SUBSEQUENT PAROLE CONSIDERATION HEARING

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS

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

LESLIE VAN HOUTEN

CDC Number: W-13378

CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN

CORONA, CALIFORNIA

SEPTEMBER 7, 2006

2:30 P.M.

PANEL PRESENT:

Mr. Edward C. Williams, Presiding Commissioner

Ms. Elizabeth Richardson, Deputy Commissioner

OTHERS PRESENT:

Ms. Leslie Van Houten, Inmate

Ms. Christie Webb, Attorney for Inmate

Mr. Patrick Sequeira, Deputy District Attorney

Mr. Anthony DiMaria, Victims' Next of Kin

Ms. Jamie Luna, Observer

Mr. John DeSantis, Victims' Next of Kin

Mr. Lewis Smaldino, Victims' Next of Kin

Ms. Debra Tate, Support/Observer

Mr. Tip Kindel, CDCR/Observer

Ms. Kate Jostin, Observer

Mr. Peter Garrow, Observer

Correctional Officers, Unidentified

PROCEEDINGS

[Thereupon, malfunction of recording equipment and/or microphones resulted in excessive inaudibles.]

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: All right. We're on record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. This is a Subsequent Parole Consideration Hearing for Leslie Van Houten, CDC number 413378. Today's date is September the 7th of 2006. It's approximately 2:30, and we're at the California Institution for Women. Inmate was received on August the 17th, 1978, from Los Angeles County. Case number A25315, for two counts of murder in the first degree. Sentenced to serve seven years to life. Minimum Eligible Parole Date is August the 17th. What date is (inaudible)? Let me find (inaudible).

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: 1978.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1978. Okay. We're going to identify everyone in the room. I'm going to start and then we're going to go to my left to the Deputy Commissioner. We're going to say our first name, say our last name, spell our last name. And then when it gets to you, if you'd include your CDC number, I'd appreciate it. I'm Edward C. Williams, W-I-L-L-I-A-M-S, Commissioner.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Elizabeth Richardson, R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N, Deputy Commissioner.

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

MR. SMALDINO: Lewis Smaldino, S-M-A-L-D-I-N-O.

MR. DESANTIS: John DeSantis, D-E-S-A-N-T-I-S.

MR. DIMARIA: Anthony DiMaria, D-I-M-A-R-I-A.

MS. TATE: Debra Tate, T-A-T-E.

MS. LUNA: Jamie Luna, L-U-N-A.

MR. KINDEL: Tip Kindel, K-I-N-D-E-L.

MS. JOSTIN: Kate Jostin, J-O-S-T-I-N.

MR. GARROW: Peter Garrow, G-A-R-R-O-W.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. In addition, there's a correctional officer that will not be participating in the hearing. Ms. Van Houten, could you read --

ATTORNEY WEBB: Shall I identify myself?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

ATTORNEY WEBB: Okay. My name is --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: (Inaudible) ending.

ATTORNEY WEBB: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go ahead.

ATTORNEY WEBB: My name is Christie Webb. I'm Ms. Van Houten's attorney. W-E-B-B.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Leslie Van Houten, capital V-A-N, capital H-O-U-T-E-N, W-13378.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Now that identifies everyone in the room. If you would read that document there between those two stars. It's an ADA Statement.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: "The Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, is a law to help people with disabilities. Disabilities are problems that make it harder for some people to see, hear, breathe, talk, walk, learn, think, work and take care of themselves than it is for others. Nobody can be kept out of public places or activities because of a disability. If you have a disability, you have the right to ask for help to get ready for your BPT Hearing, get to the hearing, talk, read forms and papers and understand the hearing process. BPT will look at what you asked for to make sure that you have a disability that is covered by the ADA, and that you have asked for the right kind of help. If you do not get help or if you don't think you got the kind of help you need, ask for a BPT 1074 Grievance Form. You can also get help to fill it out."

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. You didn't need glasses to wear to read the -- that document?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Well, it was a blurry, but I made it through.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You need glasses, but you made it through?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And do you normally wear reading glasses?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you don't have them today?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you can hear me okay?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, I can.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And you have no physical problem that (inaudible) from getting here or hindered --

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- you in any way?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And on May the 17th of this year, you signed what's called a 1073 Form, indicating that you had no disabilities and no -- needed no special help to participate in this hearing. Is that correct?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, that's correct.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And any additional ADA issues we should be talking about, Counsel?

ATTORNEY WEBB: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This hearing is being conducted pursuant to the Penal Code and the rules and regulations of the Board of Parole Hearings governing Parole Consideration Hearings for life inmates. The purpose of today's hearing is to once again consider your suitability for parole. We've had the opportunity to review your Central File, and you'll be given an opportunity to correct or clarify the record. We're going to consider your progress since your commitment, your counselor's reports and your mental health evaluations. We're going to focus on your progress since the last hearing. And any change in your parole plans should be brought to our attention today. We will reach a decision today, and we'll let you know what that decision is. If you're found suitable for parole, the length of your confinement is going to be explained to you. Before we recess for deliberations, the Deputy District Attorney, your attorney and you will be given an opportunity to make a final statement regarding parole suitability. Your statement will be limited to why you feel you are suitable for parole. We'll then go to recess, deliberate and call you back in when we have a decision. We'll let you know what that decision is. The California Code of Regulations states that regardless of time served, a life inmate shall be found unsuitable for and denied parole, if in the judgment of the Panel, the inmate would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison. Do you understand that?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You have certain rights at this hearing. I'll ask your Counsel, have these rights been met to this point?

ATTORNEY WEBB: Yes, they have.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. Additionally, you have a right to be heard by an impartial Panel. Do you have any objection to the two Panel Members seated across the table from you?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: No, I don't.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Counsel, do you have any objection?

ATTORNEY WEBB: No, we don't.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're going to receive a copy of our written tentative decision today. That decision becomes effective within 120 days. A copy of that decision and a copy of the transcript of this hearing is going to be sent to you. You have the right to appeal that decision with Counsel (inaudible) should you choose. You're not required to admit to or discuss the offense. However, this Panel does accept as true the findings of the court. Do you understand that?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can't overrule the Judge or the jury; whoever made the decision (inaudible).

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will any confidential information be used?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm not aware of any confidential information that will be utilized at this hearing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've passed a hearing checklist to your Counsel, and if we can go to the Deputy DA. It's a list of documents that we referred to. We want to make sure that everybody has access to the same documents.

ATTORNEY WEBB: (Inaudible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Do you have any additional documents to be presented today?

ATTORNEY WEBB: I have a few additional letters of support.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.

ATTORNEY WEBB: And one of them is a -- the job offer that Ms. Van Houten has had consistently for --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fine.

ATTORNEY WEBB: -- from the beginning of her hearings. And that letter is here. And there are a couple other support letters.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very good.

ATTORNEY WEBB: The job offer is on the top. And I'm going to submit again, there was a declaration of Doctor Michael Coburn, that was submitted last time, and it doesn't seem to be in the packet. But I'm willing to submit that again.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is this a Psychologist that is --

ATTORNEY WEBB: Yes, it is.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- an independent Psychologist?

ATTORNEY WEBB: It's a -- No, it's not. It's a Psychologist who saw Ms. Van Houten here in the prison a long time ago and evaluated her later on.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, fine.

ATTORNEY WEBB: He discusses his conclusions.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you very much.

ATTORNEY WEBB: That was submitted in 2004, so --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And do you have any preliminary objections?

ATTORNEY WEBB: Yes, I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.

ATTORNEY WEBB: And I'm sorry. I'm going to object again to Ms. Tate's presence at the hearing. I'm sorry to have to do that, with all due respect to Ms. Tate as a victim. She is not one of Ms. Van Houten's victims. And it's important, I think, for us to remember that Ms. Van Houten was not convicted of the murders at the Tate house or a conspiracy for those murders. And I know that's been a confusion in the past, so I'm going to --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, and --

ATTORNEY WEBB: -- state my objection.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- certainly. And that will go into the record. And, additionally, you know that that has been -- there's been a decision on that in the past. And Ms. Tate is here as a support person and she's (inaudible) accepted in that role. And she'll not be participating in the hearing today.

ATTORNEY WEBB: Okay. That --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.

ATTORNEY WEBB: -- is what I wanted to get on the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. Will the inmate be speaking with us today?

ATTORNEY WEBB: She will be speaking about, you know, her -- what's been happening with her here at CIW. But she will not bring -- is not going to discuss the facts or the evidence of the commitment offenses today. She's freely discussed those facts over 14 hearings and certainly --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Certainly. Okay.

ATTORNEY WEBB: -- with the counselors and psychologists --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.

ATTORNEY WEBB: -- (inaudible) to the Board reports, and she's -- accepts full responsibility for her offense and doesn't dispute the facts as long as they are those we've agreed on from the 2004 --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.

ATTORNEY WEBB: -- Court of Appeals Opinion.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Now you've availed yourself of a very important right. That is that you have chosen not to discuss the commitment offense.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want you to keep that in mind, and we'll all keep it in mind. And it's my job to make sure that nobody discusses that (inaudible). And I'm sure your Counselor will keep that in mind too.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Okay. I've never not discussed the offense, so I'm not really clear on what you're talking about.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. The issue is that sometimes if you want to talk about remorse, the likely question is, remorse for what. And that would lead to a discussion of the crime.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Oh.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, I want you to keep in mind that you have exercised your right not to speak about the crime, and we'll all keep that in mind. So we don't want you to get caught in the moment and start talking about it, and then somebody else may feel the right to ask you questions about it.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that gets awfully complicated.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't want to be part of that.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As to those things other than the crime, if you'd raise your right hand to be sworn, please. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.

