experienced more than one terrible moment over the course of my lifetime. My father was murdered. My son died the victim of another crime fueled by someone else's addiction. I've experienced full-blown anger and rage. I've heard the siren song of revenge in my ear, compelling me to seek punishment and an eye for an eye, yet no punishment ever restored a single minute of love or tenderness lost. There was never going to be enough punishment to make things right. Oddly enough, many thoughts of punishment seem to depend on the very violence that had made the crime so terrible. The focus on punishment caused me to re-live the senseless pain of the crimes over and over again. I only began to heal when I found the courage to forgive. Punishment both real and imagined proved insufficient. In fact, I found I needed to forgive not just the perpetrators, but also on some level the innocent and worthy contributions of both my father and my son for being in the time and place where evil surfaced. Mercy and forgiveness alone allowed me to begin again to restore those loving relationships with my father and my son to their rightful state of grace. I request that you take a minute to consider the power of forgiveness in a larger sense. What sway the remains in the persona of Charles Manson is fueled by the public myth of an all-powerful evil that surrounded him and those he touched? This point of view is counter-productive. Manson is, after all, just another demented, violent human being who should remain in prison where only he has to live with his tormented mind, a small man in a cold cell. To continue to allow the myth of Manson to control decisions about others who are no longer the people they were 40 years ago is to devalue as a society the concept of forgiveness. I hope fervently for all of us to move on from the fear and the concept of forgiveness, and the panic that followed the Manson crime spree. I hope for open hearts and minds that may recognize the fundamental changes apparent and functioning in Robert Beausoleil. There is redemptive power in the story of Beausoleil's journey from the underworld. There is certain paralysis and entrapping allowing a psychopath like Charles Manson to invoke fear in the public year after year, and thereby frame in part the public dialog about justice. Public policy needs to lead us to a new day, but forgiveness can be given its public due. Human self-determination relinquishes control for the more negative human motivators, like panic, anger, fear, when we choose to feed those beasts. Public policy based only on punishment is expensive, and empowers the monsters like Manson to continue to exert an influence over the best use of public resources. Forgiveness, on the other hand, puts the control back in the hands of the citizenry so we can move forward to brighter tomorrows. With grace, we may finally free ourselves from the nauseating, dark memory of the terrible moments by examining the real man, Robert Beausoleil, outside the dark shadows cast by the gnarled figure of Charles Manson, still fully illuminated by media's brightest spotlights on slow news days. I have known Beausoleil almost two decades now. Certainly the Robert Beausoleil who was sentenced to life 40-odd years ago needed to be in prison. He was certainly under the spell of Manson, and dangerous. Today he is not the same person. Whatever forces worked on Beausoleil as a young man, rendering him a servant of whatever Charles Manson represented, are no longer to be found. Instead, there is a kind, patient, and aging man with the skills and drive to craft extraordinary gifts for the world, an inmate of 40-odd years who wishes to be a good citizen, a good husband, a good parent and a good grandparent, not from inside prison, but from inside home. Instead, there is an intelligent student of life and gifted artist who has gained so much insight into crime and criminality over the years that he has produced effective and moving art, text, video, to educate at-risk youth before their own potential terrible moments, and before the snake oil salesman of evil comes for them. Justice as we know it is a human construct. Only through grace and embracing forgiveness will we forgive that our justice system accurately reflects our core values of self-actualization, rebirth, and new beginnings. We become stronger when we reject the isolation and withdrawal from one another caused by the paralyzing grip of primal emotions like fear and panic. I hope you find in your hearts to forgive Robert Beausoleil for who he was in order to recognize the person that he is today. I thank you for your patience, and bless you for the difficult work you do. Respectfully, Randy Gere, Chief of Inmate Services." Gentlemen, I do not envy your task. In some ways, they ask you to be a crystal ball reader. But I think we have someone here who probably has only initiated one act of violence in his life, 41 years ago. We have those people, those professionals, who have consistently signed off on Mr. Beausoleil, some guarded at first. Dr. Colistro has told you. And in the words of this Panel, I can only say that he's admitted without reservation, unlike what Mr. Sequeira has told, consistently the same story, without minimization, and as he says, full of remorse. And I'm asking you to please, please award Mr. Beausoleil his so justly deserved date for parole. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you, sir. Mr. Beausoleil, would you like to make a statement today?



INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Can you hear me?




DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Mr. Beausoleil, excuse me.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: This is Deputy Commissioner Martin.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: During your statement to the Board, I'd like you to comment on one thing.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: You told me earlier in the hearing that there was no devil tattoo on you. I have a report dated October the 5th, 1970. It's by a Dr. Erickson, an MD, who did your initial physical examination. Describes you as: "A hundred and 55 pounds, 5'9". Skin revealed a star tattooed on the left web of his hand. Also, a star tattooed on the right lateral leg with a small face of a devil." So, tell me, was Dr. Erickson wrong, or did you lie to me?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, he was wrong. It was actually, at that time, it was a wolf's head that he saw that way, and I didn't even know anything about that. I think I -- well, I did learn about it later, but at the time that he was making that assessment, if he would have asked me what it was, I would have told him. Frankly, it wasn't a very good tattoo, and I eventually covered it up with the phoenix. So, yeah, it was just a simple error on his part as far as interpreting what it was. It was just a --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Okay. That's fine. Thank you, sir.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Sorry for the interruption. Back to the Chair.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you. Mr. Beausoleil, go ahead and make your statement today.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. I would ask Mr. Anderson, if you would grant me, I think my statement, I've prepared it as best I can. I would like to have an opportunity to address a matter that in part, and this is in large part, a matter that my attorney, Mr. Moretz, had mentioned. And if you will allow me, I think I can do what I need to do in roughly about 15 minutes. Would it be okay to have that amount of time?



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: It doesn't take 15 minutes to tell me what your suitability is.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I just want to know your suitability.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. And I'm going to address that right on the -- you know --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I don't want to know your life history. I already got it here in the book.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, that's not why -- I'm intending to tell you about some things that you don't know about probably, and I will be as --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I want you to talk about suitability.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- succinct as I possibly can. I don't want to take up too much of your time, and I don't want you to --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I'm not telling you how much time to take, but --

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- I don't want to bore you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: -- 15 minutes is not sufficient to be talking about suitability here today.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It's not sufficient?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: No. That's too long. So, I'll listen, but I want you to tell me why you're suitable for parole. That's what I want to hear today.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, and that's what I intend to do, Sir. I just have a certain thing that I need to -- it's going to take a little time to tell you about it, because it is --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It is an event in my life that I would like to share with you that I think will tell you --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I don't want to know about your events in your life, Mr. Beausoleil.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I don't want to know about the events in your life. I'm not interested in that. I'll be honest with you. I'm interested in why you're suitable for parole.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I think that if I --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Wait a minute. I don't want to know the touchy feely stuff. So, you tell me why you are suitable for parole today to allow me to make a decision. Because I'm going to be honest with you, all that stuff you're going to tell me, I'm going to forget it. Now, let's talk about Title 15, and you tell me why today you should get out of prison. I don't want to know about what the psychological evaluation said, because I already got that. You tell me why you should get out on parole based on Title 15, California Constitution. That's what I want to hear from you today. So, don't tell me all that historical stuff.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Bobby, I think the Commissioner wants you to speak of what you are today.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, that's what I hoped to do. I wanted to relate an event in my life that I think is defining, and I think it will, in the best way, answer the question that Mr. Anderson says he wants to know.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Well, why don't we just start out by briefly stating the event in your life, and how it reflects on what you are today, and your suitability for parole.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. I have prepared to speak on this, and I have a roadmap to try to keep it as succinct as possible. If I may be allowed to just get on with it and say it, I think I can answer any --



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I'm going to give you my roadmap. Let me get to my roadmap. I've got it right here, and this is the roadmap I use during deliberation. My roadmap is probably more important than your roadmap right now. Give me a minute here. Here's my roadmap. Determining suitability, 2402, information considered, circumstances that tend to show suitability. Commitment offense. What else we got here? Institutional behavior, psychological factors, unstable social history, social history, signs of remorse, motivation for the crime, lack of criminal history, age. That's my roadmap.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Now, you address my roadmap.



INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: The one that I think is most relevant right now is the one that you mentioned in terms of remorse. If I may relate an event in my life that has very significant bearing on the Hinman murder, and what I did, and what I've learned since. If you will allow me the opportunity to relate this to you, I would be very, very grateful, and I think you will see the point of it if you will let me do it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Mr. Beausoleil, I'm not going to interrupt you until you get off the target, so just go right ahead.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. Thank you, Sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: We're moving around and coming back to the same issues here.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. I want to say at the very beginning that I realize that this hearing is not really about me, and it's not about what I want. It's really about what's best for everyone. I accept that you are the best judge of that. However, I want to offer you some background that I think might be helpful in making your determination. I have a tendency to ramble in conversation, and I don't want to do that. I don't want to, you know, put you to sleep or frustrate you, so I'm going to use notes that I prepared to keep myself on track and keep this as succinct as possible. First of all, I want to thank Mr. Moretz for his representation today. He has volunteered to do this. He believes in me, he has put a great deal of energy in his remarks in spite of his health problems today. He's here and he's doing all he can, and I'm very grateful to him. You have also heard from a lot of people today who have attested to my character based on their personal experiences and their relationships with me. They have shared perspectives with you that are, in some cases, intimate and in considerable detail, and like the letter from Mr. Gere, for example. They have written from standpoints of both personal and professional relationships, describing the man they know me to be. Needless to say, I'm also very grateful to them, to all of my relations, friends, professional associates, and the institution staff who have written to express their views, and so thank them, and I'm grateful to you as well for considering those letters. In honesty, too, I am very grateful to Mr. Sequeira as well for sharing his contrasting point of view. I'm not in agreement with much that he has to say, much that he said, however, because some of it just doesn't bear a lot of resemblance to what I remember, and it's not representative of who I am today. Nevertheless, he represents a certain point of view that warrants being a part of your consideration, and I accept this. However, there is a crucial element missing from all these perspectives. My loved ones, friends and associates can tell you about the person they know me to be today. Another voice in these proceedings may portray me as an older version of the troubled young man I was when the crime that brought me here was committed, as if those character flaws were cast in stone. The thing that is missing in all of this is conveying to you in a real way how it was that I was able to get from one orientation to the other, from the man, the young man that I was 41 years ago, and who I am today. A profound transformation has occurred, and if you will allow me this time --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- I'll tell you --


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: -- how that came about.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. Here's the deal, counsel. He either gets to the point, or I'm done.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Listen, I just need to relate this.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: You don't need anything. You need to get to the point --


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: -- like I just asked you to do. Tell me what your suitability is. I read you the factors that we're going to look at here today. I don't want to know what's happened in your life that changed, this transformation. I want to know today why you are suitable for parole, because to be honest with you, I don't care about the other stuff. I care about are you a danger to the public, the people of the State of California, and the United States, of this great country of America.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: So, that's what I'm interested in. I'm not interested at how you got to this point.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Bobby, let's try to direct this.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Because I'm going to cut you off.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: You're familiar with 2402 that was at the time you -- it's 2281 or 2402. It's just basically, is a latter-day reversion. Try to frame what you are in your statements to what you are today. I think he's trying to basically fairly assess what you are and your suitability, and he wants to make sure that you're not risk to the public safety. So, try and frame your arguments around that.