SUBSEQUENT PAROLE CONSIDERATION HEARING

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS

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

CHARLES WATSON

CDC Number: B-37999

MULE CREEK STATE PRISON

IONE, CALIFORNIA

NOVEMBER 16, 2011

9:10 A.M.

PANEL PRESENT:

MICHAEL PRIZMICH, Presiding Commissioner

JOHN PECK, Commissioner

OTHERS PRESENT:

CHARLES WATSON, Inmate

CHERYL MONTGOMERY, Attorney for Inmate

PATRICK SEQUEIRA, Deputy District Attorney

MICHELLE DIMARIA, Victim's Next-of-Kin

MARGARET DIMARIA, Victim's Next-of-Kin

ANTHONY DIMARIA, Victim's Next-of-Kin

DEBORAH TATE, Victim's Next-of-Kin

JOHN GLICK, Victim's Next-of-Kin Support

LYNN MATTHEWS, Victim's Next-of-Kin Support

LESLIE KOWALCZYK, Victim's Advocate

NANETTE MIRANDA, Reporter, KABC, Los Angeles

RICH PEDRONCELLI, Staff Photographer, Associated Press

SCOTT ANDERSON, Journalist, Ledger Dispatch

JOHNNY BISHOP, Camera Operator

PHIL DESMANGLES, KGO Television Photographer

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER(S), Unidentified

PROCEEDINGS

COMMISSIONER PECK: We are on.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. This is a Subsequent Number 15 Parole Consideration Hearing for Charles Watson, CDC Number boy, 37999. Today's date is 11/16/2011, and the time is 9:10. We're located at Mule Creek State Prison. The inmate was received on 11/17/71 from Los Angeles County. The life term began on 11/17/71. Minimum eligible parole date is 4/26/76. The controlling offense for which the inmate has been committed is set forth in Case Number A as in Adam, 253156. Charging-in count one through seven, violation of Penal Code section 198, Murder in the First Degree. There's counts of Conspiracy. That's Penal Code section 182 as well. The inmate was originally termed with a death penalty, but on 3/20/73 the sentence of death was reduced to life in prison. We have the following victims in this matter: Abigail Folger, F-O-L-G-E-R, Wojciech Frykowski, F-R-Y-K-O-W-S-K-I, Steven Parent, P-A-R-E-N-T, Sharon Polanski, P-O-L-A-N-S-K-I, Thomas Sebring, S-E-B-R-I-N-G, Leno LaBianca, L-A-B-I-A-N-C-A, and Rosemary LaBianca, L-A-B-I-A-N-C-A. Mr. Watson, this hearing is being tape-recorded, and the first thing we'll do is go around the room and introduce ourselves. Now, the way that will work is I'll start with myself. I'll say my first and last name, sir, then I'll spell my last name. When I'm done, I'll move to my left, Mr. Peck will introduce himself. We'll continue to the gentleman at the far end of the table. He is the representative from the District Attorney's Office out of Los Angeles. He'll introduce himself. We'll then move to your attorney, who will introduce herself. Then we'll go to you, sir. If you would introduce yourself by stating your first and last name, give us a spelling on your last name, and also give us your CDC Number, we would appreciate that. Next in line, we're going to start it behind me. There's a row of individuals. Some are media. Some are victims' next-of-kin. They will each introduce themselves by stepping either to my mic or the mic over there, saying their first and last name. And if they are victims' next-of-kin, they will be identifying which victim they are representing. Just moving right on around the room. We also have two correctional officers in the room, but they're here for security purposes. Prior to introductions, I do want to make a statement. I'll reinforce it through the hearing. Since we have an inmate here and victims' next-of-kin, I'm going to ask that all members of the group here assembled maintain eye contact with the Panel or some level of independent or neutral eye contact. Therefore, I don't wish any forms of stare-downs, issues of that nature to be ongoing, and I'll reinforce that and remind everybody of that as we go along. So with that, let me get started. My name is Mike Prizmich, P-R-I-Z-M-I-C-H, and I'm Presiding Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER PECK: John Peck, P-E-C-K, Commissioner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Mr. Sequeira.

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

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Cheryl Montgomery, M-O-N-T-G-O-M-E-R-Y, attorney for Mr. Watson.

INMATE WATSON: I'm Charles Watson, W-A-T-S-O-N, B-37999.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Thank you. Ma'am, if you could step up to the mic.

MS. MIRANDA: Nanette Miranda, M-I-R-A-N-D-A, reporter, KABC TV, Los Angeles.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Sir.

MR. PEDRONCELLI: Rich Pedroncelli, P-E-D-R-O-N- C-E-L-L-I, staff photographer for the Associated Press.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Thank you. Sir.

MR. ANDERSON: Scott Anderson, A-N-D-E-R-S-O-N, journalist, Ledger Dispatch.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Thank you. Ma'am.

MS. KOWALCZYK: Leslie Kowalczyk, K-O-W-A-L-C-Z- Y-K, victim's advocate for Mule Creek.

MS. MICHELLE DIMARIA: Michelle DiMaria, D-I, capital M-A-R-I-A, niece of Jay Sebring.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Thank you. Ma'am.

MS. MARGARET DIMARIA: Margaret DiMaria, D-I-M-A-R-I-A, sister of Thomas J. Sebring.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Sir.

MR. DIMARIA: I'm Anthony DiMaria, D-I-M-A-R-I-A, nephew of Jay Sebring.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Thank you. Ma'am.

MS. TATE: Deborah Tate, T-A-T-E, next-of-kin to Sharon Tate-Polanski.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Thank you. Sir.

MR. BISHOP: Johnny Bishop, B-I-S-H-O-P, camera operator for a documentary.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Sir.

MR. DESMANGLES: Phil Desmangles, KGO Television photographer.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: The last name again, sir.

MR. DESMANGLES: It's D-E-S-M-A-N-G-L-E-S, Desmangles.

MR. GLICK: John Glick, G-L-I-C-K, friend of family and here for support of Deborah Tate.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Thank you. Ma'am.

MS. MATTHEWS: Lynn Matthews, representing the Steven Parent Family, friend of Janet Parent.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Thank you.

MS. MATTHEWS: M-A-T-T-H-E-W-S.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Thank you, ma'am. Did we get everybody?

COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. If I didn't say, we also have two correctional officers in the room, but they are here for security purposes only. The next thing I want to do, Mr. Watson, is make sure if there's any disability or challenge that you have that would fall under Americans With Disability Act, that we've identified that disability and if need be, made an accommodation for that. The easy way for me to do that is simply look in a form. It's identified by the numbers 1073. You signed it on 5/5/2011. It does list the following as an issue: That you need glasses, and I see you're wearing them, sir. Are they for seeing distance or close vision or both, or what?

INMATE WATSON: Both.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: And do they adequately magnify for you?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. So let me ask you some more questions to make sure if there is any other disability we now identify that and if need be make an accommodation. Do you have any hearing difficulty at all, sir?

INMATE WATSON: No, I don't.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Have you ever been included in Triple-CMS or EOP mental health programs?

INMATE WATSON: No, I have not.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Have you ever taken any psychotropic medication either in prison or on the street?

INMATE WATSON: No, I have not.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: And how far did you get in school prior to coming to prison, sir?

INMATE WATSON: A junior in college.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. And when you were in school, did you take any remedial or special education classes?

INMATE WATSON: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Were you behind in any way?

INMATE WATSON: No, I did not. I was not.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. Do you have any back, leg or neck problems? Any difficulty getting around at all?

INMATE WATSON: No, I don't.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. Is there any disability, any injury, any illness, any condition at all that we have not talked about so far that would affect your ability to participate in this hearing that you wish to tell us about?

INMATE WATSON: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. Ms. Montgomery, does it appear as though your client's ADA rights have been met?

INMATE WATSON: Yes. Thank you, Commissioner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER PECK: Just one quick thing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Go ahead.

COMMISSIONER PECK: Based on our training yesterday. Are your glasses a personal device, or are they provided by the State of California?

INMATE WATSON: No, they're personal.

COMMISSIONER PECK: Very good. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: The next thing I want to do, Mr. Watson, is make sure you understand what rights you have to this hearing, and there's another form that covers that. It's identified by the numbers 1002, and you signed this form on 5/5/2011. It's a couple pages long. It is a listing of your rights and a brief explanation of what those rights are. In signing this form, you acknowledge that you've read it and that you understood what was in the form, but I want to make sure. Do you have any question about what your rights are, sir?

INMATE WATSON: No, I don't.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. So let me describe what we'll do here today. The hearing will be conducted in two phases. The first half will be the Commissioner and myself will read into the record various items and then talk to you about what we've read into the record. For example, I'll read into the record the statement of the crime and then we'll be going over that. We'll be going over your prior criminal history, we'll review your social history, which is essentially your upbringing and everything you've done prior to coming to prison on this case. We'll be reviewing and going over your institutional behavior, covering your letters of support or opposition. We'll also be going over your counselor's report and your psychological evaluation. During each step along that process, we'll be talking to you to find out how you're doing today. That's the first half of the hearing. The second half of the hearing we'll incorporate the District Attorney, your attorney, you and the victims. We'll first start with the DA. He'll be given an opportunity to ask questions of you. That way that process works is he'll pose the questions to me, then I'll ask you and you'll respond back to me. So to some degree I'll be filtering his questions. Once he's done, we'll turn to your attorney. She'll be given an opportunity to ask questions of you. In Ms. Montgomery's case, she will not go through me. She'll simply ask you questions directly. Once that's done, we'll return our attention to the DA. He'll make a closing statement. Your attorney on your behalf will make a closing statement, then we'll go to you and you'll be given an opportunity to make a closing statement. Now, when you make your closing statement, it should not be a review of everything we've discussed in the hearing, because we've already gone over that. It should be focused on why you feel you're suitable for parole. Once you're done and prior to us going into deliberations, we're going to allow one or more of the individuals here today that are related to the victims in this case an opportunity to make their victim's impact statement. We'll listen to that and then we will recess for deliberation and determine suitability. Do you understand the process so far?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. So let me clarify a couple things about what I just said. I said I'm going to read into the record the statement of the crime and go over it with you. I want you to understand that the mere fact that we read this information into the record, that is the crime, is not an effort on the part of Mr. Peck and myself to retry the case. It's already been done by the courts. We're going to accept what the courts found as true and accurate. The reason we go over the crime is that it represents one of the components that we use to help us reach a decision regarding suitability. So when we explore the crime we're looking into your insight, looking into your honesty, your understanding of the magnitude of this crime, your remorse. Those are the kinds of things we're exploring. We're not trying to retry the case. That's already been done. And secondly on the same matter, you're not required to answer our questions regarding the crime, nor are you required to even admit to the crime. If you choose to do that, we'll still try to determine that part of your suitability without asking questions. Do you understand that, sir?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. You have three rights. Those rights include the right to a timely notice of this hearing, the right to present relevant documents, and the right to be heard by an impartial Panel. Let me start with the third one. Today your Panel consists of myself, Mike Prizmich, and Mr. Peck. We're the two who will make the decision today regarding your suitability for parole. What I'm going to do is ask you first, then I'll ask Ms. Montgomery, do you have any objection to this Panel, sir?

INMATE WATSON: No, I do not.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Ms. Montgomery, any objection to the Panel?

INMATE WATSON: At this time, no.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. Are there additional documents? We received some. I'll go over those in a minute. But I want to make sure if there's any additional documents to be submitted that we get them now.

INMATE WATSON: Just, she provided packets.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. I'll go over it in a minute. Anything besides this?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I provided you with a list of all the support letters for this hearing. I have all of those in the same order of the cover sheet that I have provided you. I have also submitted the parole packet that includes all of the chronos that you will be considering today. We are going back to '06 in this particular hearing. In addition to that, in that packet that I provided you there is a relapse prevention plan that lists the support team and a relapse prevention plan that speaks to triggers and responses. I'd like to hand those two over to you separately and incorporate those by reference too. It's easier that you review those than hunt for them in the packet. There were also a couple of book reports, and those are also a part of the packet but I have them here separately, so this might make it a little easier for you to review those. I've got a lot here. Let me double-check, Commissioner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: While you're double-checking, I'm just going to take a moment and provide Mr. Sequeira -- unless he already has this. I don't recall if you've --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: No, I haven't received any of it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: -- received this or not, a copy of this document so that you can go over it as we go through the hearing.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Do you have it?

COMMISSIONER PECK: Actually, I'm going to need those documents.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Oh, hold on. Maybe we have another.

INMATE WATSON: I don't think I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right.

INMATE WATSON: I don't.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I think we only have the two. I'm happy to --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: I just want to make sure he has an opportunity to have looked at it.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: May I pass it over to him so he can see the general contents of it?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Yeah, sure. Sure.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: But I may need to refer to it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Is that all right with you, Mr. Sequeira?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Do you want to take a minute to go over that?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Sure, or you can just go ahead and continue on.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Go ahead? All right. Any other documents?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: At the front of that packet is a two-page listing of all the self-help and programming that my client has been involved with since he came into the institution. I believe there are 53 entries. I would ask the Board to incorporate that by reference. I will probably be referring to that today in my closing. Commissioner, you made reference to the rights that my client has. In addition, I would add that he has a right to ask questions and a right to submit relevant documents, which I know you acknowledge. I just wanted to get those on the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. You can augment the file as we go along if there's something we don't have, because Commissioner Peck is going to be going over some of the information in the Central File, and I will be doing it as well. So if there's something we missed, you certainly can augment the file. Are there any preliminary objections, Ms. Montgomery?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Go ahead.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Thank you. There's one thing. It's not an objection, but I would like to bring it to the Board's attention. At the '06 hearing my client received a five-year denial, and that automatically prompts a review after three years. And there's one in the file dated '09, and they decided not to put him on an earlier calendar based upon the fact that he hadn't upgraded his trade, which, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think that he is even capable of doing that if you look at those trades. But the thing that bothers me more than anything is that document is not signed. And I contacted the department here at Mule Creek to ask if they had a document with a signature on it, and they did not.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. Is that in the form of an objection, or just pointing it out to us? I'm not sure what to do with it.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Well, I'm pointing it out. It's after the fact now.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: But it's certainly sloppy.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: And I really don't know if he got a fair review.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I do have an objection, though. I would object to this hearing being conducted pursuant to Marsy's Law.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: As the portion that decreases the frequency of parole hearings consequently violates the ex post facto clause of both the State and Federal Constitutions. That is, in fact, that this Panel did find my client unsuitable for parole.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. Let me rule on -- just the one? All right. Let me rule on that. Your attorney, Mr. Watson, has objected to the use of Marsy's Law, which is also known as Proposition 9. Among other things is it has enhanced denial periods, as I said, among other things. We're going to overrule her objection. The reason we are is we believe that Marsy's Law or Proposition 9 is the current state of the law, and we're going to follow the law. With her raising that objection on your behalf, she's at least preserved for you any rights you may have should the law be changed or modified in any way. But we are overruling it. Any others, ma'am? Just the one?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Thank you, Commissioner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Let me ask you, will the inmate be speaking with the Panel today?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: On the advice of counsel, my client will not be speaking to his priors, to the crime, to his programming, nor to his parole plans. That's one of the reasons why we have submitted a thorough packet. And I think it's abundantly clear, the issue of the crime, the priors, his social history and his programming have all been discussed at length in various hearings in the psychological evaluations and in the board report. In terms of the issue of remorse, my client has accepted complete responsibility, owned up to this and demonstrated remorse and insight into this case. All of those issues are contained in the file. He will though be making a closing statement.

COMMISSIONER PECK: So let me make sure I got this -- so he's not going to be talking to us, basically.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: No, but he will be making a closing statement.

COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. So no -- he's not going to talk about parole plans?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. All right. We're not going to ask you any questions, but there may, as we often find in these hearings, be a point where there's dialogue going on.

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: And I want to make sure you understand that if you do speak with us that it's important, it's one of the components that we use to help us reach a decision regarding suitability, is one's honesty. So I'm advising you, it's very important for you to be honest with us. And if there is a point during the hearing that you wish to make something, some commentary on something we've said, I'm going to swear you in now so that you're sworn in prior to the hearing. So if you could raise your right hand, I'll give you the oath. Your right hand, please. Sir, do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give at today's hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER PECK: There is a confidential file, but we won't be using any of it today.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Yeah, I just want to get to the -- okay.

COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: None used?

COMMISSIONER PECK: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: None used. Yeah.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: What happened to my form -- there it is. Okay. I have a Form 1008. Mr. Watson, this is simply a checkbox form. It's got some boxes in one column. Some of them are checked indicating I have them in my documents here. And I'm making sure by sharing with Mr. Sequeira and Ms. Montgomery that we all have the same set of documents. If we do, I will mark that in as Exhibit Number 1.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I have received the documents.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Thank you. And Ms. Montgomery.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I have all these documents. I will note confidential folder is noted. I've not been provided with that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: No.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: And on that same note, I did receive a letter in opposition, and it was unsigned. That was the only letter in addition to the one from the Police Department that I received in opposition. I would ask the Board to discard and not consider the one that is unsigned, because it is unreliable.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. We'll reserve judgment on that. I do want to comment on number seven. It's crime partner's parole decision. That is not made available, to reaffirm what Ms. Montgomery did say, it is not made available to either Ms. Montgomery, the inmate or the DA's Office. It is available to us. It does not appear as though we'll be using any of that information today. If we do, we will certainly make notification. All right. So let me start off by reading into the record the statement of the crime. And what I'm going to do -- we do have an appellate decision. I'm not going to read from that. I'm going to incorporate that by reference.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: My packet was missing page 4 on that appellate decision.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: On that appellate?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I don't know if you ultimately received it.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I'm missing page 4 as well.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Everybody is missing page 4. Let's see. I have a page 4. So here's what we're going to do. Yeah. We need to have one of these fine gentlemen make a copy of page -- two copies of page 4.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I have it. I have mine.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. Mr. Sequeira?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I don't have a copy of page 4.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: You don't have it. Make one copy of page 4. I'll give you my copy, and give it back to us. We'll proceed with reading into the record if that's all right with you, Mr. Sequeira.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: That would be fine.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Commissioner, that is the letter that I objected to. There's no name, not even a typed name.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. All right. So we'll take a look at that, and I don't think I've seen that one.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I don't know that I've even -- this handwritten? I don't know that I've even --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Yeah.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I don't think I've even seen it either.