ATTORNEY WEBB: I have one clarification.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Certainly.

ATTORNEY WEBB: You know, Ms. Van Houten is willing to talk about her feelings about what she did and she would make an expression of remorse to the victims' family members who are here at the end of the hearing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.

ATTORNEY WEBB: As she usually does.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, fine.

ATTORNEY WEBB: Is that --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's acceptable.

ATTORNEY WEBB: -- appropriate?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Certainly.

ATTORNEY WEBB: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now, I'm going to read a description of the crime found in the Appellate Decision dated May 1st, 2004, starting midway at page four and continues. And it's rather lengthy, so we'll ask for your indulgence. And it says -- and it talks -- picks up where you all are at the Spahn Ranch. And it says, "Initially, life at the ranch seemed ideal to Van Houten, according to the counterculture standards of the late 1960's. She described the ranch as this wonderful commune of kids and the women all in (inaudible) all the time, and (inaudible) took care of the kids. Soon, however, the sinister side of "The Family" emerged. Manson dominated and manipulated members of "The Family" which within the context of isolation, dependence, fear and drugs, sex and indoctrination of "The Family" experience. The members became convinced of Manson's peculiar apocalyptic fantasies and goals. It was Van Houten as a member of "The Family" shared Manson's beliefs, goals and means, which included the murders required to start the revolution they envisioned. Van Houten testified before the Board that on the evening of August the 8th, 1969, Manson approached Van Houten and asked her if she was crazy enough to believe in him and what he was doing. And Van Houten said yes. That night, following Manson's instructions and without Van Houten, Watson, Atkins, Krenwinkel and Kasabian brutally murdered Sharon Tate Polanski and it looks like about three or four others, subsequently referred to as the Tate murders. The victims were trapped in or pursued through and about the Polanski residence and shot or clubbed or stabbed multiple times. The murders -- The murderers returned to the ranch and reported to Manson. Sometime the next day, August the 9th, 1969, after Atkins and Krenwinkel returned, they told Van Houten that they had committed the Tate murders. Van Houten left out and wanted to be included next time. After dinner that night, Manson told Van Houten and other members of "The Family" that the murders of the previous evening had been too messy, and that he would show them how it should be done. Manson, Van Houten, Watson, Krenwinkel, Atkins and Kasabian got in the car. As instructed by Manson, Van Houten took a change of clothes with her in case her clothes got bloody. Kasabian drove, following Manson's apparently random directions for about four hours, selecting and discarding possible crime -- victims, until Manson told her to stop in front of the residence of Harold True on (Inaudible). Manson was acquainted with this -- with the residence (inaudible) Harold True, who was known to some of the "The Family" and told Manson he could not go there. Manson said he was going to the house next door, which was on Waverly Drive and belonged to the LaBiancas. Manson and Watson went inside first and surprised and tied the LaBiancas. Manson returned alone several minutes later reporting that he had tied up a man and a woman and got their wallets. Speaking directly to Krenwinkel and Van Houten, Manson told them to go into the house and do what Watson told them to do. He also told them not to let the victim know they would be murdered. The purpose of this surprise was to avoid the chaos of the Tate murders. Van Houten and Krenwinkel went into the residence and found Watson holding the LaBiancas at the point of his (inaudible). While Krenwinkel and Van Houten went into the LaBianca residence, Manson and the others drove away. Manson had Kasabian plant the LaBiancas wallet in a gas station restroom, hoping that it would be discovered by a Black person, which would use -- which would use the credit cards and be blamed for the theft and the murders. At the LaBianca residence, Watson asked the victims if they had any money. Mrs. LaBianca handed him her -- hands were untied and she brought out a small box of money. Watson told Van Houten and Krenwinkel to take Mrs. LaBianca into the bedroom and kill her. Van Houten and Krenwinkel took Mrs. LaBianca to her bedroom. At some point, Krenwinkel went into the kitchen and brought back some knives and gave Van Houten one. Van Houten then put a pillow case over Mrs. LaBianca's head and grabbed a lamp -- a lamp cord, still attached to the lamp, around her neck. Mrs. LaBianca heard the sound of her husband being stabbed and a guttural sound of his breathing in the living room, and she forced her way up from the bed, yelling her husband's name. Mrs. LaBianca grabbed the lamp attached to the cord around her neck and swung the lamp at Van Houten. Van Houten knocked the lamp out of Mrs. LaBianca's hand and wrestled her back onto the bed, where she pinned her down so that Krenwinkel could stab her. Krenwinkel plunged a knife taken earlier from the LaBianca kitchen with such force down on Mrs. LaBianca's (inaudible) with the knife blade bent. Leslie Van Houten ran into the hallway, calling for Watson, who came into Mrs. LaBianca's bedroom with the (inaudible). According to Van Houten, she turned away from LaBianca -- Mrs. LaBianca and Watson stabbed Mrs. LaBianca with the bayonet eight times. Each of the eight stab wounds was made by a (inaudible) probably wielded by Watson because of the force required to produce the deep wounds. Each of the eight wounds alone could have been fatal; seven of which were in the back. Watson turned Van Houten around, handed her a knife and hold -- told her to do something. At that moment, Van Houten saw Mrs. LaBianca lying still on the floor. She said that she felt Mrs. LaBianca was dead, but she didn't know for sure. Van Houten then used the knife Watson gave her to stab Mrs. LaBianca. She admitted at one point stabbing her in the lower back 16 times, and at another point, she said she stabbed her times. Mrs. LaBianca was stabbed a total of 42 times. According to Diane Lake, another "Family" member, Van Houten told her that she had stabbed a woman who was already dead, and that the more she did it, the more fun it was. After the stabbing, Van Houten thoroughly wiped away the perpetrator's fingerprints while Krenwinkel wrote in blood on various surfaces of the residence. She gave the extra clothes she brought to Watson when he asked her (inaudible). Watson told her to put on some of Mrs. LaBianca's clothes, which she did, and discarded in a dumpster, the clothes that they had (inaudible). She drank some chocolate milk from the LaBiancas' refrigerator. Back at the Spahn Ranch, she burned Mrs. LaBianca's clothes that she had -- was wearing and counted the eight dollars in change in Mrs. LaBianca's box. Van Houten hid out for over two months at a remote location and was not arrested until November the 25th, 1969. In the 1990 -- In 1991, a jury convicted Van Houten for two counts of first degree murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder and imposed the death sentence. The judgment was reversed because of a mistrial, disappearance of Van Houten's attorney. In a subsequent retrial, the jury deadlocked, resulting in a mistrial. Van Houten was tried a third time and the jury again convicted her of one count of conspiracy to commit first degree murder and two counts of first degree murder. However, the jury in this third trial was not required to decide that the -- she premeditated and deliberated the murder. Because of the Trial Court, also gave felony murder instructions to the current life sentences with the possibility of parole (inaudible) imposed. An appeal of the judgment was affirmed and in the same opinion, a petition for habeas corpus was denied." That is the reading to the extent that I'm going to read. You've been convicted of another crime, Ms. Van Houten?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That didn't happen? Aside for -- from some arrests that were not disposed of, there was no disposition indicated. You had not been convicted of a misdemeanor (inaudible). Is that true?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: That's true. I was arrested at the ranch for GTAs and --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: -- that sort of thing, but never taken to trial.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. In '69, for insufficient evidence. In August of that year, no disposition. And the next month, an arrest with no disposition. So to be accurate, you've never been convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes. No, I've never been convicted. Never.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: (Inaudible) misdemeanor.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You were born -- Let's see. Second of two children. Is that correct?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And to Paul and Jane Van Houten.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Were your parents. And your father is still alive?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, he is.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I understand he's about 88 years old.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, he is.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You have two younger adopted siblings.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very close to your father.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, I am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then they were divorced when you were 14; your parents.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, my mom and dad. Dad left when I was 14.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You completed high school?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: I completed high school at Monrovia High School.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And then you went on to business college. Is that correct?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, I took a year at Sawyer's Business School and became a legal secretary.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And was the program there a one-year program?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, it was.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So you completed it?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And you are a certified secretary (inaudible) time.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then apparently you got into drugs and other things.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: I had -- I had been in drugs, involved in drugs in high school.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: When my mom and dad separated, it left me torn, and I began to experiment with drugs when I was 15.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Marijuana and then I eventually started taking LSD. But I'm an addict, and so to be perfectly honest with you, from the moment I smoked my first joint, I -- my lifestyle changed.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: I wanted to be part of the drug culture.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you had a -- what's called an addictive personality?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would you like to tell us about that?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: (Inaudible), please.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: I believe I know they haven't proved it completely, but I believe I got it from my dad.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Probably genetically, because my older brother --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He was a drinker. Right?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yeah, he's an alcoholic.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Tell me what you would do if you were paroled.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: I would hope that I could continue doing what I'm doing right now, which is working, tutoring young women to get their AA Degrees. And I would like to do that. I would like to help young people in their academic careers. And it's a new program here that I was asked to be part of about a year ago. And I find it very satisfying and positive and giving back.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So you're doing some of that now? Is that it?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: I'm doing it now. Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: When the rehabilitation was brought back into the Department, this prison took on the Chaffey College Associate of Arts Degree. And so this is the second year. And because I was able to get my Bachelor's Degree years ago, they're training me in how to be a tutor at like success centers at junior colleges. And so I'm responsible for about 60 women, and I'm --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is your Bachelor's --

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: -- supervised by --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- Degree in?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: English Literature. And I particularly tutor English.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you earned that degree while in state prison?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, I did. I believe I got it in '85 or '86. And then suddenly this opportunity came up to use it, and I'm very satisfied with what I'm doing. I would love to be able to do that. I think it would take time to find a way that I could. But that's what I would really love to do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And where would you live?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: I can live just about anywhere, but I have plans for LA. And I think a lot of that specific plans would be how much I could gain my anonymity as (inaudible) possible. And so I am under the impression that I would work with the parole authorities on how to have that happen. And so I would like to work at the junior college level, where I'm able to be -- fit in. And I've talked candidly with the people that are training me, and they've assured me -- and you may have a letter to that effect. But they've assured me that they would help me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Meanwhile, I have the job as the legal secretary for Orange County. You know, I don't know if I'm bound to counties, because I have a job in LA and I have a job in Orange County.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can't guarantee one way or the other.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Cross Roads is in San --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But I know that periodically, adjustments --

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: -- Bernardino, I think, and so --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- are made. Why I (inaudible) --

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yeah, I have --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- guaranteed.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: I have multiple resources.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that your experience, Counsel?

