APPELLATE COURT’S RULING ON VAN HOUTEN PAROLE
May 30 – The petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted. The Governor’s decision reversing the Board of Parole Hearings’ July 2020 decision finding Leslie Van Houten suitable for parole is vacated, the grant of parole is reinstated, and the Board of Parole Hearings is directed to conduct its usual proceedings for a release on parole. (See In re Lira (2014) 58 Cal.4th 573, 582.)
– Bendix & Chaney.
DISSENT
I conclude the record contains some evidence Van Houten lacked insight into the commitment offense. Coupled with the heinous nature of that crime, this is sufficient under Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1214, to provide some evidence of current dangerousness and support the Governor’s decision. Accordingly, I would deny Van Houten’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.
– Rothschild.
According to Mary Xjimenez, from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation:
Appellate court decisions become final after 30 days, and then there are 10 days where review can be sought in the California Supreme Court. (Cal. Rules Ct., rules 8.490, subd. (b)(2); 8.500, subd. (e).) The Governor may seek review for such court decisions, or the court can review such decisions on its own motion. (Cal Rules Ct., rule 8.512.).
If an appellate court’s decision becomes final, the case will be returned to the Board of Parole Hearings to consider any recent developments that might justify rescinding the parole grant. (In re Lira (2014) 58 Cal.4th 573, 582.). If there is no such change or new information, the Board will issue a release memo and CDCR will process the person for release.
Can the state of California appeal this decision to a higher court ?
Yes, but the higher court will either decline to hear or uphold the lower court
Well, well, well……
Guv’nors Brown and Newsome only have themselves to blame.
What about governors Schwarzenegger and Reagan buddy boy
REALITY SHOW! Fingers crossed.
Rich
If Leslie is granted parole and is released, is there a chance the supreme court could veto that decision and make her return to CIW if they side with the Rob Bonta?
It is almost certain that the A.G. will file a petition for review in the supreme court. Even if they do, Leslie might be released while that petition is pending. Sandra Lawrence had the biggest parole case in CA and she was in exactly the same position Leslie is now in. The supreme court let Sandra out during review, Sandra actually went to the supreme court oral argument. If released and the supreme court reverses, Leslie would just go back to prison (like she did after being out on bail betweem the 2nd and 3rd trials). But . . . we have a challenge for the 5th reversal still alive and well in the superior court as a back up.
Paul, you are such a blessing for Leslie . Thank you for your tireless work and steadfast dedication.
I meant Mr Pheiffer lol
Okay thank you, Just hope the supreme court will do the right thing and rule in Leslie’s favour. Just seems to never end. Is it possible the supreme court will opt out of hearing the A.G. review all together, or are they required to review the petition.
LVH is right where she belongs and should stay there for the rest of her life. She was convicted of two counts of first degree murder.There are still roadblocks ahead for her, it’s not over. The legal system moves slowly and it could still be years before the supreme court and other challenges are heard.
She literally got 50 years for stabbing a dead body, get over your dark hearth, she’s old and already paid the ultimate price, go protest over the many killers that have been released during those 50+ yaers
Not much they can do if the Supreme Court don’t challenge the decision.
The supreme court has the option of granting review and taking the case or denying review. I am fairly confident that the supreme court will either not grant review, or if they do, they will uphold the appellate court opinion. For sure – Gov. Newsom violated the law but he was put in an unfair position, if he acts according to the law and lets the grant of parole stand and thereby he loses votes (you can see on this site where some will want Leslie in prison until she dies no matter what she does or what the law says), or he loses crediblity by trying to claim (without any evidence) that Leslie (at age 72 – almost 73, with a perfect prison record) is a CURRENT unreasonable risk to public safety if placed on supervised parole. The Governor review needs to stop, otherwise mob rule takes over.
Never too late to complain, Rich. So the Gov. needs to either take a principled stand and follow the law or lose some votes? We know which way that is going. I agree, either the high court punts or affirms. Good work Rich. Gotta work on your proof reading though. ; )
Does anyone (without an agenda) have a read on the current makeup of the CA Supreme Court and which way they seem likely to lean on this one? Not asking for hopes or opinions really, but rather some intell on the status of that body’s group-think. Has another such decision been before them recently? If so, how did they rule?
This is atrocious! What this woman participated in cannot be reversed or undone. Keep that murderer inside with her buddy, Pat!
Ha ha ha Lee . Enjoying your outrage .
Well…..FINALLY common sense and “What’s the right thing to do?” has prevailed. I’m surprised….I didn’t think California had it in them to rule fairly and according to the rules of parole. No, she hasn’t been released yet, but at least this has the potential to be a real game changer. Like it or not, this was the right decision. If it had gone any other way, there would have been absolutely no reason to even have parole hearings and/or a parole board. Leslie has been unfairly ruled against long enough. She truly earned her parole decades ago. https://www.yahoo.com/news/manson-follower-leslie-van-houten-201409343.html
Billy Esquire says:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/manson-follower-leslie-van-houten-201409343.html
The comments section in this article linked to in Billy’s post is Face-Palm Central in many instances.
One thing I’ve come to realize in extensive debating and listening to peoples’ opinions on this case, is that a huge number of people on the various sides of the argument have no idea of what the laws of their land states, nor do they respect it if it doesn’t agree with them. That’s understandable, it takes a lot of stepping back, shutting up and listening over quite a period of time to do that.
Dan says:
What about governors Schwarzenegger and Reagan buddy boy
What about them ? Leslie Van Houten was never found suitable for parole during Arnie’s time and it just may be one of history’s more interesting factoids that the Manson era coincided with Ronnie’s time as Guv’nor of California. By the way, my Mum and Ronnie were buried on the same day back in 2004. Ronnie’s funeral made the English news. My Mum’s didn’t ! 😄
I agree with RPs statement that LVH is now in a similar legal position as the Sandra Lawerence case. But I think he’s missing one key component: LVH will always be tied to Manson and crimes that shook the world. All the notoriety that comes with it has kept her in prison. Her crimes took place decades before I was born and are still remembered. She’s an infamous butcher. May the judges never forget this!!
And so LVH will be free while the CA Supreme Court decides what to do.
More than likely
Interesting developments to be sure. Legal recourse will follow and who knows how long that would take. My hope is that she will remain in prison during the appeal (s) process and time will remain her enemy.
When I read the news of her legal victory my first thought was how the 60’s helped mold her decisions: the crazy times of upheaval, both socially and politically. And here we are again. Fascism on the rise, white nationalist movement at the highest levels of our government. All she needs to complete the circle is a hole in the desert, the White Album and her memories of Charlie’s prophecies. That applies to HS of course, which we all know is the official motive. Another rabbit hole for another day.
I do look forward to the political fallout, both executive and judicial. Should be a learning experience for us all.
There should be no political fallout. The Governor did his best to keep her in and the court just followed the law. What’s wrong with that?
There ‘should’ be no political fallout but since politics played/plays a significant part in LVH’s parole reversals, surely one can conclude there will be fallout to be used by PACs for/against a candidate. That, or my imagination had too much coffee today.
I can see the commercials now: Gov. Newsom , through his incompetence, allowed a convicted two-time murderer, Manson cult follower LVH out on parole. It happened on HIS watch! He’s soft on crime! If he can’t keep HER in prison, imagine who is paroled next. Vote for Joe Blow, he’ll never let the next LVH off the hook!
Fairly certain my scrolling hindsight shows you made the political argument for me, in which I agree. Law on the books must be followed-for all.
“But I think he’s missing one key component: LVH will always be tied to Manson and crimes that shook the world. ”
Yes, I think this is where many people feel “stuck” when it comes to accepting a potential LVH release. Myself included, at times. The truth is that, but for a brief Supreme Court hiccup on the death penalty, Van Houten would have long ago been executed. When the death penalty was rescinded, the next most-severe punishment was applied: life with. Life without parole did not exist back in that day, of course. If it had, LVH and the other Mansonites wouldn’t be appearing in our news feeds every few years.
The above is where I think a lot of folks hope this whole mess would have landed. And lets face it, the crimes more than justify the above attitude. But the legal reality is that these Manson folks do have a chance to earn parole and it does appear in this case that LVH has done all she can to meet and exceed that criteria. As a society we have established rules and guidelines for those dwelling in the correctional system to abide by. If we stop honoring the very rules “we” as a society have authored, exactly what kind of society are we, at the end of the day?