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I understand. I'm not trying to -- I don't want to argue anything, really. I'm doing my best to relate what has changed in me, and there is one event that has been a profound -- if you want me to tell you why I'm suitable for parole and what has changed me, it was experiencing exactly what I had done to Gary Hinman firsthand, personally, up close and personal. I took Gary Hinman's life by stabbing him twice in the chest with a knife. I know that you have concerns about whether I would be violent towards anyone else ever again in my life, and I need to address that, and I want to tell you why that would not happen. You know, there were a lot of factors that led into all of this, but the fact is, I stabbed a man twice in the chest, I took his life, and that's the raw details. The second time I stabbed Gary, the knife went into his heart and killed him irrevocably. It shattered my life as well, and tragically disrupted the lives of everyone who cared for either of us. This was one of the most horrible experiences I've ever known, and then 11 years later, 11-1/2 years later at DVI in Tracy, I was myself stabbed by another inmate. I was stabbed in the heart and both lungs, I was stabbed twice. I have not ever brought this up in any previous hearings. I didn't want to have anyone think that I was playing for sympathy, and I hope that won't be interpreted in this way now. I simply want to relate that that experience of being stabbed and experiencing exactly what I had done to another human being completely altered my perception of my own behavior in killing Gary Hinman. I can't tell you why the man who stabbed me did it. I don't know to this day. You know, he evidently saw me as some sort of a threat, or maybe it was to boost his reputation with his gang. I'll never know what that was about, but he stabbed me brutally. As I said, you know, he stabbed me twice. One went through the lung, and the other went through the other lung and pierced my heart. I was taken to the hospital in San Joaquin. It was a terrifying ride in the back of the ambulance. It took an hour just to get into the ambulance, and I was all of that time holding, trying to hold the blood into my body with what was left of my shirt, and I was terrified, I was frightened. I was fighting every moment to keep from losing consciousness, because I was afraid that if I let myself go, that I would never wake up. I prayed fervently. And when I finally got to the hospital -- you know, no one was talking to me, it was dark, it was cold, I was frightened -- but when I finally got to the hospital, a young woman, a nurse, came to my side and took my hand. I don't remember what she said, but her words were very reassuring and they comforted me, and that's the last thing I remember before I woke up the next day with my wife holding my hand. And I couldn't speak to her because I had a tube down my throat, I had tubes coming out of my side. And she was terrified, and the only thing I could was squeeze her hand to reassure her that I would be okay, and I could see that she recognized this. Later, the surgeon who had worked on me told me that I had died on the operating table.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: You know, I've been fair to your client. I mean, I've got a job to do. I mean, you know, this stuff about the dying on the operating table, in the prison, his wife, you know I can't use that stuff.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I know you can't, Sir. If you will let me, I'm almost finished.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: No, I can't let you. I've given you an opportunity, I've asked you to do the things I've asked you to do. This is a hearing, I'm trying to determine suitability. You've got two minutes to tell me why you're suitable for parole today, sir.



INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. Just let me, I'll use these two minutes to --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I've tried being fair, and I know I'm being more than fair, and being more than patient. This is getting out of hand. Come on, now. (Inaudible).

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I'm trying to relate that it was through this experience --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Well, then, wait a minute. See, there. Counsel.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: We've got a problem. We've got a problem.

ATTORNEY MORETZ: Tell us about your relationship with your wife of 30 years, your children who you've bonded with, the things, the factors, that are going to make you successful on parole.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: And that's what we want to hear. I think that's fair, for us to make a decision.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. My wife had just married me when I was stabbed, and she has been with me all this time, a tremendous encouragement, and she helped me to assimilate what I learned from the experience that I just related to you. I had struggled for so long to reconcile what I had done to Gary, and with the person I thought myself to be, and it was only through the encouragement that I received from my children, and from my wife, and through my friends, that I was able to forgive the man who stabbed me, and to understand --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: At this time, I -- the time is now 12:35. We're taking a recess for deliberations. Mr. Beausoleil, we will call you back with the decision that this Board will make. I've given you numerous opportunities to do the right thing, and you won't do it.




PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: We're back on tape. The time is now 1:03, and all parties have returned. Mr. Beausoleil is by telephone, and all other parties are in person. This will be in the matter of Robert Beausoleil, CDC Number B-28302. The Panel reviewed all the information received from the public, and all relevant information that was before us today in concluding that the prisoner is not suitable for parole, because the inmate currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger if released from prison. The finding of unsuitability is based on weighing the considerations provided in the California Code of Regulations, Title 15. This will be a five-year denial. The first consideration which weighs heavily against suitability would be the gravity of the commitment offense. With respect to the commitment offense, there's some relevant points I'd like to put on the record. I've already incorporated the commitment offense utilized in the appellate court decision, as well as other resources, but in reading from the appellate court decision, they said -- I'm on page number 2 -- and it said defendant, meaning Mr. Beausoleil, was an acquaintance of Charles Manson, who lived at the Spahn Ranch in Los Angeles County with a group of persons referred to as the Family. Mary Brunner, Susan Atkins, Danny DeCarlo were among those that lived at the ranch, and I'll get back to that momentarily. Brunner testified that on Friday night, July 25th, 1969, she and Atkins accompanied defendant to Hinman's house to demand money. Now, there's no reference to drugs, owing money, or anything like that. Defendant was armed with a gun, and with a knife and a leather sheath. When Hinman did not cooperate, defendant beat him with a gun. Hinman did, upon defendant's demand, sign the pink slips to his two cars. Brunner and the defendant and Atkins stayed in Hinman's house the next two days. During the first night, Manson and Bruce Davis arrived there, and there was another fight in which Hinman's face was cut and one of his ears was severed. Sunday evening, defendant said they were going to kill Hinman after dinner. While Brunner was in the kitchen and Atkins was in the bathroom, Brunner heard a noise in the living room. She and Atkins rushed in and saw that Hinman had been stabbed. Defendant had a knife in his hand, and was near Hinman, who was on the floor. They held a pillow over Hinman's face until his noisy breathing stopped. Now, that's an important fact, because Mr. Beausoleil says that didn't happen. Before leaving the house, Brunner took cash from the cash box and Hinman's wallet that amounted to about 20 dollars. They drove away in Hinman's remaining automobile. Defendant later told Brunner he went back to the house to remove the paw print he had drawn in blood on the wall. The house smelled, and Hinman's body was decomposing. Danny DeCarlo testified in substance as follows: Before Hinman's death, he overheard a conversation between Manson and the defendant, that being Beausoleil, in which Hinman was called a political pig who should die. After Hinman's death, defendant told DeCarlo that he had gone to Gary's house with Brunner and Atkins to demand money, and that Gary didn't cooperate, and defendant beat him. That Manson came over, cut Gary with a sword. Defendant stabbed Gary to death, and the defendant told the women to wipe the house down for fingerprints, and that defendant never killed anybody before. So, what we have here is a group of people, Beausoleil included, that were part of a group called the Family. And let me tell you what the Family did. On August 8th, 1969, they murdered Sharon Tate, Abigail Folger, Jay Sebring, and Steven Parent. This would be known as the Tate murders. Now, this is the Family, the ones that Beausoleil is at the ranch with. Now, the murders were carried out as part of Manson's plan to incite a race riot, which he believed was prophesized in the Beatles song Helter Skelter. They planned to murder white victims in such a manner that black people would be blamed. That's not all they did. They went over to another location, the LaBianca, the family of the LaBiancas. They went in there, stabbed Mr. LaBianca to death in the presence of his wife, and stabbed her in the back, causing her death. She was stabbed like 40 different times. The LaBianca murders were also part of what the Family would do, and they all went back to the Spahn Ranch, where Beausoleil was a part of. And they took the LaBiancas' wallet, put it in gas stations, in the hopes that black people would be finding these fruits of the crime, and use them, and be blamed for them. Hinman was stabbed to death. Now, Beausoleil will say, well, I decided to do this on my own because of drug debts, and debts, and I wanted the money. But you look at the brutality of the crime and the pattern of the crime, it follows along with the rest of what the Family had been doing, murdering people, and blaming the murders on the black people in order to incite a riot so that Charles Manson can overtake the world and be in charge. Now, today, we hear for the parole suitability hearing of Beausoleil, and he has a problem with historical perspectives of what he did, and when he did it, and how he did it. I got a problem with his insight, because like the District Attorney has pointed out today, he's got three