Friday, January 28, 2022



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

JANUARY 28, 2022
8:45 A.M.

PATRICIA CASSADY, Presiding Commissioner
EDWARD TAYLOR, Deputy Commissioner

JASON CAMPBELL, Inmate Attorney
DEBRA TATE, Victim's Family Representative
ANTHONY DIMARIA, Victim's Family Representative
KAY MARTLEY, Victim's Cousin



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Thank you. This is the 20th subsequent life parole consideration hearing for Robert Beausoleil, CDC number B28302. Today's date is January 28th, 2022. The time is approximately 8:45 AM. Inmate is located at California Medical Facility in Vacaville, California. Hearing will be conducted per all California policies, rules, regulations, and laws that pertain to parole consideration hearings. Controlling offense is out of Los Angeles County, murder first, term imposed is seven years to life. Victim in this case was Gary Hinman, H-I-N-M-A-N. Per case records the prisoner does qualify as a youthful offender pursuant to Penal Code section 3051, meaning that in reaching today's decision, the Panel will give great weight to the diminished capacity of juveniles as compared to adults, hallmark features of youth, and subsequent growth and maturity of the prisoner while we review the prisoner's suitability for parole under Penal Code section 3041.5. The inmate also qualifies for elderly parole consideration, requiring we give special consideration to age, long-term confinement, and diminished physical condition when determining suitability for parole. You were 21 at the time of the commitment offense and you are presently 74. Is that correct, sir?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: First order of business will be voice identification for the recording. We're going to go around the Teams meeting room, state our first and last name, spell our last name, state the purpose of our appearance. And when we get to you, sir, if you would also add your CDC number. I'll start with myself, we'll move to the Deputy Commissioner, we'll then move to your Attorney, we'll move to the victims and the support person, um, in the order that I call at the time that we get there and you'll go last. I'm Patricia Cassady, C-A-S-S-A-D-Y, Commissioner, Board of Parole Hearings.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I am Edward Taylor, T-A-Y-L-O-R, Deputy Commissioner, appearing by Teams.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Uh, good morning, Commissioners. I'm Jason Campbell, I'm an Attorney for inmate Robert Beausoleil, I'm appearing via Teams.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Can you spell Campbell, please?



VICTIM’S FAMILY REPRESENTATIVE TATE: My name is Debra Tate, T-A-T-E, I'm appearing via Teams as representative for the Hinman family.


VICTIM’S FAMILY REPRESENTATIVE DIMARIA: My name is Anthony DiMaria, D-I, capital, M-A-R-I-A, I am a Hinman family representative.


VICTIM’S COUSIN MARTLEY: My name is Kay Hinman Martley, M-A-R-T-L-E-Y, my cousin was Gary Hinman.


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


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Excuse me. Um, Commissioner, may I ask, I didn't hear, uh, the gentleman who identified himself as a, uh, Hinman family representative, what was his name again?


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And Hinman representative in what sense?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Hinman family member, were you, are you related to Mr. Hinman?

VICTIM’S FAMILY REPRESENTATIVE DIMARIA: No, I'm sorry. Did I misspeak? I meant to say family representative. I was asked to speak as a family representative. I apologize for the confusion.



ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And what's your relationship with him?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Hold on, hold on Mr. DiMaria. He, he is one of the two representatives that Ms. Hinman is appointing to speak on behalf of the family, the law, the law allows the victim and two representatives, all of which can speak. Okay?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I have my objections here. I don't believe the law allows them to speak that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. Well, you can look on the Board website, it's right there. Okay. Um, we'll get to your objections momentarily. Uh, sir, Mr. Beausoleil, are you going to be answering questions today?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Would you raise your right hand for me? Do you solemnly swear and affirm the testimony you give at today's hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing about the truth?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Thank you. I did review the Americans with Disabilities Act databases, the DECS, as well as the SOMS. I also reviewed the BPH 1073 form that you signed with the correctional Counselor in December of last year. At the time that you met with the Counselor, you indicated that you needed assistance walking, as a result you have, um, you're supposed to come to the Board room on level terrain. Did that happen?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Um, more or less, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: So, did you have to go (inaudible) down stairs?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I, I did voluntarily go up the stairs. Uh, I do not require a device to walk. I don't know where that came from. I, I did not say that to, uh, my Counselor may have been a misunderstanding, I don't use a cane.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Because it indicates that you need a knee brace and that would have to do with walking.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah, I have it, it's, it's, I have a knee brace, but I don't wear except when I need it. It's not a, it's not a major type of knee brace. It's just an elastic type of thing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Right. And it indicates that you have compression stockings.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Indicates that you have other orthotics. Do you have special shoes?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I do have, yeah, I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Those are, those are all walking things.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Oh, I see. Okay. I didn't get that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. Uh, it also indicates that you need a knee, or I'm sorry, a wrist brace, do you have a wrist brace?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I do have a wrist brace. I have a thumb brace it's that goes on my wrist, but it's thumb brace.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. And do you, you don't have it on, do you not need it today?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I do not need it today, no.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Also indicates that you need glasses to assist in seeing, and I see you have glasses on, do they correct adequately?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Indicates that you have no need for any type of accommodation for talking or hearing, is that true today?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Record reflects that, excuse me, your TABE reading score is 10.9, overall TABE is 12.9. Um, you do have a GED, is that correct?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: As far as effective communication needs, it indicates that you have no need for any type of accommodation to achieve effective communication. Do you agree with that statement?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Have you ever been a part of the mental health system within the department?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Do you have any medical issues, and I know that you do, that require medication that you believe would impact your ability to participate in today's hearing?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I do have medical issues, as you said, but I don't have any medication that should impair my, um, my ability to participate in any way.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Do you have any, you have any medical issues that require medication to be taken in the morning?



INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah, I have, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. Counsel, is there anything you'd like to add regarding ADA rights or effective communication needs?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Uh, no, not at this time.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Do you believe your client's procedural due process rights have been afforded up to this point?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: And preliminary objections.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Okay. Um, so first of all, I guess I will, uh, start with actually, hold on one moment, so, since I did, I did mention it earlier. I will start with, uh, objecting to the presence of, uh, Debra Tate and Mr. DI, DiMaria. Um, I do not believe, well, I do not believe first of all, Ms. Tate because of her relationship, very tangential relationship through this case, in a sense that her sister was a victim of the Manson’s family, I have always objected to her involvement in this case. I think it's, uh, it distorts the, the Board’s purpose. I understand her, you know, the, the, you know, I understand her position. I understand the grief that she experienced. I understand that she's an activist, uh, on behalf of victims and support her, her rights to do so. I don't think her presence in this, uh, this, uh, uh, parole hearing is appropriate. Um, I also, uh, I've never heard of Mr. DiMaria and, uh, I was not notified there'd be another, uh, uh, support person here, but, um, but, uh, you know, as far as support persons under 15 CDCR, 2029 D, or excuse me, E, they are not permitted to participate in the hearing nor make comments while in attendance. And I would ask therefore, that any support—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: What are you quoting from sir?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Uh, 15 CDCR 2029, subsection (E) that designates—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: And what does it say about the representatives, because that's not accurate? Do you have an old copy of title 15?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: No, no. I just, this is straight, straight from (inaudible) at this moment, it says support person, victims, next of kin, or immediate family members attending hearings, maybe accompanied by one support person of his or her own choosing who shall not participate in the hearing nor make comments while in attendance, in order for such person to be admitted to the hearing, the person requesting support shall advise the Board of the name of the person at the time when he or she informs the Board of his intervention—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: They are not support people, they are representatives.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Ms. Tate just identified herself as a support person.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: No, she said a representative of the Hinman family.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I would absolutely object to her having any, uh, representative role. She has—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay, that objection is overruled based on the law, the law allows the victim to have two representatives, all of which can speak. What's your next objection?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Well, my next objection is to Ms. Hinman herself, her presence, because the, uh, victim’s, uh, due rights, the California constitution does not identify cousins as being, uh, qualified. Uh, it's being a qualified relationship, um, to, uh, you know, to constitute a victim in this case, the next of kin. It says as use in the section, “a victim is a person who suffers direct physical or psychological or financial harm. And it also includes the person's spouse, parents, children, siblings, or guardian, and includes a lawful representative of the crime victim who is deceased, a minor, or physically, or psychologically incapacitated.” So, I, I do and 15 CDCR 2029 the same, uh, section I just read—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: As the Penal Code allows her to be here, sir, and she has been okayed. So, um, I'm going to overrule that objection. Could I have your next objection?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Will, may I ask, Commissioner what section of the Penal Code allows for that?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Uh, I don't have it at hand, but let me see if I can get it. You want me to, just carry on, and I'll get it from legal.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Understood. Okay. Um, so, the next objection would be to the recent Comprehensive Risk Assessment prepared by Dr. Montgomery—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Uh, I believe that you have received the responses to those objections. Most of which were factual in nature. And certainly Mr. Beausoleil will have an opportunity to make any corrections that he wants during the hearing. The—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I have not received the responses. Do you know when that was sent out?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Yesterday, I believe. Let me see. Let me see if I can find it.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I didn’t get that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I got responses to it yesterday.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Right. And you didn't get them?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. Um, if you want to give us your email, Mr. Taylor, would you forward him the responses from headquarters please?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, I could have headquarters—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. You can have headquarters do it—

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Forwarded to him, yeah. So—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: They probably sent them to you. If you got something at three o'clock this morning.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Oh, perhaps that's what it was. Was it in the, was it in the 10-day packet from Ms. Singer was it in a separate, uh, like a separate email?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: I thought it was on a separate email, let me look.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, it was sent a separate email.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Yeah, I definitely didn't get anything that was in a separate email.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Um, your, uh, your system might have blocked it because it might've thought it was spam.


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: It doesn't typically do that, but it's, you know, anything's possible.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: My concern is you said you got something from the office this morning at four something, which concerns me since our people don't work at four something—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: No, I understand—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: It took a long time to get through whatever firewalls we have and you have, so you may not have received it yet.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: It's possible. No, it's 3:59 AM Ms. Sing updated the, uh, the 10-day packet and she just responded to an email. I mean, I've, I've emailed with her back and forth and she's, you know, I get her emails right away. So, I'm not sure what the issue was, but if we could, if I could just give you my email address and perhaps you could forward it to me, that would be the most (inaudible).



ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Okay. My email address is a law, L-A-W,. j, it’s the letter J, then campbell, C-A-M-P, as in Paul, B, as in boy, E-L-L,


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: law.jcampbell, yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. I got the dot in there, but thanks for, uh, information. I will see what I can do about getting it to you, uh, ASAP, I guess.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And so, just to continue though with that objection, my, my objections to the, I also object to the introduction of that CRA or the use of that CRA at this hearing on the basis that there was no interview done, (inaudible) nothing new added to the, uh, to the, uh, Comprehensive Risk Assessment other than to make various references to the 2020 rules violation report. Uh, but other than that, there's nothing new that Dr. Montgomery, uh, has shed any light on through the use of that Comprehensive Risk Assessment, uh, which, which wasn't—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: So, why would you be objecting to the use of it if there's nothing new?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Because I believe that her, especially in as much as she relied on the 2020 rules violation, she relies on it as I said in the letter to justify some specious conclusions, uh, about, um, having, uh, criminogenic thought patterns which no other previous evaluators has said. Um, partial evidence of behavioral instability, uh, continued willingness to participate in unlawful behavior all based on the 2020 rules violation report. And this is by far the most negative, uh, language has been used in any of his, uh, Comprehensive Risk Assessments for the past 20, 30 years. So, I, and this is a Doctor who spent zero time with Mr. Beausoleil. And so, I think that it's, um, I think that it was a, uh, you know, it's, I don't think it's a fair assessment of Mr. Beausoleil’s uh, risk that he poses, or—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: That's not something to object to. That's just something to state on the record. And we'll take that into consideration, but we know that he was in the hospital, um, and unable to be interviewed, we recognize that, the 115 which is what this is all about, because it was, it hadn't been adjudicated at the time of the last hearing, um, has now been adjudicated. So, I, I just don't see what you're looking for us to not use it, not use this Doctor's opinions?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I don't think the Doctor's opinions are valid because she didn't spend—


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Time (inaudible).


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I mean, I’m (inaudible), I'm lodging my objection. And I understand Commissioners, you know, I have no doubt that you will do a thorough analysis here, and I've, I've been in front of the Board several times now with Mr. Beausoleil, I know how thorough your, your, uh, your processes, you know, please understand I'm also making this objection, you know, Mr. Beausoleil—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: I know, I know, I know why you're making it, but the point being, you know, it's her opinion. Um, we don't object to the opinion. We would have liked to have him present too, but he was unavailable at the time that she was able to try to interview him. Um, so, it was no fault of hers and no fault of his, it just wasn't able to be done. Well, I would like a new one too, but that isn't, you know, that it wasn't able to happen.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Right. I understand that. I, I'm just saying, I don't think, you know, considering the history of the Comprehensive Risk Assessments over the past couple of decades, I think this one has far less meaning in the context of looking at, at the risk that the Mr. Beausoleil poses than some of the previous ones. So, I would ask, I mean, I'm asking this Panel, not considering and asking that, you know, any subsequent review of this, uh, hearing not consider it. I understand that you're, you're, you're overruling that objection, but I'm just putting it on the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay, very good. Additional objections, or you want to wait and see if they're addressed in the?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Yes, I have, um, a couple of, uh, quick objections, one as we've done in the past, uh, we would like to adhere to the statement of facts that's been presented at prior hearings. And also, I know that the Board tends to rely upon the statement of facts from the court of appeal opinion. Um, I've advised Mr. Beausoleil not to discuss the facts of this case except in as much as necessary to, to, uh, um, describe insight, but not to discuss the facts. And I think it's pretty clear that there's, there factual discrepancies between Mr. Beausoleil’s recitation of, of the commitment offense and the official recitation, they've been discussed at length in prior hearings—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: I am not going to go through the commitment offense.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Okay. I just wanted, I just wanted to say that—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: I am not gonna go through his social history either, because it's, this is a 20th subsequent he's been to hearing 21 times.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Understood. Thank you. Um, I would object to the petition that was submitted by Ms. Tate. Uh, it's you, I think that there’s misstatements of fact in the, um, in the petition document, I believe that many of the people who've signed it, uh, have a misperception of, uh, Mr. Beausoleil’s role in the Manson family saga. Um, I think there's a lot of hostility in there. I think that, uh, public opinion isn't a valid consideration for—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Yes, it is, you know it is.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Public opinion?


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I think current dangerousness is the Board consideration.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: That's the, that’s the standard. The, one of the things that we're to consider is public comment. Which is going to be their opinion.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Sure. I just don't think it has any bearing on whether Mr. Beausoleil is currently dangerous. I mean, you know, I, I've objected to this in the past and Commissioners had never, uh, it never granted my objection. So, I'm merely making it for the record. I don't think that that has any legitimate bearing on the—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. I am gonna note that one. Next.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Um, I've already, uh, objected. So, I've just object to any, uh, use of confidential evidence that the Board intends to rely upon.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: And I don't think we have any recent confidential.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: That's all my objection.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. Then with that, we're going to move on. Um, sir, we're not here to reconsider the findings of the court. We're not here to try the case, the Panel accepts as true the findings of the court. We will incorporate the facts from the numerous past transcripts, the appellate decision, and the probation office report as a starting point, prior criminality is in the probation officer's report, as well as the RAP sheet and the ERMS database. Our expectation is that all person’s present will be polite and courteous during the hearing. We have reviewed your prior transcript, Electronic Central File, WatchDox file, and Comprehensive Risk Assessment. You're encouraged to correct modify, add to, or clarify the record as we go through the hearing today. Panel has also reviewed the confidential portion of the Central File. We will advise if we rely on any confidential information in coming to our decision today. Um, any questions before we move forward, Mr. Beausoleil?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. Um, as your Attorney has pointed out, there was an attempt by Dr. Montgomery and yourself. Unfortunately, you were unavailable, you were in an outside hospital I believe when the Doctor was attempting to, um, interview you for the most recent Comprehensive Risk Assessment. And unfortunately, that wasn't able to happen. Uh, so, as a result, the Doctor’s report is generated as your Attorney pointed out from other documents and C-File review and whatnot. Hold on a second. Okay. Not right now, Mr. Taylor, let me review them better.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. And I could go through them and present them too if necessary.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. Okay. Um, childhood and adolescent development, it does appear that you've had a stable upbringing or at least, um, somewhat stable. Uh, didn't see any difficulties in your cognitive, emotional, or educational development. Uh, peer pressure, that was a concern, you started running away at a young age. Uh, you hooked up with negative peer and, um, were somewhat, it looks like of a follower. As an adult, uh, you did align yourself with, it looks like more than one group. You aligned yourself with a biker gang called Straight Satans and then also with the Manson family. So, it looks like you were kind of drifting around looking for somewhere to fit in. As far as employment, um, you held brief jobs as a carpenter ranch hand at spawns movie ranch. You were attempting a musical career. Um, criminal record, you don't have any. As far as your substance abuse, it would appear that, uh, there was mixed information according to this Doctor that you appear to have begun using marijuana during your adolescence. Is that correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Um, adolescence as a, when I was 16.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. That's late adolescents, perhaps. Um, then you last used 1999. Does that sound right to you?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's correct.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. Do you have a clean and sober date?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, 1999, January of 1999.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: And why did you quit using drugs and/or alcohol?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I've never used alcohol. Uh, I, uh, I had a really bad experience when I was a teenager, um, drinking some, uh, homemade wine and I got so sick. I could never, after that, um, stand the smell or taste of alcoholic beverages. Um, uh, with, with marijuana, there was an attraction, um, in that I had been told and, and I kinda took it to heart early on, uh, by a guitar player who said he was more inspired when he smoked pot. And, uh, for some reason I had that in my mind, stuck in my mind. And, and I thought that I was, I was producing better quality performances, um, by using marijuana. And I discovered, uh, in 1999, that, that wasn't true. That actually I'm more productive and I produced better quality work when I don't use it. I have never had a craving for the substance. Um, it's not like I had this urge to smoke, it's just something that was part of the lifestyle and part of the choices that I made with respect to, um, my creativity.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. It does indicate that you participated in AA 12 step programming for a number of years, if you didn't use alcohol, um, and you focused on marijuana, why did you participate in AA rather than NA?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I was advised to participate by the Parole Board, by the various Parole Boards on occasion. Um, and, and I wanted to always follow those instructions, but I'll tell you that I participated because, um, from a personal standpoint because I like being around people who are willing to admit they have some faults, uh, and are willing to work on them and talk about them. I really, um, I like, um, I like being around people who, who are working on themselves.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. Well, that would apply to people at NA also, and people on NA may have had problems with, um, marijuana, which was your drug of choice. Um, and so, it's just, I was just—

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: You're making a distinction. If I may, if I may, I may, um, sometimes there wasn't an NA program available, so I participated in Alcoholics Anonymous. If there was NA program available, I would go there, but essentially the 12 steps are the same in both environments.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. Did you, um, ever try any other, um, mind altering substances? The Doctor gives a cannabis use disorder, moderate in a controlled environment clearly in remission, but did you ever try any other mind-altering substances either in the community or in prison?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, yes. I did experiment with, with, uh, LSD, um, during the 60s. Um, um, nothing of that sort, um, inside, um, I've never used hard drugs. I've never used intravenous drugs, um, of any kind.