Personally, I’m conflicted enough over the LVH matter that I’ve stopped caring what happens. I loathe what she & the others did and it is impossible for me to shake my disgust over these crimes. But intellectually I also recognize the hard work that LVH has put in over the decades and judging simply from transcripts and rare media appearances, she does seem to have developed into a responsible and (dare I say) even likable human being. Emotionally, I’d prefer a “life without” situation but given the actual circumstances I feel a LVH release makes abundant sense. Her admirable turnaround and a successful release provides a pretty upbeat ending to this mess of a story.
The problem here is that the generation now does not know of the influence of these crimes had on society, the judicial system and the media. We should remember that 7 people were killed…..not by gunfire like mass murders are today, but by single handed knife welding individuals….and these people should be accountable for thier actions. I understand that it was 50 some odd years ago…..if LVH is
paroled,,, the in the words of Doris Tate ” we can open all the doors for all serial killers in California to be let free” Maybe if LVH is freed….Newsom can also let Polanski come back to the US to at least visit his wifes and son’s grave before he passes away…….Doris Tate and Debra Tate fought/fight for victims rights…..Doris Tate is rolling over in her grave.
Never thought California would have the guts to do the right thing and follow the law the way it’s written. I finally have something to be proud of in the state of my birth, I left years ago for Texas but for this moment in time I salute you the beautiful state of California.
Yes!!!! It’s about time!!!
Pam, Toby, Jo-ann, Happy days, Rich, Fred, Michael, Paul, Billy …. Hello
I haven’t been here for awhile but -wow!! Though I expected this outcome legally speaking. People on this forum are passionate about their points of view whether for or against and both views have made valid points. However, I will always sympathize more with the relatives of the victims and the victims. Rest in Peace.
There are so many years, so many memories, emotions and tears for those who lived through it. Even those of us who were not around in the sixties have heard and been affected by the horrific story. It’s given the Manson family fame and publicity over the decades. Possibly no one expected them all to live so long behind bars and yet most of them are all still here with the exception of CM who died at a ripe old age and SA who died of cancer. I think the prison insitution in this part of the world is pretty benevolent. Murderers have conjugal visits, appeals, medical treatments, regular parole hearings, get college degrees in a system that values rehabilitation. A life sentence isn’t a life sentence unless it specifies without parole which these sentences didn’t. However, life without parole is the sentence I personally think they deserved.
As some have stated on this forum, many murderers serve much less time than the Manson murderers.
LVH will be 74 soon I believe. Freedom may not be all it’s cracked up to be. It doesn’t mean being given back all the years you’ve missed or to start again. I think it will still be very difficult at that age, support plan or not. To give her credit, I do think she is remorseful. Will she receive social security or will she have to work?
I wonder how this will affect the others seeking parole for Manson related crimes.
Cybel said: “I think the prison insitution in this part of the world is benevolent. Murderers have conjugal visits, appeals, medical treatments, regular parole hearings, get college degrees in a system that values rehabilitation. A life sentence isn’t a life sentence unless it specifies without parole which these sentences didn’t.”
Hi Cybel, always nice to read your comments. Your statement is quite true and invokes a sense of injustice as the murdered haven’t the same benefit as the very one that took their life. That’s what makes murderers parole unique. The injustice of taking an innocent life with all its promise, only to see the killer receive all the humanity they themselves forgo their victim. Is our system for punishment or rehabilitation? It’s a combination of both when the possibility of parole is involved.
I’ve read the pro parole comments, and I find it a hard swallow indeed. The ironic argument of ‘follow the law’ when the entire reason LVH is in prison was one of her own choosing to break the law. The simplistic view of forgiving gives me esophageal spasms. If there is forgiveness, it’s for the benefit of the victim themselves, so they can try to live their lives without the continual animus and pain of losing their loved one. It’s for their own sanity. To use that as another venue to free a killer is detestable. They’ve taken their loved one, why not hijack their forgiveness too.
I’m so cynical where LVH is concerned. Of all the Manson murderers, she is the one—in my opinion—who has had more legal maneuvers, more process, more representation than any other in the cult. Is she entitled? Sure. Does it make it ethically right? Fair? To whom? The victims are forever dead at her hands. At her choices. At her yearning to kill. Has she paid the price? Is she rehabilitated? How does that stack up to the lives she took? How about the credit system? Take a class—get time off your sentence. I could go down the rabbit hole infinitely. Indeed, we all have.
The Manson Murders changed the world. LVH got what she wanted, and it appears she’ll get what she wants again. But the question is, will she be free.
Toby, Leslie would not have been executed had the death penalty remained in place. Her conviction was revesed. The 2nd trial had 5 houldouts for manslaughter. The third trial ended in a conviction for 2 counts of murder and 1 count of consipiracy. The court (that heard all the evidence) seriously considered sentencing her to probation but instead issued the next lowest sentence, 7 years to life and then consolidated all three sentences. At that time Leslie had over 8 years of credits so she was eleigble for parole at the time of the sentence. Even if life without parole was available, the court that heard the evidence would not have gone there which was demonstrable by running all of the counts concurrent. All who say she should not be released now are people who are not willing to accept the law or follow it. If the prosecution didn’t like the sentence they could have appealed it but they didn’t and it’s too late now to complain.
I can really identify with Toby’s post and I understand Mr. Pfieffer ‘s position. He represents his client and the application of laws. Nevertheless public opinion does count for something in a democratic sociey.
I do not feel badly for all the time LVH has ended up serving. I always felt she was as responsible as the others.
So, as far as the legal or justice system goes and those trying to mitigate her responsibility including saying it took 3 trials to find her guilty with 5 jury members holding out for manslaughter, the third trial did find her guilty. The parole board still took 40 years before finding her suitable. Of course justice is really a concept. Laws change. Nothing works perfectly.
I agree with Toby that she has bettered herself in prison and has remorse.
But what about following the law? Not just for Leslie, but for everyone. And by that, I am not saying the other Manson inmates should be released, I’m just saying that when courts rule those orders need to be followed. If that is a problem, we have a lawless society.
Lest we all forget, Manson, Atkins, Krenwinkel, Van Houten and Watson were rightfully sentenced to DEATH for their roles in these barbaric crimes..
As far as Justice, Fairness and Righteousness is concerned, they’ve ALL been previously paroled by the fact that they’re not exactly where their unfortunate victims are..
No, Van Houten wasn’t at Cielo Drive, but upon hearing from Atkins and Krenwinkel what transpired at Cielo Drive, she gleefully and giddily demanded she be allowed to take part at Waverly Dr, commenting afterward the more times she stabbed Rosemary LaBianca, the more fun it was..
Whenever one of these monsters comes up for parole, including Davis and Beausoleil, the very same words that Susan Atkins said to Sharon Tate, in her last few seconds of life, should be repeated to each one of them, every time..
Lest we all forget, Manson, Atkins, Krenwinkel, Van Houten and Watson were rightfully sentenced to DEATH for their roles in these barbaric crimes..
As far as Justice, Fairness and Righteousness is concerned, they’ve ALL been previously paroled by the fact that they’re not exactly where their unfortunate victims are..
No, Van Houten wasn’t at Cielo Drive, but upon hearing from Atkins and Krenwinkel what transpired at Cielo Drive, she gleefully and giddily demanded she be allowed to take part at Waverly Dr, commenting afterward the more times she stabbed Rosemary LaBianca, the more fun it was..
Whenever one of these monsters comes up for parole, including Davis and Beausoleil, the very same words that Susan Atkins said to Sharon Tate, in her last few seconds of life, should be repeated to each one of them, every time..
Rich says “But what about following the law? Not just for Leslie, but for everyone. And by that, I am not saying the other Manson inmates should be released, I’m just saying that when courts rule those orders need to be followed. If that is a problem, we have a lawless society.”
No argument . This particular crime has been very emotional, high profile and even historical. I daresay it will be talked about for a long time to come.
Cybele, it’s not so much mitigating as it is simply stating the simple facts of her role in the crime.