COMMISSIONER PECK: I have not seen that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. We'll rule on that a bit later. So let me read into the record the statement of facts. I'm going to read first from the page 1 and 2 of the counselor's report dated -- or for the November 2011 calendar, and then on page 3 there is a -- let me check that -- page 1 and 2 has the review of all the crimes. So let me get started under summary of the crime. The source documents for this summary are taken out of the probation officer's report and Second Appellate District. Second paragraph: "Counts one through five refer to murders which occurred on August 9th, 1969 at the Polanski residence in Los Angeles. Specifically, as to count one, victim Abigail Anne Folger, F-O-L-G-E-R, died from multiple stab wounds to the body. The victim in count two, Frykowski, F-R-Y-K-O-W-S-K-I, died from a gunshot wound to the left back and multiple blunt-force traumas to the head. He also suffered stab wounds. The victim in count three, Steven Parent, P-A-R-E-N-T, died from multiple gunshot wounds. The victim in count four, Sharon Polanski, P-O-L-A-N-S-K-I, died from multiple stab wounds to the body. The victim in count five, Jay Sebring, S-E-B-R-I- N-G, died from multiple stab wounds. Counts six through seven refer to the murders which occurred on August 10th, 1969 at the LaBianca residence in Los Angeles. The victim in count six, Leno LaBianca, L-A-B-I-A-N-C-A, died from multiple stab wounds to the neck and abdomen. The victim in count seven, Rosemary LaBianca, L-A-B-I-A-N-C-A, died from multiple stab wounds to the neck and trunk. Counts eight, conspiracy to commit murder, refers to Watson and his codefendants conspiring to kill the victims in the first seven counts." Next paragraph: "The Tate murders, counts one through five, occurred when Watson and a number of female followers of Charles Manson, M-A-N-S-O-N, were sent by Manson to murder occupants of the house in which they were found. The word 'pig' was written on the front door. Watson climbed a pole and cut the telephone wires. Steven Parent's body was found in the seat of his car." Thank you. "He had been visiting a friend at the estate where the murders occurred." Continuing on the next page: "Linda Kasabian, K-A-S-A-B-I-A-N, one of the codefendants in the case, was granted immunity and testified for The People. According to Kasabian's testimony, Steven Parent was in his car leaving the property when Watson shot him in the head four times. The coroner testifies that five gunshot wounds were inflicted on Parent. Two of them were fatal. Sharon Polanski's body was found in the living room with a rope around her head. She received 16 stab wounds. Abigail Folger's body was found on the lawn. She received 28 stab wounds. Jay Sebring's body was found in the living room with a rope around his neck. His head was covered with a pillow case or cloth. He received seven stab wounds and one gunshot wound. Wojciech Frykowski, F-R-Y-K-O-W-S-K-I's body was found on the front lawn. He received 51 stab wounds and two gunshot wounds. Watson and the females who accompanied him and participated in the killings were covered with blood when the slaughter was done. After the killings, Watson and the others drove away, stopping to use a hose to wash the blood off their bodies. They also changed their clothes, and Watson told Kasabian to wipe the fingerprints from the two knives and to throw them away. The LaBianca murders, count six and seven, occurred because Manson said the Tate killings had been too messy. Manson as well as Watson and others of their followers including Kasabian drove around the Los Angeles area somewhat aimlessly, eventually ending up at the LaBianca residence. The bodies of the LaBiancas were found in their home. There was a white pillow on Leno LaBianca's head. His wrists were tied behind his back. The letters of the word 'war' had been carved into the flesh of his stomach. A long cord was wrapped around his neck and a carving knife was in his abdomen. He received a total of 26 puncture wounds. The words 'Death to Pigs' were written in blood on the walls. Rosemary LaBianca's body bore 41 puncture wounds and three scratches. A 'pillow slip' enveloped her head and a portion of her body. The word 'rise' was written in blood on the front door of the house, and the words 'Helter Skelter' on the refrigerator door." The inmate's version as contained in this counselor's report is as follows: "Watson claims that the summary written above is correct. In reading the previous board reports, he mentioned that he did not remember a rope around the necks of Sharon Polanski and Jay Sebring. Watson now claims that when he re-read his book, he does remember the rope being used on Polanski and Sebring. He still does not remember a pillow case or cloth over Sebring's head. In discussing the matter, Watson made it very clear that he doesn't challenge the above facts. He is not minimizing his participation in the crime and accepts full responsibility for his actions." Let me go on to -- You wish to make no statements on that, sir?

INMATE WATSON: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: So let me go on to personal -- or your prior criminal history. You have no juvenile record. And I'm not going to ask you any questions about this, because it's my understanding you just do not wish to answer any questions about your crime history.

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. As an adult, you have the following: 9/11/66, you were arrested for burglary in Texas. We don't have a disposition on that.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I don't think there was a disposition. I think they --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Dropped it?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I think essentially the probation officer's report addresses that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Give us a page number, if you will.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: No disposition shown on the page 4 of the probation officer's report.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: It dealt with the typewriters in the fraternity.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. Okay. 4/23/69, you were arrested for 647(f), and that's under the influence of drugs. It was a misdemeanor, and there's no disposition noted on that. Personal factors, you're the youngest of three children. You were born on 12/2/45 in Dallas, Texas. Raised in Copeville, Texas.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Correct.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: And your dad apparently owned a service station, grocery store operation there. Mom at the time was a housewife. Ms. Montgomery, if I have questions can I pose them to you?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: You may.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. Is his mom and dad still living?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: No, they are not.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: And when did -- Do you have any idea when they passed about?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I believe the father passed in 2000 --

INMATE WATSON: 2002. My father in '93.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Father in '93.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right.

INMATE WATSON: And my mother in 2002.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: 2002, his mother.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. Where were they when they passed? Were they in Texas?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Had he had contact with them before their demise?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Ongoing contact.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: And that was in what form, written contact?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Written, and there were visits. I think there's even reference in the some of the files, some of the chronos that make reference to meeting the family when they came to visit.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: One of the chaplains, I believe, made reference to that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: That's right. It was. It was in one of the early psych reports, and one of the --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Yeah.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: -- clinicians met them.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. You were the youngest of three children. Are your siblings still living? And Ms. Montgomery, if you could answer.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Yes, they are. He has a --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Where do they live?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Both of them are in Texas. Both are married. Both have successful lives, and they remain supportive of my client as well.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: And he's had an ongoing good relationship with his siblings.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. Let me just try to determine -- does Mr. Watson have any idea how many nieces and nephews he has?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Don't know.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Can you ask him?

INMATE WATSON: Three.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Three nieces and nephews.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. From one family or both families?

INMATE WATSON: From one family.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: One family.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Just one family. Okay. It says here your overall grade point average as you were going through school was about a C. Does that sound right, average?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: It does. I believe that he received some F's, but balanced out I think he had a C average. That was prior to the commitment offense.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Is there something --

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. Apparently about your junior year -- you went to Texas State University. You majored in marketing. In your junior year you moved to Los Angeles. There's a commentary here that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but -- because I don't understand the context. Your comment to the counselor is that you were, "In fear of failing my parents' expectations." So was there some issues with him as he was going through college that he wasn't meeting expectations of his parents?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I think that both of his siblings had been quite successful academically, and he believed that he needed to live up to his parents' expectation in that regard as well.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: So in answering my question, was there an issue between him and his parents as he was going through college?

INMATE WATSON: No.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I don't believe so. No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: So the answer is no. So when he moved to the Los Angeles area, did he do that on his own?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: He did it on his own. He enrolled in college. The name of the -- Was it Cal State LA?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Cal State.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: And was only there a few months and he did drop out. And I believe after that he got involved with a wig shop and worked there for a while, and that did not pan out as expected.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. At one point you were a cargo handler for Braniff Airlines?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: In Texas?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: That would have been in Texas.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Prior to coming to California, or after going back, or what was the --

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Prior to.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Prior? All right.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I believe he also worked in his father's store as well.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: It says -- okay. It says here that you considered yourself as a moderate drinker. Can you find out from your client what moderate means?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Well, I think it is consistent with what other college students do. He grew up in a very small town that was not a regular form of entertainment, but in college I believe he became introduced to that and did drink in college.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, okay. I'm having a little difficulty with this format where the defense attorney is essentially speaking on behalf of the client.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Well, he chooses not to answer, and this is the format we're going to follow.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: No, I understand. I just --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: I understand.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: It's very strange to me that the inmate can't answer some simple questions that really don't even pertain to the crime.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: That is his right.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: You know, Commissioner, could we possibly incorporate by reference the -- not the last hearing, but the hearing before where those areas were covered in more detail?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: We can certainly look at that. Each Panel does a de novo hearing --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: It was just so long ago.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: -- as a separate hearing. And each Panel -- I know this Panel member and I believe Mr. Peck as well -- likes to have some sense directly on the day of the hearing of input from the inmate or in this case from you after having spoken to him.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Okay.

COMMISSIONER PECK: So what year was that that you're -- what year of hearing were you talking about?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: 2006, wasn't it?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: No.

COMMISSIONER PECK: No, he didn't come to the 2000 --

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: No. '1?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: '1.

COMMISSIONER PECK: I think that would be --

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Okay.

COMMISSIONER PECK: -- far too long ago.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Yeah.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: You know, frankly, I think we're kind of almost close to an end to the social factors.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: We are, so let --

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: So I'm okay with that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Yeah. Let me just proceed. So he got into smoking marijuana apparently. His identified frequency is "pretty heavy."

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I believe there is a lot of reference to taking drugs. I don't believe that he took cocaine and he has indicated he did not take heroin.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. He's got hashish, LSD and other narcotics. Can you ask your client if he was doing that on a daily basis towards -- prior to the crime itself?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I think I'll let the record speak to that.

COMMISSIONER PECK: I think it's addressed in the psychological evaluation.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. So let me -- Okay. All right. So what we're going to do right now is I'm going to turn your attention to Mr. Peck. He's going to go over your post-conviction factors. Then we'll return to me, sir.

COMMISSIONER PECK: So what I'll do is, is as you don't want to answer any questions, I'll just read on the record what I have. So I have you as a Medium-A custody inmate. I have you on an SNY yard, level three yard. Your classification score is zero, but you have a mandatory minimum of 28 due to California Code of Regulations 3375.2(a)(7), which indicates based on your crime that you have to have a minimum of 28 points, which is a level three. You've had -- your last hearing recommendations was to get self-help, stay disciplinary-free, get therapy. Your last disciplinary hearing was in 1973, a very, very long time ago. Your 128s are very long ago. I didn't even see hardly anything -- nothing worth mentioning. Let's just put it that way. Your education is you're a high school graduate. You also earned your Bachelor of Science in business management on 8/28/09 from California Coast University. You've also attended Cal Poly, Chapman University, Questa. There's some indication that you were involved in this until your Pell Grants were discontinued. You have two vocations that I saw, voc office machine repair, voc data processing. Those were old but you still have those. Your work report that I saw for HazMat porter was exceptional. That was in 2009. I think your current assignment -- what is your current assignment?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: HazMat custodian.

COMMISSIONER PECK: You're still doing the HazMat porter stuff? Your self-help programming is -- you have a lot of laudatory chronos here. You did have one 7/19/2011 for Sixth Annual Run for Rehabilitation, a non-incentive fundraiser, which the event raised 2,618 dollars, and they went to the Headstart Program in the cities of Jackson and Ione. You were a volunteer at the Victims Awareness Offender Program Sixth Annual Run for Rehabilitation. Same situation. You completed the Victim Awareness Offender Program Phase III, and that's 7/5/2011. You've attended 13 out of 13 weekly meetings of the Christian 12-Step Program from April 2011 to June 30th, 2011. You've actually been involved in that for a very long time. You've got a laudatory chrono and you were commended by Pastor Scott Barham for your service to the Protestant community. That's dated February 15th, 2011. It says you taught weekly Bible study, oversaw a weekly Christian book review, which utilizes books donated by various Christian ministries. And from 2005 to 2007, you oversaw Mending the Body Program. You devoted yourself in January 2008 to completing your Bachelor Degree in science -- I mean, in business. We already talked about that. It looks like you've spent a lot of time in Victim Awareness.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I believe I, II and III.

COMMISSIONER PECK: Yes. You've been involved in Celebrate Recovery. Correspondence course, Introduction to Financial Management, Principles of Management. Okay. I want to make sure I've got the C-File stuff before I go into this. I'm not going to go into the historical stuff as far as your recovery group and therapy programs. You can bring them up if you want to.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER PECK: It just seems very old. You know, it seems like more we should focus in from 2006. We have Dynamics of Worship in 2006, (inaudible) Pleases God in 2006. God is the Gospel in 2006, Experiencing God's Love in 2007. God's Purpose for Your Life in 2007. Spiritual Soul Analysis in 2007. Victims Awareness, which I talked about before, all three phases, and Life's Healing Choices. I have --

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I want to interject just one thing. If you go up a little further on that, it makes reference to his ongoing involvement in the 12-Step Program from December of '04 to present.

COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah. He has a long history of being involved in the 12-Step Program.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Is that the Christians 12-Step?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Yes.

COMMISSIONER PECK: Yes.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Yeah.

COMMISSIONER PECK: Christian 12-Step Program. He's served as an inmate leadership role as far as the Protestant ministry. He's done a book report on Serenity. I'll incorporate it by reference. I will talk a little bit about it though. It seems that he talks about the book asked to write a list, addictive agents, and he lists what his were. He says his recovery began immediately after entering prison in the early 70's. The book gives a history of the 12 steps. Talks about how resentment and feelings of ill will towards other caused him to resign -- this is the author and hospice board member. He said it was easy for him to identify with the late Dr. Buckman's experience. He's done a book report on Overcoming Emotions That Destroy. He's learned -- concerning his pent-up anger which built up during his early years. He also said the root of that was anger, that anger was fear. And the book shares how he's dealt with his anger, how to deal with his anger over the years. And then I have all the chronos that he's been involved in as far as the Christian 12-Step Program and the different components involved in it.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I believe there are a total of 19 in there.

COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay. There's a lot. I'll believe you. I'd like to ask you what you learned from all that, Mr. Watson.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I do believe that is covered in the psychological evaluation.

COMMISSIONER PECK: And then -- thank you. And then I also note that you have a FEMA certificate.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Yes. That actually compliments his position as a HazMat custodian.

COMMISSIONER PECK: I was going to ask why was the -- why was the FEMA important, and that does make sense.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: And I think he's working on another one too. I was surprised actually to see that, because I hadn't seen those for a couple of years.

COMMISSIONER PECK: Very good. All right. It looks like he's done quite a bit of stuff while he's been there. Is there something that I did not bring up as far as his self-help programs that you would like to bring up?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Well, I would just point out, you referred to, I think it was September of 2010 work supervisor report. I saw one as late as November where he received exceptional ratings in all areas, and the author, his supervisor, wrote in there, "Excellent work ethic. Shows enthusiasm, works during his off hours without complaining. Goes above and beyond the call of duty." That was signed by C.L. Lewis.

COMMISSIONER PECK: I saw that. Outstanding. It looks like you're a very good worker. Shall we go to the psychological evaluation if there's nothing more?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: That's fine. I have them somewhere here.

COMMISSIONER PECK: You had a psychological evaluation with Dr. Caoile on, it looks like it happened on 6/1/2011. I'm not going to read the whole document, but I will cover a lot of it, and what I don't cover, Ms. Montgomery, certainly I'd like you to fill in the gaps. Okay?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Okay.

