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

OCTOBER 4, 2012

8:55 A.M.

PANEL PRESENT:

JEFFREY FERGUSON, Presiding Commissioner

ED ALVORD, Deputy Commissioner

OTHERS PRESENT:

BRUCE DAVIS, Inmate

MICHAEL BECKMAN, Attorney for Inmate

PATRICK SEQUEIRA, Deputy District Attorney

DEBORAH TATE, Victim's Next-of-Kin representative

BARBARA HOYT, Victim's Next-of-Kin representative

JACK DEAN SPEARS, Observer

WILLIAM PEMBERTON, Observer

MICHELLE AZPIROZ, Victim Services, Observer

LEIF BREKKE, Victim Services, Observer

VANESSA NELSON, Life Support Alliance, Observer

ANDREW PITONIAK, Litigation Coordinator, Observer

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER(S), Unidentified

PROCEEDINGS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: We're on record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: The time is 8:55 a.m. And this is a Subsequent Parole Consideration Hearing for Bruce Davis, CDC number B, as in Boy, 41079. Today's date is 10/4/12. We are located at the California Men's Colony. The inmate was received on 4/21/72, from Los Angeles County. The controlling offense for which the inmate has been committed is Murder First, and that's two counts of Murder First. Victims are named Gary Hinman and Donald Shea, cases A, as in Adam, 267861, count one, Penal Code Section 187. Count two is also Penal Code Section 187. The inmate has a minimum eligible parole date of 12/1/1977. This hearing is being recorded. For the purposes of voice identification, each of us will state our first and last name, spelling our last name. When it's the inmate's turn, sir, when we get to you, spell your last name, and then give us your CDC number. We'll go around the table first. There's five of us that are actually sitting at the table. We'll go to the table, and then we'll start in the corner over here and then the people in the back row, aside from the correctional officers can give their names and the reason for being here today. But you'll have to speak up and aim towards one of the microphones. I will start and go to my right. Jeffrey Ferguson, F-E-R-G-U-S-O-N, Commissioner.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Ed Alvord, A-L-V-O-R-D, Deputy Commissioner.

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

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: CDC number, sir.

INMATE DAVIS: B-41079.

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

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

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Sir, if you could give your name and spell your last name for us.

MR. SPEARS: Jack Dean Spears, S-P-E-A-R-S.

MR. PEMBERTON: William Pemberton, P-E-M-B-E-R-T-O-N.

MS. AZPIROZ: Michelle Azpiroz, A-Z-P-I-R-O-Z, Victim Services Advocate.

MS. NELSON: Vanessa Nelson, N-E-L-S-O-N, Life Support Alliance, prisoner advocate, observer.

MR. BREKKE: Leif Brekke, B-R-E-K-K-E, Victim Services Advocate.

MS. TATE: Deborah Tate, T-A-T-E, appointed representative for the Hinman family.

MS. HOYT: Barbara Hoyt, H-O-Y-T, and I'm representing the Shea family.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And one more person stepped in while we were --

MR. PITONIAK: Andrew Pitoniak, litigation coordinator. I'm the backup for Dean Spears, so I'm just learning his job.

MR. SPEARS: Spell your last name.

MR. PITONIAK: P, as in Paul, I-T, as in Tom, O-N-I-A-K.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Thank you. And let the record reflect that there are two correctional officers present in the room, and they will not participate in the hearing today. Now, Mr. Davis, I've reviewed the 1073 and the DEC System. There's a statement about your right to get help with any disabilities that you may have and that's in front of you in blue paper there. You reviewed that along with BPT 1073 with your attorney. Can you take a look at that statement and then read it to yourself and then tell us what it means.

INMATE DAVIS: I have the right to any assistance for hearing, seeing, et cetera. I have my glasses here. I'm satisfied.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What it's telling you is that if you have any type of disability that would cause you difficulty in participating in this hearing today, we would provide you with an accommodation or some sort of assistance so that you could participate and if we fail to do so, then you have a recourse and that is to file a grievance. Did you see that on there? It's at the bottom.

INMATE DAVIS: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And with those things in mind, do you need help with any disabilities for this hearing today?

INMATE DAVIS: Only my glasses.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Okay. And I do see that you're wearing glasses. You put them on to read, and they're working for you?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And you can see across the table okay?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I can.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right, and I would caution you when you are looking around the room, do not look to the right to where the people are sitting against the back wall, okay?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: You can look in the rest of the room, but don't look in that direction at all.

INMATE DAVIS: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Can you hear?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I can.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Can you hear me okay right now?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I can.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Can you walk? Can you walk?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And I note I did see you walk in here today.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Can you read?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And I note a TABE score of 12.9. Is that your understanding?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Have you ever been diagnosed with a learning disability?

INMATE DAVIS: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Have you ever been part of the mental health system at CDCR such as CCCMS or EOP?

INMATE DAVIS: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Are you taking medications for any reason at this time?

INMATE DAVIS: Terazosin.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Not the medication name, just what you're taking them for.

INMATE DAVIS: Prostate.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And that's the only medication you're taking?

INMATE DAVIS: Motrin. Tylenol.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right. If your medical condition in any way means that you have to use the restroom more often than one would think or at any point, let your attorney know. He'll ask for a recess so we can take a break for that purpose.

INMATE DAVIS: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Do you understand?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Okay. Do you suffer from any disability that would prevent you from participating in today's hearing?

INMATE DAVIS: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Now we've had the opportunity to review your Central File and your prior transcripts. You'll be given the opportunity to correct or clarify the record as we proceed. Nothing that happens here today will change the findings of the court. The Panel is not here to retry your case and accepts as true the findings of the court. The Panel is here for the sole purpose of determining your suitability for parole. Now, Mr. Beckman, did you discuss with your client his rights regarding this hearing and the format that we use to conduct these hearings?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yes, Commissioner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Mr. Davis, have you had the opportunity to meet with your attorney and to discuss the hearing procedure and your rights?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I have.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: I note that you signed a BPT 1002 on 6/22/12, acknowledging that you were given a copy of your rights for lifer hearings and that your correctional counselor went over them with you. Mr. Davis, did your attorney review the procedure of how the BPH conducts lifer suitability hearings, your rights, and the factors that we consider in order to determine if you're suitable for parole?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Okay. Do you have any questions about your rights, the format of the hearing or the factors that we will consider to determine your suitability for parole?

INMATE DAVIS: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And Mr. Beckman, have your client's rights been met to this point? And my next question is going to be about your objections, and I do anticipate those.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And do you have preliminary objections?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yes, I do, Commissioner. But first I have a request. There are no registered victims in this case. No victims have ever shown up before in 41 years and some 28, 29 hearings. You have two people here who claim to be authorized by the families to represent them. I'd like to request that we be provided with copies of any written authorization that they have at this time.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: I anticipated that you would either make that objection or have that concern. And in advance of this hearing, I did contact the Board of Parole Hearings and I was confirmed through the Board of Parole Hearings legal. I also contacted victim services and found out that, in fact, they have not only been vetted but they have been approved and that the Executive Officer for the Board of Parole Hearings ordered a gate clearance for them to attend to be representatives for the families of the victims of your client. And based on that, the date of the hearing is much too late to have them removed. They've already been approved. I have no choice. They have to be here.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Well, that doesn't mean they get to speak, Commissioner. There has to be some authorization from the family. Otherwise anybody can be vetted by victim services to come in and say that they are representative of a family and we --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: If they choose to speak, they will be allowed to, and I anticipated that as being a problem of yours so I called Board of Parole Hearings legal and had them check into it, and they confirmed that, yes, they may speak at the end of the hearing at the time when the representatives for victim's next-of-kin are normally allowed to speak.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Then I want to have marked as an exhibit the following. This is a letter written by a woman named Renne Reilly, R-E-N-N-E, R-E-I-L-L-Y, dated June 18th, 2012, to the Board. Quote, "We do not want Deborah Tate representing us or speaking for us at Bruce Davis' parole hearing. We have never spoken with Deborah Tate personally and have never given her authorization to speak on behalf of the Hinman family. We feel we can give Gary the best voice at his hearing since we are the ones that have lost Gary and not Deborah Tate. Please honor our request as we feel Gary would want our voice to speak for him." I'd ask that that be marked Exhibit --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right. I do have a copy of that. You provided it to me before the hearing started. Mr. Sequeira, do you have a copy of that document that he would like marked?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I only received it this morning.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right. As did I. I will call it Exhibit A. And if that was a request, it's denied. If it was an objection, then it's overruled.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Do you have any further objections?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yes, Commissioner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Okay.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay, my client will have a hard time receiving a fair hearing because the Board has a policy that parole is the exception rather than the rule in violation of Penal Code Section 3041(a). Two, to the extent that this Panel intends to use the Probation Officer's Report or Appellate Opinion Statement of Facts as official versions of the crime, we would object. Per Title 15, the Board accepts the facts of Mr. Davis' conviction as true. It does not mean every fact underlying it is true. The point is he was convicted of the crimes. That is the only official fact. There is no such thing as an official version of the crime. The Appellate Opinion by law sets forth the facts in the light most favorable to the conviction. The Probation Officer's Report is even less reliable. It's not meant to be an official version of anything. It merely summarizes the crime from various sources all of which are hearsay. Hearsay and often double and triple hearsay is so inherently unreliable that it cannot be used to establish the facts of the offense. This was held by the Court of Appeal in People versus Williams back in 1990, where it held evidence inadmissible from a Probation Officer's Report that would affect the defendant's sentence. As a result, should the Board use one or both of these so-called official versions of the crime to assert that any difference between them, and Mr. Davis' version constitutes minimizing, failing to accept full responsibility or if he lacks insight into the causative factors underlying the crime, it would be violating his due process rights and protected liberty interest in parole by making these decisions on information that is neither official or necessarily accurate. Three, we object to this hearing being held under the DSL. This crime was committed in early 1970s, late 1960s. As a result, it must be held under the ISL. I'm going to make several objections to Proposition 9 just to put them on the record. We know that Proposition 9 is the law. But that law is being challenged right now in the California Supreme Court and in the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. Application of Proposition 9's parole denial periods and changes to the rights of victims and victims' next-of-kin at parole hearings to life term inmates convicted and are incarcerated prior to the effective date, violates the ex post facto clauses of the California and United States Constitutions. 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 if he is denied parole, violates the inmates due process rights and liberty interest in parole protected by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and its California counterpart. Three, Proposition 9's three-, five-, seven-, ten-, 15-year denial periods violate the equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and its California counterpart, requiring the Panel to consider the rights of the next-of-kin as paramount or equal to those of the inmate violates his due process rights and protected liberty interest in parole guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and its California counterpart. Changes to the rights of victims and next-of-kin at parole hearings to allow them to speak on any subject and last without allowing Mr. Davis or myself to speak after them, object to anything they say or cross examine them violates Mr. Davis' right to confront and cross examine witnesses in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and its California counterpart. And I will add an objection that allowing people who purport to be representatives of next-of-kin without requiring them to prove that they've been authorized violates my client's due process rights and protected liberty interest in parole guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the United States constitution and its California counterpart. Five, Title 15, Section 2030 sets forth the District Attorney's role at this hearing. He is limited to doing two things. He can offer an opinion regarding Mr. Davis' suitability and may ask clarifying questions of the Panel. That's it. He does not have the right to question my client directly or indirectly and may not give this Panel legal advice, object to what we say or introduce in terms of documents. As a result, I'm going to be instructing my client not to answer any questions posed by the District Attorney. And I want to caution the Panel not to hold my instruction against Mr. Davis in any way. Six, we object to the fact of this hearing. Mr. Davis was found suitable for parole in 2010. The Governor reversed. That reversal was erroneous and violated my client's constitutional rights. Further, Proposition 89, which allows the Governor to reverse violates my client's liberty interest in parole, does not provide for a true de novo review, but allows the Governor to reverse based upon a record of the hearing. Further, it violates the ex post facto clauses of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution as applied to Mr. Davis since his crime happened before the implementation of that proposition. And last, we would object to the use of any confidential information at this hearing because we have not been provided with a summary of the information and/or a redacted version of it. The California Supreme Court in In Re Prewitt, P-R-E-W-I-T-T, back in 1972 stated in such a situation a refusal to apprise him of the source and nature of the information would effectively deny all reasonable opportunity to respond. The stakes are simply too high and the possibility for honest error or irritable misjudgment too great to allow submission of such potentially damaging remarks without at least an opportunity to challenge them. At a minimum and subject to limitation only when an informant will be exposed to an undue risk of harm an inmate should be provided with a copy of any confidential document and should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond thereto either in person or in writing. Nothing less will satisfy standards of fundamental fairness required by the due process clause. It is clear that in cases of term fixing and parole granting, the private interest of an inmate in his liberty outweighs the public interest in preserving confidentiality. In Ochoa, O-C-H-O-A, versus Superior Court, the Court of Appeal provided a procedure that would satisfy due process. Before confidential information can be used by the Governor to reverse a parole grant and by parity of reasoning a Board to deny parole, the inmate's attorney must be given disclosure of such information after the prison or a court has conducted an in camera review to redact information that might endanger the source.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right. Your objections are all noted on the records. As far as your objection to your client getting a fair hearing, that one is certainly overruled. This hearing will be held in accordance with Title 15. Your objections to Proposition 9 also denied. Proposition 9, also known as Marsy's law, is current state law in California, and we will be abiding by that law today. As far as the next-of-kin representatives that are present today that you've made the objection about, pursuant to Penal Code Section 3043(b)(2) and 3043(c), in regards to representatives of victims' next-of-kin, they are authorized under those laws. That one is denied. As far as the District Attorney, the District Attorney is authorized to be here and have a limited role at this hearing. And that's in Title 15. And confidential information, I would have rather you withheld that in the event that we were to rely on confidential information, but since you made the objection, I'll rule on it now. In the event that we do choose to rely on information contained in the confidential portion of the inmate's Central File, we are authorized to do so under Title 15 and that's Section 2235 and 3321. Was there anything else? I'm sorry.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Nope. That's it. It's on the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right. And in regards to confidential information, Commissioner, have you had an opportunity to look for the confidential file, and is there any likelihood that we will be relying on information contained therein?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: There are several confidential files. I have reviewed them. I don't anticipate that we'll be using them today. In the event that we do, we'll certainly advise all counsel.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And we will notify counsel prior to actually considering them. Mr. Davis, I'm handing your attorney what's called a Hearing Checklist. A Hearing Checklist is a document that ensures that we're all operating off the same set of documents.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Mr. Beckman, do you have the documents?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: It appears I do, Commissioner.

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

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Thank you. And I will mark the Hearing Checklist as Exhibit 1. And Mr. Beckman, do you have additional documents to submit? I know you -- I do note that you handed us some documents prior to the hearing.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: That's correct, Commissioner. The first four documents that I handed you, one is a four page document called My Role and Responsibility in the Crimes. Actually it may be five pages. That was marked as Exhibit 2 to the 2010 transcript. We'd ask that it be marked the same for this hearing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Well, I'm going to mark it Exhibit B.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Since your exhibits I've already started in alphabetical order rather than in numerical.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: The second is a letter dated December 19th, 2009, to the family of Donald Jerome Shea from Bruce Davis. I'll have that marked as Exhibit C, please. Third is a letter dated December 19th, 2010, to the family of Gary Alan Hinman from Bruce Davis. Please mark it as Exhibit D. The fifth is a declaration of Richard Kelly. It's a two page document. I'd ask that be marked as Exhibit E. And then sixth is a one page relapse prevention plan to be marked as Exhibit F. We may have additional documents during the course of the hearing to admit. I don't know at this time, but I'll reserve the right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right, you missed one of them that you handed in that stack this morning and it is an apology letter to Renne Reilly. Would you like that one marked as well?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Please. Let's mark that as Exhibit --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: G. All right, Mr. Sequeira, do you have copies of all of those documents that he referred to?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I don't believe so unless they were previously given. If counsel can identify.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: He does. I handed him a stack.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right. I'll show you what I just marked, B through G.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Are these the same ones he introduced at the last hearing? If that's the --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: I believe so.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: B, C, D, and E are the same. F and G are not.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Okay. So what is F and G? F is the --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Relapse prevention plan.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Okay. G I received today. Wasn't E submitted at the previous hearing?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: E was submitted at the previous hearing.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Okay, so --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I put a stack on your paper there today.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: No, I understand. I just want to make sure I know which documents we're talking about. That's all. And F is the new one. So E and F are the ones -- G and F I received today.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And the others were previously submitted at the last hearing?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Correct.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Okay.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Just for the record, Commissioner, Exhibit G is a letter from Renne Reilly dated May 24th, 2012, and it attaches a letter to her from Bruce Davis, dated July 22nd. The attachment was hers, not ours.

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

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right. And I will maintain those exhibits for later use at the hearing. And Mr. Beckman, will your client be speaking to the Panel today?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yes, he will. He'll be discussing any issues raised by the Governor in his reversal letter, his parole plans, and his programming since the last hearing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Please raise your right hand, sir. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this hearing will be the truth and nothing but the truth?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: I will incorporate by reference the facts of the commitment offense as found in the respondent's brief, pages 3 through 51, and the 2005 Board Report, pages 1 and 2. I will incorporate by reference the prisoner's version of the crime from the 2010 Psychological Report, pages 6 and 7. I will incorporate prior criminality by reference to the CI&I rap sheet that we reviewed in the C File. Mr. Davis, this is the portion of the hearing where we're going to discuss your social history. Your social history are the things that happened in your life prior to coming to prison. They include your childhood, your education, jobs that you've had, relationships that you've been in. It will include past criminality, if any, substance abuse history, if any. It will include gang involvement, if any. It will also include the commitment offense and not just the details of the commitment offense, but more importantly your understanding as to what occurred and why. Things like insight, remorse, those kinds of things. The Commissioner and I will have a number of questions of you regarding the things that happened before you came to prison. And when we've asked all the questions that we have and they've been answered, I'll turn things over to Commissioner Alvord and what he'll talk about are your post-conviction factors. Those are the things that have happened since you've been in prison. He'll have a number of questions about those things including your accomplishments, disciplinary history, if any, and also the psychological risk assessments that have been prepared for use at this hearing. And once he and I have asked the questions that we have of you regarding those things, he'll turn things back over to me, and I will discuss with you your plans for parole. So we can learn who you were and we can compare that with who you are today. Do you understand?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Why don't you start by telling us a little bit about yourself. Were you raised in a two parent household growing up?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I was.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Mother and father together throughout your childhood?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you have brothers and sisters?

INMATE DAVIS: One sister.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Older or younger?

INMATE DAVIS: One year older.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Were you parents together throughout your childhood?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Was there any abuse in your family growing up?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What kind of abuse? Was it physical abuse, emotional abuse?

INMATE DAVIS: Verbal, physical.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And were you the victim of that abuse?

INMATE DAVIS: One of them.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And who were the other victims?

INMATE DAVIS: My sister and my mother.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: So was your father the abuser?

INMATE DAVIS: That's right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And did you receive injuries as a result of this abuse?

INMATE DAVIS: No, not physical.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Were you ever removed from the home because of the abuse?

INMATE DAVIS: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: How did school go for you?

INMATE DAVIS: School was okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you get good grades?

INMATE DAVIS: Fair.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you graduate on time with your class?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you have a happy childhood?

INMATE DAVIS: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And that's because of the abuse?

INMATE DAVIS: Primarily.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Anything else?

INMATE DAVIS: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Was there substance abuse in your family growing up?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And was it alcohol or drugs?

INMATE DAVIS: Alcohol.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did your father drink alcohol to excess?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, he did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What about your mother, was she also a drinker?

INMATE DAVIS: She was a drinker.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Were they both alcoholics in your opinion?

INMATE DAVIS: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: How about your father?

INMATE DAVIS: My father was.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And did his moods change? Did his behavior change when he drank?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Was he more likely to become violent with you and your sister and your mother after he'd been drinking?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What about you yourself? Did you ever start drinking?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: When did that start?

INMATE DAVIS: In high school.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you drink to excess? Did you get drunk off it?

INMATE DAVIS: One time.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What about as an adult? Did you continue drinking into adulthood?

INMATE DAVIS: Periodically.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And what about other drugs? Did you experiment with other drugs growing up as a teenager?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you smoke marijuana?

INMATE DAVIS: Not as a teenager.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What did you use as a teenager as far as drugs?

INMATE DAVIS: No Doze, Dexedrine, diet pills.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Anything else?

INMATE DAVIS: No, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: As an adult, did you start using stronger drugs?

INMATE DAVIS: I started smoking marijuana when I was 23.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And was that something you continued to do right up to the time of the commitment offense? I think you were 26 at that time.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir. I got into marijuana and other psychedelic drugs like in the --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: We'll get into that in a minute. Just strictly marijuana, that was something you continued to use?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And you say other psychedelic drugs, did you use LSD?

INMATE DAVIS: I started in 1965.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: How old were you?

INMATE DAVIS: Twenty-three.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Other psychedelic drugs as well?

INMATE DAVIS: Mescaline.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Anything else?

INMATE DAVIS: Psilocybin.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Anything else? I think I read somewhere you tried peyote, no?

INMATE DAVIS: That's mescaline.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Okay. Any other types of drugs? You've mentioned hallucinogens, how about depressants or stimulants?

INMATE DAVIS: Very seldom. Sometimes some stimulants.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What kind, like cocaine?

INMATE DAVIS: No. Methamphetamine.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What was your drug of choice as an adult?

INMATE DAVIS: Marijuana.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: How often would you use between the years of 23 and 26?

INMATE DAVIS: I think it was mostly when I had the opportunity.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Typically how many days of the week would you be under the influence?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, in 1965, when I started, it would be the weekends because I was always working. Up through 1968, then my use increased.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: So it increased to during the week also?

INMATE DAVIS: Any day.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What did you like about the drug use?

INMATE DAVIS: It numbed my feelings, made me feel okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And what were these feelings that you were numbing?

INMATE DAVIS: Resentment, anger, self-pity.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: As an adult, what were you angry about?

INMATE DAVIS: As I look back, I can see, only at the time I didn't think I was angry. But as I look back, I can see that I was angry because the world just wasn't treating me like I thought it should.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you have a sense of entitlement, like you thought that you were due something?

INMATE DAVIS: You know, because of my relationship with my father and his treatment of me, I felt like he owed me. And I started treating everything as if it owed me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Do you think as you look back on it now that your father owed you something?

INMATE DAVIS: Not really.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you ever reconcile with your father over what happened in your childhood?

INMATE DAVIS: Not in his life. In my life, I have, but not while he was alive.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: So did you like having those feelings numbed? Is that why you used drugs?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Was that the same reason that you drank alcohol growing up?

INMATE DAVIS: I drank alcohol because my friends did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you like alcohol?

INMATE DAVIS: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you continue using alcohol even after your drug use started?