ATTORNEY WEBB: Well, I'm not sure about that. But you also do have the job offer that --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.

ATTORNEY WEBB: -- as I said, I gave you that letter today and that's in LA County as well in the fabric store.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are a lot of letters here.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are a lot of letters that are considered somewhat irrelevant, both in opposition and in support.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My interest and, hopefully, your Counsel (inaudible) the District Attorney are to refer to letters of some significance that have a bearing on your parole.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I'm not worried about letters from people that have no idea who you are other than they watch TV.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they (inaudible) supportive or in opposition.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So in order to (inaudible).

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: May I -- May I just answer one last thing?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Certainly.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: When you said what do I want to do. I think it's important that I say at this point too, that I understand and I have done it in here, and it's become my way of life now to be part of the AA/NA Society that's out there and also the Alanon. And I suppose when we talk about my psychiatric evaluation, I'll talk about that a little bit more.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: But you know, one of the concerns is that in the past, I have had disastrous relationships. And I've thought a lot about that. But Alanon is also a support group for families.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: And so I just wanted to add that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I appreciate that.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: That's off the top, my freedom, my release, off the top is based on the Twelve Step Program and people that live it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can bet that if you got a date, somebody would be asking about that.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yeah, I know.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Now, here's a letter from Herb Barron. Tell me about --

ATTORNEY WEBB: I think --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go ahead.

ATTORNEY WEBB: -- that's one of the offers of employment that we forgot to talk about, address.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see. Okay. Then we will go on and I will refer to it shortly.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: He -- Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This letter is from a person in the television industry. You wanted that person being identified by (inaudible)?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: (Inaudible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Chris Albergon (phonetic).

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Oh, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And tell me about that person.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: I met him probably about ten years ago, and he's been supportive of me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: He is -- I would consider him like a secondary support person. We've been --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. But not (inaudible) you --

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- know well, huh?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Journey of Hope. Tell me about that organization.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: I became aware of the organization through a man named Bill Pelkey (phonetic). And he lost his grandmother to a very violent crime. And I met him in the visiting room. He was visiting someone else, and he had a really strong impact on me. He was very compassionate. And it was the first time I was able to really --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, they (inaudible) offer a lot of --

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: -- (inaudible) a relationship.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They offer a lot of help.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, they do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One from a Correctional Lieutenant.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't see many of those.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: No. Lieutenant Krennock (phonetic). I worked for him for 19 years off and on.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: I believe a long time. And he retired recently and gave me that letter the last day of his job.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He recommends you for employment.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A very significant letter. Do you have a sister?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That writes. Is this her letter?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: I didn't --

ATTORNEY WEBB: I don't believe that is, Mr. Williams.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No? It's --

ATTORNEY WEBB: I think that's from a former inmate.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. The name is illegible. That's why I just wanted to --

ATTORNEY WEBB: I think her name is (Inaudible).

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Oh, yes. I did time with her about 20 years ago.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And here is an offer of a job.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And we won't go into where because of -- for obvious reasons.

ATTORNEY WEBB: And, again, that's been consistent since --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Certainly. And so --

ATTORNEY WEBB: -- 1978.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- we'll accept that as a job offer. Additionally, Kay Van Houten. Is that a -- your stepmother?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And she writes a supportive letter. She would like for you to be released. Linda Griffey.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is a very old friend apparently.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes. She's been -- We went to high school together, and once she realized that it was me who was incarcerated, she connected with my mom and they -- she's been by my side since then.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then well ever since, apparently.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: A very good friend.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your brother and sister-in-law, David.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And Kim.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very supportive of your release. Says that they offer a place to live in their home. Says you'll be well taken care of, cared for. Suggests that you're not a threat to society and supports your release. Correct?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So there's a job and a place to stay.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your father, Paul Van Houten. He says he's 88. That's where I got the numbers from.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And (inaudible) is supportive of your release.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Chris Chesher (phonetic), a (inaudible) visit you for a long period.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, 21 years. Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: His -- He's a very good friend to me, and I think that he's the first man friend that I had, just simply without anything else coming into it. And so --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A friend.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yeah, it's been really good for me to have him.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And he, again, supports your release. He offers financial help (inaudible) person who says he's a friend. Michael F-A-R-Q-U-H-A-R.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Oh, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you know that person?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, he's in Washington, D.C.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Is he, in fact, a friend?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, he is.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: He's -- I met him first as a reporter, but we've stayed in touch and --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: -- he knows members of my family.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And he apparently -- It says that he's out of state, but he offers some financial assistance to you.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cross Roads, Sister Terri Dodge.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Writes a lot of letters (inaudible). Says that you have a place to stay at Cross Roads and says that you've been accepted. Doesn't say come out and fill an application or anything. It says that you show up and you can stay there. Correct?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes. Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Your sister, Elizabeth.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Supportive of your release.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Says that you're no longer on drugs and you're thoughtful, considerate. You've been rehabilitated and she supports your release. Where does she live?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: She lives in the -- She (inaudible) out here.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, just in California?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yeah. Oh, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: She lives in a local area near our hometown, actually.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, fine. You know Doctor Patricia Janish (phonetic)?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. She's a prison psychologist at (inaudible) times.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is she not?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I read her report before. That's where the name --

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Oh, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- came (inaudible).

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And she is supportive of your release.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Says that you've made some disastrous decisions.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: I sure did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: (Inaudible) agreement.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And she supports your release. And she doesn't say, but I would assume that she has analyzed many, many persons in the state prison system.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, she has.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Your nephew, Paul Darnell.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How old is Paul Darnell?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: He's 17, I believe.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: 16 or 17.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He writes a very positive letter; a well-thought out letter. And he says that you deserve to be granted parole. A person who has known you for 30 years, (Inaudible).

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Turner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Turner.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Turner. Okay. Apparently they have classes here in Philosophy and Psychology, and she took classes here.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, back in --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: (Inaudible) classes.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, in the '80's, when we were taking the college program, half of the students from Antioch College came and then half of the other class were the inmates, and so we met them.

ATTORNEY WEBB: I think that's also a residence offer, and that's been consistent for a number of years.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: That's a consistency.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, you're correct.

ATTORNEY WEBB: In the Board report.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. You are welcome to parole to her home.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So now we're at -- Is it two or three residences?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two good residences.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes. Three. Three.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And three. That's what I thought.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yeah.

ATTORNEY WEBB: The Cross Roads.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: No, that's counted.

ATTORNEY WEBB: Oh, that's counted.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you have one good job.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: There's more in there.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm certain that there is. Okay. Another friend from the broadcast industry. Supports your release. And this person says that he would assist you after your release in any way that he can. Correct? So --

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: I'm not sure. Who is that? I'm not sure who that is.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's Richard Van Hous, H-O-U-S.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Oh, yes, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here is a Reverend Dwight Blackstock.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Known you for (inaudible) years.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, we went to Sunday School together and he went on to become a minister.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. You --

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: And over the years, he's --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- communicate with the Reverend periodically?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes. Yes, I do periodically.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And he supports your release.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So it appears to me that you have residence and a job. You have family support and you have support from many others.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would it be appropriate to say that you have appropriate parole plans at this point?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, it would be.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And would you agree with that, Counsel?

ATTORNEY WEBB: I -- She certainly does.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So I would accept that and go on to post-conviction factors.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Good afternoon.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Good afternoon.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Primarily, I'm going to be focusing on what you've done in the institution since your last hearing, which was August 25th, 2004. Additionally, I will be giving some historical information, and hopefully, clear up some inconsistencies in the record. And then I'll be reviewing your psychiatric report as well as the declaration of Michael C. Coburn. Your Placement Score is 28. That's based upon your commitment offense, and we know that that will not get any lower.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You were received for this life crime on August 17th of 1978. And I want to make it clear for the record that you have been disciplinary free since the time that you were received on this crime. Is that correct?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, the -- I have that 128. I'm not sure of the date.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes, that's a counseling chrono from 1981.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes. Other than that, I've been disciplinary free.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. And I just want to note because there was a discrepancy or an error in the 2004 transcript regarding a serious disciplinary report. It was prior to this conviction, so it's not applicable. So I just want to make sure that that was clear for the record. It's already been indicated that you graduated from high school. In addition to that, you did get a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature in 1986. There's also an indication that you completed Data Processing in 1996. Along those lines, you were -- you were accepted into the College Tutor -- This is Chaffey.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And that's C-H-A-F-F-E-Y, College Program. So from what I understand from your prior testimony is that you're learning to become a tutor for inmates that are pursuing an Associates Degree.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, and I'm -- What they do is they train us; the people from Chaffey are training us on -- I do it. You know, sort of like on-the-job training.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Oh, okay.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: I'm doing it.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: All right. So it's --

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: I've been doing it. And then they, depending on the courses that are being offered that particular semester, then the professors or the teachers will give us further training in how to best help the students.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay, so it's kind of interweaving on-the-job training with additional education yourself.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. And I do want to note for the record that you had excellent reviews with regards to that position. Now there was an indication that from the Board report -- and I know it came out in the last hearing, that you were involved in the Puppy Program.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: No. No, all I did was for a little bit, I had a job of taking care of the kennel.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Oh, okay. All right. Because that was actually referenced in your 2006 report.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Oh, yes. No.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: I'm not -- I'm not part of the CTS Program.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So this -- And this Chaffey College Program is a tutor is full time.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: It's -- Yes, it's my job and it's -- Yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay.