COMMISSIONER PECK: I think Commissioner Prizmich covered the childhood and adolescence pretty well. I don't think we need to go through that. I think we've covered your education pretty well. I don't think we really need to go through that. As far as the -- on page 4 where I'm at is, as far as the adult peer relationships/gang affiliations, it says, "Mr. Watson's association and involvement with Charles Manson and the Manson Family was relatively short in duration prior to the commitment offense. Mr. Watson explained that he left college in Texas and settled in Southern California. After discontinuing his college courses he eventually opened a wig shop. He was also renting a beach house in Malibu with a friend. One day he picked up a hitchhiker who was a drummer for a well-known musical group. He brought Mr. Watson back to his home in Malibu, where he met Charles Manson and some of the women who were associated with Manson. Mr. Watson reported that this was the first time he smoked hash. Over time, Mr. Watson began house sitting for the drummer, and ultimately lived there when he lost his own rental home. He became acquainted with Charles Manson and was using drugs. When the drummer lost his house, Mr. Watson and his friend were permitted to live on the outskirts of the property, where Charles Manson and his female associates resided. Mr. Watson described life at Spahn Ranch as sort of a commune. He was eventually able to earn his way into the family by working on cars/vehicles. He began associating with Charles Manson and the women. They did not engage in criminal activity, but were using various types of drugs. He remained with them for approximately three months and then left to help his friend who had gone to court on a drug arrest. Mr. Watson then returned to Los Angeles and ended up living with the Manson Family on the ranch. Previous records, e.g., the 1977 psychiatric counseling report, indicated that Mr. Watson was living in a tent and Charles Manson began giving him LSD, and he recalled hallucinating. Mr. Watson reported that when he was alone he would contemplate what was going on in his life and wonder if he was losing his mind. Thus, he decided to leave the ranch and the Family in December of 1968. It was during that time Mr. Watson lived with a girlfriend in Hollywood, and she supported him by selling drugs. Three months later he returned to the ranch because 'something' was drawing him back. Mr. Watson explained that he felt, 'Charles Manson was in his head' by that point, and that he could read their minds and 'see things in them.' Mr. Watson described an environment that consisted of drug use, poor eating and sleeping habits. He recalled that Manson would sing songs with words that seemed to mirror their individual life experiences. Mr. Watson stated these conditions along with drug use caused him to become quite gullible. Overall, Mr. Watson denied a history of adrenaline seeking or exciting behavior. He did not view his initial involvement with Charles Manson and the Manson Family as a high-risk activity. Rather, he recalled that he was simply happy to have a place to stay. He denied any gang affiliation prior to or during incarceration. No evidence of such in records. Although his case received tremendous media attention, he reported a relatively smooth adjustment to prison. Actually felt somewhat protected by the institution in which he was placed. Currently, he reports that he has maintained regular contact with approximately 60 to 70 friends and acquaintances in the community, and he primarily associates today with other Christian brothers, but also tries to reach out to inmates in other circles. He spends much of his free time walking, reading, talking to other inmates about the 12 steps and his Christian faith, and also writes and exchanges letters. He reports that he no longer runs the Abounding Love Ministries, and now runs a website that he started in 1998." I'm not going to go through employment or income history. I'm not going to go through parole plans. We'll go through that at a later time. As far as the clinical assessment, some of this stuff is very old. I'm probably not going to cover that. But as far as page 8, as far as insight and self-assessment, at the very bottom of the page it says: "Mr. Watson presented as rather self-introspective individual who has been motivated for self-betterment and personal insight. It should be noted that a discussion regarding Mr. Watson's insight and self-assessment was primarily couched in terms of his spiritual development and growth. When asked for his insight into the general direction that his life took prior to the commitment offenses, Mr. Watson stated that it was not one thing or issue that caused him to take a negative path, but, 'A lot of factors that came together to create a storm.' He reiterated, 'My fears, my failures, running from those failures, meeting up with Manson, the drugs and the codependency that came together at the time.' Mr. Watson explained that it was not necessarily what he had in his life that was important, but what he was lacking in his life at the time that made a difference in terms that the course of his life -- that made a difference in terms of the course of his life. He elaborated if he'd known true love and acceptance and didn't need to please anyone but God or be perfect, if that he had been empowered by God he would have never been involved. He asserted that prison has helped him grow spiritually, mentally and intellectually. He's been humbled by prison. He's no longer the prideful, rebellious, greedy, lustful person he was prior to incarceration, grown to respect and love others, articulate the ways in which he has changed over the course of his dark incarceration, including his humility to God and others and his ability to develop close, meaningful relationships/friendships with other inmates and people in the community. He's indicated that he's come to understand some of his past behaviors as codependent, thus asserted that he has been able to change in this regard by developing a dependency on God. He's learned the value of life and family, relationships, accountability and personal responsibility. He also identified a number of personal strengths, such as ability to set and hold interpersonal boundaries, maintain a strong work ethic and keep his word. Described himself as trustworthy, honest and courteous. Related that his primary weakness is a tendency to become defensive. He emphasized the importance of learning how to be assertive and accepting criticism. He also tries to remain aware of when he's feeling controlled. Therefore, in these ways it seems that through self-reflection and participation in treatment Mr. Watson has gained insight into the ways in which his early life experiences, personal deficiencies and lack of internal resources contributed to his choices and decisions and ultimately his current circumstances. He maintains a realistic view of himself and his history, and seems open for further growth. As far as substance abuse history, I think his use of drugs has been well documented over history, and he says it's been overstated. First had alcohol at 15, but his subsequent use of alcohol was very limited because he was raised in a dry county relatively. He reports that his heaviest period of alcohol was in college, when he typically drank several beers on the weekend. When he came to California, his use increased to a six-pack of beer on weekends. By and large, the majority of Mr. Watson's drug use occurred between the ages of 21 and 23. Reported that he basically stopped drinking alcohol when he began using drugs. He experimented with a number of substances, hallucinogens, including peyote, belladonna, mescaline, rosewood seeds and THC. Reported a consistent use of marijuana, which he smoked on a daily basis or when available for approximately one year. Used THC for approximately one month, and also smoked hashish, used LSD in '68 and '69. Typically took one tab once or twice per week. Began using (sniffing) methamphetamine approximately one month prior to the commitment offense. Stated that he was using on a daily basis. Believes he was addicted. Reported that he began using drugs for recreational reasons, but found that it medicated his emotional pain and allowed him to escape the reality of what he was doing. He acknowledged that it negatively affected nearly every aspect of his life. He indicated that he experienced psychotic symptoms while using speed. He had one arrest in '69 for under the influence, which he reported was belladonna. He's never received a substance related rule violation while he's been in prison, and he reports that he's been sober ever since the life crime in '69. As far as the role that alcohol and drugs played in the commitment offense and the inmate's ability to refrain from future use in the free community, he reported that he smoked a marijuana cigarette and used speed on the day of the crime. He added that he took speed in order to commit the crime. When asked if drugs affected his decision and behavior he replied with certainty. He reported that the drugs prevented him from thinking the situation through. He added that it had taken nearly an hour to get to the scene of the first crime, and he recalled that he and his crime partners knew what they had been asked to do, but it was as if they were fighting with their consciences during the time in the car. And he stated, 'The speed allowed me to pass my conscience to be able to do what I did.' He indicated everyone and everything seemed very delusional, as if everything was jumping around. During the commission of the crime, he recalled that he could hear the voice of Manson in his head, and he believed that drugs contributed to that. He had trouble discerning what was reality, and included, 'The speed numbed me. I became a mechanical man.' He did not seek substance abuse treatment prior to incarceration; however, he's been an active participant in substance abuse treatment throughout his incarceration. Records indicate that he completed 42 weeks of substance abuse treatment groups in the 80's and 90's and began attending AA and Christian 12-Step in '95, and has continued to attend Christian 12-Step Program, and he served as the facilitator for a period of time. He stated that through his participation in substance abuse treatment, he has learned, 'I was separated from my Higher Power, so I had no power to overcome my dependencies.' Therefore, he added that he has learned that by remaining in conscious contact with God and by being in recovery at all times, he's able to overcome his 'dependencies.' He was able to demonstrate his knowledge of the 12 steps, and identified several triggers to relapse, including being around controlling people, feeling the need to please others. He also identified several emotional triggers such as fear of failing, feeling judged, rejection and perfectionism. He indicated that he has grown out of the tendency toward people pleasing and is no longer passive. He indicates -- he articulated a relapse prevention plan that included residing in transitional living and provided substance abuse treatment, attending church for support, participating in a Christian 12-step program, utilizing the support of his family and friends. Therefore, given Mr. Watson's maintenance of sobriety for more than 40 years, his insight into substance abuse history and understanding of relapse prevention, it is years -- his insight into substance abuse history and understanding of relapse prevention, it is opined that his ability to refrain from future use in the free community is quite good at this point. As far as his impulsivity and behavior control, he acknowledged that his involvement with the Manson Family was impulsive, and he did not think things/decisions through adequately. He denied a history of poor behavior controls and a short temper. Rather, he explained that he was not an angry person with a short temper. He has come to realize that he had a lot of insecurities and resentments, that it was creating an underlying pent-up anger in him. He referred to his anger when he described the life crime. Indeed, an overview of Mr. Watson's history revealed some evidence of impulsivity or lack of forethought, beginning with his decision to drop out of college and move to California. Some of his decisions when he came to California along with his substance abuse history and involvement with the Manson Family certainly reflected a degree of impulsivity. Nonetheless, apart from this circumscribed period of time in his life, Mr. Watson has not been particularly impulsive. To his credit, Mr. Watson has shown excellent impulse and behavior controls during his incarceration." Talks about your 115 in '73. As far as the diagnostic impressions, it says that as far as Axis I goes, there's a polysubstance dependence with a physiological dependence in a controlled environment. There's no diagnosis on Axis II. Axis III is medical (inaudible). As far as juvenile and adult record, it talks about an arrest in '66 for burglary, and Mr. Watson reported the incident involved a scavenger hunt as part of a paternity pledge, which they stole typewriters out of a high school, and after the arrest they returned the typewriters and no further criminal action was taken. And he was arrested in '69 for under the influence of drugs. I think the Commissioner read pretty much the life crime on the record, but I'll quickly go through. Remorse and insight into the life crime, it says, on the bottom on page 14, it says: "Mr. Watson accepts full responsibility for the commitment offense, believes his sentence was fair. Stated he has grown over the years. His acceptance of full responsibility for the murders has also grown. He concluded, 'It was me.' Mr. Watson was quite tearful in describing his feelings of remorse. He explained that his experience of remorse has been progressive because he initially did not know anything about his victims. He stated, 'The more I learned about the victims and what I took, how beautiful they were, the more I learned about them, who they were, the dreams and the families and lives they had, the deeper the remorse has come to where it's at its peak at this time.' Mr. Watson added that his remorse intensified with the realization of what he has been able to have in his life, e.g., a family, and what his victims were not able to have. He elaborated, 'I've learned of their great loss and everything they had to live for, and I took it. It was me and me alone and my fears that propelled this thing. The more I get to know them, the deeper the remorse.' He was quite tearful in describing Sharon Tate's burial with her unborn baby, as well as the impact of his crimes on the victims and their family. He explained that over time he has come to know each victim and the devastation that has been caused to the families. He reported that while he has tried to remain cognizant of the sensitive individual experience of grief, he has been able to express his sorrow and seek the forgiveness of several of the victim's family members (which seemed important to him.) Therefore, overall, consistent with previous evaluations he accepts full responsibility for the murders and made no attempt to minimize or rationalize his actions. It's apparent that he continues to feel profound remorse and sorrow for the commitment offense, and he has also contemplated the impact of the murders on the victims and their families. His emotions appeared genuine and heartfelt, and he appears to be aware of the gravity of the crime. He described a positive home environment growing up, but he felt tremendous pressure to achieve and meet the high expectations of his parents. He developed a number of fears growing up, particularly a fear of failure. He stated the hurts, frustrations, insecurities and perceived rejection put him into a 'people pleasing mode,' made him subject to peer pressure and codependency. His decision to drop out of college and move to California was his way of running away from the pressure and fear. He also indicated that his taking drugs was to medicate his pain. He stated he was very prideful, rebellious in the years before the crime. He reiterated that he does not blame the drugs, but he believes the drugs contributed to his gullibility in believing a lie. 'I allowed myself to be subjected to a person that didn't have any values. I became susceptible through a belief system that was delusional.' He discussed his psychological state at the time of the crime and his role of his relationship with Charles Manson. He began to believe what Manson was saying about the world, and stated that over a period of nine months he slowly lost his identity and adopted Manson's philosophies and values. Therefore, consistent with previous evaluations, it was evident during the current interview that Mr. Watson has examined and come to terms with the causal factors in the life crime." We talked about your programming. I don't see a need to go over that. As far as the assessment for violence, as far as the Psychopathy Checklist, he was rated low. The clinician did say, "To some degree he exhibited impulsivity or a lack of forethought when he dropped out of college and relocated to California. His employment history and residential plans can be considered spontaneous and impulsive, and he reported that his involvement with Charles Manson was impulsive. It seems as a young man he struggled to devise and carry out long-term plans and goals. He was unable to complete his education or successfully accomplish his career goals. At the time, his behavior and performance in college, drug abuse prior to the life crime and relationships with women reflected a need for stimulation or an excessive need for exciting stimulation, and his reliance on his girlfriend's income from selling drugs as well as a lack of employment while living at Spahn Ranch indicates a parasitic lifestyle for a period of time. And the nature of the commitment offense suggests a lack of empathy in regard for the welfare of others, as well as poor behavior controls. And finally, Mr. Watson's behavior following the crimes implied that he had difficulty accepting full responsibility for his actions and a failure to appreciate the impact of his actions. But on a more positive note, he does not present as superficially charming, grandiose or overly self-assured. He appeared quite genuine and humbled by his current situation. He demonstrated a normal range and depth of emotion. He does not appear to be pathological lying or conning or manipulative. He does not have a history of early behavior problems or juvenile delinquent behavior. There is not enough evidence of irresponsibility or a pattern of failing to fulfill obligations or commitment to others. He does not have a history of many short-term relationships or a history of promiscuous sexual behavior, no history of supervised release, and his criminal behavior is not particularly diverse or versatile. He has made notable progress in some of the aforementioned endorsed items. He accepts full responsibility. He has not exhibited a need for exciting or stimulating activity, but by all accounts he has demonstrated an ability to devise and accomplish long-term goals, as evidenced by his education and vocational upgrading, institutional employment history, participation in self-help, and the development of comprehensive parole plans." As far as the HCR-20 or Historical Clinical Risk Management, I'm probably not going to -- I'm just going to talk about the clinical. And it says that, "In the clinical or more dynamic domain of risk assessment, he articulated insight into the causal factors for his commitment offense. He has developed insight into his substance abuse history, been quite responsive to treatment, shown excellent impulse and behavior controls. As far as risk management, only a few concerns. He's likely to encounter some level of stress associated with reentering back into society, particularly after so many years of incarceration. This stress may be exacerbated by exposure to such destabilizing factors as illicit substance and negative influences. Therefore, comprehensive parole plans are vital in this regard. He did articulate practical feasible plans for parole. He says he will utilize and benefit from considerable family support in the community, and he has shown a willingness to abide by institutional rules and authority, which bodes well for him for future compliance in the community, and therefore he was rated as low for violent recidivism. He was rated low in the LS/CMI or the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory. Overall, he was rated low in the overall risk assessment. It's been well documented that Mr. Watson presents an unusual and complex case primarily because of the perplexing nature of his involvement in such a crime given his rather typical and well adjusted upbringing as well as lack of criminal and/or violent behaviors prior to and after the commitment offenses, understanding the factors of what contributed to his perpetration of the murders that has been emphasized over the years. Mr. Watson continues to accept full responsibility for the murders and has developed considerable insight into the causal factors for the life crime. In summary, Mr. Watson's portrayal of himself as a young adult was an average, all-American young man who basically lacked the ego strength needed to sustain the pressure of meeting the expectations/ standards set forth in his family. Thus, an insecure and impressionable college student with an underlying resentment and fear, Mr. Watson chose to rebel against everything he knew and ultimately found refuge in the bizarre and antisocial subculture of Charles Manson and his associates. Consequently, it seems that a combination of factors came together over a relatively short period of time that culminated in the commitment offense. Specifically, Mr. Watson's fragile ago and dependency needs made him vulnerable to the influence of Charles Manson and the cult-like mentality of the Manson Family. His underlying anger, resentment, need for acceptance, drug use and the adoption of a delusional belief system contributed to his capacity to commit the multiple murders. And then it states that his risk for future violence would likely increase if he resumed the use of drugs or alcohol associated with negative and antisocial influence, and his risk could increase if he was unable to cope with the stresses or negative emotions, and his risk could increase if he finds himself without a structure that has been critical to his rehabilitation and lacks positive social support. He could decrease his risk by remaining committed to available self-help groups and programming, including substance abuse treatment in both prison and the community, and he could decrease his risk of violent recidivism by ensuring comprehensive parole plans that include housing, financial support and social support." And it's signed by Dr. Caoile. Ms. Montgomery, is there any comments you want to make about the psychological evaluation?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Thank you for covering that as thorough as you did. I appreciate that. I will note that under the diagnostic impressions on Axis I, they note adult antisocial behavior to be by history, and then the doctor goes into a great detail as to why it's characterized as such. Basically, he's not exhibited any antisocial behavior throughout his incarceration. But the area that I really would like the Board to touch on is what the clinician said on page 4. At the last hearing, they thought that since my client -- or they assumed at that time that my client was not married any longer, that this was somehow problematic. This addresses the relationship, the fact that my client has -- and that's on page 4, that top paragraph -- and he has a strong family connection and had a strong marriage for 24 years. I believe the record will also reflect the fact that his ex-wife continues to very, very supportive of him and supports his release. I believe they were divorced in 2004.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: '3.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: '3.