INMATE DAVIS: Very, very occasionally. Never got drunk.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: So by the time you were 23, you were primarily using hallucinogens and not so much alcohol anymore?

INMATE DAVIS: I would drink. If there was a big party and somebody poured a glass of beer, I'd drink a glass of beer.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right. Did you have any brushes with the law growing up as a teenager?

INMATE DAVIS: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: How about as an adult prior to the commitment offenses?

INMATE DAVIS: Prior to the commitment offenses, yes, I did. I was arrested in 1968. It's on my record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: That was your first arrest, 1968?

INMATE DAVIS: 1968, first arrest. I was 25.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And what was that for?

INMATE DAVIS: Suspicion of possession of marijuana.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Were you charged with that offense?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I was.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Convicted?

INMATE DAVIS: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What happened?

INMATE DAVIS: There was no evidence of it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you possess marijuana?

INMATE DAVIS: Nope.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: At least not at the time that they were --

INMATE DAVIS: That's right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: -- attributed to you.

INMATE DAVIS: I had possessed marijuana, but at the time of the arrest, I wasn't.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Okay. And so that case was not charged. Did you have any further arrests?

INMATE DAVIS: I was arrested a couple more times for possession none of which were ever brought to trial.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All cases dismissed?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Were you ever charged and convicted of any crimes period the commitment offense?

INMATE DAVIS: I was -- I had a gun offense. I bought a --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: That was after.

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I was -- Okay, that was afterwards.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: So after the commitment offense, you did have a gun offense?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I was charged afterwards.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Okay. No auto theft charges or anything like that?

INMATE DAVIS: Not that I was ever convicted for. I think that -- was I -- I'm not clear right here. There may have been a charge of receiving -- Okay, there was a charge of receiving stolen property I think in Inyo County. I was just let go.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What did they suspect that you were receiving that was stolen?

INMATE DAVIS: An automobile.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: That also was not charged?

INMATE DAVIS: It may have been charged, but it never went to trial.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And have you ever been married?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I have.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Prior to the commitment offense were you married?

INMATE DAVIS: No, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Had you been in romantic relationships prior to the commitment offense?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I had.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you have any children?

INMATE DAVIS: No, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Have you ever been in any live-in relationships with any significant others prior to the commitment offense?

INMATE DAVIS: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And you joined up at some point with a, lack of a better word, gang, the Family, I understand.

INMATE DAVIS: That's true.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: How did that happen?

INMATE DAVIS: After I was released from county jail in the drug offense in 1968, I was in Topanga Canyon. I met Charles Manson.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: How did you meet him?

INMATE DAVIS: A friend of mine asked me if we could return some tools to someone he knew I didn't know. We drove up to the house and that's when I met Manson.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What year was that?

INMATE DAVIS: 1968.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And did he become a friend of yours?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Is that how you would describe your relationship with him as friend?

INMATE DAVIS: No, not really. At the time I thought that he was my friend. I wouldn't describe that now that way.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And was there something about his lifestyle that attracted you to him?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And what was that?

INMATE DAVIS: The drugs, the girls.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: So he was a drug user as well?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Primarily hallucinogens?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And he had access to girls?

INMATE DAVIS: Very much so.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And this was kind of a hippie culture back in those days?

INMATE DAVIS: That's right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And did you join his group, this Family or was it just by being associated with him you're part of it?

INMATE DAVIS: I suppose both. There wasn't a formal initiation. But I joined.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What did joining the Family entail?

INMATE DAVIS: My presence there. Doing what was being done. Playing music, taking drugs.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Were you working a job at that time?

INMATE DAVIS: No, not at that time. I had been up to that -- up to my arrest in '68.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And was that one of your arrests for marijuana possession?

INMATE DAVIS: That was the first one.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: So you lost your job after that arrest?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right. How long did you do in jail that time?

INMATE DAVIS: Ten days.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What kind of work were you doing at the time of that arrest?

INMATE DAVIS: I was a pipeline construction worker.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What's the longest job you ever held?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, let's see, 1962, '63, '64, '65 in a construction outfit. Three years.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And that was steady work?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir, every day.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And did you seek employment after you met this Mr. Manson and joined up with his Family?

INMATE DAVIS: No, I did not.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Now I talk to a lot of gang members on a daily basis and usually there's a relationship among gang members where people have responsibilities and roles and have to do things. Did you have responsibilities? Did you have a role in this group?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, everyone agreed with Charlie. That was the role.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you have to follow his orders?

INMATE DAVIS: His wishes. You know, they really didn't come in terms of orders. They came -- His wishes were expressed by what he did. So if he was playing music, we were playing music. If he was -- Whatever we were doing --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: If he was using drugs, you were using drugs?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you ever sell drugs in this group?

INMATE DAVIS: No, I didn't.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you ever commit crimes in order to support this lifestyle?

INMATE DAVIS: No, I did not.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: You never stole cars or dealt in receiving stolen property or any of those kinds of things?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, the --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: I'm not talking about the commitment offenses yet.

INMATE DAVIS: The charge for receiving stolen property, I was in a car that was stolen and I knew it was stolen.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: How did you guys support yourselves in this lifestyle?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, there were credit cards.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Were they stolen credit cards?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: I would call that a crime.

INMATE DAVIS: That's a crime. Absolutely.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you pass stolen credit cards?

INMATE DAVIS: I used them.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: That's passing them.

INMATE DAVIS: Okay. I thought you meant gave them to other people to use. I'm sorry.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: No, you pass them at a counter and you get some property for it. That kind of thing.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I did. I certainly did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you ever get arrested for those stolen credit cards?

INMATE DAVIS: No, I didn't.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And did that activity go on from the time in 1968 up until the commitment offenses in 1969?

INMATE DAVIS: My actual use of credit cards didn't start until later in '69, but it went on.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you ever attempt to get out of this group, move on, get a legitimate job. Those kinds of things?

INMATE DAVIS: Never did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: How come?

INMATE DAVIS: I didn't have any place to go that I had rather been.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you enjoy this behavior, this lifestyle?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Now I read that you were older than most of the people in this Family.

INMATE DAVIS: I was about the third oldest and rather influential, I'm sure.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Do you think that you had a leadership role of any kind?

INMATE DAVIS: I'm sure that people followed my example.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: So if Mr. Manson wasn't present would you lead people or tell people what to do or make suggestions and they'd follow you?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, most of the leading was done by, well, Squeaky, Charles Watson. I'm sure that I asked people to do things. I'm sure that I carried on. For instance, I worked on the dune buggies a lot. I'm sure I asked for help with that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you ever carry weapons as part of this group?

INMATE DAVIS: I had a weapon.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What kind of weapon?

INMATE DAVIS: A nine millimeter automatic pistol.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you enter this Family with that weapon or did you get it afterward?

INMATE DAVIS: I got it afterwards.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: When did you get it?

INMATE DAVIS: 1969.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And that was your weapon? It didn't belong to the group?

INMATE DAVIS: No, it was mine. That's the one that I received the federal firearms charge for buying it with a false identification.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And did you use one of those credit cards to buy it?

INMATE DAVIS: No, I don't believe I did. I'm pretty sure I had cash.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: But you bought it under someone else's name?

INMATE DAVIS: I bought it under an assumed name.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: You didn't have to show ID?

INMATE DAVIS: I did show ID. I had a fraudulent driver's license.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Why did you get a fraudulent driver's license?

INMATE DAVIS: I wanted another name.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Why did you want another name?

INMATE DAVIS: I didn't want to deal with the consequences of what I was doing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And what were the consequences of what you were doing that you feared happening?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I knew that when I bought a gun under a fictitious name that that was against the law.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Why didn't you buy it under your real name?

INMATE DAVIS: I didn't want to be associated with owning a gun.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Why did you buy the gun?

INMATE DAVIS: Because everybody -- not everybody, several people had guns, and I wanted to be one of the guys.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did the guys in this group, this Family, have guns for the most part?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes. Several did. Not everyone.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What was your intent for using the gun?

INMATE DAVIS: My intent for using it? I was target shooting. That was my intent.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Some people buy guns for protection. Some people buy guns to go commit crimes. I'm just -- That's the point of my question.

INMATE DAVIS: I bought my gun so I could be like the other guys.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did carrying a gun make you feel like a tough guy? Make you feel like you commanded respect?

INMATE DAVIS: It made me feel more like everyone else.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And what was it about you that wanted you to be like everyone else?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I didn't really like who I was, and so I wanted to be like someone else.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What did you not like about yourself?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, you know, as I look back, I see that I didn't think much of myself. I thought that I was cursed. I thought that I was less than. I thought that I was incapable. I thought that I was not adequate. Now, those were the feelings I had when I really thought about it at that time, I don't think I consciously knew those things. But looking back, I can see that's exactly how I felt and that's what motivated my activities

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Where were you living at the time of the commitment offenses?

INMATE DAVIS: Spahn Ranch.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: How long had you been there?

INMATE DAVIS: Since March, April '69.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: So you'd been there for a few months at that point?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir. When I first met Manson, we were in Topanga Canyon in 1968. I left, the Family kind of broke up in June, several people went other directions. I went back east. And I was gone away from the Family until the following spring, March, April. I'm not sure of the exact date. And then went to the Ranch.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Why did you guys go to this Ranch?

INMATE DAVIS: For somewhere to live. We were evicted from our (inaudible) in Topanga Canyon.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Prior to the first of your commitment offenses, had you witnessed any violent acts performed by other members of this group?

INMATE DAVIS: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: So you'd been a member of this group for well over a year and you hadn't seen any violent acts at that point? Had there been discussion of any?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, discussion. After I returned, the conversation had turned from peace and love to hatred and violence. But up to the -- to Gary Hinman losing his life, I didn't know of any.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: So when you rejoined this group after it kind of fell apart, the tone had changed?

INMATE DAVIS: It certainly had.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: You said hatred and violence?

INMATE DAVIS: That's right. That was the conversation.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And who were the people being hated in this conversation?

INMATE DAVIS: Basically the black race.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And did you feel these things as well?

INMATE DAVIS: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you play along like you did?

INMATE DAVIS: I did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: How come?

INMATE DAVIS: I wanted to be part of what was happening.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you prefer the way it was before?

INMATE DAVIS: I would have been satisfied.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: But you were okay with this hatred and violence and all that because you belonged to something, is that it?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, by the time that happened, I really was disassociated from many feelings. I was disconnected from anything I would have called conscience at that time.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And how did that happen?

INMATE DAVIS: Through self-numbing. Through taking drugs.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And how long was it that you were with the Family this second time?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, from April -- March, April, I'm not really sure of the month I returned.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: So about the time that you went to Spahn Ranch?

INMATE DAVIS: Until October.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right. I've already incorporated by reference the commitment offenses as reported in the respondent's brief, and that's very lengthy. It's pages 3 through 51, and I've read it, but I have not -- Just for time reasons, I'm not going to read that into the record. What I will, because I want to ask some questions about these things is just to set the stage for those questions, I'm going to read from the Board Report, the Life Prisoner Evaluation, and the one, the most recent one that lists the commitment offenses very briefly is the 2005 version starting on page 1, under the heading of summary of crime. According to the Probation Officer's Report, POR, dated 4/17/72, court transcripts, and prior Board Reports, the circumstances of the instant offense are as follows. "Count one, Victim Gary Hinman's body was found in a decomposed state in the living room of his home at 964 Topanga Road in Topanga on 7/31/69. He had last been seen alive on 7/25/69, driving a Fiat station wagon. The autopsy revealed that a stab wound to his -- I'm sorry, the autopsy revealed that a stab wound to the chest which penetrated his heart killed the victim. The autopsy further revealed that he had suffered other wounds including a stab wound in the area of his chest, a gash on 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 a 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 clubbed before finally being put to death." Then there's count two, and this refers to Victim Donald Shea. It says, "Count two, Victim Donald Shea was reported missing and an investigation revealed that sometime between August 15 and September 1, 1969, Inmate Davis and his crime partners murdered the victim and buried his body 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 the body of the victim. However, Steven Grogan, G-R-O-G-A-N, one of the crime partners, furnished information to law enforcement as to the location of the victim's body. The body was recovered. Victim Shea was stabbed repeatedly until his death." And were you, in fact, a participant in both of those incidents?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I was.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right.

INMATE DAVIS: You know, when I joined the Family, I knew that there was illegal activities going on. And I convinced myself that if I didn't get directly involved in the drug deals or credit cards, that I would be okay. Now that was a foolish notion on my part, one of many foolish notions. But I was -- I thought that I could just have access to the ladies and the drugs. I talked myself into that was okay. As a result of those decisions, nine innocent people were killed.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Now you were only convicted of the murders of two.

INMATE DAVIS: And I was convicted of two.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What do you feel about your responsibility as far as the other victims?

INMATE DAVIS: I feel some responsibility for everyone because I was an associate of this outfit and I supported by my presence and some of my actions what they did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What was it that would allow you to participate in gang behavior that hurt and killed people?

INMATE DAVIS: By the time it began, I did not care. I was indifferent. I was angry and resentful as I see it now. I wasn't thinking in those terms. I was completely indifferent to what happened. I was only trying to look out for myself. And if it wasn't happening bad to me, I really didn't care.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did the drugs contribute to that feeling, being indifferent?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I had chosen to be indifferent. I suppose, I'm sure the drugs lubricated the way. They were not involved. However, I'm the one who made the decisions to not care about anyone. So after -- Even after Gary was killed, and it was clear that a race war was on the agenda of the Family, I didn't leave. I stayed. My life as I saw it was not being affected.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Why didn't you leave?

INMATE DAVIS: I didn't have anywhere to go in my own estimation that would have been an improvement to where I was. As I look back, I see that I was self deceived, self blinded, wilfully blind, and I was enjoying the things I thought I wanted. I had the company of the females and the drugs and at that point, I didn't care about much else.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And the pleasure that you received from the girls and the drugs outweighed the horror that was occurring with these murders.

INMATE DAVIS: I'm ashamed to tell you that that's true. And as I look back, I had numbed myself into virtual inhumanity and the things I did certainly reflect that kind of attitude.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Now were you present during this two day period of time that Mr. Hinman was basically a prisoner in his home?

INMATE DAVIS: No, I wasn't. I was present when the planning to rob Mr. Hinman went on. And I drove to --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you take part in that planning?

INMATE DAVIS: Yeah -- No, I didn't take part in the planning, I was there present, so that's taking part. I was there. And when I was asked to drive, I did. So I drove my codefendants to Gary's home. I later pointed my pistol at Gary in an attempt to rob him.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Were there other guns present?

INMATE DAVIS: No. I had the only gun. And when Gary's face was cut open, he had already been beaten.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Were you present when his face was cut open?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I was.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Were you present during the beatings?

INMATE DAVIS: No. I was holding a gun on Gary when his face was cut open. And at that point, I had no compassion for Gary's suffering. I only wanted to leave. So I abandoned Gary to the rest of the people and for three days, he suffered a very terrible death. Later on I was present when the plans to kill Donald Shea were made.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Now there was some time that went by between these murders.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, there was.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: The murder of Mr. Hinman was not enough to get you to wake up and leave this thing along?

INMATE DAVIS: I'm sorry to say, I regret to say that I was so numb, I did not care. It was not enough. It obviously wasn't enough. I stayed.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: So the motive for Gary Hinman being basically tortured and murdered, that was for robbery?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, it was.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And did you know Mr. Hinman?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And what was his relationship to you?

INMATE DAVIS: I had met Gary the year before. He lived down in Topanga. He was a music teacher. He wanted to be in public service.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Why was he selected as a victim?

INMATE DAVIS: Someone suggested him.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Who was that?

INMATE DAVIS: One of the girls. I think it was Ella Bailey, and Susan was there when we planned it, when it was planned.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Susan? Full name.

INMATE DAVIS: Susan Atkins. And I don't know which one of them brought it up, but it was Gary has an inheritance and we can get it. And then somebody asked me, Manson, will you drive them. So I said okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right, what were you guys going to do with the money that you stole from him? What were you going to do with it?

INMATE DAVIS: Finance ourselves.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Finance that lifestyle?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Was it going to finance the race war that you talk about?

INMATE DAVIS: I'm sure the money would be used to finance whatever Manson thought of doing or whatever was brought up.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you ever stand up to Mr. Manson and tell him this is crazy. We shouldn't do this. Let's try something else?

INMATE DAVIS: I never said we should try something else.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you have any input when this planning was going on?

INMATE DAVIS: About Gary?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Particularly Gary.

INMATE DAVIS: I just agreed to drive. I did drive. I shouldn't say just agreed. I was happy to drive.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And you were happy to bring your gun along to facilitate this crime?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, actually Bobby took the gun, but I was glad to give it to him.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: So you handed it off to him?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I did.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Use full names.

INMATE DAVIS: Bobby Beausoleil.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: So you eventually passed your gun along to one of the crime partners and then you left?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes. And then I came back, and that's when I held a gun on Gary.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you take part in any of the clubbing or the stabbing?

INMATE DAVIS: No, I did not. I only held the gun on him. That's my part. And I stopped him from defending himself in that way.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Prevented him from fleeing as well?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, yes. I'm sure he was threatened by a gun pointed at him. A gun that had already gone off in the house. So he knew it was loaded and he knew the people around him had no sympathy for him. So yes, I'm sure I did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right. And then the second murder, this was of Donald Shea. Were you there for the planning of that?

INMATE DAVIS: I was present at the planning.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you participate in the planning?

INMATE DAVIS: No, I didn't. I was present. Donald was to be killed because he was an informer. And only after he was clubbed and stabbed and at his weakest and his most vulnerable point is when I, ashamed to say in the most cowardly and brutal way, attacked Donald with a knife. And then I tried to wipe my fingerprints off the car we had used. And then I lied to his friends constantly about where's Donald, about his whereabouts I lied.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What made you folks think that he was an informant?

INMATE DAVIS: I'm not really sure of all that. Manson said he was.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And you accepted that as true?

INMATE DAVIS: I did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Do you have any idea what he had informed about?

INMATE DAVIS: Generally there was information, there was several people involved in the real estate of the Ranch, some people trying to secure knowledge. I know there was people trying to buy the Ranch from Mr. Spahn. It is said that Mr. Shea was giving him information about the Family. That's really all I'm --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: He wasn't informing to the police?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, the implication was he was.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Weren't there some stolen vehicles or something and there was some question as to who told the police about those?

INMATE DAVIS: I'm not sure to the exact things that Mr. Shea was alleged to have informed about. But at the moment for me, I just -- they just said he's an informer.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: At the time, did you believe that murder was an appropriate way to deal with an informant?

INMATE DAVIS: Sir, I must have because I was part of this. And after Mr. Shea was killed, I even bragged about how his body was dismembered and decapitated.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: You bragged about cutting his head off, right?

INMATE DAVIS: It was a lie, but I bragged about it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Why did you say that?

INMATE DAVIS: Because I wanted to be somebody around the group and around people we were associated with.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: You wanted to be feared?

INMATE DAVIS: Respected.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Do you think that beheading someone gives you respect?

INMATE DAVIS: In that crowd, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Now you did stab him; is that right?

INMATE DAVIS: I cut him from his armpit to his collarbone.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: How come you did that?

INMATE DAVIS: I was part of his murder.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And he was already suffering at the point that you did that; is that right?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, he was.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Was he dead yet in your mind?

INMATE DAVIS: Say again?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Was he dead yet in your mind?

INMATE DAVIS: I don't know.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Do you think he was still alive?

INMATE DAVIS: I didn't -- You know, I have made statements that said well, I thought he was already dead or I don't know if he was still alive. I don't really remember. I couldn't tell you exactly. But let me say this, it wouldn't have mattered to me were he dead or alive at the time. I was going to do what I did, and I did it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right. So if he wasn't going to die already, knife wound from the armpit to the collarbone would have probably done it, do you think?

INMATE DAVIS: It very well could have.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And what did you do after he died? Did you take part in -- take part in disposing of the body?

INMATE DAVIS: No, I did not.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What did you do?

INMATE DAVIS: I left. I walked away. And I went down the gully and I turned back toward Santa Susana and I walked back up to the Ranch. And that's what I did afterwards.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did they try to get you to go along in anymore of their crimes and violence?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes. The night of the Tate murders, Mary Brenner or Susan Atkins one, came to me and says we're going out today. Didn't say what was going to happen. And I said I'm not going.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you anticipate that they were going to commit violence?

INMATE DAVIS: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Why didn't you go?

INMATE DAVIS: I didn't want to go.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: How come?

INMATE DAVIS: You know, after what had happened with Gary, I was more resistant to going out on the escapades, going creepy crawling as they called it. I didn't want to do that. That was too scary for me. And so I said no.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you ever choose to leave this Family?

INMATE DAVIS: No, I never did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: You stayed a member the whole time?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir, I did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you feel any sadness or any remorse, any pain, empathy, those kinds of things, prior to your arrests?

INMATE DAVIS: Following Donald Shea's murder, I was in shock.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: When did the shock set in?

INMATE DAVIS: About the time I walked away from the murder scene.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: But the shock wasn't enough to prevent you from telling people that you cut his head off, how can that be?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I got over that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: So you were initially shocked, but then you got over it?

INMATE DAVIS: For three or four days, I slept a lot. I wanted to be isolated, away from everybody. And then I started going back to my regular numb normal. And the really insane life just took up where it left off.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Were you under the influence of drugs during any of these murders?

INMATE DAVIS: I would say residually as psychedelic drugs and other drugs have an accumulative effect on your psych, on mine, yes. We didn't take -- I didn't take drugs especially to do this.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What do you think it was about you? Perhaps your defects of character or causative factors. What do you think specifically it was about you that would allow you to involve yourself in horrific crimes like these?

INMATE DAVIS: You know, the fact that I didn't think that I was a good person. I didn't feel like a good person. And when I use the word think here, I shouldn't say I was cognitive and really intellectual about it because I wasn't.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: You didn't like yourself, is that what you mean?

INMATE DAVIS: I was just living on my feelings. I acted as if, I acted as if I was not quite as good as the people around me. And I always wanted them to like me more than I really liked myself. I didn't know that at the time. I didn't understand what I was doing, but the people I was around gave me sex that I took for love, gave me a kind of respect that I took for respect. And that's how I took it. That's how I chose to feel okay. And when I see it now, I know that I was like this for some time that I was an all or nothing kind of person. So if I had approved of Manson and the others or anything they were doing, I just said it's okay. I was not going to -- I was unwilling to confront. I was unwilling to face the consequences of rejection. I've tried to make myself safe in the environment I was in to continue the behavior I wanted. I know that now, 40 years later. At the time, I wasn't aware of any of that and I'm sure had I been told it straight up like I'm telling it now, I would have denied that truthfully in my own mind. I couldn't accept it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Well, you denied this crime initially, didn't you?

INMATE DAVIS: I certainly did for a long time.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: How long were you claiming innocence?