ATTORNEY WEBB: Do you have the letter from Laura Code, who is one of the professors? I think you do, but I have another original copy of it.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Perfect.

ATTORNEY WEBB: If you don't have it. And that details some of what's been going on and Ms. Van Houten's role in that program.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. And this would fall under laudatory. I can see that. Once again, this is by Laura L. Code, Professor of English, Success Center Coordinator from Chaffey College. The letter is dated August 5th of 2006, and references how long you've been involved with the program for more than a year. And then you've been an essential contributor to the College Program's success from the very beginning. Enthusiastic participant during tutoring, tutor training, demonstrating both her intellectual acumen and her desire to help others. Besides the skill as a tutor, she's an advocate for fellow inmates who desire a college education. And I just want to note that you also have been a regular tutor for Yes, I Can and Literacy.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, I've been tutoring for --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I need to change the tapes.

[Thereupon, the tape was turned over.]

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. I understand you've been doing it pretty consistently since 1991.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, I have. I started with the Yes, I Can. And then Volunteers -- Literacy Volunteers of America, I believe it was called, came in and the local librarian trained us some more. And so I did that for a while. And then I think that's really why I was recommended for this particular job, because I have shown consistent interest in helping. I believe that some of the greatest changes occurred in me as I was working on my Bachelor's Degree. And I believe in lowering the recidivism rate through education. And I feel very privileged, actually, that I get to do this. And the target group are young women, maybe 25 or younger that are first-time offenders that would probably never have this opportunity. So we are able to start them through to get their GEDs and get them started on college, which for me, is very, very rewarding.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just out of curiosity, is there interplay between that and dealing with those that have drug addiction issues?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: As a tutor when I'm working with a woman and she might be wishing to quit or not able to see a dream or a goal, you know, I certainly use the Twelve Steps to encourage her.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. And I know you have been doing the Twelve Steps and AA/NA since 1985.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, I have.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And I did note that there was a chrono in there from them indicating that he's had to back off a little bit. But that anytime you have a break in your studies, you are there participating in that.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, I am.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And I also understand that there were a number of other overlap chronos, and I'm not going to go date by date. But consistently, the Drug Awareness Counseling and Relapse Prevention offered by the African American Women Prisoners, you've been involved in that as well as co-facilitating Inmate Assistance Substance Abuse Modules. And also, it's my understanding, Relapse and Prevention with Pathways to Wholeness, which you've been consistently involved in.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. That all of these are inner-weaved together.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: And then because I work at night now, there are daytime smaller modules, which are great. So it's not like I have to take a break from it like at first. They created daytime modules through the Mental Health Department, so that we could have like a small home group.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: And I work with some of the women that are in the Chaffey Program do that, so that we can still work on the Twelve Step Program.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Right.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: In consistency with the overall (inaudible).

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. All right.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: While I may not be able to go the larger, big meetings, everyone has been really good at making sure that the Twelve Step Programs continue.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. I also see that you've volunteered consistently since your last hearing as far as co-instructing in quilt and sewing classes.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, I do hand work.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And that's in your free time.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, it is.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And also, volunteered. There are laudatory chronos for Christmas carolers, Interfaith Chapel and providing Christmas stockings to the children.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And I'm just going to go through -- besides the letter, there's also a laudatory chrono from February of 2006, regarding your volunteer work with the Chaffey College Program.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: That was the first semester. It wasn't a job yet. And so I was working and beginning the program. It was real fresh at that point.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: There is also a chrono here, and this was probably before you got really active with Chaffey, when you were working with the African American Women's Prisoner's Association. You were involved in Drug Awareness Counseling. This chrono is from April of 2005. And is it Alicia?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Oh, I can't remember her first name, but it --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Rosita?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: -- was Culverson.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Culverson.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yeah, she was staff, so I didn't really know her first name.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: But she's retired since.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And she indicates that your honesty helps everyone in keeping it real; especially when it came to sharing topics that were painful, but must be remembered in order to stay clean and sober. Your input was appreciated. This group started in October of 2004, and will finish approximately April 25th of 2005. So, apparently, you were more than just one of the participants in that.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: There's also another one I wanted to make mention of from August 7th of 2006. And I consider this more than just the participation, but rather a laudatory chrono. That you should be commended for co-facilitating Inmate Assistance Substance Abuse Module. The purpose of the module is to explore the effects that mind-altering drugs have on the neurotransmitters in the brain. Abstinence, proper nutrition, exercise, spirituality coupled with a strong Twelve Step Program were components discussed to assist individuals in their recovery. So I assume that this is all putting together a relapse prevention plan.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, and that's the one that I was talking about that has been designed. So, that's going on on a regular basis.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: And I'm a co-facilitator of that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. Is there anything else that you've been involved in that I haven't mentioned?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: I've been during this summer -- The chronos didn't make it here and I guess that's my fault. I didn't really push them for it, because it's just what I do now. But I've been going to the AA meetings. And we're wrapping up another Drug Relapse Prevention. I -- One of the things that I want to say about the things that you (inaudible) and all about, I do what I do in here, because that's how I live with myself. It's not easy sometimes to live with myself with the past. And part of the whole Twelve Step Program is to be service in your community; to give back and to remember. And so I think that's just what I want to tell you. That I try to do that in here as much as I can.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, it's very apparent that you have internalized the Twelve Steps, and you do live that and do focus on sobriety as being your main focus. Now the psychiatric report, there is an addendum. There is an attachment and there is a report. They're all within roughly 120 days from each other. But they all seem to intertwine. One of them is simply a review by Robert Smith, the Staff Psychologist with regards to all of your past psychiatric records. Some of those, there were 26 total. But in essence, the first four or five, six of them were really prior to the time that you were received. So it's a little bit of a background information. I don't feel the necessity unless Counsel wants me to, to go through each one of those, because I think that what the important thing is, is that Doctor Smith was able to see an extensive period; over 35 years, I think, actually. And then that was incorporated into his findings. In addition to that, I believe the attachment is actually the HCR, which is the Risk Assessment (inaudible). And oh no, that was the --

ATTORNEY WEBB: That's the addendum.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: -- addendum.

ATTORNEY WEBB: Right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And once again, that document was incorporated into the findings of his report from May 8th of 2006. And I'm not going to go into a lot of details. Essentially what I'm going to be doing is referencing the fact that he found no diagnosis on Axis I and II. And then the focus on the assessment of dangerousness and his conclusions -- and I'll just go ahead and read from his report on page 14, number one. There's no history of violent disciplinary infraction at any time in the course of this woman's incarceration. Number two, in terms of short-term foreseeable violence risk, there is no immediate threat of dangerousness should this inmate be released to the community. The inmate is mentally stable and there is no stated threat against persons or property in the community. Number three, static and dynamic risk factors are described in the attached HCR-20, which I just referenced. This woman's risk of dangerousness of violent recidivism over three to five years following release is judged to be in the, quote, "very low to low range." And he indicates this and he underlines structured professional judgment is conditional upon her complete abstinence of alcohol and illegal drugs. And the risk factors, obviously as he's already indicated, is the utilization of illegal drugs and alcohol or the development of a co-dependent relationship. And I know you previously referenced that earlier in testimony.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes. Part of my rehabilitation has been my relationships, because my huge need to be accepted by my co-defendant.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm sorry. What? Accepted?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Accepted and --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: -- by my co-defendant. And that started it. And then bad relationship choices that I've had. And so, part of my therapy and part of my healing has been on relationship boundaries and abusiveness, co-dependency. And I view that as seriously as I do the alcohol and drugs.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And I'm assuming that's why the Alanon is going to be very important for you with regards to group meetings once you are released.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes. Yes, and my network of friends; my primary network of friends are hard-working people that over the years, we've worked together to have real honesty. And they know that I'm counting on them to always help me. I didn't have that when I was young. I didn't have that. I didn't know how to use the tools that were around me. And so in my learning about life and all of that, that's been very important. So I understand that concern and I've addressed it for many years now. I think I'm comfortable with it.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. And I'll just note that the Doctor also indicates the risk of return to substance use is considered low, because of the length of this woman's sobriety and her extensive education and self-help groups. And in conclusion, he indicates that you present exemplary disciplinary history; over 25 years. Her unadjusted Placement Score of zero indicating she refrains from undesirable activities. She appears to possess a realistic appraisal of the difficulties she will confront in attempting to return to life in community should she obtain a release from custody. And if there's no questions, then the only other thing I'm going to do is simply just do a quick summary and read some excerpts. Doctor Michael B. Coburn, C-O-B-U-R-N. And he wrote a declaration and it gives a background of all of his education and what he's done. I guess he worked in Neuropsychiatry in the Navy, and he describes the fact that he first met you after your first conviction and did an eval -- a psychiatric evaluation.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Is this a private psych evaluation? I don't see it listed under any of the prior Board (inaudible).

