SUBSEQUENT PAROLE CONSIDERATION HEARING

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS

In the matter of the Life Term Parole Consideration Hearing of:

BRUCE DAVIS

CDC Number: B-41079

CALIFORNIA MEN'S COLONY

SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA

JANUARY 28, 2010

8:55 A.M.

PANEL PRESENT:

ROBERT DOYLE, Presiding Commissioner

BOOKER WELCH, Deputy Commissioner

OTHERS PRESENT:

BRUCE DAVIS, Inmate

MICHAEL BECKMAN, Attorney for Inmate

PATRICK SEQUEIRA, Deputy District Attorney

ALEXIS DELAGARZA, Deputy District Attorney, Observer

PROCEEDINGS

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: The time is about 8:55. This is a Subsequent Parole Consideration Hearing for Bruce Davis, CDC number B-41079. Today's date is January 28th, 2010. We're located at CMC. Mr. Davis was received on April 21st, 1972, from Los Angeles County. The controlling offense for which he has been committed is murder in the first degree, case A267861, two counts of 187 of the Penal Code with additional counts of conspiracy to commit murder and robbery. Minimum eligible parole date 12/1/1977. This hearing is being recorded. For purposes of voice identification, each of us will state our first and our last name, spelling our last name. Mr. Davis, after spelling your last name, please give me your CDC number. I'll start and go to my right. Robert Doyle, D-O-Y-L-E, Commissioner.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Booker Welch, W-E-L-C-H, Deputy Commissioner.

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

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY DELAGARZA: Alexis DelaGarza, D-E-L-A-G-A-R-Z-A, Deputy District Attorney, Los Angeles County.

INMATE DAVIS: Bruce Davis, B-41079, D-A-V-I-S.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Michael Beckman, B-E-C-K-M-A-N, Attorney for Mr. Davis.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: It should be noted that Ms. DelaGarza is an observer in this hearing. Also there are two correctional peace officers present in the room for security purposes only and are not participating in today's hearing.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Commissioner, can Mr. Davis get some water?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Sure. Sure. Got it? Mr. Davis, I've had an opportunity to review the DEC system, also your BPH 1073 form. You signed that form on 10/30/2009, indicating any disabilities that you might have. It does state that you wear eyeglasses. I see that you have your glasses on.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: They work okay for you?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, they do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: All right.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I'll stipulate that there's no ADA issues, Commissioners.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: All right. That's good. And it looks like you're in pretty good shape here. Also you signed your BPT 1002 form on that same date. It has to do with your hearing rights and the hearing procedure. I know Mr. Beckman has gone over that with you. Do you have any questions about that at all?

INMATE DAVIS: No, Sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: All right. Mr. Beckman, do you agree that his rights have been met as it pertains to these issues? rights.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Not as --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: These two issues?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Not as to his pre-hearing

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: The two issues.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yeah. As to his ADA rights, yes. As to --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: The ADA and the BPT 1002 form.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Yes. Thank you. All right, at this time I will pass to Mr. Beckman the parole consideration checklist marked Exhibit 1 and then that document on to the District Attorney to ensure that we're all working off the same set of documents.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: It appears that we have all the documents.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Thank you, Sir. Could you hand that to the DA, please.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I've received the documents as well, thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Davis, we've had an opportunity to take a look at your C-File or C-Files, I should say, and prior transcripts. And you'll have an opportunity to correct, if you so desire, the record as we proceed today. As you know, nothing that happens here today is going to change the findings of the court. We're not here to retry your case. We're here for the sole purpose to determine your parole suitability. Do you understand that, Sir?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir, I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Okay. And, Counsel, do you have any preliminary objections?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yes, I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I thought you might.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: First, as a general objection that the Governor and the Board's policy that parole is the exception rather than the rule violates Penal Code Section 3041(a), which provides that parole should normally be granted to a life term Inmate unless the Board determines that he poses a present risk to public safety. That means that parole is the rule not the exception. This rule is violated in many ways. First of all, by the Governor's violation of Penal Code Section 5075 in appointing Commissioners in violation of the cross section of Californians requirement. It is violated by the fact that the grant rate should be 50 percent or higher, but it is over the last five or six years been well below 10 percent. Further, this Board and the Governor -- and I'm not speaking specifically to this Panel, I'm talking about the Board and its supervisory staff, have violated Mr. Davis' rights in particular in several ways. First by giving him 23 consecutive one year denials when it has been patently clear that he is eligible for parole and suitable for parole. And second over the last two years by colluding with the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office to ensure that their designated Manson hit man is here for the hearing in violation of my client's rights. This hearing was scheduled to be held on September 9th, 2009. I was requested several months before to move it because Mr. Sequeira was not available that date. I was lied to as to the reason. I was told that no District Attorney from L.A. was available for that date, which I knew to be false since I had another hearing that day here and it was an L.A. DA assigned to it, and no one requested that that or the eight other L.A. District Attorney cases scheduled for those three days were going to be canceled. Then the Board's attorney contacted me and requested that the hearing be scheduled for August 20th, and they were going to move Mr. Davis from here to Cal State Prison in Solano, 267 miles each way, in order to accommodate Mr. Sequeira. I told the attorney I was not available on that date. They scheduled it for that date anyway. It was only when I told them I would not show up no matter what that they then said they would contact me in the following week and reschedule the hearing. They did not contact me for six weeks. And when they did by telephone call, Mr. Sequeira was attending the telephone call. Now, the rules are clear that the District Attorney is entitled to notice of the hearing and has the right, if it chooses, to send a representative. They do not have the right to send a specific representative. And certainly the Board has no right to move a hearing to accommodate a particular L.A. District Attorney especially when there are plenty available to do the hearing. So my client's hearing has been postponed basically for five months, and that has violated his rights. The sum evidence standard is inappropriate to parole hearings. It violates my client's protected liberty interest in parole. The Board's use of the official version of the life crime from the -- or the so-called official version of the life crime from the Appellate record or the probation officer's report as a basis for finding that the Inmate is minimizing his role or not respecting -- accepting responsibility for it or lacks insight violates my client's protected liberty interest in parole because per Title 15, the Board is required to accept the facts of Mr. Davis' conviction as true. That does not mean the Board must accept every fact underlying the conviction as true. The only official fact is that he was convicted of these crimes. There is no such thing as an official version of the life crime. The Appellate opinion as a matter of law sets forth the facts in the light most favorable to the conviction. That does not mean that each and every fact set forth is true and official. The same holds true for the probation officer's report. The probation officer is not a judge or a lawyer. He or she merely sets forth a summary of the crime culled together from police reports, statements, and snippets of trial testimony. It contains primarily hearsay and unsworn statements. It is not meant to be an official version of the crime and often contains serious inaccuracies. To the extent that the Board intends to use one or both of these so-called official versions of the crime and then assert as basis for denial that if there are any differences between my client's version and these versions, constitutes minimizing his role in the crime, failing to accept full responsibility for the crime, or that he lacks full insight into the crime, it will be violating his due process rights and protected liberty interest in parole by basing these decisions upon information that is neither official nor accurate. Now I have three objections to Proposition 9. One, application of Proposition 9's parole denial period and changes to the rights of victims and victims' next-of-kin at parole consideration hearings to life term Inmates convicted and/or incarcerated prior to its effective date violates the ex post facto clauses of the California and United States Constitutions. Because, as applied to this Inmate's sentence, Proposition 9 creates both a significant risk of increasing his punishment and the certainty of increasing the period between parole hearings. As I said before, Mr. Davis has been denied parole one year, 23 times in a row. If he is denied again today, the minimum denial is three years. Two, requiring an Inmate deemed unsuitable for parole to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the denial should be less than 15, ten, or seven years, violates Mr. Davis' due process rights and protected liberty interest in parole guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and its California counterpart. And three, Proposition 9 was passed in large part based upon false and misleading statements concerning Mr. Davis in particular. And therefore it must be struck down and not applied as to him. Title 15, Section 2030, sets forth the District Attorney's role at this hearing. The District Attorney may offer an opinion regarding the Inmate's suitability and may ask clarifying questions of the Panel. That's it. The District Attorney does not have a right to question my client directly or indirectly. It may not give this Panel legal advice, object to anything I say or introduce. Now, Mr. Davis does want to cooperate so we are prepared to answer some questions from the District Attorney provided that they are true clarifying questions and are based upon the record. And the final objection is that Mr. Davis was incarcerated and the crimes were committed prior to the institution of the ISL. He therefore should have this hearing judged under the DSL and the standards for suitability determined under the DSL. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Those objections are so noted for the record.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Before we continue on, just for the record I want to caution all parties. My expectation is that this hearing be ran professionally. And my expectation is that we don't have any name calling. That we conduct ourselves in a manner that is being professional. This is Mr. Davis' hearing. And it is certainly not in his best interest to have that kind of behavior occur. I'm not saying that it is. I'm just cautioning all parties about that. Everybody here understands what the rules and regulations are and the processes and my expectation is that we all conduct ourselves in a proper manner. Commissioner, do we have any confidential information that we're going to be using?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: None to be used.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Okay. Very good. And we did get some additional documents on behalf of Mr. Davis. Do we have any other additional documents to put forth on his behalf?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: It just depends on whether you've received certain chronos or not.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Well, go ahead and give them to us, and if we have, then we have.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: If we haven't, then we got them.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yes, I'll need those back for my closing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Okay, we'll give those back to you. All right, thank you.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: And I don't think I have any additional, but I'll reserve the right in case --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Okay.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: -- something comes up.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Very good. And is Mr. Davis going to be speaking with the Panel today?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yes, he will. He'll not be discussing the facts of the crime.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Of the life crime.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: He'll be discussing all other matters.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Mr. Davis, please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you give in this hearing will be the truth and nothing but the truth?

INMATE DAVIS: I affirm. I shall tell the truth.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Thank you, Sir. Mr. Davis, why do you think -- and I'm not going to sit here and read your personal factors. I think you -- You know, I've digested your background. But I had some questions as it relates to why do you think you -- I realize it states in the record, you know, your dad was an alcoholic. Why do you think he was abusive towards you?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, my Daddy and I had two things in common. We were both raised by fathers who were abusive and violent and demanding. His father, he learned to be a father from his father. And that's how he taught me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Now, was he abusive towards your sister?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, he was.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Same? I mean, you guys were pretty much on an even keel there?

INMATE DAVIS: Not physically toward her as much. You'll read a letter from her talking about this.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Yeah. All right.

INMATE DAVIS: And from the beginning, I'd like to say that my father and my relationship is not an excuse in any way for the decisions I freely made.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I'm just trying to understand, you know, because, I mean, you're saying that it was -- appears in your opinion to be learned behavior. That he learned from his father and passed down, okay? I was just curious as to whether, I mean, he just did that as a general practice I think I read. Did you ever see him physically abuse your mother?

INMATE DAVIS: No, Sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Right.

INMATE DAVIS: Only verbally.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Yeah.

INMATE DAVIS: You know, he was very intimidated by her.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: So you wouldn't -- It wasn't a situation where you had to be doing anything that may have been, you know, not to his liking to get a beating.

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I found out later, later in life that I was in a power struggle between my mother and my father. And since he was -- he outweighed her by a hundred and so pounds, but he was very -- he would not do anything to her physically. And when she would -- When they were having an argument or a disagreement or a conflict, his way of getting back at her was to get back at me. Because she would take her attention from him and give it to me. And I became in the middle of their power struggle.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: You became a focal point for them.

INMATE DAVIS: And I didn't know that. I didn't understand what was happening.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: It makes sense. Okay. Now how is your relationship with your sister today?

INMATE DAVIS: My relationship with my sister is very good.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Commissioner, before we move on, I'd like to -- I forgot, I'd like to have these documents that we introduced marked as exhibits.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: All right.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: So, "My Role and Responsibility in the Crimes" I'd like to have marked as Exhibit 2.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Got it.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: The letter to Donald Shea as Exhibit 3. Actually the family of Donald Shea is Exhibit 3. The letter to the family of Gary Hinman as Exhibit 4.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Okay.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: And the Declaration of Richard Kelly as Exhibit 5. I would request they be appended to the transcript when it's put together.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Okay. Got it.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Thank you, Commissioner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Now your wife, she lives close by; is that correct?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: So you get regular visits from her and your daughter?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Now, I was curious as to why you left school or you lost interest in school. You were about 19 according to the record at the time; is that correct?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I was. Why I lost interest? I never really had a lot of interest in it. I went -- I started at the University of Tennessee because everybody was doing it. I was sort of -- I felt like I was expected to go. I didn't really have an interest in it. And when you look at my transcript, you can see that I passed 45 percent of the courses I took. So you can see it was a fairly waste of time.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Well, was it a waste of time or you were just -- your focus was somewhere else? Like maybe partying or?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I had my moments. But I wasn't interested in school really. If it came to courses that were fairly easy, reading courses, I could get through okay. And the record reflects and my transcript the kind of -- the courses I took and all my grades; right? I figured out I had a 1.45 average or something like that. So that was that. I would just go and -- I'd go to my classes most of the time. I was very lackadaisical about it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Yeah.

INMATE DAVIS: There was a lot of conflict in the family. My dad didn't want to send me. I don't blame him now. And it was just a very on and off --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Why didn't he want to send you? He didn't want to pay the money?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, you know, well, yeah. He was, my sister was going to talk about that. He was against it. And it's hard to believe now but a whole quarter only cost 125 dollars.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Yeah.

INMATE DAVIS: In 1961. And, but he was not for it. And he wasn't -- He didn't want to support me in that. He always supported -- He gave me plenty of support materially, but.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Yeah.

INMATE DAVIS: He was very upset about it. And this was part of his and my mother's struggle, I believe.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Now the record indicates that you had, at 12 and 13, you had some pretty or what would appear to be some pretty traumatic experiences that occurred to you having been sodomized and then raped by an English teacher. Looking back on that, how did you deal with that and how did you see that impacting you when you look back on that?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I had -- Because of the rejection I felt, I felt cursed from my father. The language he used toward me. I had a low resistance. I felt myself to be the person he called me, "That Goddamned boy. Goddamn you." He'd curse me. A matter of course. I felt pushed out of his life, and so I began to medicate myself with food, entertainment, sexual gratification, and then when I was first molested, I hardly gave passive, just passive resistance. I didn't know how to say no to a man. I couldn't say, I never learned. And I minimized it to myself. I said, well, that happened. I was too ashamed to tell anybody. And in that time, I was afraid to talk about it. When it happened again in the eighth grade, it was the same thing. I minimized the impact. I explained it to myself, well, and you know, I didn't really explain it like in a really cognitive way, but I had absorbed the self-identity that I was less than. I was not worthy of my father's presence. I was not worthy of his love. I was not worthy of him. I was just something that was a bad thing in his life. And so I dealt with it. I see now I handled the self-reproach, the shame, I did it passively. In other words, I denied its importance. I didn't tell anybody. I denied my own personal dignity, my own personal value, and I accepted that I was accursed and just a less than person. And I had accepted that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: All right. Anything else about your personal background that's not in the record that you want to share or you want to make sure we know about.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I mean, there's a lot here, but, and it's been talked about over the years.

INMATE DAVIS: Well, it has been talked about and I believe the record deserves a clear -- as clear a picture as I can give. If we could read the letter from Judy Ward, my sister, it would help to clarify the details of my home life.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: You know, I believe I've read that

INMATE DAVIS: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: And, you know, we'll revisit it during deliberations.

INMATE DAVIS: Okay. And I just want to say that the one thing I always appreciated about my dad, he taught me to weld. And he taught me to work with metal. And I --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: He was a welder too?

INMATE DAVIS: He was a welder and a very good one and a skilled man. And I thank him for his patience and his skill as an artisan that he taught me, and it always made me have a way to have a good job. And so that was a great thing. But the turning points, the turning points in my life that I understand as I look back to 40 years since this crime and 50 years since all this began, when I first stood up to my dad, I remember it like yesterday. And I was about 13 years old. This was about 1955. And I was too small to confront him actively in my anger, so it became passive. And my passive anger came out, and I don't care about you. And I'll never let you hurt me again. And so, as a result, I divorced him, and I moved away in my heart. And so I tried to stay out of his striking range physically. And so my result was very passive. I tried to be distant from him. And that only made the situation worse from his side. He didn't respond well to that. But I controlled all this by just being angry in a passive way. I began to, as I said, to medicate myself.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Well, let's move on to your prior convictions, which you really -- other than this -- you had a lot of contacts with law enforcement as an adult. The record would indicate you had no juvenile record. And it kind of coincides with your personal background I think kind of, you know, in some things that were going on with your life it looks like where, you know, you had some contacts for stuff. But really, you were never convicted on any of these contacts. And maybe this fraudulently obtaining a firearm by giving a false identification to a firearms dealer, but I think that detainer was released according to the record.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: So.

INMATE DAVIS: I was found guilty for it, and I did the time.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Yeah, okay.

INMATE DAVIS: The contact with the law that was the biggest turning point in my life, in 1958, the first time I ever got arrested, I had been taking drugs pretty seriously from 1965 until 1968. I was still working, but they had become the thing that made me feel normal.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: And predominately that was?

INMATE DAVIS: Marijuana, LSD.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Marijuana, yeah.

INMATE DAVIS: Psychedelic drugs. But the drug lifestyle and the people I ended up associating with led me to ten days in L.A. County jail. My maiden voyage in jail was 10 days in Los Angeles County. I had never been in jail before. I was shocked at the things I saw and heard. I can't -- I was exposed to stuff at that point that I didn't -- I would have never guessed existed. So I knew that I was not guilty of possession of drugs, and that's what I had been arrested on. And I knew the officer knew that I wasn't. That's how I felt. Because I wasn't. Now the truth was, I was trying to buy some, but I hadn't. But anyway, I spent ten days in jail. My car got impounded. I was out of work. A lot of things were happening. And I got -- I treated this incident the way I treated a lot of other things in my life through rejection the same way. The rejection and the cursing. I just divorced myself from that. But every time that would happen, I would go to the next default level below, and it was just going down and down. So I said I'll never be a part of the establishment. I'll be like Timothy Leary said, I'll drop out. And that was the background of the '60s that I was in. And so I quit. I quit work. I stayed on unemployment that I was on at the time. I nearly lost my -- I thought I was going to lose my car for this. I was so naïve that when I left the jail, they turned me loose at 11 o'clock at night after dropping the charges, I asked the officer if I could get a ride to Malibu. He looked at me like I must be crazy. I was naïve. I thought he was there to help. I hadn't done anything wrong. I was expecting an apology, but I didn't get it. And I really was hurt. I mean, I was very naïve about what to expect. So I decided to be a counterculture dropout and an outlaw. That opened me up. And when I met Manson, I was wide open for that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Yeah, pretty susceptible.