INMATE DAVIS: For years. Yeah, I didn't want the consequence of this. Of course I was claiming this.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: How long into your denial was it where you turned around and finally accepted responsibility for your actions?

INMATE DAVIS: I began, you know, when I began to accept responsibility, it wasn't a big light came on and all of a sudden I accepted everything all the time. It was sort of a dawning. Kind of an evolutionary thing. In 1974, I had a very transformative experience, and that began to turn the light on. It took a while. It probably took ten years, 15 years before I came to terms with the things I'd done. Before I got to the point where I look back and go that was a reprehensible person. What I did was so dreadful. And the pain I caused. You know, when I think about the families having to go to a funeral for their children and having the worst thing that a parent could have to happen, their children ripped away from them for an insane and brutal way, you know, when I picture the gravestones of Gary Alan Hinman, age 34, and all his dreams and aspirations, and his mother who risked her life to have him, who suffered for him, who gave her life all his life and then in an act of complete insanity from my part, just treated him like nothing. When I think of Donald Shea and how so cowardly and craven I was, completely insensitive. Hey, I am so sorry for not only for Gary and Donald, but their families and all the families of our victims, I mean, there were nine separate families that had to endure the terrible violence, the terrible loss that I supported. I was part of the Family. So feel responsibility for all of those people.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What about the world in general? The world was impacted by this. Fear everywhere.

INMATE DAVIS: I feel terrible for the communities, especially in Los Angeles, that were in fear, in anxiety, in all kinds of worry. They didn't know why this was happening for five months in 1969. Thousands, tens of thousands, countless people. You know, I was numb at the time. I didn't even care. But I have come to find out at least a part. And I can never know the limits of the terrible thing I did. In fact, they haven't stopped reverberating yet, right? But, you know, I had an officer on my floor who told me one time, he said, hey Davis, I was in L.A. when this happened. I was six. Six years old. He said my friends and I were scared to death because we thought you all were killing rich people. But the only thing that absolved us, we decided we weren't rich. And we made an understanding with my friends that we'd be all right. Now that's just one. How many people still suffer? You know, as I read about PTSD, I realize that I can't even imagine how much pain and suffering I caused. So I feel the responsibility. And not only did I partake in the death of two human beings in a remarkably callous way, I prolonged the suffering of so many when I should have -- If I had of done the right thing, and let me tell you, I had no thought of ever doing the right thing at the time. In the Hinman house, I was the only one -- I had the most power of anyone in that house. I had the only gun. If it had ever crossed my mind to do something right, I could have ended the whole thing very easily.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: You could have stopped it before it started.

INMATE DAVIS: I could have. I had plenty of chances.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And how do you reconcile with yourself that you didn't?

INMATE DAVIS: My willingness to just be numb, my willingness to just not give a damn, that's what gave me the rationale. As I look back at it, I can't reconcile it other than my attitude at the time. I will always be guilty of that. I don't expect that guilt to ever be reconciled. I understand it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right.

INMATE DAVIS: And now those actions I had, they are part of my boundaries. But until I understood that, I didn't understand it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Commissioner, do you have any questions?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Briefly. The stolen credit cards, where did all those come from?

INMATE DAVIS: I'm not really sure.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: You never asked?

INMATE DAVIS: Nope.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: It was never discussed in front of you?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, it would be something like -- and this instance I'm going to give, I don't want to make you think this is how it always was because I don't remember it all. But one of the girls would come in and say, hey, I got a credit card or we met somebody who gave us some stolen credit cards.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Was it the girls that were primarily supporting the Family?

INMATE DAVIS: For the most part. When it comes to adding money to the Family, I don't remember -- I didn't add any. Well, when I was on unemployment, I added a little bit every week, but that was not much. So I don't remember either Bobby or Charlie or Tex or anyone bringing in -- except there was a man named Charlie that Catherine Share knew and they robbed him of five thousand dollars. And I remember that was the first time I ever saw that much money in one pile. And Charles Watson was in charge of that. But usually it was the girls.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: So before you joined the group, you were employed for about three years.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Supported yourself.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Had a place to live obviously.

INMATE DAVIS: Obviously.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Groceries.

INMATE DAVIS: Everything.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Transportation.

INMATE DAVIS: I lived well.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Transportation.

INMATE DAVIS: Everything.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Okay. And yet you said you felt inferior, less than, and abused and that you felt you were owed something. What was it you felt you were owed that you didn't have?

INMATE DAVIS: That's a good question. Thank you for asking. You know, during the time that I was working, I was working as a welder's apprentice. I had a good job. I had a nice car, I had a good car, I had a motorcycle, I had good clothes. I lived in a fairly nice place. I was okay materially. And a person living as I was and looking would say he's good. He's all right. Now once I started taking drugs a lot, it amplified. It amplified my negative feelings. It amplified my resentment. It amplified my discontent. And then when I was arrested the first time for the drug possession, I stewed and just was embittered for all those ten days in the L.A. County jail. You know, as I look back, after 42 years in prison, ten days is not that long. But the first ten day that I did, I came in contact with a world that I never dreamed. I heard things, saw things, was exposed to things that was completely beyond my reality. But in that time, I became just so angry at what I thought was -- that I was being abused by the system because I was arrested and taken away from my life and my job and my relationships, et cetera, for nothing. Because there was no marijuana in my car. Now I was a user of marijuana. I had bought it. I had used it. But this day, I happened, and this was my little technical reason for feeling abused. This day I just happened to be clean of any marijuana residue and now I was busted and had to spend those ten days in prison. And during those ten days, I just -- I was just seething with resentment and anger at why am I here? I pay my taxes. I was going through all of my list of what a good person I am and why I was being abused. And during that time, I decided all right, they owe me. I'm going to make a big change about my work habits and all I did. When I got out, when they released me, and I was thinking about this. I didn't know what I was going to do, but I knew something -- there was going to be a big change. And one of the things, not everything, when I checked out 11 o'clock at night, checking out of new county jail it was called then, I told the officer, I said, hey, look, the charges were dropped, my car was clean, but it was impounded and it's in Malibu. Would you mind helping me get a ride to Malibu? Now I realize that that was a very naïve sort of point of view that I should ask for help getting back to where I was arrested, but I did. I didn't see that as an unreasonable request. I remember the officer looked at me, I smile now, but I was so -- I was shocked. He looked at me and addressed me in a way you ought to be the next thing down the toilet. That was his attitude. And I really thought that he might be somewhat sympathetic. Well, that was a big -- I had expectations that were not realistic. I realize that now. When I left, I thought all right, I've been hurt. I've been put in jail and I'm innocent, only technically, but I was feeling all hurt. I said fine, I'll just collect it my way. You don't want to say I'm sorry, fine. You know, as I think back, I wonder if something different had happened and somebody had said, you know, Mr. Davis, we don't find any evidence of you possessing marijuana and we're sorry for the inconvenience. I've often wondered if I would have just said fine. I'm good. I don't know. I don't know if I would have went back to my job. I could have. All I had to do was go to the union hall. I could have got plenty of those jobs. I don't know what I'd done. But I think about that, and it was my decision. The things I decided to do were not a big reaction to how other people treated me because I decided in myself. They gave me alternatives to accept or reject, and I chose the ones that I chose. But that's way, way under the -- water under the bridge. However, I didn't choose that, and so when I met Charlie and the girls, I was ready for that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: So what the Family gave you from what I understand you're telling me today is that there was a significant amount of sex that you didn't have to work for readily available.

INMATE DAVIS: That's right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Young man, I'm sure you liked that.

INMATE DAVIS: That's why I was there.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: And significant amount of drugs you didn't have to work for.

INMATE DAVIS: That's right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: You didn't have to work at all.

INMATE DAVIS: Initially I went and collected my unemployment check every week.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Do you recall that worked okay, but --

INMATE DAVIS: Well, that was all the work it took.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Okay. So as I see it listening to what you're telling me, it sounds as though you made a decision that sex and drugs were a lot more important that human life.

INMATE DAVIS: I certainly did.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: And that was your pleasure.

INMATE DAVIS: That was my pleasure.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: So are we correct that your pleasure was paramount?

INMATE DAVIS: It was to me.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Of course, that's what we're talking about.

INMATE DAVIS: Because I was in survival mode. And the thing --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: I'm not so sure about the survival mode because you'd been able to survive very well.

INMATE DAVIS: I mean psychologically, I'm sorry.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: You were in pleasure mode. That's more --

INMATE DAVIS: Absolutely.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Okay. And then when these events occurred, and I think the first one is the Hinman?

INMATE DAVIS: That's right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: You're the man there with the gun. You're the boss.

INMATE DAVIS: I had the power in my hand.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: That makes you the boss, doesn't it.

INMATE DAVIS: The boss is here. No, I was not the boss.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Well, you pointed to your own head.

INMATE DAVIS: See, if I was the boss, I would have thought I was the boss. I didn't think I was the boss.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Okay. But you had the gun and you had the power.

INMATE DAVIS: I had the gun.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: All right. And you didn't leave because again, your pleasure was paramount.

INMATE DAVIS: I left because I was uncomfortable with what happened.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: I'm talking about at the Hinman incident. You didn't leave the family after Hinman.

INMATE DAVIS: No, I did not.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Because your pleasure was still paramount.

INMATE DAVIS: I'm ashamed to tell you that's true.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: And then we get to Shea, same thing I assume?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, that's true.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Okay. Now you started to feel remorse at some point. You said you were disgusted at the Shea incident and, in fact, you wouldn't do what you were asked to do, but you did slice him I think it was from armpit to collarbone, right. But after that you were upset and ashamed?

INMATE DAVIS: For a short period of time.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: And then after that, you decided you were no longer ashamed?

INMATE DAVIS: It wore off very quickly.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: So for a number of years you denied any of this incidents or your participation.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I did.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: And when was it that you decided you were ashamed of what you had done?

INMATE DAVIS: After I had been in prison at Folsom for a couple years. I had a very transformative experience.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: You mean is that the '74?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, 1974.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: In this experience, my drug usage, any kind of alcohol, drugs, all that stuff, quit me. That was the last I desired it. My life began to change. It took a while before I really began to get in touch with what I was doing or what I had done, but over a period of time. Many years. I came to really see the effects of what I'd done. I came to -- I started to feel. To have my own emotions inside that were me. And when that came, I'm not going to tell you that I welcomed feeling the shame, the guilt, the remorse that I knew was coming. I thought that. I didn't even after I knew it was right to feel, I was afraid of it. I didn't want to face the consequences of what I'd done. And I certainly wasn't prepared to go through the emotional -- It was a big threat to me. Now as I look back, I wasn't thinking in those terms. This will be a threat. But I see how I acted. But over a period of time, through a lot of help from other people, through people that love me and care for me and supported me and talked to me and counseled me and prayed for me, I began to become more and more willing to look at what I'd done.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Are we in agreement here that sometimes a person by themselves won't do certain things, but in a group they will?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I believe -- Yeah, I've had times when that was true.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: And part of that is this Family mentality that they probably did things because it was a group that they wouldn't have done individually?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I know the first time I ever did something in a group because everybody else did it it was just a simple prank when I was about 10 or 12 years old. It was something I wouldn't have done. Had no --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Let's get on to the Family business.

INMATE DAVIS: Okay. But I had a pattern.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Right.

INMATE DAVIS: When my friends wanted to drink, I'd drink.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: But the Family did things --

INMATE DAVIS: But when it got up to -- when it got up to what the Family, did, I was psychologically -- I was emotionally invested.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: So by your support of the group, it added credence or acceptance to the things they were doing.

INMATE DAVIS: Absolutely.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: And I'm having some trouble reconciling to myself that at some point you say you felt remorse and everything else. But I note in the '70s you came before the Board and you were in denial.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I was.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: And then you continued in denial for a number of years, and then you said you started to have these epiphanies and it was a slow progression, correct?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: And you still kept coming to the Board to be released.

INMATE DAVIS: Absolutely.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Why did you think you should be released in the '70s for example?

INMATE DAVIS: Principally I came to the Board because I wanted out of prison. I wanted out of prison. That's why I came.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: All right. So when you started to then accept responsibility, why did you keep coming?

INMATE DAVIS: I still wanted out of prison.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: All right. And at any time did you say to yourself realizing your participation not just in the two murders that you were involved with, but in the whole scheme of what the Family was doing, all of the criminality, all of the hurt, and all of the pain, did you ever say to yourself, what is a fair sentence for me?

INMATE DAVIS: I deserved death.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: But you're here.

INMATE DAVIS: Absolutely.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Okay. Explain that to me.

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I did. The law changed, I was spared the death penalty. I'm not saying I don't deserve death. Hey, I took a life. I deserve death. When I read the Scripture, life for a life. That's death. All the Ten Commandments. Whoa. So I deserve death for not only the lies I told but for the adultery and for the theft.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: If you feel that way, I'm just trying to understand. You've been to the Board 27, 28 times. I've lost track frankly, but let's just call it 27, seeking to be released. How does that reconcile with believing that what you really deserve is death?

INMATE DAVIS: I reconcile it like this. I can make amends. There is something, my death would just be the end of something, but my continued life, I can make amends. My life has been making a compensation for what I did for the last several decades. I have been working to help other people to make good choices, to have a spiritual connection like mine. I am trying to make up for the terrible pain and loss and the horrendous things I did. So yes, I want the opportunity to continue in that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: That's it?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, that's how --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: I'm saying there's more, I'm just asking.

INMATE DAVIS: That's how I reconcile it. I'd say you know, if I could press a button right here and say okay, I'll die right here for it. That would be quite a -- I would consider doing that. I mean, I'm not saying I would. I don't want to die. I want to go forward. I want life. I want to try to make up for some of the pain and destruction I caused. I want that chance.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: How would you do that?

INMATE DAVIS: I would do that through service. I would do that through helping others. I would do it through -- I would do it the same way I've been doing it for the last 20 years. I'm involved in self-help groups. I'm involved in helping other people. I'm involved in supporting people that are going in the right direction. People that are trying to make positive decisions in their life. I'm supporting that. I'm encouraging it. I'm teaching it. So that's how I've been trying to make up for the terrible things I did in the past.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: All right. That's all the questions I have. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Let's move into post-conviction factors then.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Mr. Davis, we're going to go down to what we call post-conviction factors. By that, we mean how you've been doing in the institution. We both know you've been to the Board many times, and primarily at this hearing what we're going to deal with is what you've been doing since your last Board. There will be some overlap, but we're going to try to concentrate on what you've been doing since your last Board. Towards that end, we have reviewed -- You've got a lot of files, but we have reviewed your files and pretty much have gone through most of your records. I do note that you currently have a classification score of 28, and you've had 28 and/or zero since about 1998. Twenty-eight is the lowest classification you can have given your life crime, and that's because you have a mandatory point override. But to your credit, your score has been low since 1998. I'm also aware you have a few disciplinaries within the institution. You've had two 115s in 1975 for sharpening a spoon and 1984 for conduct. And you've had a few 128 counseling chronos. It looks to me like you've had five of those and the last one was 1992 for being untruthful with staff. I've also had an opportunity to read and review your most recent Board Report. That report was prepared for today's hearing and was prepared by your correctional counselor. And that is D. Risner, R-I-S-N-E-R. Part of that report was also prepared by G. Rathwick, R-A-T-H-W-I-C-K. I'm also aware that you last came to the Board, it looks like you had a hearing October 7th, 2010, and that was a one year waiver. Then you went to the Board, I'm sorry, previous to that --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I've never received the 2012 Board Report.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: All there is is the updates.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay. Thanks.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Yeah. It appears you went to the Board in January 2010 and you did receive a grant at that time. Then ultimately in June of 2010, that was reversed by the Governor's Office. You then went back to the Board in October 2010. You took a one year waiver and then you returned to the Board in November of 2012, and were given a six month postponement for health reasons, and that brings us to today.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Actually that was May of June 2012. You said --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: For some reason I had it as November, but June, thank you. Okay, so that brings us to today. So I looked at what you've been doing and it does appear -- I went back to 2009. It does appear you have a laudatory chrono in December of 2009. That's from Reverend Alderson, A-L-D-E-R-S-O-N, who is the Protestant chaplain. Says he's known you for 23 years. You work well with peers and stuff and over the last two decades, that you have worked positively within the chapel and he says when you present the gospel, it is never from a bully pulpit. Then I see January 2010, you participated in Alternatives to Violence. September 2010, you completed MSDS communication training. September 2010, you took some additional training in safety equipment, safety management. There's one October 2010, for your participation in Yokefellows. Then there's a number of, probably four additional chronos in January and February of 2011, for your participation in safety programming. December of 2011, you participated in the Bible school. It says the California Men's Colony School of the Bible. That's through the Protestant chapel. And apparently you were acting as a lay teacher there. Then it looks like December 2011, again through the Protestant chapel, you were taking classes in demolishing strongholds. February 2012, you participated in the PACA program which is affects of domestic violence on children, and that's sponsored by the Prisoners Against Child Abuse program. March 2012, you took more safety programming. March 2012, you participated in a program called stress reduction. And April 2012, you participated in The Big Four Fellowship which is part of the AA program. May of 2012, you participated in the -- or actually it's a laudatory chrono for your participation with the Protestant chaplain and apparently you've been involved in that for about 27 years they said. And I think that brings us to the most recent laudatory chrono that I have. Are there any other laudatory chronos more recent than what I have here? Thank you, counsel. As you well know, sometimes it takes a while for these to find their way into the file.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: But I see one. Your counsel has given us one here dated July 2012. This is a chrono from your superintendent at the printing plant. You're commended for your actions assisting in the inventory and that you were doing whatever was required of you, and that you did beyond job expectations. And there's one here October 2012. It looks like you were assigned through the print plant. You've received numerous raises and certificates. You've done an excellent job in the area. It's a very demanding job. Apparently you make the DMV tags? Yes?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Okay. And it says you assist in teaching new inmates the quality control procedures for the DMV tags. That you're a very valuable inmate and that they would like to retain you in that valuable position and want to thank you. I'll give those back to your counsel.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Thank you.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: I also noted you're currently assigned Medium-A custody. And I went back and what I wanted to do and I'm going to be fairly brief, I know you've been in many years and I'm not going to go through everything you've done as I indicated. But I just want to briefly hit some of the things that you have participated in. It looks to me like you have earned a masters of arts degree in religion, a doctor of philosophy and religion from Bethany College. You graduated summa cum laude. You've completed vocational training and drafting in welding. You've held institutional positions as a clerk, building orderly, a porter, a runner in the culinary department. You've been on the sack lunch crew, and you've been a teacher's aide and an instructor. You've participated in Alcoholics Anonymous periodically over the time of your incarceration as well as Narcotics Anonymous, Alternatives to Violence, anger control, Big Four Fellowship part of the AA program. The California Men's Colony School of the Bible. The CART of Communications, Gestalt and guided imagery which is individual therapy, interfaith which was part of the 12 step program. The Jewish literacy program. You participated in lifer decision making an introspective analysis peer training, personal growth seminars, psychotherapy groups, rational behavior therapy, reality and decision making, substance abuse groups, stress management and relaxation training, transactional analysis and the Yokefellows program as well as having taken a number of courses in Bible study. I also went and reviewed your most recent psychological evaluation. That evaluation is actually an update to a previous evaluation done by the same evaluator. That was Dr. Thacker. The most recent evaluation was done based on an interview with you that occurred on July 28th of 2010. I'm sorry, that was, yes, that is correct. And that is an indicator it is an update of Dr. Thacker's previous evaluation which was based on his interview with you in June of 2009. Hers. Thank you. And so it appears that over the last two or three years, you've had at least two separate evaluations by Dr. Thacker. This, as I say, is the update and she talks about that you seem to express sincere emotionally felt remorse when discussing the impact of your actions on others, referring to your life crime. She says you identified conflicts at age -- at a young age, about 13 between you and your father. You recall that apparently he was abusive and you had made a decision that he'll never touch you again.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I'm sorry, Commissioner, could you just tell us what page you're on?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Sure. Page 2. You said that that experience caused you to, quote, "Turn the lights out on him." And that you turned the lights out on everyone after that. That you became passive aggressive because he was too big to fight. "I just ran the other way. I wouldn't listen when he came home late, et cetera." And you started satisfying what you wanted in the way of food, sex, et cetera. He goes on to talk about that you were also molested and that you felt shameful and painful and you added I apparently to your distrust of authority figures. One of the molesters was a neighbor and another was an eight grade school teacher; is that correct?

INMATE DAVIS: That's correct.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: All right. It also talks then a little bit as we've mentioned today about your arrest for the possession of marijuana. That was an arrest in Los Angeles County. You said you knew I didn't have any drugs. You were very angry at being treated that way, and that fueled your feelings of resentment towards authority. You said that you then subsequent to that, you met Charlie, meaning Charles Manson, and the girls and then you added at that point, I was a goner. There wasn't any way I wasn't going to get that. The girls, the love. And that you took his manipulation, i.e., Manson's manipulation as respect. And the girls revered him and apparently you wanted that also. She talks about your classification score being 28, which we've already discussed. She talks about your institutional programming, which we've already covered. She said that you have sporadically attended AA meetings and she asks you about that. And you stated that you've never had a drug beef in prison and that you decided that you would start working on your schooling. As a result, you completed your MA in theology in '98, your Ph.D. in theology in 2002, and that was through various correspondence courses. That you said you did continue to work the 12-step program. You said I like the steps. I believe in the 12-step philosophy. Apparently you indicate that you do take a moral inventory every day and that you continue to work the steps. And you said that you intend to continue your participation and recovery programs such as AA, NA in the community and that you have a sponsor through your wife's church. It goes on to talk about the life crimes, which we've already discussed and you talked about after the Governor's reversal apparently, I'm on page 6, after the Governor's reversal, you thought other people were seeing things that maybe you were not seeing; is that correct?

INMATE DAVIS: That's right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Okay. So you said you started to read the transcripts of your prior hearings from the perspective of what you call a prosecutor rather than an inmate.

INMATE DAVIS: That's right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Okay. You said that it didn't take me long. I saw I was describing my participation by all of the things I didn't do.

INMATE DAVIS: That happened before the 2010 hearing.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: You're right, 2008.

INMATE DAVIS: Okay. After the 2008, that's when I had a turning point.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Yes, thank you. You said the fact that you hung out with these guys, I think you mean the whole Family, and was the second oldest person after Manson influenced the people to carry on with what they were doing. My presence had kind of a go ahead philosophy; is that correct?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: And I think we discussed that. That your presence whether you actively participated but simply your presence encouraged them to do or to continue doing their criminal activities.

INMATE DAVIS: Absolutely.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: All right. You said I didn't do anything about the assault on the victim, and I think you were talking about Hinman at that point.