COMMISSIONER PECK: Anything else?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: No. I'll address it in my closing. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you. I have nothing else as far as -- Is there any aspect of his post-conviction factors that you didn't think I covered adequately that you would like to bring on the record, or shall we move on?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: No, I think you did cover it. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER PECK: Commissioner Prizmich.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. Thank you. I do want to go into parole plans. I'm going to read first from the counselor's report and then go into the documents that were provided to us today. Just reading down the list of options, they may have changed, but page 4 of the most recent counselor's report: Teen Challenge International out of Sacramento is one residence. Apparently there's a letter in the documents that we have that I'll get to in a minute. Again, just reading down the list. Dream Center Discipleship of Los Angeles is another option. Training Plus Center out of Spring Valley, California. In terms of employment, we have the following, which are repeats of what I just did: Teen Challenge International, Sacramento apparently has a component that deals with work as well. Dream Center Discipleship also has a work component, employment component with that, and Teen Plus Training Plus Center in Spring Valley has a work or employment component with that.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I made the same mistake. I think that's actually supposed to be a crucifix. It's called Training Center.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Oh, okay. So that's a caricature here as a sign of the cross. Is that what it is?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Yes. And I believe that Teen Center is the first choice of my client.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. I think that's the one that came up first. So let me go into -- oh, okay. We apparently have a need for a short break. The time is now 10:29. We're going to have a short recess. If you officers could take him out and everyone else stay seated until we clear the room, the inmate, Ms. Montgomery. Tell me when he's secured.

(Off the record.)

COMMISSIONER PECK: We are back on the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. The time is 10:50. It's in the matter of Charles Watson, CDC Number boy, 37999. We took a short break and we are all back in the room. Those members that were here prior to the break have returned. Before I go on to further parole plans, I did mean after reviewing this opposition letter that was submitted unsigned on -- the letter itself is dated 4/10/09. It was received -- I'm not sure when it was received at the institution, but it is not signed. We will not be considering that here today. Let me go into further parole plans. Before I get into your packet, Mr. Watson, I'm going to go into the counselor's report on parole plans. It may be a bit different but they've done the work and I want to make sure I get that on. Just working my way down the list, we have a support letter from a Matthew Genovese, G-E-N-O-V-E-S-E, dated October 12th, 2011. How do you know -- is he not speaking to us about any of these?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: No, we won't be --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: -- speaking to those.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. So we will consider this letter. I'm not sure what -- moving on. Alan Patierno, I think it is, P-A-T-I-E-R-N-O, dated November 16th, 2011. It's a support letter. We'll be reviewing that in more depth in deliberations.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Now, I don't think I have that one.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: It should be in your C-File or your --

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: You know what? I take that back. I think that might have been one that was handed to me when we walked in.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. While you look for that, I'll move on. Mary Sauer, S-A-U-E-R, Prison Ministry Director.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: October 5th, 2011. It's a support letter. Moving on, a letter dated September 1st, 2011, Joshua Watson, W-A-T-S-O-N.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: That's my client's son.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: And he identifies himself as the eldest son of inmate Watson. A support letter. Moving on. Jason Nelson, N-E-L-S-O-N, Newcastle PA. There's no date on this letter. Unless I'm missing it somewhere, I don't see a date. Continuing, Mary Watson out of Sacramento. That's your daughter. Dated 9/6/2011, it is a support letter. A letter from Jason Nelson. Did I already do that? Newcastle. I already did that. Dennis Norgord, N-O-R-G-O-R-D, September 27th, 2011. He's a friend for a number of years. It's a support letter. Training Cross or Plus Center, whatever, August 11th, 2011. Joe Vasquez is the pastor of this group out of Spring Valley. And this is a transitional housing that has a component of work with it. It's an acceptance letter into the transitional housing. They've got some restrictions and commentary there that we have listed in the letter itself. August 18th, 2011, Reverend Dick Rhoads, R-H-O-A-D-S. A letter from Teen Challenge International out of Sacramento Valley. Apparently this is a transitional housing facility. Their cost is 15 hundred dollars a month. And they talk about what the program consists of. It's a Christian-based group. Mr. Watson has been accepted there. A Reverend Stephen Brown, Prison Ministries, September 7th, 2011. He's known Mr. Watson for some time. Writes a supportive letter.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Excuse me, Commissioner. I just wanted to add, in the Teen Challenge, while it does indicate it costs about 15 hundred dollars to care for each student; however, they do not charge for their services. They're entirely private funded.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: There are a number of letters on the transitional programs. I requested dates with 2011, because they've come in since 2010, so your packet will have the 2011 too.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. Appreciate that.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Some of which will clarify things.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Thank you. Gregory Bluitt, I think, B-L-U-I-T-T, out of -- Mr. Bluitt, let's see. He's an inmate at Mule Creek. Writes a supportive letter.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Inside sponsor.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Right. I see that. That was -- I would normally ask what the sponsor is. I know, but I won't be asking that today. Terrance Burke, B-U-R-K-E, an inmate here at Mule Creek. Writes a supportive letter and talks specifically about his interaction with Mr. Watson from the 12-step, Christian 12-Step Program, and makes a positive statement. We've got that. August 31st, 2011, Karen Bisignano, B-I-S-I-G-N-A-N-O. And Santee writes a supportive letter. Moving on. August 31st, 2011, Frank -- again, the same last name as the previous writer, B-I-S-I-G-N- A-N-O, Bisignano, writes a supportive letter as well.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: They are close to the Spring Valley Training Center.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Is that where they are? It doesn't have an address here. They are Christian individuals that have worked with or spoken with Mr. Watson for some time.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: At the bottom of Karen's letter, it says she's in Santee.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Yeah. That's what -- that is near the facility that you're talking about.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. Lane Blankenship. It looks like Lane is out of Nevada. 8/11/11 is the date on this letter. Has written and met Mr. Watson through correspondence and writes a supportive letter. Another supportive letter from Michael and Kim Cheheryn, I think it is. C-H-E-H-E-R-Y- N, in North Carolina. July 19th, 2011. Apparently they have been in contact with Mr. Watson via correspondence for about three years. They write a supportive letter. It looks like it's a Christian-based relationship.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I think their last name is buried there, but it's Billings. It's not on the same line.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Oh, I didn't even go to that. So it's Michael and Kim Katherine Billings? Is that their name?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Kim, Katherine and Michael Billings.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. All right. The content of the letter stands as stated. August 10th, 2011, Captive Hearts out of Grover Beach, California. This is Chaplain Judy Bowen, B-O-W-E-N, I think, President and CEO of this group. She acts -- I think it's a she. Yeah. She acts as a chaplain to the Penal System and has had interaction with Mr. Watson for some time through his 12-step Christian message that she and he have been active in. 7/31/2011, handwritten note from, I think it's Brian Moran.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Mercer?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: That's Mercer?

INMATE WATSON: Mercer.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. Is that Mercer?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I think so. M-E-R-C-E-R.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. All right. This is a general contractor out of LA. Known you for quite some time, Mr. Watson. He says that you'd be welcome in his home which is in Perris, California, if there was a need for that. July 26th, 2011, Robert Reardon, R-E-A-R-D-O-N, writes a letter in support. Long-time friend. So he writes a supportive letter for you.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: He also offers a residence in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: I don't see that.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: It's the second paragraph.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Second paragraph. Yeah, I see it now. So he's living in Colorado Springs and works out of there, and makes an offer of housing. We've already read this and I think this is probably the same letter. May 4th, 2011, Reverend Dick Rhoads in the Teen Challenge International. I believe that's the same letter.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Well, I think they have different dates.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. Does it say something different? I don't think it does.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Some of them may provide some clarification. That's the gentleman with Teen Challenge?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Right.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: May provide clarification as to cost and programs that are available within that program. I just wanted those to have a 2011 date.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. So this is a further expansion on the first one that I mentioned. December 7th, 2010, Mike Connor, Executive Director, the Discipleship Program, and that is -- what is the organization? Is that Teen Center?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Dream Center.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Dream Center. Okay. Dream Center.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Another transitional.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: It's another transitional housing facility. I'm trying to figure out of where.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Los Angeles.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: LA.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. I got it. Makes an offer of that as an option. The minimum stay there is 90 days, with a maximum, it looks like it might be 24 months. It doesn't talk about any costs or components related to your stay there, but it's a transitional housing unit. Dream Center is another letter from the same place, January 4th, 2011, Daved, D-A-V-E-D. Daved, I guess, Thomas, T-H-O-M-A-S, Office Intern for the Discipleship Program. Said they received your letter. Then we have a letter from an S. Lewis, Correctional Officer, and I do not see a date on this.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I didn't find one either, but I believe they make reference to 2009 in there.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: They make a reference to meeting in 2002, and in 2009 there was an assignment of the inmate to a unit, and the correctional officer writes a supportive letter on the work that he's -- is it a he or she? The officer has observed. November 8, 2010. That's a bit old. It's the same one as we've already mentioned. And I think the rest of these are going to be similar. We do want to note on October 1st, 2010 there is a brochure which is helpful to the Panel, it's Teen Challenge International, that more comprehensively talks about their program. We will be reviewing that. A letter from Evan Birdsong, Texas, July 22nd, 2011. Identifies himself as a close friend. Writes a supportive letter. Let's see. Really trying to figure out where the friendship stems from. I'm assuming it's written, but it didn't jump out at me. But it looks like a support letter clearly. Lyle Phillips, Associate Pastor for, I think it's Morning Star Christian Chapel.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: In Los Angeles.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Where is that at?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Los Angeles area.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: They provide counseling services.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: The stamp is right over it. June 9th, 2011. They do indeed identify their facility as providing counseling assistance. So moving on, Benjamin Watson, May 2011. It's a son. Writes a supportive letter for you. Talks a bit about his life and where it's gone.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I would --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Huh?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I'm sorry. I would ask the Board in their deliberations to take a look at that particular letter in detail.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. He does note that he speaks to his father weekly on the phone. We will certainly look at that letter as well as all the others. May 31st, 2011, Stan Melcher, I think it is, M-E-L-C-H-E-R. A letter of support. It looks like he was visiting another inmate and met Mr. Watson through that visit, and writes a supportive letter. A letter from Peggy Davis which is not signed and I don't see the date on it, but it's a supportive letter. Outreach Ministries International, Pastor Jeff McEachron, M-C-E-A-C-H-R-O-N, Outreach Ministries, and that looks like it's out of Lodi. Writes a supportive letter. Talks about their interaction with Mr. Watson on Bible study in Yard B. Worldwide Prison Ministries out of Mayo, Florida. And who wrote it? Dorothy Neill, N-E-I-L-L, is the president, and writes a letter of support. Known you for quite some time. I think 30 years has been mentioned in the -- or was mentioned in the letter itself. Is impressed by your understanding of the faith and writes a supportive letter. April 9th, 2011, Orvin Solberg, S-O-L-B-E-R-G. Writes a letter in support. Goes back and tells three pages, the story of the interaction that he's had with you over time centered mainly on Christian faith. Writes a supportive letter. Carol Oetjen-Goyett. I'll spell the hyphenated last name. The first is O-E-T-J-E-N, hyphen, G-O-Y-E-T-T, out of San Jose. And I do not see a date on this. Carol has been a friend of yours since '82. Writes a supportive letter for you. David Balsinger out of Loveland, Colorado, I believe that is. He writes a supportive letter. His relationship has been with you for over some time. He identifies some of his credits as the Grizzly Adams Media Group. Moving on, another letter from David Balsinger. I don't have a date on this one. Oh, wait a minute. No. Adrienne Lahr, L-A-H-R, Mesa, Arizona, and I don't see a date on this one. Writes a supportive letter. Christine Sweeten, S-W-E-E-T-E-N, Citrus Heights. Identifies her relationship as being married to Mr. Watson for 24 years. Has known him since '78. Identifies her relationship with him as a gentle, caring man. Writes a supportive letter. Training Plus Center again, Joe Vasquez. I think we've already -- this is a 2010, so that's old. 2010, another old one. Another, October 6th, Juvenile Detention Ministries. It's an old one. Jack Cook is the author on that. Thomas Nash. It's a 2010 letter.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: They are still, in fact, supportive.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I thought it most important to bring the '11s for the transitional.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. They are supportive. A bit old though. And there's another letter from -- another 2010 from Ms. Denton Fitchhorn. It's supportive. 6/2/2010, it's again an older letter from Anne Usury, RN, Florida. November 30th, 2010, a David DeFreez, and that's old. Writes a -- where is he from? Kansas. St. Thomas Buenas Cathedral out of Reno, and the date on this is a 2010. It's a Bruce Lamb, Father Lamb. Albert E. Roth, 2010 letter. I have no idea where it's from. October 20th, 2010. Again, this is old. Lyle Phillips, Associate Pastor. 10/18/2010, a handwritten letter from a Rose Beasman, I think, and that's old. Follow-up Ministries, Arizona, 2010. Glenn Morrison. Writes a supportive letter, but it is old. Church in the Valley, Leaky, Texas, I believe it is. Ray Miller, signed Bro Ray. I don't see a date on it. Writes a supportive letter. 7/7/10, it's an old letter, not signed, Robert McDonald. April 3rd, 2010, handwritten letter of several pages, three, from Brian Bridge, New York. Brenda Doane, I think it is, D-O-A-N-E, and that's old. Charles Watson is the heading her. Let's see. Who is it? Rose Beismer, B-E-I-S-M-E-R. I don't know where this is from nor what -- oh, the date on this is 3/18/2010. So that's old as well.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: What's the name on that one, Rose?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: B-E-I -- Rose, yeah. Reverend Stephen Brown, Lake Isabella, March 15th, 2010. Strongly supports parole. So that is a bit old. Joseph Chancellor, a three-page letter, Cambridge. MA, which one is that? Is that -- MA. What state is that?

COMMISSIONER PECK: Massachusetts.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Maine.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: May I have that?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Maine, Maryland.

COMMISSIONER PECK: I don't know.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: One of those. It's an 02141. Massachusetts? Okay. Thank you. Writes a letter of support, but identifies it as a letter of appreciation. So continuing. And I don't know if I said the date on that, but I should. That's '09, so that's -- all that work for an '09. Here's another '09 from somebody. It's a number of pages. Pastor Thomas Cusack, C-U-S-A-C-K. But again, that's old. 4/10/09 is one we've chosen not to incorporate. That was a letter unsigned, undated. So I think -- let me double-check here. We do have a document here that I want to go into before we go into opposition information. A relapse prevention plan prepared for us. It talks about people, places and things, situations to avoid. I have a number of questions regarding this. Keys to successful recovery, warning signs. It's pretty much spelled out in terms of documents for us. And it talks about maintenance and prayer ministry, centering yourself. I assume that's what that's about. Stabilizers, destabilizers, which are also known as triggers. It has a brief explanation or a brief identification of what those stabilizers, triggers would be. For example, intoxicating substances, lack of communication with support. They're identified, what they would be. Hungry, Angry, Lonely, the HALT Program. Negative influences, isolation, which is part of the HALT Program. Relapse prevention, 90 and 90. I would ask a question about that. Don't assume. So there's one word or phrase commentary regarding destabilizers, triggers and coping skills that are needed. So it's been identified for us. And we have a little bit more specification on the coping skills. There's a little short sentence after each one of the components there, so we'll review that. Relapse prevention plan support teams. And there's been a review of what looks like parole plans in part here. We have Sac Valley Teen Challenge, Los Angeles, the Dream Center, Discipleship in San Diego, the Training Center. So those are identified again. People to Promote Success with support teams, Christian 12-Step, and those have been identified. Other supporters, California, it's got a number of individuals in California identified as a friend or in some cases minister, ex-wife. The United States, prayer support, and there's probably 25 people listed as people that would be prayer support for you. I think, and I'm sure Ms. Montgomery will let me know, but I think that covers the letters of support and parole plans.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I have a couple of others.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: And I'll hand them your way.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: There's a letter from Susan Erickson that I would like the Board to focus on. I thought it was a very thoughtful letter. She was a classmate in '64. Couldn't read the signature, but there is a letterhead of Family Radio Network. My client --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Harold Camping?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: No, it was JM. I just couldn't read it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Yeah. That's, I think, Harold Camping.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: McKinney. The former attorney that represented my client --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: -- at the former parole hearings. His name is Alan Jan, J-A-N.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: He's actually offering a residence and anything you would like.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: You asked about Peggy Davis and what the background was on her. She was a classmate in 1964.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Right.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: As was Sarah Riley. Pastor Denise Cauley's letter was not covered. Bill Clark, Bruce and Catherine Benson. And I circled the ones that you missed. They're in my packet. I'll hand this over to you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: You asked about 90-90. What that is, is 90 meetings --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: I know.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: -- in 90 days.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: I know. Okay.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Oh, one other thing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Yes, ma'am.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I'm sorry, Commissioner. The center that Joe Vasquez operates in Spring Valley indicates that, "We would take him into the program, which generally is a four to six-month program without fees. He would not be required to pay for anything due to his circumstances." They offer that he would be allowed to stay on as long as he needed or wanted to.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. Well, I thank you for that commentary. We do have the -- we do send out letters that are commonly referred to as -- Well, let me ask Mr. Peck, is there questions or comments you have at this point?

COMMISSIONER PECK: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: So we do send out letters that are commonly referred to as 3042 Notices. Those are from the Penal Code, section 3042. That makes inquiry to individuals who have an interest in the case. We do have a letter in response to that 3042 Notice from the Los Angeles Police Department, September 27th, 2011. The author in this is a Captain Clay Farrell, F-A-R-R-E-L-L, and in a brief one-page review of it, makes a commentary and a suggestion that we do not provide parole. We are going to give -- and as I said, we had another opposition letter that was not signed, and it was an older dated letter that we are not accepting. But we do have the DA here today. Mr. Sequeira will be given an opportunity to ask questions. If you remember, Mr. Sequeira, if you have any questions, I believe that Mr. Watson is not going to be responding to any of them. But if you have them, you can go ahead and ask the Panel.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I have a number of questions to ask regarding the commitment offense, the inmate's involvement and position within The Family, his connections with the family prior to the commitment offense, during and after the commitment offense. And these are all areas that I understand the inmate is not addressing. Am I correct?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: That is correct.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: If you want me to, I can --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: From what I can gather. Ms. Montgomery, is that correct?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: That's correct.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: He's exercising his rights pursuant to Title 15.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: He's choosing not to answer questions.