INMATE DAVIS: I was. And he showed me his Dr. Jekyll side. And it was -- He showed me what I thought I wanted.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Yeah. All right. I'm going to just briefly, I'll read this. We'll go ahead and incorporate by reference Appellate document, the entire Appellate document for the record, and I'll just quickly read the two counts from the '05 Board report. They're on pages 1 and 2. "Victim Gary Hinman's body was found in a decomposed state in the living room on his home at 964 Topanga Road in Topanga on July 31st of '69. He had last been scene alive on July 25th of 1969 driving a Fiat station wagon. The autopsy revealed that a stab wound to the chest which penetrated his heart and killed the victim. Autopsy further revealed that he had suffered other wounds including a stab wound to the area of the chest, a gash on the top of his head, a gash behind his right ear, and lacerations on the left side of his face, which cut off part of his ear and cheek. Inmate Davis was one of the group of crime partners involved in the murder of the victim. Victim Hinman was kept a prisoner in his home for two days during which time he was stabbed and dubbed before finally -- or excuse me, clubbed before finally being put to death. In count two, Victim Donald Shea was reported missing. An investigation revealed that sometime between August 15th and September 1st of 1969, Inmate Davis and his crime partners murdered the victim and buried his body near or on -- in or near the Spahn Ranch. The victim worked at the Spahn Ranch as a ranch hand while Inmate Davis and his crime partners were living there. Intensive investigation failed to produce a body of the victim. However, Steven Grogan, one of the crime partners, furnished information to law enforcement as to the location of the victim's body. The body was recovered, and Victim Shea was stabbed repeatedly until his death." I'm going to go ahead and read, I know you're not going to talk about the crime, I'm going to go ahead and read from the 2005 Board report your version. And then I'm going to put on the record Exhibit 2, your latest document here as to your role and responsibilities for the crime.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: If you want, Mr. Davis will read that into the record and save your voice. If that's easier.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: No, I'll go ahead and read it.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: All right. "According to Inmate Davis, he had been living," I think this is supposed to be life. In the document it says lift. "A life that was geared towards drugs and sex. He was frequently intoxicated with hallucinogenic substances for much of his association with Charles Manson. Manson began preaching about death and destruction. The Family began adopting a survivalist lifestyle. Drugs, free sex, poor hygiene, thievery, and begging were also promoted. Davis stated that he was unable to make good decisions due to unmet needs. He stated he was trying anything he could to meet those needs, and that he was looking for acceptance and friendship from Charles Manson and others within the group. Davis said that he pursued pleasures of the flesh. As long as he received those pleasures of the flesh, he felt he was doing the right thing. In June or July of 1969, Charlie -- Charles Manson asked Davis to drive several Family members to the Hinman house. Davis delivered Mary Brunner, Robert Beausoleil."

INMATE DAVIS: Beausoleil.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: How do you say it?

INMATE DAVIS: Beausoleil.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Beausoleil. "Robert Beausoleil, and Susan Atkins to the Hinman residence and then returned to the Spahn Ranch. After a couple of days, Manson received a call from one of the Family members at Gary Hinman's house. The Family member said, 'Gary isn't cooperating.' Davis claims he didn't understand what this was about. During the interview, Davis stated, 'What I did understand was that they went there to rob Gary Hinman. They thought that he had money, but he didn't.' Manson then asked Davis to drive him back to the Hinman residence. When Davis entered the house, Robert Beausoleil," however you say it, "was holding Hinman at gunpoint. Davis asked for the gun which Beausoleil handed to him. Davis states that he had the gun in his possession but did not have it pointed at Hinman as stated in the 1996 Board report. While Davis was standing there with the gun, Manson sliced Hinman's ear. Davis later took one of Hinman's cars back to the ranch but claims, 'Gary was very much alive the last time that I saw him.' Sometime in August 1969, Manson decided that Donald Shea was a police informant in the Tate-LaBianca murders. Davis went along with the three Family members of the Manson Family who had asked Mr. Shea to drive them to get some spare car parts. During the interview, Davis stated he knew that they were going to kill Shea. He said, 'I knew I wouldn't do anything physical, but I wanted it to look like I was going along with Manson so that I could maintain his friendship.' Shea was driving the car when Charles Watson, who was sitting next to Shea, told Shea to pull the car over. At first Shea wouldn't, but then Watson pulled a knife on Shea. When he pulled over, Steve Grogan, who was sitting behind Shea, hit Shea in the back of the head with a pipe wrench. Watson and Grogan got out of the car, dragged Shea down the hillside into a ravine. Davis remained in the car until Charles Manson drove up in another car, stopped, and went down the hill to join Watson and Grogan. A few minutes later, Davis went down to where they had the victim. Manson handed Davis a machete and told Davis to cut his head off. Davis dropped the machete. Davis stated that he couldn't do it, so Manson handed him a knife, and when Davis used -- which Davis used to slash the victim's shoulder. Davis was sure that the victim was dead by the time he cut him. Davis cut the victim because he didn't want to be disapproved by the Family. Davis stated that it took him years before he was really able to feel remorse for his involvement in the crimes. He believes that his inability to feel sadness and empathy was the result of heavy drug usage at the time. He now experiences sadness as he knows the family of the victims still suffer due to the actions of him and his codefendants." And then given to the Panel today was a five page document dated January 12, 2010, signed by Mr. Davis entitled "My Role and Responsibility in My Crimes," and it's marked Exhibit 2. "Every day for the last 40 years I relive the crimes that put me here, the murders of Gary Hinman and Donald Shea. As my insight increases so has my outrage with myself for getting involved with Manson and the chain of darkly murderous events in 1969. Why? How did I become so cold and wicked a person who was insensitive to senseless destruction? The answers were hidden by my own self- deception. Now I understand. A, I decided myself by imaging I could, one, feed my appetite for sex and drugs controlled by Manson and, two, minimize my legal jeopardy by avoiding personal participation in the cult's illegal activities. B, I decided myself by imaging my driving the others to Gary Hinman's house was the minimum participation necessary to maintain Manson's goodwill. After all, I rationalized, I was not guilty of suggesting or planning the robbery. Therefore, in all our hearings, including 2008, I describe my role and influence in my crimes and in the cult as minor. This was based on my self-deluded belief that I had, indeed, kept my role minor unlike the others. Self-deception kept me from acknowledging my unqualified personal and moral responsibility or admitting to my full legal culpability. And for that reason, I also failed to assume my legal responsibility for the crimes of my codefendants in the murders of Gary Hinman and Donald Shea. I also failed to acknowledge my personal moral responsibility for the cult's collective criminality. I gave him my account of my involvement and how I felt about it which was I didn't plan them. I didn't want either murder --"

INMATE DAVIS: Sir, I think you went to --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yeah, I gave you -- The pages are out of order.

INMATE DAVIS: You went to three, I'm sorry. You skipped page 2.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yeah, it's my mistake. Sorry.

INMATE DAVIS: Did I have those wrong?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: No, I did. I got that wrong.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Shame on you.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I apologize. I should have saw that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Yeah, it's back. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Okay, we'll move to page 2, and we'll move page 3 where it belongs. There we go. Okay. "Thankfully four incidents this past year made me understand exactly why and how I came to believe and consistently described my influence, participation, and my guilt in the murders of Gary Hinman and Donald Shea as minor. First, following the denial at the 2008 Panel, I felt I had failed myself and everyone who had supported me. I began to critically question myself about everything starting with my basic perceptions and values. I asked myself what was the Board seeing that I was missing? I began examining with my earliest memories trying to analyze everything I could about myself. Second, during an Alternatives to Violence seminar, twice I was reminded that I was responsible for the group's agreement on the topic for the seminar. I was again assured my argument broke the logjam. Both times I deflected the comment, denying that my argument was the critical factor. I denied its importance by rationalizing that they would have made the right choice without my input. I see now that I was unable to accept being the critical factor, even of a good thing, even when it was a genuine compliment. My denial indicated my reluctance to acknowledge success for fear of failing increased responsibilities. I was taking control and protecting my pride by assigning myself a passive minor role in my own life. I had learned to deny and deflect responsibility for doing significant things both good or bad. It was safer. Third, a friend challenged my attitude while we talked about my 2008 denial. He asked what I said to the Panel. I told him. He said it sounded like I was minimizing my role. Annoyed I retorted, 'That's what the Board said, and you're both wrong.'" Page 3, "I gave him my account of my involvement and how I felt about it which was I didn't plan them. I didn't want either murder to happen. I didn't really murder anyone. I only drove the car. I only held the gun. I didn't shoot Gary. I did not want to cut Donald, but I complied to avoid conflict with Manson. Now I see how I denied responsibility for what I did by emphasizing only what I did not do and attempting to justify my actions with my emotions and fears. His reply was you are just as guilty of the murders as your codefendants because you played an active role. Your presence was influential and implied your approval of what was going on. I had never heard it just like that at least not since coming back from the 2008 denial. I reread the 2008 transcript thinking about the observations. I was actually downplaying my influence and role in my crimes. I was afraid and embarrassed to admit that I could have been so blind all this time, but still, only full acknowledgment of my role in the crimes would do. As I reread the transcript, I asked, "Did I downplay my role and why?" The truth dawned brighter as I reviewed the crimes in my mind. The scenes were amplified by a magazine article mentioning me and my crimes. My self-examination surged forth. When I first saw the Manson murders 40 years later (an oral history by Steve Onay) in the July edition of the Los Angeles magazine. I did not want to read it, but the pictures really stung me. So I had to read it all. Page 4, the first jolt was the then and now photos of the survivors: The detective, the chief prosecutor, and the killers. In 1969, they looked so young but now so old. But the big shock came as I noticed the photos of the victims in the Tate home, how young they were, and then realized their chances to grow old had been snuffed by the Manson cult that I had once been a part of. The photo of the Spahn Ranch made it all that much sadder. These pictures slammed me back into the horrible events of that summer. It felt like yesterday, but hurt like never before. When I pictured my actions in my crimes without my self-serving thoughts, my actions clearly showed I was a willing and equal participant. My friend was exactly right and so was the Board. My pride was embarrassed. I felt like an arrogant fool, but admitted my role was as destructive as any of the others. That admission gave me a different and more personal sense of responsibility for the murders and brought me to terms with the personal influence for evil I had been and the senseless murders I committed. Admitting I had indeed influenced the others brought out a struggle between my old habit of denying my influence in general and my conscious awakening to my true responsibility for my crimes. I struggled with fear of condemnation and pride as I came to terms with the truth about myself. I had not only done dreadful things, but I also influenced others to participate in horrible crimes. I experienced a shattering impact of my crimes when from deep within with my mind's eye I saw two gravestones, Gary Alan Hinman and Donald Jerome Shea." Page 5, "My mother stood at my side. She was not enraged but so sad and hurt. I felt compassion for her as she pointed to the graves and said twice, 'This is all you left us. This is all you left us.' Then I felt the pain of what I had done to these innocent people. First to Gary and Donald. I should have loved them, but instead of that, I did the worst thing I could have done to them. I murdered them. I felt guilty, dirty, and condemned. Secondly, I felt aching, loss, and hopeless sorrow of Gary and Don's family and friends because I had killed a part of them too. Too many have already paid too much for my crimes. They do not deserve to keep paying because I fail to admit all the truth about my part in the murders. My personal example as a willing participant in the crimes and in the cult surely encouraged others to follow Manson. I am sorry and ashamed I discounted the true impact of my actions to everyone, most especially to Hinman and Shea families and all who still grieve because of my horrendous crimes. I am sorry for who I was and what I did. I am now focused on compensating for their lives I destroyed by promoting life enriching and violence preventing lifestyles at every opportunity. Bruce Davis signature, January 12th, 2010."

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Thank you, Commissioner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Anything you want to add to that, Mr. Davis?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I know that the real focus of this was thinking about Donald Shea and Gary Hinman and their families that will never get over it. And the very fact that nothing I could ever do will ever change that for them.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: All right. I'm going to turn it over -- I'll have some more questions for you. I'm going to turn it over to Commissioner Welch at this time, and --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Before I get started. I need to take about a 30 second break.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: All right. We'll take a recess. The time is 9:45.

(off the record)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay, we're back on record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Okay. The time is about 9:50.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay, Mr. Davis, I'm going to cover your post-conviction factors. And I'll start off with your prior hearing. Your prior hearing was on 9/15/08. And at that time, you were given a one year denial. And as I understand in between the hearing you had a postponement. Which (inaudible) 9/15/08, and at that time you received a one year denial. And the Board did recommend that you remain disciplinary free, request positive chronos, involve yourself in self-help and develop insight into relapse prevention, a relapse prevention plan, I guess. So we're going to take a look and see how you did.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Your classification score is currently zero. Your placement score is 28, meaning that you will always be placed at a level three institution until you receive a date otherwise there are no other disciplinaries associated (inaudible). Under gangs, your (inaudible) indicates that your gang affiliation was, it says Manson Family, a former member of the Manson Family; is that correct?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Disciplinaries, I note that you have two disciplinaries documented in your file. One is dated 1/13/1975, for a sharp, for possession of a sharpened spoon. And the other one was 1/15/1980 for misconduct.

INMATE DAVIS: That's right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: And there are five 128s in your file. The first one is --

INMATE DAVIS: Sorry.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: You got long legs there. I didn't mean to kick you under the table. There are five 128s. The first one was 6/2/1981 for cross visiting. In other words, you were visiting with someone else in another venue, visiting; 7/24/87 for excessive noise; 10/18/88, leaving a classroom prior to the closing of the class; 7/24/88, receiving unauthorized prescription glasses; and your last one was in 1992 for lying to staff. So you haven't had any disciplinary, a minor disciplinary since, a minor counseling chrono I should say since 1992. And a major 115 since 1980, so that's pretty good disciplinary history.

INMATE DAVIS: Thank you.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: So congratulations on that. So we looked at your institutional achievements. I do note that you graduated from high school. That was in Tennessee in 1961; is that correct?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: What's the name of your high school?

INMATE DAVIS: Roane County High School.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: What was it?

INMATE DAVIS: Roane County High School.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Roane County High School.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: You have a Tennessee accent.

INMATE DAVIS: I suppose I do.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Yeah. You did attend the University of Tennessee. You talked to the Commissioner about that.

INMATE DAVIS: Right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: And Pennsylvania State University; is that correct?

INMATE DAVIS: By correspondence. That's after I was in Folsom.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: We do know the (inaudible)?

INMATE DAVIS: Also by --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Correspondence.

INMATE DAVIS: By correspondence.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Is that brim?

INMATE DAVIS: Borean.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Borean.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: B-O-R-E-A-N, School of the Bible. And it's Patton College. Where did you receive your master's from?

INMATE DAVIS: From Bethany, Bethany Seminary.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: You received your masters from Bethany Seminary in 1998; is that correct?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: And I see you have a doctorate degree. And where did you receive your doctorate degree?

INMATE DAVIS: The same place.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: And you received your doctorate from Bethany in philosophy and religion?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay. You graduated summa cum laude during your last or your doctorate work?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Congratulations on that.

INMATE DAVIS: Thank you.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: That's quite an achievement in the educational field.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, it is.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: So we want to commend you for that. In vocational achievements, I noted in your file at one time you participated in the drafting program. And another time you participated in the welding program.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Is that right?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Did you graduate?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: From drafting?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I did. I was certified in the L.A. County structural steel welding in the welding class. And I think the last chrono regarding the drafting was that I had reached a marketable level of competence. Something to that --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: What it says in terms of the Board is that you completed 95 percent of it, so I assumed you had completed all of it. But the chrono says you have completed 95 percent of it.

INMATE DAVIS: Yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay. So anything else about vocations I may have missed? First of all, did I cover all your educational achievements?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Now what about your vocational achievements? Did I cover all of the vocational achievements?

INMATE DAVIS: Welding and drafting, those are the ones I took in --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Those are the only ones I could find in your file also.

INMATE DAVIS: Right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay. I looked at your chronos from Chappell and I looked at all those kinds of things together, so I was going to -- as I go through them, if I miss anything, I'll give your attorney the opportunity to add. First of all, I see you have some certificate.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: I probably have looked at all those already. Let me put them on the record and I looked at, let's see, you have your diploma there. I probably reviewed that already.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Let me tell you what I have, and if I miss anything, you can give me what you have, okay?

INMATE DAVIS: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: First chrono I noted is dated 1/7/2010 for Alternatives to Violence, participating in the program there.

INMATE DAVIS: Yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Also 12/25/09, you have a chrono from H. Warren Anderson.

INMATE DAVIS: Alderson actually.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Alderson. So it's actually spelled A-L-D-E-R-S-O-N?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay. You have a chrono from him indicating your participation there. You have an AA chrono dated 7/2/09. Another Alternatives to Violence program dated 7/13/09. On 3/30/09, the Protestant School of the Bible program. You participated in that; is that correct?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: And on 1/5/09, CMC Men's Colony Jewish Liberty program. You participated in that program?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: On 3/30/08, the Old Testament survey. On 3/30/08, Prayer a Weapon of Spirituality. What was that about? Apparently it talked about spirituality?

INMATE DAVIS: It was a -- I think it said it's a weapon of spiritual warfare.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Warfare.

INMATE DAVIS: Very small difference in your case. In that case.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay, well, what's the difference?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, it was we're taught in the scripture that prayer is a means to engage God's presence and engage God's power in your life as we resist the evil that's coming at us.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: All right. So on 4/30/07, staff verified your high school diploma. I actually have a high school diploma, so that's documented in your Central File.

INMATE DAVIS: That's right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: And 7/30/07, you participated in a completed parenting class; 7/23/07, another AA chrono. How long have you been in the AA program?

INMATE DAVIS: A long time. I don't remember exactly my start date. Five years, six years, four, three. You know, I'm not good at remembering exactly when, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Have you reached all the steps? Do you know the steps?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay, what is step six?

INMATE DAVIS: Step six is I came to a place where, let's see, I ask the Lord to change my bad behavior, my bad character, after confessing my sins to him. I became willing that he would change me and then I asked him to change me.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay. Well, now we're ready to have God remove all of our defects of character.

INMATE DAVIS: That's right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Very good. I see you're a religious man (inaudible) with them as well.

INMATE DAVIS: Well, that I'd pass it on. Through my experience that I would encourage other people in the same direction.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay. So it's like having a spiritual awakening or something like that?