INMATE DAVIS: That's right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Yes. You said you could have done something to stop the assault, but you were just looking out for yourself and did nothing. You said that you now see how your continued association and presence with the group served to support their activities and encouraged them to continue what they were doing. It says you sent along with the group and you tried to be involved in as little as possible. And now you say that you're focusing not on what you didn't do but on the fact that your participation and presence there was an encouragement to the group and that is what partially makes you responsible for Mr. Shea's death. It does on to talk about you think of the people that were affected, devastated and destroyed by what you did. They are all still not recovered and never will recover and you believe it affected generations. You were asked how you felt about the legal system. You said I am not a victim of the system. I was a victim of my own stupidity. The records say how I feel about authority now. I've had very little problems in here during the past 38 years. I take it you mean your conforming behavior within the institution?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I do.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: All right. It goes on a little bit to talk about some of the prior psychological evaluations. It talks about the '89 and '90 evaluations where your risk for future violence could not be predicted. It talks about '89 and '91, that your risk factors were below that of an average inmate. In 1992, the evaluator indicated that your violence potential had significantly decreased. Then in '94, '96, '97, '98, each of those evaluators had the opinion that your risk was below average. In 1999, it was opined that your risk for future violence was low. In 2004 and 2006, the evaluators felt your risk for future violence was low to moderate. Then in 2009, an evaluation, that was the first evaluation from Dr. Thacker. And Dr. Thacker was of the opinion that your overall risk for violence in the community was low. Because this most recent report was an update of Dr. Thacker's '09 evaluation, he was looking at what we call dynamic factors, meaning --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: She.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: She. I'm sorry, I keep saying that. She. For the record, I do know it's a woman. Thank you. She talks about dynamic factors which are changes, those things which have been in flux since your last hearing what has changed that could change the opinion of the evaluator as to your potential for violence. And she felt that there were no factors which might aggravate your risk to reoffend from the previous evaluation and she felt that there were several factors which would tend to decrease your violent risk potential from the last hearing. And she says that first in terms of mitigating factors, he has continued to develop a deeper level of insight and understanding regarding the causative factors which contributed to his choices leading up to the life crime. Your remorse for your actions and their affects on others continues to grow and deepen. You've continued to program in a disciplinary-free, responsible manner within the institution and you've taken steps to address the concerns expressed by the Board by continuing your involvement in self-help programming, particular your participation in AA. She states that you have continued to demonstrate your commitment to sincerely changing in a positive direction, and she does not make a new opinion as to the risk for potential violence which generally is consistent with updated reports. So she is reaffirming her opinions in 2009 with the addition of new mitigating factors. Does that make sense?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, it does.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: All right. I also went back and reviewed the 2009 Psychological Evaluation as well as a number of other earlier evaluations. And the 2009 evaluation was based on an approximate three hour interview with you. I'm not going to go through all of that. Your attorney can hit whatever highlights he wishes to hit. I do want to just simply reiterate that she talks about at the time of 2009, you had received 29 -- 23 prior evaluations. She talks about those evaluations and we've discussed a number of those. She also goes on to say that she administered a number of psychological tests to you and those -- strike that. Let me ask, before I go to that, I do want to hit on her diagnostic impressions of you. She felt on Axis I that you had a history of Cannabis Abuse and Hallucinogenic Abuse, and that your Axis II was Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specific with Narcissistic and Antisocial Features. Do you think the diagnosis of narcissistic personality might have fit you?

INMATE DAVIS: Absolutely.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Was that an absolutely?

INMATE DAVIS: I think I had, they said narcissistic features, yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: So as I indicated she does talk about the psychological testing that she did and the first test that she administered is the PCL-R. That's a test that's used to measure psychological traits that a person might have of psychopathy. That particular test you rated within the low range. She also administered the HCR-20, which is a test that's used to help measure the likelihood of violent recidivism. And on that, they look at a number of factors. Some of the historical factors and others are dynamic or current factors. Obviously historic factors never change, but current and/or dynamic factors constantly change. And in the clinical or dynamic factors, she said that you did not express overt criminal thinking during the interview. You've been receptive and responsive to treatment within the institution. You've participated in vocational training and self-help programming. That you continue to work, and that you've improved your insight into the crime and the factors leading to it's admission. She placed you in the low range for violent recidivism on that particular test. She also administered the LS/CMI. That's a test that's used to determine the likelihood of the possibility of recidivism. Not necessarily violent recidivism, but simply recidivism in general. And in that particular test, you rated in the low category for general recidivism. So after her three hour interview with you, her review of your file as well as your previous Psychological Evaluations and the testing which she performed, she formed the opinion that you represent a low risk for future violence in a free community. She said no areas of concern were identified which would require addressing in order to further reduce his risk of violence. So without going into any greater detail of all your previous files over 42 years, have we covered pretty much everything you've done since the last Board?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: With that, we'll turn it back over to the Chair. Thank you, sir.

INMATE DAVIS: Can we have a restroom break, please.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: It's been two hours and five minutes. Now would be a good time for that. Why don't we take a 15 minute break. It's now 11 o'clock, and we'll reconvene at 11:15.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: We're off the record.

(Off the record.)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: We're on the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: The time is now roughly 11:18 a.m., and all persons with the exception of one staff member have returned to the room. Mr. Davis, while we're still talking about post-conviction factors, I do want to ask you about how you feel about your grant of parole from 2010 being reversed by the Governor. What was your initial thoughts on that and how do you feel about it today?

INMATE DAVIS: I'm very sad that the Board's decision was vetoed.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you read the letter?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What did you think about that?

INMATE DAVIS: I read it more than once and at the end of reading it, I realized that I should have been more explicit in my assumption of responsibility for my crimes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Do you think that the Governor made some valid points?

INMATE DAVIS: I recognized the Governor's concerns, his worries, his suspicions, and everything has a degree of validity, I suppose.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: When that happens, it almost always rings immediately again. We'll see what happens, but let the record reflect the phone just rang in here for some reason. All right, Mr. Davis, if you were to be granted parole, where would you go?

INMATE DAVIS: I'm going to parole to PREP. I'll tell you all about it here.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Partnership for Reentry Program?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yes, the Francisco Home.

INMATE DAVIS: Partners for Reentry Program, Los Angeles.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And why did you select that transitional housing program?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, they have a very high reputation. They're very professional. They handle -- They've been in this business a long time. They know the problems I'm going to have better than I know the problems I'm going to have. They've gone through the changes with a lot of people. They know what to expect. They're very committed. It's a way that I can come from a regulated environment, CMC --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: A structured environment?

INMATE DAVIS: Structured. Into another structured environment that will offer me a gradient of adjustment back into society.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Do you think you'll need that?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: You've been down for over 40 years.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Do you think you're institutionalized as a result?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I suppose I am. I get up when I'm told. I eat when I'm told, so, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: So do you think it's a wise idea for you to go into a semi-structured environment where there are rules and expectations?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir. It's the wisest decision. It's the wisest alternative I can see.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Now I do understand that the PREP program or the Francisco Homes, they do offer other services as well. Have you looked into those?

INMATE DAVIS: They offer employment. They offer AA that I'm a lifelong committed member of. All kinds of support.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Is it your intent that you'll take advantage of the employment that they offer, and I am referencing a letter here that they've sent dated September 19th, 2012. It's on letterhead, the Francisco Homes. At the bottom it's Partnership for Reentry program. It's signed by Sister Teresa Groth. They do say that they would start you as a trainee in one of their job programs for a position that pays 12 dollars an hour. At least you can work up to that. Do you plan on participating in that?

INMATE DAVIS: As much as possible.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right. And what about the self-help that they offer?

INMATE DAVIS: Anything they offer, I'm up for.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Now you said that they do have AA.

INMATE DAVIS: They're very specific on that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And is that a requirement that you need to attend that?

INMATE DAVIS: It's a requirement for myself. I suppose it's their requirement too, but.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Now is this a faith based program as you understand it?

INMATE DAVIS: It's a spiritual -- It's a spiritual program. Faith based, well, I don't think it's a denominationally faith based, but it's a Biblical faith based program.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right. And will you be attending service through their program?

INMATE DAVIS: I suppose. Now I'm going to do whatever I can do there. If they have services, I'm going to go.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: You'll take advantage of what they offer?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: How long do you think you'll need to be there?

INMATE DAVIS: I have no idea.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: How long will they let you stay?

INMATE DAVIS: I don't know. They talk about up to a year. I know of -- I hear and this is hearsay, I hear that some people have been there a long time, because they go to work for them, they go to work with employers that are associated with them, and people are there who like it and they keep that as their residence.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Okay. Say you need the full year that their program offers. And I do understand they can let you stay there longer. It's not usual.

INMATE DAVIS: I'm committed for at least a year.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What's your plan after that?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, my plan is to say we'll see. We'll see what comes available. I have a lot of, well, I realize that my plans for the future are largely hypothetical because I haven't been out there in 40 years, and I realize that living a life out there and maintaining yourself out there is probably, I don't know how many factors higher than it was when I came in. So I know that I don't -- I haven't had any experience in making real world decisions financially, et cetera, for 40 years. So I don't pretend to think it will be easy.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Do you anticipate obstacles?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, there will be obstacles.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What do you think you'll encounter?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I'll encounter stresses such as negative media coverage. And just the plain stress of learning how to live out there and going to work and paying my bills and transportation, food, those kind of things.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Do you think people will be fearful of you?

INMATE DAVIS: I think some will.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What's your long term plan on where you'll live?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, my long term plan, I have a couple. I have at least two good alternatives. My sister in Raleigh, North Carolina and her husband, they invited me. They said we want you to come here. And my relatives in Mobile, Alabama, they want me. And I'm honored that they still do, but they do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And how do you intend to support yourself after your time at PREP where they'll employ you for possibly 12 dollars an hour?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, you know, first I'll have some social security, so that will be a little bit.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: How much do you think you'll get in social security monthly? You were pretty young when this crime occurred?

INMATE DAVIS: I'll get half as much as my wife gets. Yes, sir, you're right, I --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Have you looked into that? Have you corresponded with social security?

INMATE DAVIS: I've corresponded with someone who knows all about it. Well, my sister was as social worker in Raleigh for years and she's retired. And she's dealt with social security a lot, so --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: How much do you think you'll get monetarily?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, she told me, she said you'll get half of what Beth gets.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And you don't know what that is?

INMATE DAVIS: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: I'm guessing it's six, eight hundred dollars a month. And that's just sort of a guess from what I've heard from other people. I haven't really nailed it down to the cent or even to the dollar.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And tell me about Beth.

INMATE DAVIS: Well, Beth and I are no longer married.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: You were married at some point?

INMATE DAVIS: We were married in 1985. And the divorce is virtually final. I've been sent the last papers. I need to get them notarized and sent out.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Now if you get half of what she gets in society security, does that mean she gets less money?

INMATE DAVIS: No. No, I get part of -- I get paid because we had a -- we were married for over ten years. That's part of social security rules.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Even though you were incarcerated throughout that entire time? Are you sure?

INMATE DAVIS: I don't think they make -- Well, I'm not going to tell you I'm absolutely sure, but --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: That's what you believe to be the case.

INMATE DAVIS: But I do believe that's true.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Okay. To supplement that, what marketable skills have you obtained that you can potentially use to get some work out there?

INMATE DAVIS: I can work in manufacturing. I can work in quality control.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Now you've received some degrees since you've been in prison; is that right?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I have. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Do you think they can help you?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, they'll help me. I believe there will be sufficient. I have no idea how many. It's going to be a lot of offers in the ministry. I've had some offers, not really firm, not knowing where I'm going. I hardly have a firm offer, but I believe there will be plenty of opportunities in that way.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: I want to cover your support letters, but before I do that, I want to reference on the record that pursuant to Penal Code Section 3042, notices of this hearing were sent to interested parties. Those parties do include the presiding judge of Los Angeles County, the District Attorney for the County of Los Angeles. That notice dated June 27th, 2012, resulted in a response. And that response is from the attendance of Deputy DA Sequeira who is here presently attending this hearing, and he'll have an opportunity to speak shortly. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office was sent a notice and they did send a response. There's a response dated September 11th, 2012, and it is a letter of opposition to your release, and it is from the sheriff's department of Los Angeles County signed by Michael Rosson, R-O-S-S-O-N, acting captain of the homicide bureau. The Public Defender for Los Angeles County was sent a notice as was the Attorney General for the State of California. Now you've received a number of supporting letters, and I will acknowledge at this time so that I give them their due. We're also in receipt of a very large stack of opposition letters from members of the community to your release. But you do have a support network on the outside that have sent letters and have sent letters over the years and continue to send them. And I will reference them. There are a number of them here, so I certainly can't read all of them, but I can certainly reference each of them. And the first letter is from -- And I'm only going in order that they appear in my packet. They're in no specific order other than that. First one is from Michael Oliver, and who is that?

INMATE DAVIS: He's a friend and a teacher in Middleton, Tennessee.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And how do you know him?

INMATE DAVIS: Through correspondence.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: There's a letter from Matthew Genovese, G-E-N-O-V-E-S-E.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And who is he?

INMATE DAVIS: He is a retired Navy chief now living in Virginia.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And how do you know him?

INMATE DAVIS: He contacted me. We've been writing for a few years.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: So through correspondence as well?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right, there's a letter here from the Reverend Steven Brown dated May 16th, 2012. He says he knows you and has for 18 years. How did you meet him?

INMATE DAVIS: I met him at CMC.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And he does say that he offers you full support in your housing arrangements with Eden Ministries and that you'll -- and he strongly supports your release. And there's a letter from Tony Hex, H-E-X or H-I-X.

INMATE DAVIS: Hix.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Hix. And who is that? Someone you've been corresponding with?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Okay. There's a letter from Robert and Jean Wilson. And who are they?

INMATE DAVIS: Brother and sister-in-law.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And have you been in contact with them throughout your incarceration?

INMATE DAVIS: Since 1985.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And where do they live?

INMATE DAVIS: Santa Barbara.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Okay. Have they visited you?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And they say that they'll offer to help you with your needs.

INMATE DAVIS: No, they haven't written on that level. They support my release.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: It says right here, please know we will stand by him and offer him any help he needs when he is released.

INMATE DAVIS: Well.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: I'm going off his letter.

INMATE DAVIS: Okay. I am too then. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right. There's a letter from Jeremy Hall, handwritten. Who's that?

INMATE DAVIS: Another correspondent. He lives in northern Kentucky, across from Cincinnati.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And how are you meeting all these people you're corresponding with? They reached out to you?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Are you on some sort of pen pal services or something like that or they're just --

INMATE DAVIS: I think the Internet.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right. Here's a letter from Flora Hibberd, H-I-B-B-E-R-D, from Mobile, Alabama.

INMATE DAVIS: That's my aunt.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Okay. She talks about your accomplishments. She says that you are welcome in her home and you're welcome to moral, spiritual and financial assistance, whatever she can provide. And then here's a what would appear to be a backup plan for residence. It's another transitional living facility, the Eden Ministries.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: We didn't discuss that. In the event that the PREP program falls through or something happens, they run out of room.

INMATE DAVIS: That's right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Even though they've guaranteed you a room there, you never know. Eden Ministries has accepted you; is that correct?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: This letter is dated May 1st, 2012. It's signed by James Cliffe, C-L-I-F-F-E, president of Eden Ministries. They're also in Los Angeles County and they included a brochure. Letter from the Reverend Steven Brown.

INMATE DAVIS: We just had that. That was one of the early ones you read.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Okay. I think it's a duplicate, but I think it has a different date on it.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: No, it's the same date. I just checked.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Captain Frank Huggins. Who is that? It says he's a retired captain.

INMATE DAVIS: Of De Kalb County. It's Atlanta. It's the police force.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And how do you know him?

INMATE DAVIS: We went to high school together.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And have you kept in contact with him since then at least?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: He says that his support would largely be in the area of counseling and career advice. Letter from Larry Hoekman, H-O-E-K-M-A-N. Who is that?

INMATE DAVIS: He's a local school teacher that I met many years ago.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: When you say local, local to where?

INMATE DAVIS: Local to Nipomo actually.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: So local to this area is what you mean.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Okay. And he says he'll assist any way that he can help. A letter from Judith Davis Ward.

INMATE DAVIS: That's my sister.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: She sends a letter dated May 15th, 2012. There's a handwritten letter I may have trouble reading it because of the writing, the handwriting, but it's signed by Gene McKee, I think it says?

INMATE DAVIS: That's my uncle, 85 years old or so.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And he does indicate he is your uncle. Where does he live?

INMATE DAVIS: Mobile.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right. I'm having a hard time reading this because of the handwriting and the copy that I have.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir, I understand.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: But what is he offering you?

INMATE DAVIS: I think he is --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: He is supporting your release.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir. I think he and my aunt, they all live in a very local vicinity and I think they're supportive of me. They want me to come or make me welcome at least.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right. Here's a letter from someone named Larry Black. Who's that?

INMATE DAVIS: He's an entrepreneur in San Francisco.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And how do you know him?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, he used to be here. He was an inmate.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: A former inmate?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And he's kept in contact with you since his release?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Here's a letter from Christopher K-A-D-R-M-A-S, Kadrmas?

INMATE DAVIS: Kardmas. Something like that. He's from Minneapolis.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And how does he know you?

INMATE DAVIS: He wrote to me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: He says he's 27 years old. And here is a letter from your aunt Flora Hibbard.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I think that's a duplicate also, Commissioner.

INMATE DAVIS: We had one of those already.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Bonnie Walton. She sent a letter and she included an article from her local newspaper.

INMATE DAVIS: I don't think I'd seen that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right. Are there other letters I might have missed, counsel?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Just a couple.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did I cover Emma Watson or Emma Walker?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Who's Emma Walker?

INMATE DAVIS: Not familiar to me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right. She does, however, send a letter dated September 18th, 2012. It's directed towards you and says that she supports your parole. How about, well, I know this person is familiar to you. This one is Betty Bank. That's your sister?

INMATE DAVIS: No, my sister is Judith Ward. This is, Betty Bank's name, I don't recall that right here.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: It says my name is Betty Bank, I am Bruce's older sister.

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I think there's a misidentification somewhere here.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Okay. She doesn't give a name or anything, she just says Bruce, so maybe they just assumed it was you and the institution sent it to us. Now how about this person, now this person I'm pretty sure you'll know. Beth Davis.

INMATE DAVIS: I know. I know her. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And she says in her letter dated August 26th, 2012, that she would like to go on the record as stating that she supports your release. Now your divorce is final?

INMATE DAVIS: Virtually.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Okay. And what led to the divorce?

INMATE DAVIS: Irreconcilable differences.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Do you have any plans of perhaps starting the relationship back up upon your release?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I would like to. Of course, that is really up to her.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Okay. All right, here is a letter --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: They have a daughter together.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Okay. And have you been in communication with your daughter?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: How old is your daughter?

INMATE DAVIS: She'll turn 19 this year.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did she send a letter?

INMATE DAVIS: No, she did not.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Okay. There's a letter from Robert Greminger?

INMATE DAVIS: Robert Greminger, yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And who's that?

INMATE DAVIS: He is a retired fire chief in Ben Lomond, California.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Have you ever met him?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I have.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And how did you meet him?

INMATE DAVIS: He was an inmate here.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right, counsel, did I miss any?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yeah, there was the one from Renne Reilly that we gave you that's Exhibit, I think you marked it as F or G. Dated May 24th, 2012.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right. Exhibit G, Renne Reilly, spelled R-E-N-N-E, R-E-I-L-L-Y, and she enclosed a copy of an apology letter that you sent to her.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Why did you send her an apology letter, this Renne Reilly?

INMATE DAVIS: I got a letter from someone in Florida and she said that she knew the Hinman family and that they were still hurting, still suffering from what I'd done. And I had tried taking -- had been given some, I thought was a place to write the Hinman family. Somebody wrote to me years ago and said they knew them. So I write them. So I got another letter from somebody that says we know the Hinmans. So I said well, let me tell you how I feel so that in case you ever come in contact with them, you can let them know. And I'm glad to say something like this. And so I wrote her a letter.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right. Counsel, any others?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Just some older letters I'd like you to look at during deliberations. One is from a Mitchell Parsons, one is from William P. Clark, former California Supreme Court judge. He was chief of staff to Ronald Reagan. And then there's an older letter from Judith Ward, Bruce's sister, from August '09 I'd like you to look at. Gives a little bit more background about the family situation.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right. I will staple those together, and I'll give Mr. Sequeira an opportunity to look at them, if he would like, as well.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: They've already been --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Do you have copies of these letters?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: In past hearings they've been --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: How many years ago? Are these?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: I'll leave them out just to confirm that he does have them. He can look at them, and we'll definitely look at them either during the hearing and certainly during deliberations.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So these are not recent letters. These are past letters?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: They're past letters. All right, now you did submit a relapse prevention plan.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And this is a recent one because there was a different one at your previous hearing, I believe?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, the only difference actually is at first my previous parole plans was to live with my wife here in Grover Beach. And at that time, the Eden Ministries was my Plan B. Now the only change is I'm going to PREP and Eden Ministries is still my Plan B, so I presented relapse prevention plan.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And it's a plan to prevent relapsing into what?

INMATE DAVIS: Drugs and alcohol.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Now I see that you've identified a number of triggers for relapse. Do you have different or separate triggers for relapsing into violent behavior?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I think relapsing into violent behavior, anger, anger management. I didn't write out a long list here for anger management, but I've gone through that quite extensively. I have came to a much better understanding of myself of the things that cause my violence. So I'm aware of the kind of triggers that caused it in the beginning and so I understand them now.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And what's your strategy to avoid this anger turning to violence?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, the first thing that I realized is that violence is not an answer to any problem and that I always have alternatives about the choices I make. So when I'm confronted with a conflict, I begin to look for a way that both parties can be satisfied to some degree or at least enough to avoid -- I'm trying to reconcile the conflict with mutual respect, with a statement of how I feel and what I would like, with trying to listen to the other party, with letting the other party know that his issues I listened and understood.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What's your strategy if you find yourself tempted to use again?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, those things will happen because in an environment where I'm out, and a little much less here, first off, I have gratification delay. In other words, I don't have -- When I have feelings of sadness, boredom, irritation, the kind of things that get me out of sorts, I realize that those kind of things sometimes demand a quick fix. I need something for this. Well, I realize first I don't need something for that and that it's my past habits of thought that bring those kind of messages that I need this or that. So I put those in their place. I don't need this. And then I think about this. What good has taking drugs and alcohol done me in the past? Well, basically, they have led me to go against and betray every good thing about anything I believe. Betray my friends, betray my own values. So I think about that. And then I try to refocus myself on something that I enjoy. So during this time of thinking about, then I know it's time for me to play some music, to listen to music, to do some exercise, to eat something I really like. To do something I really enjoy.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: What about calling one of your supporters?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, the things I'm talking about now are the things that go through first. This is the first set of my internal things. Then I realize I have a network of supporters when I'm out. But when I'm here, I have friends that I talk to. I have friends in my Yokefellows group. I have friends in my ministry group. I have my employer. I have Reverend Alderson. So I have a support group of people that have an interest in me doing well, and I listen. One thing I have learned to do is listen a little better. So when they talk to me and try to get me refocused, I'm good.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: You mentioned earlier you intend to continue participating in AA?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And how long do you think you'll do that?