I agree with Rich here, even though it sometimes feels hard to do so. Leslie was given the right to earn her freedom, and those in a much better position to judge such things indicate that she has done so. Good for Leslie – and her strong parents – and Rich, who stands as one of the best and brightest in our defensive justice system. Were you or I ever unfortunate enough to find ourselves in LVH’s shoes, I would want a defender like Rich on my side.
Leslie has talked about not wanting to live a wasted life. I don’t know what the ultimate story about her life on this earth will end up being, but I think her experience demonstrates what a waste this entire story has been. There are no winners here.
Toby, you are 100% correct in saying there are no winners here. But the entire story is not a waste – – it does some good to talk this out on all sides. I had a girlfriend murdered by her ex so I have some idea of how the victims feel. I tried to convincer her family that when the murderer goes to the parole board that they have done the right things to be paroled and that means they are now going to be a contributing part of our community. If they don’t reform, then the murder was a complete waste. With reform and parole, at least there is some good (however little) in the end.
Hi Paul, I won’t argue the facts as we can never fully know exactly what happened those nights unless we were there. Murder is murder and that was the intent of all who who went to participate. Degrees of murder/terror? Has LVH reformed ? I think so.
Toby and Rich
I agree that there are no winners. I think that Leslie could have done great things in her life had she gone a different path. I think Rich Pfeiffer has done a brilliant job and his answers to the posts here are always thoughtful, rational and polite. Vengeance and punishment, reform and mercy. I hope that all can find some kind of peace.
Vengeance destroys lives. I’ve seen families that have devoted their entire lives towards keeping those who killed their loved ones in prison, and in doing that, they have made a prison for themselves. I’ve also seen families that started out that way, and through parole hearings, they have come to accept what happened, got to see an inmate make real reform, and then actually advocated for release. Those families seem to be able to have better lives ahead, even though their losses can never be replaced. But every victim family gets to make their own choice on how they go forward and none of us get to judge them.
Leslie needs to stay in a cage for the rest of her life. She deserves no mercy. Has everyone forgotten her horrible acts? She was sentenced to death and should count every breath she has taken in the last 50 plus years as an immeasurable gift that she in no way has deserves. Remember the singing and the dancing at the trials while those sick animals victims began their eternal sentence in their graves? She should never, ever walk free. The thought of her or any of them being released makes me sick to my stomach.
Steven, why aren’t you willing to accept the sentencing court’s ruling and the law that applies to that ruling? Do you advocate refusing to obey the law? The court that made the sentencing ruling – looked at all of the evedence and watched and listened to all of the witnesses. Are you all of a sudden claiming that the court was wrong? If so, why no appeal? I suggest you go back to the vengeance discussion. If you are sick to your stomach over following the law, maybe your healthcare professionals can prescribe a remedy. For the rest of us, some may not like the law or the decisions made, but in a society that is governed by laws and processes, we accept what has happened. Why can’t you?
“Maybe your health care professionals can prescribe a remedy.” There’s no need for petty insults. Steven is entitled to his opinions. There are many people who share his assessment of your client. LVH isn’t a victim of the system, she’s a convicted murderer. Her sick goal was to create a race war in which millions would be slaughtered. This was evil and diabolical. Nothing Steven said about your client was false.
Mr. Pfieffer:
Would you please qualify the last sentence of your June 1 4:30 pm entry where you mention the families of victims and the choices they make in terms of dealing with moving forward? Did you mean that “we” should never judge the choices these families make in how they choose to deal with the aftermath of these crimes since none of us are “in their shoes”, or is it that since “we” are generally hesitant to critique the reactions ( of the victims families) we do feel free to “judge” the actions of the perpetrators and that, consequently, there is a level of “unfairness” to this (akin to “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”)? Thanks.
I am not a governing body or advocating for refusing to obey the law. I merely stated my opinion and your smug retort did nothing to change my mind. As stated by another person on this forum, LVH is not the victim here – the victims are all in the ground.
I post here again to share two LVH-related links for those interested. These may be old news for many readers, but they may prove to be fascinating and instructive for those who have yet to engage with them:
JOHN WATERS’ “Leslie Van Houten – A Friendship”
Filmmaker Waters has a long and rather storied relationship with these events. He first approached LVH as a potential interviewer, and in the process the two have become life-long friends. This is from 2011 and it is a long, five-part read. It is also incredibly well-written and almost screamingly funny in places. Waters apparently has the kind of relationship with Leslie that allows for the kind of highly personal and almost intrusive questioning, and Leslie’s answers are revealing. Here, John Waters makes a strong case for LVH’s parole, but in the process he really lets us in on the kind of person she has become.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/leslie-van-houten-a-frien_b_246953
EAR HUSTLE – “For me, home is really a memory”
This is a much more recent (2021), hour-long podcast where we get to hear from Leslie herself. This is also incredibly intimate. This podcast conversation, which was cobbled together using dozens of prison phone calls over a series of many months, answers so many of the questions many observers have. I have long been horrified by these crimes, and sometimes I have wondered “what is it like to live in the SKIN of these former Manson people I’ve read so much about?” Here, Leslie shares exactly that – and she does so from a place of wisdom and lessons hard-learned. LVH tells us what drew her to Manson in the first place, how she feels about that “former self” now, what the process of emerging from that period has been like. Leslie speaks of her reaction to Manson’s death and to the Governor’s parole denials and what she would like her life to be like if she were ever to be released.
https://www.earhustlesq.com/episodes/2021/6/9/home-for-me-is-really-a-memory
I used to feel exactly as some of you posting here do about a potential “Manson girl” parole. The above two sources served to change my mind about Leslie Van Houten. Rather than objectifying her and viewing her as a kind of historical freak, I was surprised and (dare I say) impressed with who LVH is right now. Our skin crawls at the thought of these crimes and the people who committed them. Imagine experiencing that same “skin crawl” feeling while living IN the skin of one of those people! Leslie shares this with us in the sources above, and she does so most humbly and impressively.
You may not be comfortable with a humanized and freed Leslie Van Houten. If that’s the case, I get it. I once felt as you do. If you feel a curiosity about these people and wonder what it like to actually be one of them, I’d encourage you to engage with one or both of the above sources – if you haven’t already. Your mind about LVH and her fate may or may not be changed as a result, but at least yours will be a more fully-informed opinion.
I just don’t understand how people can obey one court’s ruling but now not the other court’s ruling. People get hung up on the death penalty sentence but don’t understand the the state ruled it unconstitutional. She was just a young girl when the crimes occurred and if that was your child you’d be in favor of him or her getting paroled.. She’s almost 73 years old now and spent more time in prison than some people live. It’s time for LVH to be released. BTW if she needs a place to stay I have a extra room available rent free. She’s not a danger to society anymore and probably wouldn’t have been when she was 19 had she not crossed paths with Manson and the turbulence of the 60’s. Give her a break.
“She’s almost 73 years old now and spent more time in prison than some people live”
You mean like her victims?
One of the prison psychologists who did a risk assessment decades ago said the passed his upstairs bedroom test – Leslie could live at his house because she is no longer a danger. So Billy, you’re not the first to offer opening your home to Leslie.
Leslie will be 74 in August of this year I believe.
I do agree with Rich about vengeance vs forgiveness. However, thinking someone should remain in prison may not equate with hatred of that person. In a broader sense, the Manson murders were life changing not only for the victims and their families but for the consciousness of the sixties I think. Those who never trusted the “hippie culture” felt justified, and the optimism and ideals of the youth movement in the sixties ended ignominiously with these horrific crimes committed by young “dropouts.” So along with the murders there was also a societal fallout.
I have a hard time blaming drugs, youth and mind control on the savage slaughter of unsuspecting victims in their homes. We all have reason by the age of thirteen and I believe most of the Manson members had middle class lives and values prior.
I do not think that a life without parole sentence is cruel and unusual punishment in this part of the world. On the other hand the law is the law and I won’t lose sleep if LVH is released nor think her a danger, but – I will be thinking of the families.
Stephen Craig says:
Mr. Pfieffer: Would you please qualify the last sentence of your June 1 4:30 pm entry where you mention the families of victims and the choices they make in terms of dealing with moving forward?
I’ll tell you what I got from what Rich said there, Steven.