different versions. Now he's got four different versions of how this crime actually occurred, or why it occurred, which leads me to believe that he has a total lack of insight into the causative factors of his conduct, and is very superficial with respect to his remorse. But in terms of insight, he says, oh, well -- let's see. He said, I don't think I tortured him. I've got my notes here. The man was not restrained. In other words, Hinman was free to go, he could have walked out the door. Well, no, that's not true. Well, we were just anti-establishment. I never heard it going to be a race riot. This is all what Mr. Beausoleil is telling us today. I never buy into the Manson issues. Now, I want to point out that the reason I read those other issues onto the record, because we have a series of murders that have been committed by the Family, and Beausoleil is part of the family, and Hinman is just another one of those victims that was killed by somebody from the family, this time being Mr. Beausoleil. Now, this crime did occur 41 years ago, and one might argue that Lawrence would take precedent. Lawrence would say after a long period of time it's no longer relevant. But here's what the most recent court case are here today. The court said after a long period of time, a commitment offense may no longer indicate a current risk of danger to society in light of a lengthy period of positive rehabilitation. Now, we have that with Mr. Beausoleil. But the courts also said after, a commitment offense may continue to be a predictive of current danger even after decades of attenuation if the crime was especially brutal, which this crime was. The crime involved torture, this crime was torture. The man's ear was cut off. He was restrained for almost two days while they thought he had 20 thousand dollars of inheritance that they wanted. The courts say if the crimes were committed with such brutality that denial is appropriate, and that we, by denying him parole today, are not depriving him of his due process. That is supported by In Re Rozzo, R-O-Z-Z-O. These crimes were heinous, this crime was atrocious and was cruel. It was part of a bigger picture that Mr. Beausoleil was part of. They terrorized society, he terrorized Los Angeles County. But the sole purpose, of being part of a group of people that were inciting a race riot. This victim was abused and he was mutilated during this commitment offense. The motive for this crime is very trivial in relationship to the commitment offense. Well, they robbed him, they wanted his cars to carry out their long-term goal of creating a race riot. Now, why is this pertinent? Well, when they stole Hinman's car, one way, now Mr. Beausoleil is in Hinman's car, he stops in San Luis Obispo, and he makes a reference that -- and the term they used at the time was Negro -- a Negro stole the car, shifting blame to perpetrate Charles Manson's sick goals of framing black people and inciting a race war. Now, with respect to his past, present mental state and attitude towards the crime, Mr. Beausoleil is all over the place. He minimizes his conduct by saying -- well, it depends on which case you want to look at, but today he said, well, I did it because there was money owed, and so I did it on my own, and so I killed him. You admit that part, but with a caveat. Said he needed to prove himself as a man to these people, he wanted to be accepted. He said he needed the money for this motorcycle gang that he was part of. Said he never bought into the Manson hoopla about the race war that Manson wanted accepted, but the records reflect different. He said, I don't think I tortured him. Well, if a man has got his ears cut off, he's been cut with a sword, you don't call that torture? You can't go anywhere. What is that, if you don't call it torture? It looks like torture to me. Let's see what else I have here. Motivated to collect money on the drug debt. Here's what we have. We have a credibility issue today on the part of Mr. Beausoleil. He's not credible. Furthermore, I had to warn Mr. Beausoleil several times during the hearing today to stay on track. Mr. Beausoleil is an individual that's self-centered, and he's self-centered because it's all about him. He wants to talk about how good he is. That's okay, that's what you're trying to do when you get out of prison, you want to get out of prison. You want to talk about those good things. That's okay. But Mr. Beausoleil is overdoing it, in my opinion. And he forgets that we've some victims out there, and he killed a man, Mr. Hinman. But it's all about him. It's all about how he has the life story he wants to tell us. And he always -- you know, you go back, and he's made money off of the fact that he was a member of the Manson clan, but he'd have you denying, he tried to deflect me today away from talking about Charles Manson, which I was offended. In my personal opinion, because of his being self-centered, he's had the inability to gain the credibility that he needs to get out of prison. He says he takes responsibility, but he's just telling us that because he's a superficial individual. His statements are inconsistent, and he several times insulted this Panel by his inability to follow the rules that I laid down for him. Here's an individual who lacks insight into the causative factors, In Re Shaputis, of why he did this in the first place. We've got too many versions. I'm not going to go over them, they're on the record. He's self-absorbed. Commissioner Martin, I will allow you an opportunity, Sir, at this time, to comment on his institutional behavior, and any comments you may have regarding this denial here today.