INMATE DAVIS: For the rest of my life.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: How often do you think you'll attend?

INMATE DAVIS: It could be as much as daily.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: As needed?

INMATE DAVIS: Absolutely.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Is there a minimum amount?

INMATE DAVIS: Absolutely as needed.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Is there a minimum amount like once a week, once a month?

INMATE DAVIS: Twice a week. Three times a week. You know, this kind of thing is something that's hard to predict, but as I see my need to live in the philosophy of the 12 steps and the kind of support that I get from other people who are in to it with me, then their presence, their fellowship, their influence in my life, I can use all the time. And I want to be actively involved with those. Those are the people that I want to fill my life with.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And do you work all the 12 steps?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Have you completed all of them?

INMATE DAVIS: Completed, well, I'm not sure I'll ever complete them. But I have worked on them extensively.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Commissioner?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: I just have a couple brief questions on the relapse prevention plan. I'm reading what you have as number four. Do you have your copy there?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Okay. Number four, I am vigilant for my triggers that demand immediate satisfaction for urgent but false needs. What did you mean by that?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, my triggers are the certain kinds of feelings that say I've just got to have something. This is too much for me. They direct me to get a quick fix. Let's solve the problem. Let's change the environment. Let's change, if we can't change the outside of one, we can change the inside of the environment. That's what I mean how the thoughts, the feelings, however we want to characterize the triggers. And they occur because of circumstances out there.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: You say those are false needs?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, you know, yeah. It's a false need that says I need to fix this right now. And I need to fix it with drugs or alcohol or a new girlfriend. Those are false. That's false.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: So the need isn't false, the remedy is false.

INMATE DAVIS: The remedy is -- Yes, I need help. I need comfort. I need fellowship, I need love and respect, et cetera. I need that. That's right. Those are legitimate. These are false ways. They're the false ways to meet a true need.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: And then you said, number five, I respond to urgently felt false needs as the impartial spectator. I don't know what that means.

INMATE DAVIS: Okay, and then at this point I realize that when I write this out it sounds kind of abstract in a sense, but what I try to do when I get into a conflict, a needy situation where I feel myself sort of out of sorts and things, I have learned by some degree, I wish I would do it instantly all the time. Sometimes it takes a minute, to stand back and say wait a minute. What's the real -- what's really here that's of value. What's really here at stake? What's really going to happen as a consequence of what I might feel like doing or what I do feel like doing not might feel like. So when those happen, I want to stand back and think about my feelings and look at that and go see I have boundaries now. And my boundaries made up of all the horrible things I did are standing over here as guardrails on my road of life. And they're saying don't go here again. And so when those come into play, now I'm able to stand back kind of as a neutral person and say do I really want to do this.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Thank you. That's all I had.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Mr. Sequeira, do you have any clarifying questions of the Panel?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I have a number of questions, but it's my understanding the inmate is not going to answer any of the questions.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Well, you can't ask the inmate any direct questions. You can certainly ask clarifying questions of the Panel and if this Panel feels that those questions should be asked, need to be asked, we'll direct the questions to him. So it's up to you.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Okay. I only ask because counsel indicated at the beginning that the inmate was not going to respond to any questions from the District Attorney.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: He's not going to respond to any questions to you because we're not going to let you pose any to him, but if you have anything that appears unresolved or something that needs clarification, I would appreciate that you ask the Panel and if we agree, we'll ask the inmate and he can answer or he can choose not to.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: All right. I do have a number of questions then. Give me just a second. The inmate discussed his reaction to the Governor's reversal, but what is the inmate's reaction to the Appellate Court upholding the Governor's decision?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: You said you were very sad. Is that your reaction to the Appellate Decision as well?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Any different emotions?

INMATE DAVIS: Sadness, loss, disappointment.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Mr. Sequeira.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Why did it take the inmate so long to admit that he pointed the gun at Gary Hinman?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: He's already answered that, Commissioner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: No, he didn't answer that specific question. He did say that he pointed the gun at Mr. Hinman.

INMATE DAVIS: I did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: I take it you were untruthful about that fact in the past?

INMATE DAVIS: I was.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And you did talk about how you were in denial and you've been accepting more responsibility as time goes on. Is that what your --

INMATE DAVIS: I was in denial, and I did point the gun.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: When did the inmate come to the decision and the realization that he pointed the gun and when is the first time he told anyone about it?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Do you recall the first time you said that you pointed the gun at him?

INMATE DAVIS: The first time ever? I don't --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: In an official capacity where it would be like talking --

INMATE DAVIS: I remember a few minutes ago. Did I say it last, in the 2010, I don't remember what I said then.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: The Panel asked the inmate a couple of questions about some other crimes that the Manson Family was involved in that the inmate had knowledge of. Were there any other crimes that the inmate has knowledge of the Manson Family that he wants to share with the Panel?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Are you aware of or did you participate in other crimes that we did not -- I don't even want to get into the crimes you weren't convicted of. Did you participate in crimes you were not arrested or convicted of?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Other than the ones you answered earlier today.

INMATE DAVIS: Outside of being in possession of a stolen vehicle.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: We talked about that. We talked about having a gun. Talked about drugs. What about violent crime?

INMATE DAVIS: No.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Can the Panel ask the inmate the circumstances surrounding the death of Philip Haught, also known as Zero, which occurred after the Hinman murders, and was the inmate present when Mr. Haught, also known as Zero, died?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Very briefly, were you present there?

INMATE DAVIS: I was in the house.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you witness that?

INMATE DAVIS: No, I did not.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Did the inmate tell the police he witnessed Mr. Haught killing himself?

INMATE DAVIS: I don't remember ever talking to the police about it.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So what is the inmate's recollection of what happened then?

INMATE DAVIS: I was --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: No, no. We're not going into this. I'm going to instruct him not to answer these questions.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Yeah, I don't even want to enter this whole thing. It has nothing to do with what he was convicted of.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Are there any other crime partners in either the Hinman or the Shea murders that the inmate has not revealed or tried to protect in any way?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Were there any crime partners that were not charged or convicted in those?

INMATE DAVIS: There was one young man who was present in the Shea. He was standing on the very edge. Didn't do a thing. His name was Larry. We called him Little Larry. And he was not involved in that except he was a witness.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: When is the first time this inmate has ever mentioned the presence of Larry at the Shea murder scene?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I'm going to instruct him not to answer that question. This is completely irrelevant.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Do you have a next question?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Yes. Did Larry testify at the Shea trial for either the prosecution or the defense?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: You said he was a witness. Did he testify?

INMATE DAVIS: Not in my trial.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: How does the inmate explain the discrepancy between his description of the Shea murder and that it occurred in the morning on Santa Susana Pass Road when all the evidence at his trial indicates that it took place at night at the Spahn Ranch?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Hold on.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Mr. Sequeira provided the evidence that it took place during the morning and I'll be reading from that shortly. So the question has got an improper foundation. It occurred during the morning.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: My one question regarding that is as you sit here today is it your understanding that that murder occurred in the morning or at night?

INMATE DAVIS: In the morning.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Okay.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: When was the first time the inmate indicated that he agreed with or bought into the Helter Skelter philosophy?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: We haven't even talked about the Helter Skelter philosophy at this hearing. Did you -- But we did talk about the race war, and I did not ask you if you actually yourself bought into that?

INMATE DAVIS: I did not buy into it as a good thing to happen.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Did you play along with it?

INMATE DAVIS: To the degree that I went and I drove my codefendants to Gary's house and to the degree that I was involved in the murder of Donald Shea.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: The inmate indicated that he had an epiphany back in the '70s regarding, well, regarding his involvement in these crimes. It's noted in the psychological evaluations that he indicated that he wanted to protect his crime partners because their appeals were pending, and this was in 1980. So why was it that the inmate was willing to protect his crime partners in 1980 when he had this epiphany in '74 regarding his responsibility in these crimes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: The epiphany has not been used today.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yeah, I want to put an objection on the record.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, I think he --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: It misstates his testimony. He said he began the process.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: That would be more accurate as to what he said.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, he used epiphany in a previous hearing in 2006, but whatever language he used, when he had this awakening, however you want to call it, in 1974, this momentous event that occurred that he's talked about earlier today, if this occurred in 1974, why did he continue to protect his crime partners in 1980?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Let me ask you this, did you continue to protect your crime partners as recently as 1980?

INMATE DAVIS: I did.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And how about after 1980?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Until when?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Until when?

INMATE DAVIS: It was years.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: You can't pinpoint the specific time, is that right?

INMATE DAVIS: No, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Okay.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So when did he stop protecting his crime partners I guess is the better question.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Are you still protecting your crime partners?

INMATE DAVIS: No, I'm not.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And when did that stop approximately?

INMATE DAVIS: Probably in the late '80s, early '90s. You know, when it gets down to those dates, I just remember it's in the past. I don't know. I'm sorry I can't be more specific.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you. I have no further questions.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Counsel, do you have questions for your client?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: No, I do not.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Mr. Sequeira, if you're prepared to close, go right ahead.

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 his factors of unsuitability, first of all, his criminal history with respect to his involvement in these two extremely brutal and violent crimes bears a great significance. In addition to his participation in these crimes, the inmate's statements over the years regarding his involvement or lack of involvement in these crimes is also extremely significant. Starting first of all with the Gary Hinman murder. In past hearings, actually in a number of past hearings, Inmate Davis has indicated that he was just there. That he just went along. He denied being in on the planning. He denied even pointing a weapon at Gary Hinman. In fact, in 2006, I asked him if he had pointed the weapon and he says well, if someone said I pointed the weapon, well, I really couldn't quarrel with that. Even as recent as last hearing he indicated that he did not point the weapon. That he had the weapon in his hand and even in the psychological evaluation which took place after the Governor reversed the parole grant, he says on page 7, "I didn't point it at him and I didn't have to. I wasn't going to shoot him, but he didn't know that and I'm standing there with a loaded gun." So what that means is today is the first time at any parole hearing in 40 years that Inmate Davis has now admitted he pointed a gun and held a gun on Gary Hinman. His role in the Hinman killing was more than just being a bystander. He's admitted some of his role today. He's admitted that he held the gun on Hinman, that he had the power, but he failed to mention that he also drove away in one of Hinman's cars. He gave the suggestion earlier in his testimony regarding the Hinman murder that after he held the gun and they left that he was kind of disgusted by it. But he failed to mention that when he left, he left in Hinman's car. And the reason he took Hinman's car was because during this period of time where Hinman was being tortured and, of course, when Inmate Davis was pointing the gun at Hinman, Charles Manson slashed Hinman's ear with a sword almost severing the entire ear to the point where the girls tried to sew his ear back with dental floss. But they did manage to get him to sign away the pink slip to two of his cars. He didn't have any other money. That became evident to Manson, Davis and the rest, Bobby Beausoleil and the girls that's all that Hinman owned. So when Manson left with Bruce Davis, Bruce Davis drove off in one of Hinman's cars. The girls stayed behind along with Bobby Beausoleil, eventually stabbed -- and Bobby Beausoleil eventually stabbed and the girls assisted in killing Gary Hinman. Fingerprints were wiped off, the word pig was written in Hinman's blood. The paw print, the Black Panther paw print was placed in Hinman's residence. The whole purpose of this was to stage the crime scene to make it look as if the Black Panthers had killed Gary Hinman. And this was, of course, part of the race war, the Helter Skelter philosophy that Manson espoused to and if Mr. Davis is now accepting his role in the Hinman killing, he's also accepting his role in the Helter Skelter philosophy which, of course, he has disputed in the past. In fact, in 2006, I specifically asked Mr. Hinman about Helter Skelter and this is on page 102 of the August 31st, 2006, hearing. And it starts on page 102 on line 25 and this is the question that I asked Mr. Hinman, "How this concept and theory of Helter Skelter, did your association with the Family also include embracing this concept as it was espoused by Charles Manson of Helter Skelter." Inmate Davis, answer, this is line three now on page 103. "I thought it was a joke until somebody actually got hurt. I laughed at Charlie. I said, that's stupid. How can you even -- where's your head at? I mean, I thought it was crazy. I couldn't believe anybody took him serious. Of course, my behavior in staying there with him you would have thought I was taking it very serious, but that was way far out." So even up until 2006 and I don't believe that he even admitted it in any subsequent hearing in 2008, 2007, 2010, and all the subsequent hearings. He's never admitted that he's embraced the Helter Skelter theory. He's today surprisingly claims responsibility for Tate-LaBianca when in every past hearing before he's denied his involvement or his support for the Tate-LaBianca murders. So why the change? Why the change today? Because today is the first day that he said he pointed the gun at Gary Hinman. Today is the first time that he's ever testified in a parole hearing that he embraced or felt responsible for the Tate-LaBianca murders and today is the first time where he talks about attacking Shorty Shea. In all the past hearings, 2010 included, he's gone to great lengths to claim that he was the victim. That he was under the influence of Manson. That Manson forced him to do this. That he just wanted approval of Manson. That he's this weak pawn that was caught up in sex, drugs, and murder in this instance, in this quasi-religious, quasi-criminal -- no, quasi-religious, criminal crime family. And that's what all of the decisions by the Governor, by previous Boards have all discussed. They all pointed directly to this inmate's minimization and his explanation for why he was involved in these murders. And it was always an excuse. It was always, he blamed his father. We heard about extensively about his father mistreating him. He blamed, he's blamed everyone else for his involvement in these crimes including Charles Manson. Now today he's changed his story. Why has he changed his story today? This Panel needs to look very carefully at that. He's been through how many hearings now? He's been through a grant, a reversal. He obviously didn't agree with the reversal because he appealed, and then the Appellate Court Decision which quashed and upheld the Governor's decision to reverse his parole grant unanimously pointed to the factors at the hearing and all of the factors in the psychological evaluation in his social history, post-conviction factors that justified a denial of parole. So why all of a sudden has this inmate now changed his story? And I say changed his story because if you go back to the 2010 hearing, this inmate tearfully told Commissioner Doyle, he talked about how he couldn't really say that he attacked or that he didn't understand why he killed or why he was involved in the Short Shea murder. He says I wish -- In fact I'll go to this page 75. INMATE DAVIS: "Commissioner, for years I wish I could just say yeah, I was there, I stabbed him. But it's not the truth." Commissioner Doyle: "Okay." And Im going to put a context to this exchange. The context to this exchange was after arguments had been completed -- excuse me, Commissioner Doyle was asking Inmate Davis some questions. He initially said he wasn't going to answer questions, but then he decided he was going to talk to Commissioner Doyle because Commissioner Doyle expressed quite a bit of skepticism about this inmate's description of his involvement in these crimes. And so, okay, going on page 75, so and after saying I wish I could say he was there, I stabbed him, but it's not the truth. INMATE DAVIS: "It just not the truth. I 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." Commissioner Doyle: "Okay." Line 12, INMATE DAVIS: "I tell you what Manson handed me the machete. He said cut his head off. I touched him on the back with it. 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 out I had a limit. There's a boundary on 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. He said you do something." And he goes on and on. And he says, looks around and the guys were there with knives. "I was not about to say no to something. I understood that I'm an odd man out." And this goes now to his quotes on page 76, line one, "I'm a danger to the situation if I don't get involved. Let me tell you something, I wish I could have just said, 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 it is a lie." Commissioner Doyle: "Okay." Inmate Davis, line seven, "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 came off a Mauser rifle. Mr. Shea was on my left. He bent over. There's been some controversy, kind of on my side and, see, I thought if I just didn't do something direct, I would not be --" Commissioner Doyle: "Right." INMATE DAVIS: "Really deal. Okay, so I didn't. I was standing there. I couldn't get away. We were all there today. Watson pulls over." So he goes on to talk about it, but the way he talks about it is basically he's told the Panel at the last hearing and at previous hearings that the reason he did it is because he was in fear for his life. That if he didn't participate somehow, symbolically in the killing of Shorty Shea, he would suffer some harm at the hands of the Family. So it's either he did it because he suffered some harm or because he wanted to be -- to have some esteem with Manson or I'm not sure what he's saying today, but he's saying that he finally did slice him. What is the true story? Did the inmate lie at all these other past hearings or is he lying today. Is he telling this Panel what the Panel wants to hear? I would suggest to you that that's exactly the case. That this inmate is telling the Panel what he thinks the Panel needs to hear. And why would he say that is because he's been rebuffed in all the previous hearings by the Governor's reversal, by the Appellate Court decision all point to the fact that he isn't being truthful regarding his participation in the Shea murder, and he's even halfway admitted that today by saying he was in on the planning. He knew he was going to be -- That Shea was to be killed. I think he danced around the issue of whether he says that he wasn't sure why he was going to be killed, just they wanted to kill him. Which I find interesting that he tells the Panel that today because in the testimony in his trial, in fact, Commissioner Ferguson asked the inmate the direct question about was he killed because it was felt he was a police informant. And I noticed that the inmate danced around that question and didn't quite answer it and didn't say, well, he's not sure, Manson just wanted him killed. And, of course, the inmate also says that afterwards he was so distraught and depressed about it that he didn't -- you know, but he got over it quickly. He certainly did get over it quickly because he went around and not only bragged about it, but the nature of his bragging about the killed of Shorty Shea was in the context of this is what we do to snitches. It was in the context of, and this is after Shorty Shea is dead. This is sometime afterwards when Bobby Beausoleil is on trial for the Hinman murder or his role in the Hinman murder. A friend of Danny DeCarlo, a biker who was testifying at the Beausoleil trial, testified at Bruce Davis' trial that he came to the Ranch looking for Danny DeCarlo. When he came, he spoke -- Danny DeCarlo, of course, wasn't there. But when he arrived at the Ranch, he talked to the inmate. The inmate was there with Bill Vance. And this is on page 47 of the Appellate Brief that's part of the record. Excuse me, it's Mr. Springer who is the friend of Danny DeCarlo. The inmate showed Mr. Springer a newspaper clipping from the Evening Outlook. He directed his attention to an article in the paper about Gary Hinman's Bobby Beausoleil trial in which Danny DeCarlo had testified. The article was reported Mr. DeCarlo's testimony. Now mind you, this person that the inmate is talking to is a friend of Danny DeCarlo's and Mr. Springer said he did not like the idea of Mr. DeCarlo testifying and the inmate appellant replied, yes, we'll have to do something about that. And Mr. Springer said it would be kind of hard to do because Danny is a bike brother. Appellant said, meaning the inmate, said that they had ways of taking care of snitchers and that they had already taken care of one. He said we cut his arms, legs and head off and buried him on the Ranch. Appellant said the guy was a snitch, appellant meaning the inmate, and was an alcoholic and drank so much that they were afraid he was going to go to the police with information. So they'd done away with him. And Mark Ross said you mean Shorty. Appellant said yeah. So the killing of Shorty Shea, I mean, there was multiple reasons, I believe, for killing Shorty Shea, but one of them, of course, according to the inmate's statements after was basically to dissuade any other witnesses from testifying at either the Hinman murder trial or in this case since the Shea murder occurred after Tate-LaBianca, it would also include Tate-LaBianca. Now I notice the inmate mentioned something about turning down an opportunity to go with the girls that night, meaning the night of the LaBianca murders. And when he mentioned it earlier, he said it was after the Shea murder. Well, that's not true. The Shea murder occurred after LaBianca. In fact, the inmate has mentioned that several times in the past that he refused to go along on the Tate-LaBianca murder. But in listening to responses today to the Commissioner, he didn't even know that LaBianca or that there were going to be murders that night. He just didn't want to go with them that night, but yet he somehow managed to twist that in past hearings into this repudiation of the family, repudiation of the Helter Skelter, repudiation of an involvement in violence. And that's what this inmate does. He minimizes, he distorts, he twists. He's very careful in his answers. He's an extremely intelligent person. He went to college for a couple of years. He's talked about his involvement with Manson which is quite significantly deep. He mentions first meeting Manson and then leaving for a while. Well, the reason he left is because he went to England to study Scientology. And coincidentally, another Manson family associate went to England too and that was the husband of Sandra Good. He would also happen to be in England at around the same time, and lo and behold, Sandra Good's husband winds up dead in a hotel room in London. Now the inmate comes back from England. The inmate is met at the airport by Charles Manson. So there wasn't a disassociation with Manson during the time that he was gone. In fact, Manson has expressed an interest in Scientology in the past as well and so this inmate still maintained contact with Manson in the '60s while he was in England to the point when he flew back to Los Angeles, the person that picked him up at the airport was Charles Manson. Now I've argued at a number of hearings, and I pointed out to the Board a number of past factors where his inmate has minimized his role within the Manson crime family. And the Panel asked a number of questions regarding that role. And today, the inmate reluctantly mentioned that, well, he might have had some type of a leadership role, but he doesn't come out and say that he was Manson's right hand man, which a number of witnesses in the past have said. In fact, I submitted for this hearing the testimony of Brooks Poston from one of the trials. And it's a very short segment, so I'll read that to you as well. And this was actually from the Charles Watson trial. Brooks Poston and this would be page -- the reporter's transcript 17 on pages 2728 to 2729, and it basically says, it starts off on page 5 to 6, Answer: "Yes." "Independent of Charlie?" Answer: "Yes." He felt he wasn't completely subserving to Charlie. I don't think he was. Okay, then now question on line six. "What about Bruce Davis? Have you ever heard of a man named Bruce Davis?" Yes. Answer: "Yes." Question: "Bruce was a member of the Family, right?" "As far as I know he was, yes." Question: "And he lived at the Spahn Ranch with the Family for a while?" Answer: "I don't know. I assume that he did." Question: "Was Bruce with the Family up at Barker Ranch?" Answer: "Yes." "In September and October of '69?" Answer: "In September, yes, I was there. He was with the Family." Describe or explain the relationship -- Question: "Describe or explain the relationship between Bruce Davis and Charles Manson." Answer: "It seemed to me that Bruce was competing with Charlie. He was trying to be an equal to Charlie or even he -- he was loud mouthed. Whereas when Charlie would generally speak, most of the people in the Family would keep silent and listen unless he asked them something directly or he said what do you think or say something. Bruce would interrupt Charlie when he was asking, talking and he talked in a real loud voice and it seemed like he liked the power that he had when Charlie wasn't around because he could have one of the girls run and fetch him something." Question: "You got the impression that Bruce Davis wasn't subservient to Charlie either." Answer: "It seemed to me that he had more ego than any of the other guys that I ever saw there. So that he hadn't given it up to Charlie." Mr. Bugliosi, "Thank you, no further questions." Also I've submitted the letter from the statement from the original prosecutor in the trial Steven Kay in 1986. It's part of the record. Steven Kay clearly indicates that Bruce Davis was Charles Manson's right hand man. You have letters in the file from Barbara Hoyt who testified that Bruce always wanted to be just like Charlie. When Charlie was gone he ran the Family back at the Ranch. There's indications even from the facts of the crime itself of Bruce Davis' position of authority within the Family. He's the one that drove the killers to Hinman's residence. He dropped the girls off and Gary (sic) Beausoleil. The girls went into the house. They made a signal if no one was there so that Beausoleil could then come into the house. When they were having a problem with Beausoleil when he tried to struggle and get away and there was a struggle and tussle over the gun, the girls and Bobby Beausoleil called back to the Ranch and said Gary wasn't cooperating. So who came with Charles Manson to Gary Hinman's house but Bruce Beausoleil, I mean, excuse me, Bruce Davis. Bruce Davis drove Manson back and then later drove off in one of Hinman's cars. As far as the Shea murder is concerned and I'll go to that in great detail, but I might want to point out -- I'll get to that in just a second on the Shea murder. So there's no question that he had a position of leadership in the Family. Yet he's always minimized that. He minimized that in 2006 when I asked him those questions. He's minimized it in every hearing since. You know, it fits. I mean, I guess the question becomes somewhat which Bruce Davis did we see today because he seems to change. And I notice in the Psychological Evaluation, which I found interesting, and I'll get the quote in just a quick second here. And it was referenced in 2009. The evaluator diagnosed Davis with a personality disorder noting that he presents both Narcissistic and Antisocial Features and that he presented with a pattern of grandiosity and a need for admiration as well as a pattern of deceitfulness, impulsivity, and irresponsibility. In consideration of the fact that -- And this is actually part of the Governor's decision, but I think that's very significant and, in fact, this inmate has admitted somewhat to those very same character traits. He says that he felt he was owed something. That he was entitled to something. And I'm trying to figure out what he was entitled to. And I think the Panel is troubled over that same issue. What was it that he was entitled to? And the other issue is what was it about authority figures, and he has clearly said that he has had problems with authority figures whether it be his father or the police or anyone else, but what does that have to do with Gary Hinman? Gary Hinman wasn't an authority figure. What does it have to do with Donald Shea? Donald Shea wasn't an authority figure. Donald Shea was a ranch hand at the Ranch and a stunt man. He was a cowboy. He was looking for extra parts in a movie. What does any of this anger and resentment towards authority have to do with killing Gary Hinman? No, killing Gary Hinman was pure greed. It was pure greed for money, for wealth and to subsidize his lifestyle. Killing Shorty Shea was designed to help protect the Family to cover up Tate-LaBianca, Beausoleil or any other criminal activity that the Family was engaged in at the Ranch. And yet this inmate has tried to minimize that as well. Even after this inmate was convicted and he went to prison and I asked him a number of questions about his associations with other Family members while in prison, he clearly had an association with Tex Watson while here at CMC. In fact, I submitted some letters from one of the inmates claiming that -- and also some brochures showing that both this inmate and Tex Watson were running a prison ministry here at San Luis Obispo to the point where one of the inmates, and I think there was more than one inmate, actually complained that Bruce Davis and Hinman, excuse me, Bruce Davis and Tex Watson were using this ministry as a bully pulpit to intimidate other inmates. And it reached such proportions that Tex Watson was eventually transferred from this prison to Mule Creek. Now the inmate continues to maintain that he's just a puppet. He's just a pawn, but it's clear even from his personality diagnosis and from his participation and his bragging about his ministry and his achievements that he sees himself as a leader, as opposed to being a follower. And I think that's the significant -- and I think that's very significant because in the past, he's tried to downplay his leadership although today he somewhat admitted to a leadership role. Now I asked -- So now let's talk about -- So we have this brutal murder of Gary Hinman, torture, murder over several period of time, an extremely horrific crime far beyond the pale of your typical murders. So after committing that murder, this inmate is at the Ranch and he is aware of and in his own words today supported the killing of seven more people to further this race war which was the five people and the unborn fetus that were killed at the Tate residence and also the LaBiancas who were killed the next night. Both of those crime scenes were staged in order to start a race war, writings in blood piggies, political piggies were written. Rise, Helter Skelter were written at those two crime scene locations, both of which occurred one day after each other. What's particularly significant is that in the Tate-LaBianca murder, not only were the LaBiancas brutally murdered, but Mrs. LaBianca's wallet was taken and it was stashed at a gas station which the Family believed was in a black neighborhood with the hope that a black person would obtain this wallet, use the credit cards, and be framed for the murders. Linda Kasabian fortunately hid the wallet in the women's bathroom so well that no one found it and she eventually led the authorities back to the residence -- or excuse me, back to the gas station and showed them where the wallet was located. And sure enough, there was Mrs. LaBianca's wallet at that location. So even knowing that, this inmate then within a few weeks later, becomes involved in the brutal murder of Donald Shea. Donald Shea, this inmate and Steven Grogan were tried in separate trials and this was a no body case because Hinman's body had never been recovered. And all of the evidence presented at the trial, the witnesses that testified, specifically Ruby Pearl said the last time she saw Shorty Shea, he was being approached by this inmate, Tex Watson, Charles Manson, Steve Grogan and another person late at night and they converged on Shorty Shea. And Shorty Shea, that same night, Barbara Hoyt testified as a witness heard Shorty screaming as he was being brutally stabbed and killed at the Ranch at night. There was testimony about the full moon. There was a lot of testimony presented during the trial. And this is significant. And the testimony submitted during the trial also was that Shorty Shea was very much afraid of Charles Manson and the Family. Manson had thrown a knife at him. He told Ruby Pearl that he thought that something was going to happen to him. That he was afraid of the Family. He told several people that he needed to get out of there. And that night, Ruby Pearl saw a group of Manson family members converge on Shorty Shea at night, and that's the last time she saw him. Now the inmate's story is interesting. I submitted some stuff because Grogan's story also is interesting. The inmate claims this all happened during the day. That they just kind of woke up one morning. They decided in the broad daylight that they were going to kill Shorty Shea. They asked him to give them a ride to pick up some auto parts. Okay, this makes absolutely no sense and it conflicts directly with all the evidence that was presented at the trial. Shorty Shea was afraid of Manson and the rest. He was not going to get in a car and drive people anywhere. And according to Bruce Davis, he was in the back seat of the car, they drove a short distance away. They told Shorty to pull over. Grogan hits him on the head. Short runs out of the car. He goes down a ravine and then mysteriously Charlie Manson shows up in another car with Tex Watson and they all go down into the gully and they stab and kill him where Bruce Davis kind of lags behind and then he goes down and then he's given a knife and told to go stab -- Well, first he's given a machete and told to cut off Shorty's head and he refuses to do that. He just kind of touches the machete against his neck then drops it. Then he's given a knife and told to stab him. And this what I call the company line or the Family line, because when I gave you Steve Grogan's transcripts from his parole hearings, he has a similar story. And I say similar except that there's a significant fact that's left out. There's few significant facts that are left out in Grogan's account. Grogan never mentions anyone, first of all, be reluctant to stab Shorty Shea. He claims, you know, in typical minimizing fashion on Grogan's part, he claims that he didn't really want to go along with it, but he did. But he hasn't mentioned Bruce Davis not wanting to go along with it. And what's very significant in his account of the crime, Bruce Davis isn't even in the car. Bruce Davis is in some other car, maybe with Charlie Manson and he only reluctantly mentions Bruce Davis' name and says they all took turns stabbing Shorty Shea. The point I want to make with submitting those transcripts is to show that, first of all, the two crime partners can't even keep their stories straight and the crime did not occur during the day. It occurred at night. And then today for the first time ever, Bruce Davis mentions that there's someone else at the crime scene. There's somebody named Larry who was a witness but wasn't involved. Now why is it that all of a sudden this comes up now? It comes up now because partly the inmate feels that he's exhausted all his other avenues or his attempts to gain parole, so now he wants to be more forthcoming or at least appear to be more forthcoming because that's what he believes the Panel wants to hear. But here is the most significant statement that Bruce Davis has made in recent history that I asked the Panel to really take a look at and that is the 2010 hearing. The last hearing on page 75, and please note this, Panel, I'm serious, this is very important, when Davis is talking to Doyle about the crime, he says and I'm on line 18, he says 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, I just dropped it. I said no. He put a knife in my hand and said you do something. This is line 22. Now here, this is what the inmate says next. Now I look around and there's Bill Vance, Watson, Grogan with bloody knives and they'd been through this. The Panel needs to note that this is the first time that this inmate has indicated that Bill Vance was at the crime scene with a bloody knife, meaning that Bill Vance is a crime partner. He told this Panel in 2010 that Bill Vance was a crime partner in the killing of Shorty Shea and he's been hiding it for all of these years. Now I thought, well, maybe this is just a mistake somehow, but I went back and I looked through the transcripts of the trial. Both Grogan's trial and Bruce Davis' trial and sure enough, Ruby Pearl testified that she thought, and this is from 7584, reporter's daily transcript Volume 48 of the Bruce Davis trial, and this is the argument from the prosecutor. And it starts actually on page 7583. And this is now you recall the testimony of Mrs. Pearl as she was pulling out of the parking lot another car pulled in very fast and stopped and four or five men got out and Ms. Pearl saw Steve Grogan, Tex Watson, Bruce Davis and Charles Manson approach the boardwalk where Shorty was or just in front of the boardwalk where Shorty was. She thinks Bill Vance was with them. She saw a shadow. She said I believe, she said a tall figure, a hat. She thinks it was Bill Vance. She's not sure. But in any event, she's sure she saw Grogan, Watson, defendant Bruce Davis, and Manson. So Ruby Pearl even mentioned it in her testimony that she thought Bill Vance was there. And then in a slip of the tongue, which is what I describe it, when Bruce Davis was tearfully talking to Commissioner Doyle at the last hearing, he blurts out that Bill Vance is there with a bloody knife. That all these people are there with bloody knives and he was somehow handed a knife. Now I think this is extremely significant. Bill Vance, if he was involved in this murder and this inmate knew it, this inmate has been covering for Bill Vance for 40 years. Now I don't think this is just a slip of the tongue or a mistake on the part of this inmate. This inmate is very careful about what he says. You've heard him. You've listened to him now for how long. He would not have mentioned Bill Vance's name unless he believed that Bill Vance was there, but he slipped up. He made a mistake. He'd been trying to protect his crime partners. He admitted to protecting his crime partners in the Psychological Evaluation, because, as he said in 1980, I think, he wanted to protect their appeals. There's a recent case, a Tapia case where the Panel found -- Actually it was a case this year where the Panel found that the inmate's revelation of his crime partner's identity on the day of the hearing indicated he still was potentially dangerous and an unreasonable risk to society. And I think this Panel really needs to look at that and weigh in on that as well. I know we're getting a little long here and I'll try to wrap it up quickly if you'd just give me a moment. But again, not withstanding the inmate's admission today that he sliced Shorty Shea, his version of the facts and including Grogan's version of the facts, which I think are also made up, I think they're both, you know -- They basically got their stories together somewhat. But they couldn't get it completely together. It indicates that this inmate is not telling the truth about his involvement in the Shea murder. That the murder occurred at night. And why would he say it occurred during the day? To make it look like he just happened to be along for the ride and this happened and he was surprised. And that's been his story all along. Maybe until today. I don't know. I think he's changed. I'm not quite sure. But before he's always minimized that he was just there. He didn't want to stab him. He was given a knife. He was given a machete. And then today I think he did say I attacked him. But is he really saying that, yes, I did it. I attacked him. Is he really admitting it or is he just saying the words. I submit to this Panel that he's just saying the words. That he's saying all of these words today for the first time because he's trying to gain parole. And he's mentioned that on numerous times. In 2006, when I asked him questions, why did he continue to appeal this case if he had this revelation that he committed this crime, he said, well, I still wanted out. I still had legal issues that I felt could be resolved. He said the same thing today when talking about the death penalty. Well, I deserve to be dead, you know, I'd push a button now. Of course he knows that there's no death penalty for him. And yet he still wants out. Everything he has done, all the litigation, the constant fighting, the disagreement with, you know, in the past maintaining that he's telling the truth and now he's admitted that he wasn't telling the truth in the past. All of that just shows how manipulative he is. How he's willing to say at this point anything that he can to get a parole date. And that's where this Panel, if they read between the lines, if they listen and the observe his demeanor and his responses, the psychological evaluations, his prior criminal history, his unstable social history which he has minimized, even his few infractions in prison in the past that he's minimized all of this points to the same thing, if he has come to any further insight or understanding or remorse for this crime, it is extremely recent. In fact, probably as recent as today, if at all. That's assuming you believe it. But that's the point. Do you believe what he says now? Do you believe what he said in the past? He maintained all along he never lied in the past, but if you believe him today, he did lie in the past. So all of these factors taken into consideration and particularly this last one with respect to his protecting a crime partner, potential crime partner, and even protecting this Larry, there's no mention anywhere that I can find in the file of any person named Larry being present and observing the murder of Shorty Shea and this person would verify if the inmate is telling the truth. This person would verify Bruce Davis' story about how Shorty was killed in the daytime when, in fact, all of the evidence of which he was convicted of, which a jury based a decision beyond a reasonable doubt both in his trial and in Grogan's trial, was that Shorty Shea was killed at night. And so for all those reasons, I think, the Panel can only reach one conclusion, this inmate is unsuitable for parole, remains an unreasonable risk of danger to society, and I ask that the Panel deny parole for a significant period of time. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Mr. Beckman.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I request a short recess before I close, Commissioner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right, the time is roughly 12:50, and we'll recess for ten minutes.