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: This is an independent. Yes, this was handed to me earlier.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And I've (inaudible) in the file.

ATTORNEY WEBB: It was submitted in 19 -- in 2004. It's just a resubmission of that because I didn't find that in the -- in the record. It was already part of the record in 2004.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So this was a private psychiatrist?

ATTORNEY WEBB: It was.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: He hasn't done an evaluation of Ms. Van Houten. It is a --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And is it a state --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: -- declaration.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, (inaudible) on the inmate we have.

ATTORNEY WEBB: From him.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yeah.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So I just want to make sure that's clear on the record.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That's correct. It's in the form of a -- it's really like the support letter that he has indicated his past interaction with her and what he feels about her progress, having seen her at the beginning; 37 years ago, and then having seen her subsequent to that. So I didn't --

ATTORNEY WEBB: I'm (inaudible) --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, I didn't --

ATTORNEY WEBB: -- (inaudible) report. I had indicated this is a declaration.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I just presented it again because I didn't find it in the -- in the record.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: That's fine. I just want to make sure it's clear for the record that we're not referring to a psychiatric evaluation (inaudible) as a result of (inaudible).

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: No, and he's not someone who works here at the institution any longer. He did a long time ago. He's indicated --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Could I --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: -- that when the conviction overturned and during the preparation of retrial, he was retained as a defense expert, re-evaluating you and testified in the second trial. Subsequently, he received a copy of the psychiatric report by Staff Psychiatrist Peter Hu -- spelled H-U, from June of 2004. And he simply talks about the first interview he had with you and how you still had the affects of the cult-like existence in the Manson clan. He goes on to describe the dangerousness exhibited by you while you were an LSD, (inaudible) Manson cult member. And then he makes mention to the fact that since you've recovered from the toxic effects of the drug experiences, you've never avoided or minimized your involvement in the LaBianca homicides. And essentially, what he does is come to a conclusion that he does support your release and he talks about a hypothetical upstairs test, wherein he would be willing allow you to occupy an upstairs bedroom at his home, should you be released for any length of time. And he indicates that he has typed this and declares under penalty of perjury, that it's true and correct to the best of his knowledge. Unless there's any questions, I'll return it to the Chair.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have any further questions?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Questions from the District Attorney?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: It's my understanding the inmate is unwilling to discuss any questions regarding the commitment offense.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Could you say that again?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: It's my understanding that the inmate is unwilling to discuss any questions regarding the commitment offense.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Then the one question I have pertains to the -- a couple of questions that I have pertaining to the commitment offense. If she's not willing to discuss this or answer any questions, then I have -- I have no questions.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Do you have any questions of your client?