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. So, mainly the hallucinogenic and marijuana?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Very good. Uh, as far as mental health disorder, it says you do not have a history of mental health treatment in the community nor in prison. So, there does not appear to be a diagnostic criteria for any major mental disorder. Personality disorder, the Doctor says other specified personality disorder with anti-social features that would be based on your lifestyle in the commitment offense in all probability. Um, the commitment offense just briefly is that you, um, in the process of robbing Mr. Hinman, Gary Hinman, he was stabbed in the heart. At the time of the arrest, you are driving his Fiat. So, you did successfully take from him. Uh, you do indicate that others actually stabbed him, but that you stabbed him and coerced property was my reading of the events. Very brief reading of the events. Um, do you have anything you want to say about that? I know that you're not going to talk specifically about the crime itself, but is there anything I want to give you an opportunity to be heard if you want to say something in that area?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I would like to talk about, um, about Mr. Hinman, my relationship with him, but I would like to reserve that for my final, um, my final statement, if that would be okay.


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: May I interject for one moment, uh, Commissioner?


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I'm sorry. I was just going to say that I think you said that, uh, other people stabbed, uh, Mr. Hinman, I think the, the statement of facts is that, uh, Charles Manson—


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: His face. Mr. Beausoleil committed the stabbing that was ultimately fatal.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Correct. They both stab, I believe it's attributed to Manson the cutting off the ear.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Yeah. I mean, yes.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, if I may correct that statement, um, Mr. Hinman’s ear was not cut off—


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It had a cut, it had a cut, and he had, he was his primary wound from that, from that it was a slash across his cheek.


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: That's my understanding of the, the statement of facts, the official facts as well.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. Okay. Um, we're going to turn our attention to post-conviction factors, unless Mr. Taylor has pre-conviction factors.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Um, let's see. Um, well, they would all relate to the commitment offense, which he's not talking about. So, I just go to the post-conviction—


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Um, so, like in post-conviction, as you probably know, Mr. Beausoleil, we will see what you've been doing since you were incarcerated and in particular what you've been doing since the last hearing, um, we have reviewed the entire record and we're aware of the contents. We're not going to ask questions or necessarily cover what's in it. Um, but you have the comfort of knowing that we've reviewed it and aware of it. Um, and what I'll be covering is, uh, your work, vocational, education history, very briefly, in particular, the most recent developments. We'll go onto your discipline history. And then we'll talk about your programming to see what's going on there. Um, and we'll also cover your numerous supporting documents and the numerous opposing documents, um, and your Parole Plans. So, uh, I'll start by just, uh, talking about, um, what's new academically and what I'd see is, uh, there's nothing new, uh, in the records since the last hearing we know, of course, you got your GED at DVI and you took a few college classes in theater and music. Vocationally, what I see is, um, no new developments since the last hearing, but we know of course that you, uh, have been involved in video production for quite some time. And that's the vocation. You also did vocational printing and drafting, some vocational electronics. Um, so, we're aware of that. Work history, um, there is some new developments there. It looks like you've been working as a recreational aid and you may have recently, um, stopped in, uh, April of this year or last year. Are you, uh, are you still working as recreational aid?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, sir. Uh, it's been shut down, um, for maintenance in the gym. Uh, there we put, they replaced the, um, the roof and they're doing some additional work. So, the gym, uh, recreation has been shut down. Uh, my supervisor told me he planned to rehire me if I'm still here, um, and at the time that, um, it reopens.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. And there was a letter, a laudatory Chrono, which you mentioned that you, uh, made some, uh, some changes in their program, um, by introducing restorative movement into it and they appreciated that. And they also mentioned that you were leader of a small band, um, which, uh, does performances for people that are in the hospital or slipping along those lines, sound about right?


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Now, we're aware of course your, your past work and vocational history, um, in particular, probably what sticks out is all your work in video production, um, and various, um, areas. Um, you did a video on parenting inside out apparently, um, and a historical documentary video for breaking barriers. And there are actually, uh, letters, um, also of appreciation regarding those activities. Um, so, let's go onto your disciplinary history, which is probably, uh, the most concerning aspect. So, what's happened is since the last hearing, they concluded there, the rules violation that was outstanding at the last hearing. And, um, so, on, uh, September 18th, 2020, they decided that you had indeed committed the rules violation which was unauthorized business dealings. Um, and so, now, we have this new situation to discuss. And so, I guess I wanted to give you a chance to, to weigh in on that. Um, we have lots of documents, um, presenting your side of the story, but, um, if you could give me a short version of those documents that might be helpful.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah, I, I'm, uh, I, rather than the documents and circumstances, I think are what we need to focus on a, um, I was found not guilty of, uh, the same write-up, uh, same charge, uh, identical evidence, um, in 2017, uh, I was operating under the belief, uh, and with my Attorney’s, uh, advice, uh, in regards to that, um, that I was operating, um, uh, in so far as my publishing through my, my, um, of my creative work, uh, my intellectual properties that I was functioning within the bounds of the rules, um, the administration was fully aware that there was a website, and that I was selling my music and art, uh, and, and no apparent objection because no one had said anything ever to me, uh, in regards to that, no—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Let me ask you a question on that—


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: And you know why you came back from Oregon. Okay?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: So, you were kind of put-on notice, okay, this isn't okay with California. It was okay with Oregon. So, you come back to California and you get a couple of 115. Um, you have written a letter asking that you be given permission—


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: You were, the behavior was taking place without having permission yet. And in fact, I don't think it ever happened. I don't think you ever got permission, but the behavior continued. You didn't stop the behavior awaiting permission. And you clearly knew that you needed permission because you wrote the letter asking for it. Now, I know that at least one of the 115s was voided. Uh, I don't know if they were trying to give you a chance to clean it up. Um, it looks like the second one was reduced to administrative, still kind of giving you a chance to clean it up, but you never did. So, it's not as if you weren't on notice that your behavior was not acceptable in California without the permission of the head of the, the institution you were in which I'm taking that to mean the warden. Um, you did have events in hearings where, um, other people in powers of position or positions of power, excuse me, were asked at the hearing, did you know he was doing this? they said, yes, but they weren't the ones that needed to give permission. So, rather than consult with, um, the warden awaiting permission, rather than saying, what are the boundaries? How far can I go on this? Um, can I get your written permission? You continued the behavior and, and that's where the issues coming in is you didn't stop the behavior awaiting. You continued the behavior awaiting. Do you understand?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I, I would disagree with your interpretation of the, when you say behavior continued the behavior. My understanding from the very beginning from going back 40 years of publishing my work is that if I had permission from the head of the institution previous to the institution, that I was transferred to, that that authorization, um, was, was valid. And I didn't have to renegotiate the publishing. It's very hard to unpublish something that was already published, um—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: No, that isn’t the issue, that wasn't the issue though. The issue was the continuing the business. And when you say from a prior institution, you're saying from Oregon?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well that in California.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: We found, I found nothing in the, in the documents that indicate anybody in California said a okay.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Um, well, there, there is, uh, there is a soundtrack that I did in 1970 in the 70s—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Is there a document that you have—

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Somewhere in the (inaudible), yes, there should be, I don't know, there's—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: And who signed that document?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: The warden, uh, RM Reese, um, was the, uh, from DVI. He was the warden at that time at DVI.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Well, do you have that document handed because nobody else can find it.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah. I, I no longer have it—


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Um, I sent a lot of documents. Well, it would be nice to have that. Yes, it would be. Um, when I first got here to the institution, I had a meeting with, um, then Deputy warden, um, Mr. Quaver, Dan Quaver, um, I showed him everything that I was doing. I showed him the website. I showed him the art that was published and music that was published. Um, he had no objection to it. I asked him for a clearance, um, to be able to do—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: I understand, I understand that you made the attempt, I'm not questioning that. I fully, fully understand that you made every attempt to get, um, CMF, you, you wrote letters, which tells me that you understood that you needed that permission. You wrote letters asking for the permission—

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: The permission was to, I am sorry.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, uh, the permission that I was asking for was to produce new work here at this institution for publishing that's, I wasn't not—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: No, you wrote two different letters, uh, 2016 February.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: And asking to continue to do what you had been doing. And then there's another one, there's a lot of paper.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Commissioner, I would like to point out that, that, that, that letter in 2016 was prior to the, um, I have some questions for Mr. Beausoleil when it's my turn, but that was prior to the subsequent dismissal. Uh, does, do you Commissioner, do you have—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: I'm not, I'm not concerned with the subsequent dismissals actually, because what the, what the issue was, was the most recent 2021 15. So, the dismissals could have been warnings. They could have been, hey, do what you're supposed to do. I don't know the basis of the dismissal—


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: I looked up. No, they didn't say that nor did they give a permission.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: No, the dismissal said that there was, the CDCR had not demonstrated that there had been a violation. You—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: I got the level three appeal right here.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Level three appeal was related to one specific request. I mean, I went through this entirely in the memorandum, and it appears that—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. So, I'm not going to argue back and forth with you Counsel, we're focused on the most recent 2020, which has been adjudicated. He was found guilty of that. It has not been dismissed. I don't know if he is appealed and I'm sure he has. Um, but the appeal isn't completed, so, I'm not going to argue with you about prior 115s my position is—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I am not gonna argue with you, Commissioner.


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I just would like to, I'd like the record to be clear that what it says is the, that he was determined the RVR does not show proof that Beausoleil prohibited from receiving royalties’ funds from his music, art, and writings, which had been authorized by the department of corrections. It also, I submitted enough evidence at the hearing to prove he is not guilty as charged. He was not engaging in illegal behavior. That language is—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: That was the first one, that was the first one.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And the second one was based upon the same evidence. Mr. Beausoleil has not sold new any new artwork. And I will also say that I intend to challenge the second one, because this is the justification that was given for upholding it, it was based upon the interstate compact, which does not, that's not the driving statute here. What we're talking about is 3024, CDCR 3024, which says all they needed was the institution head's permission. And he had that for his old work. So, we're talking about two bodies of work. We're talking about—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: I don't agree with you Counsel, but you can make the argument at the appropriate time, um, which is not now, but, um, yeah, I, I don't agree with that particular analysis, but I, what I wanted to talk to Mr. Beausoleil about is Mr. Beausoleil was aware. You were aware, um, you were receiving money from, I believe Beth hill, uh, large amounts of money were going into your trust fund. What were you spending that money on?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Canteen, I, we are allowed to receive it. Okay. So, there was $7,000 over six-year period. Um, we are allowed to spend $280 per month. And so, I would have a sum sent to me, usually around 700 or $800,000.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Um, there's a number of deposits for $999. That's a lot of money. It's not over a six-year period of time. Um, so, were you spending them on—

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I was spending them on canteen.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Right now? I've got the trust to fund, um, documents here. It wasn't overstate (inaudible). Um, but my—


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: No, no, it was over a much shorter period of time. Um—

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Can you say what shorter period of time it was because I, I, I seen it. I seen the dates that it came in, um, I just, I don't, I don't do that much canteen, you know, I just do enough to survive on it here I eat, I eat mostly from the canteen, so—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: (inaudible) I was asking you what you spent it on?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's, that's entirely what it's been about.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Uh, well, I was thinking maybe you spent it on art supplies, I don't know.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, yeah, there, there might've been a little bit, but I had plenty of art supplies, you know, most, most of it was, was canteen. Uh there's sometimes our food sales, uh, I've done those. Um—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: There two, one in ‘18, one in ’19, and one, and two in ‘20. So, over a three-year period of time.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: That just seemed like a lot of canteen.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, okay. I, I need, you spent, I think around 150 to $180 a month on canteen. And if you, if you do the, if you do the math at 12, you know, 12 into that, into that amount of money, you'll see that that's basically what it is. You know, I, there's, I have nothing else to spend it on, so, it's, it doesn't do me any good just to accumulate it—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: No, I thought it was art supplies. They can be pricey.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, yeah, I, I haven't bought any real arts supplies since I've been here. I'm not doing new work for publishing. And so that kind of takes a lot of the incentive out there doing it. Um, so, um, you know, I have done nothing new other than as gifts for friends. Since I've been here at CMF, I've been waiting for a clearance to do new work. Uh, I got one offer—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: That’s what you should have done to begin with.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, wait (inaudible), Commissioner, I, I, I, I think we're talking about two different things. I think there's an assumption that, um, I was supposed to ask for a new clearance to sell the stuff. I think that's what you're saying that I should have asked for a new clearance to sell the things that I had already had been approved to sell.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No one ever said that—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: (inaudible) the institution.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No one I, I've spoken with since I've been here has ever said that to me, not one time. And yet it's been known by the administration since I met with that with, uh, with Mr. Quaver way back at right after I got here, I think in, in 2016. And I wrote him, he still, we wrote, write him. I wrote him, I didn't hear anything back. He knew as the administration has known for years that I have music and art on my website that was for sale. I've stopped that since this write-up, I have stopped selling anything. Um, but I've never had I received—


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: And I received any instruction from the administration, whether I agreed with it or not, whether I thought it was legal or not, whether I thought it was, you know, within the rules or not, I would have abided by that, by that determination, I would have, I might have appealed that later, but I would have taken that instruction to heart and I would have immediately stopped selling anything until I had a clearance or whatever it is, or resolve the matter on appeal. I would never intentionally violate the rule. So—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. Mr. Taylor, you can take it back.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Uh, did you want me to continue?


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. So, actually I had a question since, since, uh, that rules violation was concluded on September 18th, 2020, have you committed any other rules violations?


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Um, it does appear that, uh, you were, um, artwork, your music has been available on Amazon and Spotify and apple since that date, is that true?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Um, I put everything for free. I mean, there are certain things that I cannot undo, you know, there were, there were things that were published. I cannot undo. So, I, I don't know how I would go about doing that. I have stopped selling anything on my website or any activity that's related to selling actively selling my work—


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: You know, people—

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Let me ask you something—

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: They will sell things—

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So, you have an agent, right?



INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, she is not selling anything either. She is not doing anything. Um, you know, she, she wouldn't because I've instructed her not to sell anything, not to create any new publication, not to do anything of that sort.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So, why didn't you direct her to, uh, stop this, the marketing, the availability of your work on Amazon, Spotify and apple?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I'm not sure if I can. I don't know how that works. You know, I went through a publisher to put that stuff up to begin with and, uh, you know, I imagine there's a way to do it, but I'm just not aware of what it is. And I, all I can do is, is what I can physically do. And, uh, with, with what resources I have available to do.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Don’t you think you should have checked into that, um, because it might be an issue like it is now? Well, you've probably yes, probably the answer that you're thinking is yes—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Um, what, what was the question, I think, I think—

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I didn’t hear the question.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. So, don't you think you should have checked into whether you could stop the viability of your musical production is on Amazon, Spotify and apple through your agent, would that be—

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I, I suppose, but, you know, here's the thing with my agent. I paid her—


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: To help me and since I stopped monetizing anything on the website, I have no ability to pay for it right now. And so, to have her go on and investigate something that I wouldn't know how to investigate and have already even just said, said, she's not experienced in that area. Uh, you know, I just, um—

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What did you, she is experienced in that area.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I'm doing the best I can to be in compliance here.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Well, I did a little research and appears that these licenses that are given by agents to, to, uh, present work on these various platforms, such as Spotify or 12 months. So, there would maybe be a 12-month window where she couldn't pull back real back in those, those musical productions, but that window's been exceeded a number of times. Um, all right. So, um, I think I've covered your discipline history to the extent I want to. So, I wanted to talk about your programming, uh—

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Sure. Before, before can, can I interrupt us for a moment?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Uh, yeah, but be aware that we have lots of information from your Attorney and from you already on this issue. So, maybe you're covering old ground, but go ahead.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I just want to say the instructions that I received, I would have thought to talk about the instructions I did receive and what was communicated to me in regards to, in regards to publishing my work and the impression that I was giving, given, um, in regards to it, I mean, all they can do is go by what is discussed with me. I've never received any, um, information, any counseling or instruction from the administration, uh, to cease and desist selling my work, even though they knew for years that it was there. I got compliments on it from, from people in the administration. It was not a secret. It was not something that was going on underhandedly, um, I'd like to read a couple of paragraphs, uh, from my 2016 parole hearing. Uh, this is in the decision and this is what I'm hearing, I want you to understand what I am hearing.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, we're actually aware of the, the 2016, uh, parole hearing. We've, we've reviewed these records. We have them available to us. Um, so, um, I don't believe we'll entertain that proposal. Um, what do you think Commissioner?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Um, I'd like him to read the portion that he believes is pertinent to what led him to believe it was okay.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I there's two things and that's one of them. Thank you. I'll, I'll uh, this is from presiding Commissioner Labon, uh, and this is in his final, um, in his decision, “we note that during his incarceration disciplinary actions (inaudible), Mr. Beausoleil does appear to have demonstrated a stable social history. And that stability has clearly been recognized by multiple institutions in two states over literally decades during which has been provided the opportunity to employ his gifts, his skills, his art, his music, with the permission of various administrations. The Panel notes that Mr. Beausoleil back in 70s was employing his musical talents in the institution with the CDCs blessing.” Uh, this is further on “this Panel took note in reaching our decision today, again for decades, Mr. Beausoleil has exercised his gifts in a variety of settings with the, with the blessing of a variety of institutions. We take note of the fact that Mr. Beausoleil has taken formal and deliberate steps, apparently fairly timely once to get, to get permission to do, to continue doing what he has been doing. And in that vein, we strongly encourage Mr. Beausoleil to continue in that direction and to receive the blessing and approval of the institution before he continues that which has been doing for decades with respect to his music and art.” Um, Commissioner Grounds, um, uh, who was attending, uh, came in at that point and said, “and continue working in an effort to honor Gary Hinman, continue working in hospice. And as the warden gives you authorization, use your gifts to somehow build that nexus, uh, because as you affected society in a negative way, I think you could, I can't say reverse, but you could do something honorable with these gifts creatively that would help to increase that nexus of, you know, restitution, if you will give us some thought.” So, the other communication that I received was after this hearing, uh, in 2017, when the, when the matter was adjudicated, uh, there was a pending 115, 2016 as well. There was just, you know, right before the hearing, I got a 115 just as there was in 2020, uh, just before the hearing. Um, so, um, uh, in between that those two incidents, there was a, the 115, it was pending at this time and the adjudication was, was this “mostly was found not guilty of the charges of our authorized business dealings. The SHO dismissed the charges in the interest of justice.” Continues, uh, “SHO determined the RVR does not show proof Beausoleil was prohibited from receiving royalties’ funds from his art, music and writings which had already been authorized by the department of corrections. SHO, uh, finds Beausoleil submitted enough evidence at the hearing to prove he is not guilty as charged, and he was not engaging in illegal activity.” So, I consulted with my Attorney at this point, where am I at with, with all of this, am I, am I still allowed to sell the things that I had been approved at the other institutions with permissions from the, the head of the institution or not? And my Attorney advised me that no, this gets you. It says very clearly that the work that you had had done earlier was not illegal, uh, was not a violation of the rule in California, but that any new work would have to be cleared if I'm going to monetize it in any way. So, that was, those are the, those are the pieces of information that I received. I have never received anything outside of that, from anyone on the administration. Um, in regards to other that compliments, other than compliments until this, this one, this 2020, um, uh, 115 in which he, uh, the, the finding was that the adjudicator, the hearings officer said that he, he openly admitted that I had approved from the heads, excuse me, approval from the heads of the institution where I had, um, uh, where I had been in Oregon. But that, uh, his, his belief was that, um, I should have, instead of this is, his, his guilty find is predicated on the belief that I should have, uh, sought approval from California. But there's nothing written anywhere that says that. I have no rule or anything to go by—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. (inaudible) Mr. Beausoleil.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Part of the reason you were brought back from Oregon was that Oregon was allowing you to do things that, that's in violation of California. You knew that. It was (inaudible).

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: That is not accurate, Commissioner. That's not—


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I've, I've, I was present at the time I got the investigation for it. I have it with me. We can go over—


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: They said that he was, that he was violating the (inaudible) thing—


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: But they didn't, they didn't have any, at that time, they didn't make any reference to the fact that he'd been given permission. I wrote a letter to—


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: No, they didn’t—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: In the classification it's very clear when DPR brings him back, that it is, you can argue as much as you want, I have the document right here.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: They don't say anything about noting that he had approval from Oregon that has never referenced, I have the document. They never say that he was given approval from Oregon—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Yes, they do. They indicate that Oregon was allowing him to do things in violation of California's laws.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: That is allowing him means approval for.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: In where, where do you see that in the document, I have the Departmental Review Board action document right here. I mean, I'm just trying to make sure that this is, this is been an ongoing, I have a very, uh, thorough record to make, because it's been an ongoing effort to, to, uh, have—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: I know, I realize that, but (inaudible)—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Every single, every single parole hearing, (inaudible), every single parole hearing they bring this up, they brought him back. You know, they brought him back to California under false pretenses anyway, I've objected to it from the beginning, there was no justification to bring it back. They did so on two grounds—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: They don’t, excuse me, but they don't need a justification to bring him back under the interstate compact agreement.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Well, they don’t—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: They can bring him back for whatever they want.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: That might be fine. And that's why he's here. That's why there's no, but I'm saying—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: But it is (inaudible) illegal, is it?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: The justification. Well, I, I believe it could be considered a violation of his rights, uh, if he was, if he was already permitted to be there and they bring him back arbitrary and for arbitrary and capricious reasons, I believe that would be a violation of his rights. In any event, he's here now. My point is that the allegation 3024, a violating 3024 that, that was in the Departmental Review Boards, uh, action Chrono does not reference any finding that he had gotten permission from Oregon. The permission from Oregon when he presented that to—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Why did they say they brought him back Mr. Campbell?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: They said, because he was violating 3024. But, so, if you look at 3024 it's specifically says you need the institution head's permission. There's no one else required to get permission. That's—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. I am not gonna argue this any further. Um, Oregon is not California. We're going to move on now. I appreciate your position. I understand your position. I don't agree with your position—


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: And that’s you know, because you hold that position, doesn't make it right, Mr. Campbell.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Well, either, when it was dismissed in 2017, that was the basis, the basis upon which it was dismissed. You can look at the, if you look at the language, I know Commissioner, you were a former Attorney. I know you understand the clear language of the regulation says that if you, that, that you need to get the institution head's permission. It doesn't say, except for inmates were housed out of state. It doesn't say any, any other exceptions to this rule, it's that the institution has permission. And he had that. And so, when he was brought back, I believe at the time, the CDCR did not realize he had the institution has permission, and that's why they brought him back. And when it was finally demonstrated at the time of his 2016 rules violation when he finally presented those documents to the, the, uh, to the reviewing Panel, they said, you're not guilty of this. You are not guilty of this. And so, and maybe we're wrong about that. You might be right, Commissioner. We might, we might in fact be illegally wrong. And I can, we can perhaps file this in court and see what the Judge says. But my point here is that I have advised Mr. Beausoleil all along, according to this. So, if anyone's wrong, it's me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Well, and, and he's made that clear, no, he, I, I get it. He asked you, and you gave your best advice based on the information and your interpretation. I get that. I get that point—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And if it is acquired, we can, you know, file a habeas petition in court and see what the court says. I raised all of these points with Judge Ryan in Los Angeles for the previous position that led to this hearing. He didn't, he didn't address those because he ruled on more narrow basis. But I mean, it's all there in the record in court. And if we need to, you know, we can deal with this. But I mean, I, I think I hope that when it comes time to, and I, and I do apologize, Commissioners, cause I know that I'm making an argument now, but I know there is a legal component to this that perhaps isn't present in most disciplinary situations. But I hope that at least when it comes time to make this decision, you consider your, how do you find a nexus between this and current dangerousness given, given the, what, what we—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Are you making your closing now?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: No, I'm sorry, Commissioner. I'll revert that.


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Well, I apologize.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. I guess I could continue with—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: I am sorry, Mr. Taylor I keep interrupting you, go ahead.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That’s alright. Uh, so, anyways, I was exploring this rules violation and continuing activity since the rules violation was decided, uh, I wanted to know about your relationship with this person, Ms. Hall, did she ever tell you it was okay, just go ahead and, and put your work, um, on Spotify and, um, continue to produce it and put it out in the market. Did she ever give you some directive?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No. That's not her role. She's uh, she administrates the website—


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's basically all she does. Uh, she's a friend. Um, she's, you know, not a business person per say. She's just a friend who assists me in, in representing my work to the world, through my website. She continues to do that. It is up now de monetized for free. Uh, any, anyone can play my music for free. Anyone could see my art or download large file transfers of my images for free.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So, let me ask you this. Do you get any…

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: So, (inaudible)--

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Did you get any commercial benefit or potential future commercial benefit from putting your work out for free?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Not that I'm aware of.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It was a process that had already been, uh, started before I received that 2020. Um—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. I apologize for the interruption. Is there a bank account that Ms. Hall has now as we speak that has money from prior profits?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, there’s, she keeps it, uh, a bank account for me. That's mine. That's she, it's in her name. Uh, there may be $300 in it—


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Um, and where that came from, some of it's from friends and family who know that I'm not making money from any business activities. So, there—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: When was the last time that she sent you money that was from profit from your music or your art or the t-shirts or whatever she was selling, um, what, when is the last time she sent you money that was profit from those items?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It would be hard to say because money lingered in that account for a little while—


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah. Like I really can't answer that. Cause I don't know. I don't know at what point that those funds were dried up.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: But you just told the Deputy Commissioner that you didn't have any money to be able to pay her anything, to check about taking things off Spotify and whatever, the Amazon music and that stuff, and in fact, you did have money.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I had a little bit of money. Yes. But just you know—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: You know, you got, let me see, you got—

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That money (inaudible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: In 2020 alone, which is when this investigation would have needed to be done. You got 2,700 from her. So, why couldn't part of that have been used for her to investigate how to get your material off of those other sites?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: There's no, he's not getting profits from that. I don't understand what the why—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Well, I don't know if he is or not, I don't know if you get royalties from Spotify?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I mean, Spotify is notorious for not paying artists and artists getting pennies at most for, for what they do. I mean, it’s, it’s, you can look on Google and see how Spotify is, is your rips off artists left and right. So, I don't know. —


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I don't, I’ve just looked on Amazon, I don't see any, I mean, there's independent sellers selling prior copies of—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Right, but they, they get royalties for when people play the music and when people buy the music.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I and, and those are, those have been published by other record companies. That's, You're, the only, the only direct funding that Mr. Beausoleil gets is through his website. The other independent, you're, that this is a problem with the—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: (inaudible) knew that, I'm just asking him why he couldn't have used part of that money, he told the, he told the Deputy Commissioner earlier that he didn't have any money to give her for her to investigate that.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: But if he is not getting profit from it, why should he—


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: It's not a business, that's not a business anymore.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: He didn’t know whether he was or not, that was the whole point of the investigation by her. That's when—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: She would know if he’s getting a profit, he would know if there, he would know if he’s getting a profit from that know you, that you haven't asked him, whether he—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. But he said he didn't know if he got money from that or not, and that he didn't have enough money for her to investigate.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I am not receiving any money from that; I am not receiving any money from that.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I'm not getting any extra, external royalties, um, at all. So, um—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: (inaudible) there's the receiving profit and there's the business dealings. So, there are two separate issues that kind of combine themselves. But, um, at one point he was doing both. So, it's really two separate issues.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Um, I'm sorry, can you explain that distinction?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Well, business dealings doesn't, don't necessarily require a profit.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I think the definition under the regulations it does.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: No, it doesn't, look, read the regulation again. Okay. Mr. Taylor, go forward.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. So, I wanted to, uh, discuss your programming and how you might be addressing some risk factors that people have identified over the years, or that were apparent from your history. Um, and these were, um, substance abuse. There was some violence, some issues with, uh, dealing with peer pressure, and the governor in particular, in his last denial was concerned about your substance abuse issues. To your credit, you took a lot of AA and NA, do you have any, uh, knowledge of the 12 steps, can you name say four of the 12 steps?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Commissioner, before he answers, I just want to respond because we moved on quickly, but under section 3024 says a business is defined as any revenue generating or profit-making activity. So, if there's no profit being made or revenue being generated, it's not a business activity. I have very clear in the, in the regulation.


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I'm sorry. Four steps. I think the question is.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. So, I'm just asking if you can name four steps from the 12 steps, Mr. Beausoleil.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah. The first one is to, uh, to admit that we're powerless, um, and then individual, myself admit that I'm powerless, uh, to, um, to get control of my use of substance, um, substances or alcohol as the case may be, um, which is not necessarily, in my mind, um, relevant to me, um, because I do believe that I have that (inaudible). Uh, it does say that you, and number two, you would invoke, um, your belief in God, uh, to help with that substance, get a handle on that substance abuse and to turn it over to God. Um, I, the ones that I focus on are the ones about making amends, um, you know, make number five would be, uh—

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So, what’s number six, what’s number six?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Um, let me see, um, number six, I think is, um, I've never memorized these, um, I think number six is where, um, you would try to make amends in, in, um, without hurting anyone. Um, it's always—

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's not correct. I'll tell you what it is because I want to discuss it with you. It's a being ready to have God remove your defects. So—


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Character defects. So, what were some of your character defects at the time that you committed this offense?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Um, primarily under underdeveloped sense of responsibility, uh, impetuous, um, impulsive, um, behavior, you know, do things without thinking ahead, um, and which brings in responsibility, which is something that, um, has been a key point in my life learning how to do that. I'm being responsible. Uh, so, I, I put a lot of emphasis on that and it was the lack thereof that, um, that influenced me, um, uh, in committing the crime and, and in a lot of—

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Any other, any other character defects in a word or two?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Sure. Um, selfishness, um, uh, arrogance. Um—


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Um, weakness in, uh, in, in doubting myself and in wanting to try to gain, as a consequences, wanting to try to gain the approval of other people who in this case were disreputable, poor judgment, um, judgment in, in particular, in the kind of people I was associating with—



DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So, uh, we always like to know when a person has substance abuse issues whether they know their triggers and have ways of avoiding those triggers. And when it comes to triggers, we'd like to know what the internal triggers and external triggers are. Can you name few of those?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, there's only one trigger for me. I, I, my substance, the substance abuse is related to marijuana use.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: My belief, my belief that I gained inspiration through smoking marijuana, um, is what motivated me to smoke it. I have never had a craving for marijuana. I've never hadn't urge, uh, some sort of addictive urge to smoke marijuana. It was, uh, something I did to enhance my ability to, um, come up with creative ideas. I—

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So, how do you deal with that now? How do you avoid going to that trigger, being triggered in other words?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, it's no longer a trigger for me because I know that I am not more inspired, not more productive, not a better artist by smoking it.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I have, I, uh, I tried for years to look at that very carefully, from 1999, that I assessed the quality of my work from 1999 when it was 23 years ago. Um, when I stopped marijuana to find out what the difference it would be.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, I'm satisfied with your answer, Mr. Beausoleil. I have another question or two to ask about your programming. So, we have this peer pressure problem, um, involving gang association with a Straight Satans. Do you think you had a problem with that?



INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I said that earlier that I was looking up to people, um, you know, and wanting their approval, um, that's what I was referring to peer pressure.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. And I guess Manson maybe had some of that same effect on you, is that correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: To some extent, yes. Uh, I do want to clarify that I was not a member of the commune, uh, that would became known later as the Manson family and I never joined that group. Um, I would get associated with them and I did consider Charlie Manson a friend. Um, I tried to help him with getting his music, um, recorded.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So, let me ask you, uh, were you a member of these gangs or what was your, how would you define your relationship?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Maybe I want to be.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I was just, I, you know, I, I, I was looking at the outlaw lifestyle at the time as, um, as in a romantic way. And I thought it was, um, uh, you know, the outlaw biker, um, you know—

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So, I, I got you, I understand what you're saying. Um, so, how do you keep yourself from re uh, re-drawn into this kind of dynamic where you need peer approval and join anti-social people?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, that stopped in 1974. Um, in 1973, I was caught up in an incident where a friend of mine was going to be killed by the Arian Brotherhood. Uh, and he had decided that he was going to, uh, and I kind of looked up to him too, it was another peer pressure type of thing, or at least, you know, admiring the stuff kind of tough guy. And he said that he was going to, uh, he found out about the so-called contract that he was going to be killed. Um, and he wanted to, uh, um, stand up to them. And I told him I would be with him when he did it. And as a result of that, I got broken up pretty bad—


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Um, but, uh, you know, any, any need, if you let me finish there, because I did want to, I do want you to understand what I'm saying.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Um, any need, any need that I had for approval at that point, if any need to prove myself to anyone, um, was, was completely, if there wasn't a need for a rite of passage, which apparently that was that that need that I had. Um, I had satisfied that need, and what's remarkable about that is that, um, uh, you know, I stood up to, you know, the, the most notoriously murderous gang in the, in the entire state and felt like, you know, if I haven't proved myself now, I'll never prove myself, but I felt like it was hollow. Proving myself meant nothing, meant absolutely nothing after all those years, or not a few years, five, six years of looking up to people like that, thinking that I wanted to be like that—

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. How do you, how do you stand up to them?