COMMISSIONER PECK: That is correct.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: So you have none?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I have other questions, but I don't want to take up the Hearing Panel's time in listing all the questions I would ask this inmate to which he is not going to answer.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. So we will turn to Ms. Montgomery. Any questions for your client?

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: No. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Mr. Peck, any questions, any comments?

COMMISSIONER PECK: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. We'll go to closing. Mr. Sequeira.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you. The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office is strongly opposed to the release of inmate Charles Watson. Inmate Watson was convicted of seven of the most horrific, brutal crimes in California history. The motive for the crimes of seven strangers and the unborn fetus of one of those victims was a misguided notion that by committing these crimes a race war would be ignited. Now, this concept is, of course, very far-fetched in today's times. But if you look back in 1969 and the racial unrest of the '60's, the Watts riots, the notion that some type of conflict could break out between races, between blacks and whites, was not that far-fetched. Within The Manson Family, within the commune at the Spahn Ranch of which inmate Watson willingly joined, there developed a philosophy by Charles Manson that a race war was inevitable, and that due to listening in particular to the Beatles' White Album that the Beatles in their lyrics were foretelling this inevitable race war that was to occur known as Helter Skelter. Manson and his crime partners believed that when this race war occurred between the blacks and the white that the blacks would ultimately win the race war. And Manson and his Family's plan was when the war broke out, when Helter Skelter started, they would retreat to a place in the desert, their group, and that after the war was over and the blacks had won the war, they would emerge from the desert and offer their leadership to the blacks because they felt -- they meaning Manson and his followers -- felt that they were of superior intellect, and then could then govern or rule the world. This is a philosophy that was honed during the sessions and within the commune at the Spahn Ranch. This was a philosophy that not only did they believe was going to happen, but the Family took steps, premeditated, deliberate steps to prepare and to ignite this race war. There's this common notion that these are just a group of crazed drug hippies who just kind of took a lot of drugs and just became intoxicated with some weird ideas and then they went out and committed these brutal murders. That is not the case. The Manson Family operated in the same manner as a crime family, as a terrorist group, because when you think about it, killing innocent people with the idea of blaming it upon the blacks to ignite a race war is a terrorist act. It's a domestic terrorist act. And the planning that took place involved, first of all, practicing sneaking up on houses, what they called creepy crawly missions. The Family members, including Mr. Watson, used to dress in black, they used to sneak around in neighborhoods, they used to leave little witchy things on trees, open doors, things to basically hone their craft of sneaking up on unsuspecting victims. In addition, the Family was involved in drugs. Not only using drugs, but selling drugs. They were also involved in acquiring a large cache of weapons which was stashed in the valley. When the compound at the Barker Ranch was raided, they found a submachine gun and a large cache of weapons. There was dune buggies that were outfitted for their journey and their survival in the desert in Inyo County. All of these were part and parcel of the plan. The first murder that occurred which Mr. Watson was not involved with was the murder of Gary Hinman. And I don't go into all the details, but basically he was tortured and money was -- they tried to obtain money from Mr. Hinman because they believed he had an inheritance over a period of a few days and he was ultimately killed. But at the killing there was writing in blood, there was a Black Panthers symbol in blood that was placed on the door. The whole idea was to make the crime look as if blacks had killed this white musician. Now, Mr. Watson wasn't a part of that crime, but in Mr. Watson's own words, he knew that that crime had been committed by his group, by the Manson Family group, and despite that he still joined the family and he was part of the family. And, of course, several weeks later we now come to the night of the Tate killings. The night of the Tate killings was also an extremely planned event. Dark clothing, change of clothings were gathered up by the participants, including inmate Watson. They received instructions from Charles Manson on what to do. He was asked to leave something witchy at the residence. Inmate Watson was the leader of the hit squad. They went to the residence, Mr. Watson went up the telephone pole, snipped the telephone wires, and there was also a security fence so they had to climb over to do all of this. After they accomplished that, they then began entry into the residence. Poor Steven Parent who was visiting someone, a caretaker who lived behind the residence, was driving his car up the driveway in an attempt to leave. Mr. Watson approached him, shot him four times with a weapon that he had brought with him. There was the gun that was brought with the group. There were also a group of knives. They were all kept inside the car ready to dispose of them in case they were stopped by the police. Mr. Watson also, at least according to the autopsy reports, apparently also may have slashed Steven Parent as well, because there was a defensive knife wound in addition to the four gunshot wounds. Mr. Watson then went and slit the screen of one of the windows at the house, and the victims inside the house were all approached and attacked. They were attacked in a brutal fashion. Mr. Watson announced to the victims, "I am the Devil. I am here to do the Devil's business." Susan Atkins, despite the pleas of Sharon Tate that she be spared, basically said, I don't care, you're just going to die, and stabbed her. The wounds themselves and the crime scene is horrific. We don't have photographs to show you. Many of those have, of course, been kept away from the media. But suffice to say Sharon Tate suffered 16 stab wounds, which killed her and her unborn fetus. Five of those stab wounds were fatal. Jay Sebring suffered seven stab wounds and a gunshot wound. Wojciech Frykowski was stabbed 51 times, shot twice. Thirteen of the blows were fatal in and of themselves. After the group was slaughtered, the assailants left the location, they washed off the blood, they disposed of clothes, they dumped the weapons, the knives and the gun, and they went back to the compound. Oh, before they left they took Sharon Tate's blood and smeared the word pig on the residence, again following the same pattern a blood message from the Hinman residence. The next night, Rosemary and Leno LaBianca were murdered. The murder didn't occur right away. There was a group, actually there were two groups of Manson Family members who -- two hit squads who went out on this night of rampage. Killing five people the night before wasn't enough. Apparently they didn't feel it was enough to stimulate Helter Skelter. So the group went out the second night. Inmate Watson, Susan Atkins, Steve Grogan, Linda Kassabian were driving, along with Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten. The group drove around for several hours before they arrived at the La Bianca residence, and during this several hours of driving through Los Angeles the purpose was to look for victims. They would stop at one house. Apparently they decided not to attack that house because there were some photographs of children inside. And Charles Manson said, well, at some point it might be necessary to kill children to ignite this race war, but not today. They went to a church or a minister's house to attempt to kill a clergyman, but the door was locked. They couldn't get in. There was a motorist, just a random motorist that they thought of killing, but the motorist took off and they were not able to kill the motorist. They finally settled in the area in Los Angeles on Waverly Place where one of them had been to a party at the house next door to the LaBiancas. When they arrived at the location, inmate Watson and Charles Manson went in and basically surprised Leno and Rosemary LaBianca, tied them up and then took Mrs. LaBianca's wallet and came back out to the car where the other assailants were waiting. Watson was sent to go back in with Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten to essentially kill the LaBiancas, which they did in an extremely brutal fashion. The LaBiancas pleaded for their lives. They pleaded and offered money. They said they would go to their grocery store and give them more money. All of those pleas to be saved went unheeded, and they were attacked in a brutal fashion. Mrs. LaBianca was stabbed 26 times. No, excuse me. Mr. LaBianca was stabbed 26 times. Six of those were fatal wounds. In addition, there were 14 puncture wounds. Mrs. LaBianca was stabbed 41 times. Six of those were fatal. Thirty-six of those stab wounds were in her back. She was attacked by both Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten and inmate Watson, who was wielding the bayonet. In Mr. LaBianca's chest the word war, W-A-R, was carved into his chest. A kitchen fork, a carving fork, was left stuck in his chest, and a knife was left stuck in his throat. In the residence written in blood, in the victims' blood on the wall, "Death to pigs, rise," which again is a reference to one of the lyrics from the Beatles song, and "Helter Skelter," which was misspelled. After the killings, Leslie Van Houten and the others cleaned up the residence and made sure that it was wiped down carefully for fingerprints. Inmate Watson took a shower, changed clothes, actually took some of the LaBiancas' clothes to wear. They ate some food that was in the LaBiancas' refrigerator and then they left the residence. Now, while all of this was occurring, the second group of assassins, including Charles Manson, Linda Kassabian and Steve Grogan, took Mrs. LaBianca's wallet and drove to an area which they believed to be a predominantly black neighborhood. And the purpose for this is they wanted to leave Mrs. LaBianca's wallet in this black neighborhood so that a black woman or man would pick up the wallet, would take the credit cards, and would use the credit cards and therefore be blamed for the murder. Linda Kassabian went into the women's restroom at a gas station in Sylmar, which was not exactly a predominantly black neighborhood, but she hid the wallet so well that no one found it. And then, of course, later on when she became a witness for the prosecution she directed the police to the location where Rosemary LaBianca's wallet was found. The second group, after dropping off the wallet at the gas station, began looking for other victims. They drove around, they actually drove down to the beach from Sylmar. Linda Kassabian had met someone who lived in an apartment building near one of the beach cities, and they said let's kill that person. And that was the plan, that she was going to gain entry, they were going to go in and kill this other individual. Linda Kassabian was not real comfortable with doing all that. Of course, she was the driver the night before. She didn't actually go into the house or kill any of the -- participate in the murder of any of the victims at the Tate residence. But she deliberately directed the group to the wrong floor and to a wrong apartment. And, of course, this was very late at night and a stranger opened the door, wouldn't let them in, so they abandoned the plan. And they still looked around, but eventually gave up any plans for any further murders. The point of all of this is that this was a well-orchestrated, well-planned events. These were all events that required premeditation and planning. Now, the excuses that have been given by various members including Mr. Watson over the years is that this is a drug-induced or a drug-fueled activity. In fact, Mr. Watson testified at his own trial, and I was looking in the appellate decision on page 8. He testified that he ate belladonna root on the day of the Tate murders, and then he took LSD before the LaBianca murders. This was his sworn testimony from his trial. Now, of course that completely conflicts with what he's told the psychiatrist. He says that he smoked some marijuana and he used speed, which, of course -- which I also might point out was disputed by Susan Atkins and other members of the Manson Family at later times. Basically, the dispute was they were not on drugs that night, this wasn't a drug-fueled murdering frenzy. Mr. Watson's statements himself are inconsistent. And it seems like in the psychological evaluation there's been this focus on several areas, one of them being sort of the drug usage and what role it played in there. And certainly drugs were used at the ranch. They were used by the Manson Family. This was the 60's. Drugs and music were a part of all of that. But the fact that -- despite what inmate Watson says to the psychiatrist, that he's not really blaming the drugs, he is blaming the drugs. He's blaming the drugs, he's blaming psychological issues, he's blaming everything but his own free will. If you look at kind of the picture of this inmate, of what he did prior to joining the family, he dropped out of school. He's obviously very intelligent. Dropped out of school, joined this group, and he joined the group not as I think he wants everyone to believe as merely a follower who's being brainwashed. Because you have to remember on the night of the Tate murders, he was the lead person. He was the lead person in both of these horrific series of murders. He was entrusted to go by himself as the leader of the group on the night of the Tate killings. The second night he was entrusted to take the girls back in and finish the LaBiancas off. His role within the family was a significant one. He was essentially the main hit man, so to speak, and that's the role that he carried out. And I know that he's tried to explain that it was drugs, it was just an impulsive act. And I noticed the psychologist I think missed the boat in a lot of respects in the psychological evaluation by talking about this sort of impulsivity. These weren't impulsive actions. Murdering seven people on two subsequent nights were not impulsive actions. This isn't something you just do because you happen to be taking some drugs that day. This is something that was planned and it was thought out, and these weren't just brainwashed robots that did this, because you have to understand that there were only a very small core group of people that actually were involved in these murders. There were maybe 20 to 30 people who lived at the Spahn Ranch, who lived in this commune, and they could come and go freely. Nobody was keeping them against their will. Nobody was forcing them to go out and commit horrific murders. The only ones that went were the ones that could be trusted, the ones that really wanted to commit the crime. A good example is Leslie Van Houten. She did not go the first night. And in her parole hearing she said that she was disappointed that she didn't get a chance to go, but yet on the second night she did go. And she also in her testimony at various parole hearings had admitted that she had thought about whether she could kill. She actually contemplated it, thought about it, and made the decision that she could, in fact, kill, and that's why she joined in the participation on the second night. But if you look at inmate's Watson's kind of description of how it took an hour to get to the Tate residence and how they were all kind of wrestling with their conscience regarding what they were about to do, I think this is in direct conflict with what the crime partners have said and the particular evidence of the crimes themselves, the physical evidence. Now, you have to understand that in addition to being a terrorist organization and in addition to being a crime family operated like an organized crime family, this was also a quasi-religious group. I mentioned the statement that Tex Watson made when he went into the Tate residence that I am the Devil, I'm here to do the Devil's work. This was also a focus of the group as a quasi-religious organization. Charles Manson would alternatively call himself the Devil, he'd call himself Jesus Christ. They worshipped him, they were all disciples. And the reason I point that out is because when you look at this inmate and what he's done since the commitment offense, his involvement with religion, his involvement in all of these self-help groups, it's not that big of a change. He was obviously fascinated with religion and philosophy before the commitment offense and before he came to prison. And I note that he wasn't the only one of the Manson Family that became heavily involved with religion. Bruce Davis was as well. And, in fact, if you look back through the record at CMC, both inmate Watson and Bruce Davis both worked at the prison chapel together. They were both brothers in the prison chapel and they did that for quite a period of time. In fact, it became -- they were involved so heavily in it that due to complaints from other inmates at CMC is what I believe caused the transfer of Tex Watson to this facility. Basically, they needed to break up the group. The ties between Watson and Davis were pretty strong. Their wives are friends due to their time together at CMC. But I also believe that the ties that inmate Watson has with the other family members may still be in existence. In 2005, in conjunction with Leslie Van Houten's parole hearing, Tex Watson wrote a declaration and signed under the penalty of perjury, it's a four-page declaration at the request of Leslie Van Houten which was submitted to the Hearing Panel at that time. And in that -- I won't go into the whole declaration, but basically this declaration attempts to minimize and assist Leslie Van Houten to get a parole date, basically saying things such as -- and I'll just take one paragraph.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: I'm going to raise an objection, Commissioner. I've not been provided with a copy of that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: How much are you going to read out of that?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I'm just going to briefly -- basically, he says that Leslie Van Houten didn't know that a murder was going to occur, that she didn't plan a murder, she didn't know a theft was going to occur.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: If you could make a copy of that available to Ms. Montgomery.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Sure. I'm sure Mr. Watson must have a copy of it since this was his declaration. It was dated 11/2/2005 and it was executed here at Ione, California. But my point is, is that I don't believe that this inmate has completely severed his ties or his connection with his crime partners. I note that although he has discussed his crime at different times, I also believe that there were many more instances of crimes that he's aware of that may have been committed by other Manson Family members during the course of the time at the Ranch. This Family was involved in a number of things. I mean, during the criminal proceedings they tried to kill a witness. They broke into, some of the Family members broke into a gun store in Hawthorne to attain weapons. They were going to highjack a 747 to free Charlie and Tex and the others. This was a family -- and the witness that was to be killed was lured to Hawaii, put up in a penthouse in Hawaii to be kept away from the subpena reach of the prosecution, and she was fed a large amount of LSD in hopes that she would die. She didn't die, fortunately. She did ultimately come back and testify. This is what the Family was all about. This is almost a classic organized crime family, and the ties to this family with inmate Watson are deep, the ties are strong. In terms of looking at his parole suitability and what he has done in prison, certainly he's done things. Certainly he's gone to classes. Certainly he's taken programs. But the religious aspect of it is not a big change for him. Educationally it's not a big change either to get a degree. He had already completed three years of college before he came to California. I noticed in the past he was asked to do some vocational upgrading. That apparently hasn't happened. I think he does tend to program the way he wants to program. I'm sure he's taken some FEMA classes. This is all very recent. I haven't seen anything -- and it may be in the confidential section of the file, but I haven't seen any other signs of remorse or desire to disassociate himself from the Family by providing some information to either law enforcement or to the correctional officials regarding other crimes that may have occurred. We know that two of the individuals, Steve Grogan and Bruce Davis, who were convicted in the Shorty Shay murder -- Shay was a ranch hand who was murdered after the Tate- LaBianca murders. He was killed and his body was never discovered initially. And the reason he was killed was because they believed he was a snitch and he also had a black wife or girlfriend, and the racist Charles Manson really did not like that. But in any event, two of the individuals -- three individuals were convicted of that murder, Charles Manson, Steve Grogan and Bruce Davis. Many years afterwards, Steve Grogan led authorities to the body, which was recovered. But what is interesting to note too, and this is something that's never been discussed by Mr. Watson that I can tell in any of the documents that I've seen, is that in parole hearings for both Bruce Davis and Steve Grogan, they both indicated that Tex Watson was involved in that murder as well. In fact, on pages 10 through 13 of one of Mr. Davis's parole hearings -- just a second, I'll get it for you. He basically indicates that Shorty Shay was taken out -- they were driving the car with Shorty Shay. And this is from the parole hearing transcript, June 22nd, 1993, pages 10 through 13, and this is page 10, line -- let's see, line 5. I'll just read a couple lines. "Inmate Davis: Well, I was -- I was in the car when Steve Grogan hit Shorty with a pipe wrench. Charles Watson stabbed him. I was in the back seat with Grogan. They took Shorty out. They had to go down a hill to a place and then Shorty Shay was ultimately killed." Mr. Watson, of course, was never prosecuted for that crime because I believe at the time there was insufficient evidence to even charge him with the crime. The body wasn't discovered. The three people that were convicted were the people that basically bragged about the murders and ultimately they were convicted of the Shorty Shay murder. But the point that I'm trying to raise by this is that there is many more things that Mr. Watson either has knowledge of or may have been involved with in addition to the horrendous commitment offenses, which I believe pale in comparison to your other murders and to other crimes that we see on a regular basis within the correctional system and within lifer hearings. And I think for all those reasons plus the fact that he has chosen not to speak today, he has chosen not to face the Hearing Panel, not to face really the victims' families, suggests very strongly that he is unsuitable for parole, that he still poses a danger. Not only because of the crime itself, but because of his nature. I don't believe the psychological evaluation really addresses the issues that needed to be addressed. I think they've missed a lot in terms of understanding the complexity and the dynamics of the Family. And I think for those reasons this inmate does, in fact, pose a future risk of violence to the community. And, of course, his notoriety as being a major player in the Manson Family is also something, a factor that is also very important in terms of what inspiration or what influence he might have over other individuals in society who may share some of the same, similar twisted values that the Manson Family had back in the 60's. So for all those reasons, I would ask the Panel to find this inmate unsuitable for parole and make it a very lengthy denial. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Thank you. Ms. Montgomery, you can make a closing statement now if you wish.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Thank you, Commissioner. I'd first like to hit on some of the things that the District Attorney said today. I wrote down here that he believes that my client should be found unsuitable, one, based upon the fact that he has chosen not to speak because he believes that that suggests he is unsuitable. Now, I know this Panel knows the rules. I know that you know about Penal Code 5011, which says the Board shall not even require an admission to an offense in setting a date. And you announced at the beginning of the hearing that he had a right not to speak. He exercised that right like many individuals do that appear before this Board, and that is not supposed to be used against him. The suggestion that that somehow makes him more culpable in the eyes of the District Attorney is absolutely absurd. I'd like the Panel to go back and take a look at the number of hearings that my client has spoken to this crime. I'd like you to look at the board reports where he's spoken to the counselors about the crime. I'd like you to look at all of the psychological evaluations where the crime has been discussed at length. And while the District Attorney believes that this particular psychological evaluation is somehow lacking, I would point out it is, I believe, a 21-page psychological evaluation, and as long as I've been doing this I don't think I've ever seen one more detailed and more thorough than the one that has been presented for the hearing today. When we first come into a hearing, one of the first things that the Panel says is we're not here to retry this case, and that's exactly what the District Attorney is doing and wants you to do as well. You also indicate that we are all bound by the court's determination in this matter. I heard him talk about domestic terrorists, I heard him talk about other crimes allegedly committed at the ranch and after the commitment offense. This Panel, I don't believe, is prepared to sit in judgment of something that has not been charged, and there has been no conviction. And if I am wrong, then what we need to do is we need to take a recess right now and proceed to the courts, because that's what the District Attorney would like to do. He'd like you though to just bypass that and find him guilty of offenses that my client again has never been charged with. The District Attorney says that my client blames drugs. You know, that misses an awful lot that's been written about this in the reports. And I'd submit to you on page 15 of the psychological evaluation, Mr. Watson accepts full responsibility for the murders and made no attempt to minimize or rationalize his actions. Elsewhere, the whole issue of drugs has been addressed. And while the District Attorney believes that he's somehow blaming that, wouldn't he be remiss in his own recovery if he didn't identify drugs as a huge factor in his involvement with this group and his involvement in these crimes? It would be like the big elephant in the room that wasn't addressed. The District Attorney said he can't quite understand, if I heard him right, the reference to impulsiveness, that this was not impulsive. Well, I submit to you that it was, and I believe another clinician addressed this in great detail, talking about how that conduct, and I'm talking about the time that surrounded his involvement with Manson and the commitment offenses, it was a deviation from his normal lifestyle. And if you go back and you look at the lifestyle that he led in Texas, I think it's abundantly clear that there was a huge difference, and in that sense this was impulsive behavior. The suggestion that he still connected with a former Manson follower, I would ask that you consider that sometimes documents are created for legal purposes. It doesn't necessarily mean the individuals are connected in any way, and the suggestion that he still aligns himself with individuals couldn't be further from the truth. There are other things that he has said, and I have my own closing. I will address it there. But I know that the Los Angeles Police Department as well as the District Attorney oppose my client's release, and a number of other people do as well. But those individuals want you to rely upon the circumstances surrounding the commitment offense as a reason for denying parole, and the DA recited some of the factors listed in Title 15 that are entirely made up of aggravating factors. No one, I don't think there's anyone in this room, would dispute the fact that these offenses were tragic, they were horrible, and we're not here to dispute that. The California Supreme Court in In Re Lawrence made it abundantly clear that the immutable circumstances that the crime involved aggravated conduct does not provide the sum evidence that would support a decision that the person remains a threat to public safety, particularly when the offense is temporally remote and mitigated by circumstances indicating that the conduct is not likely to recur. While the District Attorney wants you to focus on the aggravating circumstances, he also fails to offer what the court requires, which is a rationally articulated nexus between the crime and current risk. And it's not because he missed it. It's because it doesn't exist. These offenses are temporally remote. They occurred over 42 years ago. Obviously the mitigation is there as defined by the courts in my client's efforts towards rehabilitation and the gains that have been very extensive in this case, and it is those gains that have occurred over the last four plus decades which support the conclusion that the conduct is not likely to recur. Other factors under Title 15 include a previous record of violence, non-existent here. While he did have a history of unstable social history surrounding the time of the crimes, that's not been the case for the last 40 years. He has strong and meaningful relationships and those are continuing to be nurtured today. Number four is inapplicable, and as to the psychological evaluations under that section, there were issues that arose regarding his mental health after the commitment offense, but there is not the lengthy history of severe mental problems as described in that section. And the section I'm referring to is 2281, if I neglected to mention it. The last area deals with infractions, and I think Commissioner Peck, you put it in perspective. 1973, now 38 years ago. Factors that support a finding of suitability according to Title 15, absence of a juvenile record, a stable social history. I made reference to the fact that he's no longer married. The last Panel wanted to focus on that or the silence from his wife. It's clear they have divorced. There are a lot of people that divorce. I think it's interesting that we have a very strong and supportive letter from her, and she speaks to a very strong marriage that did endure over 24 years. The record is abundantly clear as well that he gets along with staff and the inmate population as well. Signs of remorse, my client has demonstrated that he understands the nature and magnitude of the offenses that he committed. Dr. Roston in 2001 provided that his level of remorse was clear and deep, and Dr. Caoile notes that he continues to feel profound remorse and sorrow for the commitment offense. He had contemplated the impact on the victims and their families. His emotions appeared quite genuine and heartfelt, and he seemed to be aware of the gravity of the crimes. She also noted that my client acknowledged the pain that his own parents suffered as a result of his crimes. Motivation. The crime was committed at a time when my client was aimless, angry, impressionable and essentially lost, and he me up with other individuals that were equally as low. It was further complicated with drug usage, a shared need to belong and the horrific influences of Manson, which has been recognized repeatedly by the clinicians in the prison setting and individuals that have reviewed this case. While these represent factors obviously that contributed to my client's thinking and his behavior, which again he would be remiss in his own recovery if he had not considered the impact that those things had on his life, I don't suggest that they stand in the way of his responsibility or his culpability, and nor does he. Each individual involved made choices and they each owned those choices. Battered women is inapplicable in this case. And number six, my client lacks a history of violent crime prior to the commitment. Age, he was 23 at the time of the commitment offense. He's currently 65. Certainly the passage of time is one thing, but what one does with that time is even more important, and I think it's quite clear that he has used his time in prison to strengthen himself through self-help programs and therapy. His gains have obviously stood the test of time, and the probability of recidivism is significantly reduced. Understanding and plans for the future. We have presented parole plans that we believe are conducive to his successful parole, and I think this Panel would agree with that. You have seen similar situations where individuals have been confined for many, many years, and you like to see a transitional program to ease the adjustment period. We have provided you with three, but there is one he has indicated that he prefers that will assist him in a successful parole. You are also in possession of his relapse prevention plan which identifies a number of programs in the community to go along with that, a number of support individuals that will help him in his desire to experience a successful parole. And Dr. Caoile did indicate that he articulated practical and feasible parole plans. Institutional behavior, we already talked about the 115. Dr. Caoile said she summarized his record by stating that he should be commended for the outstanding efforts he's made in maintaining responsible, rule abiding behavior. No violence, no substance abuse. I would also note in the packet that we gave you there is reference to his having helped save a life of a prisoner that overdosed in 1986, and I know the Board typically will consider those issues. Efforts towards rehabilitation have been extensive. I'm not going to reiterate everything. You've covered what he has been doing. The sheet that I gave you, the two-page document, there was 53 entries since he's been confined in prison since 1972, but they do include one-on-one therapy, group therapy, anti-substance abuse programs, anger management, self-esteem workshops, rational behavior groups, faith-based programs, dealing with personal change. Importantly, some victim awareness programs. Just since the last hearing there were eight entries. And I would add to that we've got the two book reports. He is also expected to soon begin teaching a course in overcoming emotions that destroy. Dr. Caoile noted in her 2000 report that my client's record is remarkable for the number of self-help and treatments he's participated in throughout his confinement. Pursuant to Title 15, Mr. Watson's institutional activities clearly indicate an enhanced ability to function within the law upon release. The last Panel took issue with the fact that my client was involved in faith-based programs despite it being a recommendation in '95. That seemed also odd because the Board without exception has always viewed one's involvement in a 12-step program which is faith-based very favorably. The suggestion in 2006 and again today by the District Attorney that my client's faith somehow now represents a traded dogma from the time spent with Manson I think is far reaching and frankly offensive. There was nothing positive or nurturing about Manson or those involved with that group. It was an antisocial group that drifted, and they took from others. Mr. Watson's relationship with his faith is socially acceptable, his values are positive, and it's obvious that it's remained at a constant course in his life. It's also encouraged by prison officials and the Board, but the prison offers these programs for these individuals to get involved in. And I would also point out that the '06 Panel, despite finding unsuitability and taking issue with the faith-based program, recommended that he continued to be involved in self-help. I understand and I think everybody kind of shares this sentiment that if one's faith is new, it's not unusual for people to feel some sort of skepticism. But I would ask you to look at the fact that my client has embraced his Christianity since 1975. He's also made efforts at giving back, which were covered today. I would only add I thought some important ones were the associate pastor in Yokefellows, teaching the Bible study and overseeing the book review, the Christian book review. Those are positive leadership roles, and we saw him in a negative leadership role in the commitment offense. So the fact that he has done this I think is proof positive that the programs that he's been involved in have taken. He's done something with it. Not only did he strengthen himself, but he's giving back by helping other people. My client was recommended to upgrade his trade at the last hearing. We've got two trades. We've got office machine repair and data processing. Even the terms are a little on the ancient side and to my knowledge they haven't been offered. I'd point out that my client did the next best thing by acquiring his Bachelor's Degree. And while the District Attorney sort of downgrades the seriousness of that, it takes effort. I don't care if you have one semester or eight semesters. He has made significant effort. And that particular degree I think compliments him and will help him in the community. That was in business management and that was done in '09. And as I indicated and I provided you with the certificate, we have a FEMA certificate that I don't usually see anymore, but that was used to add to the knowledge and the training that he had already received in his current position as a biohazard janitor. By the way, he's had that position for two years where he's called on at all different hours to clean up often questionable material. In the chrono that CO Lewis wrote, she -- and I think it's a she.