INMATE DAVIS: It's very like that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay. All right, very good. On 7/30/07, Prayer a Weapon of Spiritual Warfare, again it --

INMATE DAVIS: I was teaching these classes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Yeah, it says that you taught them. 12/12/06 Book of Matthew, that says the Book of Matthew; 6/28/07, AA; 6/17/07, Parenting; 6/27/07, Parenting; 6/23/06, AA; 3/27/06, Book of James.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: On 2/4/06, you have a chrono stating you completed seven years of Yokefellow. What is that?

INMATE DAVIS: Yokefellow.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Yokefellow? What is that?

INMATE DAVIS: Based on Matthew 11, "Take my yoke upon you." And it's a peer counseling group.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay. So you been in there for seven years?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, a straight seven years now. I was in it a lot longer before. I was in and out for a while.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay. Then 5/10/03, Personal Growth seminar; 1/6/03 Peer educator for viable basics.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: And 5/7/02, I'll turn to the file. So I went back in your C-File to 2002 and put all of those on the record. There are other things that you completed prior to 2002 that I paid particular attention to since your last hearing. But to really get a good look at what you've been involved in, I went back to 2002. So since 2002, it appears that you have been involved in quite a few self-help programs. And you continue particularly in a lot of religious kinds of programs, so I'm very happy to see that. I'm very happy that you maintained your programming in the Biblical type seminars. So congratulations on that.

INMATE DAVIS: Thank you.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: I did take the opportunity to look at the certificates of that that's documented in your file, Bethany Bible College in philosophy and your doctorate degree in philosophy and religion. You have a diploma in your Central File.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: That's in there from Bethany Bible College. Summa cum laude, you have a certificate from noting that you graduated summa cum laude. You have a copy of your Bethany master's degree in your file.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: And you have a copy from what is that? Borean?

INMATE DAVIS: Borean.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Borean of The Bible (inaudible) in there.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Now, did I miss anything? Is there anything that you'd like to have on the -- put on the record that I may have missed when I did my C-File review?

INMATE DAVIS: No, I think we've covered it fairly well, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: All right. Thank you very much. Counselor, did I miss anything that you'd like to add?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I think you did everything.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay. Then --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: The only thing I'd like to point out is that the AVP class he took in January was a trainers class. He can now facilitate.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: And that was in -- That was in 2010.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yes, January 2010.

INMATE DAVIS: January 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay. That was the only one that I could not find in the C-File. Everything else was documented.

INMATE DAVIS: Yeah. Yeah, it's brand new.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Everything else was in the C-File and I was able to find. And with that, I'll go to your psychological evaluation, okay?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Did you note his work? Present work?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Pardon?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Position?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Yeah, let's talk about your work for a second. Thank you, Counselor. I looked through your file. You know, and I looked at all your work reports to really get a good look at what you have been involved in. Now from 6/18/09 all the way back to 2/04, you received all ones which means exceptional work reports. I was able to get those CDCR reports. At that time, everything was ones and above. The last one I found in there was 10/5/09, and you -- was it a sheet inspector or inspections?

INMATE DAVIS: I changed jobs.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: And I went to the specialty print plant.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: So I inspect the sheets of the tags you put on your little thing, you put on your license plate?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: There's a sheet of them we do.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: You make license plates in here?

INMATE DAVIS: Just the little stick-ons.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: I didn't know that, okay.

INMATE DAVIS: I think the license plates, the metal ones, are made in Old Folsom.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: I had no idea those stickers came from prison.

INMATE DAVIS: Yeah, we're doing them. And so I inspect a whole sheet of them. There's 72 on a sheet. And --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Received threes on that.

INMATE DAVIS: That's right. And they always start you off that way.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: A new employee and then now this time when I got a new one, it was twos. that?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Do you have copies of

INMATE DAVIS: Do I have that -- I don't know if I turned that in or not. Anyway.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: It's not in your C- File.

INMATE DAVIS: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: The last one is three. Then it goes to when you were a clerk and all the way back to 2004 you received all ones.

INMATE DAVIS: That's right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: And then prior to that you received ones and twos, ones and twos. So the bottom line is it appears that you have an exceptional work ethic, and it appears you know your job very well. Even with the threes, that's satisfactory. I know that no one is satisfactory in their work reports (inaudible), okay.

INMATE DAVIS: Good.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: So you're a good worker. Thank you, Counselor. I had noted it on my -- in the file. Is there anything else, Counselor? to add?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: No.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Anything you'd like

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: No. That's fine.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: So we'll go to your psychological evaluation. Dr. Thatcher notes in the psychological evaluation that he completed the psychological evaluation on 6/8/09. And he indicates that it took approximately three hours. One of the areas that the doctor paid particularly close attention to was the prisoner's violence potential in the free community. As you are aware, the Commissioner went through a lot of things that are in the psychological evaluation such as education, those kinds of things. And I've already covered education. And based on my account in your C-File, I already talked about your gainful -- You've never been in the military?

INMATE DAVIS: No, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Most people back then joined the military. Did you have a high draft number or?

INMATE DAVIS: I was -- I was in college for a while and I had medical issue.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: And so I was exempted.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay, parole plans. I will be covering your parole plans.

INMATE DAVIS: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: As soon as I finish with your psychological evaluation. However, the psych report, I do note that Mr. Davis indicate that his parole plans he plans to live in Grover. Grover?

INMATE DAVIS: Grover Beach.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Grover Beach.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: With his wife. He indicates that he has a job offer with friends. With friends who own a landscaping company in San Luis Obispo. I have a letter from the owner. If he were required to return to L.A., he states he has a job offer from his friends who used to be a harbormaster. Mental health history, Mr. Davis indicates that he had never received psychiatric treatment within the community, either as a juvenile or adult. Similarly, he has not received mental health treatment while incarcerated. When asked about suicide ideation or attempts, he indicated that he has made no attempts, but that he thought it over but never planned it. He explained that there have been times when he had thought that his wife would be better off without him. He indicated that these thoughts occurred prior to his daughter being born, and he ultimately decided it wasn't right. Then he goes into a dissertation of all the other psychological theories. We've already talked about substance abuse history with the Commissioner. So we'll go to diagnostic impressions. Axis I, Cannibal Abuse -- Cannabis Abuse in a controlled environment, Hallucinogenic Abuse in a controlled environment. Axis II, Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified, Narcissistic and Antisocial Features. Axis III, Defer to physician. And we go to remorse and insight into life crime. The doctor notes that it should be noted that remorse -- The doctor notes that insight and remorse are an abstract concept which do not lend themselves to underlying definitions of measurements. Therefore the opinion regarding the insight and remorse and subjected to major treatment with the caveat -- with this caveat from a review of records from over the years and the current interview with Mr. Davis suggests that his level of insight regarding the causes that led to his crimes has increased over the years. In the present interview, he was able to talk about the incident in his youth in which his father mistreated him and he turned off the lights meaning that he shut off his feelings and emotions. You've already talked to the Commissioner about that. So we'll go to assessments for risk of violence. Dr. Thatcher used the Psychopathy Checklist, Revised, commonly known at the PCL-R, the History Clinical Risk Management and that's known as the HCR-20. The Level Service Case Management Inventory commonly known as the LS/CMI. Now on the PCL-R, the doctor notes that findings regarding Mr. Davis were that his total score falls within the low range of the clinical psychopathy in compared to other offenders. The HCR-20 puts Mr. Davis' score as measured by the HCR-20 was in the low range of violence recidivism. In the historical domain of assessment, that the violent -- records indicates that Mr. Davis has a history of a -- a history of -- Mr. Davis has a history of an act of severe violence causing injury to another including death at age 26. He did not present with a significant history of violence prior to the life crime. And finally, he has -- And finally he was found to rate low on the measure of psychopathy. In the clinical or more current domain of risk assessment, Mr. Davis did not express overt criminal minded thinking during the interview. He did not present with active symptoms of mental health illness and he has assessed -- and he was assessed to be less than impulsive currently than he was at the time of the crime. He notes that risk management, Mr. Davis' case, he presents reasonable plans. If paroled to the community he plans to live with his wife and has a job offer from his friend who owns a landscaping company. The LS/CMI -- The LS/CMI is an actuarial instrument designed to evaluate level of risk to recidivism. This instrument is focused on risk of general recidivism and not violence per se. Mr. Davis' overall LS/CMI score indicates that he is in the low category. Then we go to overall assessment. After weighing all of the data from available records, the clinical institution, and risk assessment data, it is opined that Mr. Davis would present a low risk of violence in the free community. Mr. Davis' risk for violent recidivism would likely increase if he return -- if he returns to using intoxicant substances, associating with anti peers -- antisocial peers, or if he finds himself without a residence or like income sufficient to meet his living expense or inadequate social support in the community. No areas of concern were identified which would require addressing in order to further reduce his risk of violence. The static factors, for instance, (inaudible). So, what I did, Mr. Davis, was I took a portion from the psychological evaluation on file for this hearing. At this time, if there's anything you'd like to add or comment on, please feel free to do so before we return to the Chair? Mr. Davis first.

INMATE DAVIS: I would have nothing to add to the doctor's findings.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay. Mr. Beckman?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Not at this time.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay. In that case, I will return -- In fact, what I will do is do your parole plans. Just in case you receive a parole date, will please articulate to the Panel where you plan to live?

INMATE DAVIS: I plan to live with my wife in Grover Beach.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: In Grover Beach. Where's that located? That's in Central California?

INMATE DAVIS: It's about 20 miles southeast -- southwest of us. It's local.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: And how do you plan to support -- Well, do you have a job offer?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I do. I have a job offer from Paul Kenny who has a big landscape company. And I also have a backup offer from Jim Cliff who has Eden Ministries in Canyon Country. And an offer of support from John Lorraine in L.A. should I go there.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay, very good. Okay, so I'll tell you what I have. I have letters. I have letters from Paul Kenny. And it's dated January 6, 2010. He says I'm Paul Kenny, owner of Grace Landscaping. He says, meaning you, he could use as an administrative bookkeeper an estimator upon his release starting an hourly rate, he'll give you 15 dollars an hour.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: I have a letter from Beth Davis. She says I've been the wife of Bruce Davis for nearly 25 years. She says that she's never seen any form of violence. You are a counselor, pastor, mentor for the Alternatives to Violence program, and is willing to become a volunteer for hospice. Then she talks about your education achievements, but we've already put on the record. And she talks about there being a split decision in terms of your parole in 2006. And she says there are a thousand reasons why she finds you suitable for parole. "I'm going to ask that you grant him parole so (inaudible) your wife. Another letter from your wife, and it is dated January 15, the other is dated January 7th.

INMATE DAVIS: Commissioner?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Yes.

INMATE DAVIS: Is this picking up your voice here?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Thank you. I had it turned away, but it's pretty -- it's pretty sensitive.

INMATE DAVIS: Okay, all right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Yeah, it's probably picking it up. It's more than likely picking it up. But I can just check it to make sure. Yeah, it's picking it up. It's on a delay, so I was able to see it. Beth C. Davis also wrote you a support letter. So she wrote you two. I put on one the record. The last one is January 15th, 2010. She notes that she is your wife, married 25 years, own a two bedroom condominium in Grover Beach, and I have been on the -- I have been on the Board for 18 to 20 years. And I live here. She's retired Delta Airline flight attendant 32 years. I have a pension. Worked as a caregiver to the elderly. It says that you, that Bruce and I plan to work together in the ministry. She's been a member of the New Life Community Church in Pismo Beach for 20 years. Her pastor has always made it known that Bruce will be welcome in the church upon his release. And she again employ -- she again implores the Board to give you a parole date. She thanks the Board for taking the time to review her letter. Okay. I have another letter here from, no this is from you. This is just a statement. Okay. Marsha Stanban?

INMATE DAVIS: Steckbauer.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Stock, S-T-E-C-K-B-A-U-E-R.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: And he says, I mean, Marsha says that you're welcome in her home. He will be welcome. We would welcome him and his family into our home to live. And she lives in, where does she live? Where does Marsha live?

INMATE DAVIS: They live in Southern California.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Southern California.

INMATE DAVIS: L.A. area.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: In the L.A. area. Lawndale. Okay. Lawndale, California. All right. And you have a letter here from Ron Salisbury, senior pastor. He writes you a very supportive letter. Mitchell Parson says that my name is Mitchell Parson, I'm a 47-year-old African-American male who over the last three years have had the opportunity to know and become friends with Bruce Davis. I'm now a free man living in Sacramento, California. I have made and am still in the process of making a successful transition back in the community. And he notes that I know that Bruce is committed to being a servant of God, a wonderful father and husband, and a positive addition to the community. Basically Bruce is writing you a support letter. Brian, I think it's Dayton, writes you a support letter.

INMATE DAVIS: Orton.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: It looks like a B.

INMATE DAVIS: I know, it's his handwriting.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay, Arton.

INMATE DAVIS: Orton.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Another letter from Beau Foutz, F-O-U-T-Z.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: He wrote you -- He writes you a very supportive letter. He is at the University of Southern Alabama. And he enjoys the position of communication instructor for the University of Southern Alabama. And is that Spike and Louise?

INMATE DAVIS: That's Laverne.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Is that Carl?

INMATE DAVIS: Caravel.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: What is it?

INMATE DAVIS: Caravel.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Caravel.

INMATE DAVIS: Caravel.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: They write you a very supportive letter. Judith DeVos writes you a supportive letter. Robert Grumminger?

INMATE DAVIS: Gremminer.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: G-R-E-M-M-I-N-E-R, writes you a very supportive letter. G. T. McKee writes you a supportive letter. Larry Harkman writes you a supportive letter. Pastor Bill Duane writes you a supportive letter.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Michael Oliver. B. J. McKinney, Judith David Ward, all supportive letters. That's your daughter?

INMATE DAVIS: Judith Ward, that's my sister.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: But your daughter is -- Okay, and she attaches a letter from her daughter is that what that is?

INMATE DAVIS: I'm not sure what you're looking at.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: What kind of a father was Daddy to Bruce. This is what your --

INMATE DAVIS: This is what I referred to when I was talking about my sister.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: That's what you referred to, okay. Okay, what kind of father was Daddy to Bruce, okay. Bruce Davis, an only child, was abused himself. As a father to us, he went to work readily and provided us with food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and education opportunity. He was an alcoholic and often came home inebriated and violent. Daddy had a short temper that quickly turned to violence. He was mean sober and meaner drunk. The worst part that sometimes an attack from him would come without warning. He was unpredictable. We tried to stay away. Okay. That's another review of that. So basically what you have in here is, and I went over, you have 31 support letters. You have lots of support in the community.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Thirty-one of them. Okay, does that sound right?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay. Is there anything else you'd like to tell us about your parole plans?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, my parole plans have backup in every area, my residence, my work, my relapse prevention program.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Did we adequately cover your job offers and your home offers?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Did we get all those on the record? Okay. Very good. With that, I need to tell you that we sent out notices pursuant to Penal Code 3042. We sent those out to agencies that would be interested in your case. The sheriff's office and Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, Richard Buckley, and Jerry Brown, the Attorney General's office. We do have several responses back. G. A. Harris, acting captain wrote a letter for Leroy B. Baca, Sheriff. And basically the first part of the letter covers the case factors, the things that the Commissioner has already put on the record. But in the last part of the letter he writes, on or about September 1, 1969, Davis, Charles Manson, Steve Grogan and Charlie "Tex" Watson took Donald Shea for a ride during which Grogan struck Shea on the head with a blunt object knocking him unconscious. They drove to an area away from the ranch and pulled him out of the vehicle. They waited for him to awaken. According to Davis, they walked Shea away from the road. Shea asked Manson, what this is about, Charlie. Charlie responded by stabbing him. Davis related that they (himself included) took turns stabbing Shea. Steve Grogan then cut Shea's head off. Donald Shea's body was buried. Despite extensive efforts to find it, conflicting accounts of where it could be found prevented this discovery until after the murder trial. Based on the factors, it is the opinion of the Department -- it is, scratch that. Based on these facts, it is the opinion of this Department the parole of Inmate Davis is inappropriate and should be denied. Leroy Baca, B-A-C-A, and G. A. Harris, acting captain, Homicide Bureau.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I think the record would indicate that Mr. Shea was not decapitated; is that correct?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, I've --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: That's right.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Actually the record should indicate that when the body was discovered, the head was separated from the rest of the body and that's --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: But it was with the body?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Okay.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I mean it was -- But it was separated.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Okay.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So it wasn't -- The skeleton was not intact.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Commissioner, did you say you had a letter from --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Because I think it becomes --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: -- the Attorney General?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Pardon me?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Is there a letter from the Attorney General there?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: No, we sent out --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: To the Attorney General.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Yeah, we sent a notice.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: 3042 notices.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: 3042 notice to the Attorney General.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: No response. I'm going over the ones that responded.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: The last response is from David D. Smith, David Smith, captain, Homicide Bureau. And basically he writes the same, he goes over the crime and he notes in his last paragraph Donald Shea's body was buried. Despite extensive efforts to find it, conflicting accounts of where it could be found prevented the discovery until after the murder trial concluded. Based on this facts, it is the opinion of the Department the parole of Inmate Davis is inappropriate and should be denied. So that's pretty much the letters in opposition to your parole that I found in the file. However, I should tell you that the Deputy District Attorney, as your attorney has noted, is here and at the appropriate time, he shall have something to say about your suitability for parole. And with that, if there's nothing else about your parole plans, I'll return it to our Chairperson.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I just want to note that he has an AA sponsor.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay. And would you like to put that on the record? Who is the AA sponsor?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I guess you don't have that letter.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: No, I don't.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: It's from --

INMATE DAVIS: Bill Duane.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Who is it?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Bill Duane, he wrote several letters.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: What's his name.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Bill Duane, Pastor Bill Duane, D-U-A-N-E. I know you read one letter from him.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Yeah, yeah.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: But this is a letter he wrote November 27th, 2009.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I'm available to help as a 12-step AA sponsor.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay. Very good. Anything else before we return it to our Chairperson? In that case, we'll return it to our Chairperson. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Mr. Davis, what do you think is going to be your most significant challenge once you get paroled?

INMATE DAVIS: My most significant challenge will be adjusting to a life that I left 40 years ago. We were just talking about the technology and things. That probably will be the least of my problems. I'm sure there will be individuals who don't like it. I'll probably hear a lot about that. Probably one of the greatest challenges will be how my wife deals with the opposition and what they have to say and how my daughter has to deal with it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: She's 16 now?

INMATE DAVIS: She's 16 now. And so those are going to be highly significant things.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Have you given much thought to that in terms of -- I mean, in discussions with your wife in terms of planning and, you know, just kind of going through that process?