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: How did you stand up to them?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I stood by, uh, my friend when he, um, well, he went after them and then it became, uh, a brawl.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. You were involved in a fight, so, we have a violence issue obviously, which goes back to your, your life crime. Um, so, how do you keep yourself from using violence as a problem-solving solution?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: So, yeah, that's exactly right. I had been (inaudible) with this type of lifestyle—

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So, how do you, how do you stop yourself from being violent?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Oh, that's easy. Um, uh, this, what I'm trying to express to you happened at that time, um, at that very time that I realized that I no longer had any need to prove myself that, that when it came right down to it, there was nothing there, there but a dead end for me that I was either going to hurt somebody again, like I did Gary, or that I was going to end up dead. So, I was on a dead end. And so, I made a vow to myself. At that point, I made a vow that I would not engage in anything that would cause harm to another human being. I swore off violence. I made a vow to myself. I made a vow to God. I, um, it, it came, it came actually, uh, fairly naturally because when I, when I had realized that I was at a dead end and that I was not going to continue that path, I didn't know where I was going to go. I didn't want to—

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's great (inaudible) violence. Do you have any techniques to keep yourself from relapsing into violence?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, I do, I'm getting to that, sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, maybe get there quicker rather than later.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I tend to be a little bit wordy sometimes. I apologize for that. Um, so, let me, let me get there. Um, when I force war violence, what I, when I said that I would never again harm another human being. Um, and I, I turned to God. I mean, I don't know how to express it any it's like that first step in the 12 steps. I didn't know which direction to go. I just knew that the direction I had been on was no longer valid for me. I could not continue on it unless I wanted to just end my life. So, I've made that, that determination. I asked the question to God, to the universe, whatever you want to call it. And I said, who am I? I said, who am I? And I just waited for some indication of who the word that came back was artist.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So, I think I've got enough information. Maybe your Attorney will ask some more questions to get a little more in his, uh, questioning opportunity. I would like to move on to your, to the documents in the file, which detail your Parole Plans, um, and, um, the supporting documents and opposing documents. So, I am gonna quickly (inaudible) as possible, they're quite numerous, summarize these documents and we'll talk about some of the more salient ones. So, we do have an opposition letter from a Los Angeles County sheriff. Actually, two of them. We have an opposition letter from, uh, the relative of the victim, uh, Kay Martley and, uh, she makes some, uh, some points that I've inquired into today. Um, other people have written in, um, in opposition, uh, Debra Tate, um, presented a, uh, on life petition with, petition rather with approximately 49,000 signatures. Um, and, um, approximately 5,000 comments people write in saying they're outraged by the callous murder. They don't think you've changed. They don't think you deserve to be released, these kinds of comments. Um, well, I also have a—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I would point out some of them are, are violent ended up themselves, some of those comments.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. Uh, and, you know, we'll take them in for what they're worth and give them the weight they're worth. Um, we also have, of course the first one is from your Attorney. Uh, he wrote a memorandum in support of your release with numerous, uh, exhibits attached to it. These exhibits included an interoffice memo from the Oregon department of corrections, um, dated 2012 and 2008, which granted you permission to sell your work, um, a letter from warden Fox dated 2017. Um, let me have documents from you that he submitted in your behalf, a relapse prevention plan for, um, drugs and the hippie lifestyle. Um, and you actually detail in that plan how you're going to deal with the possible relapse through meditation, yoga, continue to be involved in AA, um, volunteers, a sponsor, avoid socializing with people that use drugs. Um, then we also have from you a staff support and plenty of plan. And here, um, you talk about how you might support yourself. Um, you mentioned Medicaid and SSI, any other way to support yourself?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I have several job offers in that packet that you have that you've been referring to. Okay. Excuse me, one moment.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So, don't, don't worry. I, I'm aware of those. We'll get to those. So, it also says in your, your support plan that you have skills in video and media production. Um, you, you plan to comply with your parole conditions that's to be expected. Um, says you plan to enter transitional housing. Um, so, for housing, we have some letters actually verifying there's housing options for you. We have D and J um, counseling service offering housing for you and Santa Marsia. Francisco Homes has two letters in your file. Um, your daughter, Denise offers housing at Woodland Hills, your brother, Daniel, and his wife, Claudia offer housing at Oregon. So, that's four housing options. And, uh, which do you prefer and why?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I, my preference is Oregon, uh, but I know that I can't parole there immediately. So, uh, that's going to have to wait, but I've been offered, um, to have an opportunity to live in a, you know, (inaudible), um, um, sort of a farm. My brother is a heavy equipment operator and owner. Um, but as a forested area, it's remote—

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So, unfortunately, you're going to be pretty much compelled to start your parole in California. So, what about these transitional options in California? Do you prefer any of those?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I do. Um, you know, essentially, where I'm going to go is going to be determined by the parole authorities. And I am willing to go to wherever the parole authorities tell me to go. Now, one is available in Los Angeles, Francisco Homes that would be acceptable to me. Um, they have good services, they have 12 step program. Um, and similarly with D and J that's not in Los Angeles in case the authorities want me to be outside of the County.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So, you have a say here, and I want to know which do you prefer?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, out of two housing?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Transitional housing options.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Mr. Beausoleil, it’s no longer a County issue. You are not required to go back to the County, a commitment nor the County of last legal residents.


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Um, just, just to be clear, the reason why we saw the, uh, the transitional housing and the bay area was because at the last, when in 2019, when the Board, uh, granted parole, uh, before the governor rescinded it, um, there was an objection made by the District Attorney at that time, uh, because the, the argument that there might be a relative that lived in Los Angeles County. So, we looked at—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: He's not, he's not required to go to any particular County anymore. It's the, if he looks at transitional housing choices and finds one in to (inaudible) County, that is more up his alley, the, we no longer require a particular County. He can go where he could best succeed.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Very well. Okay. Let's talk about jobs. So, let’s talk about—

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Can I respond to that in that case? Well, in that case, I would, I would probably, at least initially until the parole authorities would, would grant me or until I'm off parole, so, I can go to Oregon. I have family up there. Um, my daughter is in her family and my brother he is, I would still like to go back to Oregon at some point, even if I have to wait till, I'm off of parole to do that—


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Um, but, uh, I do have, uh, as far as a County, um, somewhere in the bay area would be helpful because my, uh, surgeon, the surgeon who has handled, um, my, um, Pullman ectopy, um, and, you know, and is helping with follow up here, uh, has, uh, said that he intends to, um, be involved in my, in my care, in my case, uh, for the rest of my life. So—


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I think being, being in that area would be helpful, uh, for medical reasons.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. So, bay area is your preference. Um, as far as areas where housing is available. Job, you have some jobs offered to you from steel Titan, uh, as a multimedia designer and editor and from jail guitar doors, uh, 15 hours a week, um, to use your skills in arts with the younger clients. Um, and you have ways of supporting yourself through SSI as we already discussed and Medicaid. Um, so, that's your support net, support plan. Now, like, um, we also have letters from people in support of your release, attesting to your character, the change, letters of appreciation. I'll just sort of summarize them quickly. A lot of these are from, from, uh, journalists to work with you, appreciate, uh, your help in their projects. Uh, this guy Michael Monahan, PHD, who did a feature about you, uh, writes in, um, in support of you. Um, the editor of the Barcelona review, um, highlight some of your pro-social projects and changes. Emily Car, who's a business reporter, um, appreciates the work she's done with you regarding new stories regarding prison, not necessarily about you, but you kind of helped her with those, um, and other journalists, Gilliam McCain who interviewed you writes in and appreciation of the help you gave and attesting to your change. Um, an actor, um, who, uh, met you as part of a Netflix series writes in, um, we have people, uh, from Oregon, Robert Greer from the Oregon department of corrections says, uh, you show remorse and you worked on a number of prison projects. Um, basically, you demonstrated to them, the people at the Oregon department of corrections, that video production was possible within their institution. They appreciate that. Um, your stepson and his wife, I guess these are the people who, uh, were the children of your deceased wife, um, write in (inaudible) and Nicole, um, your stepdaughter, Rachel Fox writes in, um, these people are basically attesting to your, your character, the change you've made in, in appreciation of the help you've given them. Um, so, I think I've covered your supporting documents, we've actually read them, um, pretty thoroughly. Um, so, I'll turn it back to Commissioner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Thank you. Um, I'm going to turn back to the Comprehensive Risk Assessment, um, areas that we haven't covered, the HCR-20, uh, they weren't able to administer that to you because you aren't available at that point in time. So, the Doctor kind of goes through it based on prior, uh, prior Risk Assessment, the 2016, I believe. Um, then the Doctor does talk about youth, youthful offender factors. You do qualify as a youthful offender, talks about your substance abuse, behavioral problems continued beyond your involvement in the commitment offence, playing out repeatedly during your incarceration. I think this is where your Attorney is indicating that the Doctor relies on the more recent 115, the elder parole is also, uh, discussed, says you were recently hospitalized for, um, right lung pneumonia, or was it removed?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: (inaudible) was removed, my pneumonia was removed.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. Uh, you were readmitted because there was, uh, symptoms of infection that your age, medical issues, and length of incarceration, and maturity have certainly mitigated the effect on your risk for violence. The Doctor comes to the opinion, um, after discussing re, salient violent risk considerations, such as use of substance, substances, um, relationships, and that's your relationships in the community in regard to the motorcycle people and the Manson family, um, and the anti-social personality disorder, that in spite of those based on the positive behavior that you continue, um, during your incarceration that you presently represent a low-risk, if you were to be—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: (inaudible) diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder, I just want to make that clear—


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: (inaudible) she does (inaudible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: I am sorry, continues to exhibit features of antisocial personality disorder. That's again, based on the 2021, 15. Um, okay. And so, for clarification purposes, the reason that I was, um, making a distinction in the business, uh, and the profit is because my reading of it is it's a business as defined as revenue generating. Um, and you can generate revenue without profiting from, uh, the revenue generation. So, and it says, or profits. So, that's why I see the distinction in those two as, or rather than and. Um, as far as the victim's Next of Kin issue, the cousin is the only living left relative or only relative left living and therefore qualifies as Next to Kin.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Let me clarify that, the reason why I don't know what's true or not, but I know several years ago in an article online, uh, Kmart Lee, uh, said that, uh, Gary Hinman sister was supposedly still alive.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. Apparently, apparently, either, they have her listed. The information that I received is that she's the only living Next of Kin, and that's why she qualifies and the two representatives. Um, is there something else on the table?


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: can I ask one question, um, uh, Commissioner, you were just reading from the, um, the CRA regarding, uh, Mr. Beausoleil surgery, did the Panel get the recent letters, one was yesterday?



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Yes. We got the medical records.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: from Dr. Thomas and also from, uh, Dr. Anastasio?


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Okay. Thank you. Just wanted to verify.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Um, we didn't, I, I didn't get an answer on whether I can send you the objections. Do you want me to make a phone call or are you satisfied?



ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Oh, with the, with their response to it?


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Um, well, I would like to see it. I'm not sure how much it will change the, the progress of the hearing, but I would like—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: You want me to take a break and make a call, or do you want to wait until after, and I'll ask them to send it to you?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Uh, I believe, well, how about this, um, is it something, do their responses figure prominently in your analysis here?


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Okay. Well, if, if the Panel isn't relying heavily on their responses, then we can go forward. And then perhaps at, at another break at some point.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: They just isolated what they considered fashion opinion versus errors, and whether they were, um, significant and whether they would change the outcome, which I don't think you'd want the outcome changed. Right?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Yeah. Yeah. The outcome of the, in terms of him being considered non-violent or—


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: (inaudible) violence. Yeah. No, I don't want the outcome changed, but you know, the concern of course, is that for instance, when governor Newsome, uh, your issue is he rescinded the full Board's recommendation. He referred to a, at least two of the three rationales he gave for doing so came directly from a Risk Assessment. So, that's why it's important to me because, uh, you know, I think it's, it's significant in case someone else decides to pick it up, but yes, I agree with the ultimate result.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. Um, with that, I'm going to ask if you have any questions of your Client.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I do (inaudible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: I am gonna ask you to keep the 10 minutes, if you can.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I will do my best Commissioner. I do understand the need for brevity here. I also, you know, this, given his health conditions, given everything we know, I mean, you know, I'm, I want to make sure there's a good record here in case it has to go elsewhere. So, um, I will do my best though. Um, so, we were talking a little bit about, uh, the, your maturity since the commitment offense and how you in, you know, in 1974, uh, pledged a life of non-violence. Um, you haven't mentioned today, but I know you've mentioned the past that you, uh, studied Buddhism and you, uh, you know, that's a philosophy and religious, uh, line of thinking that's important to you. Is that accurate?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It is accurate. Um, I, I made a study of a number of religions and that's part of my work as an artist. I started, um, uh, I was attracted to mythological themes, classical themes. There's a lot of religion in art, in classical art. And, um, that led me to, to studying and learning more about, about religions and, um, the one that resonated the most with me or the, actually the ones that, that resonated the most work, um, E Hinduism, uh, where, uh, Buddhism was founded initially, um, the Buddha refined and refined—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Um, we're on limited time. So, let's, let's keep it—


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Uh, so, what is it about Buddhism that you find meaningful to you in your day-to-day life, now?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It's a direct relationship with, with the divine, with God, with, uh, with truth, with, um, right, and living, um, with clarity of mind, meditation, um, and, you know, learning one's hard through meditation, uh, and making those connections. Um, I practice it in my yoga, yoga exercises. I've tried to pass that along, um, because I think it's so valuable.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Let's try to keep it sort of short, uh, Mr. Beausoleil. So, have you, uh, did you also teach yoga to, uh, to other inmates?


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And when you talked about your need to prove yourself to others, when you were young, and you said that that has dissipated through the years, how did you find your own self-worth today of what, what gives you a sense of self-worth and meaning today?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Um, well, there's a lot, a lot, and I think, um, at the top of the list would be my relationships with people, uh, long-term abiding relationships with people, with my family, uh, with my children, my stepchildren, my grandchildren, um, friends, having, having established a friend shipped through, uh, with Mr. Gear, uh, in Oregon, who, uh, now retired has become a very close friend. And he was my supervisor for, um, for 20 years. Um, and as the administrator, um, of inmate services. Um, so, those give me a lot of self, sense of self-worth. Um, but, uh, I, this all occurred through my devotion to, um, to defining my path to redemption, to creative arts, through, you know, expensing in the arts through music, uh, visual arts, and writing. Um, it's, it's an introspective process and, um, uh, I have completely transformed, um, my immaturity to something that's mature and intelligent.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: So, I'm going to now ask some questions about the, uh, you're related to the rules violation, which has been kind of the subject of most of this hearing. Um, how, when did you first start playing music and doing visual art?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I started playing, I started playing music as a kid. I was 11 when I started, but not seriously, uh, until, um, I left home, uh, and had aspirations to join rock band, which I did, uh, eventually formed my own band in San Francisco. Uh, so, music was a large part of it when I went back to Los Angeles in 1968, the music business was in Los Angeles was kind of a wreck kind of, um, um, mystery. Right—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I want to just try and keep it tailored to the question. So, you started music when, uh, it, when you were 11, um, and you were something of a, of an amateur musician, like you earned a living or a meager living at least before the commitment offense, is that right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Oh yeah. Yeah. I lived for several years. Yeah. Several years as a professional musician.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And then when you first, when you first got to prison, uh, where you, um, where you working on music and allowed to play music initially when you got to prison?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I was allowed to play music, but I, no, it was not really, I was more focused on the lifestyle of prison life and trying to fit into, uh, doing the same thing I was doing before my arrest even, you know, uh, trying to, um, ingratiate myself with, with the, you know, the hard cases, um, with the who I thought the cool guys, which turned out to be, uh, as I said earlier, follow.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And so, the, what was the first recording of any music that you made while you were in prison? Is that the Lucifer rising soundtrack?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That was, uh, uh, it was a project that took five years to complete, uh, was at DVI Tracy. And, um, uh, it was, uh, published with the film in 1980.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: How many, uh, other musicians were involved in that?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Over the course of the project about, I would say about 25. Uh, but it, uh, the band was called the freedom orchestra, but people would be transferred, enroll, a new people would come in. So, it was a constant, um, shifting of musicians throughout that process.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And what year was this again?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: This was, it started in 1976.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And you had to therefore have, you know, what a reel-to-reel recorder in the prison?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, it was brought in by the sponsor who was a school teacher, um, from the filmmaker.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And so, this was all done in the open with the largest group of people playing music, recording, and, uh, in, in front of it, it wasn't a secret clandestine recording session, right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah. That would have been impossible.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Right. And so, this was done with the permission of the warden at the time—


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Did you personally speak to the warden?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. A number of times, um, uh, I proposed, I had a letter from the filmmaker. I had set up an interview. I requested an interview. He granted an interview, um, and, uh, I showed him the letter and, um, his exact words were when, after I told him, uh, what I hope to be able to do. I had a sponsor lined up, uh, who he had known for, I guess, pretty much the quarter of—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: (inaudible) the warden right now?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I'm talking about yes, Mr. Reese. Yes. Uh, the warden and, uh, well, they called him a superintendent in those days. Um, uh, but he, his exact words were, I'm not going to stand in the way of a man who wants to make a buck, which it wasn't about money but that's what he said.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Now, just about this, uh, this film soundtrack, um, before you actually, the filmmaker had originally, uh, commissioned, uh, the guitarist of led Zeppelin to do a soundtrack and then subsequently decided to go with yours instead. Is that right?


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: So, this was a fairly prominent, uh, filmmaker at the time?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. Well, in his ways, avant-garde—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Avant-garde, art, art, art film, sort of, um—


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And so, when you transferred to Oregon, uh, were you allowed to continue working on music there?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. Yes. I was brought in, I was brought in initially, um, to, uh, basically resurrect the music program there and which I did. And in the process of that, I was asked to, um, to develop a video. They wanted an information channel that could be used for education, uh, and they wanted a lot of training videos and, and that sort of thing. Um, uh, they were doing some outreach to youth—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Well, I want to fix it to what we're talking about here related to the disciplinary action. Um, did get permission to make the recordings there, as we talked about. Were you ever concealing the fact that you were recording music and selling music and art?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No. That would have been impossible.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And this was originally handled by your late wife, Barbara, is that correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, yes. Um, as far as the website was established by my late wife, um, and her son.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And then before you were brought back to California, even before that, so, Barbara passed away, I believe in 2012. Is that right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's true, yes.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And then in 2015, before you came back to California, you authorized, uh, your current assistant. You gave her power of Attorneys to handle anything related to your business.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's correct.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: That was before you got moved back to California, before there was any accusations of unlawful business activity.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's correct.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And the funds, we've said before the funds went into a trust account?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, yeah, basically kind of a savings account or just an account that she keeps in my, in, not in my name, but in her name, uh, for exclusively, not when she doesn't use it for her own stuff. Um, it's just, you know, whatever comes in from, from, uh, you know, royalties or art sales or whatever goes into that account or did go into that account.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Now after, let me make something clear because I think I was confused by something the Commissioner said, how many times since, since 2015, how many times have you been given a rules violation for unauthorized business deals?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Just to, to the 2020—



ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Okay. The 2016 was dismissed, 2020 was upheld.