INMATE WATSON: He.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Sorry, he. Notes that he was handpicked for this job, which called for a responsible individual that could follow OSHA guidelines. I looked at the '06 Board decision before I read the psychological evaluations, and by that I concluded that the 2001 psych evaluation suggested that my client posed a risk. But the Panel's decision seemed to disregard some critical conclusions that went directly to the issue that was before them, which was does Mr. Watson pose an unreasonable risk to the community. He was noted to have resolved many of the behaviors and attitudes that initially qualified him for antisocial personality diagnoses. But under the category assessment of dangerousness, Dr. Roston, R-O-S-T-O-N, for the transcriber, opined that he had not been a dangerous inmate, and as he recovered his psychological balance he managed to take good control of his behavior and had been a model prisoner. And these are Dr. Roston's words: "Were he to be released to the community, this psychologist believes that he would try to be a model citizen and probably succeed." He ends that section by stating: "This psychologist would predict unequivocally that he would not resort to violence." Dr. Roston stated he could not suggest any parole conditions, and as regards to release on parole he had no reservations. No therapy was recommended. The most current report which you have covered in great detail is obviously very supportive of release. Briefly, this clinician utilized the test that this Board has found to be acceptable. First, the PCL-R, which compares his level of psychopathy to others, he scored in the low range, which is the very lowest he can score. The HCR-20, which examines historical, clinical and risk management domains assesses the likelihood of future violence. Again, low range. And I want to add one note that I thought was significant under the HCR-20. The clinician indicated: "Mr. Watson does not exhibit or verbalize negative attitudes towards authority, has not communicated beliefs or values that are procriminal in nature, and shown excellent impulse and behavior control, and all reports indicates he is both emotionally and behaviorally stable." The LS/CMI assesses the risk of general recidivism. That again resulted in another low score. All those areas were considered along with the interview, along with a review of all the former psychological evaluations and a Central File that is obviously very thick. And Dr. Caoile concluded: "Mr. Watson presented a relatively low risk for violence in the community." She added that, "He continues to accept full responsibility for these murders and had developed considerable insight into the causal factors for the crime. Factors that are normally considered to increase the risk of violence and factors that would decrease the risk of violence have been thoroughly addressed by Mr. Watson and presented to this Board. I would also add that Mr. Watson has expressed his remorse in writing. Most recently he has written to Ms. Tate, as she had apparently expressed concern that Ms. Krenwinkel had never written, and I hope that that has provided some comfort. In closing, I have no doubt that this case presents a struggle for this Panel. I also believe it's presented struggles to Panels in the past, but those Panels did not have the guidance of the California Supreme Court. I'm asking that you fairly weigh this case as you would others and consider the extraordinary efforts towards rehabilitation and the resulting gains that have occurred over the last four decades. If Lawrence is applied to this case, it is an inescapable conclusion that Mr. Watson is suitable for parole, and I would request that you set a date today. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Thank you. Mr. Watson, you can make a closing statement now. I'll remind everyone to maintain eye contact with the Panel or neutral eye contact. I think you're going to read something. Is that what you wish to do?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, I will.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Go right ahead, sir.

INMATE WATSON: For the past four decades I've spent countless hours reflecting upon the magnitude of my crimes, my misguided choices and delusional beliefs that led up to my committing these crimes. I understand completely the outrage towards these murders. My heart is filled with remorse for the tragedy I caused so many people. I'm so deeply sorry that I allowed myself to get to the place of not valuing life. I remember daily that I destroyed the lives, the dreams and the bright futures of Mr. Parent, Mr. Sebring, Mr. Frykowski, Ms. Folger, Mrs. Polanski, her unborn child, and Mister and Mrs. LaBianca. I took a lifetime of experiences from both the victims and their families, which I replaced with funerals, loss and unbearable grief. I caused great hardship, anxiety and depression and severe pain. To the families and dear friends of my victims, especially to those in attendance today, I know I devastated your lives by causing such unimaginable tragedy and agony. I also caused tremendous fear to the Los Angeles community, as well as great heartache to my own family and friends. For all of this, I sincerely apologize. Because I cannot apologize to your loved one, I have chosen to honor their memories by living a clean and sober life and to address the problems that caused such tragedy. In addition, I apologize to society for these murders, which has left a great scar. These crimes will always be a time of humiliating reflection for me. From the onset of my recovery, I have accepted full responsibility for my actions as well as the consequences. Immediately upon entering the Department of Corrections in the early 70's, I desired to regain my family values. I started on a path of healing with Dr. Barkley, who helped me to see that life was still worth living even after my crimes. Three years later, I was awakened by God's love and acceptance. I recognized my inability to change without the power of God, and as a result I turned my will and my life over to the care of God. And over the years I have gained invaluable insight into the cause and effect of my crimes through individual therapy and hundreds of hours of spiritual and self-help groups. In these groups, I've admitted my weakness, accepted responsibility and became accountable for my actions. It was my irresponsible choices and beliefs that caused this tragedy. I attribute my personal changes, spiritual growth and maturity to not just self-help, but to faith and God's grace. I am committed to a successful parole and relapse plan. I will continue to be a benefit to others as a testimony of God's love working in and through my life. I remain one hundred percent accountable for these crimes. I know that given the opportunity I will be a productive, responsible and law-abiding citizen. Thank you for your time and consideration.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Thank you, sir. We do now have several people, I presume, that wish to make a statement. I'm not sure what order you wish to go in, but if you could state your name, first and last, and relationship to one of the victims I would appreciate that. We're going to do some moving around in chairs.

COMMISSIONER PECK: And we need introductions also.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: And again, maintain eye contact with the Panel or neutral eye contact. So ma'am, if you would, please.

MS. MATTHEWS: Is this working?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: It sure is.