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Yes. Mr. Beausoleil, I find that your parole plans are unrealistic and almost completely insufficient. Several places in your materials you describe yourself as an artist, and you've told the Board today, and in the materials that you've submitted that you're a videographer, a composer of music, an artist. This member of the Board doesn't think those are the sort of solid, reliable skills that you can bank on. I noted that you almost dismiss your skills and training in electronics, printing and sheet metal. Those aren't the things you want to do, it sounds like to me. Well, sir, it's likely that your life after prison will not be about performing and glamour. It will take effort and thoughtful strategy for you to survive, and I don't believe you've made enough planning in those regards. Your past public figure status, your pursuits with music, those memories you have of playing with certain bands, that's not going to serve you in the future, and it's not realistic to think that it will. Speaking of unrealistic, you also talked in your materials about working with young people at risk. I worry about you sharing your experiences, and that phrase is, those are your own words in your materials, sharing your experiences with youth. I don't see you qualified or appropriate as a youth counselor. I say that mindful of your pension for erotic art, I say that mindful of strong community objection to you being paroled. You're not the citizen that our society wants to guide our youth, and for you to think so is unrealistic. The Board, however, commends you for remaining disciplinary-free for the last several years, and the Board notes your psychological evaluation that characterizes a very low danger assessment range. With that, I'll return to the Chair.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you, Sir. With respect to 3042 Notices in opposition, the Board has and has reviewed during deliberation over 50 letters of opposition to Mr. Beausoleil's parole. We also have an opposition from the Los Angeles Police Department. We also had the District Attorney's Office of Los Angeles County represented today by Mr. Sequeira, Deputy District Attorney of Los Angeles County, and Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office recommends that parole be denied at this time. This Panel finds clear and convincing evidence, pursuant to Penal Code section 3041(b)(3), after considering the public and victims' safety, as well as the parole consideration criteria set forth in Title 15, that the prisoner does not require a period of incarceration of 15 additional years before his next parole hearing. The reason for that, he does have positive programming. He has a lack of assaultive history as a juvenile, he has a stable social history, and his age at this time reduces his recidivism risk. Therefore, we have no substantial doubt as a Panel that he does not require a 15-year denial. We then considered if the safety of the public and the victims require that he remain incarcerated for ten additional years, and by clear and convincing evidence, we have no substantial doubt that he does not need a ten-year denial, so we went to the next threshold of seven years. We want to commend you for the positives, sir. On balance, the circumstances that make you unsuitable for parole, which has already been discussed with you, heavily outweigh the positive aspects of your case, and therefore, this Board is recommending an additional five years of incarceration for the reasons we've already cited here today. The Panel recommends you remain disciplinary-free, you continue to be involved in your self-help programs. Penal Code section 3041.5(d)(1) provides you can request this Board conduct your next hearing earlier than the denial period we issued here today, provided there has been a change of circumstances or new information that provides a reasonable likelihood you don't need additional time. You can do that by using the BPH 1045A. Now, Mr. Beausoleil, one of the critical parts of being involved in a hearing is to follow the rules. I gave you ample opportunity to follow the rules today. You didn't do it. In order to allow a Board an opportunity to sufficiently provide for your suitability and hear how you think, you got to follow the rules. The rules apply to you. We set the rules, you don't. And if you don't want to follow the rules, the next Board is not going to find you suitable either, because we've got to have you follow the rules in order to make a determination whether you're suitable for parole, and part of that is your presentation. Your presentation was poor today. And I read the prior transcript, which I was on, and it was poor last time. So, you've got a pretty good track record right now. I suggest you follow the rules, sir. It will be better for you. Commissioner Martin, you have any final comments?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MARTIN: I wish Mr. Beausoleil good luck.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: The time is now 1:30. This hearing is now concluded.