I understood him to be saying that this is a really difficult area, and it is possible for the family members of the victims to go in a number of possible directions, some of which may be viewed as understandable but ultimately harmful to them, some of which may be viewed as the right way to go, some of which may be viewed as not wise ~ yet may, in the end work out to have been the best course to take. There are many variables, but it is not for any of us to be telling those family members which way they should go, nor to judge them for the direction they take, even if we may personally disagree or see it as ultimately harmful to their mental well-being.
That’s what I got from what he was saying.
i could be totally wrong there.
Cybele “ I have a hard time blaming drugs, youth and mind control on the savage slaughter of unsuspecting victims in their homes.”
I’m sure if it were any other type of crime then you wouldn’t think like that. You need to take into account in any case where there is drugs and indoctrination involved, even when it comes to murder.
Rich, how is Leslie taking the courts decision (I’m sure she’s very emotional) and the potential appeal?
CybeleMoon says:
I have a hard time blaming drugs, youth and mind control on the savage slaughter of unsuspecting victims in their homes
Rather than re-run a debate we’ve had several times over the last 4 years, I’ll just say that it is not about blame. Cybele, I have been working with children and young people now for 40 years {turned that on May 27th}. Human beings are so complex and we are such, that we are subject to many influences all of the time. Sometimes we don’t even realize it or the extent of it until much later. At the same time, we are responsible for the choices we make, even when being subject to those influences. Every one of us that has been engaging in these debates for the last few years has been influenced by a variety of sources, to a greater or lesser degree, yet, we are all responsible for the conclusions we draw.
It is not and never has been as simple as to say “drugs, youth and manipulation made them murder”, neither is it nor has it ever been as simple as to say “drugs, youth and manipulation had nothing to do with it.” Two seemingly opposing things can be true at the same time.
I do not feel badly for all the time LVH has ended up serving
I didn’t either….until I really began to examine what Guv’nors Brown and Newsome were using as their justification for overturning the parole board decisions. After all, the parole boards are an arm of the state. They are not in opposition to the Guv’nor. I’ve never really had a problem with the initial overturning of their decisions. Good to have checks and balances, good for the inmate to think things through for a year in the light of a positive decision, even though it be overturned by the Guv, etc. But when, year after year that Guv’nor cites the same reason and you read the transcript and as a common person can see that their reasons are demonstrably untrue and you can pick them apart yourself, well, that’s when one may start to realize that the guv has no rationale for their decision.
Just for one moment, let’s take victims, their families, emotion, the treatment the perp thinks they have received and all these things that make for debating points {that I enjoy actually. There are some fine minds here on all sides of the equation} out of it. The guv has one ace card that can settle any decision the board makes, every time ~ the heinousness of the crime. And they stopped using it once she was granted parole the first time. Why ? Oh, they mention it, but they know deep down that there comes a point where that bird stops flying. Because every one of us would likely get offended if something you did 50+ years ago kept being brought to bear on your future life direction. And please, do not accuse me of trivializing murder. I’m simply making the point that if you were sentenced to 7-to-life with the possibility of parole, you could go one of 2 ways. You could do a Charlie Manson, stick 2 fingers up at society, never face responsibility for your actions and never attempt to improve your lot….or go the route the others have attempted, with varying degrees of application {I’m reluctant to use words like ‘success’}.
It’s the guv’nor that does not use their trump card. Instead, they say she lacks insight. There are 11 parole transcripts on this site from this century that demonstrate that if there is one thing Leslie Van Houten does not lack, it’s insight. You could say Bobby doesn’t really demonstrate honest insight, maybe, you could sometimes say that of Pat, even. I do not think it applies to Bruce or even Tex, although I wouldn’t be paroling Tex any time soon. Leslie has insight spilling out of every orifice. She would actually be one of the few people one could employ in the really serious business of going around the country engaging with troubled teenagers and saying, “my life has been a great example of why it is crucial you get your stuff together. You do not want to end up like me.” And that’s not to her glory {and I suspect she wouldn’t see it that way}. Hers is a tragic story, a tragedy comprised of events she can never undo. She has impacted so many lives in a negative way. Whether or not one may feel the victims’ families have sometimes built their own private prisons, it is still unnegotiable that she is a major cause of that being a reality of their lives. All of them, to a greater or lesser extent have gone down a road in life that they wouldn’t have done but for her part in the collective.
But……for better or for worse, she has provided insight in how she got there. You don’t even have to like her to see that. You don’t even have to believe in parole to see that. And I can tell you first hand, as one who has been alongside many young adults since they were children and can actively, consciously and deliberately trace how some of them got to where they ended up {and some committed murder, many entered a life of crime, way too many ended up in prison}, insight, genuine, honest insight into your wrongdoings and how you got there is almost, not quite, but almost as rare as hen’s teeth. I’ve had arguments with guys that ended up in jail or people defending those that ended up in jail where I’ve had to say “listen, you can get away with saying that shit to people that don’t know you or weren’t around at the time, but you can’t get away with saying that to me because I was there. I talked ad nauseam with you about your life and where you were headed. You made your choices, lousy ones.” Most people I know {and I know so many criminals I wonder about myself at times !}🫣 follow the Charlie route when it comes to insight because they won’t be honest about themselves. It was always “because of someone else.”
That does not apply to Leslie Van Houten.
So, when the major reason keeping her in jail is stated time after time to be a lack of insight, forgive me, but even if I hated her resolutely, even if I thought she should stay in jail forever and a day, I would have to conclude that Guv’nors doth speak with forked tongues. Those 11 transcripts have left me absolutely no choice, other than to ignore the very salient evidence that is before me. I can’t do that. It would be easy if she had a fairly good prison record, but had tripped up in minor things every now and again. It would be easy if she displayed a consistently bad attitude. Not even committing infractions, just a bad attitude. That’s what floored Susan Atkins. Her record wasn’t bad actually. But her attitude left a sufficient amount of doubt for me to be able to see easily why, even as she lay paralyzed on a bed and unable to speak and was unable to control her bodily functions, she was denied release on her deathbed. Going by the law, the parole board were right. Harsh ? Not when you look at her last two parole hearings.
None of that applies to Leslie Van Houten.
So yeah, Cybele, I can’t say I’ve been shedding tears in my cornflakes over Leslie’s having to serve a long and uncomfortable time for her actions back in ’69. However, much as I detest law breaking of her magnitude, I detest it even more, when the guardians and appliers of the law use their powers to enact decisions that one can clearly see, if one actually wants to look, are not as they ought. You can say it’s just my opinion and that’s what it is. But it is not an emotional triggering. And I have yet to see anyone address it in the last 4 years. All kinds of areas around it have been thrown in. But apart from people saying things like “I just don’t believe her” it hasn’t been addressed.
The crushing irony of this for me is that in saying “I just don’t believe her or I don’t believe she has any remorse”, those folk are basically showing that they understand her application of insight. They just don’t accept it. For the purposes of my point, it isn’t necessary for them to accept it, just understand what they are rejecting. And they do. And that shows that it cannot stand, for the guv’nor[s] to use that to overturn any parole recommendation. By their rejection, those that agree with him batter the rationale he uses to make the decision that they agree with.
Fred, how are you?
I took that as well from what Rich said.
happydaysarehereagain says:
The Manson Murders changed the world
In what way did they change the world ?
LVH got what she wanted
In what way has a woman that’s been in prison since 1969 {barring a 6-month period} got what she wanted ? At best, she’s scored minor battle victories while being continually decimated at war, if you’ll pardon the analogy, for she is in prison. Her goal has been to get out of jail. She’s still there.
and it appears she’ll get what she wants again
She may not. This is not over yet. There are still stages to go. She could lose.
The simplistic view of forgiving gives me esophageal spasms
I don’t understand this. Can you elaborate on this ? What do you mean by the simplistic view of forgiving ?
If there is forgiveness, it’s for the benefit of the victim themselves, so they can try to live their lives without the continual animus and pain of losing their loved one. It’s for their own sanity
I don’t understand what you mean here. Who are you highlighting as the victim ? Earlier and later, you refer to the person[s] murdered as the victim[s]. But here you seem to be calling the family member the victim. Have I understood this correctly ?
To use that as another venue to free a killer is detestable. They’ve taken their loved one, why not hijack their forgiveness too
Could you elaborate on this too ? I don’t understand what you’re saying here.