INMATE DAVIS: We've kind of role played it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: Like what would we do if, you know, if people are protesting around the house or -- not that in particular, but things like that. Like what do we do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Okay, so you've given it some thought then.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir. It's a serious thing. Well, it's serious for me, but it's really serious for them. And, of course, it's serious for everybody who is in opposition. I mean, it's an important thing for them. So that's something that I just have to be faced with all humility and, you know, recognize their right to protest and support their right. And I am sure that there's things going to happen that I haven't even thought of. I think the things we thought of we kind of feel like we have a handle on, but there's always those things that the unexpected.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Well, I'm going to tell you, I'll be blunt with you. You know, I was hoping that when I got this document today from you that it was going to be more expansive than it is. You know, I think you've made -- And I'm just sharing this with you. You know, I think that this is some progress here in further looking at what you need to do and in kind of what your responsibility was, but I was a little discouraged when I read it because I was hoping to see a few other things in here that kind of cleared up. And again, you know, you didn't -- you have a right not to talk about the crime and you invoked that right today, and that's not an issue. But I was hopeful that this document would clear up further some discrepancies that have dogged you over the years to be blunt. And that I still have some concerns about that this did not address. Although I do believe that this is a big step for you right here. A big step.

INMATE DAVIS: Go ahead and ask me, Commissioner. I'll answer any questions.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Well, I still got minimization issues that I can't -- And I'm sitting here and I can't get over them because -- And I'm just going to lay this out to you, Mr. Davis.

INMATE DAVIS: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: You know what, I think your involvement in this, you know, all throughout this document, you never -- you dance around, I mean, you take responsibility, but at the same time, you dance around what really -- you don't get to the nitty-gritty of this thing. You know what, from everything I've read, and I mean, I've been in this file for two weeks, and I can't, you know, on what I've read and what witnesses -- I've gotten from the witnesses' statements, and what I've gotten from what I know as a person in my own experience, this is more than you just being there. Yeah, being there is taking an active role and you're recognizing that in this. But I can't -- I'm not feeling -- I'm not feeling comfortable, you know, and I'm looking at this from the standpoint of you being an unreasonable risk of dangerousness and me being able to get to that point where I feel that, you know what, I can sign off on you getting paroled, you know? And, you know, when I look at you, I mean, yeah, you were part of the Manson Family, but I really don't -- and I don't mean this in a callous way. I really don't care. You know what, you're a guy that killed two people.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: That's what you did.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Regardless of what all of the background and all the stuff is, you killed two people.

INMATE DAVIS: That's right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: And you recognize this here, but you don't recognize it because I think maybe in the Hinman case, but I think in the Shea case, I think you were an active participant. I think you stabbed him. I think, you know what, you said it. You were pleased -- You wanted to make sure that you had the approval of Charlie Manson. And that's kind of where you were at right then. And Charlie was the guy in the Family.

INMATE DAVIS: That's right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I mean, this is the guy that called the shots. I mean, the sex, the drugs, everything you guys had that you were liking, Charlie was providing. You didn't want to piss Charlie off and you didn't want to displease him.

INMATE DAVIS: That's right. That's right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: And I'm having problems getting over this hurdle of, you know what, if I'm in that mode, I'm not telling Charlie I'm not going to, you know, when Charlie hands me a machete and tells me to take care of business, I'm going to take care of business. I'm not going to piss him off. And I'm certainly not going to throw the machete down on the ground and say I ain't doing it. I can't do it. You know, and the witnesses in here would indicate you were an active participant. You did stab Shea. It was part of what you guys, Charlie said this has got to be done. The guy's a snitch. You've got to take care of business. And you guys took care of business. And Charlie, you know, assisted with that. He was part of it. But, you know, when you look at the involvement here and you look at what was going on with the Family and everybody's role in this situation, I'm still struggling with exactly what your role was. Okay? And, I mean, you're doing the time on this thing. You've been doing a lot of time. And you've made a lot of progress. And I'm still struggling with that.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay, then go ahead and ask him. I'll let him answer it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Well, I just --

INMATE DAVIS: I want to talk about anything that you have a question about.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Well, Mr. Davis, I've got real concerns that you picked up a knife and that you poked him in the shoulder. I mean, you know what, my sense of it from everything that I've seen is you're stabbing this guy along with everybody else. And, you know what, as part of the Family, I mean, you've got to make that commitment and you can't be, you know, you know, you've got to be an active participant in this thing. Charlie would probably accept no less from you. And the witnesses would indicate you were an active participant, that you did stab Mr. Shea and that it wasn't a passive poke him in the shoulder kind of a situation. And I know you've always said that, Mr. Davis. And I know sometimes it's hard to come off of things that you start off with.

INMATE DAVIS: I agree.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: But I'm just telling you based on, I been on a lot of homicide scenes. I've been involved in a lot of stuff. And I'm looking at this and I'm looking at this, and I'm going this ain't washing out here. It's just, you still have this, there's -- and you're making progress. You're pushing it. But there's not -- You haven't fully stopped minimizing exactly what you did in these murders.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Commissioner, first --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: That's my opinion and that's my feeling. And I just want to let you know I'm struggling with that.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir. Yes, Sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Okay?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: That's all.

INMATE DAVIS: Commissioner, for years I wish that I would just say, "Oh, yeah, I was there. I stabbed him." But it's not the truth.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: It's just not the truth. It would be easy and I've been suggested to by attorneys all through the years, why don't you just say you did it. That way that will just give them the satisfaction. I said, you know, I wish I could. But the truth does not allow me to do that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: I would -- I tell you what, Manson handed me the machete. He said, "Cut his head off." I touched him on the back of the -- I picked it up, and I couldn't do it. I could not. That was my limit. I had a limit. I didn't understand I had a limit. I thought I could. I thought I could when I took it. I found I had a limit. There was a boundary in my life that I was not aware of at that moment until I dropped it and said I cannot do it. I didn't say I can't, I just dropped it. I said, no. He put a knife in my hand and he said you do something. Now I look around and there's Bill Vance, Watson, Grogan, with bloody knives and they'd been through this. And I was not about to say no to something. I understood that I'm an odd man out. I'm a danger to this situation if I don't get involved. Let me tell you something, I wish I could just say, yeah, I did it. It would just make everything nice and pat and make it fit. It would sure help us all I guess if we could believe that lie. But that is a lie.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: And I will not say it because it's not true. I'll tell you what I did. I took the bayonet. It was about this big. It come off a Mauser rifle. Mr. Shea was at my left. He was bent over. There's been a controversy kind of on my side and I -- See, I thought that if I just didn't do anything direct, I would not be --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Right.

INMATE DAVIS: -- really deal. Okay? So I didn't -- Hey, when they first said we're going to kill Shorty, I was standing there. I couldn't even get away. We were all just right there together. It was close and right off early one morning. And I just got, I said, okay, here we go. I got in the back seat opposite him, Grogan was on my left, Watson was on my, in front of me. Mr. Shea was driving. Watson tells him pull over. He hesitates. Watson stabs him. He pulls the car over. Grogan hits him in the head. I stayed in the car. I was petrified. I didn't want to go to that. I knew in the Hinman case that I was on -- it was bad. I knew that. But you know, I had deceived myself into thinking that if I don't -- if I didn't shoot Gary, if I don't beat him up, that I'm okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Okay, you explained that.

INMATE DAVIS: So that's right. And so I'm still with these people. I didn't feel bad about it. I wanted what I was wanting and I was getting what I was getting. So when it came to that, I stayed back. I stayed in the car. Manson pulled up in the car behind me. He came by and said let's go. So I went. So I'm down there. They had already been stabbing him. He had a bigger knife. He handed me the machete. I couldn't do it. I could not do it. And he put the knife in my hand and said you better do something. Well, I know, I got the message. You know, the message that I got. You can imagine what it means; right?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Yeah, it seemed pretty obvious to me.

INMATE DAVIS: You better believe it. I reached out and I cut him right across the shoulder. I cut him with this knife. Boy this knife was sharp. It laid him open. I don't know if he was dead or not. It wouldn't have mattered an iota to me. I was -- This was a survival thing for me. I was scared about my life. And then I said, I did that and I threw the knife down and walked off. Now I wish I could say, yeah, I was mad at Shorty and we was going to kill him because he was a snitch and blah, blah, blah. That's not true. I was not -- I didn't have personal animosity against him. I mean, hey, I did enough -- I discounted his life, I will tell you that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Sure, yeah.

INMATE DAVIS: I thought my life was worth more than his at that point. I was not -- There was no hesitation when it came to that. When I realized, uh-oh, this is the deal. So I didn't have any problem doing that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: All right. Well, I think you. I appreciate your input and your candor.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: If you're suggesting that he used the machete to cut off Shea's head.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I didn't --

INMATE DAVIS: That is not the case.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Did I say that, Counsel?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yeah, I thought you did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: No, I didn't say that.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I didn't say that.

INMATE DAVIS: If I could just start with a little more. I left. Steve Grogan and somebody, maybe somebody else, I don't know if Grogan was the only person. They buried Shorty's body. And, of course, we held the position we don't even know he's dead. Big fix it. So when they found out that his body was intact, so on and so forth, they called me back in, the Commissioners called me back in in 1976 and they said we're going to take the special circumstances off because he was not -- there's nothing to give you special circumstances for. We found the body, and we saw that the evidence has nothing to say. Okay, so I had the special circumstances taken off. We have this big, we have this thing about, well.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I appreciate you talking a little bit about it there. I appreciate that. I really do. All right. Commissioner?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: I don't believe I have any questions. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: We'll move to any clarifying questions that the DA may have.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Anything else you want to say?

INMATE DAVIS: I want to ask just one more question.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Yes, Sir.

INMATE DAVIS: How do you -- Do you think that I'm holding back from you?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: You know what, I think it's important, Mr. Davis, this is your hearing. And, you know what, it's nothing that we take lightly. And that's why --

INMATE DAVIS: I don't either.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: -- I feel I need to be candid with you about what I'm feeling.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: And that issue and I think that's only being honest with you.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: And straight away with you and that's the only way I'm going to be about it, okay? So that's why I wanted to share that with you. Again, that's all I was doing. And, you know what, you were appreciative enough to, you know, talk a little bit about it and I appreciate that. And we'll move on now.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: But do you still have concerns? Has he addressed your concerns?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Well, this hearing is -- Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: Do you think I'm telling you --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: -- not over yet.

INMATE DAVIS: My big question is this. Do you think I'm lying to you?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Well, you know what, I haven't made that judgment.

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I'll tell you what --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: This is a vetting process to some degree and that's what we're doing here, okay? And that's -- And I'm not there yet, okay?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I just want to say, I have nothing to hide. I mean, I've lived in this fishbowl for 40 years.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: You certainly have done that.

INMATE DAVIS: And I've been trying to tell the truth as best I can. Now, I was self-deceived and I was making my part very minor because I thought I succeeded in doing that. And I convinced myself that I was self-deluded. I'm not anymore. I'm not anymore. I'm seeing this.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Okay, good.

INMATE DAVIS: And I'm just as involved as anybody else. I'm not just tricked into this. No, no.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: All right. Thank you. I appreciate. We'll move to the DA at this time.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I don't have any questions.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Counsel, questions?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Do you think your sentence was fair?

INMATE DAVIS: Absolutely.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Do you view yourself as any less guilty for these two murders as Mr. Grogan or Mr. Watson?

INMATE DAVIS: Not at all. In some ways, I may even be more guilty because I was conflicted about it and went against my own conscience in many ways. So no, I'm, hey, I got what I had coming.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I don't think I have any more questions.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Move to closing statements by the DA.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Before I begin, could I take a quick restroom break?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Sure. All right, we'll take a break. The time is 11 or 10:45.