MS. MATTHEWS: Okay. My name is Lynn Matthews, M-A-T-T-H-E-W-S. I'm reading a letter on behalf of Janet Parent and her family. Janet is the sister of Steven Parent. "My brother Steven, if he were alive today, would be 60 years old. It's been 42 years since I was last able to give him a hug. As the years have passed, the pain has gone from sharp to a constant dull, but the hole that's left in the hearts of my family will remain forever. We've heard that Charles Watson has become a Christian, that he's been a model prisoner and that he's feeling remorse. But what happened during the nights of August 8th and 9th in 1969 can never be minimized. The horror that my brother, Sharon Tate, Jay Sebring, Abigail Folder, Wojciech Frykowski, Rosemary and Leno LaBiance were all put through on those nights cannot be imagined. Most people in the US when they hear the words Manson Family, they think of the boogie man. And yet they can flip off the TV, put the newspaper down, and the boogie man is gone. But for each of the seven Manson Family victims, the boogie man was real. He ended their lives in August 1969 and has left a permanent, horrific touch on the hearts of each victim's loved ones. Nothing can ever bring back my brother, but what we can do is ask that justice continues being served. None of the Manson Family members convicted of these crimes should ever go free. They have received mercy when the death penalty was overturned. Our loved ones though did not receive mercy from them. We ask that Charles Tex Watson not ever be considered for parole. Thank you, Janet Parent."

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Thank you. Do you have a statement for yourself, ma'am?

MS. MATTHEWS: I a hundred percent go with this.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. All right.

MS. MATTHEWS: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Thank you. Someone else? Sir?

MR. DIMARIA: I'm Anthony DiMaria, Jay Sebring's nephew. This is a letter from Fred Cumber, my uncle, Jay Sebring's brother.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right.

COMMISSIONER PECK: Would you like us to read this in deliberations?

MR. DIMARIA: Please. Thank you. This might be a very, you know, laborious process, so bear with me.

COMMISSIONER PECK: Take your time.

MR. DIMARIA: There's no way for me to describe how Charles Watson's crimes have impacted our family or the void my uncle's murder has left, but I will start by telling you that these hearings and what is said in them is part of what haunts us today and sends us back to hell year after year. And while these hearings reopen old but very fresh wounds, I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of a man who was a profound source of love and pride for all his family. It is crucial in any matter regarding violent crime that the victim has a voice. It is the silenced voices of Charles Watson's eight victims that brings us here today. I include Sharon's son. To be clear, our family's involvement in these hearings has nothing to do with feelings of anger, vengeance or hatred towards Mr. Watson.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Mr. Watson.

MR. DIMARIA: Rather, we come out of love, to speak for those who can't speak for themselves. I am not here for Mr. Watson. I'm here for Jay Sebring. This is the 12th hearing that our family has attended, and over the years there has been much discussion on drug and brainwashing influences, accountability, good behavior behind bars, remorse, forgiveness and rehabilitation, and I'd like to address some of these issues. I ask the Board to deny parole to Charles Watson for reasons too many to list, so I'll focus on the following. The murder of my uncle at the hands of Mr. Watson ripped our family apart and devastated us beyond description. Dozens of our families across the nation know firsthand the hell and suffering resulting from the Manson murder spree. Though Mr. Watson is typically described as a Manson follower, he's anything but. Charles Tex Watson is a cold-blooded and the most lethal killer of the Manson murder clan. He carried out its despicable ideology, he trained his cohorts to kill, conspired, tortured, murdered and desecrated eight people. It is devastating to listen today how a college degree or involvement in self-help groups and victims outreach programs are weighed against the value of my uncle's life or with the memory of my family happy and complete until these murders. While Mr. Watson's behavior behind bars is commendable, it is merely normal for the typical law-abiding citizen. This is noteworthy because it is what he did abnormally that led to his death sentence. As you ponder the criteria of Mr. Watson's prison record, I ask, is your mother's life or your child's life worth 30 years of NA, AA and outreach programs or a college degree? Each of Charles Watson's victims deserve more. It is imperative to recognize that Charles Watson's crimes and the Manson legacy have become a poisonous societal cancer with destructive and fatal consequences even today. I sadly call to your attention 16-year-old Jason Sweeney, who was murdered by four teenagers, ages ranging 15 to 17. During the trial, the killers admitted listening to Helter Skelter for several hours over and over before murdering the teenager. Jason Sweeney was killed with a hammer, a brick and a hatchet. Jude Conroy, the Philadelphia District Attorney who prosecuted the case, states: "It is really amazing that teenagers in Philadelphia Memorial Day Weekend and contemplating an incredibly violent and brutal murder is attuned to the whole Helter Skelter and Manson mythology. It is a sad testament to the twisted, brutal legacy the Manson murders have left behind, so much so that it attracts 15, 16, 17 year-olds 40 years later, three thousand miles across the country. It is a powerful legacy." For these teens, Charles Watson's murder rampage was exciting and an inspiration to kill. The threat of Charles Watson to society, whether immediate, symbolic or repercussive, is real and current. Our family has never desired a letter of remorse from Charles Watson or considered forgiveness for his crimes, because frankly Mr. Watson's crimes transcend us. The authority to forgive in this case is beyond any individual or any institution, and lies solely with the eight people he massacred. When people are killed, the privilege of forgiveness from the direct victims is obliterated. It is my belief that any consideration of forgiveness on my part beyond those who have suffered directly is moot and self-serving. Regarding Mr. Watson's attorney's statement referring to the drug influences as deviations, I respectfully would like to quote Dr. Barbara Freez, MD, Senior Examiner for the Board of Neurology and Psychiatry. "It is not defensible to say Charles Watson was influenced immediately or chronically changed by LSD or speed. No drug has ever produced a sustained psychotic state that would cause a person to carry out organized activity, e.g., as in these murders with regard to the planning, the targeting, murdering, painting messages in blood, wiping the crime scene free of fingerprints, not to mention escaping capture and hiding from authorities. Psychedelic drugs do not make people do psychotic deeds." Part of what torments me all these years and today is the severity of Charles Watson's crimes and how horribly the victims suffered. The murders that occurred on the nights of August 8th and 10th dealt seven gunshots, 170 stabbings, and 13 times a blunt object was used to bludgeon. Mr. Watson fired all seven gunshots, crushed a skull he bludgeoned 13 times, and stabbed over one hundred times with a bayonet, butcher knife or a carving fork. He butchered a full-term pregnant woman and her child even as she cried out for the life of her baby. Mr. Watson dealt fatal blows to the all the Tate-LaBianca victims. He mutilated and disfigured victims as they lay dead. It is a twisted travesty that parole could ever be mentioned for mass murderers, let alone Charles Watson's crimes, most callous and inhumane. It is incomprehensible how a man could repeatedly kick a prone man in the face as he lie dying on the ground, how a man could butcher a restrained pregnant woman and her defenseless child, how a man could riddle a teenager trapped in his car with bullets, how a man could stand before his victim tied to a chair, his hands tied behind his back, and chose to shove a carving fork or butcher knife 20 to 36 times into his victim's body, how a man could team up with another killer and stab a woman 41 times, 36 times in the back. In stark contrast, it pains me to know my uncle's last actions as described in Mr. Watson's 1971 testimony. "All of a sudden people started coming in from other rooms. I was pacing back and forth, jumping up and down, when Sadie yelled out, 'Watch out.' I turned around I fired the gun at the man coming after me." Jay Sebring, unarmed from across the room, charged a man armed with a gun and a bayonet. That was the last thing he did. Yet another thing about these crimes that tortures our families is how the identities and legacies of the victims have been lost in the exploitation and sensationalism resulting from these crimes. These are not faceless props to be packaged and sold to suit the agendas of parasites lining their pockets. Upon his high school graduation, Steven Parent took on two jobs to pay for his college education. Abigail Folger strove to help her friends and communities in South Central LA. Leno LaBianca served in World War II, and together with Rosemary nurtured and supported their family through a successful chain of grocery stores in their community. Wojciech Frykowski came to this country hoping to fulfill his dreams. Sharon dreamed of having a family and raising her son. Jay Sebring was an innovator who revolutionized an industry. These were people who had their lives ahead of them, who wanted to make a difference for the good acting on their own free will. I'd like to quote from a letter that my Uncle Jay wrote on March 3rd, 1959. "Hi Dad. Thanks to a few fine people and yourself, the lease has been signed today and the ball has started its roll. I am in business for myself and I'm a very happy man. Without your help it would not have happened. I am very grateful and I will not forget. Thank you once again for sending the money and spending the time. I feel we can develop this into something that will be a credit to the family and a tremendous business success. With all my love, Tom." Tom was Jay's birth name. The business Jay envisioned transformed barbering into men's hair care and styling. A shop in Hollywood spread to Palm Springs, Las Vegas, San Francisco, with plans to expand in London and Paris. Jay was the first ever to develop his own personal hair care product line in the early 60's. Sebring-certified shops went nationwide and some still exist today. After Jay was killed, several partners enlisted to manage and operate his business. Knowing the value of the Sebring name, some of these partners sought to take over the company by creating rumors of a family disinheritance and causing financial stress on Jay's family by not paying rent for several months. My mother and father, both stylists, felt that they could protect Jay's legacy and vision by overseeing the business, but it was my grandmother's wishes after the murders that her family stay away from Los Angeles. My parents respected her wishes. My grandparents, having no knowledge of the hair business and with strained funds felt the best way to carry on their son's legacy was to sell the shops and product line. Due to greed and inner turmoil, the shops folded less than a year after the takeover, ending Jay's empire and the family plan he worked for nearly two decades to accomplish. This is a direct result of Jay's murder. Before Jay was killed, my grandparents saved every photo or article about their son from newspapers and magazines. We have trunks filled with them. When the lurid rumors and smut bubbled up and a media feeding frenzy, my grandmother never again picked up a newspaper or a magazine until the day she died. Most unbearable was how my grandmother's eyes would go vacant from time to time, especially on Christmas Eve, and she would leave the room for an hour or two. My mother describes it as going into a black hole. I am haunted to this day by the pain and tears of my mother's and grandmother's eyes. I have only a few memories of him. My grandparents were visiting from Detroit and Uncle Jay drove in from LA. We were playing in the front yard chasing each other. Before he drove off to LA, he took my grandparents, but he took a picture of us. I asked that the newsfeed not capture the image of the picture that I'm about to show to the Board if that's possible. Thank you. This is the picture he took of us that afternoon, less than a year before he was killed. If you look at the expressions on our faces, you'll see the pride and love we had as a family, but in particular are the feelings we shared towards the man taking the picture. As he drove off, I couldn't wait to see him again. That was the last time I saw him. I had no idea how profoundly his life and his murder would impact me. I would like you all to know the man that Jay Sebring was, but there is not enough time and this is not a deserving forum. Because of Jay Sebring, I know that if you live life passionately with a regard for excellence you can live your dreams. Because of Charles Watson, I know that anyone, anywhere, anyone in this room, can be caught unawares in the middle of the night and massacred with our families by a clan armed with guns, hunting knives and carving tools. I've seen for decades what that does to those left behind. Sorry. I'll get through this. Before I conclude, my family and I would like to thank Patrick Sequeira and the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office for their care and dedication in providing the victims a legal voice. Also, the Parole Board, both Commissioners here today, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Warden William Knipp and Victims Services for their care, and for providing the opportunity to speak on behalf of our loved ones who can't speak for themselves. Charles Watson may believe he has been rehabilitated and is a changed person, but I remind the Board that Steven Parent, Jay Sebring, Wojciech Frykowski, Abigail Folger, Sharon Tate, her child, Leno LaBianca, Rosemary LaBianca remain unchanged, unrehabilitated, unparoled. Considering the severe and heinous acts of Mr. Watson, I respectfully ask the Board to deny Mr. Watson parole for the most just period of time permitted by law. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Thank you, sir. Someone else? Yes, ma'am. If you could state your name again please and relationship to the victim.

MS. MARGARGET DIMARIA: Margaret DiMaria. I am Thomas J. Sebring's sister. And I think maybe I should have gone before my son. I hope I can get through this. I want to thank everybody first, because I don't know what shape I'll be in, but I want to thank you, Patrick, for everything you've done, and I want to thank the Commissioners and everyone, the officers, everyone in the prisons or with law enforcement handling all this, and for your service. I would like to mention that Charles Watson's attorney referred to this whole situation as tragic and horrible. I would say horrific, cold-blooded murders, calculating. It certainly, certainly way surpasses the pale of stealing a typewriter many years prior. It's the worst of the crimes. Anyway, my parents were so relieved when they heard that the people that did these murders were captured. They were relieved, they were grateful when they were brought to justice. They had the relief of the fact that nobody else would have to encounter any of them, that justice would be served. As we all know, Charles Watson and the others were sentenced to death. A few years later, the death sentences were revoked, then California reinstated the death penalty. They were not put back on death row. I believe this gave them a second chance. They are alive. The victims have no second chance. At that time, my parents were assured that the people who killed their son would never get out of prison. I'm extremely grateful that my parents never had to endure one of these parole hearings. I thank God for that. When it seemed that the parole hearings were a real possibility, I promised my brother, my parents, my sister, who is also not here any longer, that I would always be sure to come here and represent my brother, Jay Sebring, and never let him be forgotten, that none of the victims would be forgotten. Over the years, my husband has protected me at work, in public, when people unknowingly say hurtful things pertaining to the murders. It's been over 40 years and it still happens. We have tried to protect our children, but we have learned that it is forever ongoing. Our youngest daughter, who is with us today, experienced in junior high school some of her classmates wearing t-shirts with the pictures of these murderers, thinking it was cool. Even worse, thinking they were cool, someone to look up to. As a young adult, she went to a concert to see a lead singer wearing a Manson Family t-shirt. My daughter had to leave the concert. This is very current, it happens. Going to movies, a comedian makes a joke. When you go to dinner, somebody says something. It just is ongoing. It's important, very important that we don't send the wrong message to our youth. Our youngest daughter, it was many, many years since the murders when she experienced it. There are still people, there are still young people lost that will be influenced easily, and we have to protect them from this. We have to shield other people from any such heinous crime or behavior and protect our public from being influenced from people like this. Punishment will never equal the crime, especially this crime, but punishment must suit the crime. Punishment must be firm. It must be just. In my opinion, if Charles Watson has true contrition for the crimes that he has committed, I don't see how he can walk into this room and ask for parole. I do see it's good, the things that he is trying to do to be better with the remaining years of his life in prison, because it is a just punishment, but we'll never know really of his true contrition. Only he knows in his mind. Because what we see, what he has done, what all of them have done, is completely different. I'd like to reflect back in time now to the first time I met Sharon Tate, and it was in Las Vegas. My brother and she had come to Las Vegas. I was expecting our son Anthony. And when I first met her, I thought, she is so beautiful. She was an absolutely beautiful woman. But in talking with her and being with her, she was a sweet person, a sensitive person, a regular person, as you would say. Someone that was as beautiful as she was could be very full of themselves. She was not. She was just like anyone else. When my brother was leaving Las Vegas, he came by where I was working and he had a wrapped box. And I said, what is this? He said, this isn't from me. He said, when I took Sharon to the airport, because she had an appointment or an interview or something and she had to leave early, he said, she wanted me to take her to a store to bring you something because you're expecting. I opened it up and it was a very, very lightweight poncho. Being in Las Vegas, you're always too hot. It's 120 a lot of the year. She put such thought behind it. She wanted me to feel good. And that was how I knew her. At the times of the murders, her baby was murdered. I was expecting at the time. I never had that baby. After that, I had several miscarriages, and it was just the way it was. Now today at this parole hearing our daughter Christy was planning on being here, and it was very important to her to be here and represent her uncle. She's expecting right now. It's a pregnancy that she has to be very cautious. My husband and I and other kids had talked to Christy and said we know how bad you want to be here, but it's very important, and it would be extremely difficult to be here today. And we asked her to stay in Vegas. My husband stayed with her. They're just kind of maintaining work. But these are things that happen in your life. It's a wonderful thing and it's a tough thing too because it's very sensitive and we just have to deal with it the way we do. All of the memories of my brother, of his life, his many achievements, I see this good looking, well dressed, talented guy that lived life to the fullest. He wanted to bring out the best in people. He wanted to encourage people to go for what they wanted. And he would ask anybody, he asked my husband and I, you know, what did we want to do if we could do it, which at the time he was talking to us we had no money and we couldn't do it. That was important to him. It was important to himself with his life, but with other people that he encountered. The last time I saw him, the nightmare in my head is looking at him in the casket, swollen, really not recognizable for who he was. My mother had requested if at all possible that the casket be open because of all the horrendous rumors about being bludgeoned and people were cut up, and horrible, horrible things that the press sent out. She wanted that to be set aside. Of course, we found out she could not do anything about many lies and rumors and everything else that followed. But to think that my parents were going to see my brother like this, I just wanted to reach out and change it and fix him. You can't do it. His hands were stiff and in a position to where I could see him fighting for his life the last few minutes, trying to fight for Sharon and her unborn baby and all the others. My last memories of him is that he barely resembled himself. Because of the horrendousness of these crimes, I ask that Charles Watson gets a just, fair, as long as possible until the next time we have to come back. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Thank you, ma'am. Someone else? Again, if you can state your name and relationship.

MS. TATE: Yes. My name is Deborah Tate, and I'm the sister of Sharon Tate.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Yes, ma'am. Go ahead.