I’m so cynical where LVH is concerned. Of all the Manson murderers, she is the one—in my opinion—who has had more legal maneuvers, more process, more representation than any other in the cult
You’re probably right. But I can’t see that this means anything in particular. If we’re going to be bluntly honest, it would have to be something pretty dramatic and substantial for Charles Manson when he was about, Charles Watson or Patricia Krenwinkel to haul LE before the courts. And Bruce hasn’t wanted to rock the boat. But LVH has operated within the law to do the things that she has been entitled to within the law. And you know what ? Much of the time, she’s lost.
That’s the way the law works. You apply it, and there is a lot of interpretive space. And you get to scrutinize the interpretation. That’s fair. Because we are human and many aspects of human life are on a sliding scale. What you thought so firmly yesterday, you might feel differently about tomorrow. And every case will have two sides ding-donging over the same pieces of law. The most skilful on the day wins ~ within the law. But 5 years later, someone more skilful on the opposing side may defeat what was once a winningly applied bit of law.
It’s a fascinating exercise to look at some old laws that were once enforced in our various lands. Some of them are funny, many of them seem insane to us 21st century folk.
But should Leslie not utilize the law in a fair and just manner ? Better that than a prison riot or killing a guard or something !
CybeleMoon says:
Fred, how are you?
I’m ok, how about yourself ?
Hi Fred, good to see you about, back in the weeds as it were.
Again, as I’ve stated to you before, I’ve no reason to clarify my opinion, regardless of your fondness of minutia. Suffice to say I appreciate your interest however I fail to see the problem you are having of understanding me. Could be my penchant for differing things being correct at the same time is confusing you. I’ve no doubt if you and I were to sit at a table working a puzzle, we’d spar over the last two pieces, trying to make it fit; laughing as we do so.
Yes, LVH has and should use whatever law benefits her situation. Law is to be obeyed by everyone. Never an argument on that score.
Having said that, I see LVH legal history as manipulation of the due process afforded her which she denied the LaBiancas’. For you see, I cannot forget the victims, nor will I ever forget the victims. LVH is not, I repeat, not a victim. She is an obstinate princess. She made the choice to kill. She, just shy of turning 20 years old, opted the path to take. She had been making her own choices since her teen years. She wants freedom, and that has been her goal after she realized she wasn’t getting out of prison anytime soon. She did what was required of her. And the result is she receives special humanitarian credit for doing what every person does every day of their life sans murdering two innocents. This I find galling.
To me, what is lost in this legal game are Rosemary and Leno LaBianca and their families.
Now having written more insightfully I do hope this doesn’t lead to another weed-o-rama. If you do so, I’ll take away your puzzle piece lol
Leslie has no more legal resources than any of the others. I took on this case pro bono (no fee) when Leslie asked me to. She had been helping some of my other clients for years by helping them prepare for parole hearings. She earned my help, I am grateful for hers through the years. Pat has the most expensive and experienced parole attorney in the state. The things I filed for Leslie are available to the others and I have absolutely no idea why they aren’t doing it. My briefs are there for them to use. The courts are there when the Governor does his reversals that he has to do in order to not lose votes.
The biggest issue here is the governor’s right to reverse these parole decisions. It turns these cases into political ones rather than legal issues. No governor in his or her right mind would allow these high profile cases come to parol. First degree murder is abhorrent to all of us. However I’m sure the governor allows many paroles to stand ,as they are not going to make headline news. We imprison these people for punishment AND rehabilitation. I think Leslie has truly been punished ( 50 plus years) and she has demonstrated time and time again her sincere rehabilitation. The system works.
PMAC you are spot on regarding what the Governor (or any governor) would have to do on these high profile cases. This law has to change but it has to be done via a public vote to change the constitution (that’s how it was implemented) unless a court finds the law violates due process or some other legal doctrine. The system works for about 80% of the inmates. The other 20% have to get out through the courts and the 3 categories that get almost 100% reversals are: high profile cases (Governor gets the biggest bang for the buck and he needs this to stand up to victim rights groups who want nobody paroled), then there are the cases where kids are killed and the final category are the sex offenders (nobody likes them). While there are obvious reasons for these categories being reversed, it still is not fair to those in those categories. The parole board is not lenient and take every case one at a time by the facts of the case and they do seem to put a higher standard on the 3 categories but they still grant parole when warranted.
As to legal history—not resources as you put it– hers was vastly different than the other killers, as you well know. Interestingly, she mentored your clients for parole hearings and earns your pro bono work on her behalf. If it wasn’t for the notoriety of LVH, would you still have taken it pro bono? Notoriety works both ways; if the Governor uses it politically, attorneys often use it for name recognition.
Also wondering if the briefs you filed haven’t been used (yet) by PK since she was convicted on seven counts instead of LVH’s two counts of first degree murder. Perhaps it’s harder to prove remorse and rehabilitation when the sheer number of murdered victims casts a longer shadow over the litany of incarcerated self-help achievement.
Do you know of any legal challenge to the CA Constitution of the Governor’s executive powers concerning parole? Or are you hoping the appeals of LVH will work its way through the highest legal processes to override it and the publics vote?
I’ve done pro bono work for LOTS of clients who couldn’t afford to hire an attorney. I pick and choose which ones to take based on the merits of their case, not on their notoriety. No case is going to change the Governor’s right to reverse parole unless the court finds that is unconstitutional. That was one of the issues that was pending that the court didn’t address because they found the Governor had not a modicum of evidence to support his reversal and the court stopped there.
I suppose it’s a matter of time before executive power is challenged and rightly so as it does encourage bad faith judgments for political gain. While I make no excuse for siding with victims and their families, the legal playing field must be fair to all and with this type of power there will be abuse. What is your opinion on Governor’s parole reversal for particularly heinous crimes? Or do they go hand in hand, current dangerousness and heinousness? Can’t have one without the other or could it be a separate reason for parole reversal?
Hat tip to you for taking the time for discussion and for helping those less fortunate.
the only thing that matters (legally) is if the inmate is a current unreasonable risk to public safety. The gravity of the commitment offense does not matter (that was taken into consideration at the time of sentencing) unless you can connect the gravity of the crime to a current risk.
happydaysarehereagain says:
good to see you about, back in the weeds as it were
Likewise.
Again, as I’ve stated to you before, I’ve no reason to clarify my opinion, regardless of your fondness of minutia
Fair enough. It does no harm to ask. It’s not really a fondness of minutia, sometimes someone makes a point on a subject that interests me and catches my attention, but I might not be clear on the point being made and I don’t want to comment on it unless I do understand.
I fail to see the problem you are having of understanding me
That’s because you’re not me ! ✋😉
Could be my penchant for differing things being correct at the same time is confusing you
Paradoxes and nuance are my stock-in-trade. I see them everywhere.
I’ve no doubt if you and I were to sit at a table working a puzzle, we’d spar over the last two pieces, trying to make it fit; laughing as we do so
I’m already laughing and we haven’t even got the corners placed !
I remember, many years ago, my Mum’s colleague bought my sisters and I a 1000 piece jigsaw of an alsation. That killed any interest I might have otherwise had in puzzles ! 😁 We were so ungrateful as kids !!
I wouldn’t let lvh live in my house after release! I don’t so much fear her as I fear that someone will try to make a name for themselves and “do unto lvh as she did unto rosemary labianca”. California should have killed those murderers when they could. “Cruel and unusual”. What they did was both cruel and unusual. Any death they could have gotten would have been too kind and just!
Hi, first post from this lurker. One thing I haven’t seen anyone mention is that LVH will suffer from PTSD for the rest of her short life. Getting out is jarring and traumatic for people who have only done a few years. She doesn’t realize it but I think she’ll find that prison is easier. She knows all the rules. I can’t imagine her going into our world and not being completely and totally overwhelmed. And yes, I support this decision. She used her time to reform. Isn’t that what prison is for? Also, I worked on a Manson book a few years ago (never was released) and I transcribed interviews with a major, major player in TLB. I pray he never gets out. Leslie, I don’t see the threat to society, at all.
most inmates have PTSD and when they are honest with themselves and work through the rehabilitative process, they seem to do well on tghe outside. I’m certainly not saying the transition is easy, but Leslie has done the hard work and I expect her transition to be easy compared to other lifers who got out
Her “transition will be easy”? What is you opinion based on? Have you counseled the multitudes who have been released after decades in prison? Or are you so enamored with that killer that you think she is a heroic figure ready to successfully challenge the next obstacle society has put in her path to greatness?