(off the record)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: We're on record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: All right, the time is about 10:50, back from recess.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you. It is the position of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office that Inmate Bruce Davis remains unsuitable for parole and presents an unreasonable risk of danger to the community. In looking at the factors of suitability, with respect to Mr. Davis, I think it's important first of all to go back through his criminal, not only his criminal history, but also look back into his social history. And I think there's one overriding theme you'll see throughout Inmate Davis' personal history and his criminal history and that is his tendency to minimize any bit of negative information, whether it's criminal information or whether it's personal or social information. Going back first of all, we know that he had an unstable social history. He had a very poor relationship with his father. He's indicated this at different times and I think maybe even today during this hearing. And that relationship with his father was so poor that when his father died, he didn't even attend the funeral. He only went back east to collect his two thousand dollars inheritance which he then took and went traveling in Europe. I think what's significant in looking at his history growing up is the statement from his own sister in the 2003 psychological evaluation. First of all she says and this is quote "Bruce was constantly getting into trouble as he was growing up." She states that he was accused of setting fire to some neighbors' barns when he was at least ten years old. He was kicked out of school at times. He was frequently in fights with other kids. She also stated he was a suspect in killing some neighbor's ducks when she was seven or eight years of age. And, of course, she indicates that she was the good kid, but then goes on to say on the same paragraph on page 3 of the 2003 psychological evaluation in quoting the examiner, "This examiner asked Ms. Ward if she was surprised when she heard about the crimes her brother had been involved in. She indicated she wasn't surprised. That he would leave home at various times and stay gone for months. She stated that he would return, he would travel around, return and leave again. She states that he started writing home about his current drug of choice, why he was taking it, and then when he was at home, he was frequently glassy eyed." Then she goes on to state, "She states he just sat in the house and it was like he was mentally disturbed." Now this is in interesting contrast to what the Inmate says himself. The Inmate says he didn't get into any fights when he was a kid. I think it's even in the most recent psychological report. And he minimizes explains the setting fire to the barn by being accident. They were playing with matches, and accident. He denies any violence in his past when he was younger to the psychologist. But yet he's contradicted by his own sister. Thereafter he left home, the Inmate by his own admission talks about the time he was arrested. He was arrested and spent ten days in jail. And he's told you today that, of course, he was innocent of that crime. That he didn't have the drugs but that the ten days in jail caused him to want to drop out from society, caused him to want to be an outlaw. And them, of course, he meet Mr. Manson. And what is important to know and this is something that has been discussed at previous hearings before and it's something that he's talked about is that the Inmate has at many times said that Manson was a father figure to him. That he followed Manson. That he was kind of ripe for the taking. That he was being manipulated. That he fell under Mr. Manson's spell. However, it's also clear from this Inmate's background that he had a long and it was an it was an fascination with philosophy, with theology, and he traveled through Europe. He was interested in Scientology. He wound up in England, in London where he joined a Scientology school. And this is also something he shared with Charles Manson. Charles Manson was also fascinating with Scientology and philosophy. And that is part of the substances of the cult. Part of the Manson Family organization. It was not only a criminal enterprise with respect to the activities that they were involved in, but it was also a quasi religious group as well. So here you have the Inmate who is fascinated with Scientology. He's in Europe. When he arrives home, who is it that he meets at the airport? He meets -- Charlie Manson meets him at the airport along with one of the other Manson girls. And, of course, he then goes and continues his relationship with Charles Manson. Now the Inmate has at many times talked about Charlie as this father figure, as this person he wanted to be his son, to gain acceptance from Manson. But what is significant to note that of all the people in the Manson Family, he was one of the oldest. Charles Manson was 34 years old at that time. This Inmate was 26 years old. Most of the other girls and the other males were 19, 20, 18 years of age. So he was one of the oldest members of the group. Yet he claims that he was somehow just like the younger ones looking up to Manson as the father figure. And that I don't believe is true. In fact, that's contradicted by statements from Barbara Hoyt, which I'll read in a few moments. Nevertheless, I think this is all part of the minimization. He claims and blames his father. He claims and blames Charles Manson. He basically claims this environment that he was in for causing him to be involved in these criminal activities when, in fact, it is his own free choice that caused him to do these things. His own fascination with philosophy. His own fascination with religion which actually continues today. All of these things are part and parcel of what this Inmate is and how this Inmate thinks. Now, what is significant as well is some of the other statements that the Inmate has made over the years. The Inmate was asked, and I think what would be helpful for the Panel too, and I'm sure the Panel has reviewed the past transcripts, but I think when you look at his statements in 2006 at the hearing, in response to some of the questions that I asked will also show some of the contradictions in this Inmate as well. In many of those contradictions I have concern not only the crime itself and his participation in the crime and role, but also his attitude towards the crime and his attitude towards his involvement within the Manson organization. As I mentioned before, the Manson organization was not only a quasi religious organization, but it was also a criminal enterprise. The Inmate has talked first of all about the Hinman case and he minimizes his involvement. He was just the person who drove them to the residence. He's just the person who was there. Well, when you look back through the transcripts and the facts of the case, a number of things are in direct contradiction to Mr. -- I shouldn't say necessarily a direct contradiction, but they expand in more detail what Mr. Davis' involvement is in contrast to what he says his involvement was. First of all, the attack on Gary Hinman and the attempt to extort money from him was planned ahead of time. It was discussed at the ranch by a number of individuals. In fact, there was one witness who testified that they had talked about the planning. That they actually had their creepy crawly clothes that they brought out before the went to Mr. Hinman's house. And the creepy crawly clothes were basically dark clothing. And just so you understand what this whole concept of creepy crawly was, the Manson Family, including Mr. Davis, practiced for their ultimate killings and criminal activities by dressing up in dark clothes and sneaking into people's houses at night. Sometimes just to rattle them. Sometimes just to terrorize them. Sometimes they would leave things hanging. What they call creepy crawly or something witchy. So on the particular night where they went to see Mr. Hinman, and the purpose for going to Mr. Hinman's house was they believed that he had just come into an inheritance and they wanted to get his money and any property that he had owned. So the plan was hatched at the ranch. The plan was discussed. Mr. Davis was there. He overheard the discussion and he is the one who, in fact, drove the girls to Hinman's house. Not only did Mr. Davis drive the girls to the house, but he provided the weapon that was used by Gary Beausoleil when Gary Beausoleil entered Mr. Hinman's residence. This was the same weapon, a nine millimeter pistol that he bought under the false name of Jack McMillan a couple of weeks before Gary Hinman's murder. And that was the subsequent federal violation that Mr. Davis was charge with. So Mr. Davis provided the gun. He provided the ride to the location. It was also discussed in the ride over to the location exactly how they were going to take Mr. Hinman by surprise. The girls who knew Mr. Hinman were going to enter first. And if he was alone, and Mr. Beausoleil was going to wait outside. And Mr. Beausoleil had the gun, if Mr. Hinman was alone, the girls were going to -- one of the girls was going to go to the window and light a cigarette or make some sort of signal to Bobby Beausoleil so he could come into the residence. So that's exactly what had happened. Mr. Davis left them there. They then, of course, went in, demanded money from Mr. Hinman, and over the course of the next couple of days, they basically tortured him, got into the struggles. I mean, it's all reflected in the Statement of Facts and in the Appellate decision. But what's significant is that when they were having problems with Mr. Hinman, when he managed to wrestle the gun away from one of the girls at one point and a shot went off, a call went out back to the ranch, and who returned to Mr. Hinman's house but Charles Manson along with Bruce Davis. Manson was armed with this sword, this bayonet. They went into the residence and Mr. Davis took the gun from Bobby Beausoleil, held it on Gary Hinman while Manson sliced Gary Hinman's ear almost completely off. In fact, it was sliced so badly, the girls tried to sew it back using dental floss. Now over the years, Mr. Davis has minimized his role even in terms of having the gun. I think there were some initial denials about even holding the gun and then it was, yeah, he was holding the gun, but he wasn't pointing it at anyone. And then I think in 2006 when I asked him a couple of questions about it, he said, well, somebody said I might have pointed it in his direction and maybe I did. You know, all of this is consistent with this theme of minimization. It's I was there, well, maybe I held the gun, but by all accounts and by all the witnesses' statements, he pointed it directly at Gary Hinman and was holding it in a menacing manner and kept him quiet. Hinman was subsequently stabbed by Bobby Beausoleil. He was suffocated and forced to sign, before that, he was forced to sign over the pink slips to his two cars. One of those two cars, this Inmate drove away from the residence. When Bruce Davis and Charles Manson left the residence before Hinman was actually -- died, they drove away in one of Hinman's cars. Bobby Beausoleil after the murder was found with Hinman's second car. In fact, that's where he was arrested in that car. So Mr. Davis' participation in the Hinman crime was more than just being a chauffeur who didn't know what was going on. He knew full well what the entire plan was and what the intent and purpose of which was to basically get money from Mr. Hinman. Mr. Hinman's murder was made to look as if some Black Panthers had committed the crime. A paw print symbolizing the Black Panthers in blood was written in blood at the residence. The word death to piggys, I think, was also written as well. And this was fitting in with the philosophy, the Manson philosophy of Helter Skelter and that was it was basically their intent. When I say their intent, the Manson Family's intent to start a race war. That they were going to commit random murders and hope and suggest from the crime scenes of those murders that they were committed by black individuals and that would incite a race war between the blacks and the whites. Very preposterous theory when you think about it in today's terms, but back in the 1960s, there was a lot of racial tension, especially in Los Angeles County. And it wasn't as far fetched as it would be today. But nevertheless, this was their misguided purpose. This was the misguided theory. This was what was discussed at the Ranch, what was talked about which was subject to the creepy crawly missions. And this was a philosophy that this individual, this Inmate here today, embraced but has refused to admit. In the 2006 hearing, when I asked him some questions about Helter Skelter, he said it was all a joke. He said he just thought Charlie was just kind of joking about it. He refused and has continued to refuse to admit that he embraced that philosophy, that racial philosophy that there was going to be a race war that would be incited and that at the end of this race war the blacks would win, but that Charles Manson and his group would hide in the desert during this race war and would then emerge. But since they were smarter and better equipped to lead than anyone else, that the blacks would turn to him, turn to this group and they would rule the world. And this was all based on what they perceived the Beatles were telling them through The White Album and through various songs such as Helter Skelter and Piggys. So as part of this quasi religious philosophy and as part of the ongoing criminal enterprise, you start off first with the Hinman murders of which this Inmate participated in. Now, after Gary Hinman was murdered and after his property was taken, did Bruce Davis leave the Family? Did he walk away? No, he didn't. And a couple of weeks later, you have the Tate murders. And the night after there's the LaBianca murders. So at this point now you have eight people that were killed, and yet this Inmate remains with that Family. He remains entrenched in the philosophy. He remains an integral part of this criminal organization. Now he has mentioned several times how he refused to go along with the -- he was invited to go along the night of the Tate murders of August 9th and that he was also invited to go along the next night at the LaBianca murders but that he turned them down. Now this is very interesting that he would say that because I think he's -- again, this is another attempt at what I would describe as minimization.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I'm going to object here.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: It was also his --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I'm going to interpose an objection here. Mr. Davis had nothing to do with the Tate or LaBianca murders. Mr. Sequeira is required under Title 15, Section 2030, to confine his comments to the record. He can't make this stuff up and bring it here before this Panel today.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I'm going to overrule. That's a closing statement. I'm going to give him a little latitude, but I think he's moving to a point as it relates to the facts. He's not making a statement that he was involved in those crimes. I think he's making a point as to a concern about his minimization.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Correct.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I'll overrule.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So Bruce Davis says that he turned down the opportunity to go, and yet he still tells us and he's stated many past hearings that he was so -- he wanted so badly to do what Charlie wanted him to do that he so badly wants to gain acceptance that it is so contradictory for him to say and maintain that he was asked to go on that -- on those murders and turned it down. I mean, it makes no sense except that it tries to make him look better. That somehow he turned down an opportunity to go on a killing spree, on a two night killing spree. So that I attribute to again his minimization. Because on one hand he says that he didn't want to participate in the Shorty Shea murder, but he did so because he wanted to be accepted. But then why would he turn down going -- an opportunity to go on the Tate-LaBianca murders? It makes no sense. But that's the problem. That's the problem with this Inmate. He contradicts himself in many instances and numerous occasions. My recollection of reading some of the transcripts regarding the Tate- LaBianca murders, there was a mention of Bruce Davis and the only mention of Bruce Davis was that just before, I think, they left on the LaBianca murders, they stopped by and talked to Bruce Davis and Bruce Davis had given them some credit cards or some money, which was his role in the Family. His role in the Family was, you know, working with the credit cards and working with the money. So that's not unusual. But nevertheless, the point is that there are no where anywhere in the record can I find any indication that Bruce Davis was even asked to go along on the Tate-LaBianca murders. So when he says that he turned it down, there's some real question as to his credibility with respect to that. But nevertheless, Bruce Davis knew about the slaughter at the LaBianca residence and he knew about the slaughter at the Tate residence. He knew these people had been brutally killed. This was discussed at the ranch. They watched TV accounts of the crimes. They reveled in the fact that they had killed these pigs and that they were hastening or instigating the start of Helter Skelter. And yet Bruce Davis didn't leave this organization. He didn't leave this quasi religious group. He didn't leave his so-called Family. He stayed with them. Not only did he stay with them, but he later committed a murder of Shorty Shea in order to help facilitate the cover up of the Tate-LaBianca murders. Now Shorty Shea was killed for a couple of reasons. I think the major reason which is clear is that they worried that he was -- well, Mr. Shea was a ranch hand and also a stunt man who lived at the residence or lived at the ranch. He drank a bit. The Family was concerned that he was talking, that he might be an informant for the police because a number of them, the Family members, had been rounded up in a sweep regarding some stolen vehicles and whatnot. But there was also concern among Charles Manson and the others including Bruce Davis that Shorty Shea was going to squeal. Basically he was going to tell the police and it was going to lead the police to the Family as suspects in the Tate-LaBianca murders. There was also another reason why Mr. Shea was not liked. Mr. Shea was married to a black woman, and Charles Manson was an extreme racist and many others in the group and I would kind of include Bruce Davis because I think he's admitted in the past that he's also had some racist tendencies as well. He also had a dislike for Mr. Shea for that reason. But the primary reason was to eliminate a witness. Now, Mr. Davis' account of what happened is in complete contradiction of the evidence that's been presented in the case. He claims that this was almost like an afternoon joyride. They were just kind of going along for a ride and the invited Shorty. Kind of lured him to a ravine and then Grogan hit him in the back of the head with a pipe wrench. He got out of the car and they chased him down and they stabbed him a couple of times. This is in complete contradiction to the evidence that was presented at the trial. The evidence at the trial was that this crime took place at night. That Mr. Shea was concerned, he was very worried. He thought that he was going to be killed. He sensed the animosity and the hatred from the Manson Family. He was -- And I'm not going to go over all the facts with respect to it, but the bottom line was this occurred at night. There was a witness who saw Bruce Davis, Charles Manson, Steve Grogan, and Tex Watson basically surround Shorty Shea and take him off into the night. It was a full moon that night. And the witness was Ruby Pearl was the last person to see Shorty Shea alive. And this was after having the discussion with Shorty Shea about, you know, possibly staying some place where he could be safe for that night. So Shorty Shea disappears. That same night, that same full moon night, Barbara Hoyt hears -- is awakened by screaming, blood curdling screaming at night. And she recognizes the voice of Shorty Shea who she knew. And she heard him screaming as he was being attacked and stabbed. This is in complete contradiction to what Mr. Davis says occurred. And, in fact, Ms. Hoyt who testified against Mr. Davis as well as other Manson Family members also contradicts some of the other statements that Mr. Davis has made over the years in particular, with respect to his involvement in the crime. In fact, Ms. Davis says in the letter to the parole board, she says I knew Bruce Davis when he lived with the Manson Family from April 1st of '69 -- when I lived with the Manson Family from April 1st of 1969 to early October of 1969. As I testified in the Manson Family related trials resulting in the convictions of Manson, Davis, Watson, Grogan, Atkins, Van Houten, and Krenwinkel. I've always cooperated with authorities despite daily death threats lasting ten months and four days after which time five members of the Family attempted to kill me. I was left for dead. I'm an expert on the Manson Family. As tragic and horrific as these murders were, they were but a symptom of a greater evil that was planned by the Manson Family to be inflicted on the public at large. Helter Skelter was a race war planned by Manson between the whites and the blacks from which the majority of the population would perish. It was not a theory made up by a prosecutor, but a cold, hard, ugly fact explained by the -- to the prosecutors by the witnesses like me. Preparing for Helter Skelter physically, mentally, financially, et cetera, was the all pervasive fabric of the Manson Family daily life. On the night of the -- The night the LaBiancas were murdered, Charlie was looking for victims. He passed up a house because there were pictures of children on the mantel. However, he told the other killers that they would have to kill children at some time in the future. Manson believed that once all the white people had perished the remaining black people, not knowing how to rule, would enlist the Manson Family as the only surviving whites to rule over them. Then Charlie would, to put it simply, be king of the world. There's little difference between Manson's Family and Hitler's Nazis except that Manson was stopped earlier. Power was the motive for these murders. However, Helter Skelter did not happen fast enough for Charlie, so they killed innocent people hoping to blame blacks for the crimes and thus set off the war. The victims' lives and suffering meant absolutely nothing to the Family. They were expendable, like a tissue once used you would toss into the trash. If the Family hadn't been stopped, they would have killed hundreds of people in their quest to ignite Helter Skelter. Even with the trials -- Even with the trails and with many of the killers behind -- trials and with many of the killers behind bars, I do not believe the killing stopped. Bruce Davis was not a reluctant, passive player as he would have you believe. Like Himmler to Hitler, he wanted to be second in command. He was the only person in the Family vying for this position. Knowing that the Family's business was murder, he wanted to lead them. Charlie was not a father figure to Bruce as they were near in age. Bruce was 27 and Charlie was 34. The Family hated society and wanted it to be destroyed. The average person who gets up every day and goes to work and pays their taxes were referred to as pigs who needed a damn good whacking. If the Family had their way, they would all be dead. The night that Shorty Shea was murdered, Ruby Pearl, the ranch foreperson, witnessed Shorty being chased past George Spahn's house and down into a creek that runs behind the ranch. I was going to sleep in a small trailer that overlooked that creek. It had been dark a couple hours and there was a bright full moon. All of a sudden I heard a blood curdling scream coming from the creek below my window. I recognized the screams as Shorty's voice and I'm absolutely sure those screams were Shorty. There was silence for about a minute and then the screaming started again. It seemed to last forever. It was pure horror. I can hear those screams today 40 years later. In my heart and my nightmares, Shorty is still screaming. He has never stopped screaming. I've heard Bruce Davis describe Shorty's murders at his parole hearings and have never heard of the murder being done "more gently." A bump on the head, a cut on his arm. Wrong. Shorty fought hard for his life. He just didn't lie on the ground while his killers stood above him and argued amongst themselves who was going to cut his head off. Shorty was a big man like John Wayne. He was strong. He was a stunt man and a ranch hand. The killers were short and thin, and the only way they could subdue Shorty was to attack him en masse like a pack of wolves. I've read part of Shorty's autopsy report done on his skeletal remains. It was eight years before any of the killers were willing to say where the body was buried. There were hack marks and chop marks on his bones and on his skull not to mention the holes in his clothing from knife wounds. Bruce Davis doesn't even tell the truth about the place or the time of day where the murder occurred. And she goes on to talk about Bruce Davis' comments about Dennis Rice, which I'll get to in a minute. But in -- And it is true when you look at the autopsy reports, of course, the body is badly, is completely decomposed many, many years later when it's discovered. But you can see there are hack marks on the bones. There were nine chop wounds to the head. Four stab wounds to the body. And these were stab wounds that many years later when the body is completely decomposed, you can only detect the stab wounds because of the wounds on the bones. Now I know we've discussed this issue of decapitation. And, of course, an autopsy performed so many years later describes the cause of death as multiple stab wounds and chop wounds. Whether the head was decapitated or not can't be determined because the tissue and the other portions of the body are gone. The only thing that's remaining are the skeletal, is the skeleton. Now, it is true when the body was discovered, the head was, in fact, separated from the rest of the skeleton. But in any event, just so there's no confusion about the decapitation aspect, there's no determination that he was killed by being decapitate and that's clear. And there's no way to even be able to tell if that occurred. It's probably most likely multiple injuries, the stab wounds and the chop wounds. But, nevertheless, what's significant about the decapitation and how it even comes into play is that this is what Bruce Davis and the others told other Family members. That they cut him into little pieces. That they cut his head off. By Bruce's own admission, I guess Charles Manson did want to cut his head off. And this leads to another area of contradiction with respect to Mr. Davis. You know, Mr. Davis talks in his, I think the most recent psychological evaluation, but he talks about the aftermath of the Shorty Shea murder and how he was very depressed. And he's described today how he really just didn't want to have any part of it. That he really didn't, he just reluctantly participated. It's interesting today when he said something about the slashing on the arm. It seems to be a much more forceful or much deeper blow than he's described in the past, because in the past he said it was maybe a little three inch cut. I thought he was already dead because he didn't bleed. These are quotes from Bruce Davis in past hearings, in past statements. Yet today it seems like he's expanded on that a little bit more. Nevertheless, he describes his mood, the Inmate describes his mood and the aftermath of the murders as being one of depression. He slept for a couple of days. He was just terrified and mortified by what he had done. But yet when you look at the transcript from the trial and when you look at what he said after the murder to other people, it's a different picture than somebody who is completely disgusted by what he has done and who may wish to disassociate from himself and the Family because he doesn't disassociate himself from the Family. Not only does he not disassociate himself from the Family, he stays with them. He continues to basically talk to other Family members and talk about Shorty's death in glowing terms as if he's proud of what he's done. In fact, when there was a discussion on the ranch about what happened to Shorty, and I'm looking from -- And this is Charlie. Charlie was talking here. "And he said they took him for a ride. They hit him in the head with a pipe." And this is actually the testimony from, this is a quote from the testimony of, actually from Barbara Hoyt. "They took him for a ride. They hit him in the head with a pipe. I think he said, I think he said lead, but I'm not sure if it was lead. And then they started stabbing him and stabbing him and stabbing him. And then he said it was real hard to kill him so they brought him to now." And when you said he was pretty hard to kill until we brought them to now, he said, yeah, and then we brought him to now, Clem cut him. Clem, meaning Steve Grogan, cut his head off. And Bruce Davis said, "That was far out." And a couple of other times Bruce Davis said, "Yeah," and things like that and agreed. And that was far out. This is what Bruce Davis -- This is what Bruce Davis said to others. This is how he described his participation. And this is how he described the death of Shorty Shea. There's also a couple other quotes here. And what is also significant too is that, and there was a conversation also from the testimony of Paul Watkins. Did you hear Bruce -- And this is quoted. Did you hear -- This is on page 7637 of the transcript, "Did you hear Bruce Davis and Bill Vance talking to one another during any portion of the time that you were walking to the truck?" "Yeah." Did you understand -- Answer, "Yes." Question: "Did you understand everything that was said by Bruce Davis to Bill Vance?" Answer: "No." Question: "Could you hear anything that was said?" Answer: "I could have if I had been paying attention, but I wasn't paying attention." Question: "Now did you hear Bruce Davis say anything to Bill Vance that you understood that you could hear or make out?" Answer: "Yes." Question: "To whom was Mr. Davis speaking when he made the statement?" Answer: "To Bill." And what did Mr. -- Question: "What did Mr. Davis say?" Answer: "The one thing I understood out of everything he said was when he said, 'That's why we killed Shorty.'" Question: "He said, 'That's why we killed Shorty'?" Answer: "Yeah, that's the only words I understood this particular conversation had struck me." That's very interesting that in discussing the crime, you know, at the ranch with the others, this Inmate admits that he killed Shorty Shea. We killed Shorty Shea. Yet, in past parole hearings, in past psychological evaluations, in past discussions while he's been in prison, it's always been, well, I didn't kill him. In fact, Mr. Beckman has argued several times, he didn't kill anyone, referring to his client, Mr. Davis. He didn't kill Shorty Shea. And yet, at the ranch, before he's arrested, before he's convicted, he's willing to tell everyone he killed Shorty Shea. I think that's extremely significant as well.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Commissioner, I'm going to interpose another objection here. He's repeating himself, going around and around and around. We've now spent 35 minutes listening to Mr. Sequeira. He has not said one thing that deals with Mr. Davis' present suitability. We're still back in 1969 through 1971.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I'm going to overrule. I think he's -- What he's doing in his summary is setting the foundation for the points that he's going to make. So I'll allow him to continue.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Okay. And what is also significant, too, and this is also reflected at a later point, there was a conversation where there was a discussion with, and I'll find the quote here for you in a moment. There was a conversation between the Inmate and some other Family members. And the discussion at that point involved the testimony at the trial of Bobby Beausoleil was ongoing. And there was a witness on the stand testifying against Bobby Beausoleil. And there was a comment by Bruce Davis that we need to take care of that witness. This statement, that's also reflected in the transcripts, shows the attitude of this Inmate towards not only the killing of Shorty Shea, but the attitude of protecting the Family, the attitude of making sure that whoever testified against the Family would be dealt with. And this is in stark contrast to the way he describes his involvement in the crime. This Inmate was heavily involved in the Family. He's minimized his involvement in the Family even after he was arrested and convicted. There was a number of questions that were asked in the 2006 hearing about his -- this Inmate's disassociating himself with the Manson Family. And he said, and if you look in that transcript, you'll see the questions about Tex Watson. The two of them were here at the prison together. They ran a prison ministry together. And their wives knew each other. They were socially close. And when you look back through that transcript you'll see the responses from Mr. Davis that in my opinion indicates his, again, his attempt to deceive. His attempt to minimize his continuing involvement at that point with members of the Manson Family. He refers to Dennis Rice, because I asked him in the 2006 hearing, does he still have any contact with any members of the Manson Family. He says, "Well, there's one guy that's written to me. This guy is a fringe member of the Family. His name is Dennis Rice. He has a prison ministry and, you know, I communicate with him." Dennis Rice was more than just a fringe member of the Manson Family. In fact, I think in Barbara Hoyt's letter, she talks about Dennis Rice. She says, "Bruce Davis described Dennis Rice as a fringe member with the Family. But the truth is that Dennis paid for the trip to Hawaii in 1970 where I was to be murdered. Two years later in 1972, Dennis Rice was in the Manson documentary." Dennis lived with the Family for over two years, so he doesn't sound like a fringe member to me. Despite having become a Christian, Bruce does not tell the truth. He is still lying about the facts of Shorty's murder. He is lying about his past and his role in it. He is doing that now, today, and in the present. And just to fill you in on who Dennis Rice was, Dennis Rice, Ms. Hoyt alludes to the fact that they tried to murder her. She was a witness against all the Manson Family members. Dennis Rice and others arranged to fly her to Hawaii. They flew her to Hawaii with one of the other girls. They put her up in a penthouse suite in Hawaii to keep her from testifying at the trial. Just before the girls who took her there came home, they laced a hamburger that Ms. Hoyt was eating with LSD. She ate the hamburger. She became violently ill and almost passed out in the street. Luckily somebody came by who was a drug counselor who thought that she had overdosed on something and took her to the hospital. And she survived. She returned to California. Her parents flew out and she returned to California and she testified. But this was the attempt -- When you say -- You're talking about an ongoing criminal organization, this is what they were doing. They were trying to hide a potential witness to encourage a witness to go out of the country. Dennis Rice subsequently became involved in a break-in at a Hawthorne gun store along with Catherine Share, also known as Gypsy, and other Manson Family members. And the purpose of the break-in at the Hawthorne gun store was to obtain weapons so that they could break Charles Manson and the girls out of jail. They wound up in a shoot out with the police. Dennis Rice was subsequently convicted for his involvement in the crime and also the attempted intimidation and attempted murder of Ms. Hoyt. Although I don't believe that was a charge he ultimately pled guilty to. But anyways, he was connected in connection with those criminal activities and he subsequently went to prison, got out, became a prison ministry. He still has an association at least as of a couple of years ago with Bruce Davis. There's connections from their websites going back and forth with respect to their religious writings. There's connections between both of the websites. So even in 2006, this Inmate was intending to downplay, in my opinion, downplay his involvement with other individuals from his past from the Manson Family. But overall when you look at this entire, you know, picture of this Inmate, and you look through the psychological evaluations, you can see that there's the pattern of minimization. There's a pattern of manipulation. There is a pattern of basically putting a rosier picture on everything as opposed to what, you know, may in fact be the truth. Even in describing one of his 115s in prison, the previous Panels had noted and concluded that he minimized that as well. He claims he was just scraping some paint off of his cell, and when, in fact, the nature of the violation was a belief that he was sharpening a potential stabbing instrument. He went to prison and his associations, once he went to prison, also indicate a very slow process, if any at all, towards rehabilitation. He was associated, I think, with a prison group, I think the Nazi prison group, when he first came to prison. He's disavowed and now he's stated that he's no longer involved with those. But you can see in his -- And along that same line, he claims that when he was in Folsom prison and there was a murder that he began having this epiphany. This epiphany occurred in the 1970s. And I asked him some questions about, well, if you had this epiphany back then and you accepted full responsibility for your crime, why did you continue to pursue your appeals? And his responses in the 2006 hearing was that he basically felt he deserved to be out. That he had been unfairly convicted, which is in direct contradiction. You know, on one hand he's saying, you know, I accepted what I did and I was willing to pay the price for it. He still pursued his appeals because he felt that he deserved to get out. Because for technical reasons, you know, that the jury was tainted because it was a death qualified jury because they started out the trial seeking the death penalty, and then the death penalty was overturned before they could conclude the trial, that he needed a new trial. This is consistent with the theme of sort of half admitting to something but then wishing and wishing to still beat the rap so to speak. He was also -- I also asked him a couple of questions, if he had accepted full responsibility, number one, why did he in 1980 tell a psychologist that he didn't want to mention his crime partners because he was worried that if he made any statements about his crime partners it would affect their appeals. This, again, shows a continuing loyalty to his crime partners. At least as of 1980. And so you have these contradictions in this Inmate. On one hand, he has this epiphany but yet doesn't lead authorities to where the body is located. He doesn't name his crime partners or describe even what his crime partners did for fear of hurting their chances for appeal. I mean he still involved -- He still has an association. He still has an affection or a concern for his own crime partners. Yet he supposedly has this epiphany. So the bottom line with this Inmate is how can you believe anything that he says? How can you trust his credibility at all? I mean, he's changed his story so many times. His version of the crime conflicts severely with the testimony of the witnesses who don't have a motive to lie. Who don't have a motive to minimize. Who don't have a motive to attempt to deceive or manipulate Panels or anyone else. And that's the real problem you have with this Inmate. This Inmate is smart. There's no question about that. You know, he went to college. He's intelligent. Which makes it even more illogical that he would be such a follower because he is intelligent. He was older than the rest. And he did occupy and maintain a much more significant position within this criminal organization than he admits or has admitted in the past. And I think that is the key factor. His inability to truly admit to the crime. His inability to fully accept responsibility for what he has done is what makes him a continued danger to society. And looking -- I'm looking at his two form letters that he wrote to the victims' family. You know, I'm struck and what is really significant is in the second paragraph he said, in talking to the victims, he says, "I knew Donald. I had nothing personally against him, but I chose to join a criminal gang which senselessly murdered and robbed him." He didn't do it? It's the gang that did it? He says I just joined a gang that committed the crime. The same thing in the letter to Hinman. "I had nothing personal against Gary, but I chose to join a criminal gang which robbed and killed him." So it's the gang that robbed and killed him. It's not Bruce Davis. It's not Bruce Davis who killed Gary Hinman. It's not Bruce Davis who killed Shorty Shea. And that is the real issues. You know, that is the real issue with this Inmate, his minimization, his unwillingness to fully understand and have insight into what he has done and the horrific crimes that he'd done. Not only just the crimes of Hinman and Shea. I mean, it's the whole pattern of this criminal conspiracy. It is what this whole philosophy and what this criminal organization was about. It was about inciting further violence. It was about inciting and causing a race war where hundreds and thousands of other individuals could be slaughtered or could be killed as a result of their actions. And this is the, you know, the classic -- this is what terrorists do. This is what it was designed to do. It was an early instance of domestic terrorism. And this is the philosophy that he bought into but he refuses to acknowledge. And that makes him a -- His refusal to acknowledge that and acknowledge his role is what makes him an unreasonable risk of danger to society. And I'd ask the Panel, deny him parole. And deny it for a significant period of time. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Counsel, closing statement.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Thank you. Well, he makes an excellent performance, the District Attorney. He goes from Manson hearing to Manson hearing and basically makes it up as he goes along. At the last Leslie Van Houten hearing, he brought as a supposed victim's next-of-kin, a relative of Jay Sebring, who was one of the Tate victims. Leslie Van Houten had nothing to do and was not convicted of anything having to do with the Tate murders. She was involved with the LaBianca murders. That didn't stop Mr. Sequeira from trying to confuse the issue. Last year at Bobby Beausoleil's hearing, he found out that Commissioner Anderson was going to be chairing the Panel, so he concocted a racist theory to try and show that Bobby Beausoleil was a racist. It's effective if you buy into it. No one ever heard from Barbara Hoyt with regard to Bruce Davis until after the 2006 split decision. All of a sudden, she comes out of the woodwork. And by virtue of all hearsay statements makes claims that Bruce Davis was one of the leaders of the gang. I'll deal with that first. If we're going to have hearsay, what the heck. This is a book called Helter Skelter written by Vincent Bugliosi, the trial District Attorney on the Tate-LaBianca cases. Page 302, "As with others I interviewed, I asked Gregg for examples of Manson's domination. Gregg gave me one of the best I'd yet found. He said he'd had dinner with the Family on three occasions. Each time Manson sat alone on the top of a large rock. The other members of the Family sitting on the ground in a circle around him. Question at trial: 'Did Tex Watson ever get up on the rock?' Answer: 'No, of course not.' 'Did anyone else in the Family get up there?' Answer: 'Only Charlie.'" He ran things lock, stock, and barrel. Page 484 [sic]. "I had more hopes for Sandy than Squeaky." Squeaky is Annette [sic] "Squeaky" Fromme. "The latter, Squeaky Fromme was on a power trip, acting as Manson's unofficial spokesman, running the Family in his absence." All right, and I'll show you another quote about that later. We're a nation of laws and constitutional rights. Those laws and rights apply equally to everyone. When someone entrusted with the responsibility to uphold and properly apply the law, such as a District Attorney, a BPH Commissioner, or a judge breaks the law or violates an Inmate's constitutional rights with impunity, we cease to be a nation of laws and rights and become a nation of lawbreakers and vigilante criminals. Your decision today is going to determine whether you view yourselves as law-abiding public officials or as a vigilante exacting vengeance and retribution where the law does not permit you to do so. Because Bruce Davis was involved with Charles Manson, it's going to take an enormous amount of courage to overcome your law enforcement bias and the political backlash that uncertainly -- that certainly will occur to exact the maximum vengeance for the Manson Family's crimes or to apply the law fairly and honestly and give Mr. Davis the parole grant he's been owed for about 30 years. Courage that the last 22 Panels with the exception of one Commissioner lacked. For despite knowing that Bruce Davis deserves to be paroled, they denied him for one year hoping the next Panel might have the courage to do what they could not. But that's not how our system works. Vigilantism especially as an act of vengeance and moral cowardice has not part in our nation of laws and constitutional rights. In August 2008, our California Supreme Court in Lawrence affirmed what the federal courts and many California courts of appeals have been telling this Board for years. Life term inmates have a liberty interest in parole protected by the due process clauses of the California and United States Constitutions, which is violated by repeated denials of parole based upon the unchanging historical factors of the life crime thereby converting sentences of life with the possibility of parole to life without the possibility of parole. Noting that under Penal Code Section 3041, parole is the rule, not the exception, the court stated, "Statutory and regulatory mandate to normally grant parole to life prisoners who committed murder means that particularly after these prisoners have served their suggested base terms the underlying circumstances of the commitment offense alone will really provide a valid basis for denying parole when there is strong evidence of rehabilitation and no other evidence of current dangerousness." Federal courts have held the liberty interest violated and ordered inmates serving just a few years past their base term to be released after the Board had denied parole, three, four, five, and six times, based primarily or solely on the unchanging historical factors. What would these courts and our Supreme Court make of this case? Where Bruce Davis reached his base term over 30 years ago and has to date been denied 22 straight times based solely upon the life crime and other unchanging historical factors. Where as Commissioner Davis conceded at the 2006 hearing, the evidence is overwhelming that Mr. Davis has rehabilitated himself and no longer poses any threat to society. And when my client asked what he could do to make himself more ready for parole, Commissioner Davis did not because he could not give him an answer. In this instance, to ask the question is to answer it. A clearer violation of a life Inmate's protected liberty interest in parole likely does not exist. Even if you could conceivably deny him a 23rd time today based solely upon the crime, you may only do so if the facts of the crime provide a sound basis for predicting future violence. The glaring injustice of this situation is magnified exponentially by the fact that, yes, my client though he today has taken full responsibility for his actions and considers himself to be the killer, he was not the actual killer of either Gary Hinman or Shorty Shea. I said it in 2006. I said it in 2007. I said it in 2008. He wasn't. Although, as I said, you can hear today and from reading the documents, he takes full responsibility for the killings just as if he was the actual killer. I have to be honest, I was stunned when you -- When Commissioner Doyle said that he didn't see the taking of full responsibility from the document that Mr. Davis wrote. He didn't discuss the facts, but he -- And to the extent that he may have minimized it in the past, he explained that he was in denial. But today, he basically laid himself bare. There could be no question that he's minimizing any -- Whether there was before, there could be no question that he's minimizing anymore. The glaring injustice of the situation is magnified even further by the fact that one of the actual killers, Steve Grogan, was paroled in 1985. And just last year, as Mr. Bugliosi noted, Manson's real right-hand man, Squeaky Fromme was paroled for the attempted assassination of President Ford. Yet, Bruce Davis sits here for over 38 years. The evidence is so overwhelming that he's rehabilitated himself in prison. It almost -- It almost begs -- It's just astounding. He has insight into the causative factors. He's taken guilt and responsibility for the crimes and whatever he may have done in the past, he does not minimize his role in these crimes. But the fact remains that he drove the car at the Hinman murder. He was there. He pointed a gun. He did not kill the man. The fact remains that with the Shea murder, he sliced him in the shoulder, across the shoulder. He's as guilty as they are. He acknowledges it. What else can he do? What else is necessary to do for him to be no longer considered a danger. He's taken a world of self-help and therapy. Deputy Commissioner Welch outlined it very, very well. I don't need to go into it anymore. He's had insight. His insight has evolved for years. I'm going to just quote from the 2009 psych evaluation where she discusses the history of his insight. This is from page 7. "Regarding insight into the crime, in '72, Mr. Davis did not wish to discuss the crime. In '73, he claimed innocence. The author in '76 indicated he had accepted partial responsibility in that he acknowledged limited participation of the crimes and referenced suspension of good judgment and seeking the good life. He again took partial responsibility in 1978 citing poor judgment due to drug use and the company with who he was associating. The '80 evaluation noted little remorse and indicated that he appeared to be defensive when responding to the question of test measures. In '82, his role in the crime was referred to as minor. In '84, he denied premeditation. He described himself as marginally involved. In '88, it was noted he was willing to talk about the role of other Manson Family members in the crimes whereas he had been unwilling to do so in prior years. The reported noted he attributed his actions to sheer stupidity and portrayed himself as a minor participant. The author concluded that although Mr. Davis tended to present himself in a favorable light, the author felt that he had attained an optimal level of understanding. In 1989, the evaluator noted that Mr. Davis seemed to understand the destructive role of alcohol and drugs. The evaluator in '93 opined that Mr. Davis continued to report progression of insight and that his insight appeared to be more than most inmates. In '94, Mr. Davis spoke of his poor choice in friends with whom to associate." In '99, the doctor stated that Mr. Davis appeared to have basic insight. In 2006, Mr. Davis gave a full description evidencing insight. The doctor this year indicates that his insight is growing and getting better and better every year. And he has significant insight into this crime, into these crimes. He is genuinely remorseful and empathizes at an emotional level the harm done to the victim's and their families. He has written letters to that effect. He has performed a variety of acts which show his remorse. He's taught classes for years in the School of the Bible. He's been a religious peer educator, a Yolkfellows coordinator for many years. Don't take my word for it, I'm going to read you some of the words of people directly involved with him. First is a laudatory chrono dated December 25th, 2009, by the Reverend Alderson. This was somewhat in response to a comment made at the 2008 hearing that Mr. Davis uses his religion as a bully pulpit. "I first met Inmate Davis in 1986. I've known him for the past 23 years. During this period, he's been a parishioner, worker, and servant. He has worked in a variety of chapel jobs under my supervision. His character and demeanor have always been with humbleness, caring, and giving to others. He has used his time to give guidance and help to Inmates, exhibiting positive ethical moral traits. He leads by example and has maintained an exemplary disciplinary record for the 23 years I've known him. He works well with his peers and our staff. Over the past two decades, numerous visiting clergy have spoken positively of their working relationship with Davis. He is capable of performing his duties and tasks with minimal supervision. It is my opinion Inmate Davis demonstrates good behavior and commendable character. When he presents the gospel, it is never from a bully pulpit." In response to the District Attorney's assertions that my client is a racist. This is from Mitchell M. Parson, dated August 31st, 2009. "My name is Mitchell Parson, I'm a 46-year-old African-American man who over the last three years had the opportunity to know and become friends with Bruce Davis. I am now a free man living in Sacramento. I have made and still am in the process of making successful transition back into my community. Bruce has been a loving friend, teacher, and mentor to me. I have witnessed Bruce putting others' needs and concerns first before his own. Bruce is a leader in the Christian community on A yard. He always shares his remorse and responsibility for his crimes. His testimony of change has inspired many of all racial backgrounds. Bruce does not see the color of a man, but the content of his heart. His encouragement and wise advise helps me even to this day as I am becoming a positive addition to my church and community. I say without reservation that Bruce would be welcomed into my home, my church, and my community." This is the declaration of an Inmate here named Richard Kelly. "I Richard Kelly, declare as follows," this is marked as Exhibit 5, "that I have spent nearly 39 years of my life incarcerated within various county and state prisons. During that time -- During this period of incarceration, I have had occasion to observe many self-professed Christians. Unfortunately over time, my personal observation has been that many of these jailhouse conversions are temporary or entirely feigned. That in November of 2005, I arrived at CMC, where I first met Bruce Davis. Notwithstanding my earlier observations, over time I have observed Bruce Davis to be the most consistently sober and genuine Christian I have ever had the pleasure to meet bar none. During my first year at CMC, I observed Mr. Davis on a daily basis under nearly every circumstance one would expect to find within a state prison. That I have observed Bruce during periods which would normally engender great stress in the average Inmate. Nevertheless, I have observed Bruce to remain tranquil and apparently unaffected. When confronted with potentially volatile circumstances, I have observed him to be a force for calm. When faced with tests of his personal character and fortitude, I have observed Bruce to maintain a positive attitude regardless of the adversity. I have been housed within the CDC and R for nearly 20 years. During periods of unrest, I've often been called upon to act as an intermediary between various Inmates, groups of Inmates, as well as between Inmates and staff. Acting in this role, I've been relied upon to exercise good judgment with regard to those with whom I'm attempting to communicate and intercede. That notwithstanding this fact during and evening recreational period in October 2006, based on a perceived slight, I harbored an intent to murder another Inmate. That as a long-term prisoner and active member of an outlaw motorcycle gang for over 40 years, I am no stranger to violence. So this was no passing fancy. I had every intention of carrying out an act of violence. That prior to carrying out the planned attack, I asked Bruce Davis if I might have a moment of his time. Bruce appeared tired as it was rather late in the evening. Nevertheless he agreed. As we began to walk around the exercise yard, I explained I was about to do something which would likely result in my being placed in the hole. Moreover, as this being the case, I would not be able to say goodbye to a very dear friend of mine. I explained that I had been watching him for a long time and I thought he was the real deal, a sincere Christian. That with this in mind, I wanted Bruce to look out for my friend and to tell him I was sorry I couldn't tell him goodbye. Moreover that I would appreciate it if he would take my friend under his wing as he was a new Christian trying to do the right thing. Again, I was of the opinion that most jailhouse conversions were insincere spurious attempts to impress the Parole Board or to hide out behind a Bible. That sensing something was terribly wrong, Bruce asked if I would sit down with him for a few minutes. I agreed. Without directly asking what the problem was, Bruce asked if he might share some things with me. Again, I agreed. Bruce then began to share with me his observation about me. Bruce said he observed me to be angry, bitter, and in pain. He told me that he saw me as lost. That even he told me things that my closest friends had never had the desire or the courage to tell me. He then asked if he might pray for me. I again agreed believing I owed it to him in return for his doing as I asked. It certainly had nothing to do with my believing in this God of his as I didn't believe at all. Then in the moments which followed, Bruce laid hands on my praying for my salvation and for my release from my sin filled life and from a lifetime of pain. Moreover that I be delivered from my anger and violence behavior. In that moment, I began to experience the grace and transforming hand of Christ in my life. Needless to say, I repented from my desire to harm the man I had the difficulty with and sought him out to offer my forgiveness and apology. However, other than to illustrate the type of man Mr. Davis has become, my story is unimportant. In a very real way, Bruce helped me to save two lives that night. Moreover on a daily basis I've observed Bruce to be a force for good both in and outside of the prison setting. That I honestly believe Bruce would be an even greater asset to society if he were to be released from prison into the community on parole. Bruce would no doubt use his notoriety as a means to engage others in dialog and to share the message of grace and the means to salvation. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully recommend Bruce for release on parole." And he declares under penalty of perjury, et cetera, et cetera. Executed August 25, 2009. He doesn't make excuses for why he joined the Manson Family. To suggest that his statements about why are inaccurate, is just ludicrous. This is what his sister wrote about his upbringing. August 23rd, 2009, about the incident that Mr. Sequeira places so much importance to involving some ducks. "We lived in Marengo County, Alabama the winter I was eight years old. Bruce was seven. Our landlords, Mr. And Mrs. Keener had a pair of ducks in the barnyard. One day our parents called us into a big conference to ask what we knew about the disappearance of the pair of ducks. I knew nothing of it and neither did Bruce. We were both asked and questioned. We had no idea what happened to them. This was an accusation only. Neither of us was ever punished. What kind of father was Daddy to Bruce. Burt Davis, 1913 to 1968, an only child, was abused himself. As a father, he went to work regularly and provided us with food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and educational opportunities. He was an alcoholic and often came home inebriated and violent. Daddy had a short temper that quickly turned to violence. He was mean sober and meaner drunk. The worst part was that sometimes an attack from him would come without warning. He was unpredictable. We tried to stay out of his way. He raged through the house in Williamston, Michigan and turned over the refrigerator. One of my early memories, I was hiding under a porch of a sandy yard, so it was probably in Florida where Grandpa McKee lived. I was three or four. Bruce was screaming and hanging by his feet from Daddy's hands. I remember Bruce's black hair, white diaper, and red screaming face. Momma was shouting at Daddy, "Burt, put him down." That scene was typical. Daddy would get angry and physically punish one of us until mom appeared to make him stop. She often appeared with the meat cleaver, cursed and loudly demanding him to let go of her child. It happened repeatedly until we were adolescents. When we were small children, Daddy kicked us across the room with his engineer boots, slapped us in the face, and whipped us with his belt. As we got older, he pinched us with pliers as we passed him in a room at home. After the onset of adolescence, Daddy was less physically aggressive to me and more aggressive to Bruce. Daddy continued to verbally -- be verbally abusive to all of us. He cursed and belittled us in his general conversation. He consistently refused to sign Bruce's report card saying he was not putting his name on such trash. Momma wanted to be the center of attention in the family and set us up to be jealous of each other. It worked. All three of us, Daddy, Bruce, and I sought her exclusive attention and learned to dislike the other two. Lucky for me, as we grew up, Bruce would receive more of her attention and I got less of it. Thus Daddy stopped being so physically and verbally abusive to me and focused most of it onto his rival, Bruce. When Daddy drank, he provoked arguments with Momma. A few times he got into trouble with the law. After such episodes, he left us alone for a while. Daddy received the attention he could get, Momma cursed him to his face and/or the sheriff got him for driving drunk. As Bruce grew into adolescence and young adulthood, Daddy became increasingly hostile to him. Momma in the pattern of pretending to protect us was commensurately solicitous of Bruce. The arguments, cursing, yelling, name calling, escalated accordingly. Momma's attitude was that Bruce should have nice clothing, use the car, and go to college if he wanted. She gave him spending money for the various needs of an adolescent boy. She supported his of pursuit education and travel. Daddy opposed the expenditure of money and the use of family resources for Bruce. It was an ongoing struggle between them. As Bruce got older, better looking, and remarkably socially adept, Daddy became more and more hostile. When Momma focused on Bruce, Daddy treated him worse and worse. I overhead a typical argument, Bruce was at the University of Tennessee and another quarter was about to start there. Daddy did not want to spend the money to send him back. Daddy's usually statement was that Bruce had a champagne taste and a beer pocketbook. Why should he spend money on someone who does so poorly in school. I recall Momma's voice saying, "As long as I have a job and one dollar to my name, Bruce will go to school as long as he wants to and you won't have one Goddamned thing to say about it." In my hearing, our parents had lots of arguments over Bruce. As Bruce got older, the number and intensity of them increased. Momma defended Bruce. Daddy wanted punishment and often did. The punishment was physical/verbal when Bruce was a toddler/young child, and became verbal abuse in late adolescence and young adulthood. Verbal abuse from Daddy was exquisitely embarrassing. We all got lots of it. I was afraid of Daddy. I still am." Can anyone wonder why after this, he would seek out acceptance from other people? The fact that Manson is only seven years older than Bruce -- or eight years older than Bruce Davis does not mean that Bruce Davis did not look upon him as a father figure. To suggest otherwise, there's just no evidence to support that other than Barbara Hoyt's procured hearsay. Of course, this crime was aggravated. We're not going to argue otherwise. We even argue that with regard to the Shea murder, Bruce's conduct was aggravated as well by slashing him. No question. It wasn't as to the Hinman murder. I could argue significant stress maybe. Certainly there was emotional family turmoil that turned Bruce to Davis -- to Manson, but the truth is he also did it because he wanted the lifestyle. He wanted the sex and drugs and rock and roll. No argument there either. However, there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Bruce Davis bought into Helter Skelter, to a theory about white supremacy. There's just none. None whatsoever. Other than some comments again by Barbara Hoyt, who barely knew Bruce Davis. Mr. Davis has no prior juvenile record and no adult record of serious assaultive behavior or inflicting or attempting to inflict serious injury on a victim. Under Title 15, only crimes of serious violence or circumstances tending to establish parole unsuitability and the minor nature of Mr. Davis' prior criminal record is actually a factor favoring suitability. Unstable social history. Well, I suppose at the time he was in the Manson Family, he did. And yeah, it's interesting that we can say he did prior to them, but that's not a factor of unsuitability because the law says that the conduct of an Inmate's family, the hardships that he was subjected to is not evidence of a negative unsuitability factor of unstable social history. Two of our courts of appeal in the last several years, In re Roderick and In re DeLuna make that clear. And what's truly remarkable and consistent about the District Attorney's presentation at these last four hearings, not one word about Mr. Davis' institutional programming. Programming and behavior that indicates an enhanced ability to function with the law upon release. He's upgraded vocationally, drafting and as a welder. He's been a minister for years. Now he's been working recently in the PIA as a printer. As Deputy Commissioner Welch noted, up until the most recent work reports, which were for a brand new job and they were still satisfactory, he received nothing but exceptional work record for years. And he's been commended for working well with supervisors and peers and for his good attitude. Don't need to say much about the fact that he's educationally upgraded. After getting his high school diploma, he did a year, basically wasted a couple years at the University of Tennessee. He got his master's and his Ph.D. in philosophy and religion, both summa cum laude. That, I think, means number one in the class. It may be one or two, but certainly as the Deputy Commissioner correctly noted, it's a remarkable achievement. Only two 115s in 38 plus years, none for violence, none for elicit drugs or alcohol. At the time of this crime, Mr. Davis was 26 or 27. He is 67 now. At this age, the probability, and I have to admit, I share Commissioner Welch's problem with using this word recidivism and I will get it wrong I'm sure at some point, but the probability of recidivism is vastly reduced. Federal study of state recidivism statistics show that while 51.4 percent of parolees return to prison between the ages of 18 and 29, only 1.4 percent were 55 or older. Within that category, life felons have far and away the lowest recidivism rate of all felons. There's been study after study that has demonstrated this. I'll just point out the most recent one. In 2008 in New York State, they studied 457 life term felons paroled in New York in 2003. As of 2008, five years later, the recidivism rate was zero percent. Mr. Davis' parole plans are solid and feasible and constitute realistic plans for release. Residence. Residence is assured with his wife and daughter in their condo in Grover Beach. He has alternate residence offers as you've seen. He has several job offers including one from Paul Kenny to work in his landscaping business. Were you to require him to parole to Los Angeles County, he has a job offer as well. He has offers of AA sponsorship. He's informed you that he has the relapse prevention plan that he will put into place. Residence here in San Luis Obispo County, I'm not sure whether Grover Beach is San Luis Obispo or Santa Barbara. I think Santa Maria is the boundary line. Obviously, he can be paroled to another to another county if it's in the best interest of the public. I think it's clear that that would be the case here. The most recent psychological evaluation gives him across the board low risk of danger knowing full well the crimes that he committed and in indicates that he has insight and genuine remorse for these crimes. The Axis I and Axis II diagnosis are clearly by history. And of importance, the doctor noted that there were no risk factors that he has to deal with. Let me just give you the exact quote here on page 16. "No areas of concern were identified which require addressing in order to further reduce his risk of violence. Obviously there would be concerns if he was to abusing substances. But there's no evidence that he denies he had a drug problem. No evidence that he refused or did poorly in any such treatment. There's no evidence that he used any drugs or alcohol in prison since 1974. The doctor thinks his relapse prevention plan is adequate and that he does not need any further substance abuse treatment during incarceration. Therefore, there's nothing in the record that suggests that he'd be prone to relapsing when released. And because an Inmate's past substance abuse does not indicate that he currently poses a threat to public safety, it is not a factor of unsuitability. That was held by our California Supreme Court In re Lawrence and more recently by the federal court in Styre, S-T-Y-R-E, versus Adams. The District Attorney and the police department's opposition to parole is not a factor tending to show unsuitability. It is merely opinion and cannot constitute some evidence. He's complied with all the Board's recommendations. This was his 22nd consecutive one year denial last year based solely or mainly upon the life crime or his prior criminal record or his unstable social history. The Inmate's parole suitability determination must be made by a Board not acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. This Board would be doing so if it were to substitute its lay opinions for his future dangerousness for those of his recent psych evaluators. We also have very serious concerns that because of Mr. Davis' notoriety and because of pressure from Governor and from the legal department of this Board, that this Panel will not give him a date even though they recognize that he deserves it, which has been happening for 23 years now. My concerns were heightened with the comments we had about the letter of insight that Mr. Davis submitted. I don't know what to say at this point. He has -- The court in Lawrence said the standard is "extraordinary rehabilitative efforts specifically tailored to address the circumstances that led to his criminality. He's the poster boy for that. I'm not going to say he's perfect. I'm saying he has rehabilitated himself. He has viable parole plans. His present age reduces the probability of recidivism. He experienced reasonably stable relations with others certainly while in prison. He has no juvenile record, no adult record of violent crime. He has no psychiatric condition that would render him a present danger to society. The doctor was very clear that he has no mood disorder or thought disorder. He has insight into the causes of the crime, his prior criminality, and his prior unstable social history. And he's showed more than adequate signs of remorse. We're left with what the District Attorney spent his entire closing argument talking about, the life crimes. Basically, what it comes down to because the District Attorney didn't even acknowledge anything that Mr. Davis wrote today or wrote for today or said today. What it comes down to for his minimizing argument is that Mr. Davis says this took place during the day and not at night. Well, the only evidence we have that it took place at night is Barbara Hoyt's statement that she heard a scream. Sorry, that doesn't cut it. That doesn't say anything. There's been talk that Barbara Hoyt alone has said that Bruce Davis wanted to be a leader. But if you look back at the psychological evaluations, the psychiatrists and psychologists who examined and had written reports about Bruce Davis all say that he was a follower. He was not a leader. He's become one now, but he's even reluctant to acknowledge that. Rick Ross, who is an international cult expert, said Manson followers like Bruce Davis were likely brainwashed through isolation and drugs. But with years of separation from Manson, he added would allow his followers to be programmed. The District Attorney goes on about at least for 2006 Bruce -- or 2008, Bruce Davis having involvement with the Manson, members of the Manson Family. Well, he's communicated on occasion with Dennis Rice. That's correct. They're both ministers and their communication deals with religious issues. What's really important to note and as the psychiatrist noted -- psychologist noted in the 2009 report, Charles Manson attempted to write letters to Bruce Davis back in the early '90s on two occasions. What did Bruce Davis do with both of them? He turned them in and gave them to the authorities and said I want nothing to do with this man. Even if you believe that up until today or up until he wrote that a couple weeks ago that Bruce Davis was minimizing to some extent his role, recency of gains is not a factor of unsuitability. As noted by the Court of Appeal in two cases, In re Barker and In Re Alee, "There is no minimum time requirement. Rather acceptance of responsibility works in favor of release no matter how long-standing or recent it is so long as the Inmate genuinely accepts responsibility." I can'timagine anyone in this room with one possible exception not looking at what he wrote and what he said to you today and seeing that his acceptance is genuine. He's been in almost 40 years now. The United States Supreme Court has held that no prisoner can be held for a period grossly disproportionate to his individual culpability for the commitment offense. Such excessive confinement violates the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the California Constitution. Thus we acknowledge that Penal Code 3041(a) cannot authorize such an Inmate's retention, even for reasons of public safety, beyond this constitutional maximum period of confinement. That was in In re Dannenberg. I submit to you that the years that Mr. Davis has served, which by the way is so far beyond the matrices for these crimes it's difficult to calculate, places him beyond this constitutional maximum period of confinement. There's no nexus between the acts that he committed in the '60s and early '70s and the man he is today. Bruce Davis has rehabilitated himself to the point where he no longer poses a danger to society. So much so that to deny him parole again would violate his due process rights. This is black and white given that he did not actually kill either of these men although he is as responsible for it. A more textbook case of rehabilitation cannot be found. He has served a prison term that exceeds that prescribed for serial killers and child rapists. The only real question here is whether you're going to have the courage to buck what's going to be a public outcry if he's let go. But the truth is there was no real public outcry when Squeaky Fromme was released. And there wasn't a huge hue and cry when Steve Grogan was released. It's time. It's time. Let him go home. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Mr. Davis, do you want to take a break?