ATTORNEY WEBB: No, I don't.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Closing from the District Attorney's Office.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you. Inmate Leslie Van Houten remains unsuitable for parole. When you look at Ms. Van Houten's background, you see a young woman who was a homecoming princess, came from a stable family, but then ultimately graduated -- I should say gravitated towards an involvement with one of the most notorious crime families in California history. And I say crime family, because this wasn't just a group of crazed hippies who may have been involved in some petty crimes. This is a group that developed a distinct hatred for society in general to the point where there was a -- there was a master plan to incite a race war and to cause extreme violence in our society. What made Leslie Van Houten, the inmate in this case, gravitate towards that type of involvement? Well, first of all, when you look at her background and history prior to the commitment offense, you see that she has a pattern of tumultuous relationships. She had a somewhat unstable childhood. She became pregnant at an early age. Basically dropped out of school. Had some problems with her parents. Her parents claimed that she was -- She claims that her parents forced her to have an abortion. She moved in with a boyfriend. Eventually met fellow "Manson Family" member, Robert Beausoleil, who himself, has been convicted of murders in connection with the "Manson Family's" criminal activities. She moved to the ranch, the Spahn Ranch. And all of this she did voluntarily. She made that choice. She made a choice to drop out of society. She made a choice to join this at that time being called a commune. But it was more than a commune and she joined that group, fully knowing that number one, that Charles Manson was a racist. That he worshipped Hitler. He worshipped fascist figures in the course of history. He harbored an extreme resentment towards Blacks. And knowing that, and this is now prior to the Tate-LaBianca murders, she willingly stayed in that environment. And not only did she stay in that environment, which I think Charles Manson referred to them as "slippies" because they weren't hippies. He despised hippies; peace, love and drug (inaudible). She, in fact, became involved with drugs. She became involved in the "Family" lifestyle, which I think many people are quite aware of. But most importantly, she saw this group gravitate towards increased violence, and ultimately murder. And yet she stayed. She knew that the "Family" was headed that way. That this was Charles Manson's plan. She joined in that plan. She shared that plan. In fact, I believe it was in 1992, at her -- at her parole hearing, she admitted that she knew that the "Family" was turning towards murder. She made a conscious decision to stay. At other hearings, she has admitted to the Panels that she contemplated for two days prior to the LaBianca murders whether or not she had it in her to kill. She thought about it. She premeditated for two days to make a determination whether she had what it took to take the life of another human being. And ultimately, she made the decision, of course, that she could, because that's what she did in this case. Now when you look at the context of this grand scheme of which has been described as the "Helter Skelter" theory, it's a -- it's admittedly in today's society, an extremely far-fetched scheme, who would -- everybody would laugh if you think about killing a couple, a White couple or any other Caucasian group of people, trying to blame it on the Blacks, that it would somehow ignite a race war. And then your little group of criminals will eventually take over when the race war was over and the Blacks had won, that they would ultimately ascend to the -- to a throne or a position of power, because the Blacks would need to turn to someone like Charles Manson to lead them. It is far-fetched. It is. It is unbelievable. But in 1968, this country was still in a post-racial tension era. I say post. We're talking about in Los Angeles County, the Watts Riots occurred in 1965. There was racial tension throughout the country. And as far fetched as it -- as it may seem today, it was less far-fetched that racial violence could break out. Maybe not to the extent that Charles Manson envisioned it, but that racial violence could occur. This wasn't far-fetched in 1969. Now what is also significant with respect to this particular inmate and her involvement in this crime is that, as I indicated before, she has made these choices. And she joined the group and on the night of August 10th, 1969, she was asked by Charles Manson to come along and participate in the murder. She agreed to do so. Now prior to that time, there's much evidence that indicated that the "Family" members participated in what they called "creepy crawlers." Basically, dry runs. They would go out and they would survey houses. They would wear dark clothing. They would basically plan for this ultimate set of murders that would spark this race war. I don't need to go into detail about the brutality and the -- and the horror of the murders at the Tate residence at this time. That's very well chronicled. But the aspect of that case that is important with respect to Ms. Houten is two-fold. Number one is that it was a part of the pattern of "Helter Skelter." There were writings in blood at the Tate residence on the door that said "PIG." And this is actually -- even the writing is even a follow-up from an earlier murder at Gary Hinman's house, where it was written, "POLITICAL PIGGY" in blood at his house. So now, we have the third in this series, with respect to these types of political writings. And by the way, at the Hinman house, there was also an imprint of what was to be a symbol of Black Panthers, because that murder was also designed to be blamed on Black individuals; particularly, the Black Panthers. So Manson approaches a group of people at the ranch on that night and asked Ms. Van Houten and the others to get some clothes together. They get into a car. And it wasn't just Ms. Van Houten, Patricia Krenwinkel, Tex Watson. There was also Linda Kasabian and Steve Grogan and Charles Manson himself. And the plan wasn't just to murder and slaughter the LaBiancas. And I'll go into detail about the obvious horrific aspects of that crime. But this was a broader conspiracy than just that. Because in the facts of the case, the group, all six of them, drove around for four hours. They scouted different locations in Los Angeles. They went to one residence and Charles Manson decided they weren't going to attack this residence, because he saw some pictures of some children inside of the -- Well, at this point, in this conflict, children didn't need to be killed. Possibly at some other time. They went to another residence up in the hills. Apparently, some very wealthy houses, but decided that it wasn't going to work. They went to a minister's. They went to a church, but the doors were locked, so they couldn't commit a crime there. They then -- Charlie Manson even indicated he wanted to shoot somebody in a passing car. And (inaudible) the car sped away. This was all part of the plan. And part of the plan was to slaughter people on the streets of Los Angeles. And these were random people. This inmate had a choice. She could have left at any time during that four-hour period. But she didn't. She wanted to go along, because when she found out about the Tate slaughter of those five people the night before, she was upset that she didn't get a chance to go along. She felt left out and then -- and she told her fellow "Family" members that she was hoping that if they did it again, that she would be able to join along. So sure enough, the following night, when the next set of murders was planned, she agreed and followed along. The plan was discussed in detail. They were to bring weapons. There was instructions not to make the same mistakes they made the night before, because the crime scene was too messy. Charles Manson and Tex Watson parked the car in front of Rosemary and Leno LaBianca's residence next to (inaudible) hill. They walked up the sidewalk of a neighboring house. They went aside. They tied up Rosemary LaBianca and Leno LaBianca. They took Rosemary's wallet, came back out to the car. Instructions to Ms. Van Houten and to Patricia Krenwinkel was to listen to Charles "Tex" Watson and do what he said when they went into the house and to not to tell the victims they were going to be killed. They went into the residence; the second half of this plan, and then left. When I say the second half of the plan, it's because once they left, Charles Manson, Steve Grogan and Linda Kasabian, went to a location or I should say to a gas station in what was believed to have been a predominately Black area. The plan was to leave the wallet inside the restroom in hopes that a Black woman, since it was a woman's restroom, would find the wallet, take the credit cards, use the credit cards and then ultimately be charged with the LaBianca murders. And that would, of course, would then spawn further violence and start this race war. The wallet was hid -- was hidden too well, and it wasn't discovered until many months later when Linda Kasabian led the police to the wallet. But after they had left the wallet, they then proceeded looking for another victim to kill. They traveled down to a location near the beach, where Linda Kasabian knew a musician. The plan at that point was they were going to gain entrance and they were going to kill that person too. Linda Kasabian foiled that plot by going to the wrong apartment. An unknown man answered the door at 3:00 in the morning. She says oh, I'm sorry, I have the wrong apartment. So by her efforts, she managed to abort the possible killing of another human being. And the reason they were off separately is the plan was that after the inmate, Van Houten, Ms. Krenwinkel and "Tex" Watson, who were the people at the LaBianca residence; that they were to hitchhike back to -- back to the ranch. So it's important to understand this is not only a willful, deliberate, premeditated crime against the LaBiancas. But there was also intentions on a wider scale. Other victims on the night of August 10th, 1969, as well as this genesis, this catalyst for further violence and murder. Now Rosemary and Leno LaBianca were brutally slaughtered in their own home. The manner of killing is far beyond just being angry at somebody. Far beyond what's necessary to kill the victims. Rosemary LaBianca was stabbed with 41 -- 42 knife wounds. There was a hood placed over her head. Her clothing was pulled up. Leno LaBianca was stabbed with 12 knife wounds. He was found with a knife in his throat. He was punctured seven times with a fork in his stomach. Now, normally when people think of a fork, you think of your typical kitchen fork. This was not your typical kitchen fork. This was a carving fork with long tongs. Not only was he stabbed seven times with this carving fork, but it was left imbedded in his chest when he was found the next day. In addition, the word "WAR" was carved on his stomach. It was written on the wall of the living room, "DEATH TO PIGS", "RISE", and misspelled on the refrigerator door were the words "HELTER SKELTER." Again, part of this same pattern and practice to blame this brutal slaying of a Caucasian couple on individuals of the Black race. Now what this presents in terms of the crime, she was convicted of first degree murder. But in today's society, this type of brutal crime encompasses additional special circumstances. There was robbery, murder. There was multiple murder, because there were two victims who were brutally killed in this case. And there was murder for a racial motive, because killing two other individuals of a different ethnic race would not have achieved the purpose and the planning that this inmate, along with her crime partners, had that evening. Now inmate Van Houten personally admitted at past hearings to stabbing Rosemary LaBianca 16 times. She told another family member, a Diane Lake, after the crime, that when I did it, the more -- the more I did it, the more fun it was. She said she felt like a shark. This is after she's gone back to the ranch, after they brutally killed Rosemary and Leno. And I might also point out that although Ms. Van Houten did not personally stab Leno, when Leno LaBianca was being stabbed with a bayonet by "Tex" Watson, Rosemary LaBianca heard the screams. She tried to get up to run to his assistance to try to prevent her husband from being killed. She pulled the lamp cord that she was tied with. She swung the lamp around. And it's this inmate that held her down and prevented her from helping her husband avoid death. She held down Rosemary LaBianca. Patricia Krenwinkel began stabbing Rosemary LaBianca with such force that when she -- when the knife struck the collarbone of Rosemary LaBianca, the knife bent. It was then that this inmate, Leslie Van Houten, then called for "Tex" Watson to come, because she knew that "Tex" Watson had the bayonet. That "Tex" Watson had a more powerful weapon to use at that point. She held Rosemary LaBianca down while she was stabbed by her crime partners. To begin, the victims were mutilated. They were tortured in a sense, because prior to this, they were tied up. They were placed with hoods over their heads. They were begging for their lives. Rosemary LaBianca, I think, was untied for a moment so she could -- she could get some coins for the -- for the -- Ms. Van Houten and her -- and her crime partners. Completely terrified. Completely random individuals. No connection whatsoever to this inmate. And that is the horror of this all. That this inmate, along with her fellow mass murderers, were willing to embark on such a senseless and brutal crime. They were willing for some misguided -- you can call it a shared misguided purpose. It really doesn't matter. She willingly chose this path to slaughter them in the hopes that more people would be slaughtered in the future. And this is what she did. And then afterwards, after brutally killing this poor couple in their home who had just come home from vacation, what did -- what did the criminals do? What do the murderers do? What does Ms. Van Houten, "Tex" Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel do? They go to the refrigerator. They take out some chocolate milk and they drink some chocolate milk. And they -- And I believe, and just recently, I think Ms. Van Houten has even admitted to eating some of the cheese from the refrigerator. Can you -- Can you -- Can you get any more cold-blooded and callous than that? With the two victims lying dead in the house, multiple stab wounds, weapons protruding from their bodies or from Leno's body, and then to calmly and casually go in, wipe down the fingerprints, which is what Ms. Van Houten did, drink their chocolate milk, eat their cheese and then sneak away into the night. Go back to the residence, change their clothing. Along with -- and they also took some money; a small amount of money from the residence. They went home -- went back to the ranch. After hitchhiking back, they collected firewood and they burned their clothing to hide the evidence; and counted their (inaudible). I notice in looking at previous reports that there's a number of inconsistencies with respect to Ms. Van Houten's accounts of what had happened. She's changed her story over the years from I wasn't sure if Rosemary LaBianca was dead or not at the time I stabbed her to she was dead when I stabbed her, and I think now it's back to this I'm not sure if she was dead or not. I think this is very significant, because it indicates a real pattern of an unwillingness to accept what she did. And realistically, what does it matter? I mean if you stab someone 16 times with a knife, who is deluding themselves and saying well the victim is already dead. But to somehow minimize her crime, to somehow say I didn't really kill the victim, it was my crime partners. I mean or it's because of this new co-dependence on Patricia Krenwinkel. I think in the past it's always been I was under Charlie Manson's domination. But now I see coming out in the psychiatric reports is this co-dependency with Patricia Krenwinkel. All of these are efforts to minimize her involvement in this crime. To somehow lessen the impact of horror that she caused killing both Rosemary LaBianca -- Rosemary and Leno LaBianca, but also, upon their families and in a sense, Los Angeles, California at that time, because these random acts of violence, basically, were causing a ripple of fear throughout the community. And this is part of plan to. They wanted to do something dramatic. Something to create fear. And, of course, this type of a brutal killing with these writing in blood, writing in the victims' blood on the walls and on the refrigerator of the LaBianca residence, they're all consistent with this. Now I also note, and it's quite clear that during the time that Ms. Van Houten, the inmate in this case, was at the ranch, the Spahn Ranch, that she took drugs. And that's quite clear. There's (inaudible) dispute that she took drugs. But what I find very interesting to note is that initially, in the early probation report, she blames this crime on her being under the influence of drugs. In fact, there's a real discrepancy in the most recent reports. The Board report says Ms. Van Houten now claims she was not on LSD. And that's after she was confronted with her statement from the probation report on page seven. And the counselor writes, Ms. Van Houten stated that she and her co-defendants while under the drug, LSD, went into the house, and they, the LaBiancas, ended up getting killed. Ms. Van Houten now claims she was not under LSD. The psychiatric report -- and I know there's going to be much made of this conclusion that she's a low risk to society. But this conclusion has to be tempered by one major fact or discrepancy. And the conclusion of Doctor -- I forgot his name. Doctor Smith, page 15, he says the perpetrators were under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs during the period leading up to the crime and during the commission of the crime. He has bought into I was under the influence of drugs and that's what caused me to commit the crime, because later on, he says that her -- his diagnosis of inmate Van Houten being a low risk to society is if she stays away from drugs. Well, the inmate now says she wasn't on drugs at the time of the crime. And, in fact, if you go back through all the crime partners in both the Tate and LaBianca murders, they weren't on drugs, which makes the crimes even more horrifying, because at least you could use drugs as an excuse. But if they weren't on drugs, which she now tells the counselor, and she is of above average intelligence. I think in the 120, 125 IQ range. She was a good student in school. She was first in her class in secretarial school as well. Someone who is extremely bright, and you can even see that in her responses here today, yet she chose -- and not because of the influence of drugs, she now has (inaudible). That she chose to go out and be part of this plan to murder people. So the real question then lies what causes someone to do this. There was something just inherently evil or something just inherently wrong with this inmate's makeup that caused her to go on this rampage with the other crime "Family" members. When you look at this case and you look at the brutality, the deliberation of premeditation, the willingness of this inmate to join in that plan to kill not only the LaBiancas, but to other people that evening, and in a larger scale, other people within the state of California, you can only reach one conclusion. And that for all those factors, the commitment offense, her prior unstable relationships -- and those unstable relationships did (inaudible) to Bobby Beausoleil and Manson. Even when she came to prison, she married an individual, who even by her own accounts, was a bit of a manipulator. He was found with a female -- with a correctional officer's prison uniform, which I don't know what he was doing with that. Certainly it's suggestive of some attempt to try to break Ms. Van Houten out of prison. But, again, another bad choice. So how can society be guaranteed that she won't make another bad relationship choice was she -- were she to be granted a parole date? That guarantee isn't here. It's not here today. Whether it is here in the future or not is really another issue. But I ask that this Panel, based upon the facts of this case, prior instability and all the other factors surrounding this particular inmate, you find that the factors of unsuitability far outweigh any factors of suitability, and to find that she still remains an unreasonable risk of danger to society and to deny her for parole. And I ask that the Panel impose at least a two-year denial.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. Closing, Ms. Webb.