(Off the record.)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: On the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: The time is 1:02 p.m., all persons previously identified have returned to the room. And Mr. Beckman, you're up.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Excuse me, Commissioner, can I just add one brief thing for the record? Bill Vance was never charged nor ever prosecuted for the Shorty Shea murder. That's all I want to say. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Mr. Beckman.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Thank you, Commissioner. The District Attorney for Los Angeles County should really be very careful when you call someone a liar because I'm going to promise you that by the time I'm finished with my closing, I'm going to show you that Mr. Sequeira has been lying to this Board for years about many, many different things. And that's because he'll do anything and say anything to keep Mr. Davis and other members of the Manson family in prison including this dog and pony show that he's trotted out of ersatz victims coming in to speak for the first time on a Bruce Davis hearing in 41 years. Despite the fact that on January 28th, 2010, the Board finally ignored political considerations and with tremendous moral courage, obeyed the law and found Bruce Davis suitable for parole at his 27th Subsequent Parole Consideration Hearing, political considerations alone force us again to have to plead for that which should be a given, a finding that Bruce Davis has rehabilitated himself in prison and should again be found suitable for parole. Rather than reiterate all the reasons why he's suitable, I'm going to incorporate by reference my closing argument from the 2010 hearing and instead focus on rebutting the purported reasons the Governor gave for reversing Mr. Davis' grant and discussing how he has continued his exemplary programming since the last hearing. The Governor's first ground was that the crimes were especially heinous. We concede that. But crimes committed 42 years ago, by law, do not by themselves provide a nexus to current dangerousness. And because Mr. Davis' conduct did not aggravate those crimes, use of them to deny him parole is prohibited because it would result in the same suitability determination for all participants in a crime. That was held by the California Supreme Court in 1975 in In Re Rodriguez when it stated determination of parole must be based on an inmate's individual culpability as well as on the offense itself. To make punishment fit the criminal rather than the crime. Mr. Davis has admitted that he aided and abetted in the killing of Gary Hinman. He was convicted of conspiring, including driving Mr. Manson to Hinman's home, entering the residence, holding the gun while Mr. Hinman was knifed and driving away in the victim's car. Mr. Davis was not Gary Hinman's killer. In the Shorty Shea murder, Mr. Davis was convicted because he was there and stabbed Shea one time with a knife after refusing Manson's order to cut off his head with a machete. To put it another way, the overall facts of the crime cannot evidence present unsuitability of parole. Only an inmate's actual conduct can do so, and therefore does not provide in this case a nexus between the life crime and current dangerousness. The same Governor who reversed Mr. Davis' parole evinced his agreement with his principle when he ordered the early release of Fabian Nunez's son stating, quote, "Giving Nunez's limited role in Santos' death and considering that Nunez had no prior criminal record, I believe Nunez's sentence is excessive." Now the Governor did the right thing in that case, albeit for the wrong reasons. Since the law has to be applied fairly to each citizen, rich or poor, politically well connected or not, my client is entitled to the same treatment as Mr. Nunez. Steve Grogan, the actual killer of Shorty Shea was paroled almost 30 years ago because he knew where the body was buried and he cut deal. Mr. Davis didn't know where he was buried and couldn't cut that deal. But it's hardly fair at this point that he is still in prison while the actual killer has been free for nearly three decades when his bargaining chip was that he was the actual killer and disposed of the body. Mr. Davis has now served 41 plus years of a seven to life sentence, a term that extends well beyond the matrix for this crime for the actual killers. As held by the California Supreme Court in 2005 in In Re Dannenberg, quote, "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 Section 3041(a) cannot authorize such an inmate's retention even for reasons of public safety beyond this constitutional maximum period of confinement." We submit that the years Mr. Davis has served places him beyond this constitutional maximum period of confinement given his culpability for the crimes and he must be freed. The second reason the Governor gives is that Mr. Davis consistently claimed he played a minor role in the crimes. Well, this may have been true in the past, but it certainly hasn't been true since the 2010 hearing and actually since the 2009 psych evaluation. Per his document entitled My Role and Responsibility in My Crimes, Mr. Davis takes full responsibility for his participation in the life crimes just as if he was the actual killer of both of these men. I'm going to quote from the 2009 Psychological Evaluation on page 13, under remorse and insight into the life crime. A review of records from over the years and the current interview with Mr. Davis suggest that his level of insight regarding the causative factors of his crimes has increased over the years. But in the present interview, he was able to talk about an 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. He stated at that time he began to look to other people and focus on what those people could do for him. He became self-centered and concerned only with his own needs and desires. He also described his pattern of choosing the easy route and following along with others. He indicated this pattern led him to the Manson family where he found he could live without working, have a ready supply of drugs and free sex. She goes on in the 2010 evaluation to note that his insight has deepened even further. Actually the Deputy Commissioner already quoted that from page 8, so I won't do it again. The Panel in 2010 found that he has insight. Now the Commissioner said during that hearing, during that reading of the decision that he still thinks Mr. Davis is minimizing. But he said that he acknowledges that he's splitting hairs at that point and he says that whatever minimizing there was doesn't make him currently dangerous. The Governor said that my client was minimizing because when he returned with Manson to Hinman's house, he saw that Hinman had been cut. This is consistent with the evidence. No evidence that Mr. Hinman had been lacerated at that point. He said the situation was crazy and didn't know whether what occurred was planned or not. As noted by the Los Angeles County Superior Court in its July 1st, 2011, order granting Mr. Davis' writ challenging the Governor's reversal, the situation was likely very crazy and the statement he didn't know what happened was planned had no contradiction in the record and is therefore at minimum plausible. Regarding Mr. Shea, Mr. Davis said he just went along. There's nothing in the record that suggests otherwise. The 1996 Board Report which is quoted in the Governor's letter said that Mr. Davis was older than most of the other participants in the offenses. He had more education and still willingly followed the instructions of Charles Manson. Well, there's no evidence that Mr. Davis personally desired from Mr. Shea to be murdered or that he orchestrated it. So his statement again is not implausible. His statement that he bragged about it, that he bragged about cutting off Shorty Shea's head, that he wanted to be impressive, I wanted to seem like somebody, you know, there's nothing in the record that disproves that either. Despite the clear evidence that Shorty Shea was not decapitated, the District Attorney from Los Angeles County over the years at these hearings has made a huge deal out of this statement saying that my client was minimizing by making this statement which is implicitly saying that Shea was beheaded. You know, it didn't happen. It just didn't happen. Now I want to take the time to thank the District Attorney for helping to prove that my client really has not been minimizing in his statements over the years. For years, the District Attorney has argued based apparently upon the statements of Barbara Hoyt that Bruce has been lying about the time of day Shorty Shea was killed. The DA swears he was killed at night. Mr. Davis has always stated he was killed during the day and has argued that this fact is proof that Bruce Davis is minimizing his responsibility for Shea's murder. Now how the time of day of the murder has any bearing on anything is beyond me. The fact seems completely irrelevant. In any event, the L.A. DA has graciously submitted transcripts of Steve Grogan's parole hearings. At those hearings, Mr. Grogan makes clear that the murder took place in the morning. And I'll ask you to look at the 1979 transcript, page 11, lines 20 through 23. Question: "Could you tell the Board, Steve, what time of day it was?" Inmate Grogan: "It was early morning." The 1981 transcript, page 17, lines five through 13, Inmate Grogan: "Well, that morning I was awakened by Charles Manson and still, you know, half asleep. He told me to get the car and handed me like a pipe wrench. He told me to hit Shorty in the back of the head as soon as Tex gave me the go ahead or gave me the signal. At that point, Tex and I entered the back seat behind the driver, which was Jerome Shea, and Tex was on his right hand side. We proceeded down Santa Susana pass toward the San Fernando Valley." Clear during the day. Since the L.A. District Attorney produced this transcript and no doubt has had it for years, and therefore knows the true time of Shorty Shea's death, it's clear he's deliberately mislead or lied to Panel after Panel of the Board for years. And like he said about Bruce Davis, well, once a liar, always a liar. Well, I think we need to consider that in considering every single word that he said at this hearing today. For years the L.A. DA has argued that Bruce Davis has been minimizing his role in Shea's murder by maintaining that he only stabbed Shea one time in the shoulder. If this were true, Bruce Davis would indeed be minimizing his role in this murder. Again, however, the District Attorney provides the evidence that it is no true. That everything that Bruce Davis said about his role in this hearing, in this murder is true. The 1981 parole transcript on page 20, lines 13 through it looks like 20. I was handed a knife, lines 10 through 20. "I was handed a knife and told to stab him. I stabbed him twice in the chest. And some others were told the same." Commissioner: "Did Manson stab him too?" Grogan: "I don't know. He might have slashed him. I don't recall if he stabbed him." Commissioner: "So you stabbed him and Tex stabbed him. Anybody else stab him?" Grogan: "I think Bruce might have stabbed him in the arm." That's it. Exactly as he's told you. Again, District Attorney has had that transcript for years and knew the actual events of that killing. He's known that Mr. Davis has been 100 percent accurate, yet he's mislead this Panel repeatedly. He claims again that Bruce Davis is minimizing because Bruce Davis was Charles Manson's right hand man. I'm going to hand you an article from the Daily Mail Reported dated November 17th, 2011, in which Mr. Carreon is quoted. The title of the article, Charles Manson's right hand man seeks parole for 14th time after becoming a born again Christian and gets denied. The first line, Charles Tex Watson appeared before a parole Board in California to seek release after being denied over a doze time before and was denied again. This is from Vincent Bugliosi's book, Helter Skelter. Vincent Bugliosi was the lead attorney on the Manson cases. On page 302, "As with others I interviewed, I asked Greg for examples of Manson's domination. Greg gave me one of the best ideas he had found. He said he 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: "Did Tex Watson ever get up on the rock?" Answer: "No, of course not." Question: "Did anyone else in the Family get up there? Answer: "Only Charlie." Bruce Davis acknowledges that he was influence because of his age, but he was not Charles Manson's right hand man. And the District Attorney trots this out at every hearing blaming everyone of being the right hand man. And I just want you to understand that that is what's going on. He quotes Barbara Hoyt as saying that Bruce was more involved in this and more of a right hand man than he has led himself to believe. This is an article from Los Angeles magazine of July 2009 entitled The Manson Murders 40 years later. An oral history by Steven Oney, O-N-E-Y, and Barbara Hoyt is quoted in it. They are talking about the Shay murder, quote, "I was in a trailer on high ground and below was a creek bed. Charlie, Tex, Bruce Davis (another family member), and Steve Grogan chased Shorty down there." Nothing about Bruce Davis being a leader. Just another family member. The District Attorney has claimed and attempted on many occasions to question Bruce Davis' rehabilitation because he says that Mr. Davis' religious conversion is not genuine. Fortunately, the Reverend Alderson who was the pastor at CMC for 23 years while Mr. Davis was working in the chapel disagrees with that, and you've got the chronos from him. The District Attorney today said that Bruce Davis engaged in improprieties along with Tex Watson when they worked in the chapel together. In support of this claim, he produced what appeared to be two brochures from the chapel for seminars. On the cover page of page 1, Tex Watson is listed as the minister and Bruce Davis as associate pastor. On the cover page of the other, they are both listed under ministry leadership. That's it. Then the District Attorney attached two letters from an inmate named Steven Touissaint, one to the L.A. DA dated March 25th, 1987, in which he discusses articles about Watson and Bruce Davis regarding allegations Mr. Touissaint, quote, "have personally made about the cult type of practice that Watson is able to conduct here in the prison." He asks the DA's help so that Mr. Watson's practices can be put to a halt once and for all. He then describes Watson's conduct in more detail, and I ask you to read that entire letter. Bruce Davis is not associated with any wrongdoing in that letter. In the second letter dated February 26th, 1987, to the warden here at CMC, he accuses Tex Watson of improper use of the chapel. What's of note in this letter and I ask you to read it as well is that Bruce Davis is not mentioned at all. There are no allegations of wrongdoing on Bruce Davis' part and the District Attorney spoke falsely today when he said that there are. Further, there is no record of the District Attorney or the warden taking any actions against Watson, let alone Bruce Davis regarding these allegations. Since the Governor reversed Mr. Davis' parole grant, he's continued to dig deep inside himself and his insight has evolved to the point where he now accepts responsibility for all of the Manson family murders including Tate-LaBianca even though he had nothing physically to do with them. He was not involved in their planning. I want to ask you to look again at the Subsequent Risk Assessment, pages 7 and 8. The District Attorney complains that my client's insight and remorse and responsibility for this crime are recent. Well, that's not entirely true, but certainly beginning in 2009 after his last hearing, prior to the grant, Mr. Davis really began to work extra hard on himself to ferret out gaps in his insight and his responsibility. And he's taken them. And the law is clear that there is no minimum time requirement, quote, "rather acceptance of responsibility work in favor of release no matter how long-standing or recent it is so long as the inmate genuinely accepts responsibility." That was held by the Court of Appeal in In Re Barker in 2007. Then In Re Lee said, quote, "The same can be said about insight and remorse. An inmate's lengthy journey to assuming full responsibility is not evidence that he continues to pose an unreasonable risk to public safety." As noted last year by the California Supreme Court in In Re Shaputis insight is not static factor. It can evolve and so long as the evidence of an inmate's current insight and responsibility is not insubstantial or unreliable, using older superseded deficiencies to deny parole would be arbitrary and a violation of due process. In such as the California Supreme Court in In Re Shaputis stated in such cases the Board may not arbitrarily dismiss more recent evidence in favor of older records when assessing the inmate's current dangerousness. As the Governor has made clear and as the District Attorney did as well, claims made in 2008 and 2006, and 1980, have no relevance to his current dangerousness. Mr. Davis clearly recognized that his actions directly contributed -- excuse me, the Governor stated that Mr. Davis' minimization demonstrates that he failed to recognize that his actions directly contributed to the life crimes the evidence is clearly otherwise. As you saw in his document which I think we've marked as Exhibit E today, he takes full responsibility for his participation in the crimes just as if he was the actual killer of Mr. Hinman and Shea. Look at the psychological evaluations as well. The 2009 and the 2010. Now I could give you an explanation as to why the diagnosis of Personality Disorder, NOS, With Narcissistic and Antisocial Features is not correct, but I believe this Panel in its questioning made clear that it understands that that diagnosis was historical and is not current. Because of that, I'm not going to go into it any more. But regardless, the doctor determined that Mr. Davis is a low risk of violence. So even if there was a belief that she was talking about something more current, this known factor does not render him dangerous and does not provide any nexus to his current dangerousness. By analogy, the same principles apply to this personality disorder. Since the Governor's reversal, Mr. Davis was again evaluated and the low risk of violence was again confirmed. The Governor mentioned conformist tendencies because he'll defer to his wife's judgment on issues such as fiscal responsibility and raising a family. We didn't cover that really today and I don't think anyone gives it any credence. He questioned Mr. Davis' commitment to sobriety. It's hard to take that one seriously because Mr. Davis has been clean and sober since 1974. And if you take a look at Dr. Thacker on page 10, on the 2010 evaluation on page 4, she disposes of it pretty clearly. Despite the bitter pill of having his freedom snatched away from him by a Governor who applied an obvious double standard, having his writ granted by the Los Angeles County Superior Court and overturned again, Mr. Davis has continued programming well. He has continued working hard to improve his insight and responsibility for the crime, has obtained transitional housing to ease the transition back to society, two transitional home acceptances, and has job offers with both of them, and has put together an excellent relapse prevention plan. He's continued his excellent in PIA specialty print plant. If you look at the -- You saw the July 5th, 2012, chrono that I provided to you. And his volunteer work in the Protestant chapel and as an Alternatives to Violence project facilitator. He continues in AA, PACA, domestic violence, effects of domestic violence on children, and several courses through CMC School of the Bible. He taught a course through CMC School of the Bible this year, the Book of Acts. Age is a factor favoring suitability. He's now 69. At this age, the probability of recidivism is reduced to the point of being statistically insignificant. We know that life term inmates have the lowest recidivism rate of all felons. The best description of the kind of man Bruce Davis has become and why he is no longer currently dangerous but would be a positive force in society if freed is a declaration submitted by Richard Kelly, an inmate here. It is dated August 25th, 2009. "I, Richard Kelly, declare as follows. That I spent nearly 39 years of my life incarcerated within various county and state prisons. During this period of incarceration, I've 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. In November of 2005, I arrived at California Men's Colony 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. 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 CDCR 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 an evening recreational period in October of 2006, based upon a perceived slight, I harbored an intent to murder another inmate. That is a long term prisoner and active member of an outlaw motorcycle club for over 40 years, I am no stranger to violence. So this was no passing fancy. I had every intention of caring out an act of violence. Prior to carrying out the planned attack, I asked Mr. 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 that 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 that 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 observations about me. Bruce said he observed me to be angry, bitter and in pain. He told me that he saw me as lost. That evening he told me things that my closest friends had never had the desire or 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. That in the moments which followed Bruce laid hands on me praying for my salvation for my release from my sin filled life and from a lifetime of pain. Moreover, that I be delivered from my anger and violent behavior. In that moment, I began to experience the grace and the 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 Bruce Davis has become, my story is unimportant. In a very real way, Bruce helped 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. 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 of salvation. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully recommend Bruce for release on parole." You're going to hear now from two women who purport to be representatives of the Shea and Hinman families. They haven't provided any proof that they have that authority. I showed you in a letter written by Renne Reilly that Barbara Tate -- excuse me, Deborah Tate is not wanted by the Hinman family to represent them. You're going to hear a lot of things from Barbara Hoyt. I've read her letters over the years. She claims Bruce minimizes. She claims the murder took place at night. Well, she may well believe that. I don't know. But the evidence shows otherwise. Before you hear one who purports to speak for the Hinman family, I'm going to read you a letter that was written by a member of the Hinman family dated May 24th, 2012, her name is Renne Reilly. Encloses a copy of Bruce's apology letter he sent to me on behalf of Gary's family. And yes, I can say that two of Gary's family members have received and read his letter. Yes, we do accept his apology. He has helped me put a closure to Gary's murder which I never understood in the first place. I see -- Had Gary gone on to live, he would have been a successful social worker. He always put others first before himself and that is why I believe Gary would want us to forgive his killers. I see Mr. Davis has done good things in prison. I do believe he is no longer a threat to society. We recognize the courage it would again take to grant Mr. Davis a parole date. But in this respect, it is noted that he is not a high profile member of the Manson family. There was no public outcry when he was granted parole in 2010, even though it did make the national news. By no conceivable stretch of anyone's imagination has Bruce Davis not rehabilitated himself. No one, not even the District Attorney from Los Angeles County said anything negative about his prison program. Please do the right thing again and give him back his parole date. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Mr. Davis, it's not a requirement, but if you wish to address the Panel as to why you feel you're suitable for parole, now would be the time for that.