INMATE DAVIS: Mr. Doyle, I would just like to say something to you, and I appreciate your openness. When I met Charlie Manson, my emotional growth had stopped at about the age 13 when I started medicating myself. When I got into drugs it stopped even more. When I met him, I was emotionally maybe 15, 16 years old. Now, intellectually I was up there and all that, no doubt. I wanted to be somebody. I didn't know -- I'd never been anybody in my own mind. Charlie Manson treated me with respect. I took his respect. I look back now, I know it wasn't respect, but I took that as respect. The young ladies treated me with what I thought was love. I know it wasn't now. But I took it as that. And he furnished me with the drugs that made my life not so painful. I wanted to be a person who was important. I wanted to be something. And when I first met them, I felt that. And I surrendered to that. This was my -- I had hit the pay dirt. I did recognize it was illegal stuff going on and I convinced myself that if I didn't get involved directly, that I'd go free. And I became -- I started feeling the acceptance and like I was good and, you know, Manson, this does not excuse my thing, but you know, he's a pimp. He knows how to deal with people and he knows how to identify what you think you need and become the source of what you think you want. And that's what -- That's how I held it. So when it came to -- When it came to his philosophy, I didn't -- If he would have said let's go plant petunias, I'd have been cool. I didn't care. I was so numbed out emotionally from the drugs, from the self -- from the self -- I lied to myself that it was going to be okay. I didn't care about that. And I'll tell you what, when Mr. Sequeira says well, these people wanted everybody to die, I personally didn't care about that either. I didn't care about myself. I didn't care about myself. So I didn't care about anybody else either. So when they talked about all this stuff is going to happen, I knew that that was -- It was crazy. It was not going to happen like that. But at the same time, I was getting what I wanted. I was getting -- I had access to the ladies. I had the drugs. I had the dune buggies to drive in. I had adventure at a certain twisted level in my mind. I see it now what I was doing. When we left the Hinman home, I had already convinced myself that, well, I wasn't, all I did was drive the car. Well, I really didn't shoot him. So I had no remorse about that. I had no concern. I knew that these people that I was involved in that I had bought into, I knew that, hey, this thing's in big trouble. But it was like a lifeboat. When I met them, it's like they took me out of the cold. Now, I was not about to abandon this lifeboat to jump back into the sharks that I felt like I had just got saved from. I had no where to turn to in my mind. Now, I realize that I could have, should have made different decisions. And I could have. But these are the ones that I made. I chose to stay. I didn't care what he did. It never crossed my mind to care.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: So given all that, why do you think you're suitable today?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I'm suitable today because I know the difference of who I was then and who I am now. Absolutely. I am absolutely responsible for the death of these two people and encouraging other people to be in that cult; right? So I know the difference. I've had time -- I've had four decades to reflect on this in a progressive way, and it started off pretty slow. I didn't come -- I didn't get, boom, I didn't have this big moment of everything. It's been a process. But it's a fairly complete process if you will. Why am I suitable today? Well, I've lived for 35 years in difficult circumstances. I believe I've responded with candor and thoroughness all day. I've tried. My prayer to God is that I tell nothing but the truth. And I don't deny anything. And I was a self-centered, evil person and did not care. I wanted what I wanted when I wanted it and how I wanted it. And the rest of the world could go to hell. That's how I felt. And that led me to excuse anything. I bragged about it all. Yeah, we cut Shorty's head off. Yeah, I wanted to be impressive. I wanted to seem like somebody. But, you know, every time it came, when push came to shove, I always said no. When they came for the Tate-LaBianca, they weren't in creepy crawlers to go to Gary's house. That happened in the middle of the day. So there's been a lot of funny evidence. I drove them. I did all that. I didn't care about Gary. I knew Gary. He wanted to be a public servant. I knew Gary before this. I talked to him. He was a music teacher and a great, a wonderful guy. I'm telling you. And he was getting ready to be a, go into an appointment in Washington or something. And I just stopped it. I killed that. And I did that. Okay, so why am I? Because I know where I came from. I know what got me there. I know every step as I've talked today, all these turning points. I mean, I've analyzed this, I don't say perfectly, but more than, I mean, I can't go any further with it. I've hit the bottom as far as I can understand. To say that I'm reticent to accept responsibility, I just go what else could I do. What else could I say? Yeah, but I know the difference now. So, I realize that I was involved in a cult. I realized then it was dangerous, dirty, criminal, and I did not care because I was getting what I wanted. And I didn't care about myself. And I didn't really care what -- I was hopeless in my mind. So therefore, everybody else can just, they don't matter either. Okay, so why am I good today. I know the difference in what I did. I'll say that again. Dr. Thatcher gives me all these low grades. Is Dr. Thatcher completely just misguided? I don't think so. She's an employee of the state doing an excellent job. She says, you read the record, I won't read anything. So here I'm low. I'm a low risk. My Christian conversion made me open to all the alcohol recovery and behavioral modification programs they offered. I became open to that after a while. At first I wasn't. Seven years in Folsom teaches you you don't talk about to another person. This is a survival technique. You don't go to court. You don't stand in a group and say, yeah, they did it. You don't do that. This is -- I don't know how to describe the kind of education you get in Folsom. It's about during the '70s. I don't know how to describe that to you, but I think you probably had some exposure to it at least in reports. Well, it's serious business. I never minimized myself and as far as I could -- I didn't do it consciously. I thought I was far away. I know the difference now. I know the difference. So I'd been -- I've become open to these things, to the 12 steps, to the communication courses, to the AA for the AVP and all these things. I've become open to that, and I tell you what, they've helped me. I've gotten involved in them. Now what am I doing to give back? Well, you have to think about this because what I've given back to is just not a bunch of just general people. I'm not trying to give back to some abstract thing. I'm trying to -- I would love to make a difference to the families of Gary Hinman and Donald Shea. I know it's late in the game. Can I ever help them? Can they ever get over it? I don't know. I doubt it. I know they can't. I don't expect them to. But I want to give back to the community through the Christian counsel I give and my immediate and my extended family. I want to give back through the correspondence. I get letters from kids that still think that Charlie Manson is cool. And I send them my track and I tell them you're biting into something that is going to kill you. This can ruin you. And visions of -- I have never been for his stuff. Once I came to my senses, I mean, I distanced myself. And the idea that I would use the chapel as a bully pulpit, that's the last thing. There's nothing like that. It's a, well, I won't go on. But in my ministry, I'm doing all I can to refocus the minds of young men. And they come to me. They know my reputation. They know the prior reputation. You were Charlie's driver. Well, you know, I say, yeah, that was in my stupid period, real stupid. And I let them just kind of -- But I talk to them about look at the decisions you'll make to get you here. Is your life worth nothing. You can kiss it off in a second. And you don't even know it. I'm trying to help. As a one-on-one counselor, I'm doing it in the chapel approved and selected and vetted by prison officials for me to be there in that position. It's a significant position of responsibility and accountability to this institution, to the administration, I'm on your side. I'm trying to eliminate, stop, violence that I got into that I became cold and I'm starting to stop that. I'm on that side. I want to stop this stuff. I don't want it ever to happen again. And I want to do everything I can. So I've been teaching classes in parenting, talking to men about look out for the next generation. You're that close to going over the edge one generation and you're the man. And I'm the man in my family, and you are in yours. And I'm urging them to keep up with your kids and do the right thing. As a Yokefellows moderator, I'm constantly on all my guys. I sound like a broken record to them because I'm talking about think before you act. Our actions have consequences that we cannot measure. It's like dropping a stone into a pool and it just keeps going. And it's having an effect out there when you can't even see it. That's why I'm ready for parole. I know this stuff. And I'm an asset. I will be an asset to the community and to my family, basically I just want to go home and be a dad and a husband. My daughter deserves that because she didn't ask. My wife, well, she bought it. My daughter didn't ask for it. She just got it. So, and I have a -- And I've been assured by the DA's office several times that we're going to take these letters and make sure they're handled right to the victims. I don't know whatever happened. So I wrote another letter, well, just in case. Things can get lost in the mail. Now my parole plans, we've read them. I've got backups, multiple, everything. I believe they're realistic. I'm no longer an unreasonable risk. I'm not a danger to society when I get released from prison. I'm an asset. I'm an asset to society. It's sad to say, I've got the kind of background that is going to draw some heat. But, you know, I plan to take that and say yes, I was. I did all that, and it was really the worst thing that I could have ever done. I did the worst thing I could have ever done and I know better now, and I'm going to tell you why. And when I talk to these people, and I talk to the kids, I'm not coming from well, I read the book which is true enough. But they're going to be able to say, man, this guy did all that. You know, the kids in YA, they're big ambition is to go to the big house. Can you believe that? Well, I can stop some of that. I can slow some of that down. I can't stop it all. But I can do that and I'm going to. So I'm not a danger. I can help. I am a help. Look, and finally I want to say this, I have a personal interest in promoting and maintaining public safety. I have a personal interest, my daughter, my wife. I don't know, a dozen, two dozen, I don't know what the cost is. How many men in this prison I'd let out, most of them need to be here. I wouldn't trust them on the street with my family. I know that. I know what's happening. Forty years ago, I wouldn't have trusted me either. But that's then, and this is now. I am not frozen in that mode that someone painted me in in order to have these cabals going on like I'm going to jump out of the woodwork and reinstate Helter Skelter. What a straw to grasp to keep me in that hole. Professionally, my preaching and teaching is done best in a place where law and order is in good shape and public safety is really taught. And for my family, I want them to grow up. I want my daughter to have a place in a place where it's calm so she can reach her potential. I'm not a danger. I am not a danger to society. I'm ready. I have everything in place. Thank you for your time.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Davis. We'll recess for deliberations. The time is about 12:40.