ATTORNEY WEBB: I think I've got to correct something here. And Ms. Van Houten has consistently said and testified here that she was not on drugs at the time of the murders. There isn't -- She can't be held responsible for a discrepancy, an inaccuracy in a probation report that was done 37 years ago. And I think -- I didn't -- Well, I guess I counted on the District Attorney for understanding how those inaccurate statements get into something like this, and then they get repeated. And there's nothing in this report by Doctor Smith that says that Ms. Van Houten told him that. And we can ask her herself. I'm sure that she didn't, and I'm sure, as it states at the beginning of his report, he says he got a lot of information from the Central File, from her. Primary historical information was obtained --

[Thereupon, a new tape began.]

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. Back on record.

ATTORNEY WEBB: Thank you. And why would she say something like that now? She's never said that in my experience in any of the transcripts that I have read. It is not part of the record in this case. And I -- if we have a problem with that, let's ask her or let's get Doctor Smith in here and ask him whether he got that from her, because there's nothing that -- There's no quote about that. It's not from her. It's from his review of other documents, and I would expect, you know, the District Attorney to understand how those inaccuracies get repeated. There's a lot of other ones too. And frankly, it's my fault, and I'll take the responsibility for that, because I debated whether I would even have to make that kind of a correction to this report. And I decided that something as (inaudible) as that was explainable. And Doctor Smith also -- You want to talk about another inaccuracy that he got from somewhere? He says she's convicted of conspiracy in the Tate murders. I didn't correct that either. It is not true. It's been corrected on the record here many times. That's also an inaccuracy that he certainly didn't get from Ms. Van Houten. And that's all I have to say about that. I just -- You know, I think his report speaks for itself, and it's certainly accurate in all the major respects. If you have any questions about that, I'm sure Ms. Van Houten would be happy to talk about it. In terms of just clearing up one other thing, she was cleared of any charge in relation to her husband. And that choice, frankly, was the -- was a bad choice for normalcy. She talks about it in this mental health evaluation. It's when she was 30 year old; and that was 25 years ago in 1989, and there hasn't been anything like that since in her record. So let me go back to what I was going to say. But I certainly -- You know, if you have any questions about that, tell us now, before you make a decision, please. If there's anything that's missing in the -- in the mental health evaluation or that you feel is not addressed, please let us know. These were certainly horrible murders and they are horrible facts that Ms. Van Houten can't change. And, again, the District Attorney's argument focuses on -- entirely on the commitment offenses and the surrounding facts from 37 years ago, rather than all the current consistent evidence that Ms. Van Houten is not a danger to the public. I'd also urge the Board to make a note that it's important to separate out what wasn't Ms. Van Houten's motivation or her plan, from what she actually did in those facts that we've stipulated to. We have some guidance now from the courts about how to deal with the commitment offenses. And at least five cases now say that the commitment offense cannot be used after the passage of so much time, to deny parole interminably to a parole suitable inmate like Ms. Van Houten when those facts cannot be changed. With regard to the commitment offenses, also, as you know, the Board must evaluate Ms. Van Houten's role individually. I submitted a declaration of Charles Watson, one of the co-defendants, to clarify questions raised in the past about her role compared to Mr. Watson's dominant role in causing the deaths of both the victims and that he struck the fatal blows to Mrs. LaBianca. But it doesn't matter. Ms. Van Houten -- It doesn't diminish her role in the murders; her part in the murders. And she certainly takes responsibility; full responsibility for what she did. But it is important to assess her suitability, based on her personal culpability. And that's all we've tried to do. Considering all the circumstances, including Ms. Van Houten's conviction of felony, not premeditated murder, and that's in the Board (inaudible), her cult domination, which I've discussed in the past and that's summarized by Doctor Smith on page 11 to 12 of his report. And considering her individual role, her offense is not the most egregious first degree murder. And I think it's strange the law requires us to make that judgment, when all murders are horrible and for the victims' family, the most horrible. Ms. Van Houten has now done at least double the maximum time under new regulations and is the most modeled prisoner in the system and has been for a long, long time. Beyond this time and for this individual, the offense cannot be used to deny parole any longer. As to the other evidence of suitability, I think as I've said, Doctor Smith's report speaks for itself and places her in the lowest risk category. And that means something. It also confirms what you have before you in the summary that Doctor Smith did about the twelve other psychologists and psychiatrists were all experts for the Board who have concluded over the years that Ms. Van Houten would not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to the public if released. We have her exemplary prison record to confirm that. We have all the other suitability factors that are in her favor. She has no juvenile record. She has a stable social history for the past 35 years, shown by all the letters of support that Commissioner Williams read into the record from friends and family and more of them also who have shown -- who have known her for years and show her support and would be there for her on the outside. Ms. Van Houten has -- and we'll talk about her remorse. As to motivation for the crime, again, we need to talk about Ms. Van Houten's motivation. Again, I'd urge you to take a look at Doctor Smith's report. And he deals with the domination and shared (inaudible) of the (inaudible) that led to the murders. You also have, again, Doctor Margaret Singer's report, her 20-page report. She's a noted cult expert. She interviewed Ms. Van Houten and she did a report about cult domination. And I've talked about it in the past, and I won't go into it all. But it certainly gives you a good idea of what happened. And I just ask the Board to take a look at that, to consider the cult indoctrination and manipulation. What happened to change her value system. What happened to her ego control so that everything that she did and said and thought to the extent she was capable of independent thinking on that night and leading up to the murders, was after a long, long period of cult indoctrination, and we sometimes call that brainwashed. And I'd also like you to consider that the record shows that she long ago renounced that. Doctor Smith talks about that. She renounced those delusions. She has the boundaries and ego controls and insight into that through her programming here to keep her from that ever happening again. So, Doctor Smith also deals with the co-dependency, drug and alcohol abuse issues. And he finds all of those to be at low risk of happening again. Primarily because of her restored sense of boundaries, her long period of sobriety, her pro-social, collaborative and appropriate relationships with others here in the institution. And he gives us -- he also says she functioned stably in the community on bail in the mid 1970's. She was out for six months. She took herself to court and she had no problem functioning as a decent law-abiding member during that time. Doctor Smith's report also suggests ways to manage the even low possibility of those risk factors. And I think his report -- first of all, for him to identify those as risk factors gives his report credibility, because in this case, how could you not? But let's talk about how long it's been since there's any evidence that those risk factors are offered in her current (inaudible) here in that community where she lives as it would be the same thing on the outside with appropriate management. And that's self-help groups, AA/NA continuation as well as other parole controls. That's not a reason to keep her inside with what she's exhibited. So you also have Ms. Van Houten's complete lack of violent criminal history, other than this, and her age, 57, which reduces the possibility of recidivism even more. Because no evidence exists to support a finding of unsuitability or unreasonable risk of danger to the public, a finding of suitability is required. Ms. Van Houten can never be more suitable than she is today and has been for the past 10 to 20 years. And she cannot change the offenses, but she has changed herself. And I urge you to grant her parole and set a reasonable term. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Van Houten, do you have anything to add to what your Counsel has said or are you satisfied with everything?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: I would like to.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Certainly.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: To take a moment and apologize to the family. In the past hearings, the family has been here and read letters. And I want them to know that I've listened to their letters and what they have said, and if there was any way that I could undo what happened, I certainly would have. And I apologize to the families very deeply. And it's very hard to know that there's never going to be a way to make it okay. And I just want them to understand that when they voice their sorrows, I'm listening.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you very much. Do you have a statement, sir?

MR. DESANTIS: First (inaudible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would you state your name, please?

MR. DESANTIS: John DeSantis. I have a letter here that was given to me by my cousin, Cory LaBianca. She's the -- She's the eldest daughter of Leno LaBianca and she asked me if I would read it here at the parole hearing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Certainly.