INMATE DAVIS: Thank you. I'm going to go back just a moment, just a second, about my mentioning Larry Jones as a witness in the Shea case. I have up to this time -- Larry was a child, probably 18, maybe 17. Very innocent kid. I don't know how he got there. There were several cars involved and in the place where Mr. Shea was so terribly murdered, Larry, I remember him standing off. He couldn't believe it. And just think about the whole thing is bad enough, but I have protected Larry. If I overstepped and I did overstep my authority of not mentioning his name, I accept that. I accept the consequences of that because I surely did it and I did it because I didn't feel, and it's probably not my place to be feeling about what other people should do, but I certainly didn't think he had anything to do with that murder. And it was bad enough that he had to witness it. And so I take responsibility for that. Bill Vance was known as a part of the Shea murder. In fact, he was being called for a witness. He was never arrested, but he was being called for a witness in about 1969, 1970, so it wasn't like nobody knew. He was known to the authorities. I didn't mention his name. You know, when it came to talking about the crime, I wanted to talk about what I did. Not what anybody else at those times. I should have mentioned everybody's name and I should have said everything that there was to say. I apologize for that. I have many shortcomings in the last 28, 29 hearings. I have vacillated. I have minimized. I have done that, and as is pointed out, it's obvious. It's not any big secret that I did that. But since 2008, I've made remarkable progress in coming to terms with what I did and my responsibility. Now, that said, how am I different than the person that came to prison? Well, first off, I'm a sober man and in my right mind. I'm no longer affected by alcohol or illicit drugs or any other drugs. I have come to myself in a remarkable way in that when I became sober and the process of becoming sober was not overnight. I had a lot of baggage and I'm still -- I still remember it and I'm not ready to claim I made it through. But through the process, I was able to make choices once I regained my sobriety. Once I regained my own self, I was -- I began to make choices. And when I began to make choices, I began to select a God according to my understanding whose highest valued creation is the human being of which I am one. And that is what gives me a strong self-identification. That's what gives me self-esteem today. That's what makes me not a danger to society. As I have gained sobriety, I have known myself to be valuable to God and I value other people. I've come to a place where I'm empathetic and sympathetic to other people. I value them. Because of this, I have a value for other people, a value for myself, and I've come to have boundaries in my life. There are places in my behavior that I understand are boundaries, and those boundaries give me impulse control, they give me -- I can set off my gratification. I don't have to have an instant fix because I'm in my life now, I am not the most important person in my life and now I'm just a part of life. And I'm in this for the long run and I want to see things improve over the long run in my life. I want to help other people. I want to help them make good decisions. I want to help them get over, especially in this prison, the kind of things that got them here, through anger management, through depression management, through AVP, through all kinds of things through the classes I teach. I'm promoting their good behavior, positive decisions, and I want them to share with me the real splendor of having self-value based on helping other people. Based on service to others. So my passion, the life I have doing this, I love it. And I want it to go forward. I believe that I will succeed mightily when I get out for three reasons, first, I'm determined. I am determined to do well. And I know what doing well is going to require, and the parts I don't understand, I am open to learn and I will learn. The second part are the people who are helping me. I have friends, I have people in my support network who have a stake in my doing well. These are the people who have risked their reputation on me. They have held their hand up. I would not -- I will not betray their trust. Mainly I won't do it because it's in me to do the right thing now. I determine to make the people that hold their hand up for me proud of their decision. When it comes to parole, I give my parole. I give my pledge, my word. That's what parole is about for me. And I believe that when I'm out, I'm going to have help. I'm motivated. I know how to do it. I know how to take instruction and I know how to follow it. And with the help of my determination, the people that support me and the power of God as I understand him, I will be in a position to make up and to compensate for the terrible damage, unspeakable, that I've done. I am glad that you've taken your time to listen. I appreciate everybody in the room. Thank you very much.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Very good. Now, pursuant to Penal Code Section 3043(b), the victim's next-of-kin do have a say at these hearings, and in no particular order, we'll move a chair up here and before representatives from the family members speak, I wish you'd give your name and the family member that you are representing.

MS. TATE: Yes, my name is Deborah Tate, and I'm here to represent the most immediate family members of Gary Hinman. At the time of the murders of Gary Hinman there was no immediate mother or father. That is why there was to believe to be an inheritance that could be taken from him. This was selfish, totally self-serving, blatant disregard for human life for the benefits of sex and drugs and a crazy cockamamie scheme for people to become empowered. They believed and Mr. Davis was included in that belief that Charles Manson was perhaps the second coming of Christ, which is the most ludicrous thing I could ever even conceive of. I would like to address also the fact that I don't believe that it's a good decision on Mr. Davis' part to let his counsel scowl in the face of the law which has the Department of Justice has allowed and researched the family members that appointed me their spokesperson and made fun of and light and referred to me as a trick pony. I am not a trick pony nor am I paid for any endeavor I have ever done in any victims whether it be my own family members or other people that I represent. My intent is to be a voice for the people that have lost their lives and a voice for the victims' families that are still reeked with terror at the thought of even appearing on tape, audio or let alone in person at these hearings. These people are so afraid, that they move on a regular basis if there is even a scuttlebutt of any kind of trail being able to be perpetrated. Psychological damage has been incurred. I don't have to speak from read letters. I know the history because I myself am a victim. I'm a little articulate because I've had the most experience at these hearings and these people do not reek terror in my heart. And that is for one reason alone. There is nothing that they can do to me now that's greater than what they have already done. And therefore all of the victims' families feel the same way. I would be ashamed to say that I was a Christian and still be attending these hearings. I am a Christian. I believe that Mr. Davis as other Manson family members have made strides within the walls, confines of controlled society. I am glad for them and proud for them and I would even say perhaps that this is the best place in which they could serve their Lord. At this time, I guess I should read the statement, a letter that was indeed given to me to read as well as I was given the choice to speak from my own heart on behalf of the trauma that these people have incurred. "My cousin Gary Hinman was killed by Manson and his followers."

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Say who the letter's from from first.

MS. TATE: I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. Kay Martley, who is the cousin of Gary Hinman, first cousin, I mean, most immediate family member left alive. "My cousin Gary Hinman was killed by Manson and his followers. Bruce Davis was a part of this group. Bruce Davis was in my cousin's house, tortured and then killed him. Gary's entire family emotionally and mentally suffered from the way Gary was killed. I believe his mother died an early death from the manner in which her son was killed. Gary will never see his nieces and nephews or have children of his own. There is one reason that Gary should have been killed and especially in the manner -- There is not one reason why Gary should have been killed, and especially in the manner in which it was done. It was a horrible murder. There was no reason that Bruce Davis should ever be released. Bruce Davis could not have had any human feeling for another human being after the amount of torture Gary endured for three days. Gary was killed under horrific circumstances and Bruce Davis was there and took part in his death. Gary had never done anything that would have given Bruce Davis or Manson the right to take his life. Why should Bruce Davis have freedom? My cousin never had what life would have given him. None of the participants in Gary's death should ever be released. This was not just a killing. It was a grisly killing. Why should this man be released? I do not want revenge but want Bruce Davis denied freedom for the rest of his life. This man did not have a consequence then and now could have a consequence now. I understand Bruce Davis was allowed to marry and father a child while in prison. He denied Gary that right. Bruce's statement through legal hearings changes and varies according to what Bruce thinks will help him. Bruce Davis is educated and is very manipulative but he does not deserve freedom. Please do not dishonor my cousin's death by giving this man freedom that he does not ever deserve. Bruce Davis belongs in prison. The safety of humanity -- for the safety of humanity. Bruce Davis made a choice by Gary never having a choice to live or die. Choices have consequences and Bruce Davis' consequence should be a lifetime in prison. The Hinman family have been given -- The Hinman family have been and are both state and local community leaders and contributing members to society. Gary's murder is forever a part of our family history and one that brings all of us to pain to be continued to Bruce Davis and Manson and his followers -- contributed to Bruce Davis, Manson and his followers forever." Over the last 40 years, I've become a trauma counselor and I am one of the first responders at many murders and counsel families in a way to keep them from furthering the cycle. As Mr. Davis referred to the ripples in the pond, the pain goes on much further than the initial crime. And the real victims are those that are left to live in this world and have to realize the possibility that these monsters could gain their freedom while their loved ones are in the grave. Especially when it's senseless and hopefully it has consequences that will endure forever. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Thank you.