RECESS

--oOo--

CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS DECISION

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay, we're on.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: All right. The time is about 1:40. The Panel has reviewed all the information received from the public and all the relevant information that was before us today in concluding that Mr. Davis is suitable for parole and would not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society or a threat to public safety if released from prison at this time. This finding of suitability is based on weighing the considerations provided in California Code of Regulations, Title 15. Certainly in granting Mr. Davis parole, we considered the nature and gravity of the commitment offense. This offense was particularly troubling. Because through his association with the and part of the Manson Family, he was involved in and took part in the murder of Mr. Hinman back in 1979 I believe it was July of -- excuse me, 1969. And thereafter between August 15th and September 1st of 1969, he took part in the brutal killing of Mr. Shea with other Manson male Family members. Certainly there were multiple victims that were attacked and injured and ultimately killed in two separate incidents both Mr. Hinman and Mr. Shea. I think both of these murders were calculated and hence both murder first degree. Preplanning went into the elimination of these two victims. Certainly they were killed in a very dispassionate manner. Mr. Hinman for two days basically tortured by other Family members and then ultimately killed according to the record by Mr. Manson being stabbed to death, slashed, cut, just a horrible situation. And then Mr. Shea who again there were discussions about eliminating him as it was thought that he was a snitch. Concerned that he may go to the police, he was taken out to a creek bed and stabbed multiple times, basically, probably screaming and begging for his life. Certainly both of these victims were abused and to some degree, and it's certainly in Mr. Hinman's case, mutilated. And no doubt that these murders demonstrate an exceptionally callous disregard for suffering. Mr. Hinman, as stated earlier, for two days at least and Mr. Shea chopped and stabbed multiple times. But because, Mr. Davis, of your positive adjustment and the considerations that show you no longer pose a risk of danger to society which we'll momentarily articulate, the Panel makes the grant of suitability after fully considering the other circumstances that one might argue tend to show unsuitability for parole. And I think, you know, one of the things that this Panel certainly understands is our role. And, you know, being that our concern is significantly whether or not you pose an unreasonable risk of dangerousness to the free community at this time is foremost in our consideration. And neither myself nor Commissioner Welch could come to that conclusion that we felt that you do. I hit you pretty hard today. I was appreciative that you did open up. And I think that there still may be a little bit of minimization. I think you've evolved. I think you articulated the insight that, you know what, it didn't happen overnight for you. It was a slow comer. And you articulated it in your document more so than you have in the past. But when I look at that, I look at it from the standpoint is that situation such that it rises to the threshold of making you an unreasonable risk of dangerousness currently. And that's what I have to gauge it against. And, you know, along with that, looking at past inconsistencies and past accounts of the crime, you know, the tendency to blame others that you've evolved from and, you know, credibility concerns, lack of insight in, you know, where you have -- where you were at and throughout your almost 40 years in incarceration, where you are now with that, and balancing that with your failure to take responsibility and other concerns as it relates to your mental state. So I'm not going to sit here and say that I totally think that you have -- I think you do understand fully, you know, the magnitude of what you were involved in and you were able to articulate that and show the insight that you developed over the years. But, you know, you're getting -- We're getting down to where we're splitting hairs here to some degree. And I, in my heart, and neither could Commissioner Welch, you know, that concern of that little bit of that I felt may still be there minimization, it didn't meet that threshold for us and so, you know, it was of consideration, but, you know, it's -- we're beyond that. I don't think it's to that point where it makes you an unreasonable risk of dangerousness. I think you have a pretty good handle on who you are today and what your mission is going to be when you get out in a free community. So, you know, a lot of the other considerations, you know, I mean, other than this point in time in your life, you didn't show historically any violence to speak of. You know, you had no priors. I mean, you had a lot of contacts. You didn't get convicted. You self-admitted you spent ten days in jail on a marijuana, so, you know, you did spend some time incarcerated. But, you know, you didn't show, you know, a history of violence throughout your life, you know, prior to hooking up with the Manson Family. I believe you were 26 years old at the time.

INMATE DAVIS: Twenty-five.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Twenty-five, okay. And again, no significant criminal history to any degree of which you were convicted of. You did feel that, well, I'll go on to your seriousness conduct while incarcerated. In 38 years, you've had only two 115s, which I think further indicates and neither of those were for violence. So here you are, you've done 38 years in prison. You've shown no propensity towards violence since you've been in here. One, you know, which was sharpening a spoon, and the other was for conduct, one in '75, 1975, and one in 1980. You've been disciplinary free since 1980. You had five 128(a)s. The last counseling chrono was in 1982. Your most recent psychological evaluation which was discussed --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: I think that's -- I don't mean to interrupt you, Commissioner, but his last counseling chrono was 8/15/1992.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I'm sorry. I wrote '82.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: That's '92.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Thank you, Commissioner. That's '92. Well, we better re -- no, I'm just kidding.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: '92.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Okay, 1992. Your psychological evaluation has had you, by Dr. Thatcher dated 6/8 of 2009, has you as a low risk in all areas including low risk of violence. This Panel does believe that you did have some significant stress in your life. That it may have not been relatively, you know, jumped out at the time but, you know, given your social upbringing and the things that were going on in your family unit and things that had occurred to you certainly we felt that that environment could have contributed to your mental state. And again, just in terms of making you susceptible and to who you were at that time, but we did feel that you were remorseful. That through your significant programming and that you've developed an understanding of how significant what you did was as it related to impacting not only the victims and the victims what you were a part of but the families of and the community at large. And that you were able to articulate and understand that. You know, we think that, and I think that one of the things that you kind of evolved over your time in prison, and you see this but part of you making amends is what you're giving back to the community within the incarcerated environment here. Those that are here and trying to help in a positive manner those that are within the community that you currently live in. And you have consistently over the years now for a long period of time shown that you care and that you do do that. And that's important also that you are willing to give of yourself to assist others in a positive manner. We did believe that you exhibited a clear understanding of what caused you to be in the state of mind that you were and who you were at that time. I think you did a good job of articulating that. And I think you did, you have spent a lot of time, kind of, you know, researching that and going through that and understanding, you know, what those causative factors were that caused you to be that person that you were. The triggers that caused you to stay involved and be a part of these murders and then continue to, you know, be a part of that environment even after the murders. And I'm going to turn it over at this point to Commissioner Welch so that he can talk about your institutional behavior as it relates to your programming. It is pretty significant.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay, the prisoner has upgraded educationally. Most noteworthy is that Bethany, is that Bethany College?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: He received a masters degree in 1998 from Bethany College, and also in '02, he received a doctorate of philosophy and religion from Bethany College. It should be noted that the prisoner graduated summa cum laude in those programs indicating that he was very dedicated in his pursuit of higher education. The prisoner upgraded vocationally by completing the following vocations. He completed a vocation in drafting as well as in welding. The prisoner has excellent and consistently done well in his work assignments while incarcerated. His last work assignment report was dated 10/5/09, and indicated satisfactory. Prior to that work report, his work reports from 6/18/09 back to 12/04 were all excellent. Excellent work reports. All ones indicating that the prisoner has a very, very good work ethic. The prisoner has significantly participated in self-help programs. Some of the self-help programs that he participated in are Alternatives to Violence, the last one was 1/17/2010. But that was not the only Alternatives to Violence program that he participated in. There's numerous Alternatives to Violence programs the prisoner participated in. The prisoner also participated in parenting programs. He participated in a program called Yorkfellow [sic]? And there was a seven year span in which he consistently participated in that program. Also noted is the prisoner continually participated in AA or NA and he was able to demonstrate to the Panel today that he has embraced the steps and he knows the steps. So he should be commended for that. The prisoner also participated recently in a program at CMC, California Men's Colony, known as the Jewish Literacy Program. There's numerous religious kinds of programs the prisoner participated in as well as teaching some of those programs. He taught some of those programs as a peer educator. The Panel was able to verify that the prisoner did complete his high school diploma in 1961. And there are numerous chronos in the file from staff, in particular, staff associated with the chaplain program. Chaplain Warren Alice?

INMATE DAVIS: Alderson.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Alderson wrote a chrono dated 12/25/09, speaking to the prisoner's dedication to the chapel program. And I think that's pretty much it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Did you mention his vocations?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: I did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: All right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: I think I pretty much covered everything.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: All right.

INMATE DAVIS: You know, I didn't hear the vocation part.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I did.

INMATE DAVIS: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Welding.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: And drafting.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Welding and drafting.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: He said that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Okay. All right. Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Davis has viable, realistic parole plans to live with his wife of 25 years and his daughter here in San Luis Obispo County. It will be an out-of-county, out-of-commitment county placement at Grover Beach where his wife resides. And he's got a job offer from Paul Kenny of Grace Landscaping to work with him. I believe his wife and him also have plans to work together in the ministry. His wife is retired and does have a retired pension and also works as a caregiver for the elderly, elderly clients. And then as the Commissioner had mentioned, his marketable skills also that he has. So he's -- And he does have backup plans for that, but those are solid parole plans. His social history for extended amount of time now has been positive. He just had stable relationships while he's been incarcerated and, which is evident by what Commissioner Welch is talking about, the positive support that he's had from staff and the jobs that he's been doing and the fact that he's been disciplinary free for quite some time. He had a lack of assaultive history, significant assaultive history as a juvenile. And also research would indicate that his current age reduces his recidivism risk. I think in May you'll be 68 years old; is that right? October you'll be 68. So certainly that also is taking into effect here. The District Attorney was here and participated and does oppose parole as does the L.A. Sheriff by way of letter. And that takes us -- Well, before I get to that, you know, in looking at 2402 and the suitability factors that can be considered, you pretty much, as far as this Panel is concerned, you meet all those factors. You didn't have a juvenile record. Currently you've got a stable social history with others. This Panel did feel that you understood remorse and exhibited remorse today. And we did feel that there was prior significant stress in your life that kind of set you up a little bit. You didn't have a significant criminal history to speak of. Your age, which we just talked about, you've got solid parole plans and your institutional behavior has been superior with just two 115s in 38 years. That takes us to your calculations. In looking at the matrix, Mr. Davis, we used II-C, and this would be murders before November of -- murder one before November 1978. And II-C is there was severe trauma in both of these victims and there was a prior relationship. I believe you knew Mr. Hinman prior and you also knew Mr. Shea. We took the aggravated matrix for obvious reasons. When you look at the way these two victims died and that was 17 years, which equals 204 months. And we added 13 years as we're allowed to on a concurrent sentence for the second murder, which is another 156 months. And we added 19 months for the robbery, which was half of the mid term on that, and 12 months for the knife, which we're allowed to add. So that came out to a total of 391 months. And you only had two 115s, as we mentioned, so you lost eight months for good time. But because you've been down for so long, you had 144 months of good time credit. We added or subtracted that and we come up with 247 months total. If you divide that by 12, it comes out to 20.58 years. So you're well beyond the time even adding all of the crimes. Now there's going to be some special conditions on parole. You must submit, because this was a large part of your life before coming in here, you must submit to random drug testing. You must not possess or consume alcoholic beverages. Because of the time that you've been down, we're going to ask that you attend an outpatient clinic for evaluation by the Department of Adult Parole Operations. And you shall not have any contact with victims or victims' family. And here's the other one. No contact with any Manson Family members including Mr. Rice. Do you understand that?

INMATE DAVIS: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: You understand that?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, Sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Okay. Very good. As you know, this decision is not final. It will go to Decision Review, and then it will go on to the Governor's office. The Governor has 120 days to decide.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: No, the Board has a 120 days to decide.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Or the Board has a 120 days and then the Governor will make the final decision on your release. So this is a first step for you. And understand that and, you know, I just, it's not something I'd go out and talk about because it would be premature.

INMATE DAVIS: No, we know that this is just the first step.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Okay. Very good, Sir. Commissioner?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Good luck.

INMATE DAVIS: Thank you, Sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Good luck to you, Sir. The time is about two o'clock. This hearing is concluded. Here you go, Mr. Beckman.

INMATE DAVIS: Mr. Doyle?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Yes, Sir.

INMATE DAVIS: I will tell you that you will not ever be ashamed or get any back flash from what you've done here today.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Well, let me tell you something, Sir. If I felt that I would, I wouldn't have given you a date.

INMATE DAVIS: I know I believe you feel confident in that. And I'm glad you do. I appreciate your confidence. Thank you, Sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: And I don't second guess it. If I give a date, you know, if I didn't feel it in my heart, you wouldn't be getting out of here on my dime.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: And that makes me feel even better.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Still on the record there. Where's your officers?

INMATE DAVIS: Me?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: No, it was asked to him, where's his officer.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Here we go.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay. You going to -- You can go after her.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: You want me to bring her in?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Yes, please.

ADJOURNMENT

PAROLE GRANTED