MR. DESANTIS: "My name is Cory LaBianca, and I am the eldest daughter of Leno LaBianca. Rosemary LaBianca was my stepmother for 11 years. I was 21 years old at the time of their deaths and I loved them both dearly. My cousin, Lewis Smaldino and John DeSantis, have graciously appeared at these parole hearings, representatives of the entire LaBianca family. In my eyes, they are angels. John has offered to read my letter to you today. The house at 3301 Waverly Drive is in our -- in our family for years. Since 1940, when my grandfather and grandmother, Anthony and Corina LaBianca bought it for their growing family. A solidly-built, white stucco house with a red tile roof, stood upon an acre of high land in the Los Feliz hills of Los Angeles. It was a modest two-bedroom home. But the ceilings in every room are decorated with (inaudible) intricately painted scroll work and the grounds reminiscent of a miniature Italian villa. The sweeping front lawn was our Thanksgiving Day rolling (inaudible), where my cousins and I would race each other rolling; rolling sideways to the bottom of the hill. We played hide and go seek in a side yard. A well-manicured rose garden maze like the Queen's Garden in Alice in Wonderland. The sloping backyard was filled with trees that only my older cousins, boy cousins, were allowed to climb fully mature walnut, persimmon, apricot, fig and one huge mulberry. That mulberry tree covered the ground with its ripe fruit and I loved to mischievously squish those dark, juicy berries into the cement with my bare feet, knowing I would get a mild scolding from Papa Anthony if he caught me. The wine cellar beneath the back porch was off limits, and when nobody was looking, my little brother and I would creep open the rickety old wooden door and climb into the dark dankness of forbidden space, just to count the wine bottles and finger the spider webs. Sometimes we would get to stay overnight at our grandparents' house. And in the early morning, Nana Corina would wake me and we'd walk to the bottom of the hill to admire her morning glories. The blue violet, funnel-shaped blossoms were mixed in with the ivy that blanketed the slope next to the road, and were always the first thing I'd seen from the car window when we came to visit. See how they open with the sun, Nana would say, cupping the flower gently in her hand. Aren't they pretty. And then we would turn and walk slowly up the long driveway to the house. This was our family home, our grandparents' home, the place where I and all my cousins have wonderful memories. But on the night of August 10th, 1969, those memories were fractured when a band of strangers invaded our home and killed my parents, who were living there at the time. Can you imagine how we must feel having that nightmare interwoven with our most cheeriest childhood memories? We can do nothing to change the events of 37 years ago or to erase those horrible memories from our hearts and minds. But you, the Parole Board, can make certain that we don't have to bear more. I ask you, please, do not make a mockery of what we love with your decision here today. Your rule -- Your ruling will have an impact on all our lives. Sincerely, Cory LaBianca."

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, sir.

MR. SMALDINO: My name is Lewis Smaldino. I wanted to thank the Board here for allowing us to speak on behalf of the LaBianca family. We are very much opposed to the parole of Ms. Van Houten. It is always a painful process for us to relive the moments and the horrors that Ms. Van Houten and her terrorist gang visited on our family. Leno and Rosemary were loving and devoted members of our family, in the prime of their lives; younger than we are here today. When this -- they were tortuously killed by this unholy gang, for no better reason than to start a race war and for thrill. Leno and Rosemary had five children, which is often left out of the record. And from my knowledge, many of the family members, numerous other family members, have never recovered from their grief or the horror of it. Some of them have even died from broken hearts. It was interesting to hear Cory's letter, recalling incidents of our childhood. And it seems like I just can't personally go back there. From the time this happened, (inaudible) had pretty well blocked out most memories, because of, you know, the (inaudible) of that -- of that place. Ms. Van Houten was sentenced to die for her crimes, but judicial folly gave her a reprieve of life in prison. Ms. Van Houten will not accept responsibility for her acts or her just punishment. She selfishly attempts to game the system, never showing genuine remorse. To this date, no family member has ever received any correspondence expressing remorse or guilt. Instead, she continues to say Rosemary was already dead when she stabbed her numerous times, which is total denial. I might bring to your attention to you today that how can she determine her remorse when she refuses to discuss it here today. You just can't. How do you believe her motivation when she just refuses to discuss it here today? You can't. The results of Ms. Van Houten and her comrades was to destroy a loving family, destroy a family business and set the precedent for unconscionable chaos throughout our society ending in pointless murder for no reason at all. No good reason at all. She truly deserves life in prison without parole, and if she were truly sorry, would accept it with dignity. Many lives (inaudible) by Ms. Van Houten could not repair the damage she has done to our family. On behalf of the LaBianca family, I wish to thank the Board for its courtesy towards us, and ask that you see Ms. Van Houten has ever shown true remorse or accepted real guilt for what she did. Her only interest is a selfish one and the desire to get out of prison. Please don't let this happen. Remember, she's only one dose away of a drug, of doing something like this again. My dad often had a saying. You don't change the spots on a leopard. In this case, character matters and I don't show -- think that Ms. Van Houten has shown any change in character; merely behavior.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. We'll be in recess. It's about 4:25, I think it says right there. The sun is shining on the clock. We'll call you back when we have a decision.

RECESS

CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS DECISION

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: We are back on record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Back on the record. Those previously in the room have returned. Ms. Van Houten, this was not easy. We had a very spirited discussion of trying to balance your statements with -- from the DA's perspective regarding the crime, which we did not disagree with at all. The statements made by your Counsel, the statements made by the victims' next of kin, the statements made by you and your 38-year history while in state prison. Not easy at all. In the final analysis, the Panel has denied your parole for one year. The Panel reviewed all information received from the public and relied on the following circumstances in concluding that the prisoner is not yet suitable for parole and would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society or a threat to public safety if released from prison. The reasons are the obvious one; the commitment offense. The offense was carried out in an especially cruel and callous manner. Multiple victims were attacked and killed in the same incident. The offense was carried out in a dispassionate, calculated manner. The victims were defiled, mutilated during the offense. The offense was carried out in a manner which demonstrates an exceptionally callous disregard for human suffering. The motive for the crime was inexplicable in relation to the offense. Conclusions are drawn from the Statement of Facts, wherein the prisoner and others selected a home at random, entered, tied up the occupants, stabbed them to death, robbed them of their property. Victim One was stabbed a total of 42 times; the other 12 times, causing --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I'm sorry to interrupt you. Apparently, the audio is not -- is not working.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon me?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: They're waving from outside that the audio is not working.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Off record?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, we'll have to --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Okay. I'm sorry to interrupt.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's quite all right. The inmate made an effort to remove fingerprints and destroyed other evidence. The inmate has no record of violence. No disciplinary actions in the entire period of incarceration. Psychiatric evaluation dated May the 8th, 2006, by Doctor Smith is supportive of release. The psychiatric evaluation dated June 21st of '04, by Doctor Hu, H-U, is supportive of release. The psychiatric evaluation dated May 1st, 2000, by Doctor Manuel all conclude that the inmate presents a very low risk of danger or no risk of danger if released from prison. The inmate has realistic parole plans, in which she has a viable -- an offer of viable residence, an offer of employment, and she has marketable skills. The Panel took into consideration the appearance of the Deputy District Attorney of Los Angeles County and the (inaudible) next of kin, and the statements that they made. The Panel makes the following findings: The prisoner needs continued programming in order to face, discuss, understand and cope with stress in a non-destructive manner. Until more progress is made, the prisoner continues to be unpredictable and a threat to others. Nevertheless, the positive aspects of the inmate's behavior are significant. She has extensive participation in AA and NA, co-facilitator of a Substance Abuse Module, several programs focusing on Relapse Prevention, several programs dealing with anger, conflict and co-dependency programs. She has outstanding work evaluations over a period of decades. She has a Bachelor -- obtained a Bachelors Degree in 1986, and a Data Processing vocation, 1995, and innumerable other programs and positive chronos. However, these positive aspects of your behavior do not yet outweigh the factors of unsuitability. The Panel recommends that you remain disciplinary free, you continue to upgrade vocationally and that you continue to participate in self-help and therapy programs. That concludes the reading except for a statement made by the Deputy Commissioner.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I would like to make a request, and I'm going to put it on to the Decision Fact Sheet -- Face Sheet from Doctor Smith to outline the discrepancy that's been noted here with regards to under the influence. And I do believe there has been a consistency of the record with regards to the inmate indicating that she did not take drugs at the time that the crime was committed. However -- and I'm a lay person, so that's why I'm asking for an analysis by the Doctor. There is talk of toxicity from the hallucinogenics and brain transmitters because of the constant use. And so I would like a clarification, because I don't want to jump to conclusions that the Doctor is indicating in the record that the influence was based on regular use, although that's what my feeling is. Because I'm a lay person, I would much rather clarify the record and have him review the declaration from Michael Coburn involved at that time. Review once again the attachment with regards to the historical psychological evaluations as well as his report, and certainly any of the transcripts if he feels that that's necessary. But I believe that that's an important thing that we need to get clarified on; whether it was because of the regular use that -- that's referenced in these reports. And I wish you the best of luck.

ATTORNEY WEBB: May I ask a question?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes.

ATTORNEY WEBB: So whether the LSD played a role in the crimes or Ms. Van Houten's state of mind at the time of the crimes, even if she was not currently on an LSD trip.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes, because --

ATTORNEY WEBB: That's what you want him to address.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes, because the inference, I think, from the DA is that Smith has mentioned this in the report as if she was under the influence as opposed to the effects of being a regular drug user. And so I want to get a clarification of that, because I believe that the overall theme is the effects of the toxicity.

ATTORNEY WEBB: Sure. Sure, well we've certainly talked about it in that -- in the past. I just wanted to clarify. And how is that communicated to Doctor Smith? Do you --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm actually going to --

ATTORNEY WEBB: -- ask him for that or?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm actually going to put it on the hearing decision face sheet, and then I'm going to put together the documents, and then provide that to the institution.

ATTORNEY WEBB: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So the Board is actually -- It's the Board of Parole Hearings that is --

ATTORNEY WEBB: That's requesting that?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me make one more statement. Ms. Van Houten, the law allows the Parole Board to deny a person for cause up to five years. Reading the description of the crime and listening to the very valid arguments of the Deputy District Attorney and the victim's next of kin, that would be a logical decision from my perspective. It is only because of your extensive participation in very positive programming at this institution and the very probability that you are a changed person, that parole was denied for one year. I want you to take that as a positive. You're not going to walk out the door today, but it's just a little something to, I guess, reward you for the 38 years. But don't take it as diminishing the impact of the crime on this family and the description made by the Deputy District Attorney. That concludes the hearing. It's -- I don't know what time it is. I don't see it.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Thank you so much. Thank you.

ATTORNEY WEBB: Thank you.

--o0o--

PAROLE DENIED ONE YEARS