MS. TATE: I have several things that I would like to address, but before I do that I would like to tell both of you Commissioners and anybody else in the room that I spent most of that summer up at the house on Cielo Drive in Sharon's absence, she was off doing a film, and became very, very close to everyone with the exception of Steven Parent, who I didn't have the benefit of knowing. So in one fell swoop at the hands of Mr. Watson, I lost an entire support team. These events have changed my life forever. I'm the last living Tate family member. The stress took my mother immediately. The lights were on but no one was home, basically leaving me to do the everyday attendance of keeping my younger sister dressed and clothed and off to school. My mother didn't return to any meaningful and cohesive reason for living until she was called by Steven Kay, who was a Deputy District Attorney on the original case. We have been -- we established the rights in the State of California for the victims' family members to be heard, and we have been doing this for a very long time. Even knowing that and as much experience as I have, as you can see it's still gut wrenching to see the families and the loved ones still affected to this day as deeply as they are. Okay. Having said that, I have always been extremely supportive of each and every one of these people as well as many other people, working with the Department of Parole, having housed individuals that were paroled of fairly heinous crimes, including sexual molesters, taken them into my home and gotten them up on to a path of what we felt would be righteousness and gave them the support that they needed. I've only had one success and I've taken many. Recently I worked with the Department of Parole for over a year and got educated on the psychological effects, the prognosis for successful reentry into society. It's not as pretty of a picture as Mr. Watson's attorney would like to paint. The prognosis is actually very slim. But even doing that, I was willing to open up three homes to parolees, to house parolees. Clean and sober living, give them a chance to reenter, reintegrate into society. In doing so in my first test house, I decided that I don't think that I'm cut out to do that. The disappointment is just more than I could bear. I am very proud of all inmates bettering their lives, working in their programming, doing what is required under these controlled environments. I don't think that that can be compared to life outside of a controlled environment. The statistics aren't real good. I've been very active and have come to acquire knowledge over the past four years involving other murders committed by the Manson Family. I have substantial scientific evidence. I have reports from various people that were talked to inside various walls of prisons as well as officers of the court. I'm aware of tapes and lots of different notes where Mr. Watson himself was alluding to the knowledge of other crimes committed by the Manson Family. If he was truly 12-step rehabilitated, he should make all that information available to somebody within these walls, law enforcement or a counselor, giving details so that those victims of the murders could also go home. He also made a lovely statement after my mother died in 1992 saying that she died because she didn't have any forgiveness in her heart. That's a lovely statement by a good, God-fearing man who is working as a chaplain within a prison with another Manson Family server, who was Bruce Davis. None of these facts convince me that this man is suitable for parole because in my opinion his very actions and then lack of accountability or willingness to come forward on other things that he may have knowledge of make him a hypocrite and unsuitable for parole, because he has not successfully completed even the most basic 12-step program. He has not shown any real Christian forgiveness by making a statement that my mother's death is because she had no forgiveness in her heart. She was one of the most loving and giving women that I've ever met. It's very hypocritical to make that statement. That is a brief -- both those factors are brief insights to the true Tex Watson, what he was then and what he still is. Based on these facts and the damage that you have heard by these other family members -- and I am an appointed spokesperson for the LaBianca Family, but you folks have -- we've taken enough of your time. Given all this knowledge, I would like to ask you to please grant a denial, and as lengthy of a denial as you hold acceptable for this man's actions and lack of actions thereof. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Thank you, ma'am. Is there someone else? All right. We are going to recess for deliberations. If you officers would take Mr. Watson out. Everyone else stay seated until we secure the inmate. The time is now five after 1:00.

RECESS

--oOo--

CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS DECISION

COMMISSIONER PECK: We are on.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Okay. We are back on the record. The time is 1:36. In the matter of Charles Watson, CDC Number b as in boy, 37999, the Panel has reviewed all the information received from the public and all relevant information that was before us today in concluding the prisoner is not yet suitable for parole and would pose an unreasonable risk of danger or a threat to public safety if released from prison. Mr. Watson, there are a number of factors we look into, and I'm going to go over those here today and give you some level of understanding and insight as to how and why we reached our decision. I'm going to be speaking, as well as Mr. Peck, Commissioner Peck. The commitment offense I'm going to leave with regard to Mr. Peck's commentary and other commentaries that he wishes to make, but if any crime can be defined as the crime of the century, hideous, horrible crime, this one is. It's hard to escape that reality. But with that, in terms of your involvement and your role in all of this, I'm not going to speak about the details of that. There's been a number of comments and documents that deal with that over time, and Commissioner Peck will talk to some of those issues. What I'm concerned with and what we're trying to do here today, and our endeavor is to assess and make an understanding for ourselves as to your insight, your honesty, your understanding of the impact of the crime, and that's really where I'm going to focus. Before I go too much further, I do want to make a comment that I have had in my hearings, as has Mr. Peck, I'm sure. Individuals who choose not to speak about the crime, that in and of itself will not be held against you. But we are also saddled with the burden of attempting to make an assessment for public safety regarding one's suitability and risk to the community should we let them out. Typically what I find when someone doesn't speak about the crime is there's a volume, there's a wealth of other information that we can draw upon to make some kind of an assessment as to insight. Insight is what I'm talking about, honesty, coming to grips, understanding of the crime. That's what I'm speaking of here. We looked in your record, and quite frankly, and I'll talk about the psychological report in just a second, we did not see, we were not comforted in the fact that you had spoken adequately, sufficiently enough that made this Panel feel comfortable with regard to what your level of insight was, what your level of honesty is, what's your understanding of the impact of this crime. Indeed, I'll repeat it again, it was a huge crime. I listened very carefully, because virtually the only thing you said today was in your closing statement. You had it prepared, which I'm glad to see, but with that fact, preparing it, I expected to hear a lot more in terms of your remorse, your insight, your understanding, and I didn't. I was disappointed. And I'm disappointed for several reasons, not just because you don't seem to have it, but because you have spent years working on yourself in your area of devotion in terms of self-help and don't have the level, the depth of insight, understanding, remorse that I would expect from someone that has taken that much and done that much work on themselves. So that was a great concern to me, because I looked through the files in an effort to try to understand, you know, where is Mr. Watson at, where is he today. You have a lot of supportive information. We've read all that. We looked at your parole plans. I don't have a problem with your problem plans. They seem to be adequate. They're supportive, they're focused on supportive kinds of things. I have a problem with your insight, with your understanding of the magnitude of this crime, and it's not the numbers of people that died, that were taken off the planet on that day, on those days. It is the lack of your understanding, the broad base of fear, concern not only to the families of the victims in this case and your family, which is certainly understandable, but broader than that, to the community of LA, and you talked about that. But I'm here to tell you, this is nationwide in terms of impact. And in that prepared statement when you had all the time in the world to think about what you were going to tell us today, and virtually your only commentary to us, you glossed over all of that. I didn't get a sense that you had thought beyond what the very minimal basis is. This indeed is known worldwide. You need to understand that and you need to be able to share that so that this Panel and any other Panel for that matter has some level of understanding as to what work you've done. We have walked away in terms of listening to your final statement with a very limited understanding of how deep you've gone with regard to yourself. I have some suspicions in terms of your family, and no disrespect. You came from Texas to here, seemed to have a fine upstanding average family, yet you for some reason felt intimidated enough, concerned enough, to break that relationship off, which is typically for a child, and you were still a child at that time experiencing the world, to break it off and just head out to California, it was odd to me. I would have asked a lot of questions about that, because I wanted to know what was going through Mr. Watson's mind, you know, where was he. I looked through the psych reports. The last several psych reports I don't see any firm understanding or commentary in terms of why you did any of that. There's very superficial comments, and I'll get to those in a minute, because that's the other area that we can rely on when a Panel has questions and doesn't have the answers readily before us. For example, if you had spoke with us, we could ask more in in-depth questions. We will readily and we will automatically go to other areas. And I'm telling you that I've given dates to people who have not spoken to me because I have an understanding that they have some insight, there is some honesty. There's a broader understanding of what they were involved in. And I saw that nowhere. And I'll let Mr. Peck speak for himself, but I saw that nowhere in terms of depth in your commentary either here today or in the record. We need to see that. Again, I'll speak to the psychological evaluation in just a second. I have some concerns about social history. We don't spend a lot of time on social history, but it oftentimes sets in motion some components that further explain why people do some of the things they do. It isn't our time to be a psychologist, but we have a greater understanding if there are questions in our mind that we can seek out and get answers to with regard to -- and I've got some major questions regarding your upbringing. They may be easily answered. I didn't see them dealt with here. So that's of concern to me. In terms of the past and present mental state, while in terms of the details of the crimes themselves, which are horrific, we've gone through this entire file, we deal with these kinds of crimes unfortunately every single day. They are horrific, the details of those. You lived through it. Your understanding again has nothing to do with the details. Your understanding and ability to share with us your remorse -- and I know there's some comments in the psychological report, but we didn't see that here today after some -- a very difficult hearing for everyone, yourself included, a very difficult hearing, that there didn't seem to be any level of emotion that went much beyond touching the tops of the tables here. We don't expect you to break down and cry before us. Many do. That in and of itself is not it. It's the depth that you talk about that we can get. It's palpable in a hearing when an individual gets it, and we didn't hear it today. We didn't hear your level of remorse. We didn't hear your level of understanding of the enormity of this crime. In terms of your use of drugs -- and again, I'll get to the psych report in just a second. I know in part of the psych report you claim that the general commentary regarding the use of drugs was overblown. You tend to kind of say it was the drugs, but then, I'm taking full responsibility. Those can be viewed in a real static sense as very contradictory, which is why it's important, we need to see and hear in the reports somewhere some solution to that, or we need to talk about it. Well, we didn't get that sense today whether you are blaming the drugs for your role or blaming yourself, because you're kind of doing both. So that's of some concern to us. In terms of the psychological evaluation, I do want to talk just a bit about that before I turn it over to Commissioner Peck. We are familiar with Dr. Caoile's reports, and it is, quite frankly, a favorable report. But I was struck by the lack of follow-up questions to very important concepts, such as you spoke to the doctor about the crime itself, and your commentary is essentially left at, I take full responsibility. I had it marked here and I want to get to it again. On page 14, remorse into the life crime is the heading. It's at the bottom of the page: "Mr. Watson states he accepts full responsibility (one hundred percent)." Well, what does that mean? I don't have a clue. I ask every inmate that tells me I take full responsibility, what does that mean? You go on, because you didn't speak of it, you don't have to, but we need to have some level of understanding here. "I take full responsibility (one hundred percent) for the commitment offense," "and he believes the sentence was fair. He states he has grown over the years. His acceptance of full responsibility for the murders has also grown, and he concluded, 'It was me.' Mr. Watson quite tearfully described his feelings of remorse. He explained his experience of remorse. He has progressed because he initially did not know anything about the victims. He stated" -- and it goes on. But it's a very superficial commentary. It gave us no sense of understanding of what did you mean by taking full responsibility? That's more than just the details of the crime. For example, taking full responsibility is understanding that some group of teenagers somewhere else wanted to copy you guys. That's an understanding that has greater depth and greater conviction from our end. We didn't hear that today. It's extraordinary important, particularly on a crime of this nature. So we saw in various other parts of the psychological evaluation the same kinds of very -- comments that you were allowed to make that were not ferreted out as thoroughly as I would have liked to see, because they did not leave me with an understanding of who you were or what you were saying or the depth of your understanding. In terms of -- I do want to say, you made -- there was one commentary that at some point you tried to do a ninth step, which is a making amends step, which is, it's an admirable quality for individuals by sending a letter out. Every case is different, but by and large making amends is a very risky thing, not only because you can get in trouble for that, but more so, this family and other families that I've talked to probably don't ever want to hear your name ever again. And reaching out and touching them is even more pain to something they've already suffered a great deal about. So it's very weighty. It's very weighty to reach out and do that. The best way is to go through Victims Services.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: This one actually went through the DA.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: All right. Well, I would not have done that. It's of concern to me. If you know your ninth step, it says it right there at the bottom of the ninth step. You do so unless it would harm them to a greater extent. That's on you. It's not on the DA. And that's too bad if the DA sent that through, but that's on them. I do appreciate your efforts along those lines, but you should after all of these years of 12-step programming understood that there's a much greater component to that ninth step than just sending a letter out. It takes a lot more thought. In terms of your remorse, again, I think I've covered that. I didn't get a sense it was as deep as I would have liked to have seen. Institutional adjustment, you've done well since you've been in the institution. We need to all recognize that. It's hard for us and for, I'm sure, you to some degree to be able to put together some explanation as to why a middle class kid from Texas that was going to school that had apparently -- ends up in a case like, in a situation like that. But that's your burden. That's why you're here, you're in the seat. You've got to work your way out of it, and we didn't hear it today as thoroughly as we would have liked. Again, the parole plans are not an issue with me. I'm glad to see that you have that support. As further evidence though, you see that your supportive documents, they're from all over the place, and I'm glad for you that they are, are people that you're corresponding with from New York, from all over. That should show you some level of insight as to the magnitude of what you did, that others are now somehow interested in assisting you, and that's wonderful. It comes out of the goodness of their heart. But it comes from a very black place. I'm going to give, before I conclude, Mr. Peck an opportunity to make a closing statement.

COMMISSIONER PECK: Mr. Watson, just a couple things I want to talk to you about. I thought, number one, I thought Commissioner Prizmich was very articulate in stating the basis for the denial, but there's a few things that I want to tell you that I feel is important. First of all, I want to give you lots of credit for all the things that you've done. Getting your college degree, getting involved in your Christian 12-Step Program. Being involved in your programs has been outstanding. I can see that you're a hard worker, you do a good job. Your supervisors like you. And I think all those things are very commendable. When I -- as you know or don't know, I get these files in advance, so I have a pretty good idea when I come here of how you've been doing. And I was really looking forward to the opportunity, because when I looked at this I looked at a guy that's done a lot of work, and I was really looking forward to the opportunity to ask you some questions to understand the depth of your knowledge about the life crime, because frankly, calling your crime that you were involved in the crime of the century probably wouldn't be too far from the truth. I don't think there's a person around that doesn't really know about the crime that you were involved in. Obviously you know that would trouble a Panel, and if we're going to give you a date today and if we're going to put you out there in free society, we have to be able to make an assessment that you're going to be -- that we're going to be able to protect society, because that really is our first responsibility. And when you chose not to speak to us today, it concerned me. You have a right not to speak to us. We didn't hold that against you, but there was no way we could get into any kind of in-depth understanding of your insight into your life crime. You decided to talk to the clinician, which was great. Dr. Caoile gave us a great report. But you chose not to talk to us, the ones that are making the decision, about questions that we may have to really assess whether you're ready for free society or not. I think it's fair to say that if you look at 2402 and you look at the commitment offense as far as A, B, C, D and E, which talks about multiple victims were attacked and injured or killed in the same or separate incidents, the offense was carried out in a dispassionate and calculated manner such as an execution-style murder, the victim was abused, defiled and mutilated during the offense, the offense was carried out in a manner which demonstrates an exceptionally callous disregard for human suffering, and the motive for the crime was inexplicable or very trivial in relationship to the offense. I could say we hit every one of them here today. You know, I didn't have a sense that you have delved deeply into exactly what your crime, how many people you have affected by your crime. I certainly couldn't get a feel for that from the psychological evaluation and you didn't provide that to us today. Frankly, I was hoping for a lot more from you. Again, I do want to give you kudos. You've got tons of support. I don't have a problem with your parole plans. I think you're working towards your recovery. I think that's very good. I would hope though that the next Panel would have an opportunity, a better opportunity to make a good assessment with you. And I'll turn it back to the Commissioner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Thank you. We also gave consideration to the District Attorney's position as well as the Los Angeles Police Department, and certainly did listen to the victims' next-of-kin here today. We do not feel based upon our review here today that a 15 or a ten-year denial is needed nor warranted. We do believe that you have done a substantial amount of work. The hardest part of that work I think is still before you though, sir, and that is the work of going deeper than just the mere surface, and that's really what we feel, where we feel you are at at that point. It is painful and difficult work and we encourage you to do that. The Panel finds that there is clear and convincing evidence, as I and Mr. Peck have been describing pursuant to Penal Code section 3041(b)(3), and after considering the victims' and the public safety as well as the criteria set forth in Title 15, that a period of five years is what you're going to get. You're getting a five-year denial, sir. And during that time, I believe we pretty much outlined what you need to do. I encourage you to continue that work. This hearing is now concluded.

COMMISSIONER PECK: One quick thing though.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Go ahead.

COMMISSIONER PECK: Before you go off the record, you have an opportunity to file a 1045 Form per Marsy's Law. 1045 allows you to get a form from your counselor, or I think we might even have a -- do we have a 1045 Form here? If we do, we should get him one. And then you could fill it out. It goes to the Board, they'll do an evaluation. It's called a petition to advance. They can move your hearing up if you feel that you are ready to have your hearing moved up sooner. So I just want to make sure you understand your rights.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: So with that, sir, this hearing is now concluded. The time is 1:58.

ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY: Recommendations?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: No 115s, more insight, more self-help programming, continue with your good work in terms of your vocations. If you can improve those we'd appreciate that. I think you would as well. So with that, this hearing is concluded. The time is 1:59.

COMMISSIONER PECK: Good luck, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PRIZMICH: Good luck, sir.

INMATE WATSON: Thank you.

ADJOURNMENT

PAROLE DENIED FIVE YEARS