She should rot in a cell forever. And you should rot watching her rot. Wake up.
Chet, if you’re going to put something in quotes, at least actually quote what was said, lol. You lose all credibility by misquoting those you seek to disagree with.
I base my opionion on Leslie transitioning better than most on having over 200 clients who were serving life sentences and then they were paroled. Every one of them transitioned successfully. Some had challenges they didn’t forsee but they worked through them constructively.
With over 200 of your clients paroled while then serving life sentences, do you have statistics on how many reoffended or violated their conditions of parole and were sent back to prison?
My guess is that Newsome feels some relief in having the decision essentially, though not completely, made for him. If there is fallout politically, it will certainly not be as harsh as it would have been if he had initially approved her parole. But since he has vetoed it repeatedly in the past and stated his reasons, he can point that out in his defense if he’s accused of being “soft on crime.”
One of many reasons I think people have such a volatile reaction to Leslie is those video reels of her and her co-defendants singing and laughing on their way to court. Most other killers didn’t make such an open show of sadistic delight, and contempt for their victims, as these ones did. I am sure Leslie feels horrible about this today, but the images are still there, replayed constantly and unerasable. Manson orchestrated all of it, but it’s her face smiling and her voice singing and nothing can delete that.
Hmmm … I just noticed there’s another “Michael” posting here. So for the record, this is “Old Michael.”
Amend that – some other killers have definitely acted up as Leslie et all did. Ramirez comes to mind.
“I am sure Leslie feels horrible about this today”
She does. LVH has cited her own behavior in court as being quite personally embarrassing. If I could remember the source, I’d link it for you but yeah, she complete gets it.
“I am sure Leslie feels horrible about this today . . . ”
She does. LVH has cited her own behavior in court as being quite personally embarrassing. If I could remember the source, I’d link it for you but yeah, she complete gets it.
“Over 200 clients serving life sentences who were paroled, transitioned succesfully.” That is impressive. I wonder what the recidivism rate is today for most felons.
Leslie is unique as she has grown up and grown old in the prison institution. She will have a job? Most people her age have long retired but I imagine she may work in the context of the parole and rehabilitation system. How will the rest of society transition to her notoriety and freedom I wonder.
Tobias says “LVH has cited her own behavior in court as being quite personally embarrasing” Embarrasing is when you pass gas in an elevator. I think ashamed would be a better word?
If LVH passed gas in an elevator, she’d blame a barking spider…or a tree frog…or see that elephant run by!?
Sorry Cybel, couldn’t control myself so I blame you. lol
Well, “embarrassing” was my word choice, I can’t quite remember hers. But I have found LVH’s self-evaluation on her behavior back in that day rather refreshing, as unlike Pat & Susan (and others) at various times, she has demonstrated that she completely “gets it”. I think it helps to realize that Leslie was not actually WITH “the family” for all that long prior to the murders. Indeed, Sandy refers to her as “one of the new girls” who Sandy didn’t get to know very well. Sandy’s take on things can always be taken with a grain of salt, but she’s not far wrong in that assessment – compared to many of the others, Leslie was always one of the least committed female members of the group.
LVH was the first to renounce Manson in prison and, unlike the other two, she never waivered in that decision. As early as her mid-70’s re-trials, Leslie was cringing at having to listen to her former self as the Marvin Part tapes were played in court. John Waters’ lengthy and informative essay on his decades-long friendship with Van Houten provides a very nice window into her attitude back then. In more recent years, Leslie has learned to feel and express empathy for her former self while still owning full responsibility for that person and her actions. THAT is a tricky and delicate rope to walk and I have to say – I am quite impressed with how LVH has handled and balanced the entirety of her situation.
In all my life inmates who were paroled, none committed any crimes and one had a parole violation for having unopenend cans of beer in his car which sent him back for a year. He’s geen great since – he learned his lesson the hard way.
Leslie Van Houten was with the Manson Family for less than one year in early August, 1969, and within that time she murdered for Manson and the Family. Thus, it is an illustration that she “was always one of the least committed female members of the group.” Good Lord! Van Houten was away from the family for one day in April, 1969. Her mom picked up her daughter from the police, took her home; Leslie was able to bathe properly, get some decent food and sleep in her bed. The next morning, while her mom was at work, LVH ran straight back to Manson and the Family. Yeah, it was showing less commitment. Supporting Leslie Van Houten’s release from prison is one thing, but do not talk rubbish about her role within the family. She was a hardcore member. Manson picked LVH to go the second night for likely one reason only, he believed she had the commitment to murder. Dianne Lake is on record as saying it did not surprise her when she discovered Leslie Van Houten was one of the murderers. It is one former member’s view of LVH, but ouch.
I think Susan Atkins was the first of the three women in prison to denounce Charles Manon.
The last word of my previous post should read Manson. My apologies.
HDAHA lol. Glad you liked that one.
JNL I agree! Being suitable for parole is one thing but yes, many of LVH ‘s supporters really go beyond the pale when trying to mitigate her actions and make her into a political martyr such as youthful folly, brainwashing, she was just a kid, she was on drugs, she only stabbed a dead body etc.
Leslie willingly participated in one of the two most shocking and savage murder sprees of that era. Yes, I think she would have been very succesful in life had she not met Manson but, she was not forced to do what she did. Some cult members left when it got too crazy. I think people forget that there were many “cults”, communes, and drug use at that time that didn’t lead to a massacre. She has to live with that, rehabilitated or not.
I will be crushed if she is released . But it’s looking inevitable at this point . Leslie has a lot of friends on the outside that will make sure she is well taken care of. I would imagine her parents left her money as well . She will enjoy her freedom in beautiful Southern California . She will be out by summer . 🙁
Rich—That’s one hell of a record then. Glad to know only one blip, and a year for open beer. I’m curious about Son of Sam type laws in CA. I would certainly find it more than repulsive if LVH is released, she hits a talk show circuit, writes a book, or any other way makes blood money from her crimes. And I’ve no doubt the temptation to do so will be enormous. Media will hound her for the big get.
“Old” Michael– The video often played by the media, of SA, PK & LVH sing-song perp walk never shocked me much. What I find shocking is how easily a two-time killer can act and look normal between her second and third trial. Like a mousy secretary, gussied up to project victimhood. LVH blended in even when she’s most likely a psychopath. That’s what frightened me. Regimented incarceration forced her to walk the line. Now she has one foot out the door; and no matter her age, to me, she’ll always be a danger risk.
JNL great post, one I heartily support. I think you’re right about Atkins being the first to denounce Manson opting for Christianity instead. If memory serves, she shunned them and wasn’t that also the time PK & LVH grew closer in prison?
JNL, from Atkin’s account in both her books, and Bugliosi’s “Afterward” in the 25 year update of Helter Skelter, PK and LVH shunned Susan right after the trial, were openly hostile to her in the early prison years, and remained a little aloof from her to the very end. Looks like her grand jury testimony was seen as a betrayal of them and the family, and Susan later wrote that was a reason for their “residual resentment.” It looks like the two were already pretty close already. (I found it interesting that PK and LVH participated together in the 1994 Diane Sawyer 25 year anniversary interview, and SA declined) But their “perp walk” routine didn’t shock you, huh? Wow, it still shocks me. Nauseates me, too.
Sorry Happy Days – I meant that last comment as a response to you, not JNL. I am earning the moniker Old Michael.
No worries Old Michael, kind of figured you meant me. PK and LVH shunned SA for snitching and blowing it wide open, and kept that hostility for years? Years of “residual resentment”? Now that is interesting. PK & LVH placing blame on SA for their own life choices is telling me more about them than of SA. I really thought it was the other way around; SA shunned them due to her newfound faith in Christianity. So up to the very end of SA’s life, LVH was still holding a grudge against her? So much for rehabilitation and inward reflection and taking responsibility for one’s own actions, if that is the case.
I too wondered about why SA didn’t interview with PK & LVH with Diane Sawyer. Again, tells me more about them than SA.
The perp walk had a creep level three when they play the audio of them singing like little angels, holding hands with pig tails bobbing as they walk. But no, I didn’t find it shocking. Nauseating is more like it. Curiously enough it really didn’t shock me, but it did inspire my decades long interest in the Manson murders.