MS. HOYT: My name is Barbara Hoyt. And I have three letters to read. The first one is from Phyllis Arlene Shea Murphy, who is the ex-wife of Donald Shea. And this was written for the last parole hearing, but we're using it now, you know however months later. "My name is Phyllis Arlene Gaston Shea Murphy. I am writing this letter to be read to the Parole Board during the parole hearing of Bruce Davis on or about June 13th, 2012, I hereby give my full consent for Barbara Hoyt to read this letter to the Parole Board on my behalf as it is not possible for me to attend this hearing in person due to health reasons and financial burden. If it becomes impossible for Barbara Hoyt to read this letter at said hearing, I trust her to appoint someone else to read it. I give my full consent to whoever she appoints to read this letter to do so. I met Shorty Shea late in 1958. I was 18 years old at the time and Donald was in his 30s. Donald and I married in 1959 and I became pregnant with Donald's child. Donald and I were not able to continue our married life together, so we separated and I moved back home with my parents. I gave birth to Donald's child, a daughter, in November of 1959. I named her Karen Arlene Shea. Donald came to see his daughter several times over the next couple of years. I do not want Bruce Davis ever to be released from prison. Bruce Davis took part willingly in the murder of Shorty. When Bruce Davis took part in this murder, not only was he helping to murder my daughter's father, he also was helping to murder someone's son, someone's grandson, and very likely someone's brother. There has been many lives touched deeply because of this cruel, thoughtless, uncaring horrendous evil act which Bruce Davis took part in which resulted in the death of Shorty. That's making Bruce Davis a cold-blooded, calculated murderer. Bruce Davis made the choice to murder Shorty just proving that Bruce Davis does not and never will make good choices in his life. So therefore he should remain in prison where we will have these choices made for him. A very mild description follows of what the past 40 years of my life have been like because of the actions of Bruce Davis. It's impossible to describe 40 years of fear and mistrust in a letter of only several paragraphs although I hope this letter will help you. The Parole Board, to make the decision to keep Bruce Davis incarcerated for the rest of his life. I will start this part of my letter in this way. I would like for it to be known to you, the Parole Board, that I have lived with great impact two very small words for the past 40 years. The two words I refer to are what and if. Sounds simple enough, right? Well, try living with those two little words pounding in your heart for 40 plus years. What if I'd stayed with Shorty instead of making the decision to move back home with my parents when I was pregnant? Think about that for a minute. I believe without a shadow of a doubt, I and my daughter both would have been brutally murdered right along with Shorty. I met and married my parent (sic) husband in 1962 -- my present husband and I along with my daughter Karen are very happy. We started a family. Our first child was born in 1963 followed by three more children in '64, '66, and the last one in June 1969. We have a beautiful family. We were so happy. My present husband raised Karen as his own child and never treated her any different than he did his biological children. Life was good. Then my whole life would turn upside down in August of 1969 when I got news that Shorty had been murdered. From that day forward, my life was never the same. The first issue I had to deal with was to tell Karen that her father had been murdered. I knew Karen would have questions as to who murdered her father, why, when, where. With Karen being so young, nine years old at the time, I knew -- I'm sorry, I knew I would have to make sure that whatever I tell her would have to be the truth but yet not to share any of the horrific details that surrounded the murder of her father or any other victims of the Charles Manson Family and his so-called Family members. After much thought, I decided to tell Karen that her biological father and several other people had been murdered. I told her that her biological father and other people that were murdered were not doing anything wrong. I told her that some terrible, mean people had done all these murders just because they wanted to and they could, so they did. I let it go and believed it was the hardest thing I ever had to do in my life. By this time, Karen was crying and I just held her until she decided to speak. Karen said she would never get to see her father again just because some mean people wanted to kill him and other people. That day was the day I will never forget. The day I heard about the murder of Shorty and all the other murders that the Charles Manson Family had been accused of and later convicted of, is the same day that I started living a life of fear and mistrust. The more information that was released to the public regarding the Manson Family murders the more fear I had and the less trust I would ever have in the human race. Excuse me. Sorry. I was always afraid there were many people that were still connected with the Manson Family but were not arrested for the murders whom I felt were followers of the Manson Family. I feared that some of them or another, some of those Manson Family followers would hunt myself and my family down and murder us all just because they knew they could. Just a few months after the Manson Family murders and more of the gruesome, horrific details were made public, I confronted my present husband. I told him that I was so fearful for our lives and our children's lives that life for our extended families, I felt there was only one possible way that I could try to protect my family and that was to move. Change our name, which we did. We packed up what we needed and packed up the five children and we moved several states away. Well, the move did not get rid of the fear factor plus it was hard to find work and we missed our parents and siblings very much, so we did return to California. Over the next several years, any time there would be anything at all on television in reference to the Manson Family, my fear would get so bad I would finally tell my husband again that I thought we should move, and so we would. We moved many, many, many times during the years that we spent raising our children. Most of these moves were actually prompted by the fear that was thriving inside me. Then the "what if" syndrome would start again. I was always fearful of trying to make any close friends as I never knew who I could or could not trust. I never knew if anyone was just trying to become my friend so that they could learn more about my family and so they could harm us or even worse, murder us. Fear and mistrust had been a huge part of my life for over 40 years. I was so tired of running away only to find when I would read my destination that the fear and mistrust followed me. I still have a lot of fear inside. I still don't trust people very easily. But I found the Lord and I know that my destiny is already mapped out for me and my Lord will continue with his plan for me. I don't know if this terrible fear and all the mistrust that I have lived with for so many years actually kept my family any safer or not, but I do know all the decisions I made through all these years I had only one priority and that was to keep my family safe to the best of my ability no matter what the cost. I am now 72 years old and I wish we had all the money we have spent on move after move after move. We are now facing another move as our landlord has decided he wants to tear down the house to enlarge his workable land. A move at our age is unthinkable both financially and physically, but God willing we will manage if only things could have been different for us. If there had never been the horrible murders by Charles Manson and his so-called Family members, it's very likely my present husband and I would have stayed in one area and bought a house for future security and at the very least, we would have a place to live and no one would ever be able to tell us that we would need to move. I do not regret anything I did that I felt was in the best interest of my family. Please Parole Board members, I beg you do not release Bruce Davis from prison. Do not allow Bruce Davis to be free and among the citizens of our United States only to later regret your decision. Thank you for this time, Phyllis Arlene Gaston Shea Murphy." The next letter is from Karen Shea, who is his daughter. "My name is Karen Arlene Shea, Donald Shorty Shea was my father. I am writing you this letter as a victim impact statement to be read on behalf of my family and I at the upcoming parole hearing for Bruce Davis. I was almost ten years old when my father was tragically murdered back in 1969. I lived my life growing up wondering just what was my father like. I was denied the chance to ever get to know my dad by the selfish, cruel, immoral actions of the people who murdered him when I was merely a child. Due to the fact that my father's murder was part of a very high profile and worldwide known case of the Charles Manson Family murders, I lived my life afraid to any anyone anything about my father in fear that someone affiliated with the Manson murders may feel like I was a threat or hindrance to their diabolical plans and would want to harm me or my family in some way. I have lived in fear for many, many years. Afraid for myself and my family. I have always made it a very important point in my life not to speak of it or let anyone know that I was ever associated and I am connected to this horrible Manson case for fear that I would be ridiculed at the least or maybe even harmed. To this day, any time anything has to do with the Manson case or any of the cases connected to the horrible chain or events is brought up I just feel sick and numb knowing that I am connected to this horrible murder case as a victim. Throughout the first part of my life as a child and teenager, I never really knew much about my father, his life or his heinous -- or being so heinously murdered. My mother had remarried to my stepfather and to me -- shoot, and to me -- I'll get it. I'm sorry. The first part of my life as a child and teenager I never really knew much about my father's life or how he was heinously murdered. My mother had remarried my stepfather and to me he was always my dad. Around the age of 19 years old, my mother and I started discussing in more detail who my biological father was and the story of how he was so innocently murdered by these horrible Manson followers and how my father was a good man and did not deserve to suffer and die at the hands of them. I never really knew much other than what a relative who was very young at the time of the murders had told me, that my father was also part of the Manson Family and that he was bad. My mother never knew that I had been told this untruth about my father until the day we had this life changing conversation around the age of 19. My mother was in shock thinking that I had lived with all these untrue thoughts for so many years. She was quick to tell me how the eavesdropping of children on several different conversation that they put together in their minds a story that they actually believe was true. So basically that is what I thought of my father throughout my younger years of my life was that he was a bad person. After the day my mother had told me the truth about everything, my life then changed. To me being upset, scared and sick feeling anytime the murders or anything having to do with them would be brought up. I have lived my adult life in fear of these people that were associated with the Manson and always had kept what had felt like this terrible dark secret about my life -- I always had kept the secret about her father. Bruce Davis made the choice to murder my dad. Thus proving that Bruce Davis did not and never will make good choices in his life and therefore he should remain in prison where he will always have choices made for him. With all this being said, I plead with you, the Parole Board, please do not release Bruce Davis, the murderer of my father, back into the society where he would be free among the citizens of our United States to personally regret your decision when it is too late. I regret that I am financially and physically unable to attend the parole hearing to present this letter of my feelings and emotions of how the murder of my father has impacted my entire life. I hereby give full consent to allow Barbara Hoyt to read the letter at the said hearing on my behalf because it's -- if it become impossible for Barbara Hoyt to read this letter to the Parole Board, then I trust her to appoint someone else to read it. I give my full consent to whoever she may appoint to read this letter. Thank you for your time." That's from Shorty's daughter Karen. And I just want to highlight on that that Karen for ten years thought her father was a bad person. She asked me when I talked to her on the phone if her father was a bad person and I assured her that he was not. He was a nice person. He didn't deserve what happened to him. None of them did. I wanted to submit an article that Mr. Beckman gave to the Associated Press stating that Deborah and I were paid representatives of the Shorty and Hinman families. It's in print. It was all over the Internet, all over the news. I have a letter from Karen and her mother stating that the subject of payment for me being here has never come up. In fact, it never even occurred to me to think of that. I wanted you to know that I came here in bad health. I have renal failure. I have a central line in my heart. I'm missing a dialysis treatment and why on earth would he say that I've come here to lie after overcoming all this? I'm doing it because I think it's important. Anyway, I submit the letter and the article. I want to show that Mr. Sequeira is not here as a liar for hire and you can have it. Then I also have my letter. They claim that I have come out of the woodwork in 2006, which is not true. Actually the first time I wrote a letter against Mr. Davis' parole was six years earlier than that. The District Attorney had been using it in the intervening parole hearings against him. And they are aware of that. So I would just go ahead and just read my letter. "My name is Barbara Hoyt and I knew Bruce Davis when I lived with the Manson Family from April 1st, 1969, to October -- early October 1969. I testified in all the Manson related trials resulting in convictions for Manson, Davis, Watkins, Grogan, Van Houten, and Krenwrinkle. I have 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 consider myself an expert on the Manson Family. I just thought I'd throw in there that my wallet was also found months later after my murder attempt in a restroom toilet top just like Mrs. LaBianca's. Manson believed that -- I'm sorry. As tragic and horrific these murders were, they were but a symptom of the 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 to be waged between the whites and the blacks from which the majority of the population would perish. It's not a theory made up by the prosecution, but a cold-hearted fact that was explained to the prosecutors by witnesses like me. Preparing for Helter Skelter physically, mentally, and financially was the all pervasive fabric of Manson Family daily life. On the night the LaBiancas were murdered, Charlie was looking for victims and no one in Los Angeles was safe. Manson believed that once all the white people had perished, the remaining blacks, not knowing how to rule would enlist the Manson Family as the only remaining white people to rule over them. The Charlie would put it simply, he would be king of the world. There's no difference between Manson Family and Hitler's Nazis except that Manson was stopped sooner. Power was the motive. Power was the motive for these murders. Helter Skelter didn't happen fast enough for Charlie, so they killed innocent people hoping to blame the blacks for the crimes and so set off the war. The victims' lives and suffering meant nothing to the Family including Mr. Davis. If the Family hadn't been stopped, they would have killed hundreds of people in their quest to start Helter Skelter. Shorty Shea's murder was a family affair. A few days earlier, I was sitting on a rock in front of the boardwalk and Brenda, Squeaky and Gypsy with them when we saw Shorty approaching George Spahn's house and someone said there's Shorty, snooping around again and another replied, well, he won't be long for this world. Bruce Davis had no difficulty in killing people just so he could feel accepted. He said so in his Parole Hearings. I read them and I watched him. I've got lots of copies of his parole hearings. Even with the trials, I don't think the murders stopped. I was going to ask him about, you know, he brought up Christopher Zero. I do want to say in that regard that, you know, they said he was playing Russian roulette. It was with a fully loaded gun and I don't know how he managed to wipe the prints off the gun after he died, but that happened. I'm just saying that because where he is, people die. 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 to vie for this position. Tex Watson was a very happy-go-lucky goofy guy who was submissive to Charlie in every way. He didn't boss the girls. The girls were scared of him. They weren't of Tex. The first killing that he participated in, that of Gary Hinman, didn't phase him. He still stayed. The deaths of seven more victims didn't bother him enough to leave. He then helped murder Shorty Shea. Now nine murders have occurred and he still stayed. He was present when Zero was killed. Was that another gentle bump on the head as he described Shorty's murder. Charlie wasn't a father figure to Davis and knowing that the Family's business was murder, he wanted to be in command. How many people have to be brutally murdered before he feels accepted. Bruce was 27. He graduated high school. He went to college. He went to Europe. He studied Scientology. He had ten years more of life's experience than I had and despite ten murders, Bruce Davis stayed with the family not turning himself in until, I can't remember, it was '71 or '72. That means he stayed with the family for about five years. The night that Shorty was murdered, Ruby Pearl testified she saw Shorty being chased past George Spahn's house down to the creek that runs behind the Ranch. I was sleeping alone in a small little trailer right above the creek. It overlooked the creek. It had been dark a couple hours. There was a bright full moon. All of a sudden I heard a blood curdling scream coming from down below my window. I looked out the window. I couldn't see anything except I remember the leaves printed on the window because the sun, I'm sorry, the moon was so bright it was a bright, full moon and that's all I could see was the imprint of leaves on my window, but it was bright outside and I'm very nearsighted, so I wouldn't have been able to see it anyway. I've never said that I saw Shorty's murder. I said that I heard it. They bragged about him being decapitated and cut up in nine pieces. I didn't see that. 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 below my window. I recognized the screams as Shorty's and I am absolutely sure that these screams were Shorty's. then there was silence for about a minute and then the screaming started again. It seemed to last forever. It was pure horror. For over 40 years, I can still hear the screams in my mind. You think if you hear somebody being murdered that you're going to forget the time of day? Not likely. I heard Bruce Davis describe Shorty's murder at the Parole Hearing that he makes it sound so simple, so gentle, a bump on the head, a cut on his arm, well wrong. Shorty fought hard for his life. He didn't just lie down on the ground and let his kills above him argue amongst themselves about who was going to cut off his head. Shorty was a big man. He was like John Wayne. He was really strong. He was a ranch hand. I mean, I've seen him subdue a horse. He was a stunt man and the only way that they could -- God, excuse me. The killers were either short, Charlie and Bruce are short, or thin. You know, Clem and Tex were taller, but they were all thin. They weren't that strong. And the only way they could subdue Shorty was to attack him en masse like a pack of wolves. If the murder happened the way Bruce Davis described it, Shorty would still be alive. I've read part of Shorty Shea's autopsy report done on his skeletal remains. And there are hack marks and chop marks on his bones and on his skull not to mention the holes in his clothing from the knife wounds. He says there were four wounds. That's not true. He had holes all over him. He had chop marks all over the back of his head and collar. They tried to cut off his head apparently. His clothes were full of holes from the knife wounds, too. Bruce Davis doesn't even tell the truth about the place or time of day that the murder occurred. Despite becoming a Christian, Davis still doesn't tell the truth. Does he think that becoming a Christian means that he can no longer sin? That's not so. I can't say whether or not Mr. Davis would kill again if he were released, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that becoming a Christian hasn't stopped him from lying. On a personal note, his attorney constantly refers to me as coming out of the woodwork and that's not true. And I already told you my first letter was six years before they claim it was. Despite over 40 years of therapy, self-help programs with several degrees in theology and physiology or, yeah, philosophy, Bruce Davis hasn't yet grasped the simple fact that he's not the center of the universe. Because of Mr. Davis' lies and continued misrepresentation of the facts verbalized by both him and his lawyer, and his continued self-centeredness, I beg you on behalf of the victims, for the peace of their families and for the safety of the public at large, to keep Mr. Davis in prison where he belongs. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right. The time is 2:25, and we will recess for deliberations.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: We're off the record.

RECESS

--oOo--

CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS DECISION

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: We're on the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And the time is 3:15 p.m. This is the decision portion of the suitability hearing for Bruce Davis, CDC number B, as in Boy, 41079. All persons previously identified have returned to the room. The Panel reviewed all information received from the public and all relevant information that was before us today in concluding that the prisoner is suitable or parole and would not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society or a threat to public safety if released from prison. The finding of suitability is based on weighing the considerations provided in the California Code of Regulations, Title 15. Mr. Davis, in granting you parole, we considered the nature and the gravity of the commitment offense. This offense was particularly troubling to this Panel. Multiple victims were attacked. Your victims were abused, defiled and mutilated during and after the offense. The offenses were carried out in a manner which demonstrates an exceptionally callous disregard for suffering. Your crimes were horrific. You were convicted of the brutal murders of Mr. Gary Hinman and Mr. Donald Shea. You participated in the planning of both crimes and readily agreed to involve yourself. You drove your crime partners to the Hinman residence for the purpose of robbing him. You brought a gun to that crime. You held it on Mr. Hinman during the crime. Over the period of multiple days, he was tortured, stabbed and clubbed, ultimately leading to his death. Your involvement in such a gruesome crime was not enough to dissuade you from participating in a further violent crime. Weeks later, you participated in the planning of the murder of Donald Shea. The motive of that crime was to murder him due to suspicions that he was an informant. Mr. Shea was savagely stabbed repeatedly causing his death. You yourself participated in that stabbing. Your violent gang was responsible for many other heinous murders during the time of your membership and your active involvement. You were in a position to stop the violence in the very beginning, but you made the poor choice not to. Those crimes instilled fear and not just in the local community, but the entire nation. People felt unsafe in their own homes. While your behavior was atrocious, your crimes did occur 43 years ago, and this is your subsequent, 27th, parole suitability hearing. You were 26 years old at the time of your crimes. You're now 69 year old. You have matured and you've certainly evolved over time. Your commitment offenses do tend to carry less weight over time. Because of the positive adjustment and the considerations that show you no longer pose a risk of danger to society, which the Panel will articulate momentarily, the Panel makes the grant of suitability after fully considering the other circumstances that one might argue tend to show unsuitability for parole and that would include your unstable social history. At the time just prior to the commitment offenses, you were committing crimes including carrying guns, committing credit card thefts and committing drug violations. You were a drug and alcohol abuser. You abused marijuana, LSD, mescaline and other substances. And then there's other considerations that also tend to show unsuitability and that would include your past inconsistencies about your crime. That includes your lack of accepting full responsibility. Your story has changed over the years. It has evolved over time. You have minimized your participation in the past. Today you indicated that you did, in fact, point your gun at Mr. Hinman. In the past you've said that while you had your gun out, you never actually pointed it at him. You were still minimizing. You were not accepting full responsibility. As far as your cutting of your victim Shea, you minimized that as well. You did not minimize today, and I do note that your version has changed and that is evidence of untruthfulness and does create a credibility concern. However, as far as I could tell that the evidence does support what you did say about the crime today and I do want to note that your recent history, at some of your more recent parole suitability hearings, you chose not to discuss the commitment offense and you did show courage today by discussing the commitment offense. And that's important because one of your character defects at the time of the commitment offense, one that you even talked about yourself was your cowardice. And it does take courage to talk about the things that you've done in the past and address them and speak to them and answer openly about what you have done. On balance, despite these negative circumstances which the Panel fully considered and after weighing all of the considerations provided in Title 15, the Panel finds that you are suitable for parole because of the positive aspects of your case. They do heavily outweigh the other considerations just discussed. Specifically the Panel finds that you are suitable for parole based on a number of considerations. You have demonstrated remorse at this hearing today. You did become emotional at one point while talking about your victims. You have written letters of remorse. However, during deliberations, we looked at them and they're almost identical they just have basically the name changed, so it does give us a little pause for concern that you didn't put a lot of thought into the specific of each individual case and the victims, but you did do them and you did write them and you did submit them. And you did speak today of a conversation that you had with a correctional officer regarding when he was a child living in Los Angeles and the fear that he felt. And you did seem genuine in the remorse that you showed for the fear that you and your gang caused the community. And you have today identified many of the causative factors and your character defects that influenced your behaviors regarding your commitment offenses. You spoke about your feelings of inadequacy. Your desire to be liked and accepted by these Family members. Your desire to continue receiving sex and drugs from those members. Your fear of rejection. You discussed your desire to be respected. That contributed to your desire to want to carry a gun. You spoke of your cowardice and how that contributed to your behavior. The Comprehensive Risk Assessment that was dated 6/20/09 authored by Dr. Thacker was positive and supportive of your release. Dr. Thacker did opine that you present as a relatively low risk of violence in the free community. The Subsequent Risk Assessment also authored by Dr. Thacker much more recently was dated 8/16/10, and that was equally supportive. You have participated in activities that do indicate an enhanced ability to function within the law upon release. And for a listing of those things, I will turn to Commissioner Alvord.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Mr. Davis, let me start off by saying this is a very difficult decision that we make today. I read the sentencing transcript and the judge said that he hoped you would stay in custody until the adult authority determined you were no longer dangerous. Clearly he thought you were dangerous and you were.

INMATE DAVIS: That's right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: But by the same token, I think we're at that point today. In your prior Boards, you have literally been all over the place on the facts of this crime and what happened and who did what, and I'm not so sure that we even today truthfully know exactly what happened. But even having that in mind, you've been in the institution well over 40 years. You've been in custody about 43 years, but you've been in the institution over 40 years and in that time you've had two disciplines only. You've lived in a very difficult environment for over 40 years and you've managed to completely avoid any violence whatsoever. You're to be commended for that. That's not an easy thing to accomplish, especially not for that length of time. So that clearly indicates to us that you have developed certainly the skills in how to get along. And as I say, you're to be commended for that. You've have over ten years of positive psychological evaluations. Each of the psychologists that you've seen felt that you presented a low risk. That's kind of the lowest category one can have for risk, so they all seem to feel that that's where you were in your growth. We looked at what you've done in the way of self-help and you've done a great deal of self-help. I've read it before on the record and I'll do it now. You've managed to obtain a masters of arts degree in religion, a doctor of philosophy in religion. You've obtained vocational certifications in drafting and welding. You've been a clerk, building porter, orderly, worked in the culinary, teacher's aide, a teacher. You've been in AA, NA, Alternatives to Violence, anger control. Again the Big Four Fellowship. You've been in the Bible study school within the institution, both as a student and as a teacher. You've had communications classes, Gestalt and guided imagery. You've had individual therapy. You've had interfaith. You've participated in the Jewish literacy program, lifer decision making, introspective analysis, peer training, personal growth, process oriented psychotherapy groups, rational behavior therapy, reality and decision making, substance abuse groups, stress management groups, relaxation training, transactional analysis, and the Yokefellows program as well as taking a lot of classes in Bible study and as I indicated also teaching Bible study. So you're certainly to be commended for that. You know, there were two very good attorneys in this room today who both argued different positions and they're both very good advocates for their position. But what we have to look at at the bottom line is whether or not you present a current risk of dangerousness. When we look at what you've done within the institution and we look at how long you've been in the institution and your lack of disciplines within the institution, frankly we cannot make a nexus to any type of dangerousness that you would be currently dangerous. We can't make that nexus. So I want to commend you for all the work that you've done. I want to wish you all the best of luck.

INMATE DAVIS: Thank you very much.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: The bottom line is you have used your time wisely in prison. You have not been a discipline problem. You have upgraded both vocationally and certainly educationally over those many years. You're a smart person and you used your intelligence for good while you've been in here in prison. Your parole plans are realistic. You have viable residential plans. You've been accepted into two transitional homes. You've indicated that your first choice would be to the Francisco Homes. That's the Partnership for Reentry program. I am looking at a letter that's dated September 19th, 2012, signed by Sister Teresa Roth -- Groth, G-R-O-T-H, it does indicate that you have been accepted into their program and they will support you by housing you in one of their five homes. Their address is PO Box 7190, Los Angeles, California 90007, phone number (323) 293-111 (sic). You've also been accepted into Eden Ministries. Both transitional facilities are in the Los Angeles County and that is your county of residence at the time of the commitment offense, so this is not an out of country parole. You do have marketable skills. You have obtained vocations since you've been in prison and drafting and welding. You've worked as a teacher's aide. You've also worked as a teacher. You have obtained advanced degrees. You have held jobs in manufacturing and in quality control and you've worked in the ministry and those are all things that you can certainly transfer to the outside to obtain work and to maintain a job. Now because alcohol and drugs were part of your commitment offense and your past pattern of criminality and did certainly contribute to your unstable social history, it's critical that you continue to participate in substance abuse treatment. You have indicated today at this hearing that it is your desire and your plan to participate in Alcoholics Anonymous for the rest of your life, and you have been participating in that program for many years here in prison, so there is no indication that you would stop upon your release. You have submitted a comprehensive relapse prevention plan that we discussed at this hearing. You do have a good understanding of the 12 steps. It's obvious to this Panel that you have, in fact, been working those steps. In addition to making our decision to grant you parole, the Panel considered the following additional circumstances that certainly weigh in your favor. You are 69 years old, and that advanced age would tend to reduce your recidivism risk. But the Hearing Panel does note that responses to PC 3042 Notices do indicate opposition to a finding of parole suitability. Specifically, the District Attorney for Los Angeles County. Deputy DA Sequeira is present and he has spoken in opposition today. Also the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, they also sent a letter that was referenced at this hearing, and that was a letter of opposition for your release. Commissioner, anything further before I talk about how we calculated the date?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: Nothing, thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right. From Title 15, we selected Section 2282(b) as in Boy, that's for Murder First, committed before 11/8/1978. We selected the subsection of two for prior relationship and C for severe trauma. We selected the aggravated term for that offense because you had every opportunity to cease, but you continued on. And that's 17 years or 204 months. We did assess additional time for other crimes that you were convicted of including a second Murder First. We assessed an additional seven years for that crime. We also assessed an additional seven years for the conspiracy to commit murder for a total of 84 months. We also assessed an additional 24 months for the possession of a firearm that you were armed with at the time of one of your crimes. So from that, it totals your term to be 396 months. We assessed time credit for every year of your incarceration with the exception of the two years that you received 115s. You got four months deducted from each of those disciplinary-free years and in your case because you've been here so long and you've not been a disciplinary problem, that's quite a number. That reduces 244 months from your base term -- I mean, 152 months from your base term for a total of 244 months. And you've certainly served well above and beyond that amount of time. You will be subject to the following special conditions of parole as imposed by the Board of Parole Hearings. You must submit to random drug testing. You shall not possess or consume alcoholic beverages and you must attend the Parole Outpatient Clinic, POC, for an evaluation and treatment if treatment is deemed appropriate by the Department of Adult Parole Operations. You shall not have contact with any of your victims' families. And this decision is not final. This decision will become final after 120 days and only after review by the Decision Review Unit and the Governor's Office. You will be notified in writing if there are any changes to this decision. And on that, the time is now roughly 3:30. This hearing is concluded. Good luck to you, sir.

INMATE DAVIS: Thank you, sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALVORD: We're off the record. Thank you, everyone.

ADJOURNMENT

PAROLE GRANTED