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And, so, in 2016, after you received the rules violation, which happened after you were (inaudible) well, let me, let me clarify. You, weren't given a rules violation report at the time they brought you back from, uh, from Oregon?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, I was brought back in August, 2015. Um, and it was, uh, I don't remember the exact date, it was two or three years later. No, actually, actually two years later. Pretty much.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And then, so, in 2016 you got the first of these, uh, this succession—

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: May I clarify something? May I clarify something I just said?


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Um, okay. So, uh, because it was noted that there was a suspicion that I was engaging in illegal activities. When I was brought back, I made arrangements to meet with the Deputy Warden to discuss that very thing and did, and I showed him printouts of all the work that I was doing—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: (inaudible). Yeah.


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I want to get to a specific point here. So, after you received the 2016 rules violation, uh, did you demonetize your website?


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And you and I discussed that at the time.


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And I advised you that, given that you had this pending rules violation, you shouldn't be selling anything.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's correct.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Okay. And then, um, you started accepting payments again through your website after the 2017 dismissal.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's correct.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And again, you did that with my, uh, with my, on my advice.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, that yes, on your advice, I consulted with you on it because he is the, it was very clear to me from what the SHO session she made it very clear to me that the things that I had been selling in the previous state, uh, in, at the previous institution, um, were valid. I showed her all the approvals and what the rules were in both states. And she thought I've, um, produced enough documentation to show that I had not violated the rule—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: We can't talk, we got to keep it short.


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Um, so, and I, um, and so, at that point, uh, you and I both discussed that we both agreed that you, uh, that we thought that that resolved the, the, um, the situation.



INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, it only for previously published (inaudible).

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Okay. And I, I advised you again, not to sell anything new.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's correct.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And as far as, um, as far as paintings, you're one of the paintings that they included in the recent evidence, uh, was this one, is that correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's true. It is.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And this was a gift that you gave to me and you wrote this, uh, on the back of it and I paid you nothing for this.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's correct.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And you did another painting that was for Tyler Davis, who was a friend. And, uh, and, uh, he was also published some of your work. Is that right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That’s correct, yes.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: (inaudible) two paintings you've done that you've sent to anyone since you've been in California?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, those are the only two public, uh, pieces that I've published. I've done other smaller pieces, but nothing for, nothing for financial, anything. Um, but some of it's just, uh, experiments that I've done on my own here.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I guess that's what I mean is you haven't actually, uh, you're nothing that you've done that you've sold to anyone.


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And, um, as far as, uh, there were some questions about Spotify and some of these streaming services, um, is that something that you have an active role in?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, no, not at all. Initially, when the music was published, it went through, um, a, a publisher, a broker who distributed to various places. And I, um, and I no longer have any, any connection to that.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And, um, after this hearing, I mean, would you be willing to, you know, ask, uh, your, uh, your, um, assistant to see if there's a way to get some of this removed or at least make sure that you're not profiting from this?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I could, I suppose. Yeah. But I would have to fill out paper by the issue has—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I'm just saying, is this something you'd be willing to do to, because you're trying to get—

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: (inaudible) with her. She, you know, she, this is not her area of expertise. Um, I would ask her and I think she would be uncomfortable. Um, just knowing her, um, because that's just not an area, but she would try, I believe if I asked her.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Well, and to some extent you don't have, uh, even as the artists you don't necessarily have control about who submits your work and say puts it on YouTube or sends it—

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, I have no control of that. Once, once it is published, it goes into distribution and distribution. Uh, so, there's layers of things I don't know. I don't myself don't know how to undo.


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: And some, you know, there's there sometimes that soundtrack, I didn't, for example, that sometimes that soundtrack that I did in the 1970s gets radio play or, or internet play, and the loyalties—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: (inaudible), right? `


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: It's also been bootlegged and released unofficially.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Right. Well, there's an unofficial stuff. And there's people who are trading in records that were put out years and years ago. Um, and they, you know, sell or resell them. I have no control over that. Um, but there are—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: The point is you're not getting any new, uh, any money from anything that you have produced since 2015. Is that correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's correct. For, for many new work. Yes, that's correct.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And, and you have since attempted as best you can to, uh, close the, the, um, the spigot, uh, as far as any money or, or funding that you're getting even related to older artworks.


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And in 2016, when the Commissioners advise you to try and use your work and put it to something, uh, productive, you make donations to the CMF music, uh, music department, and you also made a donation to the Metta Institute. Is that correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: To, to, to the Metta Institute, yes.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Okay. And what is the Metta Institute?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Metta Institute is a Buddhist organization, uh, who are focused, are focusing their energies in hospice care. I thought that would be, you know, I, I made the donations in Gary's name. I thought there would be something that he would, he would, he would like.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And you did this because, uh, you, the Panel at that time expressed support for your art and your music, and advised you to try and find a way to use it to honor Gary's legacy?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, that, and just, uh, what Mr. Grounds said was w was not necessarily that I had to do it in Gary's name or do something specific to that, but just to give back to society through my gifts, through my creativity. And if, you know, it's something I wanted to do was, um, to create, um, uh, a kind of, um, fund through the Men Institute to be able to, um, gifts (inaudible) and back that way as well.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And, and, uh, in 2017, you received, uh, an offer to, um, prepare a book of your artwork. And you asked for permission when I was denied again, you and I discussed it. And you had, you did not go forward with the, uh, with the project.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's correct.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And that was because it was, the request was exclusively about this collections compendium of all of your art together, which is a separate (inaudible) from fireworks that were created.


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And when you didn't get permission, uh, the publisher, you told the publisher.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's right. Yeah.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Just so the Commissioners are aware of that. Publisher's name is Tyler Davis and it's in the, uh, his, he wrote a letter on behalf of Mr. Beausoleil as, as sort of a friend, but he also noted in there that he's not gone forward with that. He's also the recipient of the other painting as a gift that I discussed a moment ago. And I did speak with him personally and confirmed all of that. Um, what, regarding your music and art that you've done over the last several decades, um, what are the prominent themes that you try and convey through your music and art?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Um, I think spirituality is the, is the predominant theme, try to touch people on a spiritual level. Um, I think that's the, the most important, uh, the most, um, I think that rises to the top. Um, but there's also, um, you know, just expressing joy sometimes. And, um, you know, I've, I've published an album, um, uh, meditation music, and just strictly specifically for meditation. Um, but there's been other, but—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: At that particular album, um, you've received comments from people who expressed their appreciation for how well it facilitates the meditative practices. Is that right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. Well, not only that, um, uh, that's true. Um, but I received a couple of interesting ones where, where that album has been used for pain management, um, in, for, in therapies, including dentistry and, um, massage therapies and that sort of thing.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: So, it's very relaxing and soothing with them, or that was your intend—


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And you also, you did a recording called dancing hearts and fire, which was a, it's a sport, your, um, your late wife, Barbara's a dance group that she, uh, she worked in, correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's right. Yeah, it was, it was done in her honor. I, um, you know, my late, my late wife, um, uh, I, you know, 31 years of marriage and it was an inviting relationship, um, uh, underscored with a deep love. And so, when she died, um, I was, I was destroyed. I was devastated as was her family. So, um, I, I had to sort of process that and that album (inaudible), um, of expressing that not only my love for her, but, but my grief and anger that she was, that she was taking.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And the last musical recording that you released, uh, was Voodoo Shivaya was what it was called.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That’s correct.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And that was a 100% recorded and created while you were in Oregon?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, it was, uh, I think it was a seven-year process to re to gather those recordings. It was finished in, I believe 2014, but—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Then, uh, and you, and I—

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Might have been one, one song in 2015. I'm not sure.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And you, and I talked about that, uh, that recording a lot when I first started working with you on your case in 2012, is that right?


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Um, does any of your art or music, uh, pertain to, or glorify your prior relationship with Charles Manson?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, not at all.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Uh, it does it glorify or pertain to the murder of Gary Hinman?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, not, not to the murder of Gary Hinman. Some of it is, um, some of it was created in mindfulness of my, uh, my responsibility to him, uh, my ongoing responsibility to him as the man who took his life. Um, so, there is some, some components within the work that I do, especially in the music, uh, that attached to honor him, uh, that, that expresses emotively how I feel about my responsibility towards him, uh, the pain that I caused, he, him and his family. So, there are components in, in the music, um, in that regard.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And you, uh, it hasn't really been discussed here, but you were, you were friends with Gary Hinman before you killed him.


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: He was a music teacher and music was very important to him, just like it is to you?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, I don't know that it was just like it is to me—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Um, I mean, I don't mean just like, I mean, as it's important to you, it was also important to him.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It was also important to him in a different way, I think, uh, he was a music teacher. Um, he was a competent piano player. Um, and I, I learned some things from him.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And he was also a Buddhist even at a time before you were practicing Buddhism.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Years before. Yes.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And, um, how often do you think about Gary Hinman, like do you (inaudible) really think about him?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Every, every, every day, more than, more than once a day.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: You, do you believe that your practice of Buddhism now create something of a spiritual bridge to, between you and the man whose life you, you wrongfully took?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Absolutely. Yes, yes, it does.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Can we move this long, I'm not sure the relevancy of his religion. And, and I don't know how that qualifies as clarification for you, but we're well past 10 minutes. So, if you were really trying to keep it at 10 minutes, you didn't succeed. So, can we move this along?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Um, I will do my best, um—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: This is not really relevant to our finding a suitability so far. I mean, we're not presenting anything new.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Well, I guess, I don't know, you know, we didn't cover a lot of these topics in the—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: You covered everything in your documents. I can't imagine what more you could have covered.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Well, I do have some questions that I have one, one more line of questions here. Um, well, first of all, I just want to make sure does, does the Panel, um, have I, it should be in his C-File, but the prior letters of remorse that he wrote—


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Okay. I just wanted to make sure, um, and this is something I meant to ask about before, uh, Mr. Beausoleil, I don't know if you can see this, but this was one of the items of evidence that was in the, uh, recent, um, uh, RVR—

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, I (inaudible).

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: New paintings. All of the paintings on here were painted in 2004 and 2005. Is that correct?


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Now I say the 2004, 2005, just to be clear to the Panel, that's something I wrote in when I looked all of these up, but I don't want you to believe to, I don't want to mislead you to think that that says that on there. I added all that in, but these paintings were all created in 2004, 2005.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. They were new paintings there.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And likewise, this new art and titles this all appears to be, I've looked it up, it appears to me from 2008, 2009.


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And so, these journal entries they used as evidence against you did not actually relate to new art, and related to art, eh, that was done while you were in Oregon.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's correct.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And the, um, the, the song chapter titles here, is that, was that a note you were working on for Voodoo Shivaya or some other recording before?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, it's, it's actually themes, uh, that were going to be, uh, used for the book that, you know, the, the book of art, they were actually, yeah. There were theme ideas that I was working on.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Um, and so, as far as just quickly about, uh, marijuana and drug usage, um, does your, your, uh, you’re saying, your, um, does meditation help you with, uh, uh, achieving a state of mind so that you don't feel the need to ever use marijuana?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, it does. Um, I don't, I, like I said before, I don't, I have no urges, I have no yearnings for it, no (inaudible) it's around me, pretty much all the time. Uh, it's available, you know, especially since, uh, it's been made legal, you know, it's prevalent inside the prison. I have, the smell of it, uh, is unappealing to me. I just don't have any, any interest in it. But medication to get back to your question, meditation, um, is fulfilling in ways that, you know, marijuana could never even come close to, um, you know, all, all the Djokovic, uh, techniques that I use, including meditation, including the physical yoga, including contemplation are all, um, what, four to five (inaudible), um, as, uh, and make me whole.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And, um, would you be willing if, as a condition of parole, you have to submit the random drugs, drug screens, you'd have no problem doing that?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, I have, uh, I do it now, so yeah, no problem.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And if you, and when you begin, you, you've already said you will attend AA or NA, uh, as part of your transition in society, would you commit to working with a sponsor?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, absolutely.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And, you know, and you understand that, uh, uh, that you, it will be a different experience for you. So, you do need some sort of support structure just to make sure that even though you may not have cravings now, you need to make sure you don't have them on the outside also.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah, well, you know, I have one lung, so, I pretty much my smoking days are over. Um, so, um, I will participate in programs probably more because I get benefit from interacting with people who are involved in them then, because I'm required to, by conditions of my parole, I will follow the conditions of my parole. I will also participate in programs because I want to help. And I want to, to, to be part of that, um, helpful process that people are engaging in, uh, to be better people.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Okay. And you mentioned this a second ago, this is the last (inaudible) of questioning. Um, this last year you were diagnosed with cancer. Uh, what were, what, what went through your mind when you realized you were diagnosed with cancer as it relates to your personal development, growth, and your history, and your life history?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Um, that's a complex question or it's complex answer to a simple question, I should say. Um, you know, initially I was distressed, but I told the doctor within 10 minutes, I didn't think that it was going to feed the (inaudible), she was apologizing to me, like I've just been given a death sentence. And, um, I, after assessing that and I wanted to reassure that, um, that she (inaudible) apologized that it's, it's going to be okay. And, um, I, that's what I felt, um, and just assessing my feelings is I also realized that, uh, through my meditation practices and through my practices of Buddha, Buddhist, um, traditions, um, that I no longer fear death. So, um, I feel like this, my continuing life for however long that is, is a gift that I want to pass on. Um, I wanna, I want to be able to give back through my work, uh, through the ways that I'm, I'm good at and give something back to the community as I've been doing in here. I mean, you know, I, I feel like, um, every time I teach a young man how to play guitar, um, he is maybe redirecting himself from, uh, a lifestyle that is going nowhere. That was a dead end. Like my lifestyle was a dead end, and maybe he can find a different way out of that. I do that with the yoga, the teaching the yoga, I do it with teaching how to do art to people. Um, so, that's the kind of thing that I want to be involved in on the outside. And, um—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: That brings up my last question, which is you have a new, a new job offer from, um, uh, was it jails, what is the name—


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: What is the name of the organization, again?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Jail guitar doors.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Can you tell me about, I mean, is that something you want to do, and can you tell me what that means to you?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It means a lot to me because this is an organization, uh, to non-profit that has been, uh, putting music into prisons all over the country for a number of, you know, for, I think, well over a decade. And, um, it might be two decades. Uh, there they've become very good at it, uh, and become very valuable to the department of corrections. They are a recognized arts and corrections agency. Um, uh, the 15 hours a week would be, it's just sort of thrown out there, you know, but it would be, um, more hours than 15 hours a week. If in fact I'm in that County, uh, that's in Los Angeles. If I go there, um, then, uh, I would be working, um, with jail guitar doors on mainly teaching, teaching other people, introducing them to music both in the community, um, through the (inaudible), uh, program, uh, which is community arts, um, uh, and performance outreaches. What that means is, uh, part of jail guitar doors efforts, uh, in the community to, um, divert, uh, young people away from a criminal, um, engagement, uh, and into the creative arts.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I think that's all the questions I have right now.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Thank you. We'll move into Victim’s Next of kin statements. Would you like to go first, Ms. Hinman? Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. The inmate goes first with his closing statement, I apologize. Mr. Beausoleil, would you like to make a closing statement to the Panel?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I would. Um, I know that you're, you're kind of feeling pressed for time a little bit. I’m, I'm hoping that you'll be willing to indulge me. Um, I don't know exactly what I'm going to say, but I do feel like at this point in my life, um, that there are things I just sorta need to get off my chest. I'm hoping that they will be received in the way that I intend them, uh, by, uh, Ms., um, uh, by Ms. Martley, um, and by, and by Ms. Tate. Um, so, if I may have your indulgence. We've already gone through, um, my involvement with, um, you know, with, with people that, um, were on the fringes of society and my flirtation with the outlaw motorcycle gang and with Manson and, uh, activities that I knew had the potential for violence. Uh, I wasn't interested in violence, but I was interested in being accepted by people who were, for some reason that, um, is still a little difficult to understand because I, I really, I don't glorify violence and never have, but I did want the respect and acceptance of older men. So, when I think of how that relates to the crime, what the crime that I committed, um, I realized that the crime I committed was not just stabbing Gary Hinman to death. It started well before that, uh, it started, um, my, my failure of responsibility to Gary began when, uh, I chose to involve him initially in, in a deal that with, with some unsavory people. Um, when I went to, when I accepted a gun from someone who told me, I should take a gun, uh, and took it to Gary Hinman’s house with the intention of taking his money, I betrayed him again, I betrayed him. And I say that I'd betrayed a friend because Gary, um, Gary was a good person. And, um, he is someone who has treated me well in the past. Excuse me. Just one moment. Gary had been kind to me, uh, in 1968 and let me, uh, my girlfriend and I stay in his basement, uh, for a couple of months, uh, without having to pay rent. Uh, my girlfriend made him meals and, and did a few chores for him. Uh, and the rest was, it was just the kindness of Mr. Hinman and, you know, we talk about victims sometimes. And, and, um, I think, I think that our society sometimes, um, diminishes victims in a way, it makes them, um, makes them into two dimensional. Um, I'll use the example of Sharon Tate, Sharon Tate, part of the tragedy, I believe with, with the murder of Sharon Tate is that she's remembered only as a victim now, her life, her, the person that she was is easily forgotten. The three dimensional, four-dimensional, five-dimensional person that she was is no longer something that people talk about. It's this sort of persona, this victim of a violent, horrible crime. Gary was a real person. Gary had hopes and aspirations just like I did. Gary was kind, he was a better person than I was, at the time, but I valued his life less than my, in my arrogance and in my selfishness. Gary had just taken a Buddhism. He had just been introduced and it had resonated with him. And I didn't understand what it was then, I was too caught up in my own, um, petty concerns, at the time, petty concerns that I thought were so important. Gary was a graduate student at UCLA. He, um, he had majored in political science. He had studied a lot of different things that I didn't understand, but, uh, and, and didn't agree with because he was studying communism among other things socialism, but that was part of his study. I didn't understand it, um, at the time, but, but it was something that he appreciated, something he was interested in. It was a complexity that, um, I had wished for a bazillion times, he had been allowed to pursue, uh, for the rest of his days. He would go into, um, UCLA most days. And, um, some of those days he played piano for a dance group. Uh, some of those days he, uh, taught piano lessons and, and, um, some of those days he, um, socialized with, with, with some radical groups, I guess at the time that were interesting to him because of his political science interests. Um, I didn't know that much about them, but he shared that much with me in the time that I knew him. He was not a drug dealer, in my opinion. Um, though he did sell marijuana to mostly to France, small amounts to try to help ends meet, um, to try to help make ends meet. Um, uh, he, he cooked up a batch of, of Mescalin from payoti buttons that he had come into. Uh, and I don't know how that happened, but, um, it was something that he was experimenting with. Um, so, that's, I would say what I know of Gary in terms of his interests and aspirations. I don't know that much. I don't know as much as I would like to know. He was, he was a friend, but a casual friend, and I did not value what the wholeness of the person. I did not value that at the time. Um, I would say at the time that I had a responsibility to him as a friend that I betrayed going way back to accepting that gun or setting up the deal with him in the first place, um, going to his home to rob him or take his money. Um, I had an underdeveloped sense of responsibility, as I said earlier. And by that, I mean that I did not, at that time in my life, have the ability to, um, think of things through, to extrapolate, um, into the future, what my action might do. I didn't have the ability to think responsibly to the ability to respond intelligently to events that rose and make decisions that considered what all the possible consequences might be. And I betrayed him in that way by not, I betrayed my responsibility to a friend, um, in all those ways and ultimately by valuing his life over my own, because I was terrified, desperate to get away from the situation that I had found myself in. And that I had actually created, that it would not have happened without me, but in the beginning, naively, stupidly, making decisions without a sense of responsibility that put Gary and I at that critical place where I took his life. And I knew that I had shattered myself. I was traumatized by what happened. I was traumatized for years. Um, it took me the better part of five years to even begin to process in a meaningful way what I had done. I had buried my shame and that's what I felt. I felt nothing, I felt nothing but shame for what I had done. And I couldn't really work with shame, shame is that something you can, you can really do anything much about, do you get out of it and then you can deal with the guilt, and then you can deal with your responsibility, and then you can begin to take things through and reconnect to, um, to really what is, um, responsibility, what is connection? Um, that happened in 1974 when I basically, I woke up and, uh, made the decision to devote my life to the creative arts. That was my path to redemption, to share my work, to first learn how to do it, to learn how to do it effectively and meaningfully, um, and to then express, um, in the arts and do what the Buddhist say to do, the Buddhists, have a, um, the Buddhists have a term called Dharma, it’s D-H-A-R-M-A, Dharma, which means purpose in life. It means, um, uh, finding out what your gifts are, what, what the world has given you, what God has given you in coming into the world and using them for the betterment of the world. You share your gifts with the world, that's the Dharmic practice. And that's what Buddhists, uh, above all I think in their values value. Um, so, I hope, and I can't know for sure, but I hope that Gary will approve and (inaudible) of what I have done in the years intervening, um, that I have always hoped would honor him, would honor his own, you know, I had (inaudible) world and the gifts that he would have brought, and I have tried to make my makeup for it in some way, and give something back. Um, I'm sorry that it has become an issue where, um, it's about some sort of business dealings. It's never been about that for me, never. It's never been a profit for me. The profits go to basically supporting the infrastructure that makes it happen, including providing myself with Canteen, including paying the person who administrates the website, and make sure that it stays wholesome and not exploiting, exploitered with anyone. That's, that's what it's been for. It's been $4 month. It's been an honorary. Last year I wrote a letter in 2020, actually, I wrote a letter a few weeks. I wrote a song for Gary, um, in Gary's honor called on the other shore. And, um, I published it, um, not monetized, just the lyrics because I can't record, uh, right now. Um, but it's out there in honor of Gary in his name. Uh, regardless of what happens in this hearing, regardless of what the decision is in relation to, you know, my publishing efforts and putting my work out there and what the decision is in relation to that, I will continue in the ways that I can to, because it's in my path to redemption and it is not measured by a parole hearing or the results of a parole hearing. My redemption is made, is measured by how I give back to a world I took from, that's how it's measured, and at that will continue for however much longer I have to live. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Thank you. Um, Ms. Tate, who's going to speak first, do you know? I, you're on mute

VICTIM’S FAMILY REPRESENTATIVE TATE: I am sorry. I believe you have to address Ms. Martin. Ms. Martin.


VICTIM’S COUSIN MARTLEY: Commissioner. I believe I'll go first. Uh—


VICTIM’S COUSIN MARTLEY: Anthony was second and (inaudible) last.


VICTIM’S COUSIN MARTLEY: Okay. I am Kay Hinman, excuse me, I am Kay Hinman Martely. I'm here to speak for my cousin Gary Hinman. I have also asked Debra Tate and Anthony DiMaria, both victim family members from the Manson family (inaudible) to speak as well. All three of family were vetted by victim services, and I appreciate the Commissioner's ruling and re that that Mr. Campbell's remarks about my representatives and myself. I, again, start my statement with the circumstances of Gary's murder. I don't want anyone to forget that in the last days of Gary's life, he endured three days of torture at the hands of Bobby Beausoleil, Bruce Davis, Susan Atkins, Mary Brunner, and of course their leader of this group, Charles Manson. For several days, they tortured Gary, told his friends just called that Gary had left town. The group made sure that (inaudible) was looking for Gary. They left Gary's body to literally rot in summer heat, (inaudible) had attacked the body and the carpet was soaked with Gary's blood. The trauma of Gary's death led to an early death of his mother, Francis. Gary was a (inaudible), highly educated, a musician, working on a PHD in (inaudible), a productive citizen who paid his taxes. And when someone needed a place to stay Gary's home, home was open to them. Bobby Beausoleil had stayed at Gary's house. Beausoleil was known as Bummer Bob by many or his habit of taking advantage of the generosity of others. So, celebrated writer, Eva Baz, even dedicated an entire chapter in her book, Eve's Hollywood to Beausoleil and entitled it, Bummer Bob. Gary had become a follower of Buddhism. The last two years of his life, Gary believed in peace and tranquility. Gary's reward for his generosity towards Bummer Bob was to be murdered by him. The Manson family have tried to tarnish Gary's image with a variety of derogatory stories to diminish the reason for the murder. This group was there for money, but the Gary didn't have any. So, they made him sign over his two old cars when they were no more assets, Charles Manson instructed them to kill Gary, which Bobby Beausoleil did. The perpetrators have testified that Gary had begged for his life, chanting Buddhist prayers and forgave them, but to no avail, Bobby Beausoleil, as well as the others, are social psychopaths, 50 plus years have passed and they remain socio psychopaths, there's no cure psychopaths. Beausoleil continues to believe he is a law unto himself and can do whatever he wants, including running a business from prison. If it was for this, that he was denied parole (inaudible) for me, it's funny. The California code of regulations and Penal Code does not allow the inmate to actually engage in the business for self-profit. CDCR 3024 states inmate shall not engage actively in a business or profession except authorized by the institution had, or as provided in section 3104, which is, is the inmate and (inaudible). For this section of business is defined as any revenue generating or profit-making activity. Since his last parole hearing, other than putting on his website, stating that his music is free for all. Beausoleil has done nothing to rectify the violation of the Penal Code for which he was denied parole. He continues to run his business. In fact, his music is not (inaudible) for everyone. It is available to listen by apple music, Spotify and Amazon. They are all paid subscription streaming services, and they earn royalties every time somebody listens to his music. The income he receives from these corporate entities who had not by any stretch of the imagination constitute inmate (inaudible). In fact, the only person for whom the music is free and close to life, it is free marketing for himself to advertise that his music is available for use in Hollywood film and TV production. That is where he has made the majority of his money through licensing his music to major corporate entertainment companies like Netflix and paramount. In recent years is profited from the extensive use of his music in an official lady Gaga documentary on Netflix and a high profile. Five-part, five-part docu series about the Manson family entitled Helter Skelter on the (inaudible) channel, which is owned by paramount. The Helter Skelter TV show is particularly problematic for Beausoleil as not only was he interviewed for it as a member of the Manson family, recounting his crimes in detail, and also minimizing them as he has done for years. But he's also licensed his music for use in that TV show. It featured in the same episode he was interviewed for. In his (inaudible) parole hearings, Beausoleil stated I don’t receive money for interviews. And he also said, I feel that if somebody is offering you money to interview you that they are trying to exploit somebody. So, from an ethical standpoint, I don't do that. At the time, he said this in July, 2020 during his parole hearing. Beausoleil knew this statement not to be true. He had already done the interview for the Helter-Skelter TV show, which premier later that month, he would also have already known that the deal was in place two licenses music for the show, and for which he would be financially compensated. He was literally profiting off his crimes, talking about that them on one hand and making money on them in the other, yet he told the parole Commissioners that he did not and would not take money for interviews about this crimes. We don't know how much Beausoleil has made from licensing his music in the last year, but it could be considerable given the high-profile nature of the TV productions in question. I have been told by people in the industry that licensing fees for the use of a song in a major network or streaming show for around $20,000 with additional publishing income earned on top of that every time the show is seen or screen. Beausoleil claims in his last hearing that he only received a thousand dollars for the license thing is music to the official lady Gaga documentary on Netflix. Given that over five minutes of his music was used in the film. This does not seem plausible. It suggests he's either a terrible businessman, or he has not been forthright in revealing exactly how much he was paid. The frequent and unusually large maximum allowance payments to his prison count that they were questioned by the Commissioners in his last parole hearing suggest he has access to a much greater store of funds than he may be admitting. We also do not know if these importing any of his income to the IRS and associated both lays named Ms. Hall manages and operates his business outside of prison. In his last parole hearing, Beausoleil also admitted that he pays Ms. Hall an hourly wage to work for him. If he has as an employee or hire someone to work for him, that by definition constitutes a business. Ms. Hall aggressively promotes both way his art using multiple social media accounts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Also, Instagram account continues to promote expensive Alexa limited edition collector about him, as well as CD and vinyl additions of his music produced by US and foreign record players. The box that sells for over a hundred dollars. This is yet another profitable income stream for Beausoleil. There is also are not in, these are also not inmate and craft. They are commercial products made for profit to the sale in which Beausoleil himself profiting. When speaking to the Parole Board Beausoleil has minimized his business activity just as he continues to (inaudible) crimes and fails to take responsibility for them. He is so adept at vending and circumventing the rules in prison. I wonder if the prison authorities even realize the true scale and reach of his operation. I wonder what they would think if they knew he was in business with selling his music through receiving income worldwide from some of the world's largest corporations, Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Spotify, Netflix, and Paramount. What concerns me above all is that it seems as if Beausoleil has not learned a thing from his decades in prison, he's still bending and (inaudible) the rules for his own game. If Beausoleil can't play by the rules in prison, how will he play by the rules outside if he's granted parole and released. What happened is when history repeats itself. In the same way that in 1969 Bummer Bob, they would be musician fell in with the Manson family and very (inaudible), excuse me, (inaudible) my cousin, Gary Hinman. The jury's (inaudible) final verdict was legal and fair. You as a Board should support that verdict using parole public safety. Bobby Beausoleil should remain in prison. Members of the Manson family have legal representation. And I surmise from experience they are capable and often paid by unknown sources. Los Angeles district Attorney (inaudible) has (inaudible) attack victim’s families by no longer allow any Deputy district Attorney to attend these parole hearings to represent it to family. This means victim families have no legal voice at hearings. No one to ask questions on our behalf, refer to clinician reports, read the 10-day pack. No overview. Our family has severed much heartache and trauma, which is always with us. I have been attending parole hearings in my cousin's memory for many years (inaudible) many statements in Gary’s memory, God willing, I will be able to continue to be a reminder of the murder of Gary Hinman. I ask the (inaudible) Beausoleil committed to have (inaudible) who was looking at the amount of money's he's earning. Bobby Beausoleil mentioned he had a trust fund, but not the amount or what's involved. Are income tax paid on these earnings? Where is the foundation Beausoleil said he would start in Gary's name two hearings ago? He did mention it today, but I have never heard of any donation. Why does Beausoleil need a website? How is Beausoleil is allowed to directly profit from his crimes and can be making money from the torture and murder of my cousin, Gary Hinman by licensing his music to show called Helter Skelter about the Manson family and their murder spree. Thank you.


VICTIM’S FAMILY REPRESENTATIVE DIMARIA: Uh, yes. Thank you, Commissioner. Um, thank you, Commissioners, Patricia Cassady and Edward Taylor. Uh, my name is Anthony DiMaria. And I'm speaking on behalf of the Hinman family as representatives. It is critical to acknowledge not one Manson family killing occurred until after Robert Beausoleil, distinctly tortured Gary Hinman and was arrested in his victim's car on August 6th, 1969, thus creating the catalyst of the entire Manson's murder (inaudible) less than two, two days later on Friday night, August 8th, 1969 had Mr. Beausoleil not snuffed out Gary Hinman, ten people would have lived their lives completely and we wouldn't have—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Commissioner, I think this is improper to, to allow this. This is the problem that I had with having—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Mr. Campbell, we are not going to interrupt a Victim’s Next of Kin while they are talking. I will mute you—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: This is unfair—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: I will mute you. You need to allow them to speak as they allowed you to speak—


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Don’t not interrupt him again.



VICTIM’S FAMILY REPRESENTATIVE DIMARIA: Thank you Commissioner. Had Mr. Beausoleil not snuffed out Gary Hinman, ten people would have lived their lives completely, and we wouldn't be here today. I include Sharon Tate's unborn child, (inaudible). For the record, there is nothing about these crimes that are tangential as described by Mr. Campbell today. Part of what continues to impact our families are these hearings and what is said in these hearings past and current. Today, the convicted killer, his Attorney, and the Board have discussed prison conduct, current dangerousness, transformative rehabilitation, and suitability. We appreciate the opportunity to address these issues. But first we direct the Board to the disturbing trend of the petitioner's manipulation self-promotion for decades, there was media involvement and exploitation of these crimes as illustrated in inmate’s last RVR decision, 2020. It's not just violation, but the conduct that is disturbing and upsetting to the Hinman family. Regarding media, one of the traits Mr. Beausoleil shares with his Manson cohorts it is insatiable appetite for self-promotion in the media and on the internet contained in we magazine, rolling stone magazine, Jordan, real, oxygen networks just to name a few. Mr. Beausoleil pattern lacks insight into his crimes, often deflecting blame and minimizing his horrific actions. The end of this book and magazine interviews are too many to reference. So, I'll focus on just a few of them. At a recent hearing, Mr. Beausoleil described the purpose of his personal website, his various internet pages, and his numerous interviews over the decades. The following quote is from Mr. Beausoleil response to concerns from former Los Angeles district Attorney Donald Liebowitz regarding his website and (inaudible) interview with rolling stone magazine. “I feel like I'm being prosecuted. So let me be cool. I am (inaudible) trying to promote my music or whatever. I do respond to appropriate line of questioning from authors and writers, because I feel I owe that to Gary. I owe it to the people who were hurt by this, by my crime, to the extent that I can bring some illumination to and own in public what I did to a man who was frankly, a better man than I was at the time.” Robert Beausoleil “I feel like I'm being prosecuted” was quite revealing. And at the same time alarming as the inmate would have the Parole Broad word Belief was being victimized by Donald Lubowitz. Even though the DA was asking a pertinent clarifying questions specific to Mr. Beausoleil questionable involvement on the internet and with rolling stone magazine. Let's review some of the illumination here (inaudible) and contained in the rolling stone article. “According to Beausoleil, he bought 1000 hits of (inaudible) for $1,000 from Hinman on behalf of the streets savings, only they took some that it made them sick and demanded their money back. So Beausoleil wanted him to place (inaudible) with Atkins and Brunner tagging along apparently for just for the ride would be no problem to get the money back.” That's one where we have a way for both ways to pay back what he owes to Gary by slandering his victim defenseless in his grave as a drug dealer. There was absolutely no definitive record first, before I say that, I appreciate Mr. Beausoleil acknowledgement in the beginning of his statement that Mr. Hinman was not a drug dealer, but that (inaudible) has been cast for the world to see. And I appreciate the opportunity to address this in further detail. There is absolutely no definitive record anywhere establishing Mr. Hinman as an actual dealer. For over 50 years, numerous Manson culprits establishing court testimony and an investigative documents. These grinds started as an attempt to extort money from Gary. I direct you to the investigation of (inaudible) number and Manson, family associates, Danny DeCarlo from his interview with Sergeant PJ Whitley and Deputy Stacy Gunther on November 19th, 1969. “Sergeant Woodley, uh, directing your attention to the month of July of this year. Did you hear a conversation, it’s on ranch regarding, uh, Gary Hinman? DeCarlo, uh, Charlie just telling me the new, new guy where he was gonna, they were gonna get 20 grand pretty soon. And, uh, uh, they knew a guy named Gary who had the money and they were going to go up there and try to get it off. With the Sergeant, okay. Were they going to do anything else besides getting the money? DeCarlo, no, there, they're just going to go up there and try to talk them out of his money. Sergeant, now did Robert Beausoleil tell you anything at the time about where he'd been in the past days in a later conversation, DeCarlo, he was at Gary's house. Sergeant, what happened when they got there? They went in there, they sat down and Gary, we talked to Gary about old bullshit times. What are you doing? How you been just general bullshit. Then out of the blue, he pulled out a pistol. He said, look, I want your money. I want 20 grand. Where's it at? I don't have 20 grand. I hear you did. Well, I don't have it. You got anything in the house (inaudible) value? No.” The record goes on detailing, detailing the commitment offensive, but nowhere in the entire interview that (inaudible) mentioned drugs, bad Mescalin bad drug dealer, or Gary Hinman as a drug dealer, nothing (inaudible). Mr. Beausoleil allegations are damaging, carrying him his legacy and are extremely painful to the Hinman family. But ultimately Mr. Beausoleil ultimate narrative has nothing to do with the fact that Gary Hinman suffered a horrific ghoulish death at the hands of Robert Beausoleil. DA (inaudible) which was correct to raise concerns about Mr. Beausoleil engagement with rolling stone and its writer Eric Hedegaard. I will read from my formal complaints sent the magazine after (inaudible) rolling stone Manson article in 2013, holding the complaint, “the Manson family killings have become a massive source of interest and profit for countless news, tabloid, organization, books, TV, and film companies. It is painful and disturbing to see that the rolling stone piece by Eric Hedegaard December 5th, 2013 is yet another example of how horribly the victims are disregarded and worth slandered” quoting the article, “Sharon Tate was a movie star. She wasn't a movie star, even now nobody's ever really heard of her, even though she was supposedly killed by Charlie Manson, the most famous guy in the world. And that's the only reason why anyone knows who she is. And still, nobody knows who the fuck she is.” Resuming, resuming my complaint “Hedegaard goes down to president Charles Manson in a Reverend mystical life. As he muses, I will never know or understand why when Manson rested his hand on my arm, it felt so good. Not passively good, but actively it's a presence.” Resuming the complaint “it is curious that Mr. Hedegaard would omit Manson's interview, but the interview we would hypothetically due to a random baby, “worse than anything you can imagine.” Yet the authors collected the killers of (inaudible) victims, “she compromised her body for everything she did. And she was such a beautiful thing. What was she doing in the bed of another man (inaudible) when that thing jumped off, what kind of shit is that?” These passages are from Eric Hedegaard and rolling stone magazine. They know not only exploit these murders and romanticized Manson, but shockingly slander and attack Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring. After this unconscionable article, under the supervision of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Robert Beausoleil chose to collaborate with this malicious parasitical writer and perpetrated rolling stones exploitation of these crimes and file attack of Gary Hinman deceased in his grave. On Bobby Beausoleil's personal site in, right, on Bobby Beausoleil’s personal site in the about and biography pages, Gary Hinman and his killing are described as “more than a half a century ago, I committed a terrible crime that of taking the life of another man. This, this crime, became connected to subsequent dreadful crimes and tragic events, adding the complexity of political sensitivity to my personal situation.” And another “in 1968 (inaudible) Los Angeles where he occasionally worked as a musician for hire until his arrest for the crime. He continues to serve time for it.” (inaudible) will be first to meet incarceration as a complexity of political sensitivity to my personal situation is again another example of the killer’s minimization of his atrocious crimes by posturing himself as the victim of Manson association. This complete lack of insight despite years of reflection and CDCR rehabilitation program. Perhaps one of the illumination Mr. Beausoleil might consider sharing on his website is to address his victim by name and not treat Gary Hinman as an anonymous footnote in candy coating these crimes. For the record, as Kay mentioned, Mr. Beausoleil’s website has five additional links to Facebook, SoundCloud, Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter—

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, it doesn’t.

VICTIM’S FAMILY REPRESENTATIVE DIMARIA: (inaudible) Mr. Beausoleil’s current supports via support letter from past recent hearing his television producer James Day, who is yet another of a cascade of individuals were exploited and profited from these crimes. His projects include Manson his last words, Manson the women, Manson the funeral. These films were released in the last couple of years. Mr. (inaudible) contacted me several years ago to do an interview for his project. I politely declined and reminded the producer it's such projects are not only exploitered in nature, but damaging to the victim's memory and very painful for the friends and family of the victims. Robert Beausoleil involvement with the writer producer and these projects and interviews with an inexcusable pattern of the killer’s lack of insight into his crimes. And it's callously disconnected from how he continues to cause additional suffering to his victim's families go run over even today. When the same rolling stone article referenced earlier, two (inaudible) is quoted from his original interview with Beausoleil “did you feel influenced by Manson right away? (inaudible) away hell no, he had his people. I had mine. If anyone was influenced, it was him by me.” These are perhaps the most definitively accurate words ever uttered from Mr. Beausoleil in his extensive interview with regard to Manson and these crimes. After murdering Gary Hinman in his subsequent arrest on August 6th, 1969, the Manson crime organization became unhinged, slaughtering six people on the yellow drive just two days later. And the violent rampage continued on for months, even years, as we conclude, as we include the robbery shootout between formats and corporates, 36 Hawthorne police officers on September 21st, 1971, it was Robert Beausoleil who ignited the Manson murder (inaudible). Did not only derail the course of the United States history, but scarred American culture forever. As Joan Didion wrote “the hippie movement ended abruptly after these murders.” The petitioner and his Counsel will have what would have us believe that the Hinman murder killing occurred in a vacuum, void of any connection with the Manson murders. Attorney Jason Campbell recently claim “there is a very real chance that had Mr. Beausoleil had this crime not been associated with Manson. He may have already been (inaudible).” The Attorney conveniently omit that it was his client's crimes that unraveled the Manson crimes (inaudible) causing every single Manson family killing. It is imperative though that Robert Beausoleil directly dealt more fatal blows to Gary Hinman than Charles Manson directing dealt to all for the 10 victims combined. We know from the inmate’s own words from the trajectory of the Manson family killing that Bobby Beausoleil influenced and impacted Charles Manson more than Charles Manson influenced and impacted Bobby Beausoleil. Robert Beausoleil is not a victim of Charles Manson association. It is he who unleashed the death and destruction perpetrated by the Manson family so profound, so profound, but the repercussions are global cultural and historical. Regarding current impact and danger to society, I'm sorry, regarding current veins impact and danger to society, Robert Beausoleil’s crime from the (inaudible) legacy he ignited are so severe. They have become a societal cancer with a structured and (inaudible) consequences throughout the days. (inaudible) decade. Detective John Ryan describes the crime scene of Vivian French's murder, which he was the first responder on March 7th, 1977. “As I entered the house, I could hear the pigs are coming song that was playing over and over again. When we walked in, I observed a white female later identified as Vivian French lying on her back. She was nude and I noticed what appeared to be a black handled Mic and a right side, just above the breast. I noticed on the wall, there were some things written in blood helter-skelter and all pigs must die, pigs must die, reminiscent of the word political piggy written in Gary Hinman blood at both lays’ crime scene. Display attempts by the petitioner and his Attorney to portray these crimes as occurring in a void of any helter-skelter connection. Decades (inaudible) testimony confirmed Mr. Beausoleil to be one of a small subset of cold-blooded killers in the so-called family—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: At some point, this has to end, Commissioner. This is, these are about crimes that might client has nothing to do with.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. Um, I'll remind you that the victims and Victims Next of Kin and representatives can talk about whatever they want for as long as they want. So, if you don't want to be here, you're welcome to leave the room. If you don't want to hear any further statements, but the law's pretty clear in this area. So, I'm going to ask you to stop interrupting them. They're supposed to be able to speak uninterrupted. This is the second interruption. I won't allow a third. Go forward, Mr. DiMaria.

VICTIM’S FAMILY REPRESENTATIVE DIMARIA: Sorry. I forget where I was, but these crimes were collectively committed. They were collectively committed. Nothing is a void. Mr. Beausoleil, the way was one of a small (inaudible) of coldblooded killers in the so-called family. His actions are not only Seminole, but they literally spawned every single notorious killing of the Helter Skelter on slot. I sadly called your attention to the murder of 16-year-old, Jason (inaudible), the Pennsylvania teenager was killed by four other teenagers ages, 15 to 17. The weapons used the massacre of the young man or a hammer, a hatchet, and several large rocks. At one point during the attack, the hammer was struck so severely and remained in the victim's skull until he, while he continued to struggle for his life. During the trial, the teenage killers testified listening to Helter-Skelter over and over repeatedly for several hours before committing the murder. The prosecuting Attorney Jiuquan Conroy stated “it is really amazing that teenagers in Philadelphia Memorial Day weekend are attuned to the bull Helter Skelter mythology. It is a sad, it is a sad such myth of the twisted brutal legacy those murders have left behind such that it attracts 15, 16, 17-year-olds. Over 40 years later, 3000 miles across the country. It is a powerful legacy.” The current dangerousness of Robert Beausoleil and his crimes to society. The (inaudible) symbolic and cultural is current lethal and malignant. Regarding Lawrence, if any crime pertains to Lawrence, Robert Beausoleil offenses meet the rare, severe nature of the case. On a normal Sunday night, (inaudible) ambushed the safety of his home by three armed terrorists. When he thought to be friends and was forced to end date, and it was forced to endure two (inaudible) days of humiliation, extortion, torture, mutilation, stabbings, suffocation. Frankly, Commissioners, there are no words to express how horrifically Gary suffered. He suffered, suffered his slow death in these crimes. So, I asked, what is it like to have the whole side of your face slashed open? For the record, Gary's facial wound was five to six inches, a slash across the left side of his cheek severing his ear in half. That was committed by Mr. Manson, but it was while Gary was held hostage by Robert Beausoleil. What is it like to bleed profusely for days to be prevented from seeking medical aid as your flesh festers and expanded and effects. You have needles with dental floss sewn into your seven years with no, with no pain medication. Regarding suitability of parole, Commissioners you are tasked to ask Mr. Beausoleil, who were you then, who are you today, what's the difference. These are genuinely relevant questions, but I'm compelled to ask the same to he who was impacted most by Robert Beausoleil. Gary, who were you July 27th, 1969, who are you now, what's the difference of spending a peaceful Sunday evening to being assaulted by armed killers who gold you against your will, preparing you for mutilation, torture, suffocation that you will endure for several days? What's the difference of knowing that all your dreams as a musician would be obliterated by the man who killed you, all the while, while promoting himself on his websites as a musician, how does it feel to know that your killer was fit on your memory, informants your family for the world to see in rolling stone magazine, that was Gary. Robert Beausoleil and his Attorney assert that Mr. Beausoleil is a changed, rehabilitated individual. While the petitioner and his Attorney maintained he has changed, Gary Hinman remains unchanged, unrehabilitated, unparoled, and he will remain so for eternity. Just as Francis his mother is unchanged, unparoled. They are just dead today as the instant Robert Beausoleil sent them to their graves. Acknowledging Robert Beausoleil crimes, meet the Lawrence law on every level specific to profound gravity, the cruel and sadistic nature of his action, the unspeakable loss and suffering he caused, his lack of insight into the crimes, his minimization, and the permanent historical poisonous (inaudible) society even today, it is in the very least just that you deny parole the inmate Beausoleil for the longest period of time permitted by law. Thank you for your time. I apologize if I got (inaudible).


VICTIM’S FAMILY REPRESENTATIVE TATE: Yes. Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Counsel, uh, everything that our side has presented is absolutely true. So, to keep this short at the whim of everyone involved, first of all, for the record, I would like to make known that during Mr. DiMaria’s, uh, depiction and a victim's impact statement, the inmate was smirking, I saw that, I think everybody else saw that too, but so that's just for the record. In addition, I would like to address specifically the conditions which brought us back to this hearing in the first place. He was, uh, Bobby based on a glitch in the system took a writ to the honorable Judge, uh, Ryan, and in the, that public right to information document that I have. I'm just going to refer to the Judges. Judge Ryan's injunction reversal seems logical and legal. And he says, now, that there is a serious violation that constitutes a ground to deny parole as one he, he continues to deny its violation, two which minimization lacks insight and three, his lack of remorse making money off the victim's families and misery.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Where is that from?

VICTIM’S FAMILY REPRESENTATIVE TATE: Pardon? This is, this is included in Judge Ryan’s letter, his, his, okay? Superior Court of California, Judge Ryan's, uh, on the Haley's Corpus paper. Uh, in, uh, today's hearing, Mr. Bobby Beausoleil, uh, says that he honors Gary Hinman. Instead of guessing in his narcissistic way, what might honor Gary Hinman, perhaps he knows, needs to go to the very people who know Gary Hinman instead of guessing, because what he has done does not honor Mr. Hinman as depicted in previous hearings his publication with his previous wife, Sassy Bottoms which are beautiful artwork, very skillfully drawn pictures of children with their bare bottoms being spanked in redness. This doesn't honor anybody. Uh, in additional, in the past, although in the past, these are all personality factors that still exist today. And it's demonstrated in these hearing rooms. I don't believe that the world is being viewed as it is. I think it's the world as Bobby proceeds it through a narcissistic sociopathic view, point of view, and his very statements today depict that, it's all on the record, it's in my notes. He refers to my sister in a demeaning way, just so that the inmate knows Sharon is not viewed. You were crime partners. Names are pretty much erased through my good works and showing what kind of person she was, what her work ethic was. There's an entire generation of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of kids all over the world that (inaudible) Sharon, so, that's just, just so you know. The point being, these are all things that are available for him or his Counsel to look up if they want to be correct and view things as they are. Uh, Ms. Hinman, Mr. DiMaria and myself do all of our work to research both the good and the bad and the ugly from, from prior deeds. The works that Mr. Beausoleil is claiming as good works, I happen to disagree because it's based on once again, what he thinks Gary Hinman would have been become, instead of what Gary Hinman's family, people that know him best, no he would have become. And the point of all this is, is none of us will really know for sure, because Bobby Beausoleil took his life in a heinous and brutal fashion. I can rehash facts; I've got papers going back many years. I've been doing these hearings since 1998, represent multiple, uh, Manson family, uh, victims as family representatives have all the court transcripts know everything, but that's not what we're here to rehash. At the end of the day, through my contacts and going down all the rabbit holes, the funds that Ms. Martley and that Mr. DiMaria are referring to in depth. And I count to Bobby, who's the late productions, not rumbled fish, not Ms. Hall, Bobby Beausoleil production. And that's from licensing companies that have to get permission to put these things in the backgrounds of documentaries, et cetera, et cetera. They cannot put Netflix, Paramount, whatever can't put in the background of a documentary music if it doesn't go back to the license holder, they cannot get it from bootleggers as suggested today, it has to be licensed through a proper channel. And therefore, right up to this current time, he is misleading us, perhaps misleading himself, I don't know. But I would like the, uh, Commissioners to take all of this into consideration and deny Mr. Beausoleil a exit date. He, in my opinion, he needs more time to reflect on the actual facts and not the spin that has been created by so many people in the past. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Thank you. And with that, we're going to go into deliberations. The time is approximately 12:10 PM.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: May I get an opportunity to make a statement as well?


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: No, I did not (inaudible) one.


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I have not. No, I didn't speak nearly as long as Mr. DiMaria did, I deserve—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. We are gonna go into deliberations. The time is approximately—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: This is due process (inaudible), I deserve the opportunity to make a statement.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Sir, (inaudible) speak last and they have spoken, and we are now going—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: You have not given me the opportunity to make a, I have an organized statement that I need to make. I have a due process right, or my client's a due process right to have as an Attorney make a statement.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: You spoke for over 40 minutes—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: That is not accurate. I've not spoken nearly as long as the Victim's Next of Kin have just spoken with the concerns I had an argument—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: We don’t, sir, you can make a statement. I'm going to give them an opportunity to make a statement after that because they speak last.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Well. That's, that's fine. But the point is I have—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: You are gonna be kept to 10 minutes, you will be kept to 10 minutes (inaudible).

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: This is absolutely—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: You will be kept to 10 minutes. You spoken throughout the whole hearing, including interrupting, which is a violation of Marsy's law. You can speak for 10 minutes. Go ahead. Start now.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Commissioner, let me just explain, I have an obligation, I had an obligation to interrupt—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Your time starts now, use it for what you would like.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I have an obligation to interrupt during the hearing when something is being misstated—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: You have no right to interrupt the Victim’s Next of Kin per Marsy’s law and you know that.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I, the victim's Next of Kin, so—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. Your time is running, sir.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: The problem with this case, as it has been stated before, in 2005 Presiding Commissioner Former said, “there's always the question that can be raised on whether or not Mr. Beausoleil is being punished for what he did or for what other persons have done.” That's what this case today has turned into. The Victim’s Next of Kin, and I, I completely understand and sympathize with the hardship their families endure. And I do not in any mean, in any way mean to demean them as people or the suffering that they are, they and their family endured, but it is patently unfair to heap upon Mr. Beausoleil the crimes of the, the Manson family committed subsequent Mr. Beausoleil’s incarceration. I know there has been, there've been people who have speculated for many years that the subsequent murders, um, uh, Ms. Tate and the lobby (inaudible) were in some way related to Mr. Beausoleil attempt to do a copycat killing. No one has ever definitively proved that, no one knows it. And the point is, Mr. Beausoleil had no role in it. It's been constantly stated. And the parole Board has repeatedly acknowledged that Mr. Beausoleil was not responsible for those subsequent murders, and it should not be attributed to him. It would be equivalent to saying that every, every Crip who comes before the parole Board is responsible for the subsequent crimes the Crips commit. That's not the way the law works. So, what we're here to do today is decide whether Mr. Beausoleil, as he sits before us today, a 74-year-old man is currently dangerous. And I am absolutely positive that he is not, he has not been dangerous, when he first got the prison, 1969 to, to, you know, through the early to mid-70s, he was a dangerous man. I wouldn't have wanted to know him. I wasn't even alive then. I'm 44 years old now. That's how long he's been in custody. My mother was 11 years old at the time that he went into custody. We're talking generations now. And you know, for the last, uh, the last, um, several years we've had these hearings, I've been working with Mr. Beausoleil, you know, about 10 years. And just this last year, when he was diagnosed with cancer, it finally really dawned on me help you with these there may be left. And what in the time that Mr. Beausoleil has left to be in the world, at least one more time. He is not a dangerous man. You can read the letters from Randy Gear, who probably knows him better than anyone from the side of both the corrections officer, as well as a friend and as a victim of violent crime. And he sees the real person that Mr. Beausoleil is. And, you know, when you look at this recent, uh, this recent, Comprehensive Risk Assessment in which he was not interviewed, when people actually sit down and speak with Mr. Beausoleil, and they do so with an open mind to understanding, yes, here is a man who's killed another man, who committed a violent repugnant act that we all agree, everyone in this room agrees that what Mr. Beausoleil did was adherent, but that's Mr. Beausoleil, 54 years ago, 53 years ago, people do change. That's the entire purpose of having a parole system. And so, now what you, the Commissioners are tasked with determining is whether he is dangerous today. And I'll point out that from the same opinion that I can't find that the passage Ms. Tate you're reading from, and the same opinion that, uh, that you were reading from your, the, uh, Judge Ryan points out that while the commitment offense, uh, can be, you know, we, we all know that under Lawrence, the commitment offense cannot be considered be a basis for denying parole, absent some nexus to current dangerousness. And over time that diminishes and we're talking 54 years or 53 years now. And Mr. Beausoleil, won't be the first to tell you that what he did was a horrible, violent act that can never be fully atoned for. He doesn't expect to fully atone for it, he doesn't expect to, to be able to, to ever restore to the world what he took from it entirely, but he has tried. And he does that every day through his, his work in the prison, through his, uh, contributions, artistically and musically to others through his, I mean, the, the, the business issue which we've discussed is if he was out of prison, he would be applauded for, for putting his art and music out in the world and making meager sums we're at this $20,000 number that was thrown out there is ludicrous Mr. Beausoleil, the amount of money that he has made has been meager. It is not even enough to support him if he were to be released. And this is something we should be promoting for anyone that we expect to get out of prison. We should be, we should be satisfied when we see them making positive post social movements, which were living a life outside of prison. It's ironic that for decades, Mr. Beausoleil was making this music and art, and no one seemed to care. And only as he got closer and closer to actually being paroled, has it become an issue? And it only comes up at times when he is showing success, likelihood of success at parole, it came as always been that he sandbagged by it right before parole hearing. He got sandbagged by it when they first brought him back to California, sandbagged by it before the 2016 hearing, and sandbagged by it again on the morning of his hearing in 2020. It's, there is, and the evidence as I've already shown was identical at both hearings that he has not created any new art or music and sold it. He, it, whether he, whether he's in violation of the rules or not the point is he believed he had a good faith basis to continue doing and I advised him so. I gave him that advice and maybe I'm wrong, but I'm, I feel very confident that if this were to go to court, that it would be upheld that my, my reading of these statutes will be upheld. The statutes are very clear that he needs the institution had to, to get permission, to, to engage, engage in violence. The statutes are clear that inmates are allowed to sell their personal property, including their creative works. There's absolutely no doubt about that, unless there is some, uh, unless there there's some (inaudible) logical interest that compels the government to shut them down. They are allowed to convey their art and music and their creative uh, products. And there is no (inaudible) interest other than being a prisoner, which isn't sufficient. That'd be something else. It'd be one thing if Mr. Beausoleil was making a music or art that had a negative message, that it supported violence, that it promoted Charles Manson or something like that, that would be justified, but that's not what we have here. We have music and art that is positive. That helps people that he gets, he receives responses back from people saying how much he is that they've benefited from his music and his art.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay, sir, it's been 10 minutes. Um, I'll ask you for your final recommendation, then I'm going to go around the Victim's Next of Kin. They have a right to speak last. Do you have a final statement?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Just that, as I said, Mr. Beausoleil has not been dangerous for many decades. I implore this release, this Panel to please let him out before it’s too late.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Fair enough, Ms. Hinman did you want to add anything?

VICTIM’S COUSIN MARTLEY: Yes. Uh, I appreciate that Commissioners. I believe Mr. Campbell has been rude and abrasive to all of us.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: That was my fault. I took his, uh, questioning, his lengthy questioning for his closing. That that was my fault. I didn't come back around to him.

VICTIM’S COUSIN MARTLEY: All right. I really appreciate it. Cause you, I think have done an excellent job. So, uh, on August 6th, Bobby Beausoleil was arrested. On August 9th. The Tate murders were committed. The only reason he wasn't part of the Manson groups was because he was locked up. So, he's a psychopath, psychopaths don’t change. Okay. Why does he need a website? Why does he need a trust fund? Art and music has always been an issue here. Uh, I fail to understand why he has to have a website. Why has he have to have a business, and nobody is watching after that and I'm depending on the California system to do it for me. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Thank you. Mr. DiMaria, do you want to add something?

VICTIM’S FAMILY REPRESENTATIVE DIMARIA: Thank you, Commissioners. Um, yes, and I do appreciate, uh, everything. Um, first I just want to say the entirety of these murders were committed collectively as a crime organization. None of these crimes occurred randomly, just quickly, but ultimately, uh, you both have the materials and what you need, uh, to reference. But I just, I guess, from an outside place, there's four of us in this hearing today that this is very painful, uh, difficult waters. And I'd be remiss if I didn't say I understand that the heatedness and I appreciate actually what everyone's doing because they do what they have to do, but I do, I'd be remiss if I didn't say that, I feel a great sense of sorrow for the four of us who really have been impacted by these crimes. And I include in among the four is Mr. Beausoleil himself. And that's all. Thank you.


VICTIM’S FAMILY REPRESENTATIVE TATE: Yes. I'm going back to the papers stacked in front of me, which it, which is brought us here now that there is a serious violation that constitutes a ground to deny parole as one, he continues to deny it's a violation Counsel and Mr. Beausoleil demonstrated that again today. Two minimization and lacks insight into the crime. Also demonstrated again, in my opinion here today, as well as the 2020, uh, uh, hearing, um, and three, his lack of remorse or making money off the victim's families as, as misery of which our misery is astonishing. This, this failure to follow rules in prison demonstrates he has a current and reasonable risk to safety if he can't follow these straightforward rules in prison, how can he be trusted to follow the rules in a free society? Bobby Beausoleil’s latest violation RVR dated June 30th, 2020, log number 70120494, unauthorized business dealings in violation of section 3024. Now, I'm going through this because there's thousands of people that read these transcripts that I have to answer to in the public, so, here you go folks, California code of regulations, CDCR Panel and Panel code does not allow the inmate to actively engage in a business for self-profit, CDCR 3024 states “inmate shall not engage actively in a business,” and as the Commissioner stated, the word or profession, except as authorized by institution had or as provided in section 3104, inmate handcraft sales. And that's, that's the end of the story as far as I'm concerned. I would like to stand on the issues that brought us back here in such a short period of time and involve ourselves in the hearing which clearly in my opinion, both Counsel and inmate have once again, bend the rules of dignified conduct in front of Commissioners in, in this is the same as a court hearing with, with a blatant disregard to the others in the room. And that's the end of my statement. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Thank you. Okay, now we are going to go onto deliberations. The time is approximately 12:25 PM. We will return at 1:00 PM. Off record, please.




DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We are back on the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Thank you. The time is approximately 1:00 PM. All parties previously identified have returned for the reading of the decision in the matter of Robert Beausoleil, B, number, 28302, controlling offense of murder first, sentence imposed seven to life. The victim in this case is Gary Hinman, H-I-N-M-A-N. Per case records, the inmate does qualify as a youthful offender pursuant to Penal Code section 3051, therefore, the Panel as required, assigned great weight to the diminished culpability of juveniles as compared to adults, to the hallmark features of youth and to subsequent growth and maturity of the prisoner during incarceration. The inmate also qualifies as elder parole; therefore, the Panel did give special consideration to age, long-term confinement, and diminished physical condition when determining parole suitability. In determining whether the inmate poses an unreasonable current risk to public safety, we considered the prior transcript, the Comprehensive Risk Assessment, Electronic Central File, additional documents submitted, letters and responses received, testimony presented at the hearing by the inmate, as well as the input of the Victim’s Next of kin, and her representatives, and prisoner’s Attorney. The Panel concluded that the aggravating factors do continue to outweigh the mitigating factors at this time, and concluding that the inmate is not suitable for parole and does pose an unreasonable current risk of danger if released. Sir, in considering the entire record, the Panel determined there is a rational nexus between the evidence and the ultimate determination of current dangerousness. This wasn't a particularly easy decision for this Panel. There are a lot of things to be taken into consideration. The primary consideration of course, is the recent 115, um, and your medical conditions. So, we had to balance and we had to weigh and it just weighs, um, for us that the continued negative behavior outweighs, um, the positive behavior of which you have quite a bit. Uh, social history, we found to be aggravating. And as much as your social history and anti-social history, you chose negative peers, you participated in the use of drugs as well as possessing gang mentality, and when I say that, I'm talking about wanting to hang out with groups of people that are, uh, negatively minded, and in this case, violent. You found violence appealing by your own admission, this began at an earlier age. Um, as far as your self-control mental state leading up to when at the time of the life crime, we also found that to be aggravating, you were associating with those that were engaged in criminality, substance abuse, and violence. You failed to consider or even care about the consequences for your victims. You responded to the desire to be part of those types of groups that led to very poor decision-making resulting in the commission of the commitment offense, where, which is also aggravating. Uh, your actions were then, and are now deemed to be cruel, hateful, thoughtless, senseless, and greedy. Uh, you beat, held hostage, and ultimately stabbed and killed Mr. Hinman during, uh, alleged robbery. He resulted in his death. The motive was apparently financial gain, as well as following orders. The crime was carried out in a manner showing a disregard for human life and the suffering of others. It was dispassionate and certainly calculated. You were in a position of trust with that man. Uh, you were supposed to be his friend, uh, and you admit today during the hearing that you were his friend and you considered him a friend. The victim was defiled, um, showing the (inaudible) would be on the part of you and your crime partners. The Panel recognizes that the above factors are static and unchanging, and we took that into consideration. So, moving on to dynamic factors, we find your programming to be mitigating, you have participated in relevant, um, programming that has been relevant to your past character defects and concerns, you've participated in self-help programming which has assisted you in identification of character defects and has helped you to gain tools and coping skills to address substance abuse defects, um, which will help in turn for you to avoid repeating past mistakes or resorting to old bad habits. Um, unfortunately, we find the disciplinary at this point to be aggravating leaning toward neutral, but you do have a recent 115, um, in 2020. And the part that concerns us is we, we acknowledge, first of all, that there was confusion. You were given different signals, but you've been in prison a very long time to not know where to go, to have something clarified and not to go somewhere to have it clarified before doing it. And the 115 was for financial gain, as well as the commitment offense. And even though you may not be selling for profit now, um, this Panel believes that you're still generating revenue. And certainly, the exposure on your website is of commercial benefit to you. Any type of exposure of that kind is of benefit. So, we're concerned that the same motivation that financial gain that you were robbing Mr. Hinman for is still, um, part of your personality and part of what you motivated, motivates you to act. Um, as far as the offender change area, we found that to be neutral. Um, I would say that years ago it was probably mitigating, but based on the recency of the 115, um, we've moved it into the neutral area, many of the issues that you have, the drugs, the violence, the gang mentality that you have in the past no longer remains, and we recognize that. You've received Laudatory Chronos from staff for your positive behavior, attitude, characters, and acts. You've upgraded educationally, you've received marketable skills with vocation and through your work assignments. Um, you've given back in the sense that you've helped others. Uh, you don't minimize or blame others for your actions, you take responsibility, you express remorse and shame indicating that you probably do understand the nature and magnitude of the offense that you committed. But the self-control part of the change is still of some concern to this Panel in regards to obviously the 115 and the business dealings, um, you know, it was a big dream for you and you made it clear in a lot of the documents, uh, that your dream in the community was for your music and your art to be in the public. And apparently that dream continued and you were willing to violate rules in order to have the music and your art in the public eye. Um, it's clear from the, uh, DRB, the Departmental Review Board action in 2015 that you did know that California was not okay with your business dealings. It indicates that due to violations of CDCR California code of regulations, title 15, section 3024 business dealings by the inmate for profit, um, Beausoleil, and also based on lack of family visitations and family deaths, and the Board of Parole Hearings decision to postpone suitability pending resolution. And that's back in 2015. So, you knew that you needed to be, make it very clear, um, before you did any kind of business dealings, and you should have done that, um, for your own protection, and have it in writing. Um, we do believe that you have an adequate understanding of the connection between your criminal attitudes and your choices that lead to criminality and ultimately to the commitment offense demonstrating that you have explored what's needed in these areas, and your present mental states in those areas is not the same as what it was in the community. Uh, we found the minimization and blame again to be, uh, mitigating. You don't minimize or blame. We didn't find your credibility, we found that again to be neutral leaning toward aggravating based on the testimony today did not seem completely forthright and genuine throughout the hearing. We believe that you knew what you were doing was, uh, walking on the line, if not over the line. And we acknowledge again that there was an unclear info, but based on the fact that you've been in prison for I believe 53 years of this point, it would seem clear to you that you need to clarify everything you do, especially, a large scale. We found your release plans to be mitigating. You have very good Parole Plans. You have a lot of support in the community with family and friends, job offers. Um, that doesn't seem to be any issue. We also found your relapse prevention plans to be mitigating. You have plans that include identification of resources that will help you with transitions, such as transitional housing, a sponsor for substance abuse. Again, we additional findings, we do obviously find the youth offender factors to be mitigating as well as the elder offender factors. You're presently 74 years old. You've been in prison for 53 years, and you do have name, numerous medical conditions and some major medical conditions. As far as youth offender factors, we acknowledged that you were 21, adolescent brains are not yet fully mature and, I'm sorry, and regions and systems related to higher order functioning and making decisions. The Panel, um, did review the confidential, did not rely on any confidential information in reaching our decision today. We did also review the Comprehensive Risk Assessment authored by Dr. Montgomery, M-O-N-T-G-O-M-E-R-Y which did take into consideration, um, both juvenile youthful and elder parole considerations, concluded you presently represent a low risk to the community. If you'll turn your attention to the Deputy Commissioner, he may have something to add.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, I completely agree. Um, and I did want to command the inmate for his activities within the institution and video production over many years in his recent work in recreation program, I hope he is not discouraged and he continues to do positive things within the institutions. Um, his Parole Plans look rather good. He had jobs lined up, housing lined up, support network, so, that looks good. So, there are some things that you have done Mr. Beausoleil which, uh, which are good, but you had, um, oh, I guess (inaudible) with this rules violation and the thinking and behavior behind that, which we would probably term criminal thinking. You might want to take some classes in that that would look good to another Board to see classes in criminal thinking, um, your understanding of the 12 steps wasn't as good as it could be. So, you might want to go back and look at that and review that. Similarly, your understanding of violence avoidance seemed to be, uh, somewhat esoteric. There's some, uh, well known methods to avoid violence or potentially violent situations, which might be worth reviewing. But the main problem is the criminal thinking kind of rules violation. Uh, so, just going forward, um, perhaps you could, uh, obey the rules within the institution and, um, things will work out better for you. So, with that, I'll give it back to Commissioner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Thank you. Sir, there's no pleasure in denying somebody your age that's been in prison for the length of time that you've been in. Um, you need to really do your research on, um, if you, if you're really confused about something that you need to make sure that you, um, check with the prison, uh, I appreciate that you checked with your Attorney and I appreciate that your Attorney probably thought he was giving you the right advice, maybe, but you have to recognize that Attorneys all interpret things differently, and you need the interpretation of the prison of CDCR when you're making decisions to do something. It doesn't necessarily mean that the Attorney gave bad advice. It's just maybe the Attorney interpreted it differently than the department would. And it's important that you go by how the department interprets things that's really important for you. I agree with Mr. DiMaria that you are included in one of the four people present today that have been really dramatically, um, hurt by the events. Uh, and I think it was kind of him to include you but I think it's absolutely true. With that, the last thing we look at is the length of denial. We first looked at 15, 10, determine there's clear and convincing evidence present that an earlier date is appropriate. Um, you don't have a history of assaultive behavior as a juvenile. You do have remorse. You are at an increasing age, obviously, which does reduce the probability of recidivism. Uh, you have realistic plans for release. You have participated in a lot of institutional activities, including activities that were giving back to others. Uh, we then looked at 7, 5, 3 based on the above, as well as the youth offender considerations and elder parole special consideration, your next parole hearing will be scheduled in three years' time. All three-year denials are reviewed in an administrative review process, you're hearing maybe advanced during that process. You can also request an earlier hearing than the denial period we issued today provided there's been a change of circumstance or new information that establishes a reasonable likelihood that you don't need additional incarceration. It's called a petition to advance. It's found on a BPH 1045 form. Your Counselor can have that available. With that, I want to thank everybody for their participation. That will conclude the hearing. The time is approximately 1:15 PM. We'll go off record. Thank you. Good luck to you, sir.



Parole Denied Three Years