Maybe that says more about me than I’d like it to! lol
Susan Atkins was pure evil. I am overjoyed that she’s dead .
“So up to the very end of SA’s life, LVH was still holding a grudge against her?”
This is one aspect of the LVH story that has remained confounding and a bit mysterious to me. Leslie seems to hold a sniffing disapproval of Diane Lake as well. I do not know this to be absolutely the case, but even in recent years that seems to possibly be the case. I’m not sure that Leslie has ever referred to Lake by name, but she tends to identify her as “a teenaged follower” or “a little girl in the group”. Not sure what to think there.
happydaysarehereagain says:
PK and LVH shunned SA for snitching and blowing it wide open, and kept that hostility for years? Years of “residual resentment”? Now that is interesting. PK & LVH placing blame on SA for their own life choices is telling me more about them than of SA
It wasn’t that Pat and Leslie had blamed Susan for their life choices. It was that snitching was akin to cannibalism or worse, within the criminal and Family code that they operated by. They felt that it was because of Susan that they had been caught and despite all the dancing and singing and performance theatre during the trial, those two did not want to be caught, they did not want to be convicted and they did not want to be sentenced to death. They also felt that the Family broke up because of what Susan started.
They soon got wise, though.
I really thought it was the other way around; SA shunned them due to her newfound faith in Christianity
Going over to Christ wrought some real changes in Susan. She shares in her first autobiog, that she started writing to Bruce Davis, who had become a Christian and they kind of discovered feelings for each other that they hadn’t really been able to express in the Charlie days.
So up to the very end of SA’s life, LVH was still holding a grudge against her? So much for rehabilitation and inward reflection and taking responsibility for one’s own actions, if that is the case
Long before Atkins died, she put the record straight. She said that LVH had come up to her when she heard that her son had been taken away from her and apologized for her attitude towards her. Much of the attitude she’d been flinging was down to her thinking Susan was a ‘couldn’t care less’ Mum.
I too wondered about why SA didn’t interview with PK & LVH with Diane Sawyer
Even before that interview in, I think it was ’94, Pat and Leslie’s relationship had begun fracturing. It was fracturing as early as ’78 when, in Pat’s first parole hearing, she more or less called Leslie a liar, saying she didn’t know why Leslie told whoever that Pat had told her to wipe away all fingerprints at the scene of the crime.
For the record, I believe Leslie, simply because that’s what she told her lawyer privately back in 1969. More recently, LVH has stated that she’s cordial with Pat, but she doesn’t associate with her because she recognizes that her relationship with Pat was one of a negative co-dependency on her part.
singing like little angels, holding hands with pig tails bobbing as they walk. But no, I didn’t find it shocking. Nauseating is more like it. Curiously enough it really didn’t shock me, but it did inspire my decades long interest in the Manson murders.
Maybe that says more about me than I’d like it to! lol
I don’t think it says anything negative about you at all.
I know you were jesting, but it does point to a more serious point ¬> you can’t be held responsible for what ignites your interest in something and leads you to look further into that thing. Murder and the law are legit topics, and so are the people involved in them.
Tobias says:
Leslie seems to hold a sniffing disapproval of Diane Lake as well. I do not know this to be absolutely the case, but even in recent years that seems to possibly be the case. I’m not sure that Leslie has ever referred to Lake by name, but she tends to identify her as “a teenaged follower”
Leslie referred to her that way because she was giving what she saw as the layers of hierarchy in the Family. But she has mentioned Dianne quite a bit. In the 2017 hearing, she mentioned her exclusively and went on to explain that she was held up as the model of what a female ought to be, which explained her statement to Dianne about stabbing being fun.
“they did not want to be convicted and they did not want to be sentenced to death.”
Not meaning this to be a huge or contentious challenge, but I wonder what you might be basing this statement on? I ask because both LVH and Pat have indicated that they truly did see the court proceedings, the convictions and the sentence to be something of a joke. As Leslie has articulated multiple times, they felt the whole world was screwed anyway and that we were all going to die in the coming race war, so the legalities were rather meaningless to them.
Obviously, this view changed as they emerged from the Manson-think they’d been dwelling in, but there is no indication that they cared much at all about these things as they were happening. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Fred & Tobias, you both raise interesting points on the dynamics between SA, PK & LVH. With all that was exchanged between our posts, what makes any of us think we actually know what LVH thinks by basing it on writings, musings or the many books written by Manson cultists? As I see LVH’s three trials and many parole hearings as the legal reference, I’ve not seen our questions posed in any legal way. Have you and if so please steer me to it.
To explain my thoughts on this, and tip toeing through the dandelions, example being her resentment of SA and her keeping PK at arm’s length for parole purposes. If true, and it can only come from LVH as to what she was/is thinking, it’s also detrimental to her parole as to when she absolved SA. If it has been decades of animus, that can be used against her. Harboring any ill will against her co-defendants is not a good look on her part for owning her guilt, her reasoning, her inward reflection, yada yada. And why wouldn’t it be used against her when –if true–she severed her friendship with PK for parole purposes.
Can you just see the DA’s rep. tearing into this possibly unexplored legal area? I certainly can.
One can also look at primary sources. Leslie did a couple of newspaper/magazine articles in the early 1980s, and they are an interesting read. One side of Van Houten that comes through in the articles is an arrogance. She was trying to convince the writers, and their readers, that she should not be seen in the same light as Patricia Krenwinkel and Susan Atkins, and she was, somehow, not as responsible for the crimes as the other two women. Leslie was in her 30s when she did the interviews. She was still doing stupid things in her 40s, like (reportedly) having a decade-plus letter sex relationship with an incarcerated man convicted of murdering two women. What kind of woman, with her arse in prison, and trying to convince the parole board and the People of California to release her, would do such a thing?
It needs to be pointed out that Leslie Van Houten did not get a unanimous vote in the appellate court decision. Justice Rothschild decided against Van Houten. Why? The Governor of California should be on solid ground to take the appellate court decision to the Supreme Court of California.
JNL, Cybele, HDAHA,
Many great points. JNL, I think you did a great job of debunking the myth of her perfect prison record. Cybele, you’re right on target when you said she made a choice to go. She was the only one who volunteered to go, she felt left out. HDAHA, absolutely . great point about her not taking accountability. Never forget she emphasized her belief that she only stabbed a corpse,the role her parent’s divorce, and her abortion played in the killings. I believe there are some first degree murder convictions that deserve release, forgiveness and redemption. The story of Cyntoia Brown is one of them, LVH doesn’t fit this category. I still don’t believe she’ll be free. The SC of California can still overcome this decision and I pray for that. RL and LL deserve justice, their lives mattered.
JNL thanks for the input and especially the point about LVH’s prison record which is always promoted as exemplary. To be fair, I’d expect infractions after fifty years, but the love letter sexcapade is a big one as well as the almost prison break, LVH stating she knew nothing about.
Pam, I went back and was reading on LVH’s mother Jane’s testimony during, oops, can’t recall which trial. Anyway, Jane stated that the day LVH was brought home as JNL mentioned, she testified that LVH told her there was a revolution coming (paraphrasing) and Jane said she didn’t believe that so LVH told her own mother “then you will die.”
Can you imagine saying such a thing to your own mother? That in itself demonstrates LVH’s willingness to return to the Manson cult. For those that say she wasn’t hardcore, I’d point to this testimony from her own mother.
She’s getting out ! Deal with it
Tobias says:
“they did not want to be convicted and they did not want to be sentenced to death.”
Not meaning this to be a huge or contentious challenge, but I wonder what you might be basing this statement on?
Their actions after the murders.
When Leslie was interviewed by Mike McGann in November ’69, it wasn’t known that she was involved in the murders of the LaBiancas. And she wasn’t up for saying “I was in on it,” even with an offer of immunity on the table.
Pat ran away to Mobile, Alabama, and told a psychologist there, Claude Brown, that she was not only afraid of Manson finding her and killing her, but that she was always afraid that she’d be caught and punished for what they’d done.
Both of those actions indicate to me that they did not want to be caught, tried, convicted and sentenced to death. Helter Skelter wasn’t about the Family dying in the gas chamber. And Susan landing them in it was, in their minds at the time, undoing that which they believed in.
It’s very noticeable in Leslie’s Mike McGann interview, that she’s very keen to know what Sadie has been saying, because McGann said to her that Sadie had been bragging about killing people up in the hills. And Pat, once arrested, didn’t return to California, she was fighting extradition. Why ? So she could be tried alone, out of state, where she might stand a chance.
A point worth re-emphasizing is that once out of Charlie’s orbit, in private conversations, Linda {Joe Sage & Jeffrey Jacobs}, Susan {Virginia Graham & Ronnie Howard}, Leslie {Marvin Part} and Pat {Claude Brown} all told outsiders that Charlie was behind the murders. And he knew that, by Pat fighting extradition in Alabama, Susan’s testimony getting him indicted, Joe Sage having phoned him up and asked him if it was true, and Leslie’s lawyer trying to get her certified insane so as not to stand trial.
This is where he acted decisively and got to Pat, Leslie and Susan {he also tried it with Linda but failed}, and it’s from this point on that the 3 co-defendants entered his domination again and started all the shenanigans that they went on to become so well known for.
But initially, they didn’t want to get caught at all. And Pat & Leslie saw Susan as having put them all in the position they found themselves in, by blabbing.
happydaysarehereagain says:
I went back and was reading on LVH’s mother Jane’s testimony during, oops, can’t recall which trial. Anyway, Jane stated that the day LVH was brought home as JNL mentioned, she testified that LVH told her there was a revolution coming (paraphrasing) and Jane said she didn’t believe that so LVH told her own mother “then you will die.”
Can you imagine saying such a thing to your own mother?
Yes, absolutely. Easily. Thousands, possibly millions, of Christians have said similar to their parents over the last couple of thousand years. When they’ve been telling their parents about the final judgement of God on Judgement day, and they’ve been explaining to them the importance of turning to Christ, and their parents have rejected what they’ve been trying to tell them, out of hand, then they’ve had to outline the consequences.
So if LVH genuinely believed there was a revolution coming and escaping death meant engaging in certain actions, and her Mum said, well, I don’t believe you, then LVH was doing the only logical thing open to her ¬> telling her Mum what would happen. It sounds so much worse than it actually is. It’s not drastically different to someone, say, a Ukranian, telling their parent[s] to flee from their house because an enemy {the Russians ?} is planning to invade and decimate, and that parent, who has worked hard to establish their home, understandably says they are staying put, so their child says “well, then you will die there.”
Pam says:
Never forget she emphasized her belief that she only stabbed a corpse
Thing is though, Pam, you can’t really hold that belief against her. It doesn’t indicate extra cruelty or extra brains. And she has been consistent about this right from September 1969 when she said this to Dianne Lake. Long before any arrests, any lawyers, any trial, any appeals, any parole hearings, it was her belief. When she wasn’t attempting to escape responsibility for the murders {in talking to Lake and later, Marvin Part, both in ’69}, it was her belief. It is her belief that she stabbed a corpse that actually nailed her conviction to the mast, because there were some post-mortem stab wounds and it was the presence of these that proved beyond any shadow of doubt from her own mouth, that not only was she there, but that she had wielded the knife.
You should celebrating that she emphasized stabbing a corpse. Without it, there was nothing to corroborate either Dianne Lake’s testimony {which was deadly} or Linda Kasabian’s.
I don’t have a problem that she thought Rosemary was dead when she stabbed her. It is easy to show that she was alive. But without that belief, Leslie wouldn’t have been convicted.
happydaysarehereagain says:
especially the point about LVH’s prison record which is always promoted as exemplary
Her prison record has been near exemplary. But here’s something interesting: in her early parole hearings, she’s the one that brings up the infractions regarding marijuana. And she even tells them about the LSD trip, something they would never have known about, had she not told them about it.
To be fair, I’d expect infractions after fifty years, but the love letter sexcapade is a big one as well as the almost prison break
Well, it was used against her. But it was a lot of hot air, or as Shakey Shakespeare would have said, much ado about nothing. It wasn’t illegal to write letters for years to a two-time murderer that, like her, was on a prison magazine/newspaper. And the moment she found about Bill the husband, being found with a prison nurse’s uniform, she divorced him and never had contact with him again.
I think it’s poor form to even be talking about her relationships in such a light. She is no different from millions of other human beings {possibly including some of us, our spouses, parents, siblings, relatives, friends, colleagues and elected representatives} across the many centuries we’ve been around, that have made errors of judgement in whom we’ve married or been in relationship with.
It is not poor form to discuss Van Houten’s relationships; they are matters in public records. They have been discussed in parole hearings from the early ’80s through the late 90s. They were discussed during the appellate court hearing. Some persons in these comments come across as apologists for Leslie Van Houten. Why did Leslie not get a unanimous approval from the appellate court?
If Leslie deserves to be paroled on the grounds that R & R (retribution and rehabilitation) have been met, and, as her last few parole board members have accepted that she was in a cult and was manipulated by Charles Manson, then Patricia Krenwinkel and Tex Watson should be paroled. If one believes the former deserves parole and the latter two do not, that one is being logically inconsistent or intellectually dishonest.
Fred–False equivalence as to what LVH said to her mother, as you are intentionally misleading me to a rabbit hole lol
Do not ignore the substance of what LVH said, when she said it, who she said it to, and why she said it. THAT is the point and has nothing to do with Ukrainian mothers, Christianity etc., when LVH’s God was Charles Manson. I’ll give you an A- for exemplary weeding up what I stated. 🙂
Poor form my left foot. And no, LVH is not just like everyone else. Not everyone else is a thrice trialed, twice convicted, two-time first-degree murderer who believed Charles Manson a God and would lead them to a hole in the desert only to emerge as a pure white race to rule the world after the black race annihilated the ‘piggies’.
There are differences you can’t compare to every day human beings.
Fred says “errors of judgment”
Well, when you have a history like she does she will be scrutinized as both HDAHA and JNL say. Also apparently this person to whom she was writing was not the same one she married briefly. Bitds of a feather I guess. However whether she still has a penchant for really bad boys, who knows. I can’t imagine a geriatric Bonnie and Clyde situation.
JNL says:
It is not poor form to discuss Van Houten’s relationships; they are matters in public records. They have been discussed in parole hearings from the early ’80s through the late 90s. They were discussed during the appellate court hearing
Correct. You might have noticed I added a little phrase “in such a light.”
The context in which Happy days was bringing them up has nothing to do with the woman now. And sorry, but it is directly comparable to what other people do or have done in terms of their relationship mistakes, because although she is a murderer, she is a human being, and though you may want to deny this, feels many of the same things many females would.
Some persons in these comments come across as apologists for Leslie Van Houten
I’ve been involved in vigorous debates with a variety of people here since about 2019. I’ve engaged in hefty to-ing and fro-ing with people who have not liked what I’ve had to say about LVH because it doesn’t support their “Free Leslie !” stance. And I’ve had heftier wing-dings with people that have disagreed with me because I shine a searing light on many of the things they say, which I think happen to be demonstrably wrong. People on both sides of the equation have been at a loss as to whether or not I’m pro-all things Manson, or anti-all things Manson.
I am neither an apologist, a “Free Leslie, she’s done her time,” supporter, nor a “hang her high and flog her well” merchant. 🎭 I guess that means I end up arguing with a number of different people. 🗣
Why did Leslie not get a unanimous approval from the appellate court?
Why did Leslie not get unanimous “guiltys” of 1st degree murder from the 12 jurors in her 2nd trial ? Absolutely no facts had changed between the first and second trial. Yet, we went from ‘death’ to a hung jury. That’s quite a jump.
And it matters not whether Leslie didn’t get unanimous approval from the appellate court. They go with a majority vote, just like in most other democratic situations.
If Leslie deserves to be paroled
As I have said numerous times before, “deserves” and “parole” are two words that never turn up in the same sentence as a default for me.
Patricia Krenwinkel and Tex Watson should be paroled
If you choose to argue that {ie, the wider point you were making}, that’s on you. This case is as good an example of nuance and paradox as you will ever find, anywhere. And because there is nuance and paradox, as opposed to black and white, no, your equation does not hold. Charles Watson has not been fully honest {for whatever reasons} and this is demonstrable. I could, right now, outline why this is so, and I wouldn’t even have to mention Shorty Shea. And Pat was granted parole, even if Gav the Guv knocked